QuoteIt was a family affair for Prince Andrew at the palace Tuesday night, with his daughters Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie and ex-wife Sarah Ferguson joining in to support the "family business," as the royal dad told PEOPLE.
Beatrice, 28, and Eugenie, 27, met business leaders, picked up tips and helped greet guests at Pitch@Palace, Prince Andrew's annual event to encourage global entrepreneurs.
"They're involved, as is the duchess," Prince Andrew, 57, told PEOPLE. "She has a number of different things she is helping with. It's a family business – we're getting on with it."
Read more:
Sarah Ferguson, Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice and Prince Andrew Join Forces (http://people.com/royals/the-yorks-night-out-sarah-ferguson-joins-ex-prince-andrew-and-their-daughters-for-palace-event/)
Admirable as helping business entrepreneurs is, Andrew should realise that he's only got this position and the facilities of BP because he's the Queen's son, not due to any financial smarts of his. Also, it may be that Sarah helps with networking etc, (and the less said about HER business skills the better) but she is not a member of the Royal family.
In addition, I hope he's not using the links he's built up in business and trade to get Beatrice through the back door in helping with his duties in future. Both Yorkies have been told there's no place for them in the working BRF of the future and it would be good for their father to remember this.
If, however, this is just an underhanded way of Andrew helping his daughter and ex wife (private citizens) with their careers as speakers on entrepreneurship he ought to be ashamed of himself, although, as he has no shame, that's a vain thought.
I think that no matter what Sarah Ferguson did, the royal family never for a moment thought that she deliberately tried to destroy the monarchy. The mistakes she made were errors of judgement rather than calculated acts of malice. That is why I think she was far better tolerated by the royal family than Diana was. Besides I understand most members of the royal family had a soft spot for her including the ones that mattered most (Queen and QM). DOE is not a fan but that has not stopped Sarah from being extended little acts of friendship from the royal family.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 27, 2017, 06:38:59 PM
I think that no matter what Sarah Ferguson did, the royal family never for a moment thought that she deliberately tried to destroy the monarchy. The mistakes she made were errors of judgement rather than calculated acts of malice. That is why I think she was far better tolerated by the royal family than Diana was. Besides I understand most members of the royal family had a soft spot for her including the ones that family.
I'm not sure. Diana was still formally invited to things like chirstmas At Sandringham or wherever.. Fergie was billeted a farmhouse and not invited to the house. She was only allowed there because of her daughters.
I think the queen was very fed up with Diana, and found her almost impossible to deal with, but she still was treated better than Fergie. She was the onne who didn't want to stay for more than an hour or 2. IIRC the queen said to somone that it didn't have to be as strained iwht Diana, that she was the one who pulled back,.
I think the queen DID like Fergie pretty well at first when she was all jolly hockey sticks and enjoying the horsey sporty life.. but as time went on, Sarah's vulgarity and gaffes and over spending got worse..She became unpopular with the public and clearly got fed up with the rules of royal life. And I think that now the queen has tried to put it in the past as she's getting older and she's a Christian who wants to forgive Sara's follies, but I don't think that S is ever going to be really welcomed back.
I think the scandals of her very public affairs (Diana's were mostly hidden and only rarely became public) infuriated the Royals esp Philip and she will never really be fully accepted...
They may feel that Diana was in some ways more guilty of deliberately attacking the RF at times but all the same Sarah's mistakes of stupidity and ignorance and stupidly getting caught, are not something they can easily forgive and forget.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 27, 2017, 06:38:59 PM
I think that no matter what Sarah Ferguson did, the royal family never for a moment thought that she deliberately tried to destroy the monarchy. The mistakes she made were errors of judgement rather than calculated acts of malice. That is why I think she was far better tolerated by the royal family than Diana was. Besides I understand most members of the royal family had a soft spot for her including the ones that mattered most (Queen and QM). DOE is not a fan but that has not stopped Sarah from being extended little acts of friendship from the royal family.
Fergie was not "far better tolerated than Diana". Philip and Elizabeth kept her away from royal events and William did not invite Fergie to his wedding. I don't think it was "nice" to say the least that Fergie got involved with her "financial advisers" and had the embarrassing photos. I don't think it "harmless". Unless she has no working brain cells, she must have known how this hurt her husband, who, unlike Charles, did not have his friends badmouth his ex wife. But his loyalty to her did not sway the Queen and Philip. Diana did not try to destroy the monarchy. That is so not true. Charles was the one who badmouthed his parents to his authorized biographer and caused great embarrassment. There was a brief window of opportunity where the royals liked her but that did not last long. Fergie's spendthrift ways and her affairs did not endear her to the Queen who was naturally angry when the topless photos hit the tabloids (and this while Fergie was there at Balmoral with her husband when the tabloids published the photos) Fergie was told to pack and get out and made a quick exit. That does not speak fondness for Fergie.
QuoteThey may feel that Diana was in some ways more guilty of deliberately attacking the RF at times but all the same Sarah's mistakes of stupidity and ignorance and stupidly getting caught, are not something they can easily forgive and forget.
[/quote
IMO after the divorces the Queen and the DoE realized that they could not trust either Diana or Sarah. It was already suspected that Diana had been indiscreet by cooperating with Andrew Morton and members of the press which was later proven to be true. Sarah obviously had displayed the worst possible judgement with her affair with John Bryan. However Sarah's indiscretions were the more vulgar of the two and her presence was not going to be tolerated.
However for the sake of William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie there did need to be some opportunities for their mothers to be present during the holidays and that is why I believe both were invited to spend Christmas at Sandringham. (Even though Sarah had to stay at another property on the estate.)
The royals did not know for certain that Diana was complicit in the Morton book until after Diana's death when Morton confessed all. The royals could hardly make angry speeches at the time about it. Sarah ran up a huge debt, did not behave well at appearances, and had affairs with the financial advisers. In another thread, Sarah was quoted praising Charles and Camilla to the skies (on the Larry King Show). Her trying to mend fences did not do her much good because William still did not invite her to his wedding and she is still left out of nearly all royal events.
QuoteI think that no matter what Sarah Ferguson did, the royal family never for a moment thought that she deliberately tried to destroy the monarchy. The mistakes she made were errors of judgement rather than calculated acts of malice.
While I agree that they were errors in judgement rather than malicious acts, Sarah has repeatedly embarrassed the BRF, her ex-husband, daughters and others with her actions and words. Her "access to Andrew" scandal might have been the last straw.
Even on her wedding day, Fergie mugged and made faces walking down the aisle. It was embarrassing to the royals in attendance.
Quote from: TLLK on May 02, 2017, 12:32:11 AM
QuoteI think that no matter what Sarah Ferguson did, the royal family never for a moment thought that she deliberately tried to destroy the monarchy. The mistakes she made were errors of judgement rather than calculated acts of malice.
While I agree that they were errors in judgement rather than malicious acts, Sarah has repeatedly embarrassed the BRF, her ex-husband, daughters and others with her actions and words. Her "access to Andrew" scandal might have been the last straw.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/23/sarah-ferguson-andrew-cash-tabloid
Yes, TLLK. The Yorks are remarkably scandal-prone and I don't just mean Sarah! However, this episode was horrific, as is the lingering suspicion that Andrew knew about Sarah's deal and wouldn't have minded a cut, though there is of course no proof of that. The false sheikh was certainly Sarah's worst blunder and unlike Sophie Wessex's mess, pointed to real corruption. The Queen still retains a certain fondness, not unaligned to the fact that Andrew is supposedly her favourite child, but it's well known Philip can't stand her, and Charles isn't too keen either. Sarah's future remains outside the BRF, IMO.
I agree
@Curryong. I admired Sarah's determination to pay off her debts in the 1990's however when she started down her path of overspending AGAIN, it was obvious she had not learned anything. As to her relationship with her former in-laws, I believe that door has been closed. Of course we'll see Sarah at her daughters' milestone events: weddings, christenings etc...but other than that I doubt we'd see her at any other future BRF events.
IMO had Sarah been less keen on press coverage for herself and the princesses and remained discreet about her relationships with the BRF that she might have been welcomed into the wider fold for some private family events ie: birthday parties.
They say Andrew can be quite snotty and arrogant when it comes to his royal privileges. Have people considered the possibilitiy that Sarah tried but was frustrated by Andrew? He has not married anyone else so maybe they were destined to be together. I would not be entirely surprised if Andrew was somehow involved in the access scandal. He has shown himself to be quite in tune with his royal status and privileges. A kind of "do you know who I am" attitude.
Andrew was not the one with lovers. If she were frustrated she should have considered two words: "marriage counseling."
I admit I do have a soft spot for Sarah. She is a good girl gone bad but I never sensed that she was malicious or wanted to harm her in-laws. Most of the things she has done are due to human weaknesses: greed, lust and naivety. I still think that royal family (apart from DOE and Charles) are happy to forgive her.
Yes, some of her actions harmed the monarchy but she never deliberately set out to harm the institutions or members of the royal family. Later on she tried to apologize to the queen, rather charming and disarming in my view given the fact that the tabloids were having a field day with her. Anyone that can maintain a civilized relationship with her ex and children has the thumbs-up in my book. It makes a welcome change from the histronic divorces that have become the bane of our society today.
^^^@royalapologist-Don't we all have a soft spot for one royal or another? Mine is Infanta Elena. :)
I agree that Sarah is not malicious but with her history I believe that we'll see a grace period of more discreet behavior from Sarah and then another embarrassing blunder tied into her financial state. It seems to be a well established pattern of behavior for her.
As for Sarah and Andrew's relationship, I do believe that they genuinely loved each other and had a strong friendship as a base. However, his naval career and royal duties kept them largely apart for much of their married life. I believe that if he had not been absent that their marriage would have survived. Sarah must have been very lonely and that led her to seek companionship with people who were more interested in her royal connections.
Oh that Infanta Elena
@TLLK. She needs a good hug :hehe:
Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 02, 2017, 01:51:05 PM
I admit I do have a soft spot for Sarah. She is a good girl gone bad but I never sensed that she was malicious or wanted to harm her in-laws. Most of the things she has done are due to human weaknesses: greed, lust and naivety. I still think that royal family (apart from DOE and Charles) are happy to forgive her.
Yes, some of her actions harmed the monarchy but she never deliberately set out to harm the institutions or members of the royal family. Later on she tried to apologize to the queen, rather charming and disarming in my view given the fact that the tabloids were having a field day with her. Anyone that can maintain a civilized relationship with her ex and children has the thumbs-up in my book. It makes a welcome change from the histronic divorces that have become the bane of our society today.
I think the Queen lost any fondness for Sarah ages ago. I think she's polite and cordial but I don't think there's any love lost.
I think Andrew was very good to Sarah since the divorce and never badmouthed her nor had his associates or family do so.
No I don't think that the queen or any of them will totally forgive her. even if her blunders are the result of a stupid childish selfishness rather than malice, there have been a lot of them and I think that while the queen has offered a certain friendship, its limited. She's a good woman and a Chirstian and she is not going to bear hatred against Fergie and there is something likable about the woman but all the same she just never learns, is selfish, silly and scandal prone. the rest of them problaby think the same way.. that she seemed a breath of fresh air but turned out to be a disaster and in essence she's never going to be more than tolerated.
so no, I don't think that "most of them would be willing to forgive her except for Charles and PHilip."
And while Andrew is no angel I think he tolerated a lot of silly behaviour from Sarah and DID remain loyal to her (still does) but he wouldn't go on with the marriage once the public infidelities were noted.
I don't think he's a saint with regard to money, but I think that he was less guilty than her and that some of his dablbling in dogdgy financial stuff is to do with Sarah's never failing need for money.
I think in the future Fergie and Andrew will remarry.They have never really had any other long term relationship and she still attends royal engagements with him.Their children are grown yet they continue to stay together and buy a chalet in Switzerland.Yes, Fergie did a lot of crazy things but hopefully she has learned from her mistakes.I have always liked her because she just gets on with it despite the press being so nasty to her and her daughters.
I actually think you are right
@Valentina18. If there is any divorced couple that should not have divorced, it is them. Don't know whether Sarah has learnt from her mistakes but it is a pipe dream of mine that the Duchess will one day get her man again.
By the way I absolutely love the photo of Prince Harry on your avatar :goodpost:
Why? So she can mess up again in some way, and she will, it's been a pattern with Sarah all her adult life. So she can embarrass the royal family once again, throw mud all over their image, skirt so near to corrupt activities that (believe it or not) it was only the pulling back by British newspapers at the time that IMO prevented a full scale investigation into her and her ex's activities.
So Sarah can flog cheap drink juicers and hair straighteners on US TV again, who is so loathed in Britain people beg her to stay in Switzerland? So Sarah can once more have other boyfriends behind her husband's back when she's remarried, and cavort with them in public as she did before?
Diana had more dignity in her little finger than Sarah's had in her entire body, ever. It's funny how an absolute disgrace of a person, who has messed up her life again and again gets a pass from some, while a woman who was troubled, sometimes didn't do the right thing but did an enormous amount of good in the world is under constant attack.
Yes, I hope she and Andrew do remarry. In Charles's reign, so that Andrew gets pensioned off from royal duties and he and his wife can then crawl away under the nearest rock and be never seen or heard of again, ever. That's my dream and fervent hope.
For all her mistakes, I have never thought that Sarah was malicious on any level. That is why I think she gets so many chances. People know that she has made mistakes but those mistakes are errors of judgment. She is not out to hurt anybody and is quite candid about what a mess she has been. I also like Sarah and defend her because I think the press were brutal to her. She was their target and someone has got to stand up for the underdog. I am willing to volunteer for her.
You can do just as much mischief by blundering into situations without forethought, for instance in a desperate search for money after you've spent all your income, without being downright malicious. What's the old saying 'The road to Hell is paved with good intentions'. In my view Sarah personifies that. And this vulgar and venal woman has done harm to the image of the monarchy.
That may be true. Indeed it is possible to do lots of damage even when you have good intentions but people can be forgiving if they think your heart was in the right place. It seems to me that Sarah is not quite ostracized by the royal family despite her mistakes. She still makes it to some events and has even been mentioned in the court circular. For someone who got it spectacularly wrong, she has a remarkable ability to be forgiven. I think it is all to do with her motives.
Sarah Ferguson 'continually on verge of bankruptcy' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8571793/Sarah-Ferguson-continually-on-verge-of-bankruptcy.html)
Desperate Sarah seeks an A-List bailout - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8568836/Desperate-Sarah-seeks-an-A-List-bailout.html)
IMHO Sarah's seemingly continual precarious financial situation is part of the reason that she has been more or less sidelined by the majority of the BRF. Her actions impact not only herself, the York family but those friends and business owners who are negatively impacted by this simple reason. Sarah continues to live beyond her means and she's done this for decades.
There is always an apology and a promise to do better, but she cannot stop herself from overspending when she has limited resources. Then she has to turn to Andrew and his less than savory acquaintances to pay off her debts.
She's so bad...she's good. I don't think Sarah understands a budget :hehe: It is an alien concept to her.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 02, 2017, 10:18:52 PM
For all her mistakes, I have never thought that Sarah was malicious on any level. That is why I think she gets so many chances. People know that she has made mistakes but those mistakes are errors of judgment. She is not out to hurt anybody and is quite candid about what a mess she has been. I also like Sarah and defend her because I think the press were brutal to her. She was their target and someone has got to stand up for the underdog. I am willing to volunteer for her.
I don't think she was exactly sending a valentine to her husband when she was pictured with one of her lovers holding her baby daughter Bea. And the topless photos with the other financial advisers. It's almost like she flaunted her affairs and had contempt or indifference about her husband.
Sarah is unpopular in Britain. Whenever I've been there or phoned or skyped home and something about her pops up, then about one person in ten says something favourable about her. To the rest she's a disgrace. And IMO she's long outworn her welcome in the public eye and any so-called loveable qualities she may believe she possesses have passed their use-by date.
Apart from her ex and daughters, who, except for the Queen, has any great sympathy for her within the BRF? She only squeezes into the CC on her ex husband's coat tails or because of the occasional visit to Balmoral. Greed has been much of the motivation for her later scandals and sexual attraction to wealthy Americans for her earlier ones. Neither of these seems to be admirable in the least, IMO.
QuoteIt's almost like she flaunted her affairs and had contempt or indifference about her husband.
I would say that this indifference seems to color her view of the wider world. When Sarah overspends and cannot pay her bills, she doesn't appear to understand that it impacts others as well. When she is caught on tape offering "access for cash" to her ex-husband, she seems to be unable to see how it will affect his reputation.
Poor Sarah has no brains, really. That's why I think some of us tend to forgive her because in spite of being silly and over spending she is nice natured and not malicious. She just doesn't think at all. and its true that mostly in her days as Princess she DID get a lot of unkind press flak because she wasn't as pretty or fashionable as Diana. She got intot financial trouble in the early years partly through helping out her widowed mother, but she also over spent just thorugh folly.
^ You see, I don't see her as being 'nice-natured' and non-malicious. Andrew, who inidentally I think is a very dim, crass sort of person, did nothing to Sarah, allowing her full reign to travel, see her friends, party and everything else.
In exchange he got Sarah cheating on him with Steve Wyatt when her babies were very very small, followed by Johnny Bryant who she tried to persuade everyone was her 'financial adviser'. You don't think they were malicious acts against a man, her husband, who loved her, because I certainly do!
She was and is also a spendthrift, delusional about what she has done wrong and how it impacts on others (thinking it can all be put right with a mea culpa until the next time) and is a self-publicist.
She was completely unsuitable for Royal life and, apart from her weight issues, that was the main reason the press was so easily able to make fun of her. So I don't think she is 'nice' nor is she anyone to be pitied, in my honest opinion.
You say something very interesting about "weight issues". When someone is anorexic and has bulimia; the public and press generally want to garner sympathy for them. They are deemed to be sick and in need of help. However, if someone is fat; they are deemed to be irresponsible, ugly and to be condemned for their lifestyle. It is what it is. A pretty face will take you places.
I never thought of Sarah as being 'fat'. It was the press who christened her 'The Duchess of Pork'. She was a big boned young woman with beautiful hair, who looked ungainly, was ungraceful and waddled when she walked. She dressed horrendously, even for the 1980's in garish colours and stripes which made her look dreadful. All of which Sarah could have done something about. Even today she dresses badly a lot of the time.
Sarah also had the unflattering "big dresses with large shoulder pads" and also outlandish looking clothes.
^^^
@sandy-Remember that she wasn't the only one wearing those big shouldered suits, tops and dresses during those years. :P :lol:
Think of the popular tv shows and you'll see the adult female cast members all wearing them. (Designing Women, Golden Girls, Dynasty)
Double post auto-merged: May 03, 2017, 02:01:50 PM
Quote from: Curryong on May 03, 2017, 06:52:20 AM
I never thought of Sarah as being 'fat'. It was the press who christened her 'The Duchess of Pork'. She was a big boned young woman with beautiful hair, who looked ungainly, was ungraceful and waddled when she walked. She dressed horrendously, even for the 1980's in garish colours and stripes which made her look dreadful. All of which Sarah could have done something about. Even today she dresses badly a lot of the time.
I never thought of her as fat either
@Curryong. She did have some questionable wardrobe selections though during those years. Since she's left the BRF I find that her choices tend to be sleeker and more professional. I thought that her best look ever was on her wedding day. Her gown was beautifully fitted to her body and was very elegant IMHO. (Yes the beading was OTT, but it was the 1980's.)
QuoteShe was and is also a spendthrift, delusional about what she has done wrong and how it impacts on others (thinking it can all be put right with a mea culpa until the next time) and is a self-publicist.
This is why I no longer have much respect for Sarah.
As I recall Sophie Wessex left about 1M in debts too, but she's not attacked..
I think that sarah Is a silly woman and always will be but she's mostly harmless. She's never going to change as regards money so anyone who lends it to her must expect it to disappear.
She has no dress sense, little or no common sense and she usualy looks wrong. But mostly she's more harm to herself than ot others...
@amabel-Sophie's faced criticism over those debts, but unlike Sarah she appears to learn from her mistakes. If she didn't I'd criticize her too.
Quote from: TLLK on May 03, 2017, 03:18:04 PM
@amabel-Sophie's faced criticism over those debts, but unlike Sarah she appears to learn from her mistakes. If she didn't I'd criticize her too.
As far as I know Sopheie has never paid off her debts (whereas sarah HAS at least tried and cleared her frist big debt at least)? and every time I've pointed out that Sophie isn't exactly a wonderful princess what wth the debts, the fake sheik thing etc I get attacked..
Sophie has been rescued by the RF and kept iwthin their fold, and is doing royal duties.. Poor Sarah is just cut loose, I know shes' at fault, I'm not saying she's not.. but I think she does get attacked more because she hasn't got "royal protection", just as Diana got more criticism, bad press and harassment in general form paps once she had given up "being royal".
and also because she isn't a great beauty, or skinny and isn't much good at dressing or presenting herself.
I really find it hard to think that she's not a good natured if silly woman. She has a problem with spending, and she finds it very hard to restrain herself, just as she over eats. and she's clearly never quite gotten over her own folly in leaving the RF, she's found (as Di might have found) that' without them she's very much "out in the open" iwht no protection.
I can see Royals point that if she's done some foolish things, they are not from malice as sometimes was the case with Diana (thtough I think her malice was generated through hurt).. but through sheer boneheaded stupidity. She gave a lot of money to her mother when she was left badly off after her husband died, and she is basically kindly and not a bad person. She had affairs, and she was stupid in letting herself get caught.. but then she's not the first or last royal woman to have affairs.. its the way she got caught that probably annoyed the RF more.
But I don't agree that they have forgiven her, as I've said. They have long since lost any patience with her nad she's now sidelined. I tink the queen has forgiven her up to a point, partly fro Andrew's sake.. but the rest of them including Charles and Philip haven't and wont
Diana did not give up "being royal" she had two royal children and she would go to the many royal events involving them. Diana did not get more criticism. As a matter of fact, she was called "class" and Fergie "cash" in a People Magazine cover story. Diana was praised for her charity work and Fergie slammed for plugging her book.
Diana was fighting against malicious people including her own husband who slammed her through his biographer and she still is slammed by people sympathetic to the PRince.
I don't think what Fergie did was harmless, she no matter how it is sliced, hurt her husband by blatant cheating. That made the tabloids.
QuotePoor Sarah is just cut loose, I know shes' at fault, I'm not saying she's not.. but I think she does get attacked more because she hasn't got "royal protection", just as Diana got more criticism, bad press and harassment in general form paps once she had given up "being royal".
I agree
@amabel that once both women were no longer working members of the BRF that the unpleasant side of the press was featured more prominently in their stories. Like Diana, Sarah continued her charity work but clearly something had changed after the divorce when it came to press coverage.
Unfortunately for Sarah much of her negative coverage is generated by her own actions and words. :(
Diana got positive press, Sarah didn't. Big difference in 1997. William is the future King and Diana and Charles son. As mother of the heir to heir, Diana would have had more influence than Sarah for obvious reasons.
Influence upon her son yes, but not really on the workings of the BRF. Like Snowdon, Mark Phillips and Sarah, Diana would no longer participate in royal events but would be limited to the family ones ie milestone ones like weddings.
Snowden, Mark Phillips and Sarah were and are not parents of a future monarch. Diana was.
Quote from: TLLK on May 04, 2017, 01:01:03 PM
QuotePoor Sarah is just cut loose, I know shes' at fault, I'm not saying she's not.. but I think she does get attacked more because she hasn't got "royal protection", just as Diana got more criticism, bad press and harassment in general form paps once she had given up "being royal".
I agree @amabel that once both women were no longer working members of the BRF that the unpleasant side of the press was featured more prominently in their stories. Like Diana, Sarah continued her charity work but clearly something had changed after the divorce when it came to press coverage.
Unfortunately for Sarah much of her negative coverage is generated by her own actions and words. :(
I know she's her own worst enemy, poor Sarah, but she IS rather childish, and silly.. and she just never learns. never will. but her motives are not usually bad, she is greedy for money, but I thnk that's because being royal went to her rather weak head.. and she was expected to keep up a royal lifestyle and look glam for the press on a lot less money than Diana had access to. So she got greedy and now has a spending habit.
but She never really turned on the RF the way Diana did, or aganst Andrew (of course she NEEDS him as well but even so I think there's a genuine fondness between them..
However the RF will never really forigive her and the press and public have lost interest in her and are negative.. and wont give her another chance
Diana did not turn on the royal family. Charles had his friends leak nasty stories to the media about Diana (in the 1980s). Sarah shot herself in the foot so there was no need for leaking stories. Andrew was more of a gentleman than Charles and never had stories leaked about his wife or gave interviews about never loving his wife.
Diana definitely did turn on the royal family. She leaked their secrets and conspired with closet republicans to attempt a coup on the succession. She continuously fought to upstage them after the separation and told lies about them in her book/interview. Sarah has many, many faults but she never did that.
I can tell you now that if I was the Queen (fat chance. lol :hehe:), there would have been lots of trouble for Diana after panorama. She would definitely have felt the freeze then. No responsible mother can allow her son's estranged wife to try and destroy him like that in public (trying to get him out of his job because he did not love her enough for example???). All things considered; the queen was quite patient and pragmatic. She consulted with the state actors (Prime Minister, Clergy, government). They were all in agreement that a divorce was the only way forward.
Before he married her, did Prince Andrew know what Sarah's spending habits were like?
^ No, I don't. Sarah and Andrew had quite a short dating period. I think Andrew was quite naive about money in the real world, as some members of the Royal family were in those days. Sarah has often remarked that she married someone who had never been in a shop. She probably exaggerated, but I do think that Andrew was not used to doing a lot of shopping. When they were engaged Sarah would suggest buying extravagant dinner services, tea sets and so on but I don't think Andrew picked up on that signal.
I believe Sarah had her head turned by marrying into the Royal family, and didn't consider what that actually meant in Andrew's case, ie living on his salary and what the Queen would give them each year.
@LouisFerdinand -I agree with
@Curryong's assessment of their financial situation which was far different than the Wales'.
Double post auto-merged: May 04, 2017, 09:27:48 PM
Quote from: sandy on May 04, 2017, 04:30:54 PM
Snowden, Mark Phillips and Sarah were and are not parents of a future monarch. Diana was.
Should something dreadful have happened to the top members of the BRF, Beatrice would have been closer in the line of succession. As the divorced parents who were formerly married to one of the Queen's children or siblings they could have influence over their children's lives but not a real impact upon the workings of the BRF.
Yes they'd continue to be invited to private events or milestone ones like their child's wedding. However they'd never again participate in a royal activities like a state visit, Trooping the Color, Garter Ceremony etc...That part of their lives had ended.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 04, 2017, 08:28:56 PM
Diana definitely did turn on the royal family. She leaked their secrets and conspired with closet republicans to attempt a coup on the succession. She continuously fought to upstage them after the separation and told lies about them in her book/interview. Sarah has many, many faults but she never did that.
I can tell you now that if I was the Queen (fat chance. lol :hehe:), there would have been lots of trouble for Diana after panorama. She would definitely have felt the freeze then. No responsible mother can allow her son's estranged wife to try and destroy him like that in public (trying to get him out of his job because he did not love her enough for example???). All things considered; the queen was quite patient and pragmatic. She consulted with the state actors (Prime Minister, Clergy, government). They were all in agreement that a divorce was the only way forward.
Charles in his Dimbleby interview and book aired more dirty laundry/ He trashed his own parents. Diana just said that the "top job" may put limitations on him. It was not just Diana's interview that forced the divorce. Blabby Charles outed his mistress and forced a divorce of the PBs.
Quote from: sandy on May 04, 2017, 05:39:47 PM
Diana did not turn on the royal family. Charles had his friends leak nasty stories to the media about Diana (in the 1980s). Sarah shot herself in the foot so there was no need for leaking stories. Andrew was more of a gentleman than Charles and never had stories leaked about his wife or gave interviews about never loving his wife.
waht nasty stories?? Diana's media coverage in the 80s was almost universally good. Some journalists disliked her but they had done so from the beginning - unless you think that Charles was "leaking stories" abuot his wife from day 1.
No it was not. There were stories leaked about her including that she was jealous of Harvey, Charles' dog and other stories. The highlight was Tina Brown's "The Mouse that Roared" in Vanity Fair Magazine (1985). Charles' friends leaked the stories which I doubt they would have done without Charles' permission. Around 1983, Charles started getting really jealous of Diana's popularity and wrote whining letters to friends (some in public domain). Instead of telling him to work on his marriage, they all turned on Diana. Charles was seeing Camilla at social events and ca. 1986 the friends provided safe houses for Camilla and Charles.
No it was staff who worked for them that gave the stories about the rows and Diana's becoming a diva in the early years. THeir marriage was so obviously stormy from very early on that a lot of stuff leaked out that made it clear that the fairytale marriage wasn't very happy and their servants who are badly paid, were happy to sell their stories to the press.
Charles friends were in charge of the dog story. As I recall Charles friends were interviewed by Brown. I read the article. IT was not just the "staff". The staff would not be indiscreet since some needed the money. Wendy Berrie a staff member wrote a book banned in the UK. Servants had to sign a confidentiality agreement since the Crawfie episode. I read the article it was not stories from the "staff", Charles friends were the source. Plus there were leaks to the press. I think Charles was the Diva in the house, he who should was jealous of his wife.
This statement by Sandy is not correct:
"Charles friends were in charge of the dog story"
As recently as 2017, the QM's equerry referenced the story again. That guy is definitely not Charles friend but a former member of staff. Someone provided an explanation that it was not Diana being jealous or unreasonable but that the dog was incontinent. Others saw it as the nail in the coffin of that marriage. I have to say that if anyone became jealous of a pet, that would be the end of me and them. Human beings who are jealous of pets need lots and lots of help. I am not sure I could live with such a person.
It is correct. It did come from Charles' friends. They were leaking stories about Diana who accused her of being jealous of the dog. The dog was incontinent story came later.
The QM's equerry sounds like an unpleasant old gossip.
Quote from: sandy on May 05, 2017, 10:29:31 PM
Charles friends were in charge of the dog story. As I recall Charles friends were interviewed by Brown. I read the article. IT was not just the "staff". The staff would not be indiscreet since some needed the money. Wendy Berrie a staff member wrote a book banned in the UK. Servants had to sign a confidentiality agreement since the Crawfie episode. I read the article it was not stories from the "staff", Charles friends were the source. Plus there were leaks to the press. I think Charles was the Diva in the house, he who should was jealous of his wife.
the staff were indiscreet Sandy, because they were paid for it. many of thtem leaked stories to the papers and were paid for it provided they could keep ti quiet. Berry only wrote her book much later when the marriage was over, and it was a book so her cooperation in it was obvious, whereas other servants could talk to reporters ont the quiet and be paid in money or I've heard in things like football tickets. QUite simply there were so many rows in the Wales household that anyone follwoign them like journalists or talking to people who worked there were made aware that the marriage was in a bad state.. and in the 80s, the Press didn't care about upsetting the royals as they had done in more deferential times..... the tabloids editors were quite happy if they were able to get stories that annoyed the RF.. and had no hestitation about publishing them, except for the "tapes" ones which they held onto later on.. for a long time.
Its absurd to say that Charles or his friends were leaking stories early on. Why would they wnat to criticise Diana? She was part of the RF, and they were loyal to them. And if she was criticised by the Press, it would only draw attention to the wales' marriage and have the press watching them more and more which was certainly NOT what Charles or the RF wanted. THey wanted a bit of respectful coverage and certainly not the kind of obsessive attention that Diana drew to them.
Later on when the marriage was all but over, both Di's side and charles' side did talk to the Press because it was open War between the 2 parties, and they used the press to get their shots across.. but it is ridiculous to say that C's friends were leaking stories detrimental to her in the early days.
A sympathetic article about Sarah from 2010 shortly after the "cash for access" scandal broke.
Why I feel sorry for Sarah Ferguson | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/24/feel-sorry-for-sarah-ferguson)
QuoteFrom the moment she appeared as Andrew's consort, Fergie was set up in uncomfortable contrast to Princess Diana. Where Diana was rake thin, Fergie was not. Where Diana was shy and quiet, Fergie was not. Diana had been chaste, and married at 20. Fergie had had boyfriends including the motor-racing entrepreneur Paddy McNally. The two women, who had known each other since the age of 14, may have been friends at first – memorably using their umbrellas to poke people's bottoms at Ascot – but they were depicted as opposites, with Diana the chic, elegant, serene one, and Fergie the rambunctious, gallumphing rabble-rouser. It was a comparison that encouraged us to identify with one woman or the other. I can't have been the only person to identify with the awkward, cheerful, inelegant one.
An incident recounted in her autobiography, My Story, seems to sum up Fergie's style. On her first ever visit to Sandringham, she accidentally kicked one of the resident corgis when curtseying to the Queen. "You would have thought the little yapper was bound for the Royal kennel in the sky," she wrote. Still, at this stage, she believed it "when they said I was a wonderful fresh, clean page for the royal family . . . like some Mary Poppins crossed with Cinderella. At 26-years-old, I was incredibly gullible and naive".
Quote from: royalanthropologist on April 27, 2017, 06:38:59 PM
I think that no matter what Sarah Ferguson did, the royal family never for a moment thought that she deliberately tried to destroy the monarchy. The mistakes she made were errors of judgement rather than calculated acts of malice. That is why I think she was far better tolerated by the royal family than Diana was. Besides I understand most members of the royal family had a soft spot for her including the ones that mattered most (Queen and QM). DOE is not a fan but that has not stopped Sarah from being extended little acts of friendship from the royal family.
Are you serious here? Joking right?
Like I said another thread, you have every right to your opinion as the saying goes, but not rewriting what is, was and changing /ignoring facts.
she is not "changing facts". We don't know for certain what the RF think of Sarah, since they don't talk of her so its not a fact that they do or don't like her. However Royals opinion is that they DO forgive her for her faults, and that she's been welcomed by them. I don't agree. THey have remained in touch, she's been invited again by the queen and treated with a bit more friendship, but I disagree with Royal. in that I dot think they have really forgiven or forgotten her stupidity and faults and apart form perhaps the queen, never will.
Double post auto-merged: May 06, 2017, 05:06:13 AM
Quote from: TLLK on May 06, 2017, 04:54:22 AM
A sympathetic article about Sarah from 2010 shortly after the "cash for access" scandal broke.
Why I feel sorry for Sarah Ferguson | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/24/feel-sorry-for-sarah-ferguson)
QuoteFrom the moment she appeared as Andrew's consort, Fergie was set up in uncomfortable contrast to Princess Diana. Where Diana was rake thin, Fergie was not. Where Diana was shy and quiet, Fergie was not.
An incident recounted in her autobiography, My Story, seems to sum up Fergie's style. On her first ever visit to Sandringham, she accidentally kicked one of the resident corgis when curtseying to the Queen. "You would have thought the little yapper was bound for the Royal kennel in the sky," she wrote. Still, at this stage, she believed it "when they said I was a wonderful fresh, clean page for the royal family . . . like some Mary Poppins crossed with Cinderella. At 26-years-old, I was incredibly gullible and naive".
Frankly I don't think that anecdote shows Sarah in a good light. I think that she was liked at first by the queen, as horsey and jolly, unlike the unhorsey, country hating and increasingly unhappy Diana but that began to fade out soon. There were too many gaffes in public, and it was pretty stupid to "accidnetally kick a corgi" and not it seems feel very sorry for doing so. I'm sure that if she did that, and wasn't as contrite as she might be that was an early black mark against her In the queen's eyes...
Later....tomorrow....
Quote from: amabel on May 06, 2017, 05:03:31 AM
she is not "changing facts". We don't know for certain what the RF think of Sarah, since they don't talk of her so its not a fact that they do or don't like her. However Royals opinion is that they DO forgive her for her faults, and that she's been welcomed by them. I don't agree. THey have remained in touch, she's been invited again by the queen and treated with a bit more friendship, but I disagree with Royal. in that I dot think they have really forgiven or forgotten her stupidity and faults and apart form perhaps the queen, never will.
Double post auto-merged: May 06, 2017, 05:06:13 AM
Quote from: TLLK on May 06, 2017, 04:54:22 AM
A sympathetic article about Sarah from 2010 shortly after the "cash for access" scandal broke.
Why I feel sorry for Sarah Ferguson | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/24/feel-sorry-for-sarah-ferguson)
QuoteFrom the moment she appeared as Andrew's consort, Fergie was set up in uncomfortable contrast to Princess Diana. Where Diana was rake thin, Fergie was not. Where Diana was shy and quiet, Fergie was not.
An incident recounted in her autobiography, My Story, seems to sum up Fergie's style. On her first ever visit to Sandringham, she accidentally kicked one of the resident corgis when curtseying to the Queen. "You would have thought the little yapper was bound for the Royal kennel in the sky," she wrote. Still, at this stage, she believed it "when they said I was a wonderful fresh, clean page for the royal family . . . like some Mary Poppins crossed with Cinderella. At 26-years-old, I was incredibly gullible and naive".
Frankly I don't think that anecdote shows Sarah in a good light. I think that she was liked at first by the queen, as horsey and jolly, unlike the unhorsey, country hating and increasingly unhappy Diana but that began to fade out soon. There were too many gaffes in public, and it was pretty stupid to "accidnetally kick a corgi" and not it seems feel very sorry for doing so. I'm sure that if she did that, and wasn't as contrite as she might be that was an early black mark against her In the queen's eyes...
Thank you
@amabel for helping to keep this thread on topic.
I agree none of us know how each individual in the family feels about Sarah. I would hope that they've been respectful of Beatrice and Eugenie's feelings when it comes to sharing their views among themselves.
Actually I am neither joking nor changing the story
@FanDianaFancy. Yes, Sarah has done very bad things and the royal family has condemned her silently but in reality you always get the feeling that they have a soft spot for her. Even the queen mum was said to have a soft spot for her. Sometimes we encounter people in life who do bad things but yet we forgive them because we know that their heart is in the right place. Sarah is a spendthrift, loose and vulgar but nobody can say that she wanted to damage the monarchy. Even to this very day, Sarah is respectful when she meets members of the family despite the fact that she was once a person-non grata.
^ I suppose Charles's Dimbleby interview and biography, plus the outing of Mrs PB, didn't damage the monarchy in any way?
Sarah may well have had to sign confidentiality agreements not to spill the beans about anything to do with the BRF and the Royal Household, before her divorce agreement was signed off. Not that I think she would have been particularly vicious about anyone, especially the Queen, with whom she got on. Nevertheless, Sarah had a fondness for the US and the BRF lawyers had to ensure that she wouldn't be a guest on TV shows across the Atlantic and amidst the friendly conviviality allow her mouth to run away with her.
I've never heard that the queen Mothter had a soft spot for her. I have to ask Royal where you get some informtaiton please? Because a lot of it, I have never heard and I do read a certain amount about the BRF -
and it sounds as if it is culled from a lot of sources that may not be accurate... not saying that you are wrong just that if I have nto heard a story before, I like ot know wehre it is from so I can try and estimate the accuracy of the source.
it seems to me that you want to believe that the RF "silently" forgive Sarah.. but I think that its due to your liking for Sarah rather than any hard evidence.
Of course Sarah is polite ot the RF, she's always desperately hoping that she WILL be forgiven and taken back intot the fold and rescued but its not going to happen. The queen has I think as she's grown older wanted to keep up a bit of a friendly relationship because she IS getting older and does not want to be at odds with S, and for her grandchildren's sake.. but it is limited, and Philip wont ever forgive her. Charles too is probably trying to keep Sarah at a distance because she caused enough drama and scandal in the 90s and he wants to make sure she does not ever get back inside the royal tent. And he can see how she keeps tryig to use Andrew or the girls as her "way back in".
Sarah probably thought that she could manage outside the RF, when she walked out, but found that the world isn't that friendly a place to someone whose only asset was a connextoin to royalty which she had foolishly junked. She managed for a time to make a bit of a career off the back of her royal life, but she has long been unpopular in Britian, and has had to go abroad and to America to try and "sell" her royal past as a story.. or asset.
I think that Sarah thought she would make some kind of Media based career, keep her face n the papers doing some charity wrork and generally still be famous but she was soon very much disliked in the UK. and no rich suitor was appearing to take her on, and rescue her so she clung to Andrew.. and he's at heart a decent man who has been loyal to her so he has continued to try and help her.
but there have been too many things she's doen, like selling access to Andy that have made the RF wary and IMO they're never going to do more than keep up a polite façade with her...
Double post auto-merged: May 06, 2017, 06:42:37 AM
Quote from: Curryong on May 06, 2017, 06:40:55 AM
^ I suppose Charles's Dimbleby interview and biography, plus the outing of Mrs PB, didn't damage the monarchy in any way?
Sarah may well have had to sign confidentiality agreements not to spill the beans about anything to do with the BRF and the Royal Household, before her divorce agreement was signed off. Not that I think she would have been particularly vicious about anyone, especially the Queen, with whom she got on. Nevertheless, Sarah had a fondness for the US and the BRF lawyers had to ensure that she wouldn't be a guest on TV shows across the Atlantic and amidst the friendly conviviality allow her mouth to run away with her.
I don't really see what Charles and "mrs PB" (who long ago became the Duchess of Cornwll)has to do with Sarah.
Double post auto-merged: May 06, 2017, 06:57:59 AM
Quote from: TLLK on May 06, 2017, 06:04:31 AM
Quote from: amabel on May 06, 2017, 05:03:31 AM
will.
Double post auto-merged: May 06, 2017, 05:06:13 AM
Quote from: TLLK on May 06, 2017, 04:54:22 AM
A sympathetic article about Sarah from 2010 shortly after the "cash for access" scandal broke.
Why I feel sorry for Sarah Ferguson | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/24/feel-sorry-for-sarah-ferguson)
QuoteFrom the moment she appeared as Andrew's consort, Fergie was set up in uncomfortable contrast to Princess Diana. Where Diana was rake thin, Fergie was not. Where Diana was shy and quiet, Fergie was not.
Ane".
...
Thank you @amabel for helping to keep this thread on topic.
I agree none of us know how each individual in the family feels about Sarah. I would hope that they've been respectful of Beatrice and Eugenie's feelings when it comes to sharing their views among themselves.
well I am not too sure. They don't speak of her in public, nor do they generally refer to Diana in any public format. But I think the RF hold firm and don't usually really forgive anyone who has been perceived as disloyal and this disloyalty shown by Sarah and Diana was right from within their own ranks.. so I think they really found it impossible to overlook. I'd say that while Andrew remained loyal to his ex wife and Chalres probably still has a bit of latent affection for Diana, the rest of the family don't like either woman and I would say that sadly the 4 children Bea, Eugenie, Will and H must be aware of that.
Sarah I think didn't dare to diss the queen, she's usually twttered on about the "grey men in suits" who made her royal life dificiult rather than any of the royals...
There is a new book out by the QM's equerry where he references it. Here is the link @DianaFansFancy
Behind Palace Doors: My Service As the Queen Mother's Equerry: Major Colin Burgess, Paul Carter: 9781844544448: Amazon.com: Books (https://www.amazon.com/Behind-Palace-Doors-Service-Mothers/dp/1844544443)
I am somewhat perplexed by
@Curryong 's post about Dimbley and outing Mrs PB (now DoC). It does not seem to be particularly relevant to the discussion about Sarah in the royal family. As far as I am aware Dimbley never mentioned Sarah or her problems in any way???
Double post auto-merged: May 06, 2017, 07:04:09 AM
As for
@sandy, your last post on who was in charge of the notorious "dog story" is not true. I have provided a link above clearly showing that as recently as 2017, a former employee of the QM was referencing it. Therefore you are not correct in saying that it was Charles' friends who were in charge of the story. It came out as a consequence of palace leaks and gossip.
Double post auto-merged: May 06, 2017, 07:10:32 AM
Your polemic attack on the author as an "unpleasant old gossip" is uncalled for and has no basis. The book was quite respectful of the subjects and evenly balanced in terms of reviewing the Wales saga. The default strategy of attacking the messenger when the message is not to your liking does not make for good debate.
I hate to go off topic, but it is quite ridiculous to accuse Charles of "leaking" stories detrimental to Diana in the early days. The last thing he expected tehn was for his marriage to go completely pear shaped resulting in a press war between him and his wife..and that was the last thing he wanted. He did not want the press nosing about in his business and if he had authorised his friends to attack Di, that's what would have happened.. but there was enough stuff swirling about out there to make it clear to the public that the marriage wasn't a fairy tale. People don't seem to understnad the British press. Diana had mostly almost 99% good coverage for most of her marriage. Of course there were negative stories, anyone must expect that, in public life. Lots of journoes didn't like her..
and yes theres BOUND to be a few neg stories after the first couple of years of marriage.. when the press and public are bored with gooey "Oh she's wonderful" stories. they wil run a few bad ones, hint at divorce or marital problems, say that the new royal bride is getting "too royal" etc.
what was different with the "Mouse that Roared story" was that it was closer to the truth than a lot of tabloid stories are. The Waleses WERE unhappy. THe marriage was having real problems and Diana was problaby throwing her weight around and being difficult because she was unhappy. The rows were frequent, and I suspect the servatns thoght "I may as well sell this anecdote, because the way the 2 of them go on, others besides me will have heard and sene them rowing.."
It seems to me quite ridiculous to think that any public figure is NEVER going to get negative stories. Di was lucky that she got so few.. but I've noticed that if there is negative press bout her it is "all down to Chalres leaking things", whereas if there is negative stuff about hm, in the press, its down to his being evil and disliked....
You are right Amabel. In the early days, the Waleses tried so hard to keep up appearances of unity despite the intense press scrutiny. They both had an interest in maintaining the ideal of a happy and functional Wales marriages. The tabloids were patronizing Diana. Sometimes giving her childishly saccharine coverage before dropping dark hints with words like "fiend". Even then the press was just speculating because nobody in the circle would go on record. It was only after Morton that the true war of the waleses commenced. That is when it all started coming out, shocking the nation in the process who had assumed things were fine.
No they weren't. Her coverage was pretty favourable because she was pretty and charming, and had a special quality. She was generaly liked and loved. It was no different in "saccharine-ness" to any other royal.
there were journalists who weren't that keen but the Mouse story was the sort of "one unkind story" that most royals get. its to make sure they don't get too complacent and because the public get tired of too many gooey lovey dovey stotries.
the press did have some evidence that there were problems, but I think they discounted it because they were generally invested in the idea that they were a lovely couple who were the stars of the BRF.
ANyway this is way off topic. I'm sorry.
Back to sarah. Trouble is the poor girl should never have been allowed to marry Andy. She was vulgar, silly, and so on. she wasn't stutaible for a public life. but the queen seemes to have ignored the signs because Andy was her favourite and Sar at first was lovably horsey and fun
For some reason I cannot see Andrew with anyone else other than Sarah. It is a pity that they were not able to work on their issues before it became too late. The toe sucking just repulsed the queen. To be accused of adultery is bad enough but to have it in color on national magazines was a step too far. Sarah was quite embarrassed and left the palace the moment the story came out.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 06, 2017, 07:44:35 AM
For some reason I cannot see Andrew with anyone else other than Sarah. It is a pity that they were not able to work on their issues before it became too late.
she left Balmoral, I think. She was staying there iwht the girls, and once the embarrassign photos came out, she really had to go.
As for Andrew you are joking? He's been with more women than he has had hot dinners, since he and Sarah divorced.
I wrote about Charles and the Dimbleby interview on that post, Royal, because you manage to slip into every one of yours about Sarah the observation that Sarah didn't damage the monarchy, your belief being of course that was a complete contrast to Diana's behaviour. As a matter of fact my belief is that Sarah dragged, by her sexual scandals and subsequent financial messes, the British Royal family's prestige and good name through the mud and back again, in the most vulgar and repulsive way possible.
Double post auto-merged: May 06, 2017, 10:34:28 AM
It seems to me that the troubles connected with the York marriage followed quite quickly after the nuptials. Sarah had to adjust at first to a very small flat in BP and to being a member of the BRF. According to the biographies I read Sarah became almost split in her personality, trying to fit in an upstairs/downstairs situation at the Palace, behaving very grandly with retail staff and waiters and sometimes with her Sloane Ranger mates, some of whom noticed a change in her.
Others, like the astrologer Penny Thornton she dropped, probably because of deciding it would not look so great in the papers for her to be friendly with seers and psychics. When she was informal with people Andrew would sometimes tell her off. On one occasion she called across the street to an acquaintance at Verbier and Andrew went ballistic.
She and Andrew were very much in love and physically attracted to each other, but after a hard period of time at sea he would come home and turn into a sloth while Sarah wanted to go out. Andrew's career in the Navy was certainly a problem. She became wedded to travel as the dullness of her life with and without Andrew became apparent and often went off skiing or to sunny climes with friends by herself. Sarah was a very lively and restless person and I don't think she and Andrew were well-suited as husband and wife however well they got on superficially.
Not really since they cut her loose very obviously... they've made it clear that she's "out on her own" and they dont regard her as one of them.
certainly she did damage the image of the monarchy at the time, but so did other royals who were behaving stupidly, Diana doing Morton and Panorama, Charles doing Dimbleby, or rather discussing his marriage and his affair in Dimbleby...but with Sarah they very soon gave her the push and it was made clear that she was now considered "out of the charmed circle" and any further stupid goings on weren't damaging them because she wasn't one of them any more.
And its not a case IMO of wether she damaged the monarchy as such but whether that was what she intended to do. Its likely, knowing how dumb Sarah Is that her behaviour is purely instinctive and not thinking at all. I don't think she intended to cut at the RF or the monarchy, she just didn't see the consequences of her behaviour as doing that.
^ Well of course Sarah wasn't divorced from Andrew when the Steve Wyatt and John Bryan affairs became known to the British public, was she?
And, with fulsome apologies to any US citizens posting on the forum, some Americans aren't as knowledgable about the Royal Family as we are here on RI. Long after her divorce Sarah was on US TV in one show or another, telling innocuous little stories about Royal life, about Diana, the Queen, about her Princess daughters and her ex, the Queen's son she reiterates again and again she is still close to, emphasising, for the sake of her shelf life and commercial viability, her Royal links.
To someone who doesn't know much about royalty or take much interest in the British Royal family you could be forgiven for believing Sarah was still right in the midst of them. It's only in the last few years that she has been forced to admit a few things, such as the fact that she has never met Kate, that she wasn't a guest at William's wedding, that she hasn't spoken to William and Harry for years.
She was separated from Andrew when she was caught out with J Bryan, and the RF made haste to get rid of her, a divorce with a small settlement, which in essence was saying that she was kicked out by the RF.. so anything else she did was not "as a royal". She left Balmoral the day her photos were printed with the toe sucking and I think it was obvous that that was the end for her. yes her behaviour did damage them at the time, coming as it did with a LOT of other messy situations being revealed around the same time. She certainly wasn't the only one to indulge in an affair that became public....
But the RF did cut her loose and I tink it was very clear that she was persona non grata..
and since her divorce, she's certainly been extravagant and greedy for money, but I don't know of any real sexual scandals.
Well Charles and Camilla were never caught by the paparazzi "going at it." Charles confessed in 1994 that it was an affair. Sarah revealed her affair in a rather crude way.
she didnt' reveal it, she was claiming to be on an innocent holiday abroad, and was caught fooling around by the Press.
Well she did reveal it in a big way by being careless and going out in the open where the paparazzi can get money shots. She was very clueless and should have heard that photographers crave money shots of royals.
Quote from: amabel on May 06, 2017, 11:13:48 AM
she didnt' reveal it, she was claiming to be on an innocent holiday abroad, and was caught fooling around by the Press.
And there were leaks to the press as to the state of the Yorks' marriage.
Quote from: TLLK on May 06, 2017, 04:20:40 PM
Quote from: amabel on May 06, 2017, 11:13:48 AM
she didnt' reveal it, she was claiming to be on an innocent holiday abroad, and was caught fooling around by the Press.
And there were leaks to the press as to the state of the Yorks' marriage.
were there? I was quite surprised when the anouncemetnt of the Yorks separation came, because their marriage had not seemed to be in trouble. At the time the waleses were reputed to be having a lot of serious problems and if there was an expectation of any royal couple breaking up it was of them. however I think the public felt that even if C and Diana weren't getting on well they'd stay together because of their position. but AND and sarah had seemed to be all right and it was a surprise that they separated. Then Fergie was caught with Bryan.
Anne was the first to divorce and remarry in the family.
Quote from: amabel on May 06, 2017, 05:11:04 PM
Quote from: TLLK on May 06, 2017, 04:20:40 PM
Quote from: amabel on May 06, 2017, 11:13:48 AM
she didnt' reveal it, she was claiming to be on an innocent holiday abroad, and was caught fooling around by the Press.
And there were leaks to the press as to the state of the Yorks' marriage.
were there? I was quite surprised when the anouncemetnt of the Yorks separation came, because their marriage had not seemed to be in trouble. At the time the waleses were reputed to be having a lot of serious problems and if there was an expectation of any royal couple breaking up it was of them. however I think the public felt that even if C and Diana weren't getting on well they'd stay together because of their position. but AND and sarah had seemed to be all right and it was a surprise that they separated. Then Fergie was caught with Bryan.
Yes there was because Diana let the DM's Richard Kay know that the York marriage was in trouble.
Princess Diana told me 'The Redhead's in trouble' as I confronted Fergie's toe sucking lover | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2816519/The-night-Diana-told-Redhead-s-trouble-confronted-Fergie-s-toe-sucking-lover-begin-spectacular-series-Palace-scandals-legendary-royal-writer-RICHARD-KAY-looks-back.html)
And Tina Brown covered it in her book as well.
but the Bryan story, ie Fergie being caught with him, happened after she and Andrew separated. I remember the separation being announced and being surprised, and saying "But its Charles and Di who are supposed to be in trouble". And this is rather vague anyway, Long after the fact journos claim that ti was "almost certainly" Di who leaked te story to the press? I have Tina B's books and she also states it almost as a definite fact that Diana leaked the story of Fergie having an affair with Bryan to the press to distract them from her problems and faults but whle that Is possible, its far from proven in my mind.
Tina Brown says a lot of things that are "definite facts." I take her contention with a grain of salt not a fact. Diana and Fergie (according to Fergie) talked about the Great Escape getting out of their marriages. Fergie did her own damage. There would be no "story" if Fergie did not get involved with her "financial advisers." She was careless too.
Quote from: amabel on May 07, 2017, 06:25:15 AM
but the Bryan story, ie Fergie being caught with him, happened after she and Andrew separated. I remember the separation being announced and being surprised, and saying "But its Charles and Di who are supposed to be in trouble". And this is rather vague anyway, Long after the fact journos claim that ti was "almost certainly" Di who leaked te story to the press? I have Tina B's books and she also states it almost as a definite fact that Diana leaked the story of Fergie having an affair with Bryan to the press to distract them from her problems and faults but whle that Is possible, its far from proven in my mind.
I believe the story because of the timing of the announcement. Certain members of the press had likely warned Diana that news regarding her own private life were being discussed and she panicked. To hold them at bay she shared the news about the state of the Yorks' marriage. She knew the information because Sarah had shared certain details with Diana expecting that she would stay silent. However in the years after Diana's death we've seen a flood of information appear from the people Diana "trusted," who eagerly shared information they had about her.
Had Diana lived it is unlikely that we'd ever know about this and Sarah could continue to believe that the "grey men" had leaked the story.
Sarah shot herself in the foot. Diana knew darn well her private life was already being discussed. This was going on for years. She was not the "villain" who "informed on" Fergie. there is no proof. I guess it depends on how people feel about Diana.
Tina Brown had very questionable contentions in her book. Even Penny Junor does not accuse Diana of doing this! If she had a grain of proof she certainly would have.
Fergie was not some innocent, she caused trouble for Diana.
Fergie was careless, it had nothing to do with Diana. SO "evil" Diana had her "connections" spy on Fergie which led to her being "caught" GMAB. Diana is blamed for world hunger and a bad economy.
I just knew it. Richard Kay was bound to become a villain at some point in the Diana saga. Just goes to show that writing complimentary stuff about Diana and telling her side of the story in the press is no guarantee that you are really on Diana's side. You have to do more to prove your loyalty. That article Richard Kay wrote was all wrong. He should have said that Diana was a victim of Sarah's machinations and that Diana only wanted to help when she shared the details with him. Diana had good intentions. It was Sarah's fault all along.
Also, that Sarah Ferguson should never have committed adultery, it was virtually unheard of in royal circles. She should also have made sure that no member of the family leaked details of her struggles to the press. It was very irresponsible of her. She is totally to blame for the leaks to the press and should have prevented them somehow. I would have suggested threatening Diana was a retaliatory leak of her own marital problems... but again that would be piling on that poor woman who had suffered so much already. In any case Diana was too beautiful and too kind to be involved in such nasty stuff. Diana did the right thing this time. Probably Charles paid Sarah to cause all those problems for Diana by committing adultery. I would not put it past him, the guy is evil personified.
What a joke :notamused:
You can compare Sarah to the other royals till the cows come home. Sarcasm about Diana does not cut it here. Sarah was "bored" with her husband and got financial advisers. She had the most embarrassing "revelation" when the tabs were delivered to Balmoral when Sarah was there with Andrew. The Queen summoned Sarah and she was ceremoniously sent packing. I don't recall anything like this happening to other royals. Sarah shot herself in the foot.
If you want to blame Diana for Sarah's flaws, suit yourself. Sarah was not a puppet Diana maneuvered and told what to do. Sarah did this all by herself.
You have zilch proof that Diana was the one who leaked the story and perhaps "forced" Sarah to get topless on a lounge chair in full view of photographers (who got their money shot). In your world you probably think Diana was one of the photographers who took the photos. Or maybe the "evil one" hired a red headed actress to impersonate Sarah.
And maybe Diana forced Sarah to spend money like water and go into debt.
Oh yes it is all Diana's fault. ANd she's responsible for world hunger and economic problems and so on.
Speaking of jokes... :nod:
Not worth bothering anymore...will never get it in a million years. I am done. Argggh :notamused:
Sarah did herself in. She made huge mistakes. She had a husband who was good to her and she messed up. Big Time. The reality is that she was the only royal of recent memory to be ousted by the Queen from Balmoral. If you don't want to hear other viewpoints that's your choice. Diana being thrown under a bus to try to bolster Fergie is a cop out. IMO.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 08, 2017, 05:49:26 AM
I just knew it. Richard Kay was bound to become a villain at some point in the Diana saga. Just goes to show that writing complimentary stuff about Diana and telling her side of the story in the press is no guarantee that you are really on Diana's side. You have to do more to prove your loyalty. That article Richard Kay wrote was all wrong. He should have said that Diana was a victim of Sarah's machinations and that Diana only wanted to help when she shared the details with him. Diana had good intentions. It was Sarah's fault all along.
Also, that Sarah Ferguson should never have committed adultery, it was virtually unheard of in royal circles. She should also have made sure that no member of the family leaked details of her struggles to the press. It was very irresponsible of her. She is totally to blame for the leaks to the press and should have prevented them somehow. I would have suggested threatening Diana was a retaliatory leak of her own marital problems... but again that would be piling on that poor woman who had suffered so much already. In any case Diana was too beautiful and too kind to be involved in such nasty stuff. Diana did the right thing this time. Probably Charles paid Sarah to cause all those problems for Diana by committing adultery. I would not put it past him, the guy is evil personified.
What a joke :notamused:
This was a very sad and sordid mess for all involved. One of the few times that I felt bad for Andrew because I do believe that he truly loved Sarah.
I don't know why she behaved the way she did perhaps boredom or maybe some contempt for Andrew (for whatever reason). She seemed like a modern Emma Bovary, taking on lovers and running up debts.
YES, what a joke here.
Maybe I am bored with the same ole posts , same old subjects.
Diana and Sarah are not the same people. newsflash. Both women erred in private lives . Both women can be blamed for their private lives. Diana SAID she was at fault, 50%-fifity percent-.50 for her marriage ad all. Fair and honest their.
Sarah made an error in judgment , separated or not
from PAndrew, she played it fast and loose with HRH, Duchess of York life/title.
It went to her head. She did not get it. She too, like Diana , no real mother to consult. TPTB? An older woman of the aristos/nobility? I do not think so.
For my young'ins here, Sarah was not in public but on a private estate between walls/shrubs/space.
The paps climbed the walls/shrubs/space and got their money shots of topless Sarah and the kids , the granddaughters of QEII, preschoolers/toddlers without their tops on too and Mummy getting her toes sucked by Mr. Rich Texan. Well, his folks were rich.
She let herself get used by Johnny Bryan and Lynn Wyatts ' son.
Silly, stupid girl.
Sad.
Difference between her and Diana.
PAndrew had no mistress /girlfriend hanging around, lurking, waiting, knowing ...
PAndrew never bad mouthed Sarah. Certainly , he must have friends. They never badmouthed her.
PAndrew , it seemed , really loved her. Everybody is different in their personalities and no body is better for it and I mean by personalities , their likes and dislikes.
Sarah loved: city life, country life, polo playing, horse riding, outdoors, fun....
QEII, QMother, etc all liked her. They all liked Diana too.
The press liked Sarah-A breathe of fresh air.
Sarah forgot her place, forgot reality, it all went to her head.
She never stopped with the major mistakes either.
Divorce. Diana's death. Time. What and when?
Well, she seems a bit quieter now...for now.
My post is a :goodpost: and you all are :welcome:
Quote from: TLLK on May 07, 2017, 03:08:00 PM
Quote from: amabel on May 07, 2017, 06:25:15 AM
definite fact that Diana leaked the story of Fergie having an affair with Bryan to the press to distract them from her problems and faults but whle that Is possible, its far from proven in my mind.
I believe the story because of the timing of the announcement. Certain members of the press had likely warned Diana that news regarding her own private life were being discussed and she panicked. To hold them at bay she shared the news about the state of the Yorks' marriage. She knew the information because Sarah had shared certain details with Diana expecting that she would stay silent. However in the years after Diana's death we've seen a flood of information appear from the people Diana "trusted," who eagerly shared information they had about her.
Had Diana lived it is unlikely that we'd ever know about this and Sarah could continue to believe that the "grey men" had leaked the story.
I don't think it is anything like proven. Sarah was indiscreet and silly and its quite likely that a leak about her being with Bryan on holiday and canoodling with him could have come from some indiscreet talk of hers, or staff where she was holidaying.. Even from J Bryan's staff.
I don't think that Di's contacts in the media were likely to tell her anyting.. MAYBE Richard Kay but in general I'm sure that they kept thteir professional secrets from her. She was not their friend, she was their "money maker". it is easy to say 20 years later that maybe or "very likely" it was Di who leaked the Fergie story, to take the heat off herself but I dotn think that proves it. Its easy to say now 20 years after her death that she was having an affair with this guy or that...
Double post auto-merged: May 10, 2017, 07:21:48 AM
Quote from: TLLK on May 08, 2017, 02:23:11 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on May 08, 2017, 05:49:26 AM
I just knew it. Richard Kay was bound to become a villain at some point in the Diana saga. Just goes to show that writing complimentary stuff about Diana and telling her side of the story in the press is no guarantee that you are really on Diana's side. You have to do more to prove your loyalty. That article Richard Kay wrote was all wrong. He should have said that Diana was a victim of Sarah's machinations and that Diana only wanted to help when she shared the details with him. Diana had good intentions. It was Sarah's fault all along.
Also, that Sarah Ferguson should never have committed adultery, it was virtually unheard of in royal circles. put it past him, the guy is evil personified.
What a joke :notamused:
This was a very sad and sordid mess for all involved. One of the few times that I felt bad for Andrew because I do believe that he truly loved Sarah.
well He loved her, but I don't think the marriage was very good after a couple of years. They seem to be good friends, but I don't think that they had al that much in common at heart and Sarah was QUITE unfit to be a princess. (Of course Andy often behaves in a pretty godawful way too- but -). I think that Sarah semed to be more in tune with him than Di did with Charles because (a) she did enjoy country horsey life much more so fit in with the RF in general.. and (b) she took up Andy's interests much more than Diana did iwht Charles. she learned to fly etc so she could understand his work, and I think that in the early years she threw herself into "trying to fit inot his life" in her enthuasiasitc if ham fisted way. And she and he shared a storng physical attraction. but I think that within a few years, the differences showed up more. Andy didn't enjoy socialising.. he was arrogant and Fergie was friendly in general..
He wanted to stay home and watch golf videos and she wanted to go out. She over spent and neglected royal duties for fun, more and more. I think that over the years perhaps Andy has taken to dodge business deasl because he needs money to help her out..(though I'm sure some of it gets spent on him too).
I think she got less interested in trying to share his life, she turned ot other richer more "fun" men, she got resentful that Andy didn't stand up to her witht the courtiers etc. And whne her affair with Wyatt became public and then the one with Bryan I think he was adamant that even if he still was fond of her he wanted a divorce.
Diana was immersed in the fallout from Morton so I doubt Sarah was much on her mind and I doubt she would have become a "secret agent" to "out" Fergie. Fergie did damage to herself. Nobody forced her to get involved with these "advisers." Fergie became mostly interested in the city and partying not the country as time went on. Diana was trying to get to know Charles by learning fishing. Fergie did the same thing by flying. Those "fun" men seemed rather blah to me. I think Andrew and Fergie should have gotten marriage counseling or maybe royals think themselves above such things.
sarah didn't want to go on with the marriage, she reached a point where Andrew was irritating and boring her, thtough she was still fond of him, and she was fed up and unable to cocpe with the RF's routines and the demands of her public lfie and hurt by press criticism.
and when Andy saw the photos proviing her affairs, he wouldn't go on with it either
Too bad she did not just do some thinking and decide on marriage counseling and maybe hire a PR person to assist her.
I woudn't worry about her, she's a big girl and IMO she's never going to change..