Talk:Marion Crawford

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

British Royalty Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Publication date?

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Why would a book titled "...the story of the Queen's childhood" have been called that in 1950, when Elizabeth was still only a Princess? 31.52.198.186 (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

The book was originally called "The Little Princesses". You can see a picture of the cover of a paperback published in 1952 on Amazon.com. The Queen's coronation was in 1953.

Marion Crawford was the princesses' governess, NOT their nanny (intro to this entry). Their nanny was Clara "Alah" Knight. See p. 11 of "The Little Princesses." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.60.188 (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify, while Elizabeth II's coronation was in 1953, she became Queen 6 Feb 1952. This book has been published several times over with different titles and tag lines each times it's publishers felt another dime could be squeezed out of it. 69.42.34.90 (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)History LunaticReply

Anger over Book

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The reason for the Palace's objection to the book is unclear to me. As far as I can tell, not having read it, it did not reveal anything embarassing and was positive in tone. Is there any information as to what the big issue was?Bill (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Perspective is important. We're talking about a time when homosexuals were prosecuted as criminals and "Lady Chatterley's Lover" was banned for obscenity. No matter how seemingly respectful, the book was a major breach of privacy. Compare this to Lillian Rogers Park's "Backstairs at the White House" published a decade later and you'll see the same reaction.

And at the time of Crawford's funeral, the Royal Family was being hounded and haunted by the press as the details of failing marriages within the House of Windsor were daily tabloid fodder. In their shoes, you would probably not feel very sentimental towards the woman who had written the first "tell-all" about the current Queen either.

In the 1950s, when the press kept a more respectful distance from a royal family still struggling to put the Abdication behind them as well as George VI's slow march to his early death, Crawford's publications (of which "The Little Princesses" was the first) were the equivalent of this generation's paparazzi publishing pictures of the dying Diana trapped in that car in a Paris tunnel. With perspective, it becomes more understandable why the royal family cut ties completely. Only consider how any ordinary family would feel if their nanny or even babysitter published details of their private lives; nobody would like it and I doubt the nanny would stay on their Christmas card list. 69.42.34.90 (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)History LunaticReply

Add topic