Talk:Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Flag
Portal
 Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark falls within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a project to create and improve Denmark-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, all interested editors are welcome!

Satellite Image of Denmark
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Flag
Portal
 Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Automated translations

The original author of this page posted a machine-translated version to the German-language Wikipedia. This was not a really good idea, as there are numerous syntax and semantics errors in the translation, which are frequently obscuring the meaning.

In the future, if you have an article you feel should be translated to another language, it would be preferable to contact the Wikipedians of the target Wikipedia and ask them. Automated translations are never good enough to post in the Wikipedia.

Thanks --Skriptor 14:43, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Name

We should figure out what this page ought to be called. I would tentatively suggest Crown Princess Mary of Denmark, but if anyone could suggest something preferable, I'd be grateful. At any rate, we don't use styles like HRH in article titles (it's not HM Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, for example). - Montréalais 20:06, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

What is her style? If she's not referred to as "HRH The Crown Princess" and instead "HRH Crown Princes Mary", then the page belongs at "Crown Princess Mary of Denmark" and not "Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark". --Jiang 21:32, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Looks like it's been cleared up, and matches the format of Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark.--Montrealais
That doesn't answer my question. Both could be wrong. --Jiang
Her webpage says (quoted the linked page in full, bolding's mine for clarity)
Born on 5 February 1972. Mary Elizabeth, Crown Princess. Daughter of Professor John Dalgleish Donaldson and Henrietta Clark Donaldson. On 14 May, Mary Elizabeth Donaldson became HRH Crown Princess Mary of Denmark on her marriage to HRH Crown Prince Frederik. The wedding ceremony took place in Copenhagen Cathedral, and the wedding festivities were held at Fredensborg Palace.
To me it suggests that it ought to be Crown Princess Mary of Denmark. It's entirely possible that the Danes don't do Royal names in the same way as Brits do. Felix the Cassowary 23:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The agreed naming convention used throughout wikipedia is name, Crown Prince/ss of state unless their is a specific title for the heir/heiress apparent. We do not try to match each title exactly to the local form used because many states used different formulas that may be unrecognisable outside the individual state. In addition different formulae reflect different language constructions which may not transfer to english in a readable manner. It was overwhelmingly agreed after a long discussion on wikipedia and on the wikilist that for clarity it is important that there is one recognisable format for users to instantly recognise. The local variants can be outlined in the article where they can be explained (if necessary explaining linguistic and cultural variants) but it has long been the practice to use the one format in naming for ease of reader recognition.

Someone moved this page to a format that is incompatable with the Naming Conventions and so is out of sequence with other crown prince/esses. I have put it back to conform with the agreed naming conventions. FearÉIREANN 23:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes by an anon

  • Can someone confirm or deny the changes made by an anon IP here - [1] ? -- Chuq 07:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Courtship

17 Nov 2005 the courtship was changed by adding a story: "According to some magazines, Mary was told about a group of princes being in the pub." That certainly contradicts Beatrice Tarnawski, the hostess of the group at Slip Inn 16 September 2000. She is the only person in the group, besides Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary, that has ever spoken to the media about the events that evening. Tarnawski has told over and over, how surprised she was to learn that the group of Spanish athletes that she had prepared to meet, turned out to be a group of European royals. It was impossible for any of her invited Australian guests to know who the guests were before her, hence I removed the fabrication and reverted the chapter to the Ninka book quotes edited here earlier.

  • 20 Nov 2005 the courtship was changed by adding a sentence about the alleged prior knowledge of the European princes's presence at the Slip Inn that night. When they appeared as a total surprise to the hostess, how could her guests know about them before her? The same editor's story about any controversy on Crown Princess Mary interviews, is not real, as those only existed where they were constructed; on some English message boards.
    • 23 Nov 2005 Charmaria added the media / royal board fabrication that Mary Donaldson knew in advance that she would meet princes at Slip Inn 16 Sept 2000. (The Crown Prince Couple was not observed in France during their honyemoon.)

THIS IS THE TRUE STORY Without question, Mary Donaldson knew that a member of the Spanish Royal Family would be at the event Beatrice Tarnawski invited her to. She knew that Bruno Gomez-Acebo, a nephew to King Juan Carlos of Spain, would be attending. She knew in advance that Bruno was a royal, had he not been she probably not have attended the event. She, like the hostess, was unaware that the other royals would be attending until she was introduced to them. Mary Donaldson was introduced to Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark as, "This is Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark, this is Mary". Frederik, like the other royals, was wearing a large photo identification around his neck which read "HRH Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark". So unless she was both deaf & blind, she most certainly knew who he was. Some journos & the Danish Royal Palace want people to believe the "they locked eyes & fell instantly in love" story, which people love, but isn't true. It sells more magazines and makes them look good, but it's not the true story.

You will have no problem providing a reputable source then. Xtra 08:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

So far no source is provided, but where and by whom is Bruno Gomez-Acebo regarded as royal? I'd say nowhere and by none. Certainly not in Spain! Vupti 14:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian royals

Maybe they are referring to Prince Leonard as the first Australian royal? :-). Only joking!--202.154.105.254 22:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IIRC there was another Australian woman who married a member of the royal family of some Muslem country. Maybe in the 1970s? I base this on a vague recollection of Letter to the Editor in the Age, so it might not exactly be very reliable. Felix the Cassowary 23:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean Susan Cullen-Ward, the wife of the pretender to the Albanian throne? Thayvian 05:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguity

Crown Princess Mary met Crown Prince Frederik in the Slip Inn, in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia during the 2000 Summer Olympics. There were several other European royal princes and princesses there also.

Does the second sentence mean there were several other royals in the Slip Inn, or just in Sydney?--202.154.105.254 22:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what the original author meant, but there were other royals in the Slip Inn. [2] indicates that Mary and two friends met Frederik in the Slip Inn. Frederik was with Nikolaos, Prince of Greece, Prince Joaquim of Denmark and Princess Martha of Norway. Thayvian 06:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Censored ?

Where has the reference to Princess Mary living with Brent Annels gone? That is part of her history, and relevant to a princess's history. This has been censored by the PR machine in Copenhagen. Hence the anon. IP They are embarrassed about Princess Mary's past. Check the Royal Blue forums for debate and discussion about Mary Donaldson and all the lies gradually uncovered about her background.

Fiona

I deleted that part because it has never been confirmed by either parties that they ever lived together anywhere!

Regarding your (g_w’s) reference to Royal Blue: I say pffffff


I doesn't matter. Everyone has been with someone at sometime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.178.91 (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire.

Sunday Tasmanian, 23may04

Old flame ends his long silence By KELVIN HEALEY

..."She's a fantastic person," Mr Annells said. "She's very genuine, smart, honest and down-to-earth and I think the way she has been embraced by the Danish royal family is a clear reflection of that."...

"The relationship we had over the seven years was effectively [over] four or five years ago and we've remained good friends," he said....

"I wish her and her partner every happiness," he said....

Princess Mary spoke publicly about her relationship with Mr Annells in a documentary released on Danish television shortly before the wedding.

"I had a boyfriend for seven years, but we drifted apart," she said....

Mr Annells and the then Ms Donaldson lived together in South Yarra during their relationship and had a joint business interest.

She was secretary of company Kingcash while Mr Annells was a director between 1993 and 1995."

There seems nothing here worthy of whitewashing. Engleham 13:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numerous errors

I reverted an article by Mowens35 because it contained numerous errors. :

  • 1. Never lawyer. Media invention.
  • 2. Never real estage agent. Media invention.
  • 3. Father's second wife is Susan Elizabeth Donaldson (nee Horwood), an author using several pseudonyms.
  • 4. Sister Jane pharmacist.
  • 5. Sister Patricia intensive care nurse.
  • 6. Brother John geologist.
  • 7. Crown Prince Frederik never participated in the olympics.
  • 8. Honeymoon destination never confirmed. Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet article 2005 stated they stayed on a farm in KENYA for a while.
  • 9. Name of ex-boyfriend not in the referred book.
  • 10. 7 interviews a 3 hours makes 21 hours of interviews.
  • 11. Wolden-Raethinge's book NOT a biography at all. It only contains replies from those 21 hours of interviews.
  • 12. Bad translations from the book.
  • 13. She was a citizen of the United Kingdom from birth, but in 1975 she also became a citizen of Australia.
  • 14. Did NOT convert religion. As a protestant presbyterian she simply entered lutheranism.
  • 15. Denmark does indeed allow women to accede the throne! No new laws necessary in that regard. However, male issue pass older female issue.

Probably more errors, but as some insists on re-publishing them, no point in editing. In my opinion this article proves wikipedia is absolutely unreliable as a source

An editor makes appropriate changes, rather than reverting an article in a preemptory manner that appears to have more to do with personal pique than editorial precision. I have updated the texts based on your comments but it would be extremely courteous of you to identify yourself with four tildes as other Wikipedians do. As for Wiki being unreliable as a source, by now you should realize that as an online encyclopaedia to which anyone can contribute, it is a work in progress and errors can be made, generally in good faith. However, these errors can be corrected. I gladly have made the following changes, based upon your comments. And if you spot any other errors, please be kind enough and professional enough to point out the errors, provide citations to disprove or clarify them, and then edit accordingly. That is what you are to do as a Wikipedian. It would be best if you put the pique and high dudgeon aside, however. It makes the job more enjoyable if we work in concert rather than in opposition.

1. Deleted. 2. Deleted. 3. Clarified. 4,5,6. Deleted professions until further notice. 7. Deleted reference to participation. 8. Clarified and added newspaper reference you cited. 9. I did not say the book mentioned him by name; she talked of a man she was involved with for seven years, and it was Annells she was talking about. I have merely identified the unidentified party, which is certainly no secret. 10. Clarified. 11. Clarified. 12. If you would like to translate the relevant passages yourself or have someone else do it, please go right ahead. At present, they are the best translations available for the topic at hand. 13. Clarified. 14. Clarified. 15. Clarified. Mowens35 10:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From above: "3. She was a citizen of the United Kingdom from birth, but in 1975 she also became a citizen of Australia." — Why was she not a citizen of Australia from the date of her birth? She was born in Australia in 1972, and birth in Australia at that time conferred Australian citizenship automatically. (It no longer does: to be an Australian citizen by virtue of birth in Australia now, at least one parent has to be an Australian citizen or a permanent resident, but in 1972 the immigration or nationality status of one's parents did not matter.) Ondewelle (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] That pouch

User:Mowens35 has explained to me offline the change he put in place about the Prince's remarks about the "kangaroo in the pouch", and I appreciate his scholarship. However, I am not sure that all readers of Wikipedia would know the reproductive cycle of the Kangaroo, hence I have re-introduced the explanation about how the female kangaroo carries a juvenile (called a joey) in a pouch for up to a year." It's actually quite cute that the Prince made this culturally-specific Australian allusion in respect of his wife. Peter Ellis 14:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More errors

Family: * spelling Frederik -- I doubt Susan's legal name has been Horwood the past 40 years Courtship: * spelling Nikolaos , * no hyphen Märtha Louise, * add Crown Prince Felipe

  • Met ex-boyfriend as fellow student on Tasmania university, he was born in Hobart and was son of a Tasmanian chief of tourism. In my opion all stuff on ex-boyfriends of a person who became a royal at the age of 32 are entirely tabloid stuff.

Pregnancy: * Interview with Denton done sunday 13.february in Copenhagen, first time screened monday 28.february 2005

"Soon after the wedding, the Crown Prince told reporters that they wouldn't have to wait long before he would be announcing"

  • Not exactly. 15.august 2004 asked about how many they would be at the olympics in 2008, he said :”Om 4 år skulle der gerne være lidt flere kænguruer i pungen.” In 4 years there gladly should be some more joeys in the pouch.

Residences: * spelling Frederik

All you do is complain and refuse to identify yourself. Why don't you just make constructive suggestions instead of sounding aggrieved? The Horwood reference comes from a variety of sources, including the Danish royal website, from CP Mary's own biographical page (click the Curriculum VItae to confirm); surely she approved the ID of her stepmother. And Wiki convention is to spell the late King Frederick's name as FREDERICK, not FREDERIK, as the Crown Prince does. (Check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). I'm happy to fix what you haven't in the text. Also, I cannot add Prince Felipe to the list of people who were at the Slip-Inn because his name was not in the direct quote; anyone knows you cannot alter quotes. And his presence doesn't make their meeting any more or less significant. And by your reckoning, the kangaroo quote was uttered three months after the wedding, which is "shortly after" by anybody's calendar, except perhaps yours. By the way, are you a relative? Or just a professional chide? Mowens35 22:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Also, re the boyfriend issue ... If she had dated and/or lived with Annells for a year, that would be one thing. Instead, they maintained an apparently serious relationship for seven years. It is a relationship CP Mary has talked about, on record, so therefore it is part of the public record and certainly nothing to be ashamed about. In any other Wiki entry re a significant person, if he or she had been involved with an individual in what appears to have been a longstanding relationship, then Wiki would include it. (See entry on another "new" royal, Mette-Marit, CP of Norway.) Whether that individual has "become" a royal in the meantime has no bearing on the facts; becoming royal doesn't make one immune to the facts of one's life, even innocuous ones. (Once again, see entries for Mette-Marit and others.) Wiki is an encyclopaedia, not a censor. Unlike the Swedish royal family's website, which in the case of the beloved Princess Lilian completely glosses over the fact that her late husband, Prince Bertil, lived together for 33 years before they married. Mowens35 07:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't be surprised. I have it on good authority that a member of the British Royal Family is a contributor to wikipedia. (I have been told whom, but that is one secret not to be revealed!) If the person making anonymous contributions is a Danish royal, they aren't the first (or it is rumoured even the second) royal from Europe to contribute. FearÉIREANN 23:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then they should get their facts straight as a contributor. Wiki convention is to spell the late King Frederick's name thusly, NOT as Frederik. And Mary's own webpage gives her stepmother's maiden name as Horwood. Re I'll check around re who's contributing. I've got an insider who's a demi-royal. She might happy to do some sleuthing! Or probably just laugh at my desire to find the mole in the palace. Mowens35 23:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mary did live with Brent Annells, and they formed a company together called "Exciting Alternatives". I'm surprised at the censorship on Princess Mary - why are people frightened of truths about her? Yes, it's embarrassing to have a cousin-in-law who is a convicted child rapist, and Mary's family are downright embarrassing on more fronts, such as her father's quest for freebies on the Danes while failing to put energy into learning the language. I would have thought all this adds to Mary's likeability rather than otherwise. Unfortunately, this constant censorship devalues the page. Lyndella

[edit] Pregnancy

I added a paragraph to the "Pregnancy Announced" section, to reflect current events regarding the pregnancy of Crown Princess Mary. It is the paragraph about her being admitted to the hospital. If this in anyway conflicts with Wikipedia rules or conventions, please feel free to remove or edit.Prsgoddess187 15:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Added another paragraph on the release of Crown Princess Mary.Prsgoddess187 12:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Birth

On the morning of Sat. October 15, Crown Princess Mary has given birth to the future King of Denmark. Although they have not yet announced the name, he is likely to be named Christian as since Christian II all Danish Kings have been alternatley named Christian or Frederik. Mac Domhnaill 05:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

They should be creative and call him Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Xtra 00:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Crown Princess Mary's doctor, Morten Hedegaard, explained that the birth had started at Fredensborg before she was admitted to Rigshospitalet at about 15 (3pm) friday 14. october. Hence Mary did spend 10 hours there until she delivered her son. However, it seems she also had hours in labour at home. Her husband, Crown Prince Frederik, told the birth started naturally and in the normal way at home. He added that this gave the couple good time to get accustomed to the thought "this is it" before they calmly drove to the hospital. According to her friend, Amber Petty, Crown Princess Mary called her friday 14. october at 9:30pm Sydney time, to tell her "something was happening", meaning Mary called her already at 13:30 (1:30pm) friday Copenhagen time.
Amber also told she received another call from Mary on saturday at 11am Sydney time. That was about an hour after the birth of Mary's son, and that time coinside with the time the announcement of the birth of the danish Prince came on the Crown Prince Couple's website; saturday 15. october at around 3am Copenhagen time. (My sources: Many newspapers)

[edit] Formalities

It is normal practice to put the formalities of someone's title in the first paragraph, but why is it being repeated in every following paragraph? a simple "mary", "the crown princess" or "she" should be sufficient after the initial formalisms. Xtra 00:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citizenship

I will revert that chapter, as I do not see the relevance in giving attention to the only 2 no-votes, from the tiny political party Enhedslisten, in the parliament's third treatment of the law on Crown Princess Mary's citizenship, within this kind of article. All new citizenships in Denmark are given by parliamentary votes on special bills where each person's names are listed. Those laws contain several persons, but Crown Princess Mary's father-in-law Henri de Laborde de Monpezat and her ex-sister-in-law Alexandra Manley did indeed also get citizenship laws especially made for each of them. Vupti 14:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Style

As she was not born a princess, is she not technically Princess Frederik or The Crown Princess ?

I believe that they do things different in Denmark. On the Royal Family's website, she is mentioned as HRH The Crown Princess and HRH Crown Princess Mary [3]. Prsgoddess187 00:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that the Danish Royal Court does such things different from the British Royal Family's Court. However, this fact seems unknown to Brits and other English speaking persons, who imagine all Royals are styled and titled according to the British system. A few examples from official press releases: "Her Royal Highness Crown Princess Mary was admitted to the Obstetrics Ward" [4] "Her Royal Highness Crown Princess Mary was discharged from Hospital" [5] Vupti 12:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

09:16, 23 March 2006 Einhver: WHY change the danish royal court's official photo of Crown Princess Mary taken december 2004 with the official photo of Mary Donaldson taken september 2003? Vupti 11:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary, The Crown Princess

Mary has an air about her that makes you feel really...I don't know. Right. You never feel jealous of her for any reason at all. Never. Febe 05:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Education in Texas

this of is FALSE and get rid off this comment.

read here; www.kongehuset.dk; Kronprinsessens skolegang begyndte på Clear Lake City Elementary School i Houston, Texas, 1974-1975.

[edit] Fabricated danish controversy

Monday 7. august 2006 I spent hours giving info and links to more info on the fabricated story about the stated danish controversy over Crown Princess Mary's use of money. Thereafter the Controversy chapter in the article has been edited numerous times, which of course is OK. However, I do believe many wikipedia readers could benefit from opening the links I provided in my rewrite of that chapter. Vupti 19:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the controversy section should be put back into the article; it is part of her history and whether the controversy was fabricated or not, it is a legitimate addition to the article. Therefore, I have put it back, though edited so it sounds correct.Mowens35 15:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So did the Royal Danish Court have to send a very hefty check to an Australian bank to clear her circuit days spending on a credit card?

[edit] Pure FICTION on Mary not on for Wikipedia!!

I have removed the link to a completely fiction blog on Crown Princess Mary's life and activities that is added to the article several times. In my opinion this kind of stuff has no place in a Wikipedia biography. Check out the nonsense for yourself. Princess Mary fantasy blogspot Vupti 13:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've restored it. It clearly points out that it is a satirical blogspot and an external link. There are no libel issues. Lyndella

Vupti, please stop removing reference to the cpmary satirical blogspot. You do that daily, and I am tired of restoring it! Quite counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. This is an external link, and no satirical text is being added to the biography itself. Lyndella

You may want to read Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Free speech is wonderful. But this is an encyclopedia. The link in question does not add to the encyclopedic value of the article. WAS 4.250 06:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the wording in my piece at the top of this chapter. It is an absolutely no, no to edit the content of the discussion participations. Those are signed and intended to stand on this page as they are written as the respective editors's opinions.

Lyndella: "Vupti, please stop removing" It is not up to you as an editor to limit other editors's contributions on Wikipedia. And even you must have noticed; that blog is not regarded to be WikiProject Biography stuff by more editors than me. Vupti 13:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stepmother

Does anyone have verifiable information re the surname of Mary's stepmother at the time of her marriage to Mary's father? Was it Horwood, her maiden name, or was it another earlier married surname? The article just can't identify her as "Susan Elizabeth (nee Horwood)" as that looks ridiculous.Mowens35 15:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Here in Denmark we call her Susan Moody whenever she participates in any events. Don't know if that is much help though. I'll try to find a link on it though. 19:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Found it. Quote from their website: (http://www.kronprinsparret.dk/ac000c) On 5 September 2001 Professor John Donaldson married Susan Elizabeth Donaldson (née Horwood), an author from Britain. So her name was Horwood. Don't know why we call her Susan Moody then, though. 19:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Moody is her name for writing - I think she writes murder mysteries or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happychick13 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

To involved editors: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The use of unencyclopedic/unnecessary information

I viewed this page toady and was shocked to see someone had added biased and rude comments about Mary as well as changing names for example Frederik to Freddo and Donaldson to Boganson. I found this to be rude as well as very unencyclopedic, so I deleted this information immediately as well as added a section on marriage. If anyone else notices these types of additions please delete them as it not only is unencyclopedic but unnecessary. Thanks


hahahaha.


[edit] Crown Princess?

One may be a Crown Princess in one's own right (such as Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden); or by marriage (such as Crown Princess Mary of Denmark or Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway).

My understanding is that the title Crown Princess implies that the individual is in line to the throne, and that the subject of this article is not in line to the throne of Denmark? --Oden 21:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly not the practice in a Danish context. See e.g. the official website: [6] (English) and [7] (Danish). In case the Danish practice differs from other nations (I'm not sure), it would likely be the result of an archaic practice of mentioning wives by their husbands' titles. Two fictional couples from Matador might serve as an illustration: Konsul (Consul) Holm is married to Konsulinde Holm, but only the husband holds the title. The same with more common people: Murermester Jensen (Bricklayer Jensen) is married to Fru Murermester Jensen (Mrs. Bricklayer Jensen). The distinction you are thinking about is shown in the Danish word "Tronfølger" which literally means "Successor to the throne". This term is used exclusively for the future monarch. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Just like "Queen" can mean a reigning queen (q. regnant) or the wife of a king, so "Crown Princess" can mean the daughter and heir apparent to the monarch - or the wife of a Crown Prince. At least in Denmark. It is logical, too, since she will be queen one day. --dllu 11:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S.: Another example: in Danish, the wife of a colonel (oberst) is an "oberstinde". :o) It's much the same as the English practice of calling women Mrs. + their husband's full name (first & sur-). Albeit somewhat outdated today, but then this is royalty... --dllu 11:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change of citizenship and prenuptial agreement

In this section the following statement should have a citation. As it is it's an unattributed statement for which I’ve been unable to find any collaboration.

"A fresh prenup (postnup?) was negotiated and signed ahead of Mary's visit to Tasmania in November 2006. It states that Mary will not be eligible for a funded residence by her own choice in the event of a divorce or a lump sum payment like that of her former sister-in-law, Princess Alexandra." 70.109.236.27 20:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Body full of external links

The body of the article had been completely overrun with external links. As they appear to have been in the article for some time (and therefore can't just be reverted or undone), I have gone through and removed most of them - either converted them to internal links, converting them to references, or just deleting them. I may have got a few wrong, but it looks like a much better balance now. Of course if any of them appear to have been in error please fix or let me know! -- Chuq (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Adrian, I have done a re-write of the Mary of Denmark page based on the structure established by Chuq. I have cut the flabby text down, fixed some links (eg: to the right Maria Feodorovna, to Valdemar II) and made some clarifications (eg: Mary gave birth to a daughter who happens to be a princess, not gave birth to a princess). I have also reduced the trivia section as per your suggestion. Perhaps there is more I can do to improve it in future, but now I am tired. For the moment I have left the patronages links (they were a lot of work when I first did them!). There may still be a bit of adjustment to having some facts and reason on this page -- I put them there to counter the people whose criticism of Mary has been, well, beyond the pale. I will also look at the entries for Frederik, Christian and the new baby soon. Can I get a clarification? Internal wiki links are preferred over external links? With some of the content in this case it is difficult to have appropriate references in English as most in recent times are in Danish. Also, newspaper and magazine references in English are littered with errors. Also, are wiki references in Danish acceptable? I have really appreciated your prompt responses to my messages. As Mary has just had a baby a few days ago, the search rate is very high at the moment, so it is great to have a reasonable page on wikipedia. Thanks for all your help and do bonk me on the head if I have messed up again! tosindmin 16:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated Vandalism

In the last few days there have been multiple acts of vandalism by each of the following IP addresses: 58.8.181.36 and 74.99.35.181. I know I'm an IP address, but seeing this vandalism concerned me. Perhaps some users could have a think about what to do about it? Thanks.

74.99.35.181 has been blocked for 24 hours due to vandalism. Just a side note, please tag your edits on talk pages by putting four tildas ("~~~~") at the end of your entry. --Nemilar 19:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Nemilar, I only just saw this. Some of the comments by that IP address have been quite shocking. Yes, I realised after making the initial comment that my post hadn't been signed! Sorry, I'm not very experienced with this! I'll try harder this time! 121.210.32.33 22:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC) OK, it worked, and it looks like I have a changing IP adress, as this address is different than the one for my initial comment! Oh well. 121.210.32.33 23:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too much information

I've removed a lot of information from the article. Please remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information, and every little information about the princess that may be relevant to her life's biography does not necessarily belong in this article. Also, please use SOURCES - unsourced statements should be thrown in the trash, as it is impossible otherwise to sort true from fake information. I know most everybody adding info to this article does so in good faith, but putting sources in the article is absolutely vital. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 21:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lilac Soul I appreciate your comment, but in fact some people find minutiae very interesting about mary. I think the page should err on the side of too much rather than too little information. Readers can scan over irrelevant material. Lyndella Lee LyndellaLee 08:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm guessing we'll have to agree to disagree :-) I see you haven't readded the places yet, however. Perhaps you could do so in a seperate section, with an expand tag or something pointing to this discussion. A list of places visited could be relevant, I suppose, but IMO it should then include information on what was done during these visits - e.g. meeting with Prime Minister so-and-so, or opening an X for disadvantaged Y, or whatnot. And, first and foremost, SOURCES - otherwise, how will anyone know if the couple has actually visited those places, or if someone just added places as an act of vandalism? Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 09:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Lilac Soul. Lyndella, while many people do find this minutiae very interesting, they are better off looking in European gossip mags, or books about the Danish royal family. This is an encyclopedia, so all info should be 'encyclopediac'. Part of the reason people go to encyclopedias is so they don't have to scan over irrelevant details in source material. I don't mean to sound harsh. Please see WP:NOT#STATS, WP:NOT#NEWS & WP:NOT#TRIVIA. Ashmoo 11:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The page on Sarah, Duchess of York includes the toe-sucking scandals etc. It is quite relevant that Mary's cousin by marriage was convicted of child rape, for example, as Mary invited him to her wedding with charges pending. Why is the page for the Duchess of York treated differently? I agree that there has been vandalism, but posting controversy is not vandalism. Lyndella Lee

[edit] Significance of the marriage

The addition of this section seems like editorial to me and doesn't really add content to the page. In recent times there have been some really good efforts to improve this page (even though there are still regular vandalisms). Ruling royals have been marrying commoners for nearly a hundred years in Europe, and for two generations in Denmark. I can see that the intention to stimulate thinking about the whole royal/commoner notion is there in the idea, however it might be better as a discussion for a wiki topic on its own. The addition in general relates to the changing character of royalty in modern times. This can be wiki-referenced to this page, but as it stands, I don't think this addition is appropriate for the page. The trend for this page has been to tighten up the format, referencing and writing etc. This new section has an antiquated air about it for me, and I don't think it belongs here. I will remove it now to stimulate discussion. My suggestion: build a page on the trend of royals marrying commoners. There is plenty of material and a proof of the changing role of royalty within constitutional monarchy and modernity. tosindmin 13:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)