"1015 København K" by Trine Villemann (2007)

[Villemann]

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.

Ok, English is not your first language: Let me, therefore, explain in simlpler terms: FOLLOWING the cartoons crisis,IMO (IN MY OPINION) the monarchy is more crucial that ever, because ,IMO (IN MY OPINION) it needs to work out how to protect Danish values without antagonizing Denmark's growing number of muslims. As a national rallying point the Danish Royal House IMO (IN MY OPINION) is facing it's biggest challenge in decades trying to make those two ends meet.

 

[Villemann]

She then joins TRF and starts a thread named "1015 Kobenhavn K",

For the record, I did NOT start this thread!

 

[MARG]

Oh well said Jo! I am in total agreement with your analogies.

My apologies Trine. There are so many of your posts I missed that.

 

[Warren]

This thread was started by moderator dazzling in October 2007.

 

[Villemann]

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...

I have tried to be very fair and unbiased in my book - which I think you would see, if you had actually read it! Some authors choose to let their work stand alone. I choose to back up my work with how I interpret the information, I have gathered. I am trying to use my work to improve an institution, I believe needs improving.

 

[MARG]

This thread was started by moderator dazzling in October 2007.

Thanks Warren, I have already corrected my misconception as pointed out by Villemann.

 

[Lilla]

Ok, English is not your first language: Let me, therefore, explain in simlpler terms: FOLLOWING the cartoons crisis,IMO (IN MY OPINION) the monarchy is more crucial that ever, because ,IMO (IN MY OPINION) it needs to work out how to protect Danish values without antagonizing Denmark's growing number of muslims. As a national rallying point the Danish Royal House IMO (IN MY OPINION) is facing it's biggest challenge in decades trying to make those two ends meet.

You are intitled to express you oppinion, just like I am - but being condescending isn't the best way to communicate if one wishes to convince others.

 

[Villemann]

This thread was started by moderator dazzling in October 2007.

Thanks for setting the record straight!

 

[TheTruth]

I have tried to be very fair and unbiased in my book - which I think you would see, if you had actually read it! Some authors choose to let their work stand alone. I choose to back up my work with how I interpret the information, I have gathered. I am trying to use my work to improve an institution, I believe needs improving.

Just wanted to ask (don't take it personally, it's not an attack), do you believe you can be pretty unbiased when you do an interpretation of information you gather?

 

[Guido]

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!

The reason why Mary can be upset because she is afraid to come out the truth.

 

[MARG]

. . . . . I choose to back up my work with how I interpret the information, I have gathered. I am trying to use my work to improve an institution, I believe needs improving.

What you have failled to grasp is that "in the beginning" . . . . posts were made about your book. You responded to the posts. Others agreed or disagreed with some or all of the previous posts and added their own. And in every case it is IMO except yours! You are emphatic that what you have written is infallably correct, that your sources are impeccable and that we, the ignorant users of this forum, must accept what you say without question.

The above quote shows that your book, by your own standard, is inescapably subjective. That is not necessarily a good or a bad thing. I is what it is.

You started out defending/promoting your book, and are now taking issue with posts. Most of the posts relate to subsequent posts and not your book. That's the way the forum works.

For myself, I admit to having an abiding dislike for books (and posts) written in the subjective negative. That is my feeling, my opinion and I don't expect anyone to concur with me just because I said so.

 

[Madame Royale]

The reason why Mary can be upset because she is afraid to come out the truth.

Oh please...and what truth would that be, hmmm?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

CP Mary,IMO, went for the prince and fell in love with the man. There is nothing wrong in that, but based on my information CP Mary was very aware from early on that her boyfriend was not like the rest of us. Crunch time, as far as I am aware, came when she left Australia. First stop was Paris, which she didn't like much, so when the decision was made - by her and CP Frederik - for Mary to move to Denmark, she had made up mind that she wanted the prince and the kingdom. She faced that monumental decision with enourmous courage, I think, because by then there was no proposal on the table, yet Mary went ahead and started educating herself by learning Danish and reading up on Danish history. I know she from time to time despaired because there was no firm commitment from Frederik, but she suffered her "Kate Middleton-moment" with great dignity,IMO. To the best of my knowledge, Mary never seriously doubted, she could do the job - perhaps because she really did not understand the enormity of it. That insight came later - I am told.

Villemann, here you obviously tell a story as it was told to you by one of your sources. But just how reliable is this source? We have here a thread about the pre-wedding interviews Mary gave to a Danish journalist, which were translated by members and posted here. So here on this forums we have a firsthand source: Mary herself tells about her relationship, its development, her time in Paris, her move to Denmark and her feelings during this time pre-engagement when she thought about what becoming a Crown Princess meant.

And somehow my memories of what Mary told do not resemble your report at all. She absolutely thought about her future and was unsure if she could cope, she said she and Frederick decided to "take one step at a time" because she was not sure where all would lead and wanted to retain her chance to back out if need be, etc. So she gives a very different impression than you do here. Where's the truth?

I don't know. I can only judge by the reliability of sources: here we have you and an unnamed "source" and there we have firsthand information from the princess herself.... For me the answer is clear, absolutely clear.

 

[Villemann]

You are intitled to express you oppinion, just like I am - but being condescending isn't the best way to communicate if one wishes to convince others.

You clearly misunderstood the point, that was being made!

 

[Villemann]

What you have failled to grasp is that "in the beginning" . . . . posts were made about your book. You responded to the posts. Others agreed or disagreed with some or all of the previous posts and added their own. And in every case it is IMO except yours! You are emphatic that what you have written is infallably correct, that your sources are impeccable and that we, the ignorant users of this forum, must accept what you say without question.

The above quote shows that your book, by your own standard, is inescapably subjective. That is not necessarily a good or a bad thing. I is what it is.

You started out defending/promoting your book, and are now taking issue with posts. Most of the posts relate to subsequent posts and not your book. That's the way the forum works.

For myself, I admit to having an abiding dislike for books (and posts) written in the subjective negative. That is my feeling, my opinion and I don't expect anyone to concur with me just because I said so.

We are having a discussion, aren't we? And in discussions one expresses one views, right? You are expresing your opinions. I am expressing mine!

 

[MARG]

We are having a discussion, aren't we? And in discussions one expresses one views, right? You are expresing your opinions. I am expressing mine!

Indeed we are, albeit that they are essentially polar opposites.

 

[crisscross1]

She has an unerring instinct and ability for uncovering the truth.

It is only the truth if it is proved to be so..... As yet your wife's book is, as I see it, supposition. As far as I can tell everything Trinne has written is from a reliable source maybe, but hasn't really been proved to be the truth.... By this I mean that no member of the Royal Family has come forward to admit to anything that is published in the book. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Lilla]

You clearly misunderstood the point, that was being made!

That is what happens when spoken/written to in a condescending way. In stead of focusing on the meaning - the form gets in focus.

 

[MARG]

It is only the truth if it is proved to be so..... Correct me if I'm wrong.

Now that "truth" really does remain to be seen.

I don't know. I can only judge by the reliability of sources: here we have you and an unnamed "source" and there we have firsthand information from the princess herself.... For me the answer is clear, absolutely clear.

In a nutshell? Absolutely!

 

[Villemann]

Villemann, here you obviously tell a story as it was told to you by one of your sources. But just how reliable is this source? We have here a thread about the pre-wedding interviews Mary gave to a Danish journalist, which were translated by members and posted here. So here on this forums we have a firsthand source: Mary herself tells about her relationship, its development, her time in Paris, her move to Denmark and her feelings during this time pre-engagement when she thought about what becoming a Crown Princess meant.

And somehow my memories of what Mary told do not resemble your report at all. She absolutely thought about her future and was unsure if she could cope, she said she and Frederick decided to "take one step at a time" because she was not sure where all would lead and wanted to retain her chance to back out if need be, etc. So she gives a very different impression than you do here. Where's the truth?

I don't know. I can only judge by the reliability of sources: here we have you and an unnamed "source" and there we have firsthand information from the princess herself.... For me the answer is clear, absolutely clear.

Has it ever occcured to you, that CP Mary is telling her story the way she wants it told? It's called spin. Princesses, palaces and politicians use spin all the time. Based on MY information, which is not CP Mary's interview, she was aware from early on in their relationship,that Frederik was special, because he had a kingdom waiting for him at home. Does that diminish their love? Not at all! I just happen to belive in the information I have, which tells me that once she made the move to Europe, she was committed to him and his royal life. IMO, CP Mary held herself together in a very dignified manner during those months in Paris and later on in Denmark, because Frederik had not yet made the same commitment, she had.

 

[Villemann]

That is what happens when spoken/written to in a condescending way. In stead of focusing on the meaning - the form gets in focus.

I don't believe there was anything condenscending in Brabant's post. You just misunderstood it!

 

[Villemann]

Indeed we are, albeit that they are essentially polar opposites.

which just makes it so more interesting,IMO.....

 

[MARG]

Has it ever occcured to you, that CP Mary is telling her story the way she wants it told? It's called spin. Princesses, palaces and politicians use spin all the time. . . . . .

So essentially, what you are saying is, that CP Mary lied to the world on TV and you have proof!

 

[Villemann]

So essentially, what you are saying is, that CP Mary lied to the world on TV and you have proof!

I am not calling anyone a liar. I am merely saying that perhaps CP Mary told her story the way, she wants it told. People, who have read my book, know that the royals occasionally engage in a little spin.

 

[Lilla]

I don't believe there was anything condenscending in Brabant's post. You just misunderstood it!

It is your post no. 511 I am referring to not your husbands post.

Just to refresh your memory you wrote:

Ok, English is not your first language: Let me, therefore, explain in simlpler terms: FOLLOWING the cartoons crisis,IMO (IN MY OPINION) the monarchy is more crucial that ever, because ,IMO (IN MY OPINION) it needs to work out how to protect Danish values without antagonizing Denmark's growing number of muslims. As a national rallying point the Danish Royal House IMO (IN MY OPINION) is facing it's biggest challenge in decades trying to make those two ends meet!

 

[Gaia]

Ok, English is not your first language: Let me, therefore, explain in simlpler terms: FOLLOWING the cartoons crisis,IMO (IN MY OPINION) the monarchy is more crucial that ever, because ,IMO (IN MY OPINION) it needs to work out how to protect Danish values without antagonizing Denmark's growing number of muslims. As a national rallying point the Danish Royal House IMO (IN MY OPINION) is facing it's biggest challenge in decades trying to make those two ends meet.

I come from the country where hit books are best sellers, in fact it has a name...swiftboating. That being said, if the author is so interested in changing the Danish monarchy, why do it in Australia? If the Danish people are in peril, why aren't there articles by the author daily demanding reform? This is a monumental task and this one book is just the start, but you need to get back to Denmark and champion your cause.

I am curious as to why the author doesn't go to Hong Kong and start discussing Countess Alexandra, after all her stipend is another piece of the puzzle.

 

[Villemann]

It is your post no. 511 I am referring to not your husbands post.

Just to refresh your memory you wrote:

Thanks, I know exactly which post you were referring to, but since it was the second time on this thread you misread something - first time was when you overlooked my IMO in a Joachim-sentence - I went throught the trouble of making absolutely certain, that you got the point that was being made. Shall we discuss 1015!

 

[Villemann]

I come from the country where hit books are best sellers, in fact it has a name...swiftboating. That being said, if the author is so interested in changing the Danish monarchy, why do it in Austrailia? If the Danish people are in peril, why aren't there articles by the author daily demanding reform? This is a monumental task and this one book is just the start, but you need to get back to Denmark and champion your cause.

I am curious as to why the author doesn't go to Hong Kong and start discussing Countess Alexandra, after all her stipend is another piece of the puzzle.

Hi Gaia, I have spread the message all over Denmark and I am still spreading it at every opportunity, I get. My book was initially published in Denmark in October 2007. I don't expect to change the Danish monarchy by talking to the Australian media, but when I am asked, I do answer As for Alexandra and Hong Kong. I am busy on that one for my next book! What is swiftboating?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Has it ever occcured to you, that CP Mary is telling her story the way she wants it told? It's called spin. Princesses, palaces and politicians use spin all the time. .

We were talking about the reliability of sources, not about the truth, whatever that is in such a case. My point was that Mary told her story directly: how it was from her Point of View and how she felt living through these circumstances and events. That is a firsthand source: she was there, she talks about her life and she signs her statements with her name. And you simply can't say that your source is as good as that: your source might have been there as well and talks about it but as he/she is not Mary, the source can't have any firsthand knowledge of what Mary knew, felt etc. at any given time! And your source is unnamed, so we can't even evaluate how close this source was to Mary. So your source is second class compared to Mary herself.

Of course this does not say how reliable Mary's report is: since the Morton-book we all know how "truthful" princesses are when telling their own story if need be and how willing they are to rewrite history. But still the Morton- as well as the settelen-tapes are firsthand information - not stand-alone information but a firsthand report none-the-less.

In Diana's case I think it is important to check where she lied and to what aim, as she aimed on destruction with her tale. But with Mary's report I don't see that. It's a genuine sounding report of a young lady in love, a young bride with high hopes for her future and a knowledge of her responsibility who wanted to give the Danes the chance to get to know her before becoming their CP. So if she glossed over some things? Why not? And did she really gloss over them or was that the way she saw (and sees) it? Her aim was to help and protect her future life, she had only positive motives for her giving these interviews and for me that is reason enough to trust her here.

While claiming she lied (or put her own spin to a much more negative "truth" as you present is) is working towards the aim that scandal and innuendo sells. And for me there is need of much better proof than just unamed sources if I am to take these claims as "professional and serious journalism".

 

[Warren]

Swiftboating, from Wiki:
"Swift-boating's essence is a particular kind of dishonesty, or rather a particular combination of shadowy dishonesties. It usually involves a complex web of facts, many of which may even be true. It exploits its own complexity and the reluctance of the media to adjudicate factual disputes. No matter how thoroughly a charge may be discredited, enough taint remains to support an argument. The fundamental dishonesty is the suggestion that the issue, whatever it is, really matters."

It is an American term coined to describe a certain type of political attack.