Marie Cavallier: Degreed? Assumptions? True or False?

[BurberryBrit]

Well, I actually find it a bit strange that they listed summer holiday jobs. Looks a bit as if they tried to make her CV more impressive (?).
And the fact that she worked for a news agency like Reuters makes me wonder if she really was that naive and clueless when she first met the media.

But I would say it's the future that counts not the past. As long as she and Joachim make their marriage work and as long as she fulfills her duties as a princess (which I believe she will) I don't care where or what she worked before.

Yes, they seemed to include summer jobs and internship positions probably to make it longer. It seems she mostly did assistant work in the last few years. But yes, it will be interesting to see what she does for the Danish RF but she understandably she needs to settle into married life first.

 

[HRH Kerry]

I'm sure they wanted to beef it up. Besides, I'm thrilled that the speculation (thanks media for causing controversy, selling mags, papers,etc!) has finally been put to rest.

 

[Exlibrarian]

I browsed The Danish Monarchy official website and found the following information concerning Princess Marie's degree :

' The Princess has a Bachelor of Arts from Marymount Manhattan college, New York ( 1997-1999 )

The thing that intrigues me is that --- Can one get a BA degree in two years at a college? My daughter went to Columbia University and it took her 4 years to get a BA.

 

[norwegianne]

I browsed The Danish Monarchy official website and found the following information concerning Princess Marie's degree :

' The Princess has a Bachelor of Arts from Marymount Manhattan college, New York ( 1997-1999 )

The thing that intrigues me is that --- Can one get a BA degree in two years at a college? My daughter went to Columbia University and it took her 4 years to get a BA.

As I've understood it from friends who have done it, it is possible to transfer credits from one educational institution to another. Marie had studied international business and economics at Babson College, Boston, for two years prior to the transfer to Marymount.

 

[Benedikte]

{Moved from Swedish forum}

At the moment the connection giving the impression of becoming closer than ever before. Joint "Love nest" goes already pretty much in the direction of a very serious relationship.
If it is getting further this way, then we may have to consider an anouncement within 2011.

I seriously hope, that CP Victoria has something really important to announce beforehand..... this would be the best gift for the Swedes after her fathers scandalous intimacies and a potential conflicting proposal.

On the other hand: it may happen, that people will be exciting on potential news, as they will receive a new member of the royal family -- and even if her past is a very "discussionable" one, she is a beautiful girl and her look may become another "jewel in the crown".
See Catherine Middleton: the British press titled her "Waity Katie", and suddenly after the proposal everybody is completely excited about her. Just my 2 cents, of course.


Bye Bine

You got a point.

In Denmark Marie Cavallier was a public joke. Everyone thought she had to be plain stupid based on quite odd remarks to the press.
Joachim ended the affair because he couldn't handle the criticism of Marie.

But they eventually got engaged and married.

And they are still married even though there has been a "lying about work and a business degree" scandal.

 

[Sternchen]

Has the business degree thing really been a scandal? I haven't read too much online about it.

 

[Rascal]

You got a point.

In Denmark Marie Cavallier was a public joke. Everyone thought she had to be plain stupid based on quite odd remarks to the press.
Joachim ended the affair because he couldn't handle the criticism of Marie.

But they eventually got engaged and married.

And they are still married even though there has been a "lying about work and a business degree" scandal.

Be careful what you post about the Danish Royal Family, Benedikte. Some of the members on this forum respond in a manner that is mild (calling people "lame") to rabidly attacking (calling people "liars" or worse) anyone who criticizes the DRF, particularly Mary. They also seem to post so many defenses that the threads get shut down, as recently happened with the one about the photoshoot in Vogue.

 

[Benedikte]

What happened?
Marie Cavallier wanted to be with her boyfriend spanish Ramon and she followed him to USA.
A handsome man Prinsesse Marie: Se hendes spanske elsker - - SE og HØR

But the relationsship didn't last.

She failed college and worked in a dead-end job brewing coffee at double click USA.

She then could'nt stay because her visa ran out I guess.

She got a job at her stepfathers firm answering the telephones.

Fortunately Marie met Joachim who had a wife and a new born second son Felix (2 month old) at home. None the less Marie gave Joachim her mailadress and phone number.

The rest is history as they say.

Marie and Joachim got engaged and the court informed the reporters about a business degree and a business career.

The business degree turned out to be a mistake.
Se og Hør: Marie Cavalliers CV er fup - hun var kaffebrygger - Avisen.dk

http://www.e-pages.dk/urban/346/fullpdf/full4d0fc1191b78b.pdf

and the court changed the cv.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Hasnt any court out there NOT changed a CV or tried to sell the new family member in a manner that is more based on wishful thinking rather than on facts, especially when there is a grey area? Nobody wants to acknowledge possible unsuitability and therefore there will be "airbrushing", whenever possible.

Mentioning any examples would only derail this thread therefore I stick to Marie. While I dont think much of her I dont really think changing her CV etc doesnt really matter because a) she is quite unimportant for the instituiton and b) she doesnt go out there presenting herself as gods gift to monarchy.

I think Marie wanted to marry well in order to have a privileged life without having to work her butt off, so to say, and thats what she did. She seems happy and without further ambition to me.

 

[dee4855]

Hasnt any court out there NOT changed a CV or tried to sell the new family member in a manner that is more based on wishful thinking rather than on facts, especially when there is a grey area? Nobody wants to acknowledge possible unsuitability and therefore there will be "airbrushing", whenever possible.

Mentioning any examples would only derail this thread therefore I stick to Marie. While I dont think much of her I dont really think changing her CV etc doesnt really matter because a) she is quite unimportant for the instituiton and b) she doesnt go out there presenting herself as gods gift to monarchy.

I think Marie wanted to marry well in order to have a privileged life without having to work her butt off, so to say, and thats what she did. She seems happy and without further ambition to me.

Yes, I am sure none of us were able to figure out who God's gift to Monarchy would be.

 

[nwinther]

{Moved from Swedish forum}

You got a point.

In Denmark Marie Cavallier was a public joke. Everyone thought she had to be plain stupid based on quite odd remarks to the press.

Eh? Did "everyone" really think that?

Joachim ended the affair because he couldn't handle the criticism of Marie.

Or did Marie end it, as the press was hunting her like dogs?

and a "lying about work and a business degree" scandal.

I don't recall this "scandal" at all. Are you sure it's not just some gossip-press trying to create a scandal that's not there?

If you use Se & Hør as a source, keep in mind that they are particular malignant towards the DRF, as the DRF have put that particular piece of garbage on ice. I.e. you should take anything coming from there with a huge block of salt, as most of it is make-believe.

 

[UserDane]

Benedikte, I really wish you would stop the campaign against Marie you seem to have going here. It doesn't hurt Marie, but as a newbie you put yourself in a really poor light.
You are of course free to not like her, but in my book you keep crossing the boundary for acceptable vocabulary when you describe her.

Just my opinion of course.

Be careful what you post about the Danish Royal Family, Benedikte. Some of the members on this forum respond in a manner that is mild (calling people "lame") to rabidly attacking (calling people "liars" or worse) anyone who criticizes the DRF, particularly Mary. They also seem to post so many defenses that the threads get shut down, as recently happened with the one about the photoshoot in Vogue.

You think so? Do you find it acceptable to read Benedikte's insinuations about sex scandals, Marie being a home broker, being plain studpid etc.? Isn't that what people out in the real world call defamation? There are other places to go, if people need to vent in this way.

Someone at the TRF has said that we should treat people as we would if we were facing them which is very good advice.

 

[Rascal]

You think so? Do you find it acceptable to read Benedikte's insinuations about sex scandals, Marie being a home broker, being plain studpid etc.? Isn't that what people out in the real world call defamation? There are other places to go, if people need to vent in this way.

Someone at the TRF has said that we should treat people as we would if we were facing them which is very good advice.

Thank you for making assumptions about my thoughts/feelings/attitude toward Marie and attacking me based on your assumptions.

Yes, there are other places to go if people need to vent this way. It seems with that statement as if you are inviting Benedikte and/or myself and/or anyone else with a differing opinion to yours to leave from here and go to one of those places. I would extend the same invitation to you...there are places where people can go to gush endlessly without any critical thought and ignore/discredit anything to their image of a particular person.

Finally, thank you for clearly proving the point of my original post.

To anyone else who can read this before it is deleted - I agree that opinions can be expressed in a civil manner generating discussion and many times I have been on the other side of an issue (at least once with UserDane IIRC) and we expressed our opinions and came to respectful disagreement. But in this instance, I expressed no opinion about Marie. Therein lies the problem. When one poster cautions another about the consequences of their post, they are attacked...usually repeatedly and ending up in the elimination of discussion, which I thought was the purpose here. This situation seems only to occur in relation to the Danish Royal Family, and as I stated earlier, with Mary in particular. Maybe moderators could advise everyone to ignore the posts on the opposing side...but then that would be eliminating discussion.

I'm guilty of it as well, purely by responding here I am not ignoring. Glad I'm not a moderator.

 

[Al_bina]

Well ... European Crown Princesses and Princesses have got a lacklustre educational background and glossed CVs. That is not a big tragedy. They are not going to harm anyone, I guess. Getting M.Sc. is not essential for some Europeans.

 

[nwinther]

Yes, there are other places to go if people need to vent this way. It seems with that statement as if you are inviting Benedikte and/or myself and/or anyone else with a differing opinion to yours to leave from here and go to one of those places. I would extend the same invitation to you...there are places where people can go to gush endlessly without any critical thought and ignore/discredit anything to their image of a particular person.

Criticism where criticism is due.
I find it completely acceptable to critizise Marie for fiddling with her resumé. But once that criticism is extended, give it a rest.

Another thing is when lies and/or malignant rumours are promoted. As said above, criticism where it's due, but calling people names or accusing them of something they haven't done is uncalled for - especially when it comes to people who cannot defend themselves, such as the DRF.

In those instances, I for one, will go out of my way to push the proponent of the rumours to his/her utmost for concrete evidence and don't expect any quarter.

The seriousness of promoting (false) rumours only gets worse when it happens on international forums like this one, where residents of other countries have little or no chance to confirm or repulse the nature, size or seriousness of a rumour, situation etc.

The gossip-press can escalate a situation - or make it seem so - on a cover or a small article. Some people in this thread grab these headlines and suggest, nay, insist they have merit when they don't. And to foreigners is may seem that the DRF is dissolved, being dragged to the guillotine or performs morally depraved excercises and that this is common knowledge.

As a Danish citizen I refuse to let such malice and sewing of discord pass unopposed.

You are entitled to your opinion - everyone is - but you are not entitled to go around slandering other people or spreading false rumours, especially not about my Sovereign. {edit}

 

[Al_bina]

As usually, European courtiers are clumsy dealing with the situation. They should have checked everything and been prepared to deal with the gossip -press that easily escalates any situation as well as should have done a better job lying about the resume.

 

[UserDane]

Thank you for making assumptions about my thoughts/feelings/attitude toward Marie and attacking me based on your assumptions.

Yes, there are other places to go if people need to vent this way. It seems with that statement as if you are inviting Benedikte and/or myself and/or anyone else with a differing opinion to yours to leave from here and go to one of those places. I would extend the same invitation to you...there are places where people can go to gush endlessly without any critical thought and ignore/discredit anything to their image of a particular person.

Finally, thank you for clearly proving the point of my original post.

To anyone else who can read this before it is deleted - I agree that opinions can be expressed in a civil manner generating discussion and many times I have been on the other side of an issue (at least once with UserDane IIRC) and we expressed our opinions and came to respectful disagreement. But in this instance, I expressed no opinion about Marie. Therein lies the problem. When one poster cautions another about the consequences of their post, they are attacked...usually repeatedly and ending up in the elimination of discussion, which I thought was the purpose here. This situation seems only to occur in relation to the Danish Royal Family, and as I stated earlier, with Mary in particular. Maybe moderators could advise everyone to ignore the posts on the opposing side...but then that would be eliminating discussion.

I'm guilty of it as well, purely by responding here I am not ignoring. Glad I'm not a moderator.

I have no problem with people disagreing and discussing various aspects of royals (or other matters). I just detest the below-the-belt method which Benedikte in my opinion used. No, you did not state an opinion about Marie and my intention was not to include you in Benedikte's views; my, apparently failed, intention was to question the method - whether the bar hasn't ben set to low if this is the way we express our likes and dislikes? If you feel that I categorized you wrongly for that, I apologize. My intention was more to question if you feel that Benedikte's methods are OK, I don't think so. If she is on a hate quest, this is not the place - my opinion of course.
And thanks, if I ever feel the need to just 'gush' I'll be sure to look up some appropriate sites.

Addition: forgot to say: I did not attack you, I questioned which is different in my view.

 

[Rascal]

In those instances, I for one, will go out of my way to push the proponent of the rumours to his/her utmost for concrete evidence and don't expect any quarter.

I am in absolute agreement about questioning anyone for sources on something they allege as fact. Particularly in regards to the statements mentioned in the original post. However, when someone provides examples of their impressions based on images, events, or personal communication with another person/royal, that is about their own impression/opinion. Unfortunately, however, with the Danish princesses it seems their fans/supporters oftentimes attack the person expressing their opinion. Even if every person who posts in support of them has actually met them (which is unlikely), the vast majority of them would have done so only in a professional (royal event) capacity/setting which does not give a clear picture of the person any more than a photo selected for a magazine or footage on Youtube. For the very few who may have spent time with any royal beyond a simple greeting, it would be very easy for them to have a very favorable impression of said royal because if they gush over them they way they do here and feed their egos to bursting, of course that royal will respond with kindness, appreciation, sweetness, etc. I don't think the same response would come when that royal was questioned about anything that was embarassing/mistake they made/put them into a light other than the generally assumed role of a royal. Beyond that, the fan/supporter could be a family member or personal friend of the royal prior to their notoriety, in which case that fan/supporters outlook/opinion may be a bit biased. And if they were a family member or true friend, they would recognize that speaking about their friend/family member at all can actually be contrary to the royal in question.

 

[Rascal]

As usually, European courtiers are clumsy dealing with the situation. They should have checked everything and been prepared to deal with the gossip -press that easily escalates any situation as well as should have done a better job lying about the resume.

As said above, criticism where it's due, but calling people names or accusing them of something they haven't done is uncalled for - especially when it comes to people who cannot defend themselves, such as the DRF.

Perhaps at the time Marie did not have the support system of the royal court...I don't know. I didn't follow her or her relationship with Joachim very closely. But all of the royal families have a court/press office that is able to advise them and when necessary respond in whatever manner they choose to any comments. Most of them tend to follow the time-honored tradition of no response. But that does not mean people cannot defend themselves. It means they choose not to do so, even if they pay any attention to all to these types of forums (not likely).

In regards to Benedikte's statements about Marie, IMHO they are probably wrong for the most part. And they could definitely have been presented in a more productive manner. But couldn't these last two sentences have been posted by one of the fans/supporters of Marie or the DRF? For all the posting about what a person can/cannot or should/should say or how they say it, it seems that (especially with a Newbie) it would be more productive and possibly generate a more interesting discussion than the attacking (I know...it's a strong word) that occurs and ultimately amounts to telling a person to shut up or leave if they can't express an opinion in alignment with the fan/supporter's.

 

[FasterB]

In Denmark Marie Cavallier was a public joke. Everyone thought she had to be plain stupid based on quite odd remarks to the press.

Eh? Did "everyone" really think that?

No, "everyone" didn´t think that. To be honest then "We, the Danes" thought that she was a bit open-mouthed and "We, the Danes" didn´t think that Prince Joachim would choose to marry her.

But when they announced their engagement, then "We, the Danes" were happy for them and everything was forgotten

 

[Benedikte]

Well

Finally coming home from work and looking at Royal Forum. I'm really in the center of things I see.

Remember my comment on Marie Cavallier was about miss Sofia!

There was some very harsh words about Sofia and in these sourrondings my comments was not at all rude or insulting.

And with all due respect of the royal feelings of the fans:

I can document every word I wrote. Actually I gave you a lot of links.

And again - my comment on Marie Cavallier belongs in a debate about Sofia.

On this part of the royal forum I will only state that it is essentiel that our young girls learn that you are not supposed to spend your life waiting for a husbond.

 

[JessRulz]

A few posts have been removed as they added nothing to this discussion.

The moderators would also like to remind everyone to treat all members and their opinions with respect - especially if you would like them to return the favour. We would also like the discussion to move back to what the topic is about - Princess Marie's education (or lack-of), with sources/links being given to support statements issued as fact.

Discussion about the behaviour of fan-groups does not belong in this thread, and any future posts on the matter will be removed (if you have any issues with the behaviour of any members, please contact a member of the moderating/administrative team via PM with your concerns/complaints).

JessRulz,
Danish Forum Moderator

for the Danish Mods

 

[Kataryn]

Marie and Joachim got engaged and the court informed the reporters about a business degree and a business career.

The business degree turned out to be a mistake.
Se og Hør: Marie Cavalliers CV er fup - hun var kaffebrygger - Avisen.dk

http://www.e-pages.dk/urban/346/fullpdf/full4d0fc1191b78b.pdf

and the court changed the cv.

As Benedikte posted this information in another thread about Marie where the question of Marie's suitibility of representing Denmark on foreign visits to cultural institutions was raised and discussed, I checked a bit into this article and into Marie's former college, Marymount Manhattan College.

First of all: The official website of the Danish monarchy states clearly that Princess Marie holds a BA degree from Marymount Manhattan College in NYC, USA.

Originally Posted by Benedikte
Well The danish court had to change her cv.

What did they write first? Where is the section where they changed something? To what?

Then some questions about the article at Se og Hoer, which Benedikte repeatedly quoted as her source. They claim that they did research Marie's past in Boston and New York and that she has "no such exams".

She has no degree from Babson, right - but that has not been claimed anywhere. But she could have provided evidence of achievement of the learning goals for courses passed there and be granted academic credits by Marymount College after they evaluated these prior proofs of academic learning.

For more information how this works: Alternative Opportunities for Earning Credit - Marymount Manhattan College

Some people make a big impression on others. Marie left no impression of importance, says Michael Chmra has inspectors at Babson College in Boston, where Mary moved in 1994 and after two years of school left it without a diploma.

This person according to goole search only exists in connection with this article. Apart from that: since when is it required to leave an impression of importance when being an undergraduate student? What kind of evaluation of the academic merits of a person is that?

After her parents paid 110,000 dollars annually for 3 1 / 2, so Marie could move to New York and then, as the press was led to believe, take its highly acclaimed Bachelor of Science degree in marketing, trading and IT at Marymount College.
But Marie studied liberal arts discipline, which is a very soft and general education, which according to David Nye, professor of American studies at Southern University, has little thesis about it. It writes Seg og Hoer that has come into possession of the official papers from Marymount College.

According to the Marymount Manhattan College's webpage, you can only be granted credits for prior learning if you got them in a topic you can study at MMC. As Marie studied economics and international business before entering MMC, she can only have chosen one of their major courses in the disciplines. But she didn't pass a B.S (which is the degree in Business studies), but a B.A. course there.

Thus my guess after reading the yearbook of the College from 1998-1999 (it's on the net if one cares to do further research instead of just posting articles from unreliable sources...), she got credits for her economics studies and used them for a minor in eg Business Management or Business Communications or Computer Information Management. In addition to that she could have taken the Major in Communication Arts with an additional minor in French language.
This would fit in with her working placements in the industry, working in press and marketing agencies.

It would explain as well why she was so positive about the media in the beginning of her relationship with Joachim. When they teach you about the values of Communication they normally do not tell you that being communicative is a big disadvantage on dating a prince...

This David Nye is a reknown professor for American Studies at a Danish university but we are not informed what question he actually was asked. I personally don't think he was asked about the fair Marie's background but rather about what "Liberal Arts" mean. And it's indeed a way to tutor academically that find soft skills important. But that doesn't mean that the students don't have to work for their degrees.

From the College in question's own homepage:

"The General Education Curriculum
We drew upon the goals of a liberal arts foundation when we developed the sequence of courses that comprise the general education curriculum, these courses are designed to help you develop the skills and competencies you will require for success in college and throughout your lives.

Every Marymount Manhattan student completes the fundamental skills courses and is expected to make progress toward the achievement of the following learning goals:

• Communicate effectively as a reader, a speaker, a writer;
• Exhibit critical thinking and problem solving skills;
• Research, analyze, and synthesize information;
• Apply quantitative reasoning skills.

The fundamental skills courses form the foundation of all MMC degrees."

In my opinion this is quite a good basis for a job as a member of a Royal family who is never going to get too deeply involved into the work of the organisations she visits, apart from her own charities like Mary's "Mary Foundation".

Why should a Royal hold a degree in something very special like eg. being an engineer for electronics and communications technique or being a historian specialized in the Ming dynasty of ancient China? Okay, there is this Thai princess who works as a professor of her topic at Bangkok and as visiting professor at foreign universities but that's her personal career and not part of Royal duties.

To fulfill Royal duties Marie's degree is just right.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

IMO the best consorts are those who are confident and relaxed characters and are strong enough to remain who they are, unfazed by the media theatre, of course with the support of the all important partner. Personal ambition and being a consort is not a good combination in the long run. What a consort needs is the right touch with people and a genuine interest in serving. They dont need any degrees at all but a lot of common sense, not aiming to be loved by everybody but to be respected for what they contribute to the country.

Possible that such people are very hard to find. Marie is only the wife of the second son of the Danish Queen, I wonder why people are expecting a special qualification. What is utterly wrong is to fake anything, very naive to think people wont find out.

 

[Kataryn]

IWhat is utterly wrong is to fake anything, very naive to think people wont find out.

Thus far, I haven't seen any proof that she faked anything. Since 2008 the statement that she has a BA degree is published on the official webpage of the DRF and noone has obviously informed the Court that this information is wrong. Thus I believe she has that degree. As Marymount Manhattan College works together with foreign state-owned universities in international exchange programms I think her degree is officially recognized in the academical world.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Thus far, I haven't seen any proof that she faked anything. Since 2008 the statement that she has a BA degree is published on the official webpage of the DRF and noone has obviously informed the Court that this information is wrong. Thus I believe she has that degree. As Marymount Manhattan College works together with foreign state-owned universities in international exchange programms I think her degree is officially recognized in the academical world.

I didnt necessarily mean Marie but unfortunatly there is a tendency to make CVs look much better as they actually are and sometimes royal courts are moving in a grey zone between making look better, leaving stuff out, faking. Not only for the consort, but also for their family members. Giving examples all over royalty would only derail the thread therefore I will stick to the Danish, best example is Henrik and the Monpezat family styling themselves as counts.

 

[Kataryn]

I didnt necessarily mean Marie but unfortunatly there is a tendency to make CVs look much better as they actually are and sometimes royal courts are moving in a grey zone between making look better, leaving stuff out, faking. Not only for the consort, but also for their family members. Giving examples all over royalty would only derail the thread therefore I will stick to the Danish, best example is Henrik and the Monpezat family styling themselves as counts.

You're right, this tendency exists and one wishes the Royals were souverain enough to stick to their choice of consorts without feeling the need to give their CV a heavy "touch-up". But maybe we see a change now that Prince Daniel of Sweden is accepted and very well liked even though he was born a country boy in Ockelbo and is proud of that fact.

Where is the sense anyway in pretending to be something you aren't? You can't change the facts of your birth, so it doesn't make sense to try. And one hopes that people are what they are not because of their birth or social station acquired through marriage but because of what they made of their life. If Princess Marie was uneducated and rude, with bad manners and very high in the instep, she wouldn't be wanted as a guest, I believe. But if you are a likeable person you will be in demand for your visits even after you lost your Royal position like Countess Alexandra did.

As for Marie: I still recall how really interested she appeared in the documentary about her after her engagement to Joachim, how she really asked good questions about Denmark and the Danish culture - one could see that she is a person who is willing to learn and that's the important point for me.

 

[Sternchen]

Why should a Royal hold a degree in something very special like eg. being an engineer for electronics and communications technique or being a historian specialized in the Ming dynasty of ancient China? Okay, there is this Thai princess who works as a professor of her topic at Bangkok and as visiting professor at foreign universities but that's her personal career and not part of Royal duties.

To fulfill Royal duties Marie's degree is just right.

Yes, but when she chose this degree she wasn't a royal. Or better said, she couldn't have been sure to become a royal, couldn't she?

 

[TLLK]

Thank you Kataryn for your extensive research about this topic. From reading your posts I believe that the information that you've presented is accurate and true. IMO Princess Marie has quickly adapted to her role in the Danish Royal Family and it appears that her education and prior career experiences has played a positive role in her transition from "commoner" to royal.

 

[Benedikte]

translation of one of the articles:

http://www.e-pages.dk/urban/346/fullpdf/full4d4ebef1912d0.pdf

She was just a coffee fetcher and was not
graduating her exams.

Prince Joachim's fiancée and Denmark
future princess, Marie Cavallier,
has according to this week's edition of Look and Listen
made the cv prettier. The Magazine has visited schools
in the U.S. and can prove that the French
woman's education is not as flashy,
as has been described in the press.
Papers issued to the press in connection
with the fiance mention that Marie
Cavallier has a bachelor's degree in marketing,
commerce and IT from Marymount Manhattan College
and that she has studied business conditions
and economics at Babson College in Boston.
But according to the magazine was the French woman
no model student. After two years
studies, she left Babson College without diploma.
She then studied for over three
years at Marymount Manhattan College in New
York. Here she is not as claimed the coveted
'Bachelor of science' in marketing,
commerce and IT, but studying in reality
profession 'liberal arts', which is a softer, less
intensive training.

Coffee Fetching

After graduation she was 1,5 years
internship at the firm Doubleclick. A position
according to See and Hear the best information
can be described as 'coffee fetcher'.

According to the royal family expert and professor of administrative law
CLAUS Haagen Jensen, it makes
however no difference if Marie Cavallier
have decorated on her resume.
"One can hardly imagine that the information
places her in a better light. But
for the monarchy it means nothing. There is
no requirement that either Royal or their
spouses must have a designated course" He says.

It has not been possible to get a comment
from the royal family.