The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #221  
Old 01-17-2012, 01:55 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bronx, United States
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by kakieanne View Post
Eugenie was a minor in the UK at the time of the trip. Does anyone know what the legal age is in Turkey?
18 in Turkey, so Eugenie was still considered a minor.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 01-17-2012, 05:26 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: central valley, United States
Posts: 394
Civil disobedience to attempt to right a moral wrong has a long and storied history in my country. Part of what makes it praiseworthy is the protesting person's recognition of the possible consequences and willingness to pay that price. It is, however, IMO, inexcusable to drag along your minor daughter in such an activity exposing her to those risks.
Likewise, any failure to research and appreciate the potential consequences is simply foolish on Sarah's part.
My understanding of the charges are that she violated the children's privacy rights by filming them, which is a crime in Turkey. I have not seen the documentary, but I understand that the children's faces were shown and that no attempt was made to protect any privacy rights that they as humans should enjoy. To me, that is a different issue than filming something Turkey doesn't want filmed, although I am sure Turkey didn't want the facilities filmed as well.
I find it interesting that the allegation is now being made that the UK is not following it's own legal precedent by refusing to extradite Sarah, based on a very recent case w/ the US requesting extradition (and their request being granted in another case where UK law wasn't violated)
Theresa May accused of 'double standards' over Duchess of York extradition to Turkey - Telegraph
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 01-17-2012, 06:58 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,534
As Sarah didn't actually do the filming I don't think she should be held responsible for the fact that the faces of the children weren't pixelated - that is the job of the editors and producers - not the frontperson. The TV network is the one responsible for doing the legal checks and doing the pixelation not the front person/celebrity/newsreader/actor etc.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 01-18-2012, 01:32 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bronx, United States
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
As Sarah didn't actually do the filming I don't think she should be held responsible for the fact that the faces of the children weren't pixelated - that is the job of the editors and producers - not the frontperson. The TV network is the one responsible for doing the legal checks and doing the pixelation not the front person/celebrity/newsreader/actor etc.
You put your face out there you put a target on your back. Now that doesn't mean that people at the network shouldn't have been included in the charges but Sarah dug her own grave there.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 01-18-2012, 07:08 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 750
Sarah was the face of it and she is a big fish so of course the government will go after her. It was a good thing to do but not the right way about it. I don't think Eugenie should off gone and find it very hard to believe BP thought it was anything other then yet another holiday with her mother. Sarah has been very quiet about this so it will be interesting to see her next move I also wonder what else she did for these orphans or was it just the broadcast? Being wards of the State I doubt they could off given permission either the state itself would off had to do it and with the mistreatment that was not going to happen. I understand why Sarah did this and now she can never go back to Turkey hopefully she sees that as a small price to pay if she helped any of these children and I'm wondering what happened to these kids?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 01-18-2012, 07:30 AM
FergieFan's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 146
From what I remember of the programme, the Princesses were not involved in the undercover elements of the programme, such as the alleged privacy offence in Turkey, which was a relatively small segment of the overall show. (For example, there was another section looking at work by Sarah's charity on behalf of children in Romania).

So I don’t think Sarah can be accused of doing something that could get Eugenie (or indeed Beatrice) in trouble. On the other hand, whilst I’m afraid I have forgotten many of the details of the programme, one part that did stick in my mind was when Sarah and the girls were interviewed at home afterwards. You could really see the impact it had had on Beatrice and Eugenie in terms of pushing them to want to do more charity work and use their position in life to make a difference. I’m sure one of them (I think Eugenie) described it as a life changing experience. For me, that is the reason Sarah took her daughters along – to inspire them to want to follow in her footsteps and help others.

People may well take the view that Sarah acted irresponsibly or naively in making this programme (which is not a view that I share) but surely we can acknowledge that her motivations were pure – to expose abuses, help children, and inspire her daughters to appreciate the importance of charity work and the difference that they can make.
__________________
"There is no triumph without struggle, no wisdom without misjudgement, no character without getting knocked down and picking yourself up again".
- Sarah, Duchess of York
from Finding Sarah: A Duchess' Journey to Find Herself (2011: Simon & Schuster, New York)
http://duchessofyork.webeden.co.uk/
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 01-18-2012, 08:50 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by sndral View Post
Civil disobedience to attempt to right a moral wrong has a long and storied history in my country. Part of what makes it praiseworthy is the protesting person's recognition of the possible consequences and willingness to pay that price. It is, however, IMO, inexcusable to drag along your minor daughter in such an activity exposing her to those risks.
Likewise, any failure to research and appreciate the potential consequences is simply foolish on Sarah's part.
My understanding of the charges are that she violated the children's privacy rights by filming them, which is a crime in Turkey. I have not seen the documentary, but I understand that the children's faces were shown and that no attempt was made to protect any privacy rights that they as humans should enjoy. To me, that is a different issue than filming something Turkey doesn't want filmed, although I am sure Turkey didn't want the facilities filmed as well.
I find it interesting that the allegation is now being made that the UK is not following it's own legal precedent by refusing to extradite Sarah, based on a very recent case w/ the US requesting extradition (and their request being granted in another case where UK law wasn't violated)
Theresa May accused of 'double standards' over Duchess of York extradition to Turkey - Telegraph
I personally think this is a wonderful opportunity for the BRF to get rid of this awful, awful woman for 22 years. If I were Prince Philip, I would be leaning on the PM to not block this extradition, and asking their recent guests, the President of Turkey, to help solve this problem. If ever there was an opportunity to solve the Sarah issue once and for all, this would be it!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 01-18-2012, 09:03 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 8,668
I think the extradition agreement between US and UK is different, Tony Blair agreed on it with the excuse of "war on terror" what means that the UK even extradicts their own citizens (!) to the US. There have been several cases, eg a few Britons being involved in the Enron case.

Of course Sarah wont be extradited unless she is stupid enough to follow an all-inclusive invitation of a rich turkish friend in case there is one

This is just another episode of the endless daily soap "Sarah getting herself into trouble". Will it ever end? I guess so, but I doubt there will be a happy ending. Cats are said to have nine lifes, I wonder how many Sarah has and how many she has already used.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 01-18-2012, 01:42 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 202
I agree, Sarah will never be extradited from the UK but Sarah loves to travel. If she travels to another country, can she be extradited from there?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 01-18-2012, 08:51 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,534
Yes - if she travels to a country with an extradition treaty with Turkey then the Turkish government can apply to that third country to arrest her and to extradite Turkey (think about the Wikileaks guy - name escapes me at the moment - he is fighting extradition to Sweden from Britain partly because he fears that once in Sweden he will be extradited to the US - and no top of that he is an Australian citizen)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 01-19-2012, 12:41 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 202
Thanks Iluvbertie...I guess that's why Sarah cancelled her planned trip to the US. This arrest warrant could end up being a huge thorn in her side. I would imagine that there are quite a number of countries that have extradition treaties with Turkey.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 01-19-2012, 01:12 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,534
Yes - I think for the foreseeable future Sarah may very well have to stay put in the UK.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 01-19-2012, 01:32 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Yes - I think for the foreseeable future Sarah may very well have to stay put in the UK.
This is one way for sure for Sarah to have to go "under the radar" and be cautious about where she goes and what she does and who she's going to be meeting. Its kind of scary if you ask me.

I can't help but think that perhaps in a way, its a good thing. Give Sarah time to recoup her image and reputation. Its a shame that something like this has happened and I do think the charges and supposed sentence are far too austere but each country does have its own laws and regulations (I remember watching Midnight Express all too clearly). I'd certainly hate to live my life wondering if I stepped off a plane somewhere, I'd be grabbed and hauled off.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 01-19-2012, 01:59 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,534
The way to prevent that is to stay put - where she isn't wanted, has no job, has no prospects of getting a job so Andrew will really have to support her.

This might even be a catalyst for a remarriage as she would then have the added protection of being HRH again and before anyone says The Queen wouldn't give her consent - she already has - back in 1986. There is no time limit on that permission so they have permission under the RMA.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 01-19-2012, 03:57 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

This might even be a catalyst for a remarriage as she would then have the added protection of being HRH again and before anyone says The Queen wouldn't give her consent - she already has - back in 1986. There is no time limit on that permission so they have permission under the RMA.
Not only that but for the Chruch of England they are still married as they were only divorced, their marriage was not annulled. Thus the Queen as the governor of the CoE can't well do anything against a remarriage. But I doubt that Andrew will want to get remarried to Sarah any time soon.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 01-19-2012, 04:19 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,534
However he might want to give some extra protection to the mother of his children and having the HRH back would give her a status that would make it a diplomatic incident for many countries to extradite her to Turkey.

I am not saying he would but it would make like easier in many ways for everyone concerned if she was remarried to Andrew - nothing else needs to change as she is already living in his home and they do many things together.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 01-19-2012, 09:37 AM
Dymphna's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Gettysburg, PA, United States
Posts: 112
I don't know much about European politics, but this article says if Turkey joins the EU, Sarah could be served a European arrest warrant at that time and end up in a Turkish jail.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 01-29-2012, 10:39 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

This might even be a catalyst for a remarriage as she would then have the added protection of being HRH again and before anyone says The Queen wouldn't give her consent - she already has - back in 1986. There is no time limit on that permission so they have permission under the RMA.

But in 1986, Fergie hadn't yet received so much bad publicity.

It's long been rumored that many of the senior royals absolutely despise her, so would the Queen really approve of remarriage to Andrew?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 01-29-2012, 12:29 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Los Angeles CA, United States
Posts: 1,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
It's long been rumored that many of the senior royals absolutely despise her, so would the Queen really approve of remarriage to Andrew?
To protect someone from a Turkish jail - any jail? Yes. But I suspect there will be other ways to protect her - without getting a sham marriage involved and dashing Andrew's chances at a second marriage. We assume he retains affection for Sarah, all the evidence is there, but only he knows if he loves her enough, or in that way, for a re-marriage. If something was done to protect her I wouldn't be surprised if she would have to start paying attention to how she conducts herself as a condition. As the saying goes: A good scare is worth more than good advice. (Edgar Watson Howe). Though the irony is that this 'scare' is the result of a good act.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 01-29-2012, 05:54 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 202
I don't know...the first priority will always be the preservation of the monarchy, no matter what the cost, and Sarah is so very, very unpopular. She is just too much of a loose cannon and has caused the family too much embarrassment. I would imagine that the BRF will do everything possible to protect Sarah, short of allowing her back in the Firm.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Princess Eugenie of York 5: October 2008-April 2010 Elspeth Current Events Archive 546 04-23-2010 11:12 AM
Princess Eugenie of York 4: June-October 2008 Warren Current Events Archive 241 10-30-2008 12:21 AM
Sarah, Duchess of York 10: February-July 2008 Avalon Current Events Archive 226 07-21-2008 06:47 AM
Princess Eugenie of York 3: March 2007-June 2008 Avalon Current Events Archive 221 06-18-2008 09:11 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria duchess of cambridge engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games ottoman pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:51 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]