Marie Cavallier: Degreed? Assumptions? True or False?

[Amelia]

I agree. It really doesn't matter if she has a degree or not.....Whether it was just a case of miscommunication or someone just wanting to talk her up it doesnt make much difference in the long run. Its not like she needs a degree to be a princess.

No she certainly doesn’t need a degree and I’m sure the Danish people won’t hold it against her if she doesn’t but the media are making it seem like Marie lied about her educational background. From reading some of the posts here it seems like the only ones that said Marie had certain degrees are the papers not Marie or the DRF but will the average Danish person take the time to find out if what they are saying is true. Once something is planted in a person’s mind, be it true or false, it is very hard to remove it. I really see this story popping up every now and again in years to come, which is very sad for Marie.

 

[HRH Kerry]

...but will the average Danish person take the time to find out if what they are saying is true...

If she was the crown princess, definitely! But I guess its a matter of wait and see.

I know that I would want to know if I was a citizen of Denmark if she misrepresented herself.

 

[GlitteringTiaras]

Marie gave one interview where she talked about her background, that's where she stated she had gone to Boston at age 17 to attend school. ( She named her boarding school in Switzerland that she attended prior to that) She didn't name her schools in the US nor did she claim she graduated from college.

Oh yes, you may be correct. I vaguely remember this. Could you please provide a source and/or link please so we can read it again as well as for future reference?

After this interview the assumptions happened, message boarders mainly and it was assumed she graduated from Boston College, simply from the statement "I went to school in Boston" Her attendance at Boston College was even placed on her Wikipedia page.

I'm sorry to say this, and I mean this in a polite manner, but believe you put to much blame and point fingers regarding "message boarders."

The DRF statements about Marie are in the public domain and all can be tracked, no mention of Marie's schooling or job history.

True, but remember she is essentially still a "private person". Until she is married then the tables turn.

As far as the new story about Denmark being misled about Marie's education, all that originated from the tabloid Se & Hor even the Copenhagen Post article quotes Se & Hor. Other news outlets who have used this story all base it on the Se & Hor story.

I see.

Se & Hor have been quite openly determined to dig up whatever dirt they can on Marie's time in the US, they have actively been advertising for people with information about her. The college information comes from their digging.

Yes, this was already discussed at length within this sub-forum sometime ago.

I doubt very much if the DRF press office has made any statements 'of the record' to a down market tabloid.

So your speculating?

Royalty message boards are used frequently to source royalty stories and commentary about royals. Often quotes attributed to 'seasoned royalty watchers' have come directly from a message board.

With all due respect, Charlotte, you give way too much credit to message boards, and yes, I am well aware The Royal Forums has been quoted in several newspapers including Billed Bladet and most recently The Times (London).

You'd be surprised how often this kind of comment appears and then can be matched directly to a post on a message board written before the magazine article. Sometimes the message board itself is actually named in the story, the media doesn't rely soley on message boards I never wrote that, but a percentage of their stories do originate from message board commentary.

Then there are some lazy journalists. Why would they use members or discussion forums, who have no idea what is going on, and use them and their sepculating comments thus turning them into stories? That makes no sense.


Thank you for your comments/post, by the way.

Obviously the bad media attention about her non-existing degrees seems to have come here to the board. If Joachim doesn´t care so what´s the problem? The fact that she didn´t tell everything acurately doesn´t mean that she´s a liar. She was just charming enough not to tell just everybody that she isn´t as smart as Mary

Stephanie, you should go back a page or two and you will quickly realize that is far from the truth... and that includes all three discussion forums in which the Danish Royal Family are the main focus. Furthermore, the notion that "...just because some of the posters don´t like Marie they make a big fuss about whether she has graduated or not" is incorrect. If you were referring to me, well, I have said over and over again that I do like her. As I said many times before, I believe she is a perfect match for Joachim, and is a sweet/nice girl. Just becasue I am not fawning/gushing over her every single time I post, doesn't mean I dislike her.

 

[wymanda]

Then there are some lazy journalists. Why would they use members or discussion forums, who have no idea what is going on, and use them and their sepculating comments thus turning them into stories? That makes no sense.

However there are some posters on this and other boards who quite openly admit they have connections. One who comes to mind is a noted author on the descendants of Queen Victoria who posts under her own name & who recently quoted direct contact she had had with the Private Secretary to the Princess Royal. This gives journo's " creedence" when accessing message boards for information and/or quotes.

 

[Amelia]

If she was the crown princess, definitely! But I guess its a matter of wait and see.

I know that I would want to know if I was a citizen of Denmark if she misrepresented herself.

But how far would you go to see if she misrepresented herself? I presumed, like a lot of people I’m sure, that the information about Marie’s education and degree came from Marie or the DRF so I was very surprised when all of this started. Now according to one poster here the only thing that Marie actually said about her education in America is that she went to Boston at 17 and they then went on to declare she had a degree etc., but would the average Danish person take the time to look back and find out exactly what she said or will they take it all as it is printed, she said she had this degree and now it has been found out she doesn’t. It would be very easy from the articles going around at the moment to come to the conclusion that Marie lied and I think that for most people that is the conclusion that will be reached if the DRF PR people remain silent.

 

[Charlotte1]

Oh yes, you may be correct. I vaguely remember this. Could you please provide a source and/or link please so we can read it again as well as for future reference?


I'm sorry to say this, and I mean this in a polite manner, but believe you put to much blame and point fingers regarding "message boarders."

With all due respect, Charlotte, you give way too much credit to message boards, and yes, I am well aware The Royal Forums has been quoted in several newspapers including Billed Bladet and most recently The Times (London).


Then there are some lazy journalists. Why would they use members or discussion forums, who have no idea what is going on, and use them and their sepculating comments thus turning them into stories? That makes no sense.


Thank you for your comments/post, by the way.

The interview Marie gave was in a March 2006 issue of Billed Bladet, she was tracked down in Geneva by the same journalist who tracked Mary Donaldson down in Sydney to break the news that Frederik had an Australian girlfriend. The journalist's name is Anna Johannesen.

An example of message board discussion that made it into a tabloid story. Not Marie and Joachim but illustrates my point. A year or so ago Camilla was pictured wearing a brooch with the Prince of Wales feathers ( which she had actually worn before) A discussion ensued on at least 2 message boards, including this one, whether or not the brooch Camilla was wearing had previously been worn by Diana. Message boarders hunted up pictures and posted them to compare. There was a 4 day gap between when Camilla's picture appeared in the British papers at a function wearing the brooch ( no mention of Diana) to when the story actually appeared in the tabloids with screaming headlines, Camilla wearing Diana's jewellery. It was the message boarders who spotted it, and several days later it hit the papers.

It's not just TRFs that are quoted and used, if a really negative story is needed then quotes are taken from royalty message boards who seem to specialise in negative comments. Quotes are attributed in the story to 'royalty watchers'. Certain women's magazines journalists have admitted using message boards, they don't make any secret of it. ( Australia magazines here)

Tabloid magazines ( generally women's magazines who report on royalty) gleen stories where ever they can and yes they do make them up! The German tabloid editors have even gone public and admitted it by saying first they get a picture then 'interpret' what is happening in the picture and then write the story. Don't underestimate the message boarders many actually do have quite a bit of knowledge, and there are some boards which are very educational, I've learnt a lot! Few journalists actually have the kind of long term royalty knowledge that someone who has being following royalty for years has. I haven't been following royalty all that long and even I get irritated by the mistakes I see in articles.

A kind of 'Chinese whispers' tends to happen too, once something about a royal is written, regardless of whether it's correct or not ( a major problem with Wikipedia! Their criteria is that a source needs to be provided, but there is no requirement that the source be accurate) the piece of information gets repeated and then suddenly it becomes a fact. Such as Marie's "I studied in Boston" to she went to Boston College ( which by the way is still on her Wikipedia page). I know that if I had the time and energy to read archival threads I could find the discussions on when it went from studying in Boston to she went to Boston College. I remember it!

Royalty reporting is not 'hard' journalism, simply because royalty now is seen as part of celebrity culture. Look at the type of stories that are written about, mostly on the royals love lives, children, women's clothing. Very little on the roles the royals carry out, the issues they promote. How many articles have you read on Charles and Camilla's relationship, compare with how many articles are on their work? I read the official website to have an idea of what they're doing, about 10% of the press releases on their patronages and the work they do actually makes the media. But 'Camilla miserable' or 'Charles foolish' stories sell tabloids which are not 'hard' journalistic outlets.

 

[HRH Kerry]

...It would be very easy from the articles going around at the moment to come to the conclusion that Marie lied and I think that for most people that is the conclusion that will be reached if the DRF PR people remain silent.

I agree. The DRF might take their stance in correcting these conclusions once Marie is indeed a part of the establishment by simply publishing her brief bio on their website. Maybe we would all have to wait until then. Who really knows but the DRF?

 

[Madame Royale]

You don't need a degree to possess the qualities which would encourage a friendly and charming public image. As long as Marie goes about her duty with a common touch, lovely smile and general enthusiasm, I can't imagine her education being that great of a deal.

She presents the part, so lets hope she's as nice a person as she looks. I'll certainly be putting her through the ringer...

 

[Empress]

Well, I know that the past is the past, but in the past, Princesses, and even Princes to some extent, were not expected to hold a degree. It was all about family ties.

Now, times change, and I think that anyone who is going to be moving in such circles needs to be able to hold an intelligent, well thought out and educated conversation. As long as she can do that, well, she won't be sitting on a throne will she?

Her job will in essence be to support Joachim. And their jobs will be to support Fred and Mary and not be an embarrassment. And I doubt seriously that they would be getting married if she did not have the intelligence and social graces to do the job that she is now destined to do.

That being said, I think alot of people put alot of emphasis on degrees rather than life experience, and I don't think that it is all that it is cracked up to be. Quite honestly, I don't think that I am using a thing that I learned in University with the exception of working in groups, and I am working in the field that I went to school for.

None the less, I think that it would play better in the public sphere were she to have a degree. People tend to have different standards when it comes to royals than they have themselves.

Although, at the same time, which of the current set of royals (Kings/Queens to be) have an actual degree in a specialised subject?

 

[wymanda]

Personally I think that the aim here is to make Marie look a less attractive consort than Alexandra was. The Danish people seem to still be besotted with A. Hopefully once Joachim is married to Marie, Alex will quietly fade into the background.

 

[Madame Royale]

Joachim seems quite the tuned in indavidual. I doubt he'd marry a 'dud'...

Time will tell though.

 

[rosalee]

So many royals do not have formal education and one has to wonder, it's not about the money or anything? (e.g., Princesses of Monaco). Marie's parents would have had to pay about 8x the normal fees for her to attend University in the USA as an "alien". A one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan in even a decent building in Greenwich Village would cost around $4000USD+++ per month plus utilities and Internet and, etc ... I don't know how much money her parents have, but that would have made her stay in Manhattan about $7000 per month. I think that's rather lavish for a student anyway, no matter what the background. She would need to learn about life itself.

I wish her well and hope she takes the time to finish a degree she struggled to get and get on with her married life. She was smart and hearty enough to land a prince and will need some smarts to shine in that family. They're all fairly smart people and she must have something to say of intelligence.

She is, after all, a girl marrying a boy she's in love with. I doubt he cares what she's studied.

R.

 

[GlitteringTiaras]

The interview Marie gave was in a March 2006 issue of Billed Bladet, she was tracked down in Geneva by the same journalist who tracked Mary Donaldson down in Sydney to break the news that Frederik had an Australian girlfriend. The journalist's name is Anna Johannesen.

An example of message board discussion that made it into a tabloid story. Not Marie and Joachim but illustrates my point. A year or so ago Camilla was pictured wearing a brooch with the Prince of Wales feathers ( which she had actually worn before) A discussion ensued on at least 2 message boards, including this one, whether or not the brooch Camilla was wearing had previously been worn by Diana. Message boarders hunted up pictures and posted them to compare. There was a 4 day gap between when Camilla's picture appeared in the British papers at a function wearing the brooch ( no mention of Diana) to when the story actually appeared in the tabloids with screaming headlines, Camilla wearing Diana's jewellery. It was the message boarders who spotted it, and several days later it hit the papers.

It's not just TRFs that are quoted and used, if a really negative story is needed then quotes are taken from royalty message boards who seem to specialise in negative comments. Quotes are attributed in the story to 'royalty watchers'. Certain women's magazines journalists have admitted using message boards, they don't make any secret of it. ( Australia magazines here)

Tabloid magazines ( generally women's magazines who report on royalty) gleen stories where ever they can and yes they do make them up! The German tabloid editors have even gone public and admitted it by saying first they get a picture then 'interpret' what is happening in the picture and then write the story. Don't underestimate the message boarders many actually do have quite a bit of knowledge, and there are some boards which are very educational, I've learnt a lot! Few journalists actually have the kind of long term royalty knowledge that someone who has being following royalty for years has. I haven't been following royalty all that long and even I get irritated by the mistakes I see in articles.

A kind of 'Chinese whispers' tends to happen too, once something about a royal is written, regardless of whether it's correct or not ( a major problem with Wikipedia! Their criteria is that a source needs to be provided, but there is no requirement that the source be accurate) the piece of information gets repeated and then suddenly it becomes a fact. Such as Marie's "I studied in Boston" to she went to Boston College ( which by the way is still on her Wikipedia page). I know that if I had the time and energy to read archival threads I could find the discussions on when it went from studying in Boston to she went to Boston College. I remember it!

Royalty reporting is not 'hard' journalism, simply because royalty now is seen as part of celebrity culture. Look at the type of stories that are written about, mostly on the royals love lives, children, women's clothing. Very little on the roles the royals carry out, the issues they promote. How many articles have you read on Charles and Camilla's relationship, compare with how many articles are on their work? I read the official website to have an idea of what they're doing, about 10% of the press releases on their patronages and the work they do actually makes the media. But 'Camilla miserable' or 'Charles foolish' stories sell tabloids which are not 'hard' journalistic outlets.

Yes, thank you.

A gentleman on another site graciously translated two long articles from Billed Bladet. Even though the structure (as well as the use of awkward words) of the articles made it difficult to fully comprehend what was being stated, I’m sorry to say. Overall interview gave me a lot of insight regarding Marie, her relationship with Joachim, and her education whilst in the US. The journalist noted, that she did graduate (which college I am still confused about.) Good to know and perhaps that’s the answer Se og Hor should read. However, I did have few questions after I read the entire Billed Bladet articles, and yes, I am still wondering what university she attended whilst in Boston (she states Wellesley not Babson directly) as well as some other questions.

Now I am in the minority when I say this, but when it comes to the media: I question everything and trust no one (sorry to sound so cynical, but I’ve been duped by several people in the past who have stated over and over again they had “close ties” with particular royals from a Scandinavian country.)

Furthermore, this applies to all aspects of the media; hence the magazines who report nothing but glowing/gushing reviews (Billed Bladet) as well as those who constantly attack (Se og Hor). These specific magazines have an agenda just like "message boarders" who become irate when one does not agree with their "side" (for or against). These varying views are demonstrated on several sites. That is why questioned this whole story regarding Marie’s education. Should I blatantly trust Billed Bladet or Se og Hor every time they print something about royals? Nevertheless, I wish you had read my original post when I noted that this story is most likely untrue. With that, I still had some questions, which irritated several members both on and off TRF.

Now, CharlotteAntonia, I am well aware that various journalists who report on royals are not considered "hard" and/or "hard" journalism. That being said, they still have a job to do, and I believe that they would still take it semi-seriously like any other news story. Therefore, yes, I am giving them an inch of credit.

Finally, I do realize there are a few members who have written well-respected books about a particular royal and who have an in depth scholarly knowledge about them. For example, Marlene who wrote the book entitled Queen Victoria's Descendants; however, she is a rare gem, and we are lucky to have her post on TRF’s. On a whole, I cannot agree with your testament that a majority of “message boarders” may be in the league of Marlene and others such as David Cannadine. More importantly, Charlotte, please do not take my comments the wrong way.

In sum, it was recently implied, here and on another board, that higher learning might not be important to everyone thus it seems trite to even discuss this whole story. Obviously, obtaining a higher education is not for everyone, but I do not believe discussing this untrue Se og Hor story is meaningless. It creates discussion, which is important on a discussion forum, rather than gushing over photos in every other post.

By the way, Charlotte, thank you for your comments as well as contributing TRF's.

 

[Charlotte1]

Some more research on when the information we have on Marie's education came out, I see GT you've found the Billed Bladet article that came out in October 2007. This was a Danish translation of an interview done in French with Etienne de Montpazat for Point de Vue magazine both Marie and Joachim we interviewed. ( Mary Donaldson also did one at the time of her engagement). Hello magazine had extracts of this interview Nov 2007 and although I haven't checked I think it would be safe to say that Spanish extracts were published in Hola. Therefore information about Marie's education has been public, and made public by her since Oct 2007, so the controversy about her education is one now manufactured by a tabloid magazine.


As far as the contribution of the message boarders, you're missing my point. It's not that I'm saying that the majority of message boarders are in the league of specialist royalty writters, but there are specialists who do contribute, not necessarily to this board but other specialist boards. Anyway as far as the royalty journalist is concerned their contributions are not the ones they want, it's the chatter "Camilla v Di" "Marie's education" "Is Mary happy?" that then leads into stories. The ideas don't just come from 'interpreting' photos but also from what people are discussing on forums. It still hinges on the fact that there are few if any royalty specialist journalists therefore the journalists that do cover royalty tend to go for simplistic coverage. Eg Peter Philips having to renounce his place in the line of succession because he's marrying a catholic. There is no renouncing, he marries a catholic and he's not in succession. Articles have constantly stated he's going to renounce, when a royalty specialist on a message board actually emailed the journalist in question they journalist answered back saying most people wouldn't know what he wrote wasn't correct!

 

[carlota]

You don't need a degree to possess the qualities which would encourage a friendly and charming public image. As long as Marie goes about her duty with a common touch, lovely smile and general enthusiasm, I can't imagine her education being that great of a deal.

i completely agree. besides, isn't it just easier to wait for the official biography that the danish royal court will soon release? i can't remember when mary's biography was made public on the website, but i'm sure we won't have to wait long for it. i doubt they would lie about what degree (if any) marie has - as it's something easy to find out.

 

[Fashionista100]

According to Marie she graduated from the school in Manhatten. I forgot the name of it. She did mention it. She said in an interview she had trouble in Boston with the language and fitting in. But that she got on well in Manhatten. She thought Boston was too European and NY was more American.

Not trying to start a comparison btwn the two. But I've never read Alex had a degree. I know she attended many Universities but I've never read about a completion. Even on her website the last time I checked it didn't say. Does anyone know? If it turns out she doesn't have one, why should Marie?

 

[Australian]

Not trying to start a comparison btwn the two. But I've never read Alex had a degree. I know she attended many Universities but I've never read about a completion. Even on her website the last time I checked it didn't say. Does anyone know? If it turns out she doesn't have one, why should Marie?

Because it was implied/ claimed that Marie did have a degree.

 

[Paty]

And what important is that Marie didn´t has a degree?

 

[Gaia]

(she states Wellesley not Babson directly)

Babson is in Wellesley, Mass and probably within spitting distance to Wellesley College as the town is small. I am pleased that the Boston College rumor is put to bed in this interview.

I remember a now defunct royal board whose members used to laugh at how their actual sentences were quoted in Aussie magazines. In the US, fans of Brangelina took on the NY Times when a contributor to the paper used internet chatter as fact in her article, so I do think the contributors to the printed media are using the boards as material.

We only have two months and hopefully this will be answered. I am curious now about Alexandra...professional student?

 

[Australian]

It's not important at all, at least in my opinion. What some people have an issue with is that it was claimed that she had a degree and that is now being bought into question, thats all. It is not a question of importance of the degree, just if she does in fact have one like it is claimed.

 

[GlitteringTiaras]

As far as the contribution of the message boarders, you're missing my point. It's not that I'm saying that the majority of message boarders are in the league of specialist royalty writters, but there are specialists who do contribute, not necessarily to this board but other specialist boards. Anyway as far as the royalty journalist is concerned their contributions are not the ones they want, it's the chatter "Camilla v Di" "Marie's education" "Is Mary happy?" that then leads into stories. The ideas don't just come from 'interpreting' photos but also from what people are discussing on forums. It still hinges on the fact that there are few if any royalty specialist journalists therefore the journalists that do cover royalty tend to go for simplistic coverage. Eg Peter Philips having to renounce his place in the line of succession because he's marrying a catholic. There is no renouncing, he marries a catholic and he's not in succession. Articles have constantly stated he's going to renounce, when a royalty specialist on a message board actually emailed the journalist in question they journalist answered back saying most people wouldn't know what he wrote wasn't correct!

Charlotte, I've heard your sentiments for the past day and a half, and with all due respect, your statements still have not thoroughly convinced me. Thus I am not missing your point nor have I since the first time you mentioned it. If you can provide concrete evidence to support your claim (hence recent published books, articles minus the reference from Billed Bladet ages ago, regarding the DRF specifically Marie) -- again not hearsay -- that would hold up in court then perhaps the tide will turn.

Babson is in Wellesley, Mass and probably within spitting distance to Wellesley College as the town is small.

Yes, I knew that already since my neighbor is an Alumni, but in one of the articles she notes Wellesley not Babson directly. What it comes down to at this point, is that it seems she has graduated from somewhere. As a result, Ser og Hor's story is just that... a story.

 

[acdc1]

This just confuses me. I'm just about ready for Marie to come out and say "Yes, I went to so-and-so college, and I graduated" or "No, I attended but didn't graduate and made coffee for people in New York" (although it's highly unlikely that she'd do that). For all we know, neither of these are the true situation! It's so hard to separate fact from fiction these days.

 

[GlitteringTiaras]

Frankly, it seems to be half and half. Even with dictionaries (Hi Muhler) next to desks some members are still confused with those two awkward articles. Without a doubt, Marie will weather this storm like she has in the past... bless her heart. This Se og Hor story just doesn't fly and the gushing Billed Bladet (darn those language barriers) articles aren't helping either.

 

[Martha]

Nowadays, because of media is more difficult try to hide some information. Danish Royal House shows a good position for a future Princess.

 

[ricarda]

What it comes down to at this point, is that it seems she has graduated from somewhere. As a result, Ser og Hor's story is just that... a story.

According to S&H she did finish her studies of liberal arts at Marymount Manhattan College. Therefore I assumed she does have a bachelor degree in liberal arts.

I personally think Marie is a well educated woman and I don't really care where and what she studied and whether she finished her studies or not. From the beginning she appeared to me as the well protected child of wealthy parents (flat from Daddy, job in step-Daddy's company), not as someone who had to go the hard way in life or as a self-made career woman. That makes her a lucky girl, not a bad girl.

But according to S&H and CPH Post it was claimed she has a degree in marketing, trade and IT (which seems to rank higher than liberal arts). And what irritates me much more than the S&H article is actually what CPH Post writes:

During the engagement, the royal press officer distributed information about the future princess, stating that she had a bachelor degree in marketing and IT from Marymount Manhattan College in New York and also that she had studied business at Babson College in Boston for two years.

I like Marie, I just want to know the truth.
But perhaps S&H is wrong and the information distributed by the royal press officer is right? Or perhaps CPH Post is wrong.

carlota
besides, isn't it just easier to wait for the official biography that the danish royal court will soon release? i can't remember when mary's biography was made public on the website, but i'm sure we won't have to wait long for it. i doubt they would lie about what degree (if any) marie has - as it's something easy to find out.

AFAIR Mary's CV was online as soon as the engagement was announced. Obviously they are doing things differently with Marie. I have the feeling we will have to wait for the official CV of Marie until May although it would make things easier.

 

[norwegianne]

The Danish court didn't release any information on Marie's education/work, as far as I'm aware. From what I remember from the Billedbladet article which did mention her education and work - nothing about "The Palace said" was mentioned. Billedbladet is rather fond of throwing any connection to the palace around, (It's not for nothing they call themselves Denmark's Royal Magazine) so if it had been released from the upper level, I'm sure we would have heard it

Given that the official biographies on Kongehuset.dk also have a point called "education" I think it is safe to say that once Marie is part of the royal family and have her biography on there - we will get a final resolution.

Until then does it really matter? And, as long as the Palace are not actively trying to lie to the press, does it matter where she got her degree if she got it? Mette-Marit did not complete her degree, and she's managed ok enough in the years she has been the Crown princess of Norway. For that matter, CP Victoria of Sweden has also done a lot of courses within many different areas, without getting an actual degree, but still manages to be well-rounded and do her royal duties.

 

[GlitteringTiaras]

Until then does it really matter?

Well, as some one else noted in another thread (however it's a slightly different situation, but still extraordinarily petty)... yes.

It all depends on ones perspective. For some it is a major whoopdeedo, while others not so much.

 

[Madame Royale]

I couldn't have cared if Marie worked as a florist, to me, all this talk about her education (the validity of) really doesn't matter much because a degree does not provide someone with the qualities to be a charming, friendly and enthusiastic indavidual. She isn't looking for a job, she is looking towards a way of life which requires a tolerance and understanding of etiquette, public standing and physical representation. Smiling, shaking hands and making polite and interested conversation needs no degree as it is something, I would have hoped, we should all be familiar with. It just so happens these are amongst the primal influences surrounding court and need to be observed by those who personify the majesty of tradition, the humility of charity and the honour in national pride.

Marie would, I'm certain, possess a certain savoir-faire and I look forward to seing her envolvement with community initiatives and sectorial charities.

 

[acdc1]

I was looking at DRW's, and I found an interesting article in the section where Marie and Joachim got engaged. I can't directly link to the article, but it's about halfway down the page, in the article 'Denmark's divorced Prince Joachim to marry Marie Cavallier of France', from the International Herald Tribune.
Danish Royal Watchers

It mentions several spots about her life and education. This one I find quite interesting: "Cavallier went to Boston College where she studied commerce and marketing, and later moved to New York City where she worked with an IT company, Danish news agency Ritzau said."

It seems like this newspaper, or whatever it is, took its information from another news agency. What if the other news agency got information from yet another agency? It's like a pattern.

Above this article, where the folks from Danish Royal Watchers put a little bit about Marie's life, they said this: "Marie studied at Boston College and in New York and lived there for some years. Details about Marie's education and career are still unclear."

So, I think that we'll never quite know the truth until her official biography is put on the Danish Royal Family's website.

Oh, and whichever poster (sorry, I forgot!) said that it might have been a miscommunication between Marie and someone else (a journalist?), I totally agree. I saw the video of her with Joachim and the boys skiing, and a journalist asked her a question. She gave a puzzled looked and and answered very slowly, like she didn't understand what was being said. She then suddenly said "Oh!" and gave a direct answer, like she finally got the meaning of the question. So, if Marie doesn't understand exactly what she's saying, and was speaking to a journalist whose English skills aren't the best, either, it is easy to tell where a miscommunication could take place.

 

[GlitteringTiaras]

...So, I think that we'll never quite know the truth until her official biography is put on the Danish Royal Family's website.

Oh, and whichever poster (sorry, I forgot!) said that it might have been a miscommunication between Marie and someone else (a journalist?), I totally agree. I saw the video of her with Joachim and the boys skiing, and a journalist asked her a question. She gave a puzzled looked and and answered very slowly, like she didn't understand what was being said. She then suddenly said "Oh!" and gave a direct answer, like she finally got the meaning of the question. So, if Marie doesn't understand exactly what she's saying, and was speaking to a journalist whose English skills aren't the best, either, it is easy to tell where a miscommunication could take place.

:raises hand:

That would be me.

As for newpapers getting the same report, which happens all the time, it's called an unofficial press wire (at least that's what my friends cal it.) So it's understandable that if someone from a single press agency in Denmark reports something, another core or agency (mainly international) like Reuters or AP will pick up on the story and use it. Then other newscorps like MSNBC or CNN will pick it up, from there smaller local corps like ABC Channel 7 in Los Angeles will pick it up and so on and so on.

If the news continues to be "hot" these agencies and newsroom people will do their own investigations to find out more information. For example, the Spitzer story. If not, they'll drop it. In the end, the original story even if it's slightly flawed, will remain the same and forgotten internationally. But, in the country for which it orginated will still be "active." Did that make sense?