Options for Sarah to recover from the 'Cash for Access' scandal


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
They've had the tuition of the greatest and wisest grandmother, I think they are going to work out just fine. But i agree, this leopard is never going to change her spots, and one day The Queen is going to be around to bail her out.

This being the same person that when Charles in the middle of winter lost a dog lead was told.. "go out and find it.. dog leads cost money". The Queen with going through the depression is not an extravagant person.

What amazes me is that the size of Sarah's debts when she was trying to send trinkets to folks that would most likely keep my household in food and shelter for a few years was only told "a warning". Ifn it was me and my decision it'd be "in the Queen we trust.. all others pay cash".
 
Please note - Mary of Denmark was not a Kiwi but an Aussie.

She grew up in Tasmania, which is one of the states of Australia. Kiwis are not Aussies (although at the moment we would have a better Rugby team if they were after last night's thumping in the Bledisloe Cup but we'll get them next time - oh look the pigs are flying again.:D

My deep apologies for the mistake within my compliment, bertie!

However, you do owe me a new computer screen, as my morning coffee went all over it as I read your comment about the Bledisloe Cup. :lol:
 
I have to agree. What Sarah doesn't seem to realize is that these are no longer her entitlements, but a favor. The Royal Mail is no longer part of her world. And these trinkets that she is mailing out? What's wrong with a heartfelt note? Friends aren't impressed if you send them some silver geegaw, and if your friendship depends on a flow of gifts, well, I know what my opinion would be of that.

Right before all this broke, she was being interviewed at a major department store in the US and remarked how she loved the chair she was sitting in. The store opened an account so she could buy it. They'll never get paid and I doubt Sarah even remembers her grabbiness.

I remember the movie The Shooting Party, and the character of Lady Aline Hartlip. She states with sincere emphasis "I can't bear looting my friends!" as she loots her friend Lady Minnie Nettleby to cover some trifling debt. (It's 200 pounds; using the least impactful measure, that equates to about 15K pounds today from 1914.) Lady Aline then sleeps with another character, Sir Reuben Hergesheimer, who has paid her gambling (bridge) debt.

I'm sure Sarah truly believes that everyone believes her when she declares "I can't bear looting the Queen/my friends/my business colleagues/my subordinates/the merchants in town/my service personnel..." but there she goes on and on....looting. And as the number of loot-ees increases (as well as the shameful fact that she is looting people who can ill afford it,) one can believe her less and less.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In sum, I'm never happy with attacks on the persons of royalty or their relatives when they're based entirely on the claims of the gutter press. And to those who question why any journalist would set up Sarah, the answer is patently clear - money, m'dears, money! Such stories sell for indecent amounts of payola

Yes, they do sell but it takes a person being willing to go into it to be caught. This isn't a story "based entirely on the claims of the gutter press", Sarah chose to do so to make herself some money and got burned. By saying that you're acting as if Fergie had no culpability. She claims the original 40K was for a friend for school, good excuse but the other 500K, "Oh that's for me for backstabbing my ex."

She said she was drunk, I remember alcohol at the meal or are we to believe that she was drunk when contacted originally, drunk before the meal, drunk during the meal on top of at the hotel? If so she has a serious drinking problem, or maybe, just maybe, she needs to come up with a better lie.
 
I have to agree. What Sarah doesn't seem to realize is that these are no longer her entitlements, but a favor. The Royal Mail is no longer part of her world. And these trinkets that she is mailing out? What's wrong with a heartfelt note? Friends aren't impressed if you send them some silver geegaw, and if your friendship depends on a flow of gifts, well, I know what my opinion would be of that.
There is such irony in this. Sarah must believe she can keep her friends by buying them expensive gifts, yet at the same time, she puts those same people`s livelihoods in jeopardy by not paying them what she owes them. You know how the Daily Mail keeps saying Sarah owes money to a portrait painter named Basia Hamilton? Back in February, it was reported that Sarah gave Andrew portraits of Beatrice and Eugenie for his 50th birthday...and the portraits were done by Basia Hamilton. So...she spent all this money to give Andrew a fantastic birthday present...then a few months later, tried to sell access to him because she couldn`t actually afford that present.

It is so inconsistent and irrational. It`s sad, really. Especially because Sarah seems to have people who are loyal to her without asking for anything. One article reported that her staff had gone without pay for six months--who would do that unless they were genuinely loyal? Sarah doesn`t need to "buy" her friendships, she`s capable of inspiring loyalty just by being herself...and would inspire more loyalty if she kept her commitments instead of promising the moon and not delivering.

I also notice a theme running through the articles that "in the last few months" things had gotten really bad and creditors were starting to come calling. It really sets the backdrop for Sarah`s actions with the NOTW reporter. Desperation is not an excuse for Sarah`s actions, but it does reveal how desperate she must have been.

I'm sure Sarah truly believes that everyone believes her when she declares "I can't bear looting the Queen/my friends/my business colleagues/my subordinates/the merchants in town/my service personnel..." but there she goes on and on....looting. And as the number of loot-ees increases (as well as the shameful fact that she is looting people who can ill afford it,) one can believe her less and less.
Hm...there are two sides of Sarah`s personality here, though. Last week I heard a pastor who mentioned the "chasm between self-love and self-hatred" and that it was easy to experience both. Sarah seems to have that problem. She does "loot" her friends, but only partly to get things for herself. The other side of it seems to be that Sarah believes no one will like her unless she maintains this grandiose lifestyle where she constantly showers gifts on everyone. Her identity is so wrapped up in being the "Duchess of York" and living the lifestyle that goes along with that--I don`t think Sarah knows who she is underneath those things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i feel sorry for her daughters...

Don't feel sorry, Sol! :) The Princesses have a brave mother that adores them. The family is still close, has always been. Do me a favour, don't believe everything you hear or read in the papers. ;)
 
Don't feel sorry, Sol! :) The Princesses have a brave mother that adores them. The family is still close, has always been. Do me a favour, don't believe everything you hear or read in the papers. ;)

You seem to be a fan of the family Fergalicious, there are some video clips on page 30 of the 'Wife for Prince Andrew' thread which you might enjoy.
 
:bang: Groaaannnn......sometimes this gets so nitpicky, don't you think?
 
Hm...there are two sides of Sarah`s personality here, though. Last week I heard a pastor who mentioned the "chasm between self-love and self-hatred" and that it was easy to experience both. Sarah seems to have that problem. She does "loot" her friends, but only partly to get things for herself. The other side of it seems to be that Sarah believes no one will like her unless she maintains this grandiose lifestyle where she constantly showers gifts on everyone. Her identity is so wrapped up in being the "Duchess of York" and living the lifestyle that goes along with that--I don`t think Sarah knows who she is underneath those things.

I love your thoughts but I do have to inject that there are three sides of Sarah.. the two you described so well and the third one... and perhaps the best friend she can meet. The one in the mirror.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sarah did ask the reporter/businessman if he was a reporter before the deal started and he replied that he wasn't. She was a clear enough mind at that point to have a seed of doubt to wonder about his authenticity.
 
Sarah did ask the reporter/businessman if he was a reporter before the deal started and he replied that he wasn't. She was a clear enough mind at that point to have a seed of doubt to wonder about his authenticity.

there was a big mixup about papers needed to be signed too wasn't there? "confidentiality papers"? But Sarah went ahead with the meeting even though she didn't have those papers signed. She was too trusting. The basic instinct was there all along and 'eerrrm.. um.. the papers are delayed" "they'll be signed by morning" whatever it was. It was clearly an entrapment type of dealings... with Sarah as the star of a naturally trusting person. She isn't the type of person with the smarts to say "when your people give my people the papers.. we'll talk".

This in no way excuses Sarah but it does go to show she's NOT a wise businesswoman. Sarah is the type of person that no matter what would give a person the benefit of doubt.. seeing the rainbow rather than hear the "beep beep.. danger ahead" radar.

Just my opinion of course...
 
:previous:She ignored her gut feeling which tells me she still needs some solid advice from someone. Preferably her ex husband. Seems he is the only one she can trust.
 
:previous:She ignored her gut feeling which tells me she still needs some solid advice from someone. Preferably her ex husband. Seems he is the only one she can trust.

Russo, how right you are. Good advice and guidence is exactly what she needs, and yes her ex hubby is just the man to give it. Lucky for her he seems to be there for her when she needs him.
He has proven himself time and time again to be her "bestest friend", the type of friend we could all do with our lives, but they are hard to find.
I sincerely hope she has learned a few harsh leasons recently.
While I think she has never left Andrew completely, and has appreicated what an incredible friend he is to her, I think at times she has taken him and that friendship for granted. That is something we are all probably guilty of from time to time.
She is very lost but I think he will help her find her way again both emotionally and financially.

My gran once gave me a piece of advice (I still haven't made up my mind whether it is good or bad) - "Sing as if no one is listening, dance as if no one is watching and live each day as if it's you last".
I think that is the way Sarah has lived her life, very much in the moment with very little thought to the future. Well that has to change or her future is very bleak.
 
As wierd as it sounds, re-marry Andrew.
She would re-gain thee status she wants, etc
 
Certain Royals wouldn't allow it and even if they could she'd have to give up the freedom she so loves. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't
 
When I saw clips of that video, she didn't appear to me to be drunk. If my memory is correct, wasn't she smoking a cigarette while talking to the reporter?
 
When I saw clips of that video, she didn't appear to me to be drunk. If my memory is correct, wasn't she smoking a cigarette while talking to the reporter?

Yes, and yes. Once again, we have the words from Sarah's mouth that she was "drunk," and not a lot to back that up. Excuses. It's like when she broadly hints that Andrew and she will remarry. We only have her word for that, and we all know exactly what that is worth.
 
Any reports as to where Sarah is at the moment, Spain? or Scotland?
 
Don't feel sorry, Sol! :) The Princesses have a brave mother that adores them. The family is still close, has always been. Do me a favour, don't believe everything you hear or read in the papers. ;)

We do not discuss "secret" sources here. Put in reliable and verifiable sources.

To your comment: It is not brave to steal.
 
Drinking may relax one's inhibitions but it rarely makes one do something against one's will. I have done some foolish things while inebriated but owned up to my behavior (and the accompanying headache) the next day. In the law, voluntary intoxication is never a defense to a crime requiring mens rea or intent. So, if Sarah said she was drunk, then join AA but don't use that as an excuse for your actions. Maybe that's why some say, "It wasn't me but the whiskey talking"
 
Fergalicious says you have to trust her and not acting as if you know everything. It's their private life, you don't know how these 2 people think or how they feel. ;)
 
Fergalicious says you have to trust her and not acting as if you know everything. It's their private life, you don't know how these 2 people think or how they feel. ;)

Nor do you. "Trusting" you is not an option. Back it up with sources, or couch it (as do we) with "in my opinion."
 
Well, after the public comments of Prince Andrew referring to Sarah as his "Third child" after his 50th birthday party, I hardly think he considers her to be wifely material yet again. Now I ask you does that sound like somebody who's goo-goo-gaa-gaa in love over their mate?
Anybody?
Anybody at all.
Beuhler?
 
Who stole stuff? I haven't heard of anyone being charged with theft. What have I missed?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Drinking may relax one's inhibitions but it rarely makes one do something against one's will. I have done some foolish things while inebriated but owned up to my behavior (and the accompanying headache) the next day. In the law, voluntary intoxication is never a defense to a crime requiring mens rea or intent. So, if Sarah said she was drunk, then join AA but don't use that as an excuse for your actions. Maybe that's why some say, "It wasn't me but the whiskey talking"


That might be the case where you live but there have certainly been cases here in NSW where being intoxicated has lead to no conviction on the grounds of temporially being unable to make reasonable decisions (temporary insanity) and it has also successfully been used as a defence with drugs - not when driving but with things like murder etc.
 
It may account for lesser included crimes, such as involuntary manslaughter, but unless you are so blotto that you cannot account for your actions, intoxication will not excuse your crime. I was attempting to make the point that Sarah may claim she was drunk but I am not hearing that "being drunk" excused her behavior. It is clear, at least to me, that Sarah knew what she was doing was wrong.
 
They may still care a whole lot about each other and have the world's most loving divorce, but I honestly think that even if Andrew proposed remarriage to Sarah, she'd decline. IIRC it wasn't just the loneliness and Andrew being away at sea so much that contributed to the divorce (although I am sure it did), but also Sarah being very uncomfortable and unable to handle life within the Firm.

I do think they care a lot about each other and want to continue having a happy family unit but these are just two people that feel their best shot in life is being divorced from each other.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom