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
 
  #121  
Old 03-07-2008, 05:07 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
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. . . .
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 03-07-2008, 07:53 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 03-07-2008, 09:31 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada, Canada
Posts: 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 03-07-2008, 09:57 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 70
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 03-08-2008, 04:54 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaDreamin View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 03-08-2008, 05:06 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmay286 View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by judith14011 View Post
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!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 03-08-2008, 02:04 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Plymouth, United States
Posts: 1,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russophile View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
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. . . .
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 03-08-2008, 03:09 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
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?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 03-08-2008, 04:56 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada, Canada
Posts: 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 03-08-2008, 07:56 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bella View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
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.
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??
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 03-08-2008, 08:01 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
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.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 03-08-2008, 08:50 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 03-08-2008, 10:39 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by judith14011 View Post
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.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 03-08-2008, 11:20 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 70
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 03-09-2008, 11:44 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Belleville, United States
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
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?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 03-09-2008, 09:07 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 352
Not all of it

Quote:
Originally Posted by lexi4 View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 03-09-2008, 09:47 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
And Her Majesty holds in trust many works of art and jewels.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 03-10-2008, 12:49 AM
Lakshmi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: *, United States
Posts: 1,226
I like that Andrew and Sarah have great relationship after divorce, and I don't see anything wrong that she's moving to him sometimes or the opposite. And Sarah will be always part of royal family like it or not, because she's a mother to Andrew's children. It is similar to situation in Denmark now, with former Pss Alexandra.
__________________
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't.''
Eleanor Roosevelt

"The course of true love never did run smooth " William Shakespeare, 'A Midsummer Night's Dream'

http://www.aishwarya-rai.com/
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 03-10-2008, 09:34 AM
LadyCat's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WM, United States
Posts: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakshmi View Post
I like that Andrew and Sarah have great relationship after divorce, and I don't see anything wrong that she's moving to him sometimes or the opposite. And Sarah will be always part of royal family like it or not, because she's a mother to Andrew's children. It is similar to situation in Denmark now, with former Pss Alexandra.
I don't think the situations are at all similar. Sarah left the royal family under a heavy cloud of disgrace. Alexandra did nothing to embarrass the Royal Family of Denmark. She doesn't go out of her way to commerialize her ties to the RF. Sarah just doesn't know how to lay low, she just can't keep her mouth shut.

As for her moving in with Andrew after the fire at Dolphin House. Hey, it is entirely their business.

Cat
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 03-10-2008, 09:38 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Plymouth, United States
Posts: 1,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyCat View Post
I don't think the situations are at all similar. Sarah left the royal family under a heavy cloud of disgrace. Alexandra did nothing to embarrass the Royal Family of Denmark. She doesn't go out of her way to commerialize her ties to the RF. Sarah just doesn't know how to lay low, she just can't keep her mouth shut.

As for her moving in with Andrew after the fire at Dolphin House. Hey, it is entirely their business.

Cat
I agree. Big difference between Sarah and Pss. Alexandra of Denmark. As for Sarah being forever a member of the BRF, not so. She will forever be linked to them through her daughters, but that does not make her a member.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
duke of york, fergie, living arrangements, prince andrew, royal lodge, sarah duchess of york, windsor


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
Royal Lodge, Windsor Warren British Royal Residences 25 04-25-2014 04:50 PM
The Winter Home in the Mountains and the Summer Home by the Sea KikkiB Norwegian Royal Residences 114 02-19-2014 01:57 AM
Royal Windsor Horse Show and Windsor Castle Royal Tattoo HMQueenElizabethII British Royals 74 05-18-2009 05:42 AM
Prince Andrew's visit to the USA and Today show appearance: February 6-15 2008 Wingfield07 The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 80 02-19-2008 07:26 PM
Prince Andrew's visit to North Africa: November 1-9, 2007 Avalon The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 15 11-09-2007 06:21 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess eleonore princess elisabeth princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:26 PM.

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]