Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Alexandra in Trouble  (Read 47294 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
PeDe
Board Helper
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 5751

Offline Offline

Germany Germany

Posts: 32648





Ignore
« on: October 29, 2013, 05:59:55 PM »

as I scoured throught the magazines, because I cannot take the Yrma-snot anymore, I found this:


OOOOOPPPSSSS....she's in trouuuuuble. What's come over Villeman these days? Why is she hacking on Alex? Don't get me wrong, I can see why people would get annoyed with that fact......but shouldn't she take the magnifying glass on Yrma? ? ?

Should Mary be afraid....REALLY afraid? Well, read for yourselves  Thinking




Throw Countess out of Financial Support - - No other royal houses in Europe have sent the bill for a divorce to taxpayers.
http://politiken.dk/debat...grevinden-af-finansloven/




Trine Villemann

This week's edition of Image magazine exhibits in a brilliant way, how much we are the laughing stock of our own tax dollars when it comes to the royal family.
 
Hoforganet have visited the Countess of Frederiksborg in her fashionable villa in the luxury the Resort Oasis Sky Club in Turkey.
 
Over four-page spread on sunburned, a former princess and her husband, sound engineer Martin Jorgensen, the mixed second on the landscape around the couple's large villa - it is an excellent contrast to the flat Denmark, we are told.
 
It costs taxpayers more than two million a year to keep the Countess Alexandra with sunshine and mountain peaks.
 
We have been cheated for an explanation of why the divorce court as otherwise described as 'a private matter' suddenly became our responsibility as payable
 
If the Countess achieves an average age of a Danish woman, she will have cost us more than 100 million dollars before she has finished soaking up the sun. Act on annuities for Princess Alexandra, signed by Crown Prince Frederik November 24, 2004, is one of the largest royal and political scandals in recent times.
 
We Danes were not only ordered to pay alimony to Prince Joachim's ex-wife, we were also cheated for an explanation of why the divorce court as otherwise described as 'a private matter' suddenly became our responsibility as payable.
 
No other European royal houses have managed to lubricate the bill for a royal divorce by on his subjects.
 
The 170 million dollars, English Princess Diana, for example, was with when she and Prince Charles were divorced, were taken from Charles' private assets.
 
The British taxpayers contributed not a single penny to Prince Andrew and Princess Anne divorces.
 
In Spain's King Juan Carlos' eldest daughter, Princess Elena, divorced from his Duke Jamie without their financial balances have ended with the Spanish taxpayers.
 
It is therefore a quite extraordinary unusual arrangement, Alexandra was with her when she left in 2004 Amalienborg.

It would suit our reformist prime minister, she immediately sets in motion efforts to ensure that Danish taxpayers no longer have to support a woman who, with his background, education and social circle certainly should be able to fend for themselves
 
It was no less unusual to Alexandra in 2007 married sound engineer Martin Jorgensen and thus lost her position as a member of the Danish royal family.

I often hear the argument that Alexandra million to ensure that her and Joachim's sons, Princes Nikolai and Felix, growing up in a position-related conditions. That was taken care of by Joachim already at the divorce.

For as it says in the notes to the bill that formed the basis of the Law on Alexandras million, as was agreed child benefits between the parties.
 
Furthermore, Joachim gave his ex-wife an unencumbered villa in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in Copenhagen, free of charge, just to make sure that the two numbers in succession should not grow up in a two-room concrete slum on the outer Nørrebro overlooking the back patches and burnt out cars.
 
Yet elected a majority in parliament in November 2004 to vote for a highly educated, working-woman with a superior network and a myriad of skills was awarded lifelong luxury dependent on everybody's behalf.
 
Only SF and Alliance voted against.

Perhaps it would have been easier to justify Countess exorbitant state performance if she toiled for it, but she does not.
 
It is now very little work that we see of Alexandra, unless, of course, to an interview with Billed-Bladet belong in that category.
 
No, there is no reason to maintain Alexandra's Finances. The law, which grants her our tax millions until she dies, should be simply scrapped.
 
And it would suit our reformist prime minister, she immediately sets in motion efforts to ensure that Danish taxpayers no longer have to support a woman who, with his background, education and social circle certainly should be able to fend for themselves.
Logged

PeDe
Board Helper
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 5751

Offline Offline

Germany Germany

Posts: 32648





Ignore
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2013, 06:06:38 PM »


here are some reader comments:


1) Job or apanage
I did not know that Alexandra is still receiving upkeep. Why did she not have a job? Unlike many others, she is every opportunity to pick and choose between exciting positions, and so did she not "to be the community burden" as they said in the old days. The cause of her privileged position is probably that instance, she should not be writing books about his time as a member of the royal family.

1 ANSWERS
> Complain about POSTS | > Recommend ( 0 )



2) Why should we feed divorces
It's okay that Mr marries out from the royal family. But I see no reason why we should pay. Joacim must pay, just like everyone else should. I can not see the sense in that she must live in the lap of luxury, with our money. I believe that they must be accountable for their choices and rejections. It is the royal family even find out what status they will give her, they just pay themselves.

3 ANSWERS
> Complain about POSTS | > Tell ( 3 )



3) Well!
I may as well understand the mindset that is in the post about Alexandra should not be dependent from the state. Puzzled, I am too, but it is apparently an agreement that is made in connection with Joackim and Alexandra were married, what then would happen if they broke up. (A form of a prenuptial agreement) But I've wondered about that one does not have "demanded" that she had to go out and have at least a part-time job. Particularly in particular after she married Martin Jørgensen. One must not forget that she is after her with Martin Jørgensen, then pay taxes like the rest of us. But surely it is also true that the more time that goes after the divorce, then Alexandra less interesting to follow and to also follow her chores with the various projections she still has. Boys is also getting older, so the focus will be the more and more being directed against the two.

0 ANSWERS
> Complain about POSTS | > Tell ( 2 )



4) Jante Law again.
The Countess's mother, and shall bring two Danish princes of the blood, with inheritance. Since the poor prince who drives a Ford Escort, with a cargo glædsat far udi in 5 priority and well over chimneys, he can not pay alimony and child support as other normal Danes. The Royal're above the law some of the vile mob, put in jail for breaking, or alimony or child support is not paid, Pantes and receive a salary deduction. So ask Prince to pay instead, but he certainly would have raised his upkeep, it may well be unimportant. Solution, equality, the Royal with other mortals, ask them to pay taxes, VAT, comply with dismay and tax rules and regulations for employees. But their blue blood, giving them well law to break any laws. Dog goes evil rumors that their blood is red, like us others that they oså go to the toilet, and get sick sometimes.

0 ANSWERS
> Complain about POSTS | > Tell ( 2 )



5) Alexandra -
can the lissom not help it. She was dragged up here from the other side of the world. Somewhere it is probably ok, she will be compensated - if nothing else - to shut up.

0 ANSWERS
> Complain about POSTS | > Tell ( 4 )



6) Briefly agree
Yes good idea. but I'm also a Republican. And do not think anyone crowned heads must ha their place in the Finance

3 ANSWERS
> Complain about POSTS | > Tell ( 3 )



7)In my skudsmålbog says I'm persistent.
Not one place it says that I am wise, so I try as previously Støtetpædagog right again - Maybe it is advanced, so go for it. ... In view of the large amount of rain? Is it well not quite irrelevant once again (Alexandrian) trench digging. We just got separate sewerage, and it should not be as much as expected, you can use this string to pour water out of the ears. Those who are not against some sissies m / q Maybe you can store it in canning jars produced by canning jars little as meatballs made of meatballs - far below the ground slightly as CO2, I have used when I breathe and the natural gas I have warmed me with incl. what has come out of the other end. And then for something completely different. Is it okay to say Gestapo Agent and the Nazis to people when you have to say KGB or GRU. Here it must then be shown GRU or shallow filtering and wearing sms, twitter and instagram.

0 ANSWERS
> Complain about POSTS | > Recommend ( 0 )



8 ) One very aged post after another
and my - the only creative - is gone. Tark-Tark - Tark

0 ANSWERS
> Complain about POSTS | > Recommend ( 0 )


9)Goodbye to an anachronism.
The entire royal family should be out of the fold. A quick look at the calendar says 2013, let's say thank you to Gorm the Old's descendants, the French Cabernet Clown, Miss Singapore, the Tasmanian Señorita and everything that might be of pendant and trailers. Ready yourselves. Thank you for this time. I will still be found in the history books on an equal footing with witch burning, autocracy and the earpiece. (And the usual song with positive PR for the country, etc. - is nonsense. If the royal family should be explained as a business decision, the whole effort well made for the pure reality show - and so should we ha 'TV3 over and Lebbe Lone with the track as Baroness of Bryggen.)

4 ANSWERS
> Complain about POSTS | > Tell ( 6 )



10) Throw Trine Villeman of the payroll
And write her at inventory list of what needs to be stored or kept for replacement - for that's quite clear that she has far exceeded the expiry date -! The same lirum-Larum again and again without variation.
Logged

Jazzy

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 1159

Offline Offline

Posts: 6868


All that glitters...




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2013, 06:14:31 PM »

One point I agree with Trine is- since the divorce was a private matter, why do we have to foot the bill??? She gave very good examples from various royal houses that are personally funding their divorces. As Jokke made provision for his sons as per the agreement/law mentioned that secured Alex her millions, there is no need for the taxpayer to keep Alex & martin in their luxurious life.

Trine,now pls look into how much it costs the taxpayer when Mary and her entourage accompany Mr Bach on travels abroad. If Mr Bach were accompanied by another Dane(politician, CEO of some charity or something) it would not cost as much as having Mary- who comes with bodyguards,lady in waiting etc.

They are investigating Lokke's expensive flights. Investigate the unnecessary travels taken by Maz.
Logged

PeDe
Board Helper
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 5751

Offline Offline

Germany Germany

Posts: 32648





Ignore
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2013, 06:16:19 PM »

One point I agree with Trine is- since the divorce was a private matter, why do we have to foot the bill??? She gave very good examples from various royal houses that are personally funding their divorces. As Jokke made provision for his sons as per the agreement/law mentioned that secured Alex her millions, there is no need for the taxpayer to keep Alex & martin in their luxurious life.

Trine,now pls look into how much it costs the taxpayer when Mary and her entourage accompany Mr Bach to their travels abroad. If Mr Bach were accompanied by another Dane(politician, CEO of some charity or something) it would not cost as much as having Mary- who comes with bodyguards,lady in waiting etc.


HEAR! HEAR! Jazzy...exactly  Thumb up Star
Logged

Countess of Cows

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 1020

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 4811





Ignore
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2013, 06:33:50 PM »

 Ranting  are you freakin' kidding me, this is outrageous, is it for millions a year for LIFE? I mean is  there no end?  poor mares they've learned their lesson on alex, she's royally screwed if they get divorced
Logged

"I would sooner have you hate me for telling you the truth than adore me for telling you lies." Pietro Aretino

I would rather be hated for something I am, than loved for something I am not. -Bob Marley
sleepyvalentina

Large Member
******

Reputation: 346

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1448





Ignore
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2013, 06:53:16 PM »

Ranting  are you freakin' kidding me, this is outrageous, is it for millions a year for LIFE? I mean is  there no end?  poor mares they've learned their lesson on alex, she's royally screwed if they get divorced

I was thinking the same thing. What's the deal with Mary's pre-nup? Because even though Alex was still on the scene at FM's wedding, Daisy surely knew a JA divorce was imminent.
Logged

leatherface

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 828

Offline Offline

Nigeria Nigeria

Posts: 2850





Ignore
« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2013, 07:10:50 PM »

Alex's settlement was an epic fail for the DRF's lawyers, she should have either received a lump sum paid out in installments or her alimony should have been cut off once she remarried like others are.

If I were I'd take a paying gig on the non-executive board of Novo-Nordisk and other such companies.
Logged
winterrose

Baby Member
*

Reputation: 18

Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 65





Ignore
« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2013, 07:29:22 PM »

Alex's settlement was an epic fail for the DRF's lawyers, she should have either received a lump sum paid out in installments or her alimony should have been cut off once she remarried like others are.

If I were I'd take a paying gig on the non-executive board of Novo-Nordisk and other such companies.

I have a feeling that if her alimony was cut off if she remarried, she would never had remarried.  She would have lived with her now-husband, but now marry him if it meant losing out on the money.
Logged
QueenEM

Large Member
******

Reputation: 255

Offline Offline

Argentina Argentina

Posts: 1295


I'm SWexxy and I know it




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2013, 08:07:05 PM »

this is an abuse, the entire country paying alimony on a woman who is married again and doesn't have any engagements anymore is an insult to all the danish taxpayers  Ranting
Logged
Mille

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 963

Offline Offline

Denmark Denmark

Posts: 3438


Meary at the beach




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2013, 08:15:40 PM »

Alex's settlement was an epic fail for the DRF's lawyers, she should have either received a lump sum paid out in installments or her alimony should have been cut off once she remarried like others are.

If I were I'd take a paying gig on the non-executive board of Novo-Nordisk and other such companies.

I have a feeling that if her alimony was cut off if she remarried, she would never had remarried.  She would have lived with her now-husband, but now marry him if it meant losing out on the money.

She lost at least 50% of her money when she married Martin, since she now pays Danish tax. She didn´t pay when she was still royal. She lost that position - and thereby at least 1 mill dkr a year - because she got married.
Logged

"She isn´t wearing ANYTHING", said a young child

The empress shuddered, for she knew that they were right, but she thought, "The procession must go on!" She carried herself even more proudly, and the chamberlains walked along behind carrying the train that wasn't there.

H.C. Andersen
fairy

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 3756

Offline Offline

Posts: 18190





Ignore
« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2013, 08:32:30 PM »

I have always had a huge problem with the demand that a woman should go out and work for her own living, once her husband tires of her. While I do think that Alex could very likely find an interesting and well paid job on some whatever board without having to clock in the usual 40h weeks, I do think that it is Joachim's job to pay what had been agreed upon in the prenups. Alex apparently went into the marriage thinking that she would be settled for life in a very glamourous way. OOps.
Sorry, Jokke, Daisy, you and the lawyers messed up badly. The only ones to spoon that soup should be they, not the Danes nor Alex.
Logged

Mary's life motto:
"if I had the choice between world peace and a Prada handbag, I'd choose the latter one" Marian Keyes.
Harley
Board Helper
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 2405

Offline Offline

Yemen Yemen

Posts: 10958


Team Marie all the way




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2013, 08:50:31 PM »

I respectfully disagree with you Fairy.  Smiley I find it absolutely ridiculous that a woman like Alex who is healthy and educated is living off the money of her ex husband. I also don't think this particular divorce was Joachim kicking Alex out; I think it was a question of Alex wanting out and Joachim agreeing - especially considering she was already seeing Martin.

There's nothing wrong with her, this is pure laziness and mooching, IMO - go get a job, Alex! Even though you'te sons are royal, you're not anymore. I find it very unnecessary that we have to pay for someone who isn't royal anymore.
Logged

christina01
Board Helper
Humongous Member
************

Reputation: 863

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5196


Play Time after a long day of Dishing.




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: October 29, 2013, 08:53:36 PM »

I respectfully disagree with you Fairy.  Smiley I find it absolutely ridiculous that a woman like Alex who is healthy and educated is living off the money of her ex husband. I also don't think this particular divorce was Joachim kicking Alex out; I think it was a question of Alex wanting out and Joachim agreeing - especially considering she was already seeing Martin.

There's nothing wrong with her, this is pure laziness and mooching, IMO - go get a job, Alex! Even though you'te sons are royal, you're not anymore. I find it very unnecessary that we have to pay for someone who isn't royal anymore.
I agree with you Harley. Alex is a lazy twat it would seem. Get a job like millions of others have to do when they get divorced.
Logged
fairy

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 3756

Offline Offline

Posts: 18190





Ignore
« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2013, 09:02:36 PM »

I completely agree with you that you as Danes should not have to pay for her.
I just think that when the bridal couple agreed upon a certain way of life, this should not be denied to her after the marriage (for whatever reason) ended.
I think that the second the marriage ended, the entire affair moved into private territory. It is Joachim's duty now, not Denmark's.
But I stand with my opinion, I find it sad, that she is the one who gets all the blame, is accused of laziness and leeching, while Mr. Royal gets free again.
In any divorce the party with the bigger fortune and higher income has to pay some sort of settlement for the other party unless specified otherwise in the prenup. In many cases those settlements are a bitch either for the poor chap who has to pay more than he can afford or for the poor spouse that suddenly finds herself penniless, because she had been replaced by a newer model.
Alas, in the royal case Jokke can have his cake and eat it daily.
Logged

Mary's life motto:
"if I had the choice between world peace and a Prada handbag, I'd choose the latter one" Marian Keyes.
christina01
Board Helper
Humongous Member
************

Reputation: 863

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5196


Play Time after a long day of Dishing.




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: October 29, 2013, 09:09:36 PM »

I completely agree with you that you as Danes should not have to pay for her.
I just think that when the bridal couple agreed upon a certain way of life, this should not be denied to her after the marriage (for whatever reason) ended.
I think that the second the marriage ended, the entire affair moved into private territory. It is Joachim's duty now, not Denmark's.
But I stand with my opinion, I find it sad, that she is the one who gets all the blame, is accused of laziness and leeching, while Mr. Royal gets free again.
In any divorce the party with the bigger fortune and higher income has to pay some sort of settlement for the other party unless specified otherwise in the prenup. In many cases those settlements are a bitch either for the poor chap who has to pay more than he can afford or for the poor spouse that suddenly finds herself penniless, because she had been replaced by a newer model.
Alas, in the royal case Jokke can have his cake and eat it daily.
I agree that it is Joachim's duty to pay for Alex, and it always was. I also agree about the certain way of life not being denied, but, let's face it. When most people get divorced, that is usually what happens. The standard of living drops. No settlement here in Aussieland either, at least not when I got divorced. My ex pays me child maintenance, which incidentally he neglected to pay for about five years, and that cuts out at the age of 18. That might seem fair, but when children go on to study, do apprenticeships etc, and still live at home and rely on the parents financially, believe me that is an unfair law.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: