Talk:Marion Crawford

Publication date?
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)

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)

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 Lunatic

Anger over Book
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)


 * 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 Lunatic