Sarah, Duchess of York 9: November 2007-January 2008

[Bella]

To be able to name-drop The Duchess of York will always be more favorable in any situation whether it's in Britain or the US than to simply announce Ms. Sarah Ferguson. She'll hang on to that title 'til the day she dies and the reaction she receives as The DOY will only enhance her desire/importance to do so.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Bella

To be able to name-drop The Duchess of York will always be more favorable in any situation whether it's in Britain or the US than to simply announce Ms. Sarah Ferguson. She'll hang on to that title 'til the day she dies and the reaction she receives as The DOY will only enhance her desire/importance to do so.

Who says she needs to name drop? People know who Sarah Ferguson is by now and they either like her or don't like her based on what they know. I don't think a title is going to change that.

Its not like she was a nameless, faceless wife of famous Hollywood actor for several years such that going back to her maiden name would plunge her into anonymity.

Sarah is not going to get anonymity now, even if she wanted it.

The difference between Sarah and Diana is that Diana became Princess Diana in the minds of the public so losing her title would lose a bit of the public identity she built up. However Sarah in the popular press was not referred to as Duchess Sarah or as the Duchess of York half the time but either as Fergie or her maiden name Sarah Ferguson. As far as the press and your public image, everything is in the name and most people know Sarah by her nickname or her maiden name rather than her title.

I bet if you did a poll of nonroyalwatchers and asked what Sarah was famous for and what her real title was, most people would say she was famous because she was once married to Andrew and then they would say they have no idea what her title was. Even Andrew is known more by his title of Prince Andrew rather than his title of Duke of York.

I still say she could easily drop the title with little ill effects to her current lifestyle.

[Bella]

I'm not talking about Sarah name-dropping. I'm talking about people name dropping about HER. It's more impressive if someone were to day, "I had lunch w the DOY" rather than say, "I had lunch w Sarah Ferguson." And I'm sure Sarah realizes this. That's why I think she'll cling onto her title w both hands. She's more "marketable" as the DOY than Sarah F., no matter how well ppl know her.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Bella

She's more "marketable" as the DOY than Sarah F., no matter how well ppl know her.

Well I admit that it got her the first gig with Weight Watchers but you really think the title of Duchess of York will make sponsors pay more money for her?

If the sponsorships are society based then I can see that but Sarah doesn't cut a good figure in society so I don't think she would be up for the more prestigious sponsorships.

For the sponsorships that she is more suited for, I'm not convinced that they are all that impressed with royalty.

I think she has an opportunity to re-create herself.

[judith14011]

Sarah "needs" her title because she is addicted to it and what it has brought her in life - both good and bad. It is still her identity, as much as she protests that it is not. No one would be that interested in divorcee, single Mom Sarah Ferguson. Her interest and persona are tied up with Sarah, Duchess of York. She does not allow herself, her daughters or Andrew freedom from this identity. Her constant and unceasing claims about the stability of her daughters is also very dangerous. They are still very young women and will probably make some mistakes along the way to being grown ups. Every article about Sarah carries almost pathological praise by her of herself or Andrew about Sarah and her great parenting skills. My opinion is - if you are out bar hopping with your underage daughters, there is not much to brag about. If you must constantly call attention to yourself as great parent and put yourself out there as a role model - be careful it does not come back to bite you. The Princesses always have been and will always be in the public eye - always a vulnerable place even if your mother is not constantly bragging about how wonderful a parent she is to you.

I also believe that Sarah's constant praise of herself in this area is a guilt reaction to her lack of discretion in her early years of parenting. Unfortunately, we will always remember that Sarah's affairs took place in full view of her young daughters, complete with photographs.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by judith14011

Sarah "needs" her title because she is addicted to it and what it has brought her in life - both good and bad. It is still her identity, as much as she protests that it is not. No one would be that interested in divorcee, single Mom Sarah Ferguson. Her interest and persona are tied up with Sarah, Duchess of York.

I don't think she is protesting that her identity is not the Duchess. I do think that she can separate herselr from the identity the Royal title gave her. Without the title, Sarah still would have princesses as daughters and there will always be someone who says Sarah Ferguson, mother to Princesses.

But I don't think Sarah needs it; if she did then what about all the Americans who have made it here without titles and royal connections? I know that its hard for royalty watchers to admit it but not everybody really gives a hoot about royals and titles - not even in Britain. I was shocked to read the BBC readers reactions to the Queen's speech. They referred to her as a money sponging old hag that was living of the sweat of the rest of society. I think enough time has passed for Sarah to separate herself from her former life as a royal if she so chooses and apart from the money and exposure that she got from her early endorsements I think the Royal Experience has been a negative experience for Sarah rather than a positive experience. I thought at the beginning that she was a little careless but had a healthy self-esteem but after her stint with the Royal Family she looks insecure, unsure of herself and a little directionless. Before Sarah married, people often commented on her self-confidence; people don't say that anymore. I think it is because she married into a life that she could never fit into so she would be better off if she dropped the connections entirely...as much as she can with two princesses as daughters. She can still be friends with Andrew but I do think its best for her to move on.

Originally Posted by judith14011

Her constant and unceasing claims about the stability of her daughters is also very dangerous.

Agree with you there. Beatrice does not look that stable.

Originally Posted by judith14011

I also believe that Sarah's constant praise of herself in this area is a guilt reaction to her lack of discretion in her early years of parenting. Unfortunately, we will always remember that Sarah's affairs took place in full view of her young daughters, complete with photographs.

Well I actually think Sarah's intent on always speaking well of herself and the Royal Family is a reaction to some of the less than favorable comments that Diana made about the family. As a whole, I prefer positive supportive comments about your family rather than backbiting comments about them. However, I admit if the comments don't ring true then its better to say nothing.

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by ysbel

I thought at the beginning that she was a little careless but had a healthy self-esteem but after her stint with the Royal Family she looks insecure, unsure of herself and a little directionless. Before Sarah married, people often commented on her self-confidence; people don't say that anymore.

Hmm, that is so true! Sarah made many mistakes when she was in the royal family, but to me she seemed...not necessarily more "secure", but more genuine and spontaneous. She didn't think before she acted, but that was simply her personality. Now it seems to me that she thinks too much before she acts, and maybe for the wrong reasons. There isn't anything wrong with
learning to be more disciplined, but to me it seems like Sarah is just wearing a mask, trying to please people around her and prove to the royal family that she can change.

I also agree that Sarah isn't doing her daughters any favours by involving herself in their lives so persistently. One of the reasons I think this, is simply the way her daughters sing her praises, take her lead in everything, and declare she's their biggest role model. It sounds wonderful, but I'm not that much older than Beatrice, and I know that if my mother treated me this way, I'd feel smothered, and I think most well-adjusted young women would too. At some point you have to separate from your parents and even rebel against them a little. The very fact that Beatrice and Eugenie seem to accept and almost need Sarah's constant presence suggests to me that they aren't all that secure themselves.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by rmay286

Hmm, that is so true! Sarah made many mistakes when she was in the royal family, but to me she seemed...not necessarily more "secure", but more genuine and spontaneous. She didn't think before she acted, but that was simply her personality. Now it seems to me that she thinks too much before she acts, and maybe for the wrong reasons. There isn't anything wrong with
learning to be more disciplined, but to me it seems like Sarah is just wearing a mask, trying to please people around her and prove to the royal family that she can change.

That's true; I hadn't thought of that. If so its a shame because the Royal Family in their position can't afford anything or any one that does not have an innate sense of decorum. I find it interesting that the Royal Family actually preferred Sarah to Diana at first despite the lack of decorum. One of Diana's complaints was when Charles told her, Why can't you be more like Sarah?

I gathered it was because the Royal Family themselves show two faces: one to the public in their royal role which never makes a step out of place and the other face to each other and with their aristocratic friends like the Fergusons, the Shands, the Parker-Bowles which is a bit silly and not at all dignified. I remember reading about the Royal Family gag gifts to each other at Christmas and their contest to give the most worthless present (because they are the family with everything) That doesn't sound decorous at all. Or even Camilla's first comment to Charles about her great-grandmother, I thought was a bit out there to be talking to a prince but he clearly enjoyed it.

But then when they are out in public, they are the Royals and not a hair is out of place. I think Sarah was appreciated and affirmed in her private relationships with the Royal Family but in her public role, she failed to match their decorum and so I think in that case they were (understandably) harsh with her. After all, the royal duty to the public is their bread and butter and reason for being.

But I think the years of being in that role and not being able to fit in took its toll on Sarah and unfortunately Beatrice is showing the same lack of self-esteem that Sarah has. I'm not sure why that is unless it is because Sarah does seem to push Beatrice into a glamorous, sexy image and Beatrice is not a glamourous type of girl. If she goes that route, I'm afraid she'll only be laughed at and that will make her feel worse about herself.

[selrahc4]

Originally Posted by ysbel

I think enough time has passed for Sarah to separate herself from her former life as a royal if she so chooses and apart from the money and exposure that she got from her early endorsements I think the Royal Experience has been a negative experience for Sarah rather than a positive experience. I thought at the beginning that she was a little careless but had a healthy self-esteem but after her stint with the Royal Family she looks insecure, unsure of herself and a little directionless. Before Sarah married, people often commented on her self-confidence; people don't say that anymore. I think it is because she married into a life that she could never fit into so she would be better off if she dropped the connections entirely...as much as she can with two princesses as daughters. She can still be friends with Andrew but I do think its best for her to move on.

This is a view with which I agree. It's within her control to specify how she's presented to the public in her commercial endeavors and talk show appearances. If she would drop the duchess connection and drop all comments about the royal family other than her daughters she'd earn a respect from me which has never existed. Sometimes I think if I hear one more time about her saying that the Queen has always been so kind to her I'll scream. It's been nearly 16 years since the separation and 12 since the divorce and surely it's time for her to stand or fall on her own.

It would be nice to think that she has developed a healthy self-esteem but I'm not so confident that is the case. Her pre-Andrew life with Paddy McNally didn't seem one in which she exhibited self-confidence or independence so I don't think her royal experience was the start of her problems, though she may have thought they were going to be solved by it. From the beginning I thought her clowning and making googly-eyes was a sham and cover-up for her insecurity and that her breeziness was somewhat forced. Like Diana the seeds of her "failure" were there before marriage and to blame only the royal family is unfair and possibly unreasonable.

Many have expressed their admiration for her as a "strong woman" "working tirelessly to clear her debts" (cleared long ago, by the way) "fighting for her independence", while it seems to me that as long as she trades on her royal connection weakness and dependence are the traits being revealed. I know that the argument can be made that it isn't she doing this but others who continue to highlight the connection. If she truly wanted to separate herslef and show strength and independence she could stop acquiescing.

And, ysbel, I loved your phrase "the Royal Experience has been a negative experience for Sarah rather than a positive experience" for it immediately reversed itself in my mind to "the Sarah Experience has been a negative experience for the Royals rather than a positive experience"

[jcbcode99]

Russophile, I love your story! I do the same thing, and nobody gets it. Ysbel--my husband constantly tells me I need a new hobby, and he just doesn't get it either.
As for Sarah--I was watching that Good Morning America thing or something recently and she was on (seeing the little boy who she says she thinks about daily,etc...) and she was referred to as "The Duchess of York" constantly within the segment. When she does an installment for the show, she is the "Duchess of York"; when she is in the papers for anything--charity work, etc.., she is the "Duchess of York", but on her websites she is Sarah Ferguson and the Duchess of York kinda shows up, but not quite like I expected. So, it is interesting--perhaps she is beginning to step away from the title--but then she uses it all the time, too. But, either way, even if she stops using or it or remarries, she will always be the mother of two Princesses.
I will say that I don't think she parents her daughters as she should, but when you look at her relationship with her own mother, she never had a good example, either.

Oh, and here is a link to her jewelery website:
Sarah's Jewelry

[debzone]

Firstly, I couldn't agree more with the hi lited comments of ysbel's. I too think is it time for Sarah to move on and make a life for herself. I can understand the reluctance when the girls were small but now they are young women. Time to let them stand on their own 2 feet.

Sarah can still have a wonderful life of happiness of her own. I am not sure she has the self confidence to do that though. I believe that Sarah thrives on the attention that being connected to the British Royal Family brings with it. I think there is a fear of doors not opening without it.

jcbcode99--It was the NBC Today show. Sarah is a special correspondant for them. She shows up periodically with the type of story that you saw. Everytime she is on they refer to her as The Duchess of York. They might also say Sarah Ferguson but the emphasis is on using the title as introduction. Even calling her royalty on occasion.

[jcbcode99]

Originally Posted by debzone

jcbcode99--It was the NBC Today show. Sarah is a special correspondant for them. She shows up periodically with the type of story that you saw. Everytime she is on they refer to her as The Duchess of York. They might also say Sarah Ferguson but the emphasis is on using the title as introduction. Even calling her royalty on occasion.

Even calling her royalty on occasion--there you go. This was quite recent, as a matter of fact. If Sarah wants to step away from the title, not use it, or says she doesn't need it, then why has not told the powers that be on the Today Show to not use the title and to quit referring to her as Royalty? The answer is simple--it is still her ticket in. Maybe not quite as much as it once was, but it is still necessary. After all, she has no claim to fame without it; everything she has become and built up for herself is based on that title. She loves talking about the Duke, the Princesses, her time in the Royal Family--and I highly doubt she's getting married anytime soon. Don't get me wrong--in many ways I do admire Sarah (well, not her fashion sense, but it is much better than it was!) but I do admire the gutsy way she used what she had (title, connections) to dig herself out of debt. I also like the charities she has embraced--in many ways I do admire her. She has shown many how divorced parents should remain friends. In fact, perhaps she and Andrew should write a book.
However, I do think she is trifle full of her own self-importance and that she bloats her own self-esteem. I do know she had one heck of critical mother, and that Sarah was told she was not pretty often. I find that unforgiveable, and actually, I do think Sarah is quite attractive. I think that the reason she is so "buddy buddy" with her daughters is because she never had a good maternal role model. I don't think she is a good parent, I think she is a fun parent and the two really don't go hand in hand.
Also, we've discussed how Sarah never says anything negative about the Queen. I think that says a great deal about Sarah--why would she ever say anything critical of her daughters grandmother? It is just good manners to not air your dirty laundry (a lesson Diana could have learned from Sarah) and I applaud Sarah on that note.

Incidentally, I was watching Sarah and Andrew's Wedding Video on Youtube (I'm addicted) and she was just GORGEOUS that day, and her gown was one of the best I've ever seen. You could really, truly see the love they had for one another on that day. They were both so excited. It is sad that it didnt' work out, but truly remarkable that they can get along as well as they do.

[Russophile]

It's hard to be a good parent when you want to be their "buddy" and not their parent. You HAVE to be the parent no matter what. And that's a hard thing to do. I was at odds with my boys (still am with the 17 year old) until the 19 year old finally "got it". (I seriously think that children loose their brains from 13 until 18, then, miraculously they grown them back. . . ) He says "Mom, you're right. I don't know why I did what I did. . " Sweet words!

Okay, one more Royalty story and I won't jack this again. When we went to Maryhill, we walked in, looked around. Nobody there. They have a big collection of Rodin downstairs that a lot of people went for. One of the curators asked "Would you like a tour?" I turned around in the great hall and spied Queen Marie's HUGE portrait on the wall and squeaked "MISSIE!" And HOLY COW the woman's eyes popped out of her head there was somebody there that was as goofy about Royalty and History as she herself. We got on famously after that. . .They have Marie's gown she wore to Nicholas II's coronation there. GORGEOUS. Simply GORGEOUS.

[skhaynie]

Originally Posted by Russophile

It's hard to be a good parent when you want to be their "buddy" and not their parent. You HAVE to be the parent no matter what. And that's a hard thing to do. I was at odds with my boys (still am with the 17 year old) until the 19 year old finally "got it". (I seriously think that children loose their brains from 13 until 18, then, miraculously they grown them back. . . ) He says "Mom, you're right. I don't know why I did what I did. . " Sweet words!

As Bill Cosby once said, "Brain Damage is hereditary, you get it from your kids".

[Russophile]

Bill Cosby also related that all of a sudden his strict parents started throwing money at his children because they wanted to get into Heaven. I find my mother exhibiting that disturbing trait. . .
(It would be hard to see HM doing this at Beatrice and Eugenie. . .)

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by selrahc4

This is a view with which I agree. It's within her control to specify how she's presented to the public in her commercial endeavors and talk show appearances. If she would drop the duchess connection and drop all comments about the royal family other than her daughters she'd earn a respect from me which has never existed.

What you mean if Sarah just disappeared off the face of the earth and you never heard from her again then you'd respect her? LOL, just joking but that's how you sounded.

Well I don't think that Sarah really thinks too hard to earn either of our respect and I personally would have less respect for her if she tried to please others so I think it best that she just do what is best for herself. I don't think its realistic or advisable for Sarah to drop all comments about the Royal F