This is the first time I have heard that particular "version", and the Australasian womens magazines were absolutely blitzed with their "Romance"!
Of course the Australian women's magazines portray/portrayed Mary and her relationship in the most flattering/fairy tale/perfect light. They are part of the pr machine that force feeds a perfect/ideal version of events and people, hoping that people like yourself will believe and accept it without a critical eye. Hope you enjoyed the kool-aid.
Whilst Mary is not my favourite royal, I do take exception to the downright slanderous allegations you have both chosen to make about her actions and motives. If you do not have credible references please refrain as without them, you are merely spreading vicious gossip.
Actually, slander refers to spoken defamation. I believe what you mean to say is "libelous allegations". If this was a case of libel, Mary would have to prove the following:
1. That the statements are false. (libel fails, as these are true)
2. The statement caused harm. (libel fails, your opinion of Mary hasn't changed, nor is she less famous)
3. The statement was made without adequate research into its truthfulness (libel fails, more than adequate research was done - Google it.)
These are the standards for ordinary citizens. For celebrities and public officials they must also prove:
4. The statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth. (libel fails, the statement was only a response and is well-researched)
As I consider Mary to be a celebrity, she would also be required to prove the fourth standard. As all four standards are not met, this is not a case of libel.
Per your concern about "credible references", I have and could post them but will refrain from doing so. Please see the thread concerning "Most Annoying Celebrities" in which there are many pages of what some would consider libelous remarks, including inciting physical harm on the subjects of the thread. None of these posts cited or required sources for their validity. As I consider royals to be celebrities, I will hold them (including Mary) to the same standards as these other celebrities.
I am also at a loss as to why CP Mary has been singled out as the "sleaze factor"!
I didn't single out Mary, I responded to your original post, which responded to a post about Fred and Mary meeting at the Slip Inn in Sydney. In addition, you are the one characterizing the behavior I described as sleazy. If you believe that behavior is sleazy, then you are the one saying Mary is sleazy. I only said that behavior did not fit the image of the perfect crown princess.
Back to the issue of singling out - you brought it up, so I will do so now. All, perhaps with the exception of Mathilde, of the current crown princely consorts have some sort of shortcomings, "pasts", "scandals", etc. for which they have been criticised. However, Mary (and/or the DRF and/or the pr machines they use to paint a rosey picture) tries to portray herself in a manner that is inauthentic. This thread is not the place to discuss that and these forums seem very resistant to looking at Mary, in particular, with a broad, unbiased view. All of the other CPs put out there exactly who they are, warts and all, and make mistakes, and do their jobs without putting on airs or hiding/diminishing/completely reamping less flattering things in their past.
I read something similar about their meeting also, although I don't recall which other royals were present. I wonder if the Crown Prince of Denmark was pointed out to Mary before they actually spoke.
, any body know how Princess Maxima meet her Husband?
