Mabel Criticizes President Bush on AIDS: December 2005

[Alisa]

Mabel certainly has the best of both worlds, she gets the publicity because she is a Princess and a part of the royal family and she gets the opportunity to publicly vocalize her opinions and criticize government policies because she's not a member of the royal house

I see no problem with Mabel criticizing the administration, officially she is a private citizen is free to express her opinions as she pleases.

 

[Emily]

I guess I thought you knew I was an American. Far from taking offense, I am supportive of Mabel's right to speak up on issues, especially because I think she is a rather marginal member of the DRF and therefore not bound to remain impartial. More important to me than being an American, though, is trying to be a decent member of the human race who acts out of a moral base. What is happening with AIDS in Africa is a travesty. If Mabel can use her position to bring attention to this crisis and to put the spotlight on leaders who can, but don't, respond to it, then so much the better.

 

[Emily]

PS - In my post #21 -- the whole top part is Lady Marmalade's quote -- I write only at the bottom because I was appalled by her defense of our outspokenly Christian president and then her questioning of why he should help prostitutes....there is a connection there I didn't think she was getting.

 

[pollyemma]

All political figures are up for criticism. It's everyone's duty to keep them in check so the various political systems work. It all goes back to social contract and whatnot. The USA does need to do more to help stop the AIDS pandemic and we're very rich and powerful and Mabel was just saying that we could do more. She didn't do anything ad hominem really, she just said a fact that maybe some people don't like to hear.

do you not believe it is possible that there are people who care deeply about ending AIDS who don't believe that legitimizing prostitution will do anything to help and may in fact be counterproductive?

 

[hsh1969]

What I don't like is a person that shielded on their "royalty" status and behind a mammoth of money as George Soros is, taking cheap shots to a President of another country.

The thread is about is she as a member of RF is supposed to talk about issues that go against the stance of royalty. My answer is still no.

 

[Alexandria]

I would strongly urge members to refrain from posting comments about President Bush, either for or against him.

Norwegianne has already posted a warning regarding political discussions. While this thread blurs the line between politics and royals, attacking President Bush, other heads of state, Americans, etc. is not okay.

I do think that there is a way to discuss this situation without resorting to addressing President Bush's policies. But if members continue to take cheap shots on both sides of the debate, then this thread will be closed.

Alexandria
Dutch Forum Moderator

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Opportunistic? Mabel is and our President is not? Let's not be the pot calling the kettle black. A majority of the American population thinks that President Bush - as in 'Bush of oil money' - is being exactly that by invading Iraq. Opportunistic? By President Bush using the beautiful tenets of a major world religion to amass political clout but not following those same tenets when it isn't politically expedient? Freedom of Speech is a wonderful privilege to keep the truth from being hidden. Talk on, Mabel....

Please do not say majority. Opinion polls of 1,000 people do not statisitically or mathmatically speak for a majority of 300,000,000 million people.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

I would strongly urge members to refrain from posting comments about President Bush, either for or against him.

Norwegianne has already posted a warning regarding political discussions. While this thread blurs the line between politics and royals, attacking President Bush, other heads of state, Americans, etc. is not okay.

I do think that there is a way to discuss this situation without resorting to addressing President Bush's policies. But if members continue to take cheap shots on both sides of the debate, then this thread will be closed.

Alexandria
Dutch Forum Moderator

Thank you Alexandria, for conveying this reminder. It is much appreciated.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

As soon as this thread opened I knew it was going to be bad.

Every country spends untold dollars to fight and combat this virus every year.

Whether you agree or disagree, this is not the place to bash political leaders.

Mabel, while she has some interesting points, must remember she is married to a prince of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the daughter-in-law of a reigning, and not ruling, Queen.

They are supposed to be apolitical and I would think Her Majesty probably was more than a little stunned by this when she heard about it.

Now let's get something straight, whether they like or not, whether we like or not, royal families in many of these European countries do not have ruling power or control of goverment. Therefore, from a public standpoint they are to represent THEIR WHOLE COUNTRY, not just being seen as representing on faction of it. They should in fact, whether they like it or not, keep such public views as directed and pointed as this out of public speeches. That forum is not the place for it.

That is why you all have democratically elected governments now, right??

Mabel, marrying a prince, royal, HRH, or not whatever, should have thought twice about the loaded message of her speech.

I am sure there are palace courtiers with their arms up in the air in disbelief right now.

 

[SpiffyBallerina]

Politically correct or not, Princess Mabel is a smart lady. Just look at all this attention her cause is getting! It gets people talking about these issues and that was her goal.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Hm..there is an Italian term that one would use to describe her...still an embarassement to Her Majesty the Queen....you go mr. p!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mandrake]

I think you should all realize that however she's married to a prince, Mabel still is an independant woman working for an international organisation.
It would be strange if she would only act as 'royal', while her fulltime job is with the soros foundation.

Thank god she's an outspoken person, all those dull princesses who can do nothing more than just waving around are depressing me!!

Go for it Mabel!

 

[Maxie]

I think you should all realize that however she's married to a prince, Mabel still is an independant woman working for an international organisation.
It would be strange if she would only act as 'royal', while her fulltime job is with the soros foundation.

Well, that's just the whole problem with Mabel. She worked for Soros even before her wedding with prince Friso. Now I can imagine that there are people here who are saying: well, somebody who is part of the DRF shouldn't be involved in organisations like that, there is too much politics involved. But Mabel and Friso decided that they wouldn't be a part of the Dutch Royal House anymore, so legally they can do and say what they want and work for those organisations they please. Is this a good thing? Well, honestly I don't know. I think that if Beatrix had had any problems with it, she would have forbidden it already. The Queen is not the kind of woman who doesn't control matters like this. But that's still guessing, of course... what happens behind the closed doors of the palace, we'll never know...

By the way, I'm browsing some Dutch news sites and the thing some of them are talking about is that a third of the Dutch people is going to gain weight during the christmas period, so that is what is keeping the Dutch distracted. It's only in the Volkskrant (well, I haven't surfed all the newspapers, because I have to run within a few minutes) where we can find a little article about it, just mentioning that Mabel gave the speech and that she critized some countries. No name calling there...
I guess the Dutch are all like: 'Oh Mabel again...sigh', because I really really never met someone who actually really liked Mabel (neither do I to be honest). I think that most people in Holland don't care what she does, even if she stood on her head before Paleis Noordeinde... (though we would have a good laugh then and something to talk about here, that's for sure). The most of us are all just sooooo Mabel-tired, you really don't want to know...

 

[Little_star]

Personally i don't have a problem with what Mabel said. As I understand it, her hsband is not in the line of succession (is that correct) so there is not the isue of becoming Queen.

Congratulations to Mabel for a well-informed and articulate speech.

 

[Maxie]

Personally i don't have a problem with what Mabel said. As I understand it, her hsband is not in the line of succession (is that correct) so there is not the isue of becoming Queen.

Congratulations to Mabel for a well-informed and articulate speech.

Yes, that's correct.

 

[Oppie]

I have a question. When she is "working" what name does she use. If she referring to herself and introducing herself as Princess Mabel of Oranje-Nassau. Then it is a problem, because I think the average person is going to think that she is a Dutch princess repersenting the Dutch Royal Family or the Netherlands.

That could become a problem, if the American press finds out that a Dutch princess (they won't look into the events around her marriage) was attacking Bush, then it could become a real problem, (Think France)

I think (and I applaud her) for her statement, but if she is going to start attacking Bush she better make it VERY clear that she is not a part of the Dutch Royal House and does not speak for Dutch people and the Dutch parliament.

 

[Maxie]

That could become a problem, if the American press finds out that a Dutch princess (they won't look into the events around her marriage) was attacking Bush, then it could become a real problem, (Think France)

I have to agree on that one. I don't know how she calls herself while speeching about these delicate matters...

I think (and I applaud her) for her statement, but if she is going to start attacking Bush she better make it VERY clear that she is not a part of the Dutch Royal House and does not speak for Dutch people and the Dutch parliament.

I think Mabel is enough of a diplomate to know at least that. But then again, with Mabel one never knows what is going to happen...

 

[Emily]

Actually, I was wondering the same thing that you addressed in your post, Maxie...that is I was wondering what the fall out in the Dutch press would be. If you are part of the "Royal Family" then to remain an effective institution I think you would have to remain publicly impartial because they do represent the whole nation. On the other hand, since Mabel is somewhat on the margins. My guess is that QB would rein her in somewhat if the fallout of her talk had negative repercussions for the royals.

 

[Maxie]

My guess is that QB would rein her in somewhat if the fallout of her talk had negative repercussions for the royals.

Yes, I would guess (and hope) that too. Beatrix has always been known for controlling her family very well (though it didn't work out too well with the whole Margarita-business, I have to admit that...)

 

[betina]

i can just say that when the tsunami struck there was a report in the newspaper how much money every country had supplied with per citicent.
USA was very low on that rank if you compared it to many European countrys.
I can also say that Denmark have found a vaccine against AIDS. Fantastic for such a small country.

 

[Maxie]

i can just say that when the tsunami struck there was a report in the newspaper how much money every country had supplied with per citicent.
USA was very low on that rank if you compared it to many European countrys.
I can also say that Denmark have found a vaccine against AIDS. Fantastic for such a small country.

Personally I think this thread isn't about which country is good and which is bad (come on people, that's hardly interesting). It's about whether Mabel is stupid or not by mingling in this kind of business and being a princess at the same time...

 

[pollyemma]

Yes, I would guess (and hope) that too. Beatrix has always been known for controlling her family very well (though it didn't work out too well with the whole Margarita-business, I have to admit that...)

indeed. i dont think that any reigning in will be necessary in this case. if Mabel were still in the royal house this speech might well lead to discussions in parliament.

and that of course is where the real fireworks and headlines would come from.

some newspapers (and some royalty forums ) are paying attention to it but more than a day has passed since the speech and i'm not seeing a mayor media explosion so I'm guessing we can safely say this has blown over without any fallout.

what utterances mabel may make in the future, only time will tell...

 

[Layla1971]

Ok, the thread is about the speech being appropriate for a princess.

Yes it was appropriate, Mabel is a member of the Royal Family not the Royal House and they are two different things with different responsibilities.

 

[Layla1971]

I really don't see what all the fuss is about! So she is a member of a RF, so what? If you want to class her in dipomatic terms with a president, then her speech is just like a president 'urging' through a harsh speech another nation to change.

Mabel is an intelligent woman, she wouldn't do or say anything against her country or her family's best interests.

If anything she has used her publicity to highlight a decent cause rather than self-interest like many in her position may have.

She is a princess, maybe not an elected politician but still in a position to highlight causes, the public can still complain and since they haven't it doesn't seem she's made any unwelcome waves.
How can the US hold this against the Dutch government? The Netherlands wouldn't hold a harsh or even intrue speech by a Republican Congressperson or Senator against the president.

 

[HRHAmy]

here's an article from Today's Telegraaf.

http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/29591201/Mabel_bekritiseert_Bush.html

I will very roughly translate:

At an Aids conference in Amsterdam yesterday Princess Mabel lashed out as President Bush's policies.

She feels the Bush administration's policies harm the fight against HIV/AIDs among drug users and stigmatizes prositutes. The Open Society Institute where she works (headed by George Soros) has filed a law suit against the US government.

She said the US has done all within its power to keep measures to promote clean needles for drug users out of UN documents. despite the fact that clean needles among drug users prevents the spread of HIV/AIDS. Drugs and HIV/AIDS are often related she says. in Russia 80 percent of drug users are HIV positive.

The Open Society law suit has to do with prostitutes. The Bush administration will only fund help organizations that take an explicit stance against prostitution.

"sex workers are the victims of stigma, violence and discrimination," and now " organizations that help these people with money from the US government are required to judge them." she said. Bush's policy led the Brazilian government to refuse a 40 million dollar subsidy this year.

The Open Society hopes that it's lawsuit will lead to courts striking down the antiprositution rule as unconstitutional.

-----

Ok, I really really DON'T want to start a discussion on Bush and AIDS as that is way too explosive, we'll never agree and besides it's off topic.

My question is: is it appropriate for Mabel to give a speech like this? she's not a member of the royal house. but she is a member of the royal family and closely associated with the dutch head of state.


could she give this speech if parliament had approved her marriage to Friso and she were a member of the royal house carrying out official duties?

I really dont know. tell me what you think.

I am torn on this one, I think that since she is not a member of the royal house she should be able to state her feelings on such issues if she strongly believes in them. But on the other hand she did marry Prince Friso and even though they lost their line in succession they are still part of the the royal family and anything they do will always be associated to the Dutch Royal House even if they aren't in line anymore. I don't know, to me Mabel is a little bit of a trouble maker since she lied about having connections with a mobster and now this. Is she a princess who needs to follow the rules? or is she a commoner that just happens to have a title stuck to her name? I guess it depends on what the people's opinion of her is. I guess she should say what she feels on topics that are important to her. I am torn.

 

[betina]

Personally I think this thread isn't about which country is good and which is bad (come on people, that's hardly interesting). It's about whether Mabel is stupid or not by mingling in this kind of business and being a princess at the same time...

I was just answering a post by lady Marmalade but it has been deleted now

 

[GlitteringTiaras]

To be diplomatic about Mabel's speech I believe everyone has a right to their own opinion and freedom to state what they believe is to be true.

 

[Maxie]

I was just answering a post by lady Marmalade but it has been deleted now

Yes, I know. It was just a comment in general...

 

[SpiffyBallerina]

Like I said, once you enter the public sphere, you're fair game. ESPECIALLY political figures who make decisions that have a huge impact in the world. It IS our duty to talk about these things, even if it's in agreement (like you have with Bush) or disagreement. Public discourse should be encouraged and not discouraged with the simple black and white explanation that disagreement equals disloyalty.

What Princess Mabel said was true. We don't do enough and we are so wealthy and powerful that we can afford to do a lot more. How is this different from state dinners during which the monarchs gently chide political leaders about lack of democracy, human rights, etc?

 

[Roxsteve]

Like I said, once you enter the public sphere, you're fair game. ESPECIALLY political figures who make decisions that have a huge impact in the world. It IS our duty to talk about these things, even if it's in agreement (like you have with Bush) or disagreement. Public discourse should be encouraged and not discouraged with the simple black and white explanation that disagreement equals disloyalty.

What Princess Mabel said was true. We don't do enough and we are so wealthy and powerful that we can afford to do a lot more. How is this different from state dinners during which the monarchs gently chide political leaders about lack of democracy, human rights, etc?

While I disagree with your comments, I respect them and thank you for your response.