General News about Joachim, Marie and Family Part 7: January 2024 -

[polyesco]

Article on Joachim and Marie's new home and the exception granted for the residency requirement.

Afsløring: Prins Joachim taget i fup

Fik dispensation fra reglerne om bopælspligt - det skete med en forklaring, der i dag viser sig at være særdeles tvivlsom

www.seoghoer.dk

I'm not familiar with these type of requirements.

 

[Somebody]

Can you elaborate on the exception? What does the article state?

 

[ricarda]

Residence requirement means that the owner of a house must stay on the property at least 180 days a year. If he/she doesn't the owner is obliged to rent the house to a tenant. If the owner does not comply with this the municipality may direct home seekers to the property and take a fine from the owner.
The article states that Joachim was scamming when he asked for exception from the rule (he got one for 4 years instead of the usual 2 years) because he claimed he will spend more time in Dk in the future and that his activities in Dk will increase which turned out not to be true. They have decreased.

My personal thought:
Joachim and Marie bought the house in November 2023. At that time it was known that they actually live in Washington. If the municipality gave them an exemption it was probably not because they believed J&M would spend more time in Dk but because they wanted royals in their community.
And perhaps J&M already knew of his mother's abdication and really thought they would take up more duties in Dk in the future?

In essence the article is about the old problem of Joachim receiving privileges, just because he is the 2nd son of Queen Margrethe.

 

[Somebody]

Interesting. Is there a general rule that people cannot leave a house unoccupied? Does that only apply to houses in Copenhagen or does it apply to multiple cities or even the whole country?

But yes, a clear example of 'class justice' - although I do understand that there might be good reasons for people to have a second home. Here the solution is that they pay higher tax on the house, so that either the home owners decide to sell or rent out - or contribute in another way to the community.

 

[Muhler]

It's a general rule, yes.
The purpose being to prevent people buying up homes for investments and otherwise leave them unoccupied. Considering that such homes are very much needed but ordinary taxpaying and working people.
It's also question of it being difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. At the time no one, probably not even J&M knew their future plans.