Friday, October 18, 2013

Politiken Reports That A Monarchy Expert Claims The Danish Royal House Is A Modern Media Dynasty, But the Cracks in That Facade Are Too Obvious



Real messaging going on regarding the Danish Royal Family in thissie! Lots of food for thought here! Speaks directly to the royal facade and how it's not always going so well. They speak fairly directly about Fred and Yrma's "marriage" and about how tradition says you fake it so you make it. Well, so much about doing what's right for Derfie's health and chucking Madam into the drink! This gives a good history and backgroud to the sycophancy that happens even to this day. They remind that when Daisy and Henri got married, there was only one TV channel, so naturally, 8 hours of a grand wedding will tick off the republicans and forever charm the romantics of the nation.

Very insightful observations here, too. The royals have always been clueless about being "normal"! And they are absolutely right that the very things many of us love - photies of them all glammed up at weddings and galas and the candids at the Olympics and other biggie occasions - are the very things that contribute to them being party hounds who have no worry in the world except how to match their dress to their blue Elephant Order ribbon. Pas på, Daisy!

Article: Politiken

The Royal House Is a Modern Media Dynasty

For over 150 years, the royal family lived by and with the great media exposure
by Jes Fabricius Møller, Associate Professor of History at Saxo Institute, University of Copenhagen , specialising in European monarchies recent history, in particular


Frederik IX and Queen Ingrid were characterised by the fact that they already as the crown princely couple had developed a much more active relationship with the media than we had previously been accustomed to.

It was much more common to see pictures of the royal family in everyday situations, it became an increasingly central feature of the royal family to represent values ​​that the average Dane could identify with.

In 1949 the School of Radio was invited inside Amalienborg at the home of the young royal family. Frederik IX looked around it, which according to him "in fact does not differ so very much from an ordinary normal Danish home". So far so good, but the king immediately continued, "here we are on the first floor, the one with the tapestries", and so any semblance of normality with the Danish evaporated.

That error at the king's hand was not that he had tapestries hanging, but he showed no understanding that it was something special to have them. It was a mistake that did not recur. Frederik IX and Queen were generally very good at their job. Famous are the images where you can see the king hugging his wife who he could find to call Queen Ingrid, and the relationship between the parents and three daughters was also openly affectionate. Although the scenography was a royal ship or a castle, it represented the family life that many Danes either had or wanted to have.

The trend began in the early 1800s, and during the 20th century, it was an outright rarity that royal allowed him- or herself portraying the specific characteristics of their dignity: ermine, orb, crown or scepter. Family values ​​are replaced in part the dynastic family model where the interests of national or dynastic interests prevail over the individual prince or princess . This makes it a way, still to a certain extent . But it's just as well been extremely important that royal families are also happy, or at least can pretend that they are an ideal family.
 
Far from all royal marriages being happy, but it helps undeniably, if there is a correlation between the real family and mediated family. For the same reason, it is essential for a modern royal marriage, there is a feeling based connection, what you call a love match and not an arranged marriage.

The public will only accept a royal marriage if it is likely that it is based on mutual and equal emotional appeal. If this attraction is not available, it is said to be essential that one can pretend. Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer's wedding in 1981 is a good example. The marriage was by all accounts a rational party from the beginning , and it would probably have been possible to maintain the illusion of a love match, as long as both parties had been willing to accept the premise from the beginning.

Indiscriminate pandering is not necessarily in the royal family's own interest. For the generation that Frederik IX belonged to, there was the added challenge that it was not yet acceptable for royal - and certainly not for heirs to the throne - to marry below their rank, even with nobility.

It restricted the supply of potential spouses.
But at the same time there was built up in the public an expectation that the crown prince entered into a love match.
He did indeed, as he in 1923 fell for the Greek princess Olga and got his father and the Danish Government's consent to marry her. However, the slowdown of his emotions was quick, and he broke it off with her. This was no great scandal, yet enough for the Danish crown prince to remain a bachelor for many years to come.

The ten years younger Swedish Princess Ingrid was a hot topic on the European royal marriage market. She was a modern woman who looked good, smoke cigarettes and drove cars. She was in the press associated with several prominent royal bachelors, among others, the British Prince George. He ended up marrying Olga's sister, Marina, a marriage that took the European public, because the couple outwardly lived up to the ideals of the Enlightenment. Later on it was found that this is far from the case.

Also, Crown Prince Frederik was a hot name on the rumours, and he was now linked with the Swedish princess. In January 1935, Berlingske Tidende had so much faith in rumours about an upcoming engagement, the newspaper dared to put the story on the front page of the paper's width and with the greatest types: 'The crown prince engaged to Princess Ingrid'. The newspaper should not have. Next day, the humble print a retraction issued by the Cabinet office. The sweat in Sværtegade! In March of that year it was now Politiken's turn to put the rumour of Ingrid and Frederik on the front page as the main story: 'Toay at 10am the Crown Prince's engagement to Princess Ingrid was declared'. This time the rumours were true. Or you'd be better off saying that Politiken had an exceptionally good source for the newspaper and could quote a private telephone conversation between the Danish Crown Prince and his future fiancee as evidence of history. The interesting thing is that the newspaper shamelessly admitted that it had in that way slipped into the royals' private lives.

In the Politiken newspaper in Stockholm, Paul Sabroe, who wrote under the name The Golden Blonde, described the engagement as if there was a sports reportage. He took among other time how long it took the first kiss, as the fiancée exchanged at the railway station in Södertälje. This ironic approach to politics meet audience needs to get curiosity made ​​without alienating the Republican segment among the many radical readers away.

One of the best examples of this style comes from Politiken reports from a great trip to Jutland, which Frederik VIII, in collaboration with the Head of Government, left the man JC Christensen, in 1908. Christensen had been eagerly awaiting the king's political wagon. The trip was intended to sell a defense to the Liberal-skeptical hinterland. The radicals were then in opposition, and the party newspaper had sent one of their sharpest pens, Andreas recovery that began its depiction of the royal visit to Varde as follows:

'The king arrived early this morning at Varde, where people from all over Jutland were summoned together to see him and the big agricultural fair. The town for the occasion was coated with garlandry as for the better funerals. Outside Ligkistesnedkerens Boutique, a row of Christmas trees was planted, in place of honour at the gates was placed what looked to be a heavily drunken Norwegian lion, which on closer inspection turns out to be Vardes city arms'.

For in just a few lines to associate death, burial and drunkenness, he managed to recover from the beginning an impression of a sad and amateurish performance where the royal family appeared as parallels to the show's dumb prize cows and thus powerful extras in the newspaper's campaign against the government of general and JC Christensen in particular.

It was released for the press in the early 20th century. The papers were then unfeigned organs of party interests, and the royal family were shown not spared. However, it will come as no surprise to most that one of the strongest attacks on the royal family came from told the paper. There was in 1909 created what might be called a moral panic in Copenhagen over the rumours of widespread gay sex that was spoken about, not least in the Copenhagen garrisons. The paper went so far as to hire two private investigators who examined the spread of immoral behaviour in the Regiment.

The newspaper's investigative journalism did not bear as many fruits as hoped. Only a few 'perverse males' were detected and removed. The newspaper The Social Democrat mingled and did not fail to insinuate that homosexuals like used game with the Royals and the higher nobility. Told the paper facing persistent, but indirect accusations against Prince Harald of having ties to the gay community, with the understanding that the prince himself was gay. The magazine's editor, Mr. Matthiesen, was accused of also having plastered private detectives in Prince Harald's life, which he denied.

Matthiesen ended up being charged and sentenced to three months in prison for insulting the monarchy, but acquitted of having spied on Prince Harald.

Prince Harald had to return to live with gossip about his sexuality, a fate he had to share with many other royals before and since. It is probably most famous example comes from Sweden. Gustav V paid in the 1930s large amounts of money to a man who threatened to hang the king out as gay. The case came to light after the king's death in 1950, and proved just as devastating to the King's legacy as if the blackmailer had done it threatened.

The story shows how exposed the Royals are in the modern media reality. The royal family enjoys perhaps judicial immunity, but they are brought to the public's merciless court daily.

The media revolution had begun already in the 1860s. A new technique, wood carving, allowed the reproduction of images in a high quality, large warehouses and at short notice. It was used by Illustrated Journal, Denmark's first illustrated weekly magazine, which started to appear in 1859.

The King substance filled from beginning well up in the columns, and especially the big weddings gave rise to great articles with full-page reportage images. By Frederik and Ingrid's wedding in 1935 was the radio come. There were half a million radio licenses in Denmark, and it means that almost the entire population had access to listen to todays ceremony in Stockholm, which was published in both Danish and Swedish radio.

Royal dominance in the media culminated by heir to the throne, Princess Margrethe's wedding in 1967. On the actual wedding day, 10 June, Danish television broadcasted a total of six half -hour television broadcasts. There was, as we know, only one channel then. Of them, there were a half-hour children's broadcasting and about half an hour news. The rest were broadcasting from the wedding ceremony in the Church of Holmen, the reception at Fredensborg and a Danish-French gala evening.

This means that 85 percent of its output on Danish television that day was busy with the heiress's wedding. Although today sent several hours from the royal events on the major channels , there nevertheless has a lesser impact on the ikkeroyalt minded viewers' patience because the royal transmissions represents a relatively small proportion of the total TV viewing. But even under the conditions drag king substance is still very large audiences. About half of the population follows the example. Queen's speech in one of the live broadcasts. It is quite exceptional in an otherwise fragmented media reality.

I know DR and TV2, and therefore the rates they also continue on a massive coverage of the royal events. They are usually quite critical angle to the material they cover. Benevolent presenters and experts are trying as much as possible to get three, four or five hours to go with mostly polite generalities. It is no easy or particularly grateful genre to move in.

Indiscriminate pandering is not necessarily in the royal family's own interest. If media consumers do not have anything but the photos of the big parties, it is clear that they are easily left with the impression of the royals as useless triflers who lives a life of luxury at taxpayers' expense.

At the same time the royal family as the entire public sector is facing a new era of business logic that requires result-oriented efficiency and profitability.

Do we get value for money? The task that the royal family is facing is to convince the public that they have a real feature and adds the community a real value. It is not easy.


**********


And some comments from the website:

1. Anachronism
The Royal Family is and will be a ridiculous anachronism. And like any other anachronisms becomes more and more hilarious and ridiculous over time.Monarchy can easily be dispensed with. There is no reason that we should let it replace a president.The only real state judicial function the royal family has, is to hold a "King's Round" after an election - that is where the party leaders in turn show up at Amalienborg to point to a royal investigator who must explore the possibilities of forming a government. Margrethe says, however, just hello and goodbye - for upon entering, the respected party leaders tell the Lord Chamberlain who they will point to.This feature could appropriately be left to the Supreme Court President - and VIPs are no justification for the royal family disappearing.

2. It may be dispensed with ..."Do we get value for money? The task that the royal family is facing is to convince the public that they have a real feature and add a real value to the community. It is not easy."Our relationship with the royal house as well as our relationship to smoking in restaurants and discos in the 90s: inconceivable that it could be abolished - but now that it has happened, unthinkable that it can be inserted ...The monarchy rests on a habit. Habits are hard to change, but the new generation of monarchs have , with their luxury life and manageable tasks that do not add real value to society, made ​​the first step.The monarchy door will shut with Margrethe II, but the media will probably keep it alive for many years after, because there is money in the shit.

2a. Answer: They are dispensable ...
I can easily follow your post here. But then I could well imagine and know what you want as an alternative to the Royal Family. For you must not tell that it will be cheaper by a president or the like. I am unfortunately here in "the same ditch."


2b. Answer: They are dispensable ...
For me the price is not the most important thing. A president can act politically and comment as well. It is what we choose her or him, and it involves significant tasks that have real value (hopefully, otherwise we trip over him / her).Finland and many other countries are doing brilliantly as republics, and the royal family has never been able to demonstrate real value.

2c. Answer: They are dispensable ...
Of course a president is cheaper. One should not pay the whole the presidential family - and since you generally chooses a politician who through many years of seem has earned the reward to the record, it is also limited, how many years he or she subsequently must have a pension. A president need not be selected through an animalistic election campaign. One can for example use the German model, where the President is appointed. Some object that it is undemocratic. But the royal house is also.


 


4 comments:

  1. Watch out Mary!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The whole lot of them should watch out for the end of the monarchy as taxpayers are tired of paying for their ostentatious lifestyle. Why don't they get a real job like everyone else? What in the world makes these people so special that they can bleed the taxpayers like leeches? One day the Danes will wise up and it should be sooner rather than later

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great article. It is informative in a historical sense and subtle in relation to the reality of Fred and Mary's marriage. It is good to see at least some people in Denmark dont buy the b...t told by or on behalf of F & M and their 'fairtytale meeting' and marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Let´s face this: If the monarchy ends with Margrethe, what kind of job could Fred do for eat? He has a degree in political sciences, he can work in the parliament of Denmark, but he doesn´t like politics, the only thing he likes is: SPORTS!!, so he can work in some sportive activity, as public relation officer or helping a professional trainer.... Mary must work (they have four children and must help to pay the bills as every couple here). She can learn how to sew and have her own clothing store (she can´t work here as a lawyer, because she never learned Danish). They can go to Australia also, and find their lives there; he can be part of the Australian Olympic Committee and she can profit from her (ex) royal condition. The Schackenborgs can work in agriculture and finances. Joachim has a degree in agrarian economics and Marie studied economics too, they both speak five languages, so can stay in Denmark with us. The end is coming soon. Be prepare royals!!!

    ReplyDelete