Prince Louis and Princess Tessy to Divorce: January 18, 2017

[Countessmeout]

I'm sure frankly there are millions of people in th world who don't have it and unless you are promoting yourself in some way, I don't see any reason for it. And clearly Tessy IS using it to promote herself or her charity work. so why has she now "gone private?" If it is to promote her charity work that's going on, even if she'd getting divorced.

So none of the reasons I listed (sharing photos, talking across the globe, getting recipes and craft ideas etc) are real. Or are somehow self promotion

Facebook alone has 1.86 BILLION USERS. Add the users of Instagram, Twitter, Vine, Pinterest, Linked in and the number keeps going up and up and up. Yes, businesses use it to get customers because its free advertising and gets your name out. But grandparents use it to keep in touch with grandkids. Teachers use it for school craft ideas. Parents use it for recipes. I use it to keep in contact with friends I have made over the years working over seas and could never afford to keep in contact via phone. I cant even imagine what my poor 85 year old grandmother would be accused of promoting, as she is on facebook to keep in touch with her grandkids she barely sees.

Maybe Tessy was taking your advice to shut up. She is being criticized for talking at all. So making her profile private allows her to Control who can and who cant see what she is posting.

But that doesn't go along with the selfish fame whore we are painting her as

 

[Soula]

For business. To keep up with friends and family in other parts of the world. To buy and sell items. To share photos that otherwise would stay on your phone. To find good restaurants and stores in your area. To get recipes and craft ideas. To promote charity fundraisers and get funding. To name a few.

Anyone who thinks social media is only used for 'business' and no one is on it There are millions on millions of people on facebook, Instagram, twitter, yelp, linked in....

Why do you think we see royals like Rania and Madeleine on facebook? And Harry starting to get into it. Even the BRF posting about events? Because they realize the way modern people are going. More people read twitter and media feeds online then they do newspapers. You want to get your message out, you get it out quicker through social media.

I have never met a person who doesn't have at least 1 form of social media. Heck my grandmother does.

Tessy does a lot of charity work. It makes sense that she had opened a social media account. She made it private it seems around the time the marriage started falling apart. Balancing privacy for her and her sons, and still having a presence. She can still share her photos and updates with her family, and her charity work with those she knows wont hound her about her divorce.

Beautifully said!

Denville I can only speculate why Tessy has gone private on her instagram but perhaps it's to try and block the hurtful untruths being said about her

And as for trying to protect our privacy by not going on social media..... that boat has well and truly sailed. There is no privacy, everything we do online can be tracked, we may have usernames on this forum but all our IP addresses can be tracked through this site and others etc., there are drones flying around our cities and goodness knows where else

 

[LadyFinn]

In the end of last year, Tessy had name "Claudine Smith" at her bio at her Instagram. There is still a Facebook account on the name Claudine Smith.
https://www.facebook.com/claudine.smith.710

 

[Denville]

So none of the reasons I listed (sharing photos, talking across the globe, getting recipes and craft ideas etc) are real. Or are somehow self promotion


Maybe Tessy was taking your advice to shut up. She is being criticized for talking at all. So making her profile private allows her to Control who can and who cant see what she is posting.

But that doesn't go along with the selfish fame whore we are painting her as

where did I say it wasn't "real"? I manage to keep in touch with friends through letters and email. I don't really see the need to go on FB or Twitter.
and if you go public about things, if she's posting pics of herself on these things she is bound to be noticed and is likely to attract crtiicsm.
I don't know much about her, but this is the first time that she seems to have become "noticeable" and it seems to be attracting lot of negative attention. If she is doing good work with her charities, there's no reason why she should not use whatever methods she likes to bring attention to the charity,

 

[M. Payton]

In the end of last year, Tessy had name "Claudine Smith" at her bio at her Instagram. There is still a Facebook account on the name Claudine Smith.
https://www.facebook.com/claudine.smith.710

Is that facebook account an *active* account or just one that has been forgotten and left unattended? There are millions of face book accounts and I bet there are many of those that are dead end accounts that are not used today......

 

[moby]

There is no problem with her being on social media at all. She can have 5 or 5 million followers but she has to learn how to post things wisely. She has to decide--does she want to promote her works or herself? If she wants to promote her work, stick to that, don't post "poor me" themed posts that would get people talking, don't post photos of your kids because what is the point of doing so, really? Occasionally she could share about personal things but the bulk of it should be focused on her work. If she wanted to share details about Tessy the woman and mother, perhaps create a truly private account and keeping her followers list small and filled with people she personally knows and trusts. A lot of rich people do this.

It just doesn't do her any good and makes her look immature and lacking in self awareness. And yes, I would say the same thing of somebody I know who would post "I'm all alone in my anniversary" things, unless that person is a friend and drunk (in which case, I'd head over and share the bottle of wine and get that friend to delete her pity party post in the sober light of day)

 

[Stefan]

Beautifully said!

Denville I can only speculate why Tessy has gone private on her instagram but perhaps it's to try and block the hurtful untruths being said about her

If she wants a really private account she should either remove all the Media people and royal followers from her instagramm or make a new account which is only accessible by her real friends.

 

[LadyFinn]

Is that facebook account an *active* account or just one that has been forgotten and left unattended? There are millions of face book accounts and I bet there are many of those that are dead end accounts that are not used today......

I don't know, I am not registered to any social media, only to this forum.

 

[JR76]

Isn't the point with it being her Instagram and Facebook accounts that she can post whatever she wants?

 

[SLV]

Yes, it is. But if you have a public role, it is perhaps wise to have a public and a private account to keep things separate.

 

[JR76]

Why? Tessy doesn't seem to have any problems with it so why should we?

 

[moby]

Isn't the point with it being her Instagram and Facebook accounts that she can post whatever she wants?

Of course, but the more of your private life you share to strangers, the more you are judged and the more your content will be taken out of context. That's how social media works, unfortunately, and it is true for everyone famous and unknown.

For "famous" people (and institutions) also, if used effectively, social media is a tool for controlling image and ensuring you control the media narrative about your persona. It is either naive or brave of her to think she can post what she wants.

 

[Soula]

If she wants a really private account she should either remove all the Media people and royal followers from her instagramm or make a new account which is only accessible by her real friends.

I dare say she's probably doing that, and there's no way we would know so speculation won't get us anywhere

Re her current account, on the face of it it would be difficult to sort out who's who with all the creative user names but it also promotes the important work she does

I'm truly surprised that not many seem to appreciate that

Her posts are so very mild and innocuous I continue to be amazed at the negativity they have garnered on this thread

Compare them the posts of Marie Chantal and particularly Maria Olympia of Greece.....

 

[Prisma]

"Princess Tessy loses court case to reveal financial offer to press"

https://twitter.com/x/status/938451149992099841

I'm going to bed and don't have time to summarize the long legal document below:

HRS Louis Xavier Marie Guillaume Prince of Luxembourg, Prince of Nassau and Prince of Bourbon-Parma v HRH Tessy Princess of Luxembourg, Princess of Nassau and Princess of Bourbon-Parma & Anor [2017] EWHC 3095 (Fam) (05 December 2017)

Hearing dates: 19 October 2017
HTML version of Judgement on 5 December 2017 on the restriction order

 

[carina_a]

Application for a Reporting Restriction Order

...to determine a dispute between 'the husband' and 'the wife' as to the proper ambit of a reporting restriction order applied for by the husband to regulate the reporting of these financial remedy proceedings. The Telegraph Media Group Ltd (hereafter 'TMG') is a respondent to the application.

Result:
This order prohibits the publishing or broadcasting in any newspaper, magazine, public computer network, internet website, sound or television broadcast or cable or satellite programme service or otherwise of:

(a) any information relating to the parties' finances, including their income, assets, financial resources, expenditure, financial needs or requirements;

(b) the address of the former matrimonial home identified in the Schedule to this order, any financial or legal information relating to the former matrimonial home and any information concerning the current or future arrangements in respect of the former matrimonial home;

(c) any information relating to the third party identified in the Schedule to this order;

(d) any settlement offers made in these proceedings, whether openly or without prejudice;

(e) any information relating to the parties' children as identified in the Schedule to this order;

whether such information is contained in disclosure or evidence provided in these proceedings by any party, potential party or witness, referred to in correspondence in these proceedings, or referred to in submissions made in these proceedings on behalf of the parties or others in writing or orally.

------------
In short, Tessy wants to publish some information about to rebute the negative allegations some media has against her; Louis applies to restrict the information she can publish; Judge ruled in Louis' favour.

 

[Pranter]

3rd party? Hmmmm


LaRae

 

[MARG]

There is no logical basis for Tessy to have a title after the divorce. It seems common in the modern royal fandom to expect a title for everyone, as if just being married and divorced to a prince for a period of time merits a woman to come away with a title for life. The Alexandra case was extraordinary enough. Really, in Alexandra's case it did not make any logical sense, though I suppose it was just the Queen's way of showing her respect for all the charity work she had done and continued to some extent. For Tessy to take a title after divorce, I think it would be equally if not more illogical. Why? Just keep it simple. Not married to the prince anymore? OK, not a princess. It goes back to the way it was before the marriage. Let her revert back to her name. There's nothing wrong with her name.

My feeling is that Tessy hasn't always been wise in what she posted. She seems to have remedied that. However, I still have a problem with the whole "Princess" thing which seems to be a "branding tool" for her endeavours. It does not mean she gets to keep it. That is just the way it is.

Excuse my ignorance but what was the "Alexandra" case? I'm really intrigued. I 'get' the "Princess Alice" thing but am not up with the other

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

My feeling is that Tessy hasn't always been wise in what she posted. She seems to have remedied that. However, I still have a problem with the whole "Princess" thing which seems to be a "branding tool" for her endeavours. It does not mean she gets to keep it. That is just the way it is.

Excuse my ignorance but what was the "Alexandra" case? I'm really intrigued.

Joachim of Denmark's ex Alexandra was granted the title 'Countess of Fredriksborg' by QM after divorce.

What a shame that 2 adults cannot find a solution behind closed doors but drag their family issues in the mud.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

3rd party? Hmmmm


LaRae

The First Party is Prince Louis of Luxembourg
The Second Party is Tessy Antony
The Third Party is the Telegraph Media Group

 

[Pranter]

The First Party is Prince Louis of Luxembourg
The Second Party is Tessy Antony
The Third Party is the Telegraph Media Group

Ah...ok I either missed it or forgot about it...why are the Telegraph Media Group being involved, what did they publish that is pertaining to this case?


LaRae

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Ah...ok I either missed it or forgot about it...why are the Telegraph Media Group being involved, what did they publish that is pertaining to this case?


LaRae

Tessy feels aggrieved by the (social) media portraying her as a gold digger. Prince Louis -wiser and sadder- understands Tessy's feelings but feels ignoring (social media) is the best option, how hard that might be. Tessy wanted to disclose details of the couple's private information to the media (Telegraph Media Group) to show that she can not be blamed for being a gold digger.

Prince Louis has protested. Yes: he is a son of the Grand-Duke, but he has no public role in or outside Luxembourg. To illustrate this: he is a student and he lived an anonymous life in the USA en now in the United Kingdom. The Prince feels that his (and his childrens') right on having an undisturbed private lifesphere (an European Human Right) would be infringed when Tessy and the Telegraph would go in detail.

The Telegraph plays the drum of Freedom of Expression / Freedom of Press. The British Judge however followed the EU jurisprudence, set in various lawsuits: infringement of the right on an undisturbed private life can only be allowed when the right of the general public (the public interest) outweighs the right on having an undisturbed private lifesphere.

The British Judge agreed with Prince Louis that "the public interest" -in this case- did not outweigh his and his childrens' right on an undisturbed private life. There was no justification to give private details to the public. The British Judge agreed with Prince Louis' viewpoint and dismissed Tessy and The Telegraph.

 

[rominet09]

Thank you for all these infos

 

[Marengo]

Thanks for the clarifications. I missed this law suit as well.

AFAIK Prince Louis has not dragged anybody or anything through the mud. Only Tessy and her 'friends' did.

A wise decision by the British court btw.

 

[Pranter]

Many thanks Duc!


LaRae

 

[burbankstorylady]

It is astonishing how immature she is. Sorry but there is no other word for it. Immaturity is not a crime by itself, but it is surprising to find it so pronounced in her. She seems to feel entitled to everything, even to our good opinion, and she does not like that anyone out there might not have a good opinion of her.

 

[SLV]

Well, not liking that others might not have a good opinion of her is a natural reaction. I would like it if all the people around me would like me, but you can't please everyone.
While I don't agree that going to the media with her story is a wise thing to do. If Tessy is going to try and find a new job in a sector that heavily depends on public opinion, then wanting to alter that opinion in her favour is a natural thing to do. Not neccessarily a wise thing, but understandable.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

I have to say, but I agree with Prince Louis and the British court in this case. Tessy is only making the situation more hurtful for herself by airing her private feelings and releasing private statistics as she is "feeding the trolls". She has known Louis for a long time and should realise that this is the sort of thing that royals and other people in the public eye regularly get, particularly in the tabloids. She should just remember that tabloids are mere rag trade and are not to be taken seriously - or personally. They would do the same to anyone well known in her position. The tabloids will see her as an easy target because they will know that she is sensitive about their content and portrayals of her; and will only continue.
I have learnt myself through my own internet exchanges that ignoring those who are spreading negativity is the best reaction. Unfortunately the tabloids will never learn because it's how they make their money.

 

[Katrianna]

The Court made the correct decision in this case. I realize that Tessy is a smart young woman who has achieved many admirable goals while married and raising two young boys with Louis. That being said, Tessy has not made wise choices during the divorce proceedings with her social media postings. Yes, she may want to court public opinion to side with her is natural, but not wise at all. Public opinion can back fire on her and she'll be left regretting actions.
To petition the Court to release private details of the couple's info just because she's upset the media labeled her a gold digger, was an immature move for a woman who portrays herself as strong, educated and independent. She needs to get over it, get through the divorce and begin a new life. Oh and never, ever talk in negative terms or bad mouth Louis to the boys.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

Tessy feels aggrieved by the (social) media portraying her as a gold digger. Prince Louis -wiser and sadder- understands Tessy's feelings but feels ignoring (social media) is the best option, how hard that might be. Tessy wanted to disclose details of the couple's private information to the media (Telegraph Media Group) to show that she can not be blamed for being a gold digger.

Prince Louis has protested. Yes: he is a son of the Grand-Duke, but he has no public role in or outside Luxembourg. To illustrate this: he is a student and he lived an anonymous life in the USA en now in the United Kingdom. The Prince feels that his (and his childrens') right on having an undisturbed private lifesphere (an European Human Right) would be infringed when Tessy and the Telegraph would go in detail.

The Telegraph plays the drum of Freedom of Expression / Freedom of Press. The British Judge however followed the EU jurisprudence, set in various lawsuits: infringement of the right on an undisturbed private life can only be allowed when the right of the general public (the public interest) outweighs the right on having an undisturbed private lifesphere.

The British Judge agreed with Prince Louis that "the public interest" -in this case- did not outweigh his and his childrens' right on an undisturbed private life. There was no justification to give private details to the public. The British Judge agreed with Prince Louis' viewpoint and dismissed Tessy and The Telegraph.

Thanks Duc

I expected far better from Tessy. Seriously, courting the media to "help" her image is a very naïve thought. She isn't thinking before acting. Unfortunately for her, this will tarnish her reputation

 

[MARG]

Inviting the Telegraph to join her in a suit against her ex-husband was, I believe, the final nail in her coffin. She wanted to expose the family's financial background which is inextricably joined to that of the Grand Ducal family of Luxembourg.

She made a conscious decision to involve the Telegraph to give her more "reasonable cause" but I believe that has merely reinforced the impression that she wishes to utilise her royal connections in her future endeavours. The very same reasoning she using when she argued to keep her title and surname.

Tessy's lack of restraint and blatant attempts to plead innocence on all counts has rebounded on her and seen her called a gold-digger and worse. That she should treat her title, surname and now not only their family home but the family finances, with it's inevitable connection to the Ducal House, as "assets" merely underscores the gravity of her mistake.

She is definitely naive if she thought the Telegraph wanted to know about "Princess" Tessy Antony's financial business. They were after bigger fish and she was going to open that door enough for them to pry as much as they could. Loius knew it and obviously so did the Judge.