Sarah Ferguson Joins Ex Prince Andrew and Their Daughters for Palace Event

[sandy]

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.

[amabel]

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.

[sandy]

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.

[amabel]

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.

[sandy]

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.

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[sandy]

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.

[amabel]

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.

[TLLK]

 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

From 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".

[FanDianaFancy]

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.

[amabel]

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

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

From 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...

[FanDianaFancy]

Later....tomorrow....

[TLLK]

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

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

From 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.

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[Curryong]

^ 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.

[amabel]

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

^ 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

will.
Double post auto-merged: May 06, 2017, 05:06:13 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

From 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...

[royalanthropologist]

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

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.

[amabel]

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....

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[amabel]

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

[royalanthropologist]

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.

[amabel]

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.

[Curryong]

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.

[amabel]

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.

[Curryong]

^ 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.