Crown Princess Mary released a year-end message as Patron of the WHO Regional Office for Europe (WHO/Europe). The message of the Crown Princess on the website of WHO is as the following: "As 2020 comes to a close, we look back on an extraordinary year in which too many have faced sorrow and heartache, and all of us have had to make necessary changes – to our plans, our expectations, our traditions and our way of life. As Patron of the WHO Regional Office for Europe , I have watched with respect the unwavering professional dedication of our frontline health and care workers, whose personal sacrifice in delivering care has been nothing short of remarkable.
Now, in these final days of a year that many would like to forget, I would like to take this opportunity to remember and thank the nurses, doctors, care workers, therapists, midwives, pharmacists, volunteers, cleaners, receptionists, lab technicians, home helpers, and so many others who together have delivered care across the WHO European Region. Together they have ensured the continuity of vital services under challenging circumstances.
This year more than ever, their commitment and compassion in helping those in need should be recognized and applauded. It is only fitting that 2021 is now also designated as the International Year of Health and Care Workers. Each new year offers hope and promise and 2021 also offers signs of hope with a greater understanding of the virus and the introduction of new vaccines.
I look forward to a new year in which – together with the committed staff at the Regional Office – we will continue to support the exceptional work that our health and care professionals do on so many health-related issues. We do this to ensure health and well-being for all. I wish all of you a happy, healthy and peaceful holiday season."
H.R.H. Crown Princess Mary of Denmark
What a beautiful statement. She has a way of expressing her self that seems to me to show such a careing and thoughtfully person. Love the dress.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely agreed. I love the way she speaks, so intelligently but with caring behind it.
DeleteFashion wise, beyond gorgeous.
Chel
Agree!
DeleteElégante Mary dans cette robe-chemisier à pois ; j'adore son maquillage surtout au niveau des lèvres !
ReplyDeleteLovely photo of beautiful Princess Mary, and a most important message. I can't imagine what the death toll would be without the dedicated work of the health and care workers worldwide.
ReplyDeleteMary looks absolutely beautiful. And if gatekeeper agencies (that have long known of the efficacy of the safe, inexpensive medication IVERMECTIN as both a preventive and a treatment for Covid) had greenlighted and promoted Ivermectin against Covid early on, many thousands of lives would have been saved and once-thriving economies would not currently be on life-support. We are still waiting.
ReplyDeleteI call BS on your IVERMECTIN promotion. Do you have shares in the company or something ? For a true scientific brief on this drug follow this link.https://www.nps.org.au/ivermectin-and-covid-19 As to fashion, Mary is looking gorgeous (would love a full view of the dress)and it is a wonderfully caring statement.
DeleteAgain, this is a fashion blog thus please refrain from commenting on medical topics or suggestions. Folks, please consult your doctor or national health guidelines for up-to-date treatments and stay informed.
DeleteRequesting moderator to please be cautious with comments regarding treatments. Thanks.
I agree, the comment promoting a product should be deleted. Elle
DeleteLovely photo of Crown Princess Mary. She really suits her hair pulled back like this.
ReplyDeleteUnpolitisch würde den Königshäusern besser stehen !!
ReplyDeleteDie Königshäuser sind Teil des Machtsystems - die werden nie unpolitisch sein, auch wenn sie nach außen im Wesentlichen nur als zeremonielle Instanz mit kultureller Tradition und moralischer Autorität zu wirken vorgeben. Man sieht ja, wie die Königlichen jedes Jahr im Februar in Davos sitzen, und jedes Jahr im September bei der UN-Generalversammlung aufschlagen. Die machen Urlaub mit den Milliardären dieser Welt, unterhalten selber umfangreiche Aktenportfolios, die wissen genau bescheid über die größten Schweinereien, die hinter den Kulissen ablaufen und tun dennoch nichts, um diesen Machenschaften entgegenzuwirken - weil sie oft selber mit drinhängen und die Agenda der wirklichen Drahtzieher mittragen.
DeleteEs gibt wenige Mitglieder in den verschiedenen Königshäusern, denen ich das karitative Engagement als authentisch abkaufe. Die meisten sind (mehr oder weniger gut schauspielernde) Heuchler.
Wären sie unpolitisch wäre das tatsächlich besser und glaubwürdiger.
Sie haben vollkommen Recht ...Antje
DeleteShe sure looks nice. But I don´t care for her message.
ReplyDeleteHealth and care workers don´t need applause or honorary mentions or a day designated to them. What they need is better wages and better work conditions. They would also benefit from less regulation and less profit-driven managements. And appropriate funding of the health care sector that corresponds with the value that governments allegedly attach to it.
Nothing of that has been done.
Instead, monetary incentives are given to hospitals for putting people on invasive ventilation and on aggressive medication. Oh, and on largely untested vaccines.
Agree as an emergency nurse I have been in the thick of things and working in difficult conditions. Yes it's my job which I love but I do think we are undervalued. Thanks is 'nice' but in these times we are worth more than just thanks. Sorry to get off topic .
DeleteAlways a ray of sunshine, aren't you.
DeleteStick to fashion comments and stop pushing your agenda. We all know your feelings. We don't care.
Why can't they have both. Of course better wages and work conditions are are a absolute must but many health care workers will tell you it is not always about the money but feeling that they are making a difference and saving lives too.....Praise and being told what you are doing is rewarding and helps I am sure when they are so tired, feeling stressed and of course watching patients that they have come to love and care for die.....They are all important from the janitors to the doctors!
DeleteWow Vanessa, I thought that you were preaching that this virus was inconsequential back in March... or am I mistaken?
DeleteCB
Oh, again, please, this is a fashion blog.
DeleteI understand that you want to express your thoughts on health and care workers, but there are other blogs where your thoughts would be better heard and better appreciated.
Have a nice day and I hope 2021 brings you all the things you wish for.
@ Deadeggs
DeleteAbsolutely agreed.
Have a nice day and my very best wishes for the New Year to you and to all the other commenters on this site.
It´s a royal blog. And yes, it features fashion but not only. This post clearly features Mary´s speech, thus commenting on the speech is very much on-topic. My comment was posted, so it passed the blog owner´s scrutiny. That´s the only relevant thing here, and I´m always puzzled by other people´s comments about what I can or cannot say.
DeleteI don´t preach here, and I don´t push any agendas. I express my opinion here just like everybody else. Some of you happen not to agree, and that´s fine. You can always write that you don´t agree, and maybe tell us why. Or - if you really don´t care, you can scroll past.
I think anonymous 7:01 is right - health care workers should get both: better wages / work conditions AND appreciation. A `thank you´ goes a long way, and is clearly in order for their hard work. It´s the applause and honorary mentions and now the day dedicated to them that I criticize, especially since the pay and work conditions don´t match up. Many health workers, and most care workers find the applause almost like a slap in the face. It´s largely worthless and borders on mockery. There are better ways to show sincere appreciation than standing outside your door and making noise with pots and pans as was customary for weeks in spring. And for the state, instead of dedicating a day to the sector, some investment into work conditions and wages would not only show appreciation but also greatly improve health care in this situation where health care capacity and functionality is crutial to the nation´s survival. At least that´s what we´re told daily, and the whole pandemic centers around that.
To CB:
No, I never said that the virus is inconsequential. But I have thought from the very beginning that it´s not as dangerous as we are made believe. The stats back that up by now. I have also said that the pandemic response measures are more harmful than the pandemic. And I stand by that.
I certainly hope for a better things next year. Many others have expressed the same hopes. Maybe that´s the one thing we can all agree about here.
I sincerely wish everyone well.
Vanessa, about the only thing I am sure of anymore is that you would argue with a fence post. For months and months, you have argued that this virus is inconsequential. You have used different wording at different times, approached it from different angles, but your message is always the same. Why don't we agree to disagree and move on. None of this is helpful.
DeleteSince you have never said you are a healthcare worker, I don't think you should speak for them, stating that "(m)any health workers, and most care workers find the applause almost like a slap in the face". A slap in the face is a very harsh statement. I have never heard such a thing. I have heard the complete opposite. I don't know how it is "largely worthless and borders on mockery". Your tone deaf statements leave me almost speechless.
I don't think anyone would argue that healthcare workers are overworked, and of course underpaid for all they are doing. Have you ever heard of a little thing called "Cause and Effect"? I realize you have a tendency to view things from your perspective alone, but just suppose the caregivers are so overworked because people that think the way you do are the ones that continue to spread the virus. They don't believe this virus is serious, they don't mask, they don't social distance or stay home. Instead, they choose to go out, gather in groups, go into crowds, don't wear masks, etc. I realize you think you have debunked all the medical experts and all the top scientists in the world, but suppose they are correct and you and those of a like mind might be wrong. This would put the terrible condition of these frontline workers squarely in the laps of the people that think like you do. Would there ever be any part of you, no matter how small, that might feel guilty about that? The virus is spreading like wildfire in so many places around the world. Maybe it is time to try a new approach, not the selfish "how will this effect me?" approach. Maybe you could think about that for a time. Isn't there a chance your position is wrong?
I could be wrong, of course, I´m not an all-knowing guru. And since I don´t know, I´m trying to make sense of it all. For me, very little of what experts, politicians and media tell us makes sense, and instead I find logic traps and contradictions. I´m always after logic.
DeleteCase in point: the wage discussion above. You said: "healthcare workers are overworked, and of course underpaid" (confirming my initial point). This has of course been the case for years and has nothing to do with this pandemic. Your argument that people who question the pandemic response measures are to blame for this, is therefore invalid. (And btw, questioning the efficacy of masks and the usefulness of lockdowns doesn´t mean that I´m guilty of infecting anybody - that´s quite a stretch). Anyway, health and care workers have been overworked + underpaid for a long time, and now that the sector is said to be crucial to survival, what we offer them is ... applause?? And a day named after them?? How is that not mockery? Admittedly I´m not in healthcare myself, but I have heard people in health care say this, and I couldn´t agree more. I believe you that you´ve heard the opposite, but claiming that my remark is "tone deaf" is unwarranted, especially since the only response in this comment section by someone who does work in health care confirmed my statement.
"The virus is spreading like wildfire" - yet people still believe that the measures are doing something in the way of preventing the spreading? How is this logical?
And even if you like to blame the spreading on critical people like me (assuming that we somehow gather and party in large un-masked conspiracy meetings despite being locked down like everyone else) - wouldn´t we have to be really many to achieve that? I don´t know how that can work if you at the same time believe that we are some lone weirdos who go against the massively overwhelming majority that think like yourself. How is that logical?
And then the protection aspect. All these stories about super careful people wearing their protection gear, sanitizing whenever possible and keeping their social distance even to the point that they won´t hug their immediate family members. And then they get infected from the one person who didn´t live up to standard - which not only renders said protective measures rather useless but also somehow magically finds the exact source of infection. How these alleged infection spreaders managed to be out spreading the virus is another mystery - wouldn´t they be in quarantine if tested positive?
How come experts never mention the importance of the immune system? From the very beginning they went for vaccines. Good food, fresh air, exercise, enough sleep, strong mental health etc. don´t seem to count for them. But they should still stress the importance of a well-functioning immune system because the vaccine can´t work without the immune response from ... the immune system!
Or explain this one: We always protect the elderly as the most vulnerable age group. Fatalities are highest in that group, and the median age of covid victims is strikingly close to life expectancy in many countries. It makes one wonder if some older people´s deaths have only coincided with the pandemic, and they maybe died of co-morbidities or simply old age. It would explain why elderly homes are the epicenter of the pandemic, after all that´s where the highest concentration of vulnerable old people is. One gets readily scolded for thoughts like that, as you can imagine. And now with the immunizations starting, "experts" tell us (quote) "We would not at all be surprised to see, coincidentally, vaccination happening and then having someone pass away a short time after they receive a vaccine, not because it has anything to do with the vaccination but just because that’s the place where people at the end of their lives reside".
I´m always keen to listen to experts, but I don´t need experts who contradict themselves or define science as they need it. The WHO has not only changed its recommendations several times (and I´m talking 180degrees), they have also found new definitions for pandemic and herd immunity. Herd immunity percentages also seem rather random. With covid, they aim at 70, sometimes as low as 2/3 of the population. For measles, they were talking about 98%, although covid is the one that "spreads like wildfire" and measles cases hover around a couple hundred per year.
DeleteIf you like experts, at least recognize that there are experts in other fields as well. I wish more people would listen to them, especially those warning about collateral damage. I hear people from your side of the conversation talking about solidarity all the time, yet many turn a blind eye to people critically affected by the social, economical and legal fallout of the pandemic response measures.
Maybe I´m a fence post. But I will never stop asking questions, and I will never stop calling people out for logic fails.
(Sorry this ended up being long, but I wanted to answer your question properly. Thanks for reading to the end.)
@ Jane Chantal, one should limit themselves to talk about what they know, coming into a fashion blog to promote medications is not only ill mannered but irresponsible as well, hopefully nobody pays attention to your uninformed and speculative medical opinions.
ReplyDeleteCB
Very well said.
DeleteI agree this is a fashion blog and comments should mainly be about fashion but when a post comes with a message it is ok to comment on the message as well. Most of the time someone will make a comment praising the charity or the patronage the royal is representing and that seems to be fine. I feel there is no difference in this situation except to promote a particular drug or treatment should be kept to one's self as a couple of individuals did. That is not ok!
ReplyDeleteOh, please. Stop with " this is a fashion blog". The WHO has become very political and devicive and frankly handled the out break of the virus badly from the outset. The CP seem to be holding water for them and the mere fact that the blogger printed her statement in its' entirety means we the reader should be able to express an opinion on it. Were this "just a fashion blog" then lets not print statements and such--lets just talk strictly about what the CP wears. So sick of this politically correct culture which seek only to stifle and censor. Happy New Year to All.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ 3:20 how can we take into account your gracious Happy New Year after your rant....and yes this is still a fashion blog , for you and the Jean Chantals of this world, if you want to regale us with your political, agendas , platforms etc., please be aware that we don’t care... if we wanted to learn anything of substance, we won’t be choosing your posts, please spare us!!!
Delete@3:20 AM, your post is the perfect example of what happens when people decide to use this relaxed “fashion blog” to vent about their pet peeves. Political correctness could be yours, but has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, I wasn’t responding to Ms. Chantal based on any type of sensitivity about her stance , but merely about the fact that her claim and promotion of certain drugs doesn’t belong here and under suspicion that such promoting isn’t entirely scientific but probably based on information compiled in social media.
DeleteNot sure what political correctness means to you, personally I understand it as being kind, polite, direct but not rude, and showing respect to people of any race, religion, ethnicity, social status, physical appearance, and intellect. On the other hand, others use freedom of speech as a shield to demean others.
CB
I fully agree with anon. 3:20.
DeleteIf they at least stuck to their own "fashion only" rule, but then we often get comments from those very same people commending the hard work / important message / social project / charitable engagement / great speech / warm attitude / genuine smile / great parenting / good poise ... (you name it) of royal XY, not realising that nothing of that is about fashion. And they readily tell people off even when comments in fact were about fashion only.
It´s really a form of thought policing the forum trying to block out any and all critical opinions. I can even understand the wish to create a little "perfect world bubble" here where the world´s problems are strictly blocked out and one only engages in positive admiration of something as simple as fashion. But there are some problems with that: a) this is not their little personal bubble but a blog forum open to the public; b) the positive-only mindset will never lead to a fruitful discussion and instead stay shallow and rather meaningless; c) attempts to block out critical opinions often display the exact kind of negativity and attacks that they aim to prevent.
To CB:
Political correctness actually means something different than what you described. It´s not a positive term.
To Vanessa: political correctness means something different to you. It can be perfectly positive as outlined by CB.
DeleteNo, not really. Not in this century. I guess there was an element of inclusive language earlier, but it has always had an ironic ring to it, and now it generally refers to fakeness and dishonesty (conscious or not) and is often identified as a tool for censorship.
DeleteThe photo is beautifully made but inappropriate for a thank you note from the patron of the WHO in a crisis situation.
ReplyDeleteWhy?
DeleteLadies & gents, I suggest that you ignore Vanessa’s comments, some people have the need to always try to be relevant, and to win the keyboard wars, don’t feed it...
ReplyDeleteMay the New Year bring lots of your favorite things, a good health above all.
SF
Agreed. She just answered rhetorical questions. She isn't winning anyone over, so she just shouts louder.
DeleteHappy New Year!
I love a good debate.
Delete@Vanessa.
ReplyDeletePolitical correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated PC) is a term used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.
This is what the word factually means, and it looks pretty close to my interpretation.
You can turn any phrase to fit your agenda but it doesn’t make it so.
You are welcome!
CB
@ CB:
DeleteYou conveniently left out large parts of the definition.
Wikipedia has a lot more to say than just that first sentence you picked:
"Political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated PC) is a term used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society. In public discourse and the media, the term is generally used as a pejorative with an implication that these policies are excessive or unwarranted. Since the late 1980s, the term has been used to describe a preference for inclusive language and avoidance of language or behaviour that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting to groups of people disadvantaged or discriminated against, particularly groups defined by ethnicity, sex, or gender.
Early usage of the term politically correct by leftists in the 1970s and 1980s was as self-critical satire; usage was ironic, rather than a name for a serious political movement. It was considered an in-joke among leftists used to satirise those who were too rigid in their adherence to political orthodoxy.
The modern pejorative usage of the term emerged from conservative criticism of the New Left in the late 20th century. This usage was popularized by a number of articles in The New York Times and other media throughout the 1990s, and was widely used in the debate surrounding Allan Bloom's 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind. The term gained further currency in response to Roger Kimball's Tenured Radicals (1990), and conservative author Dinesh D'Souza's 1991 book Illiberal Education."
You are welcome.
Hey CB, like somebody said before, don’t feed the troll......
ReplyDeletePost a Comment
(We will not publish anonymous comments that were posted without stating a name or nickname)