The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #341  
Old 07-14-2011, 06:47 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Galway, Ireland
Posts: 342
She was definately defensive, and had to bite her tongue on a few occasions. I think part of the attitude was because this interview was near the end of a month long tour in the US where she was probably answering the same questions dozens of times a day, day after day.
I think she was at the stage where she wanted to scream "Oh for Gods sake I've answered this question so many times, you can bloody well believe me or don't".
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #342  
Old 07-14-2011, 09:04 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 885
If Sarah was honest and not hiding behind this I did it for approval stuff then people would get an answer. She didn't answer she just said the same bull she said before she went to find herself. But now she has an excuse. Part of self promotion is doing interviews, Sarah has been doing this for a long time and she came out of this and many other interviews looking bad. She still is in denial about what she did and as her journey on Finding Sarah is in reality over she should be standing up and accepting what she did was wrong instead of still blaming it on everyone except herself. Sarah still sees herself as the victim, still lives with Andrew only time will tell if she is actually managing her money! I don't think we have seen the last of her in the headlines. Something else bothered me about that interview, the interviewer kept calling the The Duchess and kept referring to her that way. Her name is Sarah and she should have picked her up on that no one should be calling her Duchess. But then this is how Sarah has gotten all her money all these years so while she was very quick to ensure people called her the correct title when she became The Duchess of York she isn't as prepared to correct them now.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #343  
Old 07-14-2011, 10:18 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meadow View Post
Something else bothered me about that interview, the interviewer kept calling the The Duchess and kept referring to her that way. Her name is Sarah and she should have picked her up on that no one should be calling her Duchess. But then this is how Sarah has gotten all her money all these years so while she was very quick to ensure people called her the correct title when she became The Duchess of York she isn't as prepared to correct them now.
Sarah is actually getting off on a technicality methinks. The majority of people do not know the difference between 'The Duchess of York" and "Sarah, Duchess of York" and Sarah sure isn't going to start correcting people on this technicality. Why? It drains the milk from the cash cow. If the entire entire thing (series and interviews) were really of any worthwhile value to Sarah, I think we would have seen her addressed as "Sarah" and a whole lot more of "the FORMER Duchess". How can she find herself when she continues to lay claim to something she is not?

What really hit the ball out of the ballpark for me was seeing the "blurb" Sarah supposedly has written herself on the OWN website signed as Sarah Ferguson, The Duchess of York. So I felt a little bit snarky and actually sent a comment privately to the OWN network about either getting facts right or don't sign someone else's "title" to a blurb. Of course I got no reply.
Reply With Quote
  #344  
Old 07-14-2011, 05:16 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
More people should do this.

Is there any possibility that Sarah is in denial for legal reasons? If she actually admitted that she tried to sell access to Andrew, could there be legal trouble for her?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
So I felt a little bit snarky and actually sent a comment privately to the OWN network about either getting facts right or don't sign someone else's "title" to a blurb.
Reply With Quote
  #345  
Old 07-14-2011, 05:28 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bronx, United States
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
More people should do this.

Is there any possibility that Sarah is in denial for legal reasons? If she actually admitted that she tried to sell access to Andrew, could there be legal trouble for her?
I doubt it as Andrew would have to be the one to bring the suit against her. I mean the crown could sue but Andrew would stand against it and, if we're right in calling him mummy' favorite, the Queen wouldn't push.
Reply With Quote
  #346  
Old 07-14-2011, 07:48 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bronx, United States
Posts: 427
Interesting quotes.
The Trouble with Andrew | Society | Vanity Fair
Quote:
“Beatrice was clearly embarrassed when it was revealed that Fergie took money to introduce an undercover reporter to Prince Andrew,” said someone who has been with the princess at charity balls and nightclubs. “A friend went to Royal Lodge to comfort Beatrice, who wouldn’t leave the house because she was so ashamed and didn’t want to have to deal with the press. The friend spent two nights with her while she cried.”
The thing that gets me is the difference with this description to the calm and cool presentation of the Princesses on the show.
Reply With Quote
  #347  
Old 07-14-2011, 08:04 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by sliver_bic View Post
Interesting quotes.
The Trouble with Andrew | Society | Vanity Fair


The thing that gets me is the difference with this description to the calm and cool presentation of the Princesses on the show.
I'm wondering if they did it in support of their mother because they did seem to be uncomfortable during the interview. This is the thing which is so annoying about Sarah referring to herself as a fantastic mother, does she not realize that putting daughters through this mess does not qualify her as a fantastic mother? She has created so much negative press that these girls have had to deal with. I actually think that some of the nasty comments they get are really "splash back" from Sarah. I have to admit that when I see any of them, including Andrew I have a very visceral, read that unpleasant, reaction and I realize that that is not fair.

I only watched the first few minutes of that Time video because I became so annoyed with Sarah's attitude and felt she was very overbearing and arrogant toward the interviewer. The thing is, Sarah has gotten by in the past by being the clueless, vulnerable, kind of flaky victim and now we are seeing the other side of her and it isn't pretty. My bet is that she is going to lose a lot of "fans" with this show and book tour.
Reply With Quote
  #348  
Old 07-14-2011, 08:45 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bronx, United States
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I get the feeling from the TIME interview that Sarah didn't expect to be asked the questions that she was asked. I sensed anger under her civilized veneer.
Could we even call civilized? From the look on her face, the forced smile when she first spoke, it's easy to tell she doesn't want to be there. She didn't just sound it she looked downright hostile.

I've wondered how she'd react to someone not softballing her the questions. For some reason I always thought she'd clam up, break down instead she really puffed up angrily.

Quote:
"This isn't a tabloid interview."
WTF?

I love her describing the Fake sheik as having a twitchy leg, as if he was nervous that he'd be caught. Considering the camera, I would love to see if any of this "conversation" actually happened.

Quote:
"Let us remember that there two sides to a story."
Yes, Sarah and we don't know Andrew's side.

Quote:
"What ave you discovered?"
"It's not about me."
Than what the hell is it about?

All I can think of now is
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
Going into angry mode only chips away at the facade more quickly. It seems that the tv series is even less helpful than thought before. She's obviously playing the game for Oprah but seeing her on the outside with no filter is not helping.
Reply With Quote
  #349  
Old 07-14-2011, 09:38 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 885
Maybe she did find the real Sarah and we saw her in the time interview? In which case she is in even bigger trouble cause she really seems to believe she has the right to do such wrong and not be called to task on it. Scary thought isn't it?
Reply With Quote
  #350  
Old 07-14-2011, 09:50 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
I, suspect, Andrew is part of this mess. Always has been. He life is anything, but clean. Sarah is the easier target.
Reply With Quote
  #351  
Old 07-14-2011, 11:57 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meadow View Post
Maybe she did find the real Sarah and we saw her in the time interview? In which case she is in even bigger trouble cause she really seems to believe she has the right to do such wrong and not be called to task on it. Scary thought isn't it?
I've heard that said about Andrew in the past so he has probably encouraged her with that line of thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #352  
Old 07-15-2011, 12:19 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
If she broke a law, it would be up to the police to lay the charges and for the Crown (i.e. "the people", because the Crown represents the people in a constitutional monarchy) to prosecute the case. I'd think that the legal system in the UK is similar to the one in Canada, because our legal system is patterned after theirs. The Queen, as a person, wouldn't have anything to do with it unless--as the Paul Burrell case--she had information to pass on which would cause the Crown Attorney to drop the case.

But, as I understand it, there's no law against what could be considered "influence peddling" in the UK. So I guess that it's all moot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sliver_bic View Post
I doubt it as Andrew would have to be the one to bring the suit against her. I mean the crown could sue but Andrew would stand against it and, if we're right in calling him mummy' favorite, the Queen wouldn't push.
Reply With Quote
  #353  
Old 07-15-2011, 02:50 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meadow View Post
Maybe she did find the real Sarah and we saw her in the time interview? In which case she is in even bigger trouble cause she really seems to believe she has the right to do such wrong and not be called to task on it. Scary thought isn't it?
Especially as I understood that interview as if she has two aims now: making it clear that she is still very much "the great love" of a real prince while fate does not allow them to become a couple again (star-struck lovers-theme) and that she is a media personality herself - which she has been in several aspects, but which she obviously want to make her future full-time. I only fear that this interview will not help, as it shows clearly that Sarah is a me, me, me personality and will never be able to fake interest in the people she must interview if she became a talkshow host.

Just these tacky sentences: I am a humanitarian and a philantropist... Who does say something about oneself? Urggss...
Reply With Quote
  #354  
Old 07-15-2011, 03:43 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,502
Unfortunately, philanthropists have their pet projects which they throw money at.
In that sense, Sarah is less of a philanthropist and more of someone who needs money themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #355  
Old 07-15-2011, 08:37 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 3,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess of Durham View Post
I'm wondering if they did it in support of their mother because they did seem to be uncomfortable during the interview. This is the thing which is so annoying about Sarah referring to herself as a fantastic mother, does she not realize that putting daughters through this mess does not qualify her as a fantastic mother? She has created so much negative press that these girls have had to deal with. I actually think that some of the nasty comments they get are really "splash back" from Sarah. I have to admit that when I see any of them, including Andrew I have a very visceral, read that unpleasant, reaction and I realize that that is not fair.

I agree; I think the thing about Sarah that I find most irritating is the way she exploits her daughters. The fact that she is the mother of his children ties her to Andrew (and to the Queen) and she never hesitates to hit home the fact that the girls are the Queen's grandchildren. But still she allows her behavior to reflect on them.

(I honestly think it's because of Sarah that it's been made clear that Beatrice and Eugenie will not be working royals but are expected to find jobs in the private sector).

What really got to me was the casual way she admitted to living off their trust funds! What kind of parent would touch their child's money?
Reply With Quote
  #356  
Old 07-15-2011, 02:58 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,328
It's clear that Sarah is *not* a fantastic mother. Just the trust fund admission makes her less than stellar.

But all through this entire set of episodes of "Finding Sarah," I am feeling for her daughters. The one thing that's good about it is (if the girls watch it), they'll hopefully be able to bring some clarity to their relationship with her, indeed, with both their parents.

I really feel for them (the princesses). I don't hate Sarah, she's just in so far over her head (lifelong) that she needs someone to tell her to just STOP what's she's doing and slink away from the limelight.
Reply With Quote
  #357  
Old 07-15-2011, 03:48 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by sndral View Post
Hopefully, this is a link to her recent interview w/ Time - 10 questions for Sarah Ferguson, where she 'explains' cash for access, talks of remarrying Andrew (not likely she says) and how she is a wonderful mother (and qualified to give the Duchess of Cambridge advice on that subject, but wouldn't presume to advise her on other things.)
10 Questions for Sarah Ferguson - Video - TIME.com

I've now had an opportunity of listening to this interview and my first reaction was '3 Cheers for the Interviewer' because - unlike a lot of interviewers - she was making an attempt to pull Sarah up on what she has said [ by comparison, there is a link on one of the posts to the Fox interview, and it made me angry to see how there were no effective challenges made to Sarah and her version of events.]

So far as I can ascertain, all these interviews that Sarah is giving have been set up as [what we in the UK call] 'book plugging interviews' - i.e. publishers arrange for the author to appear on tv programmes really as a form of 'advertisement' for the recently-published tome and for some reason all interviewers actually tend to flatter the author rather than try to ask some serious questions. I expect that is probably because - certainly in the UK - the 'book plugging interviews' tend to take place on 'Chat Show' types of programmes, where the programme host [interviewer] is [usually] not really a trained journalist able to bring his or her critical faculties to the interview, more a type of lightweight entertainer.

In fact, if the UK model is anything to go b, the programme host / interviewers will very probably not even have read the particular book in question, but will just have a synopsis prepared by the programme's researchers which - probably because of time constaints - will most probably have been prepared from the publisher's 'blurb' [slightly off topic, but there has recently been some criticism of our BBC (state broadcaster, not a commercial channel] because the various 'book plugging interviews' are really nothing more than commercials for the particular book, such is the programme host's [interviewer's] inability to ask probing insightful questions.....] Presumably this TIME interviewer is more of a journalist rather than a 'tv chat show host' - can any forum member help me with this please?


Sarah, when she 'rounds on' the interviewer sounds to me as if she was actually parotting a 'stock response' taught to her by her publisher, to be used to divert and deflect any uncomfortable questions that might suddenly be put to her....


Alex
Reply With Quote
  #358  
Old 07-15-2011, 04:00 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
I agree; I think the thing about Sarah that I find most irritating is the way she exploits her daughters. The fact that she is the mother of his children ties her to Andrew (and to the Queen) and she never hesitates to hit home the fact that the girls are the Queen's grandchildren. But still she allows her behavior to reflect on them.

(I honestly think it's because of Sarah that it's been made clear that Beatrice and Eugenie will not be working royals but are expected to find jobs in the private sector).

What really got to me was the casual way she admitted to living off their trust funds! What kind of parent would touch their child's money?


I agree too; I think that it is a modern miracle how the two Princesses appear - certainly on the face of it - to have turned out so well-adjusted. Actually, I put it down to the fact that when they were young, they had in Alison Wardley a wonderfully trained Nanny [from one of the top 3 training colleges in the world] who I presume must have always been around for them, whilst Andrew was pursuing his naval career and Sarah was going about her own business (!). After that, both Princesses went to excellent boarding schools, where I assume the pastoral care included an emphasis on high moral values etc.

I also hate the way that Sarah always tries in these series of interviews continually [attempts] to emphasise what a close family the Yorks are, how she was nevertheless made to be part of the Royal Wedding by Andrew etc etc. Basically I am afraid that I see this as an attempt by Sarah to try to emphasise [wrongly of course] that she is 'Royal', which presumably is intended to impact on her marketability as a 'Royal'.

Only my opinons; I don't really wish to offend but I have to say that I am finding the events of the past few weeks very unpleasant. I was one of those [like others here] who originally welcomed Sarah's entry into the Royal Family as a positive force for good; now I feel enormously disappointed.

Alex
Reply With Quote
  #359  
Old 07-15-2011, 04:35 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
If she broke a law, it would be up to the police to lay the charges and for the Crown (i.e. "the people", because the Crown represents the people in a constitutional monarchy) to prosecute the case. I'd think that the legal system in the UK is similar to the one in Canada, because our legal system is patterned after theirs. The Queen, as a person, wouldn't have anything to do with it unless--as the Paul Burrell case--she had information to pass on which would cause the Crown Attorney to drop the case.

But, as I understand it, there's no law against what could be considered "influence peddling" in the UK. So I guess that it's all moot.

Could I try to help with a bit of background information here please?

'Influence Peddling' can be a tricky area. In England and Wales [Scotland has its own legal system, with some differences, although I would imagine that both legal systems are more or less united on this one] it is quite permissable - and indeed quite a common and above-board legitimate business practice - to pay 'introduction and commission' fees. Such transactions though are always the subject of formal contracts and almost always carefully documented by the lawyers and also record what the fee is for. This happens at all levels: a simple example is 'introducer's commission' paid to a person who brings two [or more parties] together in a transaction: for example, Mr Smith is a roving property [real estate] professional. In the course of his professional practice, he becomes aware that 'Super Housebuilders Ltd [INC to you Americans] is seeking sites on which to build new homes for commuters. In the course of his business practice, Mr Smith is also aware that Farmer Giles owns 10 acres that he wishes to sell. Mr Smith therefore puts Farmer Giles in touch with 'Super Housebuilders'. In negotiating this transaction with the parties, Mr Smith also factors in a 'commission payment'. No problem here!

Incidentally, one of the main reasons for making sure everything is above board [and that the transaction is properly evidenced in documentation ] is that a tax liability will ALWAYS arise, and the parties will need to be able to produce the proper paperwork to HM Customs and Revenue [ the UK version of the IRS]

The problem arises when payments are negotiated for rather more nebulous services: the immediate problem we have with Prince Andrew is that he is NOT allowed to use his princely connections for his personal advantage. In his role as Special Trade Envoy he does undertake [or is meant to] a certain amount of 'path-smoothing' [as did his predecessor in the role, the Duke of Kent] but this is for the benefit of UK trade, not the Prince in his own capacity. The Royal family has, incidentally, always done its bit to boost UK trade - in the past, the Queen used to host receptions for [foreign] businesspeople and representatives of UK companies on the Royal Yacht Britannia; there was of course no 'personal financial gain' for the Queen.

Personal benefit and the payment of £ to secure contracts can be a very difficult area: There was a recent bribery scandal arsing from payments of money to secure contracts invovling the [once highly respectable] UK company British Aerospace.

I will just throw in this here: the News of the World is certainly at this very moment the subject of very questionnable conduct - for a start it has just been shut down - but it has always maintained that the 'Fake Sheikh' only operates when he is already aware of wrongdoing being committed - i.e. he does not just set out to trap the 'previously innocent unwary'. If one believes what he has said about his modus operandii, the pattern is that he becomes aware of 'wrongdoing' and then recreates conditions for the scenario to be repeated. If we can take the last 3 'Royal Stings':

Sophie Wessex was caught after a disgrunted member of her staff, alerted the Fake Sheikh to Sophie's use of her Royal Connections to win contracts. The Fake Sheikh therefore replicated the conditions to 'catch Sophie out'.

Princess Michael was allegedly frequently heard bad-mouthing members of the Royal Family in London Society. One person, offended by this habit of the Princess, therefore 'tipped off' the fake Sheikh.

So far as the Sarah, Duchess of York scandal is concerned, both The Times and THe Daily Telegraph published reports to the effect that Sarah had previously pulled a 'cash for access stunt' on a businessman, who then became disenchanted and tipped off the Fake Sheikh. The Daily Telegraph went further in its report, claiming that HM Revenue and Customs was taking a 'close look' at the situation.

In quoting the foregoing, I invite fellow forum members to bear in mind that the person tipping off the 'Fake Sheikh' in each case is not necessarily someone who any of us would regard as honourable by our own standards and there must always remain the doubt that such evidence is accordingly tainted. But, by the same token, it was indeed the case each time that the Royal 'Victim' was 'caught' in the set-up - there was nothing, after all, stopping either PMK, Sophie or indeed Sarah saying ' I am having no part of this, go away'. [and on a personal note, I did find Sarah's 'scooping up of the £40,000 somewhat well-practised!!]. I would also add that after the Times and The Telegraph ran stories suggesting that Sarah had previously participated in a 'cash for access' transaction, law suits alleging libel etc were not launched by representatives of either Sarah, Duchess of York or indeed Andrew. It's pretty murky business either way, I reckon!
Reply With Quote
  #360  
Old 07-15-2011, 04:44 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 1,300
That was the thing about the Piers Morgan interview that drove me nuts. He would ask questions ... none too difficult of course, but he never challenged any of her answers that he could have. He was so blinded by the stars in his own eyes that I guess he saw nothing amiss. He does seem to be able to challenge others in interviews.

It was her immediate reaction and nasty response to the interviewer which caused me to turn it off. It seems Sarah is only going to talk pleasantly with those who swallow her story; any others will have it turned back upon them and labeled "tabloid".
__________________

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
Queen Noor: Magazines, Articles, Interviews, Speeches & TV appearances Jacqueline Royal House of Jordan 199 03-09-2016 02:45 AM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit best outfit october 2016 camillas outfits catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander martha louise member introduction monarchy multiple births new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles prince harken in canada princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess victoria queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


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

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- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:20 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises