Talk:Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject Denmark (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Australia / Tasmania (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Tasmania.
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Tasmania.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other editorial assistance.

Automated translations[edit]

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)


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)

Changes by an anon[edit]

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


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)

Australian royals[edit]

Maybe they are referring to Prince Leonard as the first Australian royal? :-). Only joking!-- 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)


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?-- 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)

Censored ?[edit]

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.


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 (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)

Numerous errors[edit]

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)

That pouch[edit]

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)

More errors[edit]

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

I added another error: Fashion: It was said that "Mary's elegance was praised by Karl Lagerfeld" This link was given:

Yet, that link just COMPARES Kate and Mary PHYSICALLY: "Of Kate Middleton, Kaiser Karl remarked, "She is very different from Princess Diana, and seems very well balanced and a happy person. She is chic in a way the position needs." He added that she looks like Denmark's Princess Mary -- "like a younger sister." " The sentence as it was written is erroneous. I left Tommy Hilfiger, my knowledge of German isn't good enough to judge on the pertinence of the reference provided! -- (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)

In Denmark, as well as in Sweden and Norway, if you marry into a royal family, like Mary did, your title is not suddenly "Princess Frederik", we are different from Britain in that way, if you marry into a royal family you get to keep your own name in your title. For example; Her Royal Highness Lilian, Princess of Sweden, Duchess of Halland.


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)

Mary, The Crown Princess[edit]

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)

Indeed. I'm sure no one is jealous of her "Exciting Alternatives" past. And she is really NOT a Crown Princess but the wife of a Crown prince. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wife of a crown prince but nor a crown princess? Huh? Surtsicna (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Crown princess means wife of the crown prince, at least in Denmark. The queen was never crown princess, she was always called "tronfølger", litterally throne follower. --Klausok (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
... which is usually translated as "Hereditary Prince(ss)", right? Surtsicna (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
No. This is the usual translation of Arveprins Knud's title. Knud was "arveprins", very litterally "inheritprince". "Prince inheritor" might be a better term in English. This was not a description of his situation, like heir presumptive in English or tronfølger for the later queen, but a title granted specifically to him. He was the third and so far last to get this title. All have been heirs presumptive who never became king (Frederik due to the birth of a son of the king, Ferdinand due to the king surviving him, Knud due to a change in the law of succession). --Klausok (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Education in Texas[edit]

this of is FALSE and get rid off this comment.

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

Fabricated danish controversy[edit]

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?

There was no sign of a hefty check to an Australian bank. (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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)


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: ( 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 (talkcontribs) 07:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


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)

The use of unencyclopedic/unnecessary information[edit]

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


Crown Princess?[edit]

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)

It's the same way in Sweden and Norway.

Change of citizenship and prenuptial agreement[edit]

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." 20:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Body full of external links[edit]

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)


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)

Repeated Vandalism[edit]

In the last few days there have been multiple acts of vandalism by each of the following IP addresses: and 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. 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! 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. 23:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Too much information[edit]

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

Although not vandalism, it isn't appropriate for wikipedia. Again, people can go look up the gossip mags for juicy tibits. Just because another's page has gossip all over it, is NO justification to put gossip elsewhere. If anything, such gossip should be removed. Etimodnar (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Significance of the marriage[edit]

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)

Princess Melikoff[edit]

Is there any room for a mention of this in the article? Trivial to an extent, perhaps - at least as far as this article is concerned - but it may still be of interest to royal watchers. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign-language sources[edit]

Since, presumably, very few of us can understand Danish, German, French, etc, I have removed a number of citations in these languages. I noticed that several were dead links anyway. In most cases, there was a covering citation in English, or one could be found with ease. Because there are quite a few more in need of removal, I guess one should invite discussion, and find out how passionate fellow-editors are about foreign citations. Failing good justification, I'll come back soon and sift out the remainder. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

please only take off the ones that you can replace with English language refs, which is probably 100% anyway. 10:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Lack of reliable citations[edit]

I tagged a number of uncited assertions in this article and was miffed to find here that a not-very conscientious IP editor removed them instantly without comment or explanation! OK, in such circumstances, I don't mind getting even more insistent on having things done more properly and out in the open. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


Per WP:BURDEN, the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Those that wish to include the unnotable, trivial and unsourced information about her ancestry should say why.

None of her ancestors is notable. Thus, the section should not exist. Her children have their own ancestry sections. Nobody is going to come here to find the name of her father's mother's mother's father. Surtsicna (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

An ancestory listing, such as the one that was removed from this article, is of historical interest for all royals regardless of the notability, or otherwise, of the ancestors - I do not consider it trivial. Where the information is known, it should be included in all royal articles. Notability is the guide for whether the ancestors get their own article. In this instance, given the general lack of notability of ancestors beyond her father and step mother, the default collapsed setting of the previously included ancestory chart seemed like a good compromise - the info was available for those who wanted it and collapsed to avoid disrupting the flow for those who didn't. That said, sourcing should still be provided. AusTerrapin (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Before even arguing whether it should be there, a source must be found because this is a biography of a living person. Once it's found, we can discuss whether it should be in the article. I will try to attract attention to the issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility).
Now, how can the names of her ancestors be of historical interest if her ancestors were not historically important persons? What do we gain by saying that her great-great-grandparents were Bob and Betty Smith, John and Jane Doe, etc? As I said, nobody will come here to find the name of her father's mother's mother's father. Wikipedia is not a geneaology database. Surtsicna (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The genealogy certainly should be here, but there should be a source given too as to where it came from. It is unimportant if the people in it are notable or not, it means that we don't try to link to articles that will not be written under the current policies. Four or five generations should be adequate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Nothing should be here which cannot be sourced to the standards expected. Amazingly - who'd have thought it - the ahnentafel wasn't sourced and was removed, entirely in line with policy. Good luck with finding a reliable source for that kind of stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that she is now a princess does not mean that the article should have an ahnentafel. Ahnentafels serve to show the subject's descent from notable persons and are often there because the subject's notability is directly or indirectly derived from his or her ancestry. For example, the Queen of Denmark is queen due to her ancestry. The Crown Princess of Denmark is not a crown princess due to her ancestry; her ancestry is completely unrelated to the rest of the article. Having an ahnentafel in this article would be no more helpful or neccessary than having an ahnentafel in the article about Rafael Nadal or any other random commoner. Surtsicna (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I find this sort of ancestry section less bothersome than the typical ones. None of Mary's ancestors will be mentioned anywhere else at Wikipedia. But why do we need a separate ahnentafel to name the ancestors of Henry VIII back some arbitrary number of generations, when those same ancestors are notable persons themselves who can be traced by internal links in a matter of minutes, if a reader is so inclined? Srnec (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I am unsympathetic to the use of ahnentfel in any article. The article text ought to indicate the subject's parents and, probably, grandparents; any other notable ancestors can be mentioned in the text if it is relevant to the rest of the article. This case merely brings into relief how silly the whole thing is. john k (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Part of the point is that there are no names with blue links in the table. This demonstrates in another way the "commoner" aspect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Really? How is that something that needs to be "demonstrated" beyond just explaining that she's a commoner? I don't understand why there is any relevant interest in listing the names of just about anybody's great-great-grandparents; when these are people of no importance at all, it becomes all the more pointless. john k (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In my view the present extent of the family is quite as much as appropriate, if not more so. Her father is described as a professor. If this is a correct use of the term for a senior and distinguished academic (not merely a lecturer - according to US usage), he is likely to be notable; her stepmother already has an article; her siblings only have links for theri occupations and are probably NN - do they need to be listed?


Royal life[edit]

This is partly incorrect: "She has posed and given interviews for magazines including Vogue, Australian Women's Weekly, Parade Magazine and Dansk (Danish)." Neither Mary nor Fred have given interviews or even one interview to Women's Weekly. (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Mary has given interviews to all these magazines and even posed in photosessions. I copied the links to the cover pages of some of these (one Women's weekly and one Vogue, to my understanding she has done 3 interviews with WW and 2 with Vogue) were you can see "official interview" and "world exclusive" next to Mary's bit. She has done this a few times now and since she married.,1.jpg -- (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Needs cleanup[edit]

The early life and education section contains redundant information and should be consolidated. --CutOffTies (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg[edit]

A recent edit by anon changed her listed royal house from "House of Monpezat" to "House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg" and left a reference to a book. I understand that she belongs to a house because her husband belongs to the house. However, her husband Frederik is not mentioned anywhere in the latter article, and his article Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark mentions only Monpezat and not Glücksburg. So I'm confused. Elizium23 (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue of which house matters most has been ongoing since fall of 2008 (see Talk:Frederik,_Crown_Prince_of_Denmark#Dynasty). I don't think this will ever be resolved. The argument is really over whether by agnatic relation, Frederik inherits the house of his father, or whether he takes over the house of his mother, the current Queen of Denmark. There is no rule that he must take his mother's house as the royal house when he becomes king. I think it would be better to leave the house as Monpezat until such time as he must choose. Those who are pushing for the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg are probably just some fanatics who want to see the Germanic line promoted. --Skol fir (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Does the Queen of Denmark belong to the same royal house as the Prince of Schleswig-Holstein? If she does, then the Crown Prince of Denmark cannot possibly belong to the house his mother belongs to. His mother is not the head of the house. She is not the last living member of the house. Neither she nor the Danish government have the authority to decide that he belongs to a royal house that has its own laws and regulations. He is a member of that house as much as any descendant of a Glücksburg princess is. If he is a member of the house headed by the Prince of Schleswig-Holstein, so are George VI of the United Kingdom, Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia, Felipe, Prince of Asturias, and so on until the entire concept of a royal house breaks down. Should it be decided to treat him as a Glücksburg, then it has to be made clear that he does not belong to the house whose members are his mother, the King of the Hellenes, the Prince of Schleswig-Holstein, the Queen of Spain, the Duke of Edinburgh, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Precisely, Surtsicna. I agree with you. I even went to the article for the Prince of Schleswig-Holstein and tried to correct some erroneous statements in the lede, but was shot down by SergeWoodzing, who makes some flimsy argument about the genealogy trumping local traditions and laws of the countries in question. So, he insists that the House of Oldenburg maintains outright control over almost every royal family in Europe! What a bunch of malarkey! --Skol fir (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


"Mary will automatically assume the feminine form of his title and rank, becoming Queen consort of Denmark."

This is a contradiction in terms. He will become King, she will become Queen consort; the feminine equivalent of a king is a queen regnant; the masculine equivalent of a queen consort is a prince. Ergo, she doesn't become the feminine form of his title and rank. This is just sloppy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. The feminine form of king is queen. Whether that queen is monarch or consort doesn't matter here. Surtsicna (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


There is a mistake on the section about Mary's godchildren. She is not and has never been a Godmother for HH Prince Felix Henrik Valdemar Christian. He was born in 2002, and at that time, she was only HRH Crown Prince Frederik's unofficial girlfriend. They didn't get engaged before the end of 2003 and they married only in 2004. No way Mary could have been a godmother then ! She is, however, a Godmother for HH Prince Felix's half-brother, HH Prince Henrik Carl Joachim Alain (born 2009).— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2012‎

I can remove the sentence about Felix, but your assertion for Henrik is not supported in his article Prince Henrik of Denmark. Do you have a reliable secondary source that we could examine? Elizium23 (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The source is : HH Prince Henrik's page. Here are the article from Hello about the christening  : Unfortunately, the Royal family website has been changed since 2009, and no longer lists Prince Henrik's godparents. But Mary was definitely his godmother, I watched the ceremony back then.{{subst:unsignedIP}}
Aha, you are right, sorry I completely overlooked the link to her article because it didn't mention her name. I have added this to the article! Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)