General News about Joachim, Marie and Family Part 5: September 2019 - December 2020

[Muhler]

This is from your response to me about J&M attending two events during their first months in France, from post #32:

"They did tally two (2) engagements over the course of three (3) months! Give them a break!" ?
- The smiley is yours, which I admittedly interpreted as expressing some scorn for J&M.
My mistake. I realize now that it was me you were laughing at.

In regards to the issue about me responding to Somebody, which you interpreted as me also responding to you. (That was actually not the case.) I also take the blame for that one. I did not occur to me that I in a quoted response to another member should have added: This is not a reply to Archduchess Zelia.
I shall endeavor to avoid a similar mishap in the future. ?

You write that you do not find it crucial that the Parliament should have been asked about the apanage. (I don't know why you keep bringing up Ekstra Bladet. I'm interested in your opinion not what some trashy paper writes.)
In the same paragraph you use words like laughable and conceited.
Sorry, to me that's confusing. I interpret that as you do mean it was crucial.

That you write about Joachim: "... especially since he's always very adamant that the press treats him unfairly..."
That is incorrect. Joachim has in fact rarely complained about the press in interviews or articles,

You also write that the DRF failed to abide by the Constitution by not asking permission of the Parliament.
As I mentioned in another post, the Constitution is open to interpretation in that respect, and there is a precedence, Frederik studying at Harvard.
Don't you think that the government would let it be known if the DRF were about to break the Constitution? In fact that is the duty of the government I'd say!
I'm not a legal expert, so I opt to trust that the legal advisors of the DRF and the governments know better about the Constitution than I do.

And Joachim continued to receive his apanage during his 1 year-stay in Australia and also during his stay in Hongkong although these working experiences primarily served himself and not Denmark.
So no, there were not different rules for Joachim and Frederik.

That's right. I'm glad you mention it. That means there are more precedents for DRF members receiving their apanage while abroad.

But just continue to omit everything that doesn't fit into your narrative of "unfairly treated Joachim". I noticed very well that it wasn't you who mentioned the controversy about Joachim's apanage in the first place. I guess it was too unimportant. But every time Frederik puts his hands into his pockets you find it worth mentioning. Different rules ???

I don't think I was the first to bring it up, but I don't believe I refused there was an issue with his apanage - among other things.
As for Frederik's hand in his pockets, which I like to point out jokingly, what has that got to do with this debate?

Btw I totally agree with Archduchess Zelia regarding your annoying tactics and regarding Joachim I am actually far more critical than she.

Fair enough. That's your opinion.

Joachim was only in the army because he failed in everything else. And his job was so important. he wasn't even replaced. So, let's not talk whether he deserves the apanage. The real question is: Was there nobody in the Danish army more deserving to attend this important course. Or was Joachim personally invited? In any case many people have the feeling that once more something was thrown at him because he is the Queen's son and not because he is deserving (although the announcement presented him as the most suitable man).

That's pretty harsh, I think.
Has he failed as a royal? Has he been incompetent in his duties? Has he not carried out his duties? You can admittedly debate the number of duties he has undertaken in recent years. But a failure?
He threw in the towel in regards to Schackenborg. The manor is in good order and so is the estate. The estate was heavy in debt and as such Joachim opted to sell - and got a good deal. Joachim is hardly the only owner of an estate or business who has had to give up and sell. Does that make him a failure?
That's a harsh verdict, I think.

I cannot say whether there are officers more suited than Joachim for this course, I merely listed a number of reasons why I found Joachim to be well suited.
As for a replacement. Because they haven't found one yet? There is a lack of officers presently, not least because suited officers are needed in the new brigade and for the news ships being put into service at present.

It was also interesting to see that there was a business promotion tour to Paris, the place were they are currently living. And except for a dinner neither Joachim who you always claim is so good at this (I always disagreed)
nor Marie who is a native French speaker were in any way involved. Joachim had his course in the morning but in the afternoon he was able to visit an exhibition. And Marie has pretty much nothing to do after bringing her children to school. So no wonder a lot of people ask themselves what they are receiving an apanage for.

Presumably because such visits are planned a long time in advance.
And yes Joachim took time off from his course to attend an exhibition - I.e. did a job for the DRF. Just as he would have taken time off to attend the service for the late president Chirac - also doing a job for the DRF.
Could they have included our Marie in this visit, as you suggest? Perhaps. But they didn't. Perhaps because M&F had planned for this trip, so why include a third?

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

This is from your response to me about J&M attending two events during their first months in France, from post #32 (...)

I've never interpreted it as you responding to me, but as you responding to Somebody about your reply to me. I don't think you needed to mention me directly for it to be obvious that you were referring to me

I keep bringing up the EB article(s) because that's the root of my criticism. If they hadn't written those articles on Joachim's apanage, Marie wouldn't have made the comments to Se & Hør and (on my part) this discussion wouldn't have existed. So no, in the context of the EB article that caused the discussion we're having right now, I don't find it problematic that the court didn't seek permission. That doesn't mean I don't think it would've been the right thing to do, only that in this specific context, the lack of permission holds no impact.

It's absolutely not incorrect that Joachim hasn't complained about the press – he's often talking about how he's been made the scapegoat of the family which most certainly is a dig at the press and their "way" of writing about him. He's even mentioned it in most of the bigger interviews he's given in recent years as well as in the documentary from 2017.

And as I mentioned in a reply to aforementioned post, I think arguing that the constitution can be interpreted differently is just grasping for straws to excuse the court. It's not a long and tiresome process to seek permission, so bending the rules because you can't be bothered to follow procedure is just ignorant. From a communicative standpoint, it's also a very unwise decision since most people can't just get away with interpreting the constitution as they like and therefore it's bound to result in accusations of arrogance (eller magtfuldkommenhed). I think we've been over the subject of the government and their fear of touching on the DRF enough times for you to know my stance on why the government wouldn't interfere.

 

[Muhler]

I've never interpreted it as you responding to me, but as you responding to Somebody about your reply to me. I don't think you needed to mention me directly for it to be obvious that you were referring to me

Well, it isn't obvious to me, because nothing in that reply is a reference to you.
Even the phrase: What is obvious to you and me may not be obvious to everybody else, isn't a reference to you.
That is a phrase I've used a number of times to explain my often very elaborate posts. - Do a search and check it.

I keep bringing up the EB article(s) because that's the root of my criticism. If they hadn't written those articles on Joachim's apanage, Marie wouldn't have made the comments to Se & Hør and (on my part) this discussion wouldn't have existed. So no, in the context of the EB article that caused the discussion we're having right now, I don't find it problematic that the court didn't seek permission. That doesn't mean I don't think it would've been the right thing to do, only that in this specific context, the lack of permission holds no impact.

You don't find it problematic?!?
You have wrote entire posts as to why you do find it problematic.
Forgive me, but in what other ways can I interpret your posts then?!?
Even further down in this post you elaborate as to why you find it problematic the DRF didn't ask the Parliament!
- Well, if it's only a fairly trivial matter of principle to you, then I guess we are no longer disagreeing about anything? ?

It's absolutely not incorrect that Joachim hasn't complained about the press – he's often talking about how he's been made the scapegoat of the family which most certainly is a dig at the press and their "way" of writing about him. He's even mentioned it in most of the bigger interviews he's given in recent years as well as in the documentary from 2017.

Please check, I wrote rarely.
And usually in a context where the bad press he did get, especially after the divorce from Alexandra, is mentioned.

And as I mentioned in a reply to aforementioned post, I think arguing that the constitution can be interpreted differently is just grasping for straws to excuse the court. It's not a long and tiresome process to seek permission, so bending the rules because you can't be bothered to follow procedure is just ignorant. From a communicative standpoint, it's also a very unwise decision since most people can't just get away with interpreting the constitution as they like and therefore it's bound to result in accusations of arrogance (eller magtfuldkommenhed). I think we've been over the subject of the government and their fear of touching on the DRF enough times for you to know my stance on why the government wouldn't interfere.

That is your opinion.
I merely ask why the DRF should ask for permission for doing something there is a precedence for doing. I.e. studying abroad while receiving the apanage.

- On another note: Did you see the documentary with Joachim yesterday?
I didn't see it. From glancing over the reviews in the papers today, the verdict seem pretty mixed.

 

[polyesco]

Here are the links to the first two episodes from Joachim's documentary
https://www.dr.dk/tv/se/prins-joach...2/prins-joachim-fortaeller-om-vores-demokrati

I was able to see them here in the U.S. (not understand them but I took a look : D)

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

Here are the links to the first two episodes from Joachim's documentary
https://www.dr.dk/tv/se/prins-joach...2/prins-joachim-fortaeller-om-vores-demokrati

I was able to see them here in the U.S. (not understand them but I took a look : D)

Thank you for the link polyesco - I'll be sure to check out Joachim's documentary sometime soon!

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Well, it isn't obvious to me, because nothing in that reply is a reference to you (...)

Right

There's nothing ambivalent about my post, you just need to stop practice selective reading and thus taking my comments out of context when going through them.
I've never said I don't find the lack of permission problematic full stop. In the actual paragraph you're quoting, I specifically write that in the context of the discussion we're having (whether or not Marie's comments to Se & Hør were appropriate), I don't find the question of permission problematic. Because it's irrelevant in that context. I think it's very criticisable and, perhaps more importantly, very ignorant of them that they didn't seek permission, but it alo holds no impact on the point I was making on Marie's comments that you took issue with to begin with. You're the one who keeps shifting focus away from the argument I'm making to the question of permission.

I'll take your focus on the semantics of my comment as an acknowledgement that it is indeed curious that Joachim, given his history of feeling unfairly treated by the press (something you yourself has brought up on here), couldn't foresee that this would inevitably be criticised in the press.

Just like it is your opinion that the court somehow finds it easier to stretch the rules than to gain permission ? In the above paragraph, I think I've listed a pretty good reason why they should've been careful to follow procedure. Also there's no precedence for taking two working members at the age of 50 and 43 respectively out of the equation for roughly a year.

 

[Muhler]

Right

Weeell, somehow I think I know better than you, what I mean when I write something...
Of course if you choose to take it personally, I can't do much about that.

There's nothing ambivalent about my post, you just need to stop practice selective reading and thus taking my comments out of context when going through them.
I've never said I don't find the lack of permission problematic full stop. In the actual paragraph you're quoting, I specifically write that in the context of the discussion we're having (whether or not Marie's comments to Se & Hør were appropriate), I don't find the question of permission problematic. Because it's irrelevant in that context. I think it's very criticisable and, perhaps more importantly, very ignorant of them that they didn't seek permission, but it alo holds no impact on the point I was making on Marie's comments that you took issue with to begin with. You're the one who keeps shifting focus away from the argument I'm making to the question of permission.

I actually had to read this paragraph three times!
Sometimes your posts are like reading a legal document.
Let us make one think very clear: Your mastery of English is brilliant (way superior to mine) so there is no need to make your posts more complicated to read. The TRF is after all an international forum where many, if not most, do not have English as their first language. So allow me to suggest you stick to the KISS principle: Keep It Simple Stupid.
You remind me of the late politician Erhard Jacobsen.

Having gotten that off my chest, let's proceed.
In the context of the discussing we are having you don't find the question of permission problematic. Because it's irrelevant in that context. (Congratulations. I couldn't make it less clear myself.)
What in the name of the Holy Teapot does that mean?

Let me ask: Is Joachim receiving apanage while in France a problem? Yes/no/don't care.
Is the DRF not asking the Parliament for permission wrong? - Yes/no/don't care.

I'll take your focus on the semantics of my comment as an acknowledgement that it is indeed curious that Joachim, given his history of feeling unfairly treated by the press (something you yourself has brought up on here), couldn't foresee that this would inevitably be criticised in the press.

Well, to quote Storm P: It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.

Just like it is your opinion that the court somehow finds it easier to stretch the rules than to gain permission ? In the above paragraph, I think I've listed a pretty good reason why they should've been careful to follow procedure. Also there's no precedence for taking two working members at the age of 50 and 43 respectively out of the equation for roughly a year.

No, that's not my opinion. I merely ask why the court should ask permission for something there is a precedence for doing. And as such I don't view it as stretching the rules. - They are merely following a precedence.

No, there is no precedence for middle-aged royals to study, because until basically only a generation ago royals in general didn't get an advanced education and as such didn't require courses further on in life.
However, times change. Now royals do get a higher education and as such may require from time to time to attend a course, also well into their adult lives.
That BTW is in accordance with the current policy. The various governments have for years screamed, begged and argued for people to educate themselves, reeducate and attend courses, basically until the end of the working life.
In that context you can see J&M as inspirational: I.e. Joachim up-qualifying himself.
Their age is IMO irrelevant, as long as they attend relevant courses. That is something I can only applaud, no matter the age.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

I don't mean to sound dictatorial especially since I normally appreciate both of your posts; but is it possible if you could take this little rift to PM or just agree to disagree? It's becoming rather exhausting having to read the same arguments like a boomerang the whole time, especially if there's no other news on Joachim and his family in the meantime.

 

[Muhler]

Fine with me. ?

I'm perfectly willing to end this discussion here. Permanently. Unless something extraordinary comes up - and I doubt that.

ADDED:

As such I will no longer post anything on this subject in this thread, unless I deem it absolutely necessary.
Any further discussion here is without me.
I will still, to the best of my ability, try and answer PM's.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Weeell, somehow I think I know better than you, what I mean when I write something (...)

Just a quick follow up since I wasn't around to reply before you ended the discussion:

If I'm unclear in any way, I apologise (men tager stærkt afstand fra enhver sammenligning med Erhard Jakobsen). I guess when you're on your tenth reiteration of a fairly simple argument, it's a bit tricky to find ways to get your point across without straight up copying what you've said the past nine times (that for some reason don't do the trick).

So again: No, it's not a problem that Joachim receives apanage while in France. And in the context of whether or not the press, as Marie alleges, is "unreasonable" for asking Joachim if he can justify receiving apanage when he isn't upholding his usual engagement count, whether or not the DRF have sought permission is irrelevant. Generally speaking, I absolutely think they were wrong in not seeking permission. It just doesn't impact my argument about whether or not Marie's comments were appropriate.

If they somehow couldn't imagine that the press would dig into the lack of permission, it just proves my point from a former discussion of ours that at this point, Joachim and the court only have themselves to blame for the reputation he has in the general public.

So rather than following precedence, Joachim's case sets precedence in terms of postgraduate education for royals. Which is why they should've sought permission.

 

[Muhler]

This is actually from the documentary Joachim is narrating and which is shown on TV these weeks.
This weeks episode was about the educational system in DK and how it came about.

In that episode (which I did not see) Joachim reflected on decisions he had made during his life, and some decisions he may have wished he had made.
But also about his children, who are now allowed free reigns in regards to their dreams and ambitions.
It's very illuminating I think and adds a piece or two more to the puzzle that is named Joachim.
It's actually headline news in one of the tabloids today.

However, since a member (not referring to Archduchess Zelia) expressed some doubts about my integrity in regards to informations about Joachim, I will not translate the quotes in this article.
I suggest another Dane, or someone who understand Danish translate the quotes or write a summary instead of me.

https://www.bt.dk/royale/prins-joachim-om-sine-boern-de-skal-for-guds-skyld-ikke-blive-som-mig

 

[Muhler]

The last segment of the series hosted by Joachim will be aired tonight.

Indirectly a number of personal details about Joachim and his family has also been revealed during these episodes.
Tonight it's details about pocket money/weekly allowance.
https://www.bt.dk/royale/prins-joac...-privatlivet-saadan-forholder-vores-boern-sig

And the impression he left on three of those who appeared in the documentary:
https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/p...gram-han-var-slet-ikke-saa-hoejroevet-som-jeg

And I will leave it to someone else to summarize and translate quotes.

And here is a nice photo of our Marie and her children: https://bt.bmcdn.dk/media/cache/resolve/image_1240/image/140/1402941/23275824-.jpg

 

[JR76]

From what I've read the series has been quite successful, hasn't it? All episodes have been the most viewed programme on the relatively small channel it's been shown on and some even cracked the Top 20 of most watched programs in the country.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This is actually from the documentary Joachim is narrating and which is shown on TV these weeks.
This weeks episode was about the educational system in DK and how it came about.

In that episode (which I did not see) Joachim reflected on decisions he had made during his life, and some decisions he may have wished he had made.
But also about his children, who are now allowed free reigns in regards to their dreams and ambitions.
It's very illuminating I think and adds a piece or two more to the puzzle that is named Joachim.
It's actually headline news in one of the tabloids today.

However, since a member (not referring to Archduchess Zelia) expressed some doubts about my integrity in regards to informations about Joachim, I will not translate the quotes in this article.
I suggest another Dane, or someone who understand Danish translate the quotes or write a summary instead of me.

https://www.bt.dk/royale/prins-joachim-om-sine-boern-de-skal-for-guds-skyld-ikke-blive-som-mig

I very much appreciate your translations and the historical and contextual insight you provide, and haven't found it difficult to distinguish the information from the personal views in your posts. Without the background information you offer, I would have a much shallower understanding of much of the news and events involving the Danish monarchy.

 

[MsJulie]

Muhler Thank you very much for all the insight to the Danish Family including these last episodes with PJ. Princess Marie is my favorite with Queen M following a second. Nothing wrong with the other Royal Danes, I just love Marie. If you did not explain, translate and relate details about the articles or video clips I would only get to look at the pictures and not understand a thing! Thanks so much! Back to reading!

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

Muhler; your translations are greatly appreciated and also your insights as a native Dane. The Danish forums would be much less active without them, that's for sure! Mange tak for all your tireless work. ?

 

[Muhler]

Thank you. ?

I have been extremely busy for the past couple of months and expect the remain busy at work well into January as well, so I haven't really been in the mood to post much here on TRF.
Apart from that I believe it would be healthy for someone else to summarize and translate from time to time.
When you question the cook, you do the cooking...

From what I've read the series has been quite successful, hasn't it? All episodes have been the most viewed programme on the relatively small channel it's been shown on and some even cracked the Top 20 of most watched programs in the country.

I haven't seen any of the episodes apart from the first one. Haven't had time.
They have become a fountain of tidbits about Joachim, his approach to bringing up his children (now), self reflections, regarding Schackenborg and Joachim as a person and so on.
All these tidbits have been well-covered in several papers and magazines and I'll get to them in due time - if no one else wish to.

Yes, the documentary has been watched by many. There is of course the curiosity factor - having a senior member of the DRF being host and narrator. And anyone who is remotely interested in Danish history and society may also find it interesting.
And it's nice once in a while to actually learn something from watching TV...
Apart from that intention was that this documentary would form the basis for schools and high schools in regards to a number of topics: history, religion, legislation, democracy and so in regards to the current Danish society.
These topics are huge!
And this documentary cannot cover this in depth in any way and it doesn't pretend to be so.
Each topic could easily form the basis of an entire series!

Traditionally historical documentaries have always had a high viewer-number and this is no exception.

Joachim has been praised for being a very pleasant (to listen to) narrator and for being genuinely interested in these topics and for actually knowing what he is talking about. And that shows. (These are of course the best documentary hosts, rather than having some actor hosting the docu.)
As for his brand. This may (it remains to be seen) have improved his image in the public, because the public here see another side of Joachim (*) than the one that is often shown in the media or told by mouth to mouth.
He has, I understand, through this documentary, been very much compared to his mother. I.e. lot of brains and very reserved/private. But she too has opened up in the past decade in particular.

I imagine the documentary will eventually find it's way to YouTube at some point - with subtitles.

(*) One reason why I find Joachim so fascinating is his multi-faceted personality. You can look at him from many different angels and never get exactly the same picture.

 

[gerry]

Thank you. ?

I have been extremely busy for the past couple of months and expect the remain busy at work well into January as well, so I haven't really been in the mood to post much here on TRF.
Apart from that I believe it would be healthy for someone else to summarize and translate from time to time.
When you question the cook, you do the cooking...



I haven't seen any of the episodes apart from the first one. Haven't had time.
They have become a fountain of tidbits about Joachim, his approach to bringing up his children (now), self reflections, regarding Schackenborg and Joachim as a person and so on.
All these tidbits have been well-covered in several papers and magazines and I'll get to them in due time - if no one else wish to.

Yes, the documentary has been watched by many. There is of course the curiosity factor - having a senior member of the DRF being host and narrator. And anyone who is remotely interested in Danish history and society may also find it interesting.
And it's nice once in a while to actually learn something from watching TV...
Apart from that intention was that this documentary would form the basis for schools and high schools in regards to a number of topics: history, religion, legislation, democracy and so in regards to the current Danish society.
These topics are huge!
And this documentary cannot cover this in depth in any way and it doesn't pretend to be so.
Each topic could easily form the basis of an entire series!

Traditionally historical documentaries have always had a high viewer-number and this is no exception.

Joachim has been praised for being a very pleasant (to listen to) narrator and for being genuinely interested in these topics and for actually knowing what he is talking about. And that shows. (These are of course the best documentary hosts, rather than having some actor hosting the docu.)
As for his brand. This may (it remains to be seen) have improved his image in the public, because the public here see another side of Joachim (*) than the one that is often shown in the media or told by mouth to mouth.
He has, I understand, through this documentary, been very much compared to his mother. I.e. lot of brains and very reserved/private. But she too has opened up in the past decade in particular.

I imagine the documentary will eventually find it's way to YouTube at some point - with subtitles.

(*) One reason why I find Joachim so fascinating is his multi-faceted personality. You can look at him from many different angels and never get exactly the same picture.

Muhler, I share the thanks of your TRF readers expressed to you regarding your insights on Danish culture and history. I am certainly intrigued by the Prince Joachim documentary and look forward to a subtitled youtube version, as you suggest. Nevertheless, as we head into the busy Christmas season, I do want to wish you lots of Hygge and hope you don't work too hard, unless the work involves the kitchen and

 

[Muhler]

Part one.

The following is a translation of a number of quotes from the documentaries, mentioned in various BT articles. (See links in previous posts.)

Note: Joachim speaks what I will call "written Danish" and we are talking genuine literature here. So I have decided not to translate in that way, but instead translate his meaning. Otherwise I think it would become too confusing for an international audience.

For comparison: Mary tends to speak somewhat "academic-Danish."
Our Marie speaks what I will call "everyday, coffee-table or hairdresser-salon-Danish."

During on documentary Joachim is standing on a field where a number of coins have been found and talks about the value of coins with one of those who have fund coins here, when he is suddenly asked (presumably out of manuscript) by the man he is talking to:
Bruger I lommepenge til jeres børn?
Are Your (*) children getting a weekly allovance?

A slightly surprised Joachim replies:
Vi er absolut orienteret mod lommepenge af den simple årsag, at der er noget at lære i det – men også, at han lærer – Henrik – at der er en vis værdi i tingene.
Den kan han (prins Henrik, red.) jo få ret synlig, hvis han går ned i en butik – det være sig en isbod, 'Tiger'-butik eller et eller andet, hvor få mønter kan omsættes til noget andet.
Og nogle gange er han jo stor i slaget og siger: Må jeg ikke få lov at købe en is til jer, far og mor. Ja, tak, det er simpelthen håndgribeligt, det her,
"We are absolutely oriented towards Pocket money for the simple reason that it teaches something - but also that he learns - Henrik - that there is a certain value in things.
That is something he can see pretty obviously if he goes down to a store - it could be an ice-kiosk, Tiger-store or something else where coins can be exchanged to something else.
And sometimes brags/play the big guy and says: May I buy you an ice, dad and mum. Yes, please, it's simply tangible, this."

About inheriting Schackenborg.
https://www.bt.dk/royale/prins-joac...rt-emne-det-var-en-ny-situation-at-taenke-paa

Jeg var ganske lille, da jeg fandt ud af, at jeg skulle være landmand. Men jeg var ikke vokset op på en gård. Det var kun noget, jeg havde hørt om og set og besøgt. Så jeg var i den henseende ikke, som både du selv, din far og sikkert også din søn, flasket op med det.
Det var en ny situation at tænke på. Den lette side af min ungdom var, at jeg vidste, hvad jeg skulle studere. Det er for mig en tid, jeg ikke vil gøre om – men jeg må så også bare erkende, at der kom en slutdato på det,
"I was very small when I found out that I was to be a farmer. But I hadn't grown up on a farm. That was just something I had heard about and seen and visited. So in that respect I wasn't, like both yourself (a farmer) and probably your son, brought up with it.
It was a new situation to consider. The easy part of my youth was that I knew what I was to study. That is to me a time I will not do again (as in no regrets) - but I must also acknowledge that there was an end-date. (to studying.)"

Joachim's thoughts about bringing up his own children in a the documentary covering raising children. Here he is talking to a doctor who broke from his pattern, so to speak, from a background of petty crime.
De skal for guds skyld ikke blive som farmand. Det mønsterbrud, jeg ønsker – som jeg enten ikke selv har turdet tage tidligere eller effektuere tidligt nok – det skal ikke forhindres dem. Intet er forbudt.
"They must for Gods sake not become like daddy. The breaking of the pattern I wish for - that I either didn't dare take earlier or carry out early enough - that shall not be prevented them. Nothing is forbidden."

The doctor points out that Joachim's life was pretty much according to a manuscript written in advance: You are at least as pre-programmed as I was - perhaps even more.
To that Joachim replies:
Når du ikke stiller spørgsmålstegn, så kan du godt ende med at blive en maskine, og så på et eller andet tidspunkt, så kommer du ind i et eller andet mærkeligt kalejdoskop og ser nogle spejlbilleder og opdager, at det faktisk er dig, de beskriver,
Har jeg en 'comfortzone', som jeg aldrig har stillet spørgsmålstegn ved – og kan jeg noget mere
"When you don't ask questions, you might very well end up becoming a machine and then yu will at some point end up in some kind of weird kaleidoscope and see some mirror-images and discover that they are actually describing you.
Do I have a comfort-zone that I have never questioned - I can I do/accomplish more?"

The article says that Joachim in the documentary hints that there was always to be an end-date to his life as a farmer.
Because Joachim says:
Jeg har da været forskellige købebaner igennem og holdt fast – måske for længe – måske af misforstået pligt og har måttet erkende også nederlag – og er nok blevet klogere af dem,
"I have driven along different lanes to the end and stayed on - perhaps too long - perhaps out of misunderstood sense of duty and have had to acknowledge defeats as well - and perhaps grown wiser from that."

He has previously admitted, in regards to Nikolai, that he perhaps pressured him a little too much in pursuing a military career. A mistake he intends not to repeat with his three younger children. Says the article, based on a Billed Bladet interview. (Translated by me somewhere in these threads.)

 

[Muhler]

Part two.

But how did other people, who took part in the documentary, view Joachim?
DR.dk (the state network) selected a number of participants, who have this to say about Joachim.

A Gunver Jensen says:
Alle mine fordomme blev splittet i atomer, for han var slet ikke så højrøvet, som jeg troede. Han var helt almindelig,
- Jeg havde sagtens kunnet være sammen med ham i flere timer.
"All my prejudices were torn into atoms, because he wasn't so high and mighty (actually the expression used is a slightly vulgar term for being arrogant) as I thought. He was quite regular/ordinary.
I could easily have spend hours with him."

Doctor Steffen Jacobsen (the one with the criminal past mentioned above) have this to say:
Jeg har haft et indtryk af, at han var reserveret og måske lidt forstokket og gammeldags, men det var han overhovedet ikke. Vi grinede faktisk ret meget og fandt hurtigt ind i en samtale, der var fortrolig og afslappet,
"I have had the impression that he was reserved and perhaps a bit hidebound(?) (As in stubbornly holding on to something old-fashioned.) and old-fashioned, but he wasn't that at all. We actually laughed quite a lot and quickly entered into a conversation that was familiar/trustworthy and relaxed."

Julie Avery, archivist and historian with the National Archives:
Han havde en oprigtig interesse i grundloven og en forståelse for, hvilket skifte der var i, at vi afskaffede enevælden og fik demokrati,
- Det er fornøjelse, når der kommer så vidende et menneske ind, der var så interesseret i danmarkshistorien og faktisk ved, hvad vi står med, og som har den respekt for arkivalierne og forstår deres betydning,
"He had a genuine interest in the Constitution and an understanding for what change there was in abolishing Absolutism and getting democracy.
It's a pleasure when such a knowledgeable person comes in, who was so interested in Danish history and who actually know what we are standing with and who has the respect for the archived items and understands their significance."

Joachim has actually never been to polling station, so Gunver Jensen showed him around and told how a general election works in practice.
Joachim:
Jeg er på vej til valg. Folketingsvalg. Det er første gang, jeg skal opleve, hvordan et valg foregår ude på valgstedet,
Jeg har min grundlovssikrede ret til at stemme... Men jeg kunne aldrig drømme om at bruge den.
"I'm on my way to an election. A general election for the Parliament. It's the first time I'm going to experience how a general election takes place at a polling station.
I have my Constitutional right to vote... But I would never dream about exercising that right."

So Gunver Jensen showed everything from basics, just like when he shows fourth graders around.
Så når jeg nu skulle gentage det, jeg fortæller til 4. klasser, til en voksen mand, så var det lidt underligt.
- Men han spurgte interesseret, og selvom jeg måtte forklare som til et lille barn, var det ikke nogen leg, nej det var sgu ærlig snak. Det var en god oplevelse,
"So when I had to repeat what I explaining to fourth graders to an adult man, it was a bit weird.
But he was asking interested and even though I had to explain, like to a small child, it was no game, not it was damned straight talk. That was a good experience."

Morten Teilmann Jørgensen is head of the museum at the Jellinge Stones, that are the official birth certificate of Denmark as a nation.
Han er et godt eksempel på dem, der er fede at fortælle historier. Når man har en baggrundsviden, men også er parat til at få ændret på sin idé om historien. Og det var han klar til, og vi havde en god dialog.
- Det er jo prins Joachims families historie. Selvom det er 1000 år siden, så er han en del af Jellingdynastiet. Det er sjovt, at når man står foran den sten, Harald Blåtand har lavet, så betyder det også noget for ham,
Når man lever i en verden, hvor mange døre er åbne, fordi man er kongelig, så er det fedt at se, at man det stadig kan gøre en pjattet at åbne en lille luge og kravle ind til Jellingstenen
"He is a good example of someone to whom it's cool to tell stories. When you have a background knowledge, but is also prepared to change your perception about the history. And he was ready for that and we had a good dialogue.
And it is after all Prince Joachim's history. Even thought it's a thousand years ago, he is a part of the Jellinge-dynasty. It's fun that when you stand in front of the stone Harald Bluetooth made, then it means something to him as well.
When you live in a world where many doors are open because you are royal, then it's cool to see that it can still goof you out to open a little hatch and climb into the Jellinge-stone."
(The stones are now incased in glass, because an insane man sprayed grafitti on the stones.)

This link contains a number of clips about the particpants talking about Joachim: https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/p...gram-han-var-slet-ikke-saa-hoejroevet-som-jeg

- Finally, having skimmed the reviews. There seems to be a general agreement that Joachim was good at just being himself. I.e. inquisitive and knowlegeable about the subject and conversing normally with people. But not tring to be folksy like his brother.
Because in the few examples where Joachim attempted to be folksy, so to speak, it came through as disgenuine.

 

[eya]

Princess Marie is on the cover of Danish magazine Femina

https://twitter.com/x/status/1202671895360999424

Joachim has given an interview to BilledBladet in Paris.
Where he reveals that he has given up smoking.
https://www.billedbladet.dk/kongelige/danmark/prins-joachim-har-kvittet-smoegerne

Part of the interview in English

https://princessmariescloset.com/20...life-in-paris-and-his-successful-documentary/

Prince Joachim and Princess Marie give interview to Paris Match

https://princessmariescloset.com/20...princess-marie-give-interview-to-paris-match/

https://twitter.com/x/status/1208378485523304448

 

[Muhler]

I guess the photos are from Schackenborg. I seem to remember the painting of Joachim hanging there. Saw it in an article or docu somewhere.

 

[polyesco]

Joachim has given an interview to BilledBladet in Paris.
Where he reveals that he has given up smoking.
https://www.billedbladet.dk/kongelige/danmark/prins-joachim-har-kvittet-smoegerne

 

[ladongas]

Joachim has given an interview to BilledBladet in Paris.
Where he reveals that he has given up smoking.
https://www.billedbladet.dk/kongelige/danmark/prins-joachim-har-kvittet-smoegerne

Gosh, I always assumed that smoking was mandatory for those living in France!

 

[gerry]

Joachim has given an interview to BilledBladet in Paris.
Where he reveals that he has given up smoking.
https://www.billedbladet.dk/kongelige/danmark/prins-joachim-har-kvittet-smoegerne

Great news, bravo Prince Joachim

 

[Muhler]

It is quite an extensive interview, where he touch a number of personal issues, including the public view of him. - From his point of view of course.

 

[gerry]

It is quite an extensive interview, where he touch a number of personal issues, including the public view of him. - From his point of view of course.

it will be an interesting read, mange tak!

 

[Muhler]

Thanks for the link, Eya.

I brilliant translation. I have noting to add. ?

 

[gerry]

Part of the interview in English

https://princessmariescloset.com/20...life-in-paris-and-his-successful-documentary/

Thank you indeed for posting this with the partial translation. I enjoyed reading the Danish idiom very much: 'skinning the bear..'; 'blood on the teeth' etc are very evocative One expression, however, escaped me and I wanted to ask about 'burning the spice'....because the meaning is not clear in the translated context. I would be so grateful for Danish speaking input, mange tak

 

[Muhler]

Ah, that's gunpowder not spice.
It's about not burning off the gunpowder.

= Not wasting all the shots/opportunities/options and so on in one go.