Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg's Charities and Patronages


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
TV2 news at 19.00 had a segment with Countess Alexandra who attended the Copenhagen Fashion week.
Chinese fashion people are flocking to the CIFF, in particular to see how you combine fur and fashion in a more novel way.
Danish fashion industry currently exports for 26 billion DKK a year, amounting to 4 % of the total export - and rising. So it is an important sector.

She also said a few words but alas, I missed it. My daughter and I had a...debate at the same time about something that is very unfair if you are twelve. :p
But perhaps someone else saw the segment?

As a follow up on my post yesterday, here is a pic of Alexandra: Grevinde Alexandra så på mode | Billed Bladet

The designer whom Alexandra, and the Chinese, had a closer look at is Fredirikke Hviid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Very nice to see and hear Nikolai and Felix being interviewed, too! It seems Nikolai loses his childish voice slowly...
 
Summary of article in Billed Bladet #22, 2014.
Written by our reporter on her feet, Marianne Singer.

As you now know Countess Alexandra and her three boys plus dog, were among 650 who took part in Parkinson Unity Walk, in support of, you got it right, Parkinsons desease.

The three kilometra walk was managable in the great weather that day and afterwards Alexandra as well as Nikolai and Felix gave a brief interview.

Alexandra said it was important to take part in the walk, because those who have Parkinsons have problems walking let alone holding things. Sometheing everyone else take for granted.
She said it was important to have support in the family, which is why they joined her and there was indeed no complaints from the boys: "There was no moaning about going out today. They know that there are some things we do together that is part of mother's job.
My boys do excersize on a day to day basis, without that being a must. The ride bikes, jump the trampoline, walk the dog or run on scooters - yes, childen move constantly, that is, ours do".

We can rest assured she'll take part in such walks in the years to come.

Q: How has it been to walk along today?
Nikolai: "Well, the weather is really good so that has been cozy, and fun and exciting".
Felix: "I also think it was exciting. They put some effort into it". (The organisers). - It may have helped that the walkers were led by a drum band and a less than scantily clad samba dancer... (*)

Q: The theme of the day is also "Excersize is medicin". How much do you excersize?
N: "It's not that we do fitness as such, but we are very active".
F: "I go to boxing every Thursday and that's actually pretty hard".

(*) And if you believe Felix and Nikolai didn't notice her, then I've got a mermaid for sale...
 
Summery of article in Billed Bladet #23, 2014.
Written by Lisbeth Grube.

Last year it was observed that Martin Jørgensen had a tattoo on his arm , but recently it was possible to actually see the ink.
https://app.box.com/s/xr91zyukyy6it9z5f377

It's the name of his wife and his two bonus children, Nikolai and Felix.

Alexandra has said about Martin Jørgensen's relationship with the boys: "He's the best, most fantastic bonus-dad the children could have and sometimes he miss them even more than I do! He can say that - nu I look forward to seeing the children again - and he drops everything if they call for him or need him".

Martin Jørgensen has said about his role as bonus dad: "The best thing in my life with Alexandra is to get a family you can love as much as I do.
To have two lovely children, whom I love above everything in the world. They've embraced me in a way I didn't even dare to dream about. That has meant everything".
 
:previous:the boys do seem to get along very well with Martin :flowers:
 
FasterB said:
Countess Alexandra loose the patronage of "DR Radiopigekor" - The Girl Choir from DR
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose that it had to happen some day! It's apparently by mutual agreement, but what can they say ....

viv
 
Reading between the lines, it sounds as if Countess Alexandra was dropped as patron of the DR Girls Choir!:ohmy: The article quotes the manager Kim Bohr as stating that a patronage is not meant for life! Strange words if the decision was a mutual agreement. And given the recent poll where most Danes thought that Countess Alexandra should not be receiving state money, I find it hard to believe that she would drop a patronage now!

Amazing turn of events!
 
:previous: That's pretty much the conclusion of the press as well.

Færdig som protektor for DRs pigekor: Her vil de også af med Alexandra - Royale | www.bt.dk

Some protections are still pretty pleased with Alexandra, others are, shall we say, less so...!

UNICEF are pleased with her.
Randers Rain Forest too, though it's been two years since she was last there...

However, Danish Association for the Blind are apparantly not particularly pleased with Alexandra. (And reading between the lines, it seems to me that she's on the verge of being retired).
Second chairman of the association, John Heilbrunn, says to BT, that Alexandra beforehand attracted a lot of attention and got a lot of press when attending events for the assciation. That has declined over the years. "About once a year we have a meeting with her, where she is very friendly and attentive/listening. But I wouldn't say that she's a person who takes initiatives. She's not what I would call an active, outgoing force".
He would like to utillize her more: "She's after all still our patron, as far as we know. One can say that the system is build up in such a way that once you have a patron, you can't swap just like that if you wish to. We would like one who is just as active as Crown Princess Mary".

Alexandra was very active during the first few years as patron for the anish Association for the Blind, but now appearances don't happen every year. And that has been accepted/realised by the association. "We have been annoyed over not being able to use her more, but over time we have realised that she is not someone you can pull aside and talk to. She's difficult to get a hold on and once you do reach her, it's not that she's imeediately ready to jump in".

On the other hand it seems like Alexandra is now more focusing her energy on UNICEF.

It's also difficult for the public to learn what she's actually doing in regards to her protections, because a homepage established for that purpose in 2007, has been closed down.

- Pretty scating words I'd say! And she may get some more heat in regards to the apanage she recieves based on this and if she is "relieved" by more protections it'll only get worse.
 
Terri Terri said:
Reading between the lines, it sounds as if Countess Alexandra was dropped as patron of the DR Girls Choir!
Click to expand...

I for one believe that she was! The tabloid BT runs a headline story
today about 'HM dropping a hint' to Radio Denmark. Maybe that's
giving her too much credit but IMO there's no doubt that the DRF
doesn't need any 'shadow royals' , especially now when Prince Joachim
and Princess Marie are likely to step up their royal activities and take
on more patronages. While Alexandra indeed was an asset to our
royal Family, it's time to move on!
I'm not sure that the money comes into the equation! Her annual
grant of two million kroner, it's basically peanuts in
the budget. Besides I'd imagine that it could be revised at a later date,
when the boys are older.
That said: The royal Court is hardly blind to the fact that owning two
luxury holiday homes in Turkey - (two, because she and hubby so far
have been unable to sell the first property they bought there) is not
doing her any favours in the eyes of the general public. Despite the
fact that she is free to use her money and mortgage her house as she
likes :)!

viv
 
I think this organization has over the top expectations of a royal patron(ess). Usually such a royal patronage is a sort of "high approval" of the royal family for a good cause. This sometimes include royal attendance at highdays, such as a jubilee, the opening of a new building or the start of a new initiative.

What I understand is that this organization wanted Countess Alexandra "to take initiatives". That is really not the role of a patron(ess). That is an executive role and should be done by the executive management of the organization, not by the patron(ess).
 
Even though Countess Alexandra is the official patron of UNICEF, when it comes to the really high profile events, it is the royal family who are at the forefront. When the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge visited the UNICEF depot in Denmark, it was the CP Couple who accompanied them. Yes, I know that it was an official event and a matter of protocol. But I do remember the Danish press printing the story about Countess Alexandra not being at the event even though she is the patron.
 
Last edited:
The royals seem to have varying amounts of involvement in different patronages. Some organizations lend themselves well to a patron really involving him/herself on a deeper level, but others benefit more from the name recognition of simply being associated with a member of the royal family. IMO, it makes sense for Alexandra to continue working with organizations she really feels committed to and cut ties with the rest.

Alexandra is a well connected, wealthy and well educated lady and I think she'd be a great asset for various organizations based on those attributes alone. But she's no longer royal and, quite rightly, her day to day life and interests have changed since the divorce. She's no longer in the position of being able to benefit a group or charity just by attaching her name to it.
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
I think this organization has over the top expectations of a royal patron(ess). Usually such a royal patronage is a sort of "high approval" of the royal family for a good cause. This sometimes include royal attendance at highdays, such as a jubilee, the opening of a new building or the start of a new initiative.

What I understand is that this organization wanted Countess Alexandra "to take initiatives". That is really not the role of a patron(ess). That is an executive role and should be done by the executive management of the organization, not by the patron(ess).
Click to expand...
Yes, but the point is Alexandra stopped being a "royal" patroness in 2005/2007 the latest. I for one always thought that the whole situation (Alex keeping some patronages and getting an apanage for this "work") was odd and that there should have been a clean cut.

Perhaps those organisations which agreed to keep Alexandra as their patroness back then (I guess they had a say in it) thought that she would take on a more active role and would have more time and "freedom" once she was no longer a member of the royal family.

Perhaps their expectations just raised after CP Mary started to show that "being a patron" can also involve "taking initiatives".
 
ricarda said:
I for one always thought that the whole situation (Alex keeping some patronages and getting an apanage for
this "work") was odd and that there should have been a clean cut.
Click to expand...

The DRF had probably learnt from their British counterparts that axing
a divorced, but popular princess does not go down well with the
population! And maybe they thought that eventually, the fascination
would subside and that Alexandra would retire from her public role!

As for the apanage: I'm not convinced that it was based on her
public duties and patronages. Maybe it was suggested at the time, when it - at least PR-wise! - was a no- brainer, also because Alexandra was to keep her royal privileges etc. until further notice.

No, I'm rather convinced that parking Alexandra on the Civil list had something to do with the finances of Prince Joachim at the time. Schackenborg was never a goldmine as we now know. A substancial alimony would no doubt have strained his personal means!


viv
 
Last edited:
I doubt it is a coincidence that this issue with Countess Alexandra is happening when Prince Joachim is moving to Copenhagen and the Crown Prince family is getting lots of coverage for their Greenland tour. Queen M. is a great strategist when it comes to the royal PR machine.
 
I think Ricarda has nailed the issue.

The tabloid BT has had a number of articles about Alexandra's protections over the past couple of days.
Her er Alexandra protektor på deltid: Fire år siden sidste besøg - Royale | www.bt.dk
Ekspert: Ydmygende fyring af Alexandra - Royale | www.bt.dk
Ekspert: Dronningen er i gang med at afvikle Alexandra - Royale | www.bt.dk
Færdig som protektor for DRs pigekor: Her vil de også af med Alexandra - Royale | www.bt.dk

The articles take a somewhat sensationalist angle and gist of the articles are that Alexandra was sacked as patron.
Is less than desired as patron of at least one more protection.
That she apart for a couple of exceptions is not an active patron for her protections.
That QMII is quietly working on pushing her out.
That she is hardly an asset as a patron anymore as she is moving further and further away from the DRF.
The Trine Villemann (whom I can't understand anyone would like to quote on anything) claims that it's basically a conspiracy by the DRF to out Alexandra completely, not least since the relationship between Alexandra and QMII is frosty. - I must say it's not exactly that impression I personally have. Friendly, polite, curteous, mature, yes. But not frosty.

- So let's look at the facts as we have them.

Alexandra is no longer patron for DR1 Girl's Choir. - For whatever and so far unknown reason.
The Danish Association for the Blind is openly disappointed with her.
UNICEF is very pleased with her.
The other protections claim they are pleased with her, even though there are examples of her not attending anything for several years. So they might tell the truth or just being polite.

The idea that Alexandra might be in the process of quietly laying down a number of her protections does not seem to have occured to anyone writing the articles.
Nor is the idea that Alexandra might be well aware herself of the fact that she no longer carry the same weight PR-wise as before.
Also, since there hadn't been a divorce in the DRF for 150 years prior the Alexandra and Joachim, there really isn't any precedence in DK in this regard, so this may be what must be considered "a natural developement" and that is what we are wittnessing now.

Should Alexandra in the glare of hindsight have laid down most, if not all, her protections several years ago? Probably a good idea IMO, but basically it's up to Alexandra herself and her protections - not the DRF, not the press, not the public opinion and certainly not more or less self-proclaimed royal experts.

It's easy to critisize Alexandra and perhaps with some justification, but fair is fair, let's try and give her the benefit of doubt before jumping to conclusions.
 
I've said it before and i'll say it again, I feel quite sorry for Alexandra. At the time it was felt giving her an allowance and letting her keep her charity links etc was the best thing to do (alot said much better than what happened to Diana POW for example). However now people have moved on and its Alexandra who gets the raw end of the deal (though she's not got a hard life so I'm not that sympathetic).
I have to say from what I read about her before the divorce and how hard she worked for the RF I thought she would keep up quite a fair few number of engagements in support of her charities and I have to say she does seem to be doing less and less (in public at least).
I do wonder though - she has an allowance but does she have to use this to pay for any charity visits she does? I know it doesn't seem a lot but if she has to use her allowance to pay from transport, staff to organise a program of events etc it does all add up and if the Court is no longer there picking up the bill and providing transport etc then it actually costs her to do visits so she might wonder why the heck she should.

I'm quite shocked how openly the Danish Association for the Blind are in criticising her and comparing her to Mary - I think its quite rude to do that to someone who has (to what ever level) been a supporter for a number of years. Even if they want her out they should at least have the grace and manners to do it behind closed doors and only say the usual bland "mutual decision" thing in public especially as it only adds to the media reports on her at the moment over her allowance etc.
 
tommy100 said:
I've said it before and i'll say it again, I feel quite sorry for Alexandra. At the time it was felt giving her an allowance and letting her keep her charity links etc was the best thing to do (alot said much better than what happened to Diana POW for example). However now people have moved on and its Alexandra who gets the raw end of the deal (though she's not got a hard life so I'm not that sympathetic).
I have to say from what I read about her before the divorce and how hard she worked for the RF I thought she would keep up quite a fair few number of engagements in support of her charities and I have to say she does seem to be doing less and less (in public at least).
I do wonder though - she has an allowance but does she have to use this to pay for any charity visits she does? I know it doesn't seem a lot but if she has to use her allowance to pay from transport, staff to organise a program of events etc it does all add up and if the Court is no longer there picking up the bill and providing transport etc then it actually costs her to do visits so she might wonder why the heck she should.

I'm quite shocked how openly the Danish Association for the Blind are in criticising her and comparing her to Mary - I think its quite rude to do that to someone who has (to what ever level) been a supporter for a number of years. Even if they want her out they should at least have the grace and manners to do it behind closed doors and only say the usual bland "mutual decision" thing in public especially as it only adds to the media reports on her at the moment over her allowance etc.
Click to expand...

I think the comparison to Mary indicates that particular organization, at least, may have unrealistic expectations of what a royal patronage means. My impression,in terms of the Danish royals and the attention and high profile they can bring to their patronages, is that there's Mary and then there's everyone else. I really doubt the actual issue with the people complaining is Alexandra's lack of personal, day to day involvement with the organization, but rather the loss of exposure and publicity she can bring, compared to when she took the patronage on as a princess.
It seems like kind of a short sighted criticism, considering that the alternative for these groups is probably no royal involvement at all.
 
Although I may be slightly biased saying this as I really like Alexandra – I also think we need to take into consideration that she can't go out and shine as she did before she and Joachim divorced. She obviously is – and has always been – very careful to not "steal" Marie's thunder, so to speak. It's difficult because this is a sort of first case scenario, but I think Alexandra has managed quite well.

I think DR's Girl's Choir and The Danish Association for the Blind are the ones coming off really bad here. I see absolutely no reason why DR's Girl's Choir dropped Alexandra as their patron – IIRC I have seen pictures of her attending their Christmas concert every year. The Danish Association for the Blind are just being downright ungrateful. I am sure most patronages would want the most widespread member of the royal family to be their patron, but that's just not how things work.
 
I have a question, since I am not Danish. The DR Danish Girls Choir and the Danish Association of the Blind in particular...did these organizations always have royal patrons? Did Alexandra take over as patron for these organizations from Queen Margrethe or Queen Ingrid? Maybe these organizations feel that they would be better off with a patron who is a member of the DRF and in so doing, will get more exposure than they do now with a divorced ex-princess?

As for Alexandra trying not to steal Marie's thunder. I really don't think that was an issue IMO. Alexandra had re-married and was no longer a member of the DRF. Marie became a princess and a member of the DRF. As time went by and Marie established herself, she was always going to attract more attention than Alexandra as she was a princess. Like it or not, being a member of the DRF is what gives these patronages the publicity and exposure they desire. Countess Alexandra can no longer provide that and it will only get worse as time goes by. In addition, the media attention is more and more on the Crown Princely Family, not Joachim and his family as much...so how much media attention can Alexandra attract to her patronages given those circumstances?
 
Last edited:
camelot23ca said:
I think the comparison to Mary indicates that particular organization, at least, may have unrealistic expectations of what a royal patronage means. My impression,in terms of the Danish royals and the attention and high profile they can bring to their patronages, is that there's Mary and then there's everyone else. I really doubt the actual issue with the people complaining is Alexandra's lack of personal, day to day involvement with the organization, but rather the loss of exposure and publicity she can bring, compared to when she took the patronage on as a princess.
It seems like kind of a short sighted criticism, considering that the alternative for these groups is probably no royal involvement at all.
Click to expand...

Well exactly! If Alexandra 'leaves' being patron of the Danish Society for Blind I'd like to think no one else in the RF would be undignified enough to jump in and replace her. So they need to either either shut up and put up or find a new, non-royal, patron.

Personally I feel she is in an impossible situation, she has an allowance from the State, apparently for life (that's another debate!) but is no longer a member of the RF and also, to an extent, can't be seen to upstage or outshine the RF. As i've said before, she in a 'no man's land' as such, not an ordinary citizen free to get her own job and do as she pleases but not a member of the RF with the support from the Royal Court and the workload that it brings.
I think on reflection she should not have been given an allowance - maybe a one off payment or just leave Joachim to sort it out like any other couple - and been allowed to get her own job (she had the skills and the CV to be able to find something meaningful and fulfilling). She still could have been given her title and just been left to be a well titled, well connected private citizen.
 
Last edited:
Didn't CP Mary take over one of Alexandra's patronages?

EDIT: Found it! Post #30 by UserDane
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f32/crown-princess-marys-patronages-and-charities-14400-2.html

According to TV2 news (TV 2 Nyhederne - Mary afløser Alex i Mødrehjælpen), Mary has taken on a new patronage - for 'Mødrehjælpen' which used to be one of countess Alexandra's patronages but which she gave up when she married Martin Jørgensen.
Click to expand...
This was in 2007 that CP Mary took over as patron 7 months after Alexandra gave it up...so there is a precedent of a member of the DRF taking over one of Countess Alexandra's patronages. Given that the DR Girls Choir performs at so many royal events at the DR Theatre, I would be surprised if a new royal patron is not named...not now obviously...some months will elapse until a new patron is named IMO and it will not be viewed as controversial if enough time has passed.
 
Last edited:
Terri Terri said:
I have a question, since I am not Danish. The DR Danish Girls Choir and the Danish Association of the Blind in particular...did these organizations always have royal patrons? Did Alexandra take over as patron for these organizations from Queen Margrethe or Queen Ingrid? Maybe these organizations feel that they would be better off with a patron who is a member of the DRF and in so doing, will get more exposure than they do now with a divorced ex-princess?

As for Alexandra trying not to steal Marie's thunder. I really don't think that was an issue IMO. Alexandra had re-married and was no longer a member of the DRF. Marie became a princess and a member of the DRF. As time went by and Marie established herself, she was always going to attract more attention than Alexandra as she was a princess. Like it or not, being a member of the DRF is what gives these patronages the publicity and exposure they desire. Countess Alexandra can no longer provide that and it will only get worse as time goes by. In addition, the media attention is more and more on the Crown Princely Family, not Joachim and his family as much...so how much media attention can Alexandra attract to her patronages given those circumstances?
Click to expand...

I've just had a look at the Danish Association of the Blind website (using google translate so it might not be perfect) and could see no mention of Alexandra on the website until I searched for her name and then a few news articles about events she attended, so its not as if they are pushing her to the front and using her name as much as they could anyway. To get to the website I went through a few other websites of charities, one of which Mary is patron (and has a photo on the front page) and one of which Princess Benedikte is patron and again has a photo very prominently displayed.
 
tommy100 said:
I've just had a look at the Danish Association of the Blind website (using google translate so it might not be perfect) and could see no mention of Alexandra on the website until I searched for her name and then a few news articles about events she attended, so its not as if they are pushing her to the front and using her name as much as they could anyway. To get to the website I went through a few other websites of charities, one of which Mary is patron (and has a photo on the front page) and one of which Princess Benedikte is patron and again has a photo very prominently displayed.
Click to expand...

There have actually been quite a number of well published events in connection with the Association which she has attended over the years. Alone or with Martin Jørgensen.
So they have gotten publicity.

- It may also be a personal matter. In the sense that there some people with whom you don't "click".
 
Yes, I do remember that the blind association did get some publicity.

I agree with you Muhler that it may be more of a personal issue. Just look at these comments by John Heilbrunn, second chairman of the Danish Association for the Blind which was in one of your previous posts:
"We have been annoyed over not being able to use her more, but over time we have realized that she is not someone you can pull aside and talk to. She's difficult to get a hold on and once you do reach her, it's not that she's immediately ready to jump in".
Click to expand...
These are very personal comments and are a complete contrast to the past view of Alexandra as a great patron for her charities!!:ohmy: And it is interesting that Mr Heilbrunn was so willing to share such negative comments with the media.
 
Last edited:
Terri Terri said:
Didn't CP Mary take over one of Alexandra's patronages?

EDIT: Found it! Post #30 by UserDane
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f32/crown-princess-marys-patronages-and-charities-14400-2.html

This was in 2007 that CP Mary took over as patron 7 months after Alexandra gave it up...so there is a precedent of a member of the DRF taking over one of Countess Alexandra's patronages. Given that the DR Girls Choir performs at so many royal events at the DR Theatre, I would be surprised if a new royal patron is not named...not now obviously...some months will elapse until a new patron is named IMO and it will not be viewed as controversial if enough time has passed.
Click to expand...

True, didn't realize it had happened before and Alexandra may have given up the girls Choir knowing another royal was going to take it on. however the more the media make a fuss the harder it will be (or the longer they will have to wait) for another royal to take her place.
 
tommy100 said:
I do wonder though - she has an
allowance but does she have to use this to pay for any charity visits
she does? I know it doesn't seem a lot but if she has to use her
allowance to pay from transport, staff to organise a program of
events etc it does all add up and if the Court is no longer there
picking up the bill and providing transport etc then it actually
costs her to do visits so she might wonder why the heck she should. .
Click to expand...

I'm guessing now: I doubt that the DRF is picking up her bills for
the simple reason that she is not representing the royal family any
more. An example: There's been photos of her arriving at events in
rental cars!

At the end of the day: we know that after the divorce the DRF let
her continue a number of patronages, they allowed her to keep her
princess title - albeit stripped of the HRH - until she remarried, and
they gave her a -quaint? - comital title for life. It was indeed a
softly-softly approach!

What we don't know is whether the royal Court and Alexandra made
any agreements as to her withdrawing gradually from public life.

I am among the Danes believing that her situation is untenable in the
long run! I'll gladly contribute to her upkeep, but IMO time has come
for her to stop competing - for the want of a better word - with our royal family.

By the way, the girls choir is not the first patronage she's lost. The
art museum Arken was removed from her list of patronages a long
time ago!

viv
 
Last edited:
Viv said:
I'm guessing now: I doubt that the DRF is picking up her bills for
the simple reason that she is not representing the royal family any
more. An example: There's been photos of her arriving at events in
rental cars!

At the end of the day: we know that after the divorce the DRF let
her continue a number of patronages, they allowed her to keep her
princess title - albeit stripped of the HRH - until she remarried, and
they gave her a -quaint? - comital title for life. It was indeed a
softly-softly approach!

What we don't know is whether the royal Court and Alexandra made
any agreements as to her withdrawing gradually from public life.

I am among the Danes believing that her situation is untenable in the
long run! I'll gladly contribute to her upkeep, but IMO time has come
for her to stop competing - for the want of a better word - with our royal family.

By the way, the girls choir is not the first patronage she's lost. The
art museum Arken was removed from her list of patronages a long
time ago!

viv
Click to expand...
Is Countess Alexandra the only "non-royal" that is a patron of organizations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Countess Carolin Alexandra von Hochberg and Jasper Schulz
Replies
1
Views
5K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
JessRulz
Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg, Current Events Part 1: September 2015 -
7 8 9
Replies
265
Views
89K
muriel
muriel
Empress
  • Locked
Countess Alexandra & Martin Jørgensen, Current Events 2: October 2008 - December 2009
11 12 13
Replies
388
Views
94K
dazzling
dazzling
Empress
Disparity of Patronages between Princess Marie and Countess Alexandra
2 3
Replies
74
Views
20K
Mandy
Mandy
carlota
  • Locked
Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg's Official Biography
Replies
22
Views
10K
alex001
A

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom