Four years down the track; Is Mary OK now?

[Madame Royale]

No it's not just you, i hear the echo

I thought as much, Australian

But of course, the echo is not heard by all

I'm actually quite happy to see the way this discussion has panned out (and not because of the majority 'vote' may I add). Of course, a few possible and near chances of derailment have been aptly noted but overall nothing that has inflicted insult to injury and that's a move in the right direction I think. If we can maintain a balance of respect for each other's opinions, whether we agree or disagree, then there is no reason to revert back to the 'colourful' ambience of past threads (so I have come to see) dedicated to these kinds of discussions

While I respect the rights of those who disagree to post, I do not respect the apparent spiteful behaviour that often ensues when talking of the Crown Princess. There is simply no need for such childishness and it really is an insult to Mary as a person. And like those of us who don't like being insulted, extend that thought to Mary as she is in a position which prevents her from defending herself. At least we are given that opportunity.

A nice day/evening to you all.

 

[MargreteI]

Would that be the company where it was revealed by her fellow co-workers that she barely showed up for work, by any chance? The same company that is in fact run by a very good friend of Fred's?

Exactly what valid source do you have those information from.

The fact is she was working there as an employe and that is basically what we know unless we turn to the tabloids and all their colourfull stories.

 

[Little_star]

She succeeded all on her own as long as she was a single. Don't forget that.

She certainly was successful at job-hopping.

And we don't know how Frederick and Mary solved their financial situation between the two of them before and after the marriage. It's mere speculation on our part how that was done and why. My point is that one should not respect people or find them disgusting because of things that are mere speculation instead of facts.

So are you applying these standards to yourself and others? After all, your viewpoint is also speculative. You don't know conclusively whether what you believe to be true, is in fact the truth.
Unless, you can provide the facts that would prove what you are saying, of course?

 

[jmj21983]

The man I was refering to was Danish and a long-time friend of Fred's who was, I think the Managing Director, or held a similar position. Unfortunately I cannot recall the same.

I think his name is Peter Warnøe.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

She certainly was successful at job-hopping.


So are you applying these standards to yourself and others? After all, your viewpoint is also speculative. You don't know conclusively whether what you believe to be true, is in fact the truth.
Unless, you can provide the facts that would prove what you are saying, of course?

No, my viewpoint is a general one. I said that I could understand it if Frederick helped because of his responsibility for her move. In my book this would be the thing to do in this case. But I'm only taking about a speculative situation in general terms. I'm not claiming that it happened that way and I don't pass judgement on Mary or Frederick.

While you said you didn't respect her because she was Frederick's "kept woman" (who could afford to have more of these), a woman who was job-hopping before she met him and not paying for her own keep afterwards. That is judgemental when in fact you know nothing more than I do about the way the situation was handled before the wedding and is handled today. You only believe that it was handled that way and in your book this (speculative) action leads to your expressed judgement. That's very different from what I was saying, IMHO.

 

[UserDane]

Jo of Palatine, you have made some excellent points in your recent posts which I personally agree with.
However, in a discussion with someone who is this obessively set against another person for private reasons this will lead nowhere; the discussion is not really about job "hopping" (which many in DK see as a positive experience by the way) or being "kept" (funny, completely outdated notion) - it's just the pretense.

Your inputs and views were really well-thought out and appreciated though

 

[Little_star]

Jo of Palatine, you have made some excellent points in your recent posts which I personally agree with.
However, in a discussion with someone who is this obessively set against another person for private reasons this will lead nowhere; the discussion is not really about job "hopping" (which many in DK see as a positive experience by the way) or being "kept" (funny, completely outdated notion) - it's just the pretense.

Your inputs and views were really well-thought out and appreciated though

If you have something to say about me I would prefer you say it directly to me as opposed to incorrectly and inaccurately "analysing" my motives and making sly and snide remarks.

 

[Little_star]

While you said you didn't respect her because she was Frederick's "kept woman" (who could afford to have more of these), a woman who was job-hopping before she met him and not paying for her own keep afterwards. That is judgemental when in fact you know nothing more than I do about the way the situation was handled before the wedding and is handled today. You only believe that it was handled that way and in your book this (speculative) action leads to your expressed judgement. That's very different from what I was saying, IMHO.

I'd have to disagree as neither of us is in possession of the facts, so both positions are speculative. If you maintain that it is different, well I disagree, but that's your right.

 

[lise]

She certainly was successful at job-hopping.

Little_star I'm confused what is the problem with job-hopping?

 

[ricarda]

I actually once was told that if you work in business you should job-hop to get more experience and improve yourself (more salary).
Especially at the beginning of your career.
Having worked for only one firm gives the impression you are not flexible and courageous enough.
That's what I have been told.
Not sure if this is really accurate since I am not working in business.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Well, Mary obviously is fast in paying back the money Frederick invested in her before their engagement (if he invested money in her at all): first the heir and now a pregnancy with the spare...

 

[LadyK]

She's lovely, she's sweet, she's great with children. She has charmed a nation, she does a lot of charity work. She has made the Danish royal family get more attention on the international stage. She has given birth to an heir, and now she is expecting another baby.

But most importantly- After a couple of years of marriage, she and CP Frederik are still as happy and in love as they were when they got married.

 

[Mandy]

Fifteen posts discussing Mary's accent have been moved to the Mary's accent thread. Let's keep this thread on topic. Thanks!

Happy posting!

Mandy
Danish Forum Moderator

 

[Roshanah]

Thanks for putting it into perspective Jo of Palatine :O). I have to agree with you that many criticised mary for this and indeed it would have been impracticle for her to finance the move to denmark and so on. It was only right and proper that he do so. I also like the fact that you mentioned the part where Frederik gave her the best opportunity to decide weather or not to fully commit to him.

Not that everyone was challenging that fact (although many did) but it needed to be mentioned all the same.

She herself said that Frederik offered to relinquish his title in order to be with her but she knew what the consequences were too high a price to pay and she added that it fell to her to become Crown Princess in order that they could be happy together.

So I'm glad that you highlight that point also

IMHO there is a difference between taking responsibility for oneself and the question who pays for the results of an action. What if a woman gets pregnant because she and her boyfriend wanted it that way? Would you absolve the father on saying that it's a question of self-respect not to take any payments for their joint decision? They both decided she had to move because their relationship needed it. He was not only partly responsible why she moved, he was the sole reason why she had to move. So why should she shoulder the costs of the results of their joint decision alone? That's what I don't get in your argumentation.




I try to see the situation of these two people who are in love and were in a difficult situation. There were a lot of things that were non-negociable which were this way due to his position, not due to Mary's decision. It was a take it or leave it situation for her. Frederick surely wanted to give Mary the chance to experience his lifestyle before she accepted her "life sentence" as his wife. So of course at this advanced point in their relationship he tried to ease her way which way he could without alerting the public to their (at this point still potential) aim. She should be able to still back out. I ask you honestly: how would you have dealt with this situation?

It's true that Mary probably was not able to finance her part in the very stylish "holidays" she had with Frederick. But she needed this experience to be able to decide. She needed to live in Denmark, she needed to live in a secure and suitable apartment where Frederick could bring his friends to meet her. She needed a suitable wardrobe in order to be presented in private to the people who count at court in Denmark. Should she have gotten debts in order to pay for things that were required because he, the rich prince, has been who he is?

It's an IMHO very simplistic way to see. And it's a sad one because with this view you seem to say that Cinderella-stories should never happen because Cinderella would not be able to pay for a wedding dress required for a future princess. Or that she would be a laughing stock in a wedding dress she c ould afford.

 

[juliana]

... I think. If we can maintain a balance of respect for each other's opinions, whether we agree or disagree, then there is no reason to revert back to the 'colourful' ambience of past threads ...

While I respect the rights of those who disagree to post, I do not respect the apparent spiteful behaviour that often ensues when talking of the Crown Princess.

A confusing post.

Little Star- Good posts. Mary is obvioulsy fine for the Danes- their acceptance is their right. I would hope that the royal makeover standard is not an accepted standard for other royals families though.

 

[ZandraRae]

Now that Mary is pregnant for the second time with the "spare", I think even more people will like her. They can see that she is trying really hard to fit in with the Danes. Good going Mary!

 

[Madame Royale]

A confusing post.

There's nothing confusing about it, I'm affraid.

I thought I clearly stated that I respect the rights of those who disagree to post, but I dont respect spiteful behaviour.

There's a difference betwen disagreeing and being spiteful which some often do. From your small response (and I'm glade you posted as you thought it didn't make sense) can I gather that you dont identify between a difference of opinion and being purposely nasty?

I shall engage someone in a discussion to express our indavidual views but I have not disregarded anyone's opinion within this thread. I simply have not agreed and expressed my view for thinking otherwise.

If you genuinely misundertsood my statement then that's unfortunate but no possible (and I do mean 'possible') attempt to misread my post(s) will be of any benefit, I assure you.

On that note, I'm glade I could clear that up for you, juliana

 

[Polly]

Little Star- Good posts. Mary is obvioulsy fine for the Danes- their acceptance is their right. I would hope that the royal makeover standard is not an accepted standard for other royals families though.

May I, respectfully, ask you to expand on this post, Juliana?

Do you mean that Denmark's royals do not have the same understanding of what it takes to groom a princess and thus in some way is inferior in presentation, behaviour, beliefs, etc to other royal houses?

Or do you mean that the Danish nation, per se, has no inkling of what is due to itself in a princess, unlike other nations, and despite having enjoyed royal leadership for 1,000 years?

Either way, I don't think that I'd be very pleased if I were a Dane.

But perhaps my interpretation is faulty?

Polly

 

[tabbitha]

A confusing post.

Mary is obvioulsy fine for the Danes- their acceptance is their right. I would hope that the royal makeover standard is not an accepted standard for other royals families though.

How is Madame Royale's post confusing???? she was exact in what she thought- how can you interpret it any other way...
Also is this a dig at the Danish and who are the other Royal women folk you might be referring to who have such high standards in relation to Mary???? Can you explain yourself as to why you think Mary is of lower standards than the rest- i would be very interested to hear your opinions.. I can't think of one who is better than the other- to me they bring their own individual qualities.. I would be PROUD to have Mary as my daughter and furture Queen anyday..Just my opinion...

 

[UserDane]

....Either way, I don't think that I'd be very pleased if I were a Dane.

But perhaps my interpretation is faulty?

Polly

No, your interpretation seems to be very accurate Polly. And if the reason for stating it was based on any kind of real knowledge about the topic matter I as a Dane would'nt be pleased.
But statements regarding the sentiments of a whole nation really doesn't carry much validity, if one thinks about it

 

[lise]

A confusing post.

Little Star- Good posts. Mary is obvioulsy fine for the Danes- their acceptance is their right. I would hope that the royal makeover standard is not an accepted standard for other royals families though.

I'm also wondering what's so confusing about Madame Royale's post? I thought it was a well writen classly post.

Everyone I think the point juliana is trying to get across here is that the Danish princess school isn't good enough for her standards of royalty. Anyway I think we (well at least I) need a more detailed explaination about this

 

[Polly]

I'm also wondering what's so confusing about Madame Royale's post? I thought it was a well writen classly post.

Everyone I think the point juliana is trying to get across here is that the Danish princess school isn't good enough for her standards of royalty. Anyway I think we (well at least I) need a more detailed explaination about this

Of course madame Royale's post was clear and well-written. They always are!

I take your point, too, that Juliana's point is that 'the Danish Princess school isn't good enough for her (Juliana's) standards of royalty'. I have no quarrel with that. Juliana can believe whatever Juliana wishes to believe.

What I am asking is for Juliana to clarify what she actually meant in her post. Specifically, are the alleged shortcomings of Denmark's crown princess (her inferred target) overlooked because of a flawed, ignorant and unsophisticated royal Danish court which knows no better, or because a stupid, inexprerienced Danish general community knows no better, being bereft of any definable, proper standard

Perhaps I'm wrong, and have misinterpreted Juliana's intent and meaning.

If not, then I think that post one of the most offensive and insidious which I've read on this board since I've been reading it. (January, 2006). In my world, we don't attack an entire community via an individual, no matter how much we dislike the individual.

Notwithstanding, I'm willing to offer my apologies to Juliana if she can show me where my reading of her post is totally wrong, and if I've misrepresented her.

Polly.

 

[carlota]

i just wanted to point out some comments some of the participants in this conversation remarked.

it was said how the money frederik invested is being repaid by mary giving birth to a heir and a spare and the way in which mary will become more popular when she gives birth to her second baby. the point isn't only quite chauvinistic, but also not too ambitious: if that is what we ask of an institution that costs the nation millions, i think there's a lot more they can do to repay the nation and not just provide a heir. it's not like they don't have resources or they don't have time. i personally don't understand why royals 'work' for an average of 10 days during the month at the most. what do they do the other days? i'm sure there's lots of organisations in the country requiring aknowledgement and a bit of support in that 'spare time'.

 

[Polly]

I think, Carlotta, that royals provide a sense of focus and identity for a nation, in much the way as, say, the President of the United States of America does for his nation. I know a few Americans who utterlly disllike the current President, but honour and respect his office, totally. It all seems much of a muchness, to me.

Polly

 

[ricarda]

i personally don't understand why royals 'work' for an average of 10 days during the month at the most. what do they do the other days? i'm sure there's lots of organisations in the country requiring aknowledgement and a bit of support in that 'spare time'.

I would say they work behind closed doors.
Or do you honestly think they just leave the house ten times a month to attend an official function and that's it?
No preparations and coordinations, no emails and letters to write, no phone calls to make,
no inofficial meetings, in short no office work behind ìt all.
Certainly not.

 

[MargreteI]

i just wanted to point out some comments some of the participants in this conversation remarked.

it was said how the money frederik invested is being repaid by mary giving birth to a heir and a spare and the way in which mary will become more popular when she gives birth to her second baby. the point isn't only quite chauvinistic, but also not too ambitious: if that is what we ask of an institution that costs the nation millions, i think there's a lot more they can do to repay the nation and not just provide a heir. it's not like they don't have resources or they don't have time. i personally don't understand why royals 'work' for an average of 10 days during the month at the most. what do they do the other days? i'm sure there's lots of organisations in the country requiring aknowledgement and a bit of support in that 'spare time'.

They do more then what is in the official kalender. The official calender only list official stuff. I does not list what they do on an every day basis. Also you have to add prepariation time. It is not enough to show up and smile.

As for the baby thing it is a bit primitive, but still you have to put it into a historic content. Without an heir the line of succession is not secured and it is a problem. Only the CP can do this, since the laws require that the heir is born within marriage. Thus no illegitimate child can claim the throne. Sexist or not the eyes are at her belly until there is an heir. It does not mean that everything else does not matter. It does.

 

[Lady Bluffton]

Seems to me that Mary is thriving in her role. Her "transformation" has been such to rank her up there with the best "dressers" on the world stage, she seems poised and comfortable, and her husband and in-laws seem delighted with her. I'm not Danish, so I can't speak to how she is accepted by the Danish public, but they seem to have embraced her as their own Cinderella who married their next king. I think she's doing quite OK.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

it was said how the money frederik invested is being repaid by mary giving birth to a heir and a spare and the way in which mary will become more popular when she gives birth to her second baby. the point isn't only quite chauvinistic, but also not too ambitious:

I was the one to write this and I did it at the end of a longer discussion about the question whether we consider Mary to be a "kept" woman because allegedly (we decided we do not know the truth) Frederick payed for part of her expenses when she moved to Europe but before she became his official fiancée. Thus it was a very ironic statement, because I considered the argument about the "kept" woman ridiculous considering the circumstances. And you're right, it's ridiculous and old-fashioned to say that she "payed back" by giving birth to the heir and the future birth of the spare. But it's according to the line of argumentation where a woman has to pay for her own keep no matter what the circumstances as long as she is not yet married but can accept her "share of his worldly goods" as long as she repays by working endlessly in the line of Royal duty or by securing his line of succession or doing both. She already is accused of being too lazy or going to pleasure trips to Prague instead of visiting hospitals or spending too many days on holidays and IMHO the only reason why the "children"-argument has not brought up yet is the fact that Mary was extraordingly fast in becoming a mother (and obviously worked on this aim during her holidays ). If the marriage was still childless the people who don't like and respect Mary would have turned against her in that respect as well, I bet! So I thought the comment just fitting...

 

[seto]

Can I assume that all women who marry men and have children are paying them back for what ever he has done for them? Mary married a man who is a prince and they wanted a family and are having onel. Why this is different than any other couple having a family I don't know .

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Can I assume that all women who marry men and have children are paying them back for what ever he has done for them? Mary married a man who is a prince and they wanted a family and are having onel. Why this is different than any other couple having a family I don't know .

IMHO the idea that Mary has to pay back anything at all is ridiculous. Mary and Fred met, they fell in love. Because they lived on two different continents, one had to move. That was Mary, because she was free to do so while Fred wasn't. Fred helped or helped not financially with the move, we do not know. Both married and have become children. Mary gave up her job and helps now Fred with his job. She shares his name and money. Where's a problem in that story? Where did Mary do something wrong?