Discussion about Sofia Hellqvist's Past & Future Role in the Royal Family

[Moonmaiden23]

I've never been a Sofia non-fan, I've just kind of watched neutrally. I don't dislike her, I don't think their marriage is the end of the royal world.

I don't and never did have an issue with her, but I do want to point some things out:

I do think some of the actions of CP's sisters, pointed out by Moonmaiden have been rather interesting. Victoria's "no comment" comment, Madeleine leaving negative posts up on Facebook (not sure what these people said). This suggests to me that perhaps the sisters are non-fans. Now this could be for many a reason other than they don't care for their future sister-in-law - I don't know. They could also perhaps just not care for her on a personal level that really has nothing to do with her past. I don't take this as a signal to dislike Sofia - maybe if I met the three of them at a party, I'd like Sofia but not like the other two, who can say?

People are suggesting that Sofia is well-liked and accepted into the royal family, and it's only people on the internet who have an issue. Not necessarily. Once royals make a decision, in the public eye they tend to support it in lock-step. And not everyone within a family may think the same way. Maybe Silvia adores her, CG just doesn't care and Madde can't stand her - or so many other combinations. As with most royal families, we won't hear of it, and we won't see anything but a united front.

Spoken like the reasonable and very smart attorney that you are.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

It's all well and good to assure us that "everyone has a right to criticize her". Yet every almost time a poster does so here-even in a mild way-their integrity and character are called into question both directly and indirectly. I don't think the opinions of posters who are not thrilled about Sofia are any less "relevant" than the ones who speculate breathlessly about what tiara she will wear on her wedding day.

"Slut shaming"?

I see that phrase so often these days. It strikes me as confusing as it is vulgar. What on earth does it even mean?

Anyone who believes Carl-Philip's fiancée is treated unfairly on TRF is leading a very, very sheltered online existence. Have a look around at some other sites...if you dare.

As I see it, very few are bothered by the fact that she is being criticised – it is the way in which people criticise her that's the real problem. The name-calling, the euphemisms etc. That's what I think is nasty and immature. I suppose the relevance of constant, recycled criticism is in the eyes of the beholder but you certainly have the right to express your dislike of her. One can do that without being coarse

Its definition is pretty clear, actually: slut-shaming is criticising a person, especially a woman or girl, for their real or presumed sexual activity; for behaving in ways that someone thinks are associated with their real or presumed sexual activity; and attempting to make them feel guilty or inferior for certain behaviours, circumstances, or desires that deviate from traditional or orthodox gender expectations" (Google is your friend )

But that's exactly it, isn't it? TRF is a respectable forum. And I believe that is why the site which shan't be named was created – because the people who wanted to say nasty things about royals weren't given the leeway here. And if I may say so, that is one of the many things I love about this site.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Archduchess Zelia, what name calling and what euphemisms are you referring to? I went back about six pages before I gave up. And I also saw nothing coarse. The only sly name calling was and is directed at posters who can't share the love for the soon to be Royal bride. I disagree 100% that SH fans are not upset at criticism, period.

Thanks for your interesting explanation for "slut shaming" but my opinion is that it's kind of ridiculous. What's the alternative...slut pride? Elevation?

Virginity and chastity are just as much mocked online and in pop culture as promiscuity. It's not considered the badge of honor that it once was.

 

[MARG]

Royal is just a made up word from times ago. She is just as suitable as anyone. They are no more special nor have anything special flowing through their veins. Just a bunch of people whose forebears had a big sword. She is just as suitable as Queen Sylvia, whose father was a Nazi. Sylvia is lovely and wonderful. And just as suitable as the King who has had some tawdry affairs. No films included. Or Daniel who is a personal trainer, now a prince. She will do just fine. Made better than some.

You easily bring to mind the royal "commoner fiances". Mary and Marie who are educated but, many continue to devalue the Australian University Degree Mary holds in the same way as people are still saying that Marie has none or it was purchased (that one even has its own thread). Mette-Marit, as an unwed mother, has been dragged through the mud and to some degree still is at regular intervals. Maxima, like Silvia, had the sins of her fathers to take the heat. Letizia has had her morals and her lifestyle slammed and Catherine referred to as Waity-Katy or a social climber. Even Daniel doesn't miss out, being described as a "personal trainer" when he was the gym owner and ran a company called Balance Training with three gyms in Stockholm.

So it seems that rather than crediting a 'commoner fiance' with their crowning achievements, there seems a continuing trend to go for the lowest point in their adult lives, even if they have to get creative to do so. Although I would quibble that Sofia, at 16, was an adult.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Are we discussing TRF or some other site, MARG? Because few other Forums have the devoted and adoring fanbases that Letizia, Maxima, Mary and the DoC enjoy here. Their threads are easily the most active, consistently.

This is in direct contrast to the interest and commentary on the only two recent aristocrat consorts, Mathilde and Stephanie, which doesn't even approach the other women.

So I disagree with the notion that the commoners are somehow treated more harshly...the facts simply don't support it.


In fact there is one online site where Letizia is practically worshipped, and every facet of her life is considered golden and beyond reproach...at least in part because of her lower middle class origins.

 

[Terri Terri]

This is in direct contrast to the interest and commentary on the only two recent aristocrat consorts, Mathilde and Stephanie, which doesn't even approach the other women.

And why is that I wonder? Is it because of Mathilde's and Stephanie's noble births that they are somehow protected from some of the vicious criticisms that are leveled at the commoner-born royals? It is almost as if Mathilde and Stephanie are seen as more deserving of their royal status while the commoner-born royals are social climbers.
Of course the DoC, CP Mary, Queen Letizia et all are followed most closely...because they have loyal fans and rabid haters in equal measure!!All because they were commoners who dared to become royals!!!

 

[Tiggersk8]

How are people saying "let's wait and see" and "time will tell" mean and nasty? Time will tell if any new Royal bride, much less one with this baggage, will represent her monarchy well. So we do indeed have to wait and see if she will do a good job.

That isn't, you're right about that and I have also said that too. However, there are certain people around here though who obviously have an agenda when it comes to Sofia and have gone into each thread about her spewing their venom and for what!?! It's just so sad and sickening to see.

If this was a member of your Family, you'd be screaming they got a fair chance to prove they are an asset as HRH Princess of Sweden (I'm assuming). Sofia deserves that much at least and I'm willing to give it to her.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Nordic]

Anyone who believes Carl-Philip's fiancée is treated unfairly on TRF is leading a very, very sheltered online existence. Have a look around at some other sites...if you dare.

So true... If you have ever read the things that have been (and still are) written about CP Mary at some boards and blogs for the past 12+ years, the things that have been said in this thread are pretty mild....

 

[Moonmaiden23]

And why is that I wonder? Is it because of Mathilde's and Stephanie's noble births that they are somehow protected from some of the vicious criticisms that are leveled at the commoner-born royals? It is almost as if Mathilde and Stephanie are seen as more deserving of their royal status while the commoner-born royals are social climbers.
Of course the DoC, CP Mary, Queen Letizia et all are followed most closely...because they have loyal fans and rabid haters in equal measure!!All because they were commoners who dared to become royals!!!

It could also be because Mathilde and Stephanie are simply not known to have had the sort of baggage that lends itself to sordid gossip and speculation. In other words they led what many consider boring, traditional and respectable pre-marital lives. No drugs, no divorces, no adulterous affairs,no snakes.They went to University, lived under the radar and got married. If any real dirt existed you better believe the tabloids-in particular the viciously anti-monarchist German rags, would pick up the ball and run with it. They have no motivation to protect the reputations of aristocrats. Why should they?


It's not Mathilde's fault, nor is it Stephanie's, that they grew up in castles. They didn't choose their parents, any more than Sofia or Mette-Marit did. What they DID choose to do was to make smart decisions about the company they kept and the way they conducted their private lives.

To complain that they were left alone because they are not commoners is as ridiculous as it is false. Most people don't even care about that anymore. The fact that a Royal fiancée is an aristocrat is nowadays even considered a detriment by some...look how some people complained (and still do) that Guillaume of Luxembourg did not marry a working class girl-next-door type?

In Stephanie's case she is criticized for being unglamorous and a poor dresser. But if I was the head of a Royal Press Office with the choice of dealing with negative publicity generated by a potential fiancée who was badly dressed versus one who has been photographed undressed and cavorting around a stripper pole, guess which one I'd welcome?

 

[Lee-Z]

I agree that the discussions here on TRF are always (yes always) very civil compared to some other message boards; i remember reading once on another forum that someone actually wished Sofia or P.C-P to get ill (or worse) so the wedding wouldn't happen, and this was applauded by other posters
That to me is crossing the line of "expressing ones opinion" but no matter how heated the discussions have gotten here, i don't think anyone ever uttered something like that

(i stopped going to the other MB's though, so maybe things have changed now)

 

[Nordic]

It could also be because Mathilde and Stephanie are simply not known to have had the sort of baggage that lends itself to sordid gossip and speculation. In other words they led what many consider boring, traditional and respectable pre-marital lives. They went to University, lived under the radar and got married.

But isn't that the case with most of the current princesses?
AFAIK, many of them came from stable families, got a good education, lived under the radar, worked, lead boring respectable pre-marital lives and some of them get an incredible amount of viciousness directed at them for decades.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Nordic some did, some quite frankly did not. But since I don't want to go off topic I'm won't go into more detail.

 

[Terri Terri]

But isn't that the case with most of the current princesses?
AFAIK, many of them came from stable families, got a good education, lived under the radar, worked, lead boring respectable pre-marital lives and some of them get an incredible amount of viciousness directed at them for decades.

Nordic! I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly! You expressed my thoughts much better than I could have!

 

[Mbruno]

Nordic some did, some quite frankly did not. But since I don't want to go off topic I'm won't go into more detail.

Mette-Marit, Sofia and Camilla are the only counterexamples that come to my mind. Maybe also Letizia if you consider being divorced (but without children) as a liability.

 

[Marengo]

Perhaps it is time to answer some questions raised in this thread as it is insinuated that this thread is a breach of TRF policy and that the TRF mod. team is biased in allowing this discussion to take place. This is not the case.

Several issues of various royals have been discussed in special threads before. There is a thread for CPss Mette-Marit's past in the Norwegian forum, a thread about Q. Máxima's father and one of Pss Mabel's past in the Dutch forum, a thread for the first civil marriage of the Queen of Spain in the Spanish forum, a thread about the Wales-marriage or the political activities of the Prince of Wales in the British forum, various opinion threads on royals and so on. This thread therefore fits perfectly within the TRF policy as the moderators have been trying to implement since 2002.

The goal of these specific threads should be rather clear. This is a discussion forum and the point of a discussion forum is to discuss. However, we do realize that the same discussion can get repetitive and tedious for a vast majority of our membership. That is why instead of allowing these discussions in a multitude of threads we designate one thread for that purpose. While posting in such a thread we expect our membership -including the mod. team- to keep the TRF rules and FAQ in mind. The more so as we all agreed to these terms when we joined this forum. Insults, rudeness and fantastic speculations will not be allowed. Attacking other posters will not be allowed either.

Last year the Swedish moderators noticed that there was a large interest to discuss the past activities of Sofia Hellqvist. The topic was raised in each and every thread about her, both by her fans as by those who had critique. That is why we implemented the same strategy as we have used multiple times before: designate one thread -this thread- for that discussion. This was done to facilitate those who are interested in the discussion while keeping the other threads free from it for those who are not interested in the topic. This has been clearly communicated at the time and has been repeated several times since.

This thread has been moderated closely by the TRF moderation team. We work as a team we evaluate together where to draw the line within the framework of the TRF Rules & FAQ. Cross-checks by a team is a good way to ensure a consistent and fair policy for the entire forum and it is something that happens on a daily basis at TRF. However this should not prevent the moderators of having an opinion and expressing their opinion in threads. Moderators are members too; members who volunteer to keep this forum organised, structured, balanced, informative and pleasant. Personal opinions of moderators should not and do not influence their moderation. Again: team evaluation of issues is a safety net to make sure that this does not happen.

Those who find our policy unfair, biased, opression of the free word, sugary or who do not trust that members of the mod. team are capable to moderate issues in a fair way, are free to find other forums, boards, blogs or social networks that are more suited to their tastes. I am sure many have done so in the past and many will do so in the future. It is however remarkable that the fellow-members who accuse the mod. team of being biased are usually those most ardantly in favor or against a certain royal. In the moderation of this topic we have been reproached by both sides for being biased. However we are confident that we have been and will continue to be moderating this thread in a fair way.

Further questions about TRF moderation issues should be communicated by PM to the TRF mod. team. Replies to this post will be deleted.

On behalf of the TRF Mod. Team,

Marengo, TRF Administrator

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Mette-Marit, Sofia and Camilla are the only counterexamples that come to my mind. Maybe also Letizia if you consider being divorced (but without children) as a liability.

For a "normal" fiancée it would perhaps be a non-issue. For a Catholic royal fiancée of a traditionally Catholic country? Yes it was a liability and a huge one, for which some of the press and segments of the Spanish public continue to hold against her. Both Wallis Simpson and Camilla Parker-Bowles received abuse for the same thing. Caroline of Monaco is a princess who received severe criticism for her behavior with her first and third husbands that continues to this day.

Being an aristocrat did not give her immunity from criticism.

Charlene and Kate invited controversy not for being commoners. It was for acquiescing to a decade long period of cohabitation before marriage.

Can you give me the names of any princesses or aristocratic Consorts who shacked up for ten years before marriage to their princes? In Victoria of Sweden's case she didn't have a choice. She was denied permission to marry the man she loved, a man whose character and reputation was beyond reproach.

In Maxima's situation I found the controversy particularly unfair. She did nothing wrong except be the daughter of a man who had a bad reputation in Argentina.

I am not giving these examples to rag on these women. I am giving them as examples that Terri Terri's theory of aristocrats getting the white glove treatment online and in the press is demonstrably false.

Otherwise how to explain the situations in Spain with Juan Carlos and Cristina Borbon? In England with Prince Andrew?

The press and public don't care about blue blood anymore. If there is dirt to dish, it's going to be dished period.

 

[Bine221]

Totally agree with Moonmaiden: Royals are no longer "untouchable"..... except maybe the ones in Japan and in some Islamic / Non-Democratic Countries.

So maybe we have to stay with the European Royals.
But even the Queen, today an ICON of age and nearly-untouched, was heavily criticized for her behaviour after Diana´s Death.
Same was with King Juan-Carlos - as too many scandals approached during the same time, his "secret contract of silence" with the press vanished.
BYe Bine

 

[Lady Nimue]

Sofia's own soon-to-be sister in law Princess Victoria uttered a rather terse "no comment" when she was asked about her brother's upcoming wedding during the Korean State visit. How simple would it have been to say "She is lovely, I am happy for both of them" or something equally mild and generic? Do you REALLY believe that if the Royal fiancée was someone without SH's background Victoria would have answered as she did? Or was Victoria being petty and unfair as well?

I agree, Moonmaiden. This is a classic case of 'damned with faint praise'. Ouch!

Good points, except that by saying nothing you simply add fuel to the already rampant speculation that the SRF are not all exactly thrilled with SH's imminent accession to their ranks. Victoria is not an idiot, she must have realized this.

She could have come up with something more noncommittal yet diplomatic than a terse " I don't want to talk about it"...my goodness! It's a family wedding, not an embezzlement controversy like in Spain or a sordid sex scandal like in England!

Speaking of the nastiness on Madeleine's FB page, she not only didn't object to them she let the derogatory comments about SH stay up.

And no, the negativity is not solely confined to the Internet.

Yep.

Yes, MARG. It is indeed fascinating how two people can sometimes read the same thing and come up with different interpretations.

And why exactly was the journalist "sleazy" for asking Victoria her brother's upcoming wedding? If you read the interview it was during the course of a relaxed question and answer period when lots of personal questions were being asked....i.e. about Princess Estelle's response to her mother's absence. It was perfectly legit for the reporter to ask about the upcoming wedding...ANY Royal with a family member having a wedding coming up would have been asked that question.

And the question was about the wedding in general...not about Sofia.

The question might be considered "loaded" by some SH fans but that is hardly the fault of the journalist is it?

Finally...what other recent Royal fiancée has had a thread put up to discuss her "PAST, and her future role" within her new family? Catherine Middleton? Stephanie de Lannoy?

Failing to make a generic, affable comment suggests strain to me. Someone in Victoria's position has 'canned answers' at the ready. Failing to make the politic response suggests strain, which could be for any number of reasons, but strain.

I've never been a Sofia non-fan, I've just kind of watched neutrally. I don't dislike her, I don't think their marriage is the end of the royal world.

I don't and never did have an issue with her, but I do want to point some things out:

I do think some of the actions of CP's sisters, pointed out by Moonmaiden have been rather interesting. Victoria's "no comment" comment, Madeleine leaving negative posts up on Facebook (not sure what these people said). This suggests to me that perhaps the sisters are non-fans. Now this could be for many a reason other than they don't care for their future sister-in-law - I don't know. They could also perhaps just not care for her on a personal level that really has nothing to do with her past. I don't take this as a signal to dislike Sofia - maybe if I met the three of them at a party, I'd like Sofia but not like the other two, who can say?

People are suggesting that Sofia is well-liked and accepted into the royal family, and it's only people on the internet who have an issue. Not necessarily. Once royals make a decision, in the public eye they tend to support it in lock-step. And not everyone within a family may think the same way. Maybe Silvia adores her, CG just doesn't care and Madde can't stand her - or so many other combinations. As with most royal families, we won't hear of it, and we won't see anything but a united front.

Well summed up. Having watched the situation for a long time, it would not be surprising if the sisters-in-law don't get along, especially Madeleine and Sofia. Well said. I'll leave it at that. We cannot really know, but families do have their feuds and what-not. Royalty would be no different.

 

[Olyashka]

It would somehow be interesting to see what their future lives will be. In less than 2 months, Carl Philip and Sofia will say their marriage vows. I hope that no one will boycott the wedding few days before it happens! I pray all the best for them - no extramarital affairs and divorce.

I also hope that the couple will take on a large part of duties off from the King and Queen, and CP Victoria and P. Daniel. If they want to have their appanage, they must prove that they deserve it ; )

 

[LadyFinn]

Carl Philip and Sofia shouldn't take any duties away from the king, queen, Victoria and Daniel. They should find their own roles and the areas they are interested in and work in them. For Carl Philip it is military, agriculture, events connected with food, dyslexia and sports. Sofia will probably concentrate on issues concerning children.

 

[Skippy]

Carl Philip and Sofia shouldn't take any duties away from the king, queen, Victoria and Daniel. They should find their own roles and the areas they are interested in and work in them. For Carl Philip it is military, agriculture, events connected with food, dyslexia and sports. Sofia will probably concentrate on issues concerning children.

On that I agree. The duties performed by the king and queen and Victoria and Daniel would probably not even fit them.

For the rest the discussion about her past in its broadest sense has slowly run its course - except for the diehards and some newbies. The wedding is approaching, so it's time to embrace the future and see what it brings

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...] If they want to have their appanage, they must prove that they deserve it ; )

In my understanding neither Prince Carl Philip, the future Princess Sofia, Princess Madeleine and Mr O'Neill nor the King's sisters and in-laws receive an apanage at all.

I understood that the King reimburses the costs when Prince Carl Philip or Princess Madeleine 'do' public engagements. For an example: when Princess Madeleine flies to Sweden in connection with the celebratoon of Sweden's National Day, this is funded by King's finances. Hoewever, when Princess Madeleine is doing activities for Childhood it becomes private. This means it is the public part which is financed by grants from the King.

 

[Mbruno]

In my understanding neither Prince Carl Philip, the future Princess Sofia, Princess Madeleine and Mr O'Neill nor the King's sisters and in-laws receive an apanage at all.

I understood that the King reimburses the costs when Prince Carl Philip or Princess Madeleine 'do' public engagements. For an example: when Princess Madeleine flies to Sweden in connection with the celebratoon of Sweden's National Day, this is funded by King's finances. Hoewever, when Princess Madeleine is doing activities for Childhood it becomes private. This means it is the public part which is financed by grants from the King.

There is a brief description of royal family/court finances in the English-language website of the Swedish Royal House.

Royal Finances - Sveriges Kungahus [NS4 version]

 

[LadyFinn]

Article in today's Aftonbladet

Sofia partied wildly - with celebrities
Revealed her party life in New York City at an undisclosed blog

She hung out with world artist Puff Daddy and partied with actor Mark Wahlberg. The aspiring prince wife Sofia Hellqvist and friend Camilla Sundman wrote an unknown diary of the wild life in New York.
In Sofia Hellqvist's CV at the official website is told about her time in New York in the mid 00s. It states among other things that she read accounts with a focus on business development and trained as a yoga instructor. But the CV does not give the whole picture.
After participation in "Paradise Hotel" in 2005 Sofia and Camilla Sundman, best friend at the time, decided to move to New York where they came to spend three years.
- We thought it was hard after Paradise Hotel because it was so much. That's why I and Sofia went to New York. The goal was that we would go there and build something, says Camilla Sundman.
Via site Glife they started the blog in 2006 "In the city that never sleeps".
Until the end of last week the blog was in a report form on the site nouw.com. But then after Aftonbladet asked questions about the texts disappeared all materials from the site at the end of last week.
In the blog Sofia and Camilla wrote that New York has become their new home, the best accessory is a cocktail and that the partis has become everyday life.
- We had good contacts and people attracted to us when we went out. We had a very good charisma and became friends with everyone. Sofia and I belonged together in a very good way and became popular for our personalities, says Camilla.
The duo got to celebration circles and became close friends with the nightclub king Mark Baker and his then wife Vicky Andren. They partied with P. Diddy. Camilla remembers meeting with the rapper:
- We met him several times and he had his recording studio right next to where we lived. It was cool, we were in the studio when they were recording.
Another night they partied when Hollywood star Mark Wahlberg celebrated his birthday at the exclusive Cipriani.
- There are many models who daily use drugs. We did not hold on to something like that at all. We studied, we were out and then we went up and did it all that makes sense we would do the day after.
According to her, the girls' parents were never worried.
- You can trust me and Sofia. We do not do things. We had daily contact with them, and Sofia's parents greeted often as did my mother. We talked with them and were able to get guidance, she says.
But it was not just in New York Sofia lived out. On an after party in Las Vegas some time before the trip, she brought up Jenna Jameson's interest. The meeting ended with them kissing in front of a camera.
The court announced that Sofia Hellqvist is not available for a comment.
Sofia festade vilt – med kändisar _ Nyheter _ Aftonbladet

Aftonbladet has also saved the blog and one can read parts of the blog if one pays for Aftonbladet Plus.

 

[Marty91charmed]

Nothing new here, but the strange thing the all this "material" that ìtaken down from internet... As were the infamous photos of Sofia... Never seen such a whitewashing...

 

[amaryllus]

If she did worse things ,not saying she did, someone will sell out or photo evidence will appear.All ways does.

 

[Marengo]

I don't think it is that surprising that it disappeared. TBH I find it more surprising that the blog stayed around as long as it did. One would imagine that somebody in the press department of the palace would have discovered it before, considering the blog has been posted on social media, including this -and many other- royalty forum(s).

But indeed, one of my teachers once compared the internet to a sewer system that never gets flushed. Things will stay around. Though in this case I do not think the blog was that shocking. Just two young girls whose main occupation at the time was partying. That was the image you would get from the blog, but apparently Camilla Sundman remembers it differently in the interview.

 

[LadyFinn]

But indeed, one of my teachers once compared the internet to a sewer system that never gets flushed. Things will stay around indeed. Though in this case I do not think the blog was that shocking. Just two young girls whose main occupation at the time was partying. That was the image you would get from the blog, but apparently Camilla Sundman remembers it differently in the interview.

It is quite normal that memories change quite much with time, especially when your friend is becoming a wife of a swedish prince.

 

[Marty91charmed]

Well, i found a saved piece of this blog... it seems thye told about their nights out, parties, boys etc in new york... But on some sites and forums it is rumoured there are nasty parts of this blog that are saved and ready to go out... Ijust think Sofia and her friend weren't all that shrewd to write down their own business...

a page of the blog:

I staden som aldrig sover

translation

https://translate.google.it/transla...+&cd=1&hl=sv&ct=clnk&gl=se&edit-text=&act=url

 

[Dman]

Picture:
A ten year old Sofia Hellqvist skiing!
The Royal Watcher