Crown Princess Mary's Visit to Uganda: September 28-October 4, 2008

[dee4855]

Which are the Crown Princesses that do nothing for their country? And sorry but I don't think that royals are supposed to behave like celebrities! That's my opinion respect it and calm down!

And that was my opinion also, and respect goes both ways. I am very calm. Here is the defintion of a celebrity I think you will see it does fit the CP.


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ce·leb·ri·ty

–noun, plural -ties for 1. 1.a famous or well-known person. 2.fame; renown.


She is very well known in some circles.

 

[carlota]

royals aren't celebrities. royals are in 'political and diplomatical' positions. some will argue that they are known. yes, they are... but so is the president. does it mean that because president bush is known he is a celebrity? i very much doubt so. i think we have to distinguish between being known because of having an important position in a country and being known because of being an actress or being a supermodel.

a supermodel, on the other hand, is paid only by her money and if she decides to be excentric then that's her problem. while the press may critisize her, it's after all her own life. however, if a royal starts being excentric, then that's another thing, i'm sure everyone can understand that, as he or she is being paid with money from the taxpayers. therefore, the example one of our posters gave in this discussion on the 700$ mink jacket for a toddler is something critisizable and something that has the right to be critisized (that is, if frederik or mary had bought it), as it is ridiculous to spend more than the average sum on a piece of clothing and then visiting a poor country such as uganda and say how sad it feels to visit. with this i'm not critisizing mary. as someone else said, i think this has been one of the most meaningful trips, perhaps, since she is a princess.

At least there are a few that do something to help others with their celebity status. It seems like some do nothing at all. Showing up at an event smiling, and dressed up is not doing something for someone else. That is being a CP. That to me is nothing but being a celebrity. I know this remark will get me some really snarky comments, but there at 2 CPs that really seem to do nothing for their country.

i don't know who you are referring to here, but i have to say that all crown princesses, for instance, have done visits to africa. maxima has travelled to uganda itself and kenya and is a constant worker on microcredit issues, which has taken her to many poor south american countries as well. mette-marit is involved with AIDS, and as patron for UNAIDS she has been to malawi and been in geneva a couple of times. mathilde is patron of UNICEF and has been to tanzania. letizia hasn't been to africa as far as i'm concerned and isn't involved in any UN issues so far, but her agenda is certainly quite important every week.

 

[dazzling]

This is not a celebrity/royal comparing thread, so please let us all get back on topic.

Thank you

 

[Australian]

I must say, i was really impressed with Princess Mary during this trip. The genuine compassion she showed was great. The way she interacted with the people of Uganda, hugging them etc was most impressive. You can tell that this trip really effected Mary and am sure it will stay with her for the rest of her life.

 

[ashelen]

just was commenting to my husband about Mary trip to Uganda and visitng the land mines, about the photos that look like Diana, etc...... he was very surprise and he said that even she has all this protection on her, he thought it is not safe anyway becasue if she would step in one of them she willbe blown away, i really do not know about much about this land mines , may be soembody could clarified for me becasue i really do not think that she would be expose to such a risk!

 

[marmi]

I know that when Diana went the path had been cleared to a very specific route and that had been thouroughly checked over first.
I'd assume something similart happened for Mary???

 

[gabby_windsor]

I must say, i was really impressed with Princess Mary during this trip. The genuine compassion she showed was great. The way she interacted with the people of Uganda, hugging them etc was most impressive. You can tell that this trip really effected Mary and am sure it will stay with her for the rest of her life.

I hate to say it but she was hardly going to recoil was she.

I still don't see the points in these visits. Not just for Mary but for any royal, celebrity. Raising awareness? I've read through this whole thread and all the comments I've seen are about how Mary was so compassionate, well dressed, was she safe etc. If it truly raised awareness then to be quite honest there wouldn't be issues as more people would be sending money, and certainly not creating charity events which aren't profitable.

I don't know these types of visits always remind me of, sorry to be crass (and I certainly don't mean this to be racist in anyway) like a zoo or museum visit, view the exhibit but then go home to the safety of one's home.

By the way, I don't really mean to be attacking anyone or anyone's opinions.

 

[Xeara]

Just a few comments...responses to other posts..

Frederik's absence: Should he have accompanied Mary? No, I don't think so, for a few reasons...this is probably a cause closer and more relevant to Mary (being a migrant, not a refugee though, to Denmark)...Fred's absence allows Mary to stand on her own two feet away from her husbands shadow...regarding their children, it is not just a mother's duty to look after the children, they are his kids too, and it may be a nice, bonding time for Dad and the kids

Mary's absent engagement ring: Maybe it is a combination of things? Maturity, isn't there a stage or point in your marriage when you cease wearing your flashy engagement ring and just wear the plainer, simpler wedding band? She's growing up!
It may be that she didn't want to take it to Uganda for the risk of rubbing people's faces in it or it being a item waiting to be stolen or maybe she just didn't want to risk losing it there...

 

[Madame Royale]

J

isn't there a stage or point in your marriage when you cease wearing your flashy engagement ring and just wear the plainer, simpler wedding band?

Umm, I don't believe so no.

Most women continue to wear their engagement rings all their lives.

She's growing up!

I confess I don't see the connection, here...

 

[crisscross1]

I know that when Diana went the path had been cleared to a very specific route and that had been thoroughly checked over first.
I'd assume something similar would happened for Mary???

Wouldn't this be the case with any civilian regardless of whether they are royal or not???? I'm sure that the people of Uganda are amazing people who want to show off their country to visiting royals and civilians and the orphan children would be happy to see any visitor regardless of who they are. The fact that this stranger takes time to engage with the children would be a wonderful experience for them.
As for the engagement ring comment, my husband and I have been married for twenty years and I wear (with love and pride) the engagement ring that he gave me when he asked me to marry him It's a gift that I will never take off.

 

[Yolène]

I try to make it short, I have some problems with that Excuse me, if I chose the wrong words, I do not want to offend anybody.

I absolutely agree: It'll remain a selfish expensive adventure trip to an exotic country, if you don't do anything for these people after you have seen their lifes.
Imho Mary had a genuine interest in visiting these countries. I really think that she got interested in that things due to meetings with the DRC and also due to conversations with other Crownprincesses, I think they also talk about their patronages and travels when they meet. Another point is that people having worked in such countries often become a special community, this makes it often difficult with other people. As a patron of the DRC it is easier for her to be part of that community, she'll better understand the people she is working with.

Uganda was well chosen: Safe enough for her and many, many different NGOs there. She could see what the different problems are (e.g. to name some of them: food variety, high school fees and education = for Ugandans, they also say that education is the key, politicy (!), a lot of orphans, HIV, completely different languages in one country, streets, dependence on support, but also mental problems after these traumatic events, co-dependence on other countries and their political situations in africa...) and she could see how different NGOs cooperate.

This all can help her to become a better patron, also for her own Mary Foundation. People in Uganda need a more stable political situation, more real influence on policy and of course investment so that Ugandan people can earn their own money and become more independent. And now she also knows these quite complex political issues and can call attention to that (and this has not necessarily to be loud and with a lot of press attention).

Ugandans have so much hope: And they are right, but there is still a lot to do. Uganda can be on of the top agriculture countries, the streets are very slowly getting better, IDP-camp inhabitants can go back to their fields (if the mines are removed) and work as farmers and for tourists there are different beautiful national parks in Uganda. Already Winston Churchill has called Uganda "the pearl of africa".

 

[crisscross1]

Ugandans have so much hope: there is still a lot to do.

And in her own small way Mary is doing her own small bit!!!
There is only so much that one person can do.
What are you doing to make a difference in the life of a child in Uganda??
Just because we aren't famous or royal doesn't mean that we can't do our own bit to help the orphan children of the world, not just Uganda

 

[ashelen]

I do not want to ofend anyboy, this is only my opinion.
Where I grow up charity start at home, I belive Denmark is a very stable financial country where can afford to help other countries, becasue first they took care of their own people, so it is good that Mary take interest in helping other cocuntries besdie her own, Denmark, I mean. And this is the job of a princess too, part of her work. I just get mad when there are other countries trying to help the neobgbhours and their on people does not have medical insurance or sleep in the streets!

 

[Xeara]

Gabby_Windsor and Ashelen...I agree with you!!! These sort of foreign humanitarian visits...are they necessary but to further the gains of Princess Mary herself? Are they elaborate PR/damage control junkets to attempt to justify the need for a royal family at all? After the seemingly distastrous press from the Beijing/Australia trip (extravagant, conspicious consumption, selfish, etc) maybe Mary was called before QM and told to "fix it", do something worthwhile or seen to be worthwhile or the royal family will be seen as self-serving, remote, luxury-loving and irrevelant...

This Uganda trip seemed to have come out of nowhere after their return from Australia, granted it may have been planned for months in advance, but hey, what timing, a botched "private vacation" to Australia countered by a compassionate, humanitarian trip to Africa? Damage control at its finest...

Charity DOES start at home... {to remove a tad political rant ~ GT}

 

[UserDane]

Gabby_Windsor and Ashelen...I agree with you!!! These sort of foreign humanitarian visits...are they necessary but to further the gains of Princess Mary herself? Are they elaborate PR/damage control junkets to attempt to justify the need for a royal family at all? After the seemingly distastrous press from the Beijing/Australia trip (extravagant, conspicious consumption, selfish, etc) maybe Mary was called before QM and told to "fix it", do something worthwhile or seen to be worthwhile or the royal family will be seen as self-serving, remote, luxury-loving and irrevelant...

This Uganda trip seemed to have come out of nowhere after their return from Australia, granted it may have been planned for months in advance, but hey, what timing, a botched "private vacation" to Australia countered by a compassionate, humanitarian trip to Africa? Damage control at its finest...

Charity DOES start at home... {to remove a tad political rant ~ GT}

"May have been planned months in advance"? - yes, that is a rather safe bet I would say!

The Danish Refugee Council is planning a national collection day on 9 November and the focus of this collection will be on refugee children. So I venture a guess that the trip and the collection may have considerably more in common than - IMO - rather far-fetched theories about 'damage control'.
To even think that an organization like the Danish Refugee Council - or any other refugee council - would lower themselves to take part of a scheme to exercise damage control for a any royal is an insult to the seriousness of the work refugee councils are doing IMO.

Would you point me to examples of "seemingly distastrous press from the Beijing/Australia trip (extravagant, conspicious consumption, selfish, etc)" in the Danish media? It sounds new and quite interesting.

 

[JessRulz]

http://dr.dk/presse/Article.asp?articleID=26628

DR will broadcast a documentary about Mary's visit to Uganda tomorrow, October 7th

 

[UserDane]

Quote from Andreas Kamm from the Danish Refugee Council in today's BT - Mary en mere kompetent protektor for DRC

(My translation/interpretation)

"We knew right from the start when the crown princess became a patron, that we would like to show her some of our activities - to make it interesting to the CP to be part of our work but naturally also because it enhances our opportunity of getting finances for the work which the CPss have now experienced first hand and seen the importance of. So naturally, this trip has a two-fold purpose"

So the timing of this trip was probably determined more by the national collection day on 9 November than anything else

 

[Madame Royale]

Would you point me to examples of "seemingly distastrous press from the Beijing/Australia trip (extravagant, conspicious consumption, selfish, etc)" in the Danish media? It sounds new and quite interesting.

Wouldn't mind a look myself as I didn't see anything of the kind at the time...

Surely they aren't refering to the mink jacket "saga"...

 

[Paty]

DR Presse

DR will broadcast a documentary about Mary's visit to Uganda tomorrow, October 7th

I hope DR provide an on-line link

 

[Alisa]

Charity DOES start at home... {to remove a tad political rant ~ GT}

Why the need to undermine Mary's work?
Since becoming patron, Mary has attended numerous meetings privately and publicly, participated in events at home, and has even met with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This visit is just a natural progression of her work as patron for the organization.

 

[Santacruz]

First thing that came into my mind when I saw Mary in Uganda wearing a shield while walking through landmine area: this is Diana PR.
There seems to be a PR plan in Denmark to make her the " new Diana " . Sorry but I guess if you really want to rise awareness you have to be authentic ....

 

[UserDane]

First thing that came into my mind when I saw Mary in Uganda wearing a shield while walking through landmine area: this is Diana PR.

Yeahh, that's the impression I got as well .... that you are stuck some 10 years or more back in your view of what (at least certain) royals can do

So, should we ask the various relief organizations to be 'authentic' as well - and not work for removal of land mines. I mean - it would be a pity if many like you had a feeling of 'been there, done that - lets proceed'. Or should we ask the people who live with the land mines - whose children may pick them up and get mutilated if they miss a certain authenticity about the whole thing.

Christ.....

 

[Lilla]

As various relief organizations already is engaged with all kinds of known relief issues it is very difficult for the CP's to find new paths on this particular area.

So my suggestion is that somebody have to push the button to release the atombomb. Then a competition could be made among the CP's: Who will be the first one to visit the point of impact and the winner will receive a "authenticity reward" just before dying from radioactivity.

It would be stupid - but authentic!

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

As much as I disliked the "private" holiday in Australia and thought it was an attention seeking PR thing - Uganda is different. Mary went there to support her partronage, the Danish Refugee Council and I thought she did very well. She is supposed to raise awareness there and that's exactly what she did, media coverage included. I honestly don't know what she should have done differently or better and why other people are praised for doing exactly the same, including the Diana-memorial-minefield-walk. At the end of the day this terrible celebrity culture is to blame that it has become inevitable that raising awareness automatically goes hand in hand with ego-boosting or attention seeking. Mary is lucky that she is given the opportunity to do such trips as consort, partly because of her husband's attitude who prefers to keep his work-life balance in favour of life, and I think she has done a good job. OK I hate royals wearing sunglasses at official events or when talking to people but that's something that doesn't only apply to Mary.

 

[Empress]

First thing that came into my mind when I saw Mary in Uganda wearing a shield while walking through landmine area: this is Diana PR.
There seems to be a PR plan in Denmark to make her the " new Diana " . Sorry but I guess if you really want to rise awareness you have to be authentic ....

Well, since you brought the subject up, would you please give us some examples of how you feel that this trip could have been condicted to give you a feeling of more authenticity?

 

[Paty]

I think that some peple want to mix things.
She is the Crown Princess of Denmark and she made a trip to Uganda as Patron of the Danish Refugee Council, just like this. Any comparations with others royas in the same job are just pure comparations.

All this history about Denmark looking for her new Diana, non senece!ç
Please dont stay in the superficial things.

 

[marmi]

After all the talk of Mary being the fashion princess, attention seeking etc, now she is out living exactly what was called for then and she's still criticised???!
The poor woman will NEVER win...

 

[Naggi]

I do not think that Mary's trip to Uganda was very spectacular as she hasn't done anything spectacular there actually, though she really impressed me by this travel as it came - at least for me - quite surprisingly. She has done what all crown princesses would do on such a mission which is - for my part - absolutely ok and acceptable.

The Diana-image also crossed my mind when I saw Princess Mary with the helmet and the vet, but to be honest I do not think that any of the current princesses can ever top the late Diana on this. It would always look like copying her. For me this is ok. In German we have a saying (freely translated by me): Why should one invent the vehicle twice? )

My problem with Mary is and always was that regardless on what she does that I do not get the impression that she is authenticable. She has an "air" that is in a way superficial because I cannot get rid of the impression that she thinks she is the centre of everything. Please do not get me wrong: I am not saying that she IS superficial. It is just that she appears like this. Consequently, because I realy like her, I also truly think she needs to work harder on her image.

Due to my language problems I truly hope that I could make myself understandable.

Hopefully I can explain this correct now by giving a very little example (and you may not agree with me here which is ok): When seeing her putting this helmet on and still wearing her beloved sun-glasses during the landmine photo session I was irritated because I thought: Somehow she looked like a normal tourist who happens to attend a "touristic show" and not like the patron of the Danish Refugee Council.

Hopefully I can express myself correct now as I do not wish to offend anyone: As a crown princess she must draw the public attention not to herself but to the work of the organisations and charities she supports. With respect to the Uganda-trip some posters wrote that they hoped that this trip would have an impact on Mary for her future role as queen. My expectation however was that her trip would have some positive impact on the projects and the works of the Refugee Council - if it would also change Mary in a positive way - so better. But the work of the Refugee Council must come first for her.

 

[sgl]

Originality or not, this is still a very good cause, and I think it is important that attention is still being given to landmines and the plight of refugees.

 

[Naggi]

Originality or not, this is still a very good cause, and I think it is important that attention is still being given to landmines and the plight of refugees.

Exactly, I totally agree. This must be the main purpose for that this trip should be remembered for. In this respect not the crown princess but the cause for the visit must count. And hopefully Mary shares this opinion as well.