"1015 København K" by Trine Villemann (2007)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
No, it won't be deleted.
If Frederik is shy by nature, it's no great comfort for him to be reminded of the fact. I'm sure he's well aware of it and the difficulties and limitations it imposes.
Shy monarchs are not new. In the British sphere George V and George VI were shy, and even Elizabeth II is said to retain an element of her girlish shyness. Self-effacement and understated modesty may even endear a monarch to his or her people.
 
As for my anonymous sources. Well, not all of my sources are anonymous. - which you would know, if you had read 1015! This morning I had a lovely PM from a member of this forum. The person has read my book and enjoyed it. The member also said in the PM that her/she - after having read my book- understood why my sources had to remain nameless. It was my biggest concern about the whole project, but I still fail to seee why resepected newspapers like IHT, NY Times etc. etc. can use anonymous sources, without anyone howling at them, but I can't. I did not invent the use of anonymous sources. It is a tool a journalist uses in order to get to the truth.

Journalists and authors across the board use anonymous sources when they're writing about royals, but they do it for a variety of reasons. Some of the most respected biographers - the likes of Sarah Bradford and Philip Ziegler - use anonymous sources because that's the only way they can get people with substantive information to talk to them. Some of the less respected biographers and tabloid reporters resort to "a source close to" or "a friend of" or whatever to cover the fact that they're simply writing their own opinions. That becomes fairly obvious when you look at some of their older books or articles and compare them with how reality actually turned out.

So it then comes down to the way the author is perceived in general as to how seriously people are going to take the "anonymous source close to..." information. Sarah Bradford and Philip Ziegler can plausibly be compared to the New York Times or the Washington Post or the IHT. An author like Lady Colin Campbell and journalists like some of the Daily Mail's finest probably can't. I guess as far as how people perceive your use of anonymous sources, it depends on their opinion of your overall track record.
 
Journalists and authors across the board use anonymous sources when they're writing about royals, but they do it for a variety of reasons. Some of the most respected biographers - the likes of Sarah Bradford and Philip Ziegler - use anonymous sources because that's the only way they can get people with substantive information to talk to them. Some of the less respected biographers and tabloid reporters resort to "a source close to" or "a friend of" or whatever to cover the fact that they're simply writing their own opinions. That becomes fairly obvious when you look at some of their older books or articles and compare them with how reality actually turned out.

So it then comes down to the way the author is perceived in general as to how seriously people are going to take the "anonymous source close to..." information. Sarah Bradford and Philip Ziegler can plausibly be compared to the New York Times or the Washington Post or the IHT. An author like Lady Colin Campbell and journalists like some of the Daily Mail's finest probably can't. I guess as far as how people perceive your use of anonymous sources, it depends on their opinion of your overall track record.

And how about the fact that NONE of the information has been rebutted! I have not been asked to correct a single word in that book - not by the palace nor by anyone else!
 
Who is there to rebut information presented in the book? Traditionally royals avoid rebutting or commenting on books/articles about them.
 
The NY Times and IHT and other WELL ESTABLISHED publications can use anonymous sources occasionally and more often because they have a long history of publishing the truth, have often named their sources, and would like to keep the reputation of being an honest truthful publications, therefore they are not likely to deceive their readership. I'm sorry, but I don't think that you can compare your book to the NY Times, or other well established publications. They have YEARS of reporting behind them, and their sources are generally impeccable. They don't write whole diatribes or newspapers or books filled with unnamed sources. At times yes, but they do try to avoid it.

Furthermore, the NY Times, IHT, Washington Post, etc have editorial boards through which the "anonymous sources" must be verifiable. Each anonymous source statement must be backed up by documentation and/or another verifiable source, before an anonymous source story may be used. If you would like proof of this manner of doing things, I would be more than happy to provide you with verifiable documentation/ verifiable source.

I have YEARS of reporting on the royals behind me. Why does that not count, when it obviously counts for the journalists at N.Y.Times? I tried to avoids anonymous sources too, and IF you had read my book, you would know they are not all anonymous. I had an "editorial board " as well, because I had an editor - one of the best in the business - who was constantly on my case about documentation.
Not one single episode, incident, anecdote whatever in my book has ever been rebutted. No one has ever asked me to correct a single word. My book is as solid as the N.Y. Times!
 
Thank you very much Lena!

As a shy person myself (like Frederik), I just love it beeing called a laughing stock. No, for shy people it's not a "comfort" if one of "us" is called a laughing stock. Having problems with expressing oneself in public is just one of "our" problems. Guess how many "we" are.

Sadly I'm sure this message will be very soon deleted.

Actually, CP Frederik, IMO, is not shy. He is the most charming, outgoing chap you can imagine, when you have him one-on-one and even in a small, private crowd. His problems start, when he has to perform. When he has to be a royal, cut the ribbon, make the speech, answer the questions etc. etc.
 
Maybe you should think about making your book a little more available than just through your website if you would like get more readers to comment. I understand that presumably you were trying to keep prices down, but if you want a wider readership, making it available on amazon or the like could only help your sales. The people unwilling to pay so much for a copy could still buy directly from you, in MY opinion.
 
Who is there to rebut information presented in the book? Traditionally royals avoid rebutting or commenting on books/articles about them.

The palace has a press secretary, who can act if need be. Royals do not avoid commenting on books. They just do it, when they feel like it. Like CP Mary did in the big interview in Berlingske Tidende in December 2007, when she said that she appreciated that some bookstores - the one in Fredensborg - would not selll my book. Other people, mentioned in my book could have complained - or even sued me. So far, I haven't heard a word from anyone!
 
Maybe you should think about making your book a little more available than just through your website if you would like get more readers to comment. I understand that presumably you were trying to keep prices down, but if you want a wider readership, making it available on amazon or the like could only help your sales. The people unwilling to pay so much for a copy could still buy directly from you, in MY opinion.
We are very happy doing it from my website. People get a discount directly and we see no reason to let amazon sell it. It doesn't really matter if you click on amazon or my website. The only difference is, that amazon gets the discount, not the buyer! If you feel that not enough people have read it to keep this thread open, I am cool about that.
 
We are very happy doing it from my website. People get a discount directly and we see no reason to let amazon sell it. It doesn't really matter if you click on amazon or my website. The only difference is, that amazon gets the discount, not the buyer! If you feel that not enough people have read it to keep this thread open, I am cool about that.

I support your decision, Trine.
I am just so glad to see you posting here, with us, and not being at all afraid to face some criticism of your book, which has engendered a lot of controversy. I admire your courage and forthcomingness. I also understand why you cannot name your sources and other impediments to writing a book of this nature, and having others unanimously praise it.

-- Abbie :flowers:
 
I have been to Japan and have actually met members of your imperial family. It was a fantastic experience.

I would like nothing better than to go to Japan at this point!
I saw the film "Lost in translation" (dir. by Sofia Coppola) and it made me fall in love with that country!

-- Abbie :flowers:
 
The palace has a press secretary, who can act if need be. Royals do not avoid commenting on books. They just do it, when they feel like it. Like CP Mary did in the big interview in Berlingske Tidende in December 2007, when she said that she appreciated that some bookstores - the one in Fredensborg - would not selll my book. Other people, mentioned in my book could have complained - or even sued me. So far, I haven't heard a word from anyone!

Well, if CP Mary commented on bookstores not carrying your book, and that she appreciated it, then it's a clear indication to ME that she does not think much of your book, and therefore will not waste much time rebutting what she apparently considers nothing more than nonsense and personal opinions.

One person does not an editorial board make. And the publication that you reported for do not have the same standing in my eyes as the NY Times or Washington Post, or IHT. Not that I am saying that you are a tabloid journalist, but even they can say that they have years of reporting behind them. That certainly does not make them credible in my eyes. Especially when they are incapable of maintaining objectivity. That is the key to good journalism to me.
 
Thank you very much Lena!

As a shy person myself (like Frederik), I just love it beeing called a laughing stock. No, for shy people it's not a "comfort" if one of "us" is called a laughing stock. Having problems with expressing oneself in public is just one of "our" problems. Guess how many "we" are.

Sadly I'm sure this message will be very soon deleted.

Wow, for a shy person, you have quite a sharp tongue on the net ;)
I don´t see, where you see, that I was refering to his rhetorical skills as possible reason for being a possible laughing stock. The sentence was connected with "and" and there was an "e.g." related to comfort.
For me personally he is rather a laughing stock for e.g. peeing from a yacht...or for sulking and attacking provoking journalists like this Jan Körner guy by saying, that he would always work.
If he would be for the majority of the Danes, someone they wouldn´t take seriously, the future will show...

Personally I am actually also not convinced, that he is shy, but has...like some other Bernadotte descendents...problems of expressing himself and isn´t "in tune" with his role. Personally I am also not thinking, that his current way of answering questions in interviews already is the result of hard coaching and training. I am sure, if he would want, he could improve...

@Empress
Maybe you should really buy the book...as much as you are investing energy into the defence of sources, which might be mentioned in the book or not ;)
You could re-sell or burn it afterwards ;)

That the DRF isn´t commenting much on it and doesn´t take legal actions, IMO does neither speak for the creditability of the book, nor against it.
 
And how about the fact that NONE of the information has been rebutted! I have not been asked to correct a single word in that book - not by the palace nor by anyone else!

Well, I don't know how the palace press office works in Denmark, but some of the worst tabloid nonsense in England (and please don't take that as saying that I think your book is equivalent to the worst tabloid nonsense, because I'm not) is met with silence from Buckingham Palace and usually, unless it's legally actionable, from Clarence House. Lack of demand for retractions isn't necessarily an indication that everybody thinks the information is sound.
 
And how about the fact that NONE of the information has been rebutted! I have not been asked to correct a single word in that book - not by the palace nor by anyone else!


I would say because they dont want to bring any attention to the book. If they start asking for rebuttals or corrections, then it means the palace is taking the book seriously.
 
Well, I don't know how the palace press office works in Denmark, but some of the worst tabloid nonsense in England (and please don't take that as saying that I think your book is equivalent to the worst tabloid nonsense, because I'm not) is met with silence from Buckingham Palace and usually, unless it's legally actionable, from Clarence House. Lack of demand for retractions isn't necessarily an indication that everybody thinks the information is sound.

So true.

Silence commands conviction. And in the best possible way...:flowers:
 
Actually, CP Frederik, IMO, is not shy. He is the most charming, outgoing chap you can imagine, when you have him one-on-one and even in a small, private crowd. His problems start, when he has to perform. When he has to be a royal, cut the ribbon, make the speech, answer the questions etc. etc.

So you would rather have him pretend to be something he is not, when 'performing'? That would be a most unfortunate quality for a future head of state to possess.

His in a position where 'performing' requires a certain reserve. His a Crown Prince, and will, I'd certainly assume, be King. He isn't a celebrity and it seems as though you're trying to present him as one, on occasion. Sure his the tabloid "jackpot" in any many ways, as his entire family, but they aren't celebrities. Never have been, never will be.

And from what I've seen, he cuts ribbons just fine...;)
 
Well, if CP Mary commented on bookstores not carrying your book, and that she appreciated it, then it's a clear indication to ME that she does not think much of your book, and therefore will not waste much time rebutting what she apparently considers nothing more than nonsense and personal opinions.

One person does not an editorial board make. And the publication that you reported for do not have the same standing in my eyes as the NY Times or Washington Post, or IHT. Not that I am saying that you are a tabloid journalist, but even they can say that they have years of reporting behind them. That certainly does not make them credible in my eyes. Especially when they are incapable of maintaining objectivity. That is the key to good journalism to me.
opinions vary, you see in my opinion Mary's statement showed that she was terribly upset about the book, and her facial expressions during her Pre Christmas photo shoot showed the same! imho she would have sued if she could have, it is VERY VERY important to her to keep up apearances. Don't be mistaken, I admire her and the change she has gone through, but I am entitled t my opinion. Empress, your atitude to Trinnie is on the personal level, beleive me the book isn't personally malicious, but the tone of your comments are!
 
Let me identify myself.
I am Trine Villemann’s husband, Malcolm Brabant, and I am writing to stand up for my wife in the face of the unjustified vitriol being directed towards her.
I am also the editor of the English edition of 1015 Copenhagen K, and I adapted Trine’s translation from the original Danish.
I have been a journalist for more than 30 years.
And for the past 20 years I have been a foreign correspondent for the BBC.
I have been on assignment in more than 70 countries.
During that time I have won a couple of major reporting awards.
The reason I am telling you this is to vouch for and underline Trine’s journalistic credentials, not to brag about my own achievements.
Trine has been impeccable in sourcing the material for 1015 Copenhagen K.
I know the identity of her sources and, like her, I will take their names to the grave in order to protect them.
What I will say is that I was astonished at how close Trine got to the Danish Royal Family and at the scores of different sources she had.
Her sources are as good, if not better, than Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s anonymous “Deep Throat” from the Watergate scandal.
They certainly would pass the scrutiny of the editorial boards of the New York Times and the Washington Post.
I stand whole-heartedly and proudly beside my wife in this endeavour.
She is a fantastic, scrupulous, courageous journalist.
But that is not what you want to hear, and no doubt, I will be prevented from posting again.
The tenor of this forum is clearly from George Bush’s Texas.
It is - “You are either with us, or you are against us.”
No sane person needs to be reminded of the result of such attitudes.
 
Nice to meet you Brabant, but the problem i have with the book is that we do not know who these sources are. We, as intelligent human beings will simply not just believe without credible sources. A simple, "a friend said" or "sources close to the prince" cannot suffice. We can also not just accept that it is credible sources just because her husband says so. Are we meant to just take you and your wife's word for it?


Also, anyone who writes a book such as this should expect to be questioned etc, it shouldnt have come as a surprise that your wife is being questioned.
 
Let me identify myself.
I am Trine Villemann’s husband, Malcolm Brabant, and I am writing to stand up for my wife in the face of the unjustified vitriol being directed towards her.
I am also the editor of the English edition of 1015 Copenhagen K, and I adapted Trine’s translation from the original Danish.
I have been a journalist for more than 30 years.
And for the past 20 years I have been a foreign correspondent for the BBC.
I have been on assignment in more than 70 countries.
During that time I have won a couple of major reporting awards.
The reason I am telling you this is to vouch for and underline Trine’s journalistic credentials, not to brag about my own achievements.
Trine has been impeccable in sourcing the material for 1015 Copenhagen K.
I know the identity of her sources and, like her, I will take their names to the grave in order to protect them.
What I will say is that I was astonished at how close Trine got to the Danish Royal Family and at the scores of different sources she had.
Her sources are as good, if not better, than Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s anonymous “Deep Throat” from the Watergate scandal.
They certainly would pass the scrutiny of the editorial boards of the New York Times and the Washington Post.
I stand whole-heartedly and proudly beside my wife in this endeavour.
She is a fantastic, scrupulous, courageous journalist.
But that is not what you want to hear, and no doubt, I will be prevented from posting again.
The tenor of this forum is clearly from George Bush’s Texas.
It is - “You are either with us, or you are against us.”
No sane person needs to be reminded of the result of such attitudes.

Good of you to post, though I hardly think Villemann is in need of someone coming to her defence. She is, I'm sure, quite capable of deffending herself and has proved that right up till now.

As her husband, one would expect you stand proudly with your wife. Any worthy husband would, I'd have thought. However, if you feel compelled to now launch a 'counteracting tag team' against the opinions of others within the thread, who have as much of a right to disclose their opinions as your wife, then you shall most likely find the short end of the stick rather quickly.

Also, what your background experience has to do with supporting your wife (as is your clear and apparent reason for posting) I'm not sure. It seems quite void in many ways.
 
Actually, CP Frederik, IMO, is not shy. He is the most charming, outgoing chap you can imagine, when you have him one-on-one and even in a small, private crowd. His problems start, when he has to perform. When he has to be a royal, cut the ribbon, make the speech, answer the questions etc. etc.

Do you have any reliable sources who can help you understand what the meaning of shy is? :blush:You obviously have little time or patience for people who don't shine in the midst of a crowd. Shy people hate being the centre of attention, they hate having extraverts point them out. In a small group Fred would seem like a charming man, but in a crowd, such as an opening ceremony, a state gathering, a wedding, christening etc, etc, he would want the earth to open up and swallow him. People who don't try to see life from a shy persons point of view really tick me off. Take some time out to appreciate what it feels like and then perhaps, you would have a little more patience for the Fred's of this world.:sad:
 
Hello Australian,


(You wrote……Nice to meet you Brabant, but the problem i have with the book is that we do not know who these sources are. We, as intelligent human beings will simply not just believe without credible sources. A simple, "a friend said" or "sources close to the prince" cannot suffice. We can also not just accept that it is credible sources just because her husband says so. Are we meant to just take you and your wife's word for it?
Also, anyone who writes a book such as this should expect to be questioned etc, it shouldnt have come as a surprise that your wife is being questioned.)

Your question is perfectly understandable, and of course, I am not surprised that Trine is being grilled over her sources.
She has repeatedly stated that she would have preferred to have attributed her book to named sources.
But it was simply impossible.
The people she talked to, repeatedly and at considerable length, insisted upon anonymity.
They did not want to lose their royal connections or – in some cases - jobs.
Trine was required to use terms such as “friend” or “sources close to the prince” because to have been more specific would have been to assist detection.
This turned out to be an essential layer of protection for Trine’s sources, because after the Danish edition was published, Amalienborg started a “witch-hunt” to try to smoke them out.
Are you meant to take my word for it?
The reason I have spoke out now is that some of the moderators on this forum have questioned Trine’s integrity and have inferred that she is a low-calibre journalist.
I intend to continue as a BBC foreign correspondent.
I stand by my wife’s book.
I would not jeopardize my reputation and main source of income or undermine a long and relatively high profile career by putting my name to a project that was untrustworthy.
It is your choice whether you believe me.
Best wishes,
Malcolm Brabant
 
Madame Royale and Crisscross1,
My wife is more than capable of defending herself and fighting her corner.
And so this will probably be the last time you hear from me.
I have worked alongside Trine on scores of foreign assignments – many of them having an investigative nature.
She is one of the most observant and intelligent journalists I have ever encountered.
She has an unerring instinct and ability for uncovering the truth.
She happens to believe that following the cartoons crisis, this is one of the most important times in the modern history of the Danish monarchy.
Real friends are capable of asking tough questions.
And that is what 1015 is doing.
Goodbye.
Malcolm Brabant
 
Your question is perfectly understandable, and of course, I am not surprised that Trine is being grilled over her sources.
She has repeatedly stated that she would have preferred to have attributed her book to named sources.
But it was simply impossible.
The people she talked to, repeatedly and at considerable length, insisted upon anonymity.

I haven't read the book and I don't possess it so can anyone tell me if there are a few stated sources in the book or is the book totally deprived of them?
 
I have been sitting back watching this thread as I had to resist the immediate impulse to "go for the jugular" rather than nut this out logically.

Essentially Trine wrote a book that is, by her own words, extremely critical (in parts) of the Danish Royal Family and Mary and Frederik in particular. She was also quoted as saying:
norwegianne said:
"Even if I have enough material to end the monarchy, I'm not after doing it," says the author - Metroxpress - Ny bog blotter kongehuset
Pretty inflammatory stuff.

Not surprisingly there are more than a few critical posts about said book.
Australian said:
Also, anyone who writes a book such as this should expect to be questioned etc, it shouldnt have come as a surprise that your wife is being questioned.

She then joins TRF and vociferously participates in a thread named "1015 Kobenhavn K", the title of said book, to rebut those criticisms. But my problem is that Trine wrote the book, and when asked for corroboration of her sources she can only cite herself!

After many, sometimes acrimonious, posts, her husband, Brabant has felt the need to defend his wife's reputation and so also posts.

Nice to meet you Brabant, but the problem i have with the book is that we do not know who these sources are. We, as intelligent human beings will simply not just believe without credible sources. A simple, "a friend said" or "sources close to the prince" cannot suffice. We can also not just accept that it is credible sources just because her husband says so. Are we meant to just take you and your wife's word for it?

As Australian has so succinctly put it . . . there you have it. A very circular problem.

When we have read, critqued, lauded or lambasted previous books on Royalty we have done it remotely, impersonally. That privilige is not afforded us by this particular book and this particular thread.

By it's very nature, it is an advertisement for the book in question, and those that disagree with the veracity of the book or question the authors posts are attacked, sometimes on a very personal level.

It is said that there is no such thing as "Bad Publicity" and I tend to agree. We here on TRF are the poorer for it.
 
Last edited:
Madame Royale and Crisscross1,
My wife is more than capable of defending herself and fighting her corner.
And so this will probably be the last time you hear from me.
I have worked alongside Trine on scores of foreign assignments – many of them having an investigative nature.
She is one of the most observant and intelligent journalists I have ever encountered.
She has an unerring instinct and ability for uncovering the truth.
She happens to believe that following the cartoons crisis, this is one of the most important times in the modern history of the Danish monarchy.
Real friends are capable of asking tough questions.
And that is what 1015 is doing.
Goodbye.
Malcolm Brabant

Yes they do! Though the success depents how this is done. The danish royal family isn't perfect and especially CP Frederik has some issues with wich he has to work. Again as a shy person myself I'm very well able to regocnise one if I see one. Frederiks body language just screams shy, shy shy!!!!!

Nonetheless shy people aren't complete idiots. Shy people are very well able to defent themself if this is necessary. Beeing shy has nothing to do with beeing stupid, unable to socialise with other people or beeing weak. Shy people are very often very good comunicators in a small familiar surounding (like Frederik) but a desaster in a huge crowd (like Frederik). As a shy person once sayed it so well: whenever I have to join a new project, no one wants me and whenever I have to leave a project, no one wants me to leave.

Shy people are born shy and will die shy there is no way out. It's just the way how their brain works. I agree with Trine that his parents haven't helped Frederik to cope with this fact, in contrary they made things worse then they were allready. And the danish media have helped to make things worse too. Though his parents and also the media aren' the reason for his problems, they simple made things worse without trying to help him. A shy person definitly doesn't need other people to tell him how awkward and unworthy he is. A shy person needs help to cope with shyness better in public. Bullying publicly such a person endlessly to get help isn't the solution, especially if this person is as subborn and proud as the danish CP. I would expect a journalist who has done proper research to know this and to address this in a proper way.

Nonetheless to me it's remarkable how well Frderik is still able to cope with his fate and his personal problem. I think he has done a lot to build up strength and self confidence to cope with his fate and his problems. Probably his way to build up this confidnce (becoming a action man) isn't what some people may have expected or wanted. Though in my opinion he has done it in his way and was quite successful. Maybe the IOC candacy can be the last reason to finally take up the last fight against his main problem. Trines book won't be of any help to solve Frederks main problem at least not in my opinion judging by her coments at this board and in her interviews, sadly it could have been.

< ed by Warren >
 
Last edited by a moderator:
She happens to believe that following the cartoons crisis, this is one of the most important times in the modern history of the Danish monarchy.

Take a break - her book is no way near the course of events happening after Jyllandsposten published thouse drawings. Thinking it is - is simply being compleatly out of touch with reality.
 
Actually, CP Frederik, IMO, is not shy. He is the most charming, outgoing chap you can imagine, when you have him one-on-one and even in a small, private crowd. His problems start, when he has to perform. When he has to be a royal, cut the ribbon, make the speech, answer the questions etc. etc.

If it is so, then this will probably change the moment he is king and there isn't mum around who wants explanations occasionally.
 
Last edited:
I have YEARS of reporting on the royals behind me. Why does that not count, when it obviously counts for the journalists at N.Y.Times? I tried to avoids anonymous sources too, and IF you had read my book, you would know they are not all anonymous. I had an "editorial board " as well, because I had an editor - one of the best in the business - who was constantly on my case about documentation.

My problem with your work in general, which I have because of how I read your postings here, is that while I'm convinced that you are a well-connected journalist who can probably back up her "anonymous" sources if challenged, I find you're too opinionated to be taken without a sack of salt.

As a fellow journalist/author I know perfectly well that it's the author who selects the means of research, it's interviewer who sets the tone of an interview, it's the choice of questions which influence the answers, it's the author's perception which interprets the result of the research and decides on which statements to publish and which to leave out of the overall picture. So as it seems you were looking for support for your own theseses on the Danish RF you selected according to your aim. Simple as that.

You haven't given at least me the idea that you were trying to be neutral but that you were writing your own "Villemann Manifesto" and not an account who tries to be fair and unbiased. But that's what i think is what the Danish RF deserves: to be treated in all fairness and as unbiased as possible. While you are using your power of publication to try to convince other people that what the Danes have is bad and that "they deserve a better monarchy". Thus the comparison with the "Manifesto for the Communist Party" where Marx and Engels tried to convince the masses that what they had was bad and change was needed. And we all know how this ended when Royalty was concerned...
 
Back
Top Bottom