Fergie moves in with Andrew

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by MARG

Wow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Ah well, never mind. All we have to do is wait until Sarah is older and very conspicuously flaunts her newly aquired toy boy, squandering heaps of her weightwatchers dollars on him in the haunts of the rich and famous, and we will have come full circle.

This is really a good for the goose not good for the gander observation, but Margaret was BORN a Princess, Sarah MARRIED into the Royal Family. Bit of a difference.
I wouldn't do it, but that seems to be THEIR problem, not mine. . . .

[CaliforniaDreamin]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I have a problem with it, apart from the strange example it is setting the girls, ie, if you divorce you too can have all the perks of being married, without the commitment, but as a taxpayer. Must be wonderful for her to be able to save her money!

I think they ARE committed-to being good parents, to continuing to be a solid family unit. Which is a lot more than we can say for Princess Margaret and Lord Snowden after their divorce, and for the Prince and Princess of Wales after theirs.

The girls seem grounded and secure and I am certain that is due in no small part because they didn't have to listen to their parents savaging one another in the press and manipulating them by taking them on dueling holidays to to try to one-up one another when they were children.

No one knows what goes on between a man and a woman except the man and woman involved. If Sarah and Andrew are acting on their own free will and not costing the British taxpayers any money, it's really no one else's business.

And as for the money part it goes both ways. Sarah has paid for several of Andrews ski holidays, he stays rent free in her NYC pied-a-terre when he is Stateside according to "Hello!" magazine. Thats one of the beautiful things about these two, they share and help one another out.

It's probably the healthiest relationship between adults the BRF has had in a long time.

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I have a problem with it, apart from the strange example it is setting the girls, ie, if you divorce you too can have all the perks of being married, without the commitment, but as a taxpayer. Must be wonderful for her to be able to save her money!

I don't think Sarah is getting anything from the taxpayer, apart from maybe when she stays with Andrew. I remember her saying once in an interview that "Andrew's the second son, so I have to help out". Whether or not you think Sarah's justified in saying Andrew doesn't have enough money to pay for family expenses, it's clear she doesn't intend to live at the monarchy's expense.

As far as their relationship is concerned I think it is unconventional, but the royal family is no stranger to unconventional relationships. Charles and Camilla lived together, more or less, for years before they married, and on the other hand in some sense were "committed" to each other even while each was legally "committed" to someone else. I think those two enjoyed the perks of marriage without the accompanying commitment as well, albeit in different ways than Andrew and Sarah.

I do think the relationship is unhealthy for Andrew and Sarah. I think they should either remarry or move on to other people. Since after sixteen years of separation it seems unlikely they'll move on, I wish something would give them that push they seem to need to restore their relationship. The way I see it is that their marriage had real problems, yet the problems weren't yet bad enough for them to want to leave each other. The divorce was premature, their marriage wasn't bad enough for it, but on the other hand since the senior royals seem so opposed to them remarrying Andrew and Sarah have no incentive to figure out what went wrong in their romantic relationship. So in this odd way the divorce has left their relationship stuck at about 1992, when Sarah was disillusioned enough with Andrew to seek out other romantic partners, but not so disillusioned she'd lost all love for him.

[judith14011]

As far as their relationship is concerned I think it is unconventional, but the royal family is no stranger to unconventional relationships. Charles and Camilla lived together, more or less, for years before they married, and on the other hand in some sense were "committed" to each other even while each was legally "committed" to someone else. I think those two enjoyed the perks of marriage without the accompanying commitment as well, albeit in different ways than Andrew and Sarah.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I remember reading that there was pressure on Charles to finally make an honest woman out of Camilla - the British taxpayers didn't apparently appreciate having to pay for the mistress of the POW.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin

I think they ARE committed-to being good parents, to continuing to be a solid family unit. Which is a lot more than we can say for Princess Margaret and Lord Snowden after their divorce, and for the Prince and Princess of Wales after theirs.

The girls seem grounded and secure and I am certain that is due in no small part because they didn't have to listen to their parents savaging one another in the press and manipulating them by taking them on dueling holidays to to try to one-up one another when they were children.

No one knows what goes on between a man and a woman except the man and woman involved. If Sarah and Andrew are acting on their own free will and not costing the British taxpayers any money, it's really no one else's business.

I think it's great that they remain friends, but they seem to overstep the mark, each and every time. When Andrew stays with her and she pays, great, that doesn't involve taxpayer money, when she stays with him, it does.

I think it sets a very bad example to their children, the results of this strange relationship probably won't be seen for many years.

Remain friends - fantastic, not move on - bad.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by rmay286

Charles and Camilla lived together, more or less, for years before they married, and on the other hand in some sense were "committed" to each other even while each was legally "committed" to someone else. I think those two enjoyed the perks of marriage without the accompanying commitment as well, albeit in different ways than Andrew and Sarah.

Unfortunately, that was not from choice.

Originally Posted by judith14011

I remember reading that there was pressure on Charles to finally make an honest woman out of Camilla - the British taxpayers didn't apparently appreciate having to pay for the mistress of the POW.

Charles made it clear that Camilla was part of his life and they all started to panic. What if HM died and we had a King with his girlfriend at his side on all occasions. So it wasn't that Charles was forced to 'make an honest woman' of her, he finally got what he wanted, Camilla as his beloved wife.

The taxpayers don't pay Charles, his money is derived from the Duchy of Cornwall, of which most UK taxpayers are aware, the only minor kerfuffle, was from one MP (they are being investigated for misclaiming expenses), who objected to taxpayers money being used to decorate rooms at CH for Camilla. As was proven, Charles paid for the decoration, not the taxpayer!

[Bella]

Originally Posted by Russophile

This is really a good for the goose not good for the gander observation, but Margaret was BORN a Princess, Sarah MARRIED into the Royal Family. Bit of a difference.
I wouldn't do it, but that seems to be THEIR problem, not mine. . . .

Yes, you'd think that someone who was BORN into the public eye of royalty with all the ritual and respectability she'd known her entire life would have more sense, more class and more dignity than somene who wasn't born into that lifestyle. Guess not.

[kimebear]

Hmm. Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how much it costs the taxpayer to have Sarah at Royal Lodge for two weeks? I'm wondering if they cut off the basic utilities to the guest quarters when not in use? Is Andrew given a separate allowance to cover the running costs of his house, or does he pay for it out of his civil list pay? If he pays for it himself, do the taxpayers make him account for a pack of Polo mints he bought last week? If Angie Everhart stayed a fortnight would anyone care? Or is this just because it's Sarah?

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Unfortunately, that was not from choice.

Well, if Prince Philip has really forbidden Andrew to remarry Sarah, then Andrew and Sarah wouldn't exactly be avoiding remarriage by choice, either.

As for the discussion on how much it costs the taxpayer to have Sarah stay with Andrew, I'm not sure if this would answer the question, but I remember reading somewhere once that all expenses in Sarah and Andrew's household were meticulously divided in half--right down to haircuts for their daughters--ie. Sarah would pay for half the cost (out of her own pocket I guess) and Andrew would pay for the other half.

Hmm, I don't know if that answers the question about how much Sarah's presence in Andrew's life costs the taxpayer, other than to again suggest she's not completely freeloading off Andrew.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Bella

Yes, you'd think that someone who was BORN into the public eye of royalty with all the ritual and respectability she'd known her entire life would have more sense, more class and more dignity than somene who wasn't born into that lifestyle. Guess not.

I'm not saying that's right, because it's not. But everybody knew Margaret was BORN into Royalty and sometimes Royalty doesn't act accordingly. When you MARRY into Royalty and are given that privilege (and I use that loosely, loosing all your personal time and space to devote to the public is a high price to pay) at the tax payers expense and you squander it, well, that's bound to ruffle feathers.
Didn't Princess Margaret have her own money as well??

[ysbel]

I think the whole taxpayer discussion is a red herring. Andrew's allowance gets paid by the Queen so he is accountable to her and the Queen has a perfect right to spend her money as she sees fit.

If she doesn't want Andrew and Sarah in the same house on her money she can pull the purse strings but so far she keeps advancing Andrew his allowance despite what goes on with Sarah.

The taxpayer really has nothing to do with it.

[kimebear]

Agreed. There has to be an everday point where the royals can spend without having to be accountable. They are still only human after all with needs and desires, just like everyone else.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by judith14011

I remember reading that there was pressure on Charles to finally make an honest woman out of Camilla - the British taxpayers didn't apparently appreciate having to pay for the mistress of the POW.

I just saw this; I'll pass on the incongruity of comparing Camilla to Sarah to your real issue - the taxpayers money and propriety of Charles' and Camilla's relationship.

Many think that the Queen encouraged the marriage because Her Majesty thought it not wise for her son to succeed her as monarch with a mistress in tow. If he had a wife, then that would be different.

I completely agree with Her Majesty. The steps taken were the appropriate ones.

Harumph, now back to Andrew and Sarah.

[judith14011]

Many think that the Queen encouraged the marriage because Her Majesty thought it not wise for her son to succeed her as monarch with a mistress in tow. If he had a wife, then that would be different.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No arguement here - the Charles and Camilla relationship either needed to end in marriage or end completely. Camilla will never have my respect, no matter if she is married or not, but marriage makes the appearance of the whole thing being kosher.

Back to Andrew and Sarah - I made this point once before and I'll make it again - Sarah had other housing options I am sure. Living with Andrew is a thumb in the eye to his parents who continue to think of her as a pariah. And I don't buy all of this hooey about how healthy it is for the girls, especially when Sarah says publicly how healthy it is over and over again. Those girls are in for a fall because of their parents emotional baggage and Sarah's pathological need to say publicly and constantly how emotionally healthy her girls are.

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by ysbel

I think the whole taxpayer discussion is a red herring. Andrew's allowance gets paid by the Queen so he is accountable to her and the Queen has a perfect right to spend her money as she sees fit.

If she doesn't want Andrew and Sarah in the same house on her money she can pull the purse strings but so far she keeps advancing Andrew his allowance despite what goes on with Sarah.

The taxpayer really has nothing to do with it.

I have a question. Where does the Queen's money come from? Is it not from the taxpayers?

[yvr girl]

Originally Posted by lexi4

I have a question. Where does the Queen's money come from? Is it not from the taxpayers?

The Queen receives money from the Civil List for her job as head of state, just like a president does.

She also has private income from the Duchy of Lancaster.

[Russophile]

And Her Majesty holds in trust many works of art and jewels.