Sarah Staying at Prince Andrew's Home (Royal Lodge, Windsor): February 2008


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I, believe, Andrew loves her and she him. What they do to overcome the mess, who knows. They may always live on the fringes of one another. Also sad. As for Charles being a hypocrite, he is. He, financially, kept a mistress for many years, with lavish gifts, etc. There is plenty of money for what they want, if they like you.

I doubt he "kept" her. Gifts are one thing but Camilla wasn't ever financially dependent on Charles was she? That's a kept woman. On top of that Sarah Ferguson is not and never has been the woman on the side, she was front and center and has repeatedly made a spectacle of herself, whereas Camilla did not.
 
Lets get back on topic...this thread isn't about the relationship and what Charles did or did not do for Camilla.

Its about Sarah, Andrew and The Royal Lodge.

Off topic posts will be deleted.
 
Last edited:
Fergie: I'm intoxicated by life !!

X: Make sure your life itself doesn't become toxic.....
 
One point about Sarah living at the Royal Lodge that I would like to make is this: it is actually a reasonably large property - there are around 30 bedrooms [not including staff accommodation]. I suspect that Andrew and Sarah could actually both live in that house without coming across each other. It's not like a 'normal' divorced couple trying to live in a 4 or 5 bedroom house.

Alex
 
One point about Sarah living at the Royal Lodge that I would like to make is this: it is actually a reasonably large property - there are around 30 bedrooms [not including staff accommodation]. I suspect that Andrew and Sarah could actually both live in that house without coming across each other. It's not like a 'normal' divorced couple trying to live in a 4 or 5 bedroom house.

Alex

That's very true; however, Fergie must know she is damaging Andrew's status and reputation by continuing to live there, (as well as dragging him into her financial debacle).

Apparently, she doesn't care about that.
 
Her living there isn't damaging Andrew's reputation. Her actions are doing that.

If Fergie didn't have constant scandals attached to her name and she lived a low key life but they shared a place, the only concern people would have would be In regards to Andrew's status as a single man. More than likely we would be talking about what a good relationship the two have as a divorced couple.
 
One point about Sarah living at the Royal Lodge that I would like to make is this: it is actually a reasonably large property - there are around 30 bedrooms [not including staff accommodation]. I suspect that Andrew and Sarah could actually both live in that house without coming across each other. It's not like a 'normal' divorced couple trying to live in a 4 or 5 bedroom house.

Alex

Agreed.

What every seems to dance around, however, is a crucial issue.

The certain set here at TRF believe that the couple are living together in the fullest sense. This would make Sarah a kept woman in every respect, a mistress.

Others are of the opinion that Sarah and Andrew maintain separate quarters and are merely jolly good friends and divorced co-parents, instead of friends with benefits. Which means Sarah is a kept woman in most every respect, a shade shy of mistress.

Whichever it is, I think that Sarah staying there is Andrew's business. I think it looks foolish on his part to be such a sap, but that's his lookout.

---------

Different topic: Paddy McNally. Yes, Sarah did everything to get Paddy to marry her, including going out of her way to prove her stepmum chops by getting close to his children. But Sarah didn't leave because Paddy didn't propose. The invitation came from Diana to Sarah while she was still with Paddy - and Paddy told her to go, meet some new men. He was finished with her but, like Andrew, wouldn't toss her out without a soft berth to land in. And being a princess was a pretty soft landing. Pity she couldn't perform the task, but McNally did right by her even if he didn't marry her.
 
I just thought I'd clarify something regarding Andrew's ownership of Royal Lodge. It is NOT a grace and favor property, nor is it something that he could potentially lose at the discretion of Prince Charles or even The Queen.

The Daily Mail reported that Andrew is the outright owner of a 75 year leasehold over the property, with the freehold owned by the Crown Estate which benefited from the sale of the 75 year lease, therefore, he for all intents and purposes owns the property.
(Source: Duchess of York Sarah Ferguson: Greedy and needy | Mail Online)

Thus, Andrew providing a suite of rooms in Royal Lodge for Sarah is his prerogative and if the most recent Vanity Fair article about Andrew is to be believed, Andrew has made it clear to his family that Sarah is a non-negotiable part of his life. Now, that doesn't mean they're in love. Nor does it mean that they're not. What it does mean is that, so far as The Royal Family is concerned, she's here to stay. (Source: The Trouble with Andrew | Society | Vanity Fair)
 
Sarah and Andrew should get back together, remarry, and be done with it.

Yes, they should and I don't think it'll be too long before they do. I don't know why they ever divorced in the first place.

However, Andrew's long absences at sea and Sarah's inability to adapt her natural exuberance and high spirits into the decorum expected of royalty didn't help matters.
 
Let's not forget Sarah's affair cause I'm sure that didn't help matters. They got divorced because she became a major laughing stock and the RF didn't want her and her exuberance around and at the time neither did Andrew. And then their was the debt....I don't actually think there was too much choice about divorce and at the time Sarah thought she could do better then Andrew. Do you really think she is wanted back in the Royal fold she killed her chances when she sold access to Andrew. Besides she doesn't seem so well liked by most of the family except Andrew. So not going to happen besides Andrew seems to have made it clear they are friends only. He dates others and so does Sarah well she used too. Could you imagine the press if it did happen? She thought she got bad press back then it would be so much worse now and that is something the Royal Family can't afford.
 
L.A not where I thought she would move she seemed to have a lot of connections in NY. It's also a very expensive place to live so I hope she has some work lined up. I wonder if next years celebrations are part of the reason? Beatrice may pop in and see her she was in New Mexico the other day.
 
I predict she will continue to attempt to ply her trade in "The Media." She wants more reality show, Dancing with the Stars, or a daytime talk show seat. She'll take what she can get (totally opinion, but it makes sense that she's in L.A.)
 
I just thought I'd clarify something regarding Andrew's ownership of Royal Lodge. It is NOT a grace and favor property, nor is it something that he could potentially lose at the discretion of Prince Charles or even The Queen.

The Daily Mail reported that Andrew is the outright owner of a 75 year leasehold over the property, with the freehold owned by the Crown Estate which benefited from the sale of the 75 year lease, therefore, he for all intents and purposes owns the property.

The Royal Lodge is still owned by the Crown Estate and cannot be disposed of by Andrew or the monarch. He holds a leasehold over the property, which reverts back to the Crown upon expiration.

The Queen paid for the lease and renovations out of her private purse on behalf of her son, so she certainly has the final say about who can and cannot reside there. Obviously, she has no objection to Sarah's living arrangements, which is likely for the sake of her granddaughters.
 
I'm guessing that L.A. is probably cheaper than N.Y., the weather is definitely better and it is probably a better place to ply her trade in the media. New city, new beginning...I hope that it works out for her.
 
I'm guessing that L.A. is probably cheaper than N.Y., the weather is definitely better and it is probably a better place to ply her trade in the media. New city, new beginning...I hope that it works out for her.

Cheaper? Yes but it's like saying a 50 inch tv is cheaper than a 60 inch tv, unless she's got good (very good) work or is being put up by someone having a place isn't going to be possible.
 
Well her saga just seems to go on I hope she makes it this time.
 
Please note that off topic posts that have nothing to do with Sarah staying at Royal Lodge have been deleted as off topic.
 
The Royal Lodge is still owned by the Crown Estate and cannot be disposed of by Andrew or the monarch. He holds a leasehold over the property, which reverts back to the Crown upon expiration.

The Queen paid for the lease and renovations out of her private purse on behalf of her son, so she certainly has the final say about who can and cannot reside there. Obviously, she has no objection to Sarah's living arrangements, which is likely for the sake of her granddaughters.
My gosh Her Majesty has been quite tolerant of Sarah. IMO the best thing for her to do is leave the Royal Lodge and find her own place, either in LA or South America, grow up and strike out on her own.
 
:previous: I think history has shown that this is just never going to happen. I am always bemused by the dynamics of the York family. Parents divorced but "living" together with the children for years. As to whether they are a "couple", your guess is as good as mine but, whatever else they are, they are a family and a very close one at that!

When you compare the family dynamic against normal (undivorced) families I believe they are in the upper reaches of a "family", which leaves one wondering, why on earth did they ever get divorced?
 
My gosh Her Majesty has been quite tolerant of Sarah. IMO the best thing for her to do is leave the Royal Lodge and find her own place, either in LA or South America, grow up and strike out on her own.

I would imagine that even if Sarah did set up residence in LA or even New York, she'd probably still maintain a guest suite for her use at Royal Lodge whenever she "jumped the pond" to visit her daughters or had business in the UK.

Sarah has never been noted for staying in one place very long and I would imagine that flying from LA to the UK would be like most of us driving to McD's for a Big Mac. :D
 
The Royal Lodge is still owned by the Crown Estate and cannot be disposed of by Andrew or the monarch. He holds a leasehold over the property, which reverts back to the Crown upon expiration.

The Queen paid for the lease and renovations out of her private purse on behalf of her son, so she certainly has the final say about who can and cannot reside there. Obviously, she has no objection to Sarah's living arrangements, which is likely for the sake of her granddaughters.

As a solicitor in the UK I have to clarify a few things.

While the Crown Estate owns the freehold for Royal Lodge Prince Andrew owns a 75 year leasehold. His leasehold trumps the freehold for those 75 years. He can sell this leasehold during those 75 years. The leasehold does not necessarily revert to the Crown upon expiration either, there may be a renewal clause in the leasehold for the benefit of his heirs.

There is absolutely no evidence that the Queen paid for the leasehold and/or renovations. The Daily Mail reports that Prince Andrew paid for both from funds derived from the sale of Sunninghill Park, which Prince Andrew owned both the leasehold and freehold of at the time of sale.

Finally, as Prince Andrew's name is on the leasehold, which anyone can see on property records, he has the final say about who can and who cannot reside in Royal Lodge, legally. Family dynamics can be whatever they want but ultimately Prince Andrew has the law on his side.

For all we know he has left the leasehold of Royal Lodge to Sarah and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie in his will.

On another level, I do agree that The Queen has no objection to Sarah living there and frankly I don't think The Queen has much objection to Sarah at all.
 
:previous:

I would actually expect that the Transfer of the Leasehold Interest to Andrew would have included clauses about its disposal, if only to ensure that there are no taxation difficulties on death and inheritance etc. I therefore think that although it is of course theoretically possible that Andrew has left his interest in the property to his former wife and daughters, [and although I have not got a shred of evidence to support my contention], my gut feeling is that Sarah will not be a beneficiary when it comes to Royal Lodge.

As to whether the Queen has any objection to Sarah, I suppose the real answer is that we will never know! My own gut feeling however is that the Queen probably views Sarah in two different lights: the personal level and the wider level. On a personal level, I daresay the Queen is able to regard Sarah and have dealings with her in an 'affable' way; Sarah is, after all, the mother of two of the Queen's granddaughters and was born into a family with close sporting [polo] connections to the BRF. And I have never regarded the Queen as confrontational. On a wider level however, my experience of the BRF is that the Queen is concerned, above all, to preserve the BRF and that the Queen is not tolerant of anything that might be a threat to the BRF or the Royal image. On this basis, I am sure that many of Sarah's actions and her behaviour over the years has done much to vex the Queen. I have noticed over the years that the Queen tends to operate in a rather laissez-faire manner; I would imagine that she was not best pleased about Royal Lodge appearing in the 'Finding Sarah' documentary and I am fairly sure that the Queen, as monarch, was appalled by the 'sobbing princesses' [ as, I think, were many members of TRF]. But in my work I have seen that the way the BRF operates is not by 'ranting and raving'. Mostly, when the Queen disapproves of something, it is her practice NOT to tackle the subject matter or the person herself, but to 'have a quiet word with her private secretary', who himself then 'has a quiet word with the 'offender's private secretary'. Which of course all helps to keep things one level below the Queen's personal involvement. And so I suspect that any 'ticking off' would have been private secretary to [Andrew's] private secretary, along the lines of 'The Queen did not like.........[insert the incident] and does not wish it to occur again'.

Only my opinions,

Alex
 
Last edited:
Regardless of what HM feels and in spite of Sarah's faults, I do think that Andrew does have a huge sense of responsibility towards Sarah as she is the Mother of his children. This will also never change. With all the up and downs in both of their lives, I am surprised that they have managed to cultivate and maintain a friendship but good for them. I still think the two of them together is still a firm recipe for disaster but I suppose what they have now "works" for them and they obviously know where the boundaries lie.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom