The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1061  
Old 08-25-2013, 04:32 PM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 234
I actually have a magazine article somewhere in my "archives" from before their 1986 wedding. In it was a quote from an anonymous "high court official" that I thought at the time was quite cruel yet instructive in hindsight. That official, whose initials I now believe were M.C. said (and this is a direct quote) that he "gave the marriage five years at most. After all, she's only the daughter of the stable boy." With that kind of attitude from the Palace staff it was hardly any wonder that Sarah felt they weren't giving her any support or respect. They weren't.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1062  
Old 08-25-2013, 04:48 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Green Bay, United States
Posts: 530
I always thought they would remarry after Prince Philip died. We will all have to patiently wait for things to unfold. May they do what is best for them.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1063  
Old 08-25-2013, 04:54 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by grevinnan View Post
Wasn't there a Koo Stark in Andrew's post divorce life? The company he has kept has not been what one might call "nice".

Koo Stark was his girlfriend before he married but she was deemed unsuitable due to the 'soft-porn' film she made. They have remained friends.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1064  
Old 08-25-2013, 05:05 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist View Post
I would like to know the full story between Sarah and Prince Philip also. It one thing no to like someone but some make seen that Philip has a intense hatred of Sarah.
I remember reading that it's because Philip himself was once a married man on duty in the Royal Navy, and the idea of a man-especially his own son- being cuckolded by his wife while serving his country was/is just too much for him. That's one of the reasons for his abiding anger.

I do understand his point there.

Still, his son is a grown man. If he has been willing to move past it, I don't know why Philip cannot. He didn't seem to hold such bitterness toward Diana, who committed adultery as often or even more than Sarah did.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #1065  
Old 08-25-2013, 05:27 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 7,343
I think the media are the ones that has carried Prince Philip's hatred for Sarah all these years. I somehow think people are holding on to those old feelings from the past. I don't think he have really bad feelings for her today.
__________________
"If you are always trying to be normal you will never know how amazing you can be."

Dr. Maya Angelou
Reply With Quote
  #1066  
Old 08-25-2013, 05:43 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 656
The probability of a re-marriage has been a distinct possibility for many long years.

Sarah's behaviour in the past was sometimes unacceptable, I agree. However, she was no better nor no worse than some other family members in the past, or even Sophie who was also 'caught out' by a journalist posing as Sheik with Sophie giving insider information about the royals in an effort to get his business for her company (500,000 pounds was in the offing) and make money (2001). Without defending or condemning either woman I nevertheless ask, why has Sarah alone sustained so much continuing contempt and abuse? Earlier, royals behaving in a decidely un-royal and decidedly questionable manner, had the cover and benefit of an unobtrusive and much more respectful press.

I rather like Sarah, always have, and so, it's apparent, does the Queen, for whom there's ample evidence of her forgiving and understanding nature.

I wish Andrew and Sarah the very best, particularly if they re-marry. These two have been victims of media harassment, half-truths and character assassination for many years - in Andrew's case because he had pulling power and influence beyond that of big international conglomerates in the oil-rich countries which infuriated them (they certainly did a successful PR job on him!) - in Sarah's case because she became a punching-bag for royalty's critics who used her as a 'whipping boy' and visited of all of royalty's imagined 'ills' on her, and often in an unspeakably cruel manner. So it was for Princess Michael of Kent till Fergie came along, or Princess Margaret till Princess Michael came. So itís possibly going to be for Prince Harry, I fear, in a few years' time. The script is unfolding even as we watch from the sidelines. The people who inhabit the close margins of royalty, unless they are very quiet and lead almost monastic lives, are sitting ducks, which makes for easy fodder for the gutter press.

Might I suggest that those intent on besmirching Sarah or merely repeating the worst of the tabloid headlines do some private research on the matter. My family owns an extensive archive of the royal family going back nearly 100 years, and it's patently obvious how prejudiced and sometimes blatantly destructive, for mere destruction's sake, the gutter press can often be - and for the 'best' of motives - to arouse indignation and ire and to sell more newspapers. At the very least, we can all take a leaf from Her Majesty's book and accept Sarah for who she is - the dearly loved mother of two daughters and the loved, close friend and confidant of an erstwhile husband. Personally, I'd rather give credence to her family's opinion of her than the tabloids', any day.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1067  
Old 08-25-2013, 05:46 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraS3514 View Post
I actually have a magazine article somewhere in my "archives" from before their 1986 wedding. In it was a quote from an anonymous "high court official" that I thought at the time was quite cruel yet instructive in hindsight. That official, whose initials I now believe were M.C. said (and this is a direct quote) that he "gave the marriage five years at most. After all, she's only the daughter of the stable boy." With that kind of attitude from the Palace staff it was hardly any wonder that Sarah felt they weren't giving her any support or respect. They weren't.
I remember that comment. I wonder if that particular courtier is still around today and if so, how does he feel about Sophie Wessex being the daughter of a tire salesman and Catherine Cambridge-future queen no less-the child of an airline hostess??

There is really no doubt in my mind that at least some of the contempt Sarah was subjected to at BP was because her family was not part of the ancient aristocracy like Diana's.

Idiot snobs.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #1068  
Old 08-25-2013, 05:47 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,272
I find it intriguing that MAJESTY MAGAZINE has been promoting this story for the last 24 hours on Facebook. That's where I first saw it. The article is written by one of its regular contributors and managing editor, Joe Little. During the War of the Waleses, Diana was slyly degraded by Ingrid Seward. During the PR push for Camilla after Diana's death, MAJESTY ran flattering articles about the future Duchess of Cornwall. IOW MAJESTY seems to take the Palace line in things and has very good sources. Therefore, I think that this news wouldn't have come out unless someone very high up wanted it to. That's why I give this report more credence than if it had appeared from another source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I don't know if this report is true and should be credited in any way, but if it is good for them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1069  
Old 08-25-2013, 05:59 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,914
Brilliant post Polly. ICAM with every word.

Sarah's honeymoon with the media-I remember it well-was a very brief one. For whatever reason when they turned on her it was with a cruelty that made me shudder. The gleeful viciousness of tabloids like the now defunct "News Of The World" in particular was shameful. Sarah made it easy for them and deserved some of the criticism.

But most of it she did not deserve at all.

It's always been that way, it seems. The press picks out their "darlings" in the BRF-usually a photographic Royal who helps them sell their publications-then they single out scapegoats for ridicule and cruelty.

Today-the media darlings are the Cambridges, the scapegoats are the Yorks. Look how they treated Beatrice for wearing that ill-advised fascinator to William's wedding. Did it warrant all the personal attacks on Beatrice that it drew??
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #1070  
Old 08-25-2013, 06:08 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,914
Good points Mermaid1962, I agree. Especially about Seward and her tactics. I have never truly cared for her since.

MAJESTY is one of the "serious" Royal publications. The fact that this story originated there is intriguing.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #1071  
Old 08-25-2013, 06:24 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,272
In those long-ago, pre-internet days, the first I was aware of how hard the papers were on Sarah is when she didn't take Beatrice to Australia with her on the tour she made with Andrew. Then, rather than flying back to England right away to be with her daughter, she spent additional time in Australia meeting Andrew at every port his ship came to. That was in 1988. Beatrice was still a tiny baby.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
Brilliant post Polly. ICAM with every word.

Sarah's honeymoon with the media-I remember it well-was a very brief one. For whatever reason when they turned on her it was with a cruelty that made me shudder.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1072  
Old 08-25-2013, 06:35 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,914
Mermaid1962, the furor that was made over Sarah's "abandonment" of her baby made me mental. I was so disgusted and angry, it was just so stupid and hypocritical and unfair.

Sarah and Andrew had had no time alone since Beatrice was born. It was Andrew who reportedly insisted that Sarah come to him without the baby, but as usual the bricks came down on Sarah and nobody from BP defended her. Beatrice was well cared for and only a newborn. No harm was done to her by the experience.

Royal babies had been left with nannies from time immemorial, in fact William spent his first birthday without his parents who were on tour in Canada. No one in the press came down on the Wales' for that!

I think it's ironic. When their children were small, Diana was always rubbed in Sarah's face as the paragon of motherhood, someone who Sarah could learn from. Diana was always the Good Mother, Sarah the Bad Mother.

But it's Sarah's children who grew up in a loving emotionally stable environment because unlike Diana and Charles, Andrew and Sarah never waged war over their children.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #1073  
Old 08-25-2013, 06:52 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 624
Given that its been said by "sources" close to them that they get onwelland could even re-marry I wonder why this is been given such serious news coverage. The only public sign it could be true is the apperance of Sarah at Balmoral which IMO is more likely explained as either a family birthday visit for Beatrice or because Beatrice is engaged.
What intriques me is why then the media are allfocussing on Sarah & Andrew re-marrying with a possible Beatrice engagement only mentioned in passing. Either its a slow news weekend and this is the better story or the media know something (maybe they know just who that close friend that is being quoted) that means they are willing to report such a story.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1074  
Old 08-25-2013, 06:55 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,914
Or maybe HM hasn't seen or spoken to Sarah in years and wanted a visit, for old times sake!
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #1075  
Old 08-25-2013, 07:01 PM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
Or maybe HM hasn't seen or spoken to Sarah in years and wanted a visit, for old times sake!
Lol, It one thing to talk at birthdays parties, or engagement parties, weddings or whatever but I don't The Queen would call her ex daughter-in-law out of the blue to have tea or just to chat especially Sarah. Pretty doubtful.

My Grandmother doesn't call her Ex Daighter-In-Law just to see if she want to go Lunch or just too chat. If anything it about Her Grandkids and that it.
__________________
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
Reply With Quote
  #1076  
Old 08-25-2013, 07:08 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,773
Well, I wish Sarah and Andrew the best of luck whatever their plans are. If any couple deserves a second chance, I think this one does and Sarah should not be tarred and feathered any more than other royal family members who have been poster children for their own bad behavior and have been "rehabilitated" and brought back into the fold. If the couple finds that life is better for having each other in it it, so be it and people will have to accept it. If there is a second marriage and Andrew and Sarah apply themselves as diligently to it as they have to the upbringing of their daughters, it will be a success indeed.
__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
Reply With Quote
  #1077  
Old 08-25-2013, 07:11 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada, Canada
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I find it intriguing that MAJESTY MAGAZINE has been promoting this story for the last 24 hours on Facebook. That's where I first saw it. The article is written by one of its regular contributors and managing editor, Joe Little.
I thought the article originally appeared in the Telegraph, written by Richard Evans? But that's interesting, since I notice that Joe Little is promoting the story on Twitter, too. For example:

Joe Little ‏@MajestyMagazine 24 Aug
Some intriguing #royal stories in the Sunday papers UK front pages #tomorrowspaperstoday - Imgur via @imgur
Collapse Reply Retweet Favorite More

I don't follow Majesty Magazine on Facebook. Is this normal, for them to promote stories written in other magazines?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1078  
Old 08-25-2013, 07:12 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 624
Indeed, like I said it could just be silly season for the media at the moment. If we beleive the daily mail for example Sarah and Andrew are to re-marry, Beatrice is engaged and Harry is going to propose by the end of the year.

Personally I suspect that Sarah being at Balmoral was either just a visit without any great significance like the other 2 or 3 over the years (probably in light of Beatrice's 25th birthday being just a few days before, HM did not attend Beatrice big party so maybe invited Beatrice and her family for a more private, intimate celebration)
or Sarah visited because Beatrice is engaged which we will have to wait and see to find out if its true or not.

A re-marriage doesn't make sense to me as it will simply open up a media fury over them and would probably not be welcomed by certain members of the Royal family and their staff. It seems more trouble than its worth given that neither seem (IMO and i could be wrong) overly religious so would be happy to continue living together as they do now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1079  
Old 08-25-2013, 07:14 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist View Post
Lol, It one thing to talk at birthdays parties, or engagement parties, weddings or whatever but I don't The Queen would call her ex daughter-in-law out of the blue to have tea or just to chat especially Sarah. Pretty doubtful.

My Grandmother doesn't call her Ex Daighter-In-Law just to see if she want to go Lunch or just too chat. If anything it about Her Grandkids and that it.
So true, it had to have been a special occasion or circumstance for this to have happened although HM is said to still be fond of Sarah. So something might be going on that called for a pow-wow; maybe even a Beatrice engagement or her birthday party. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
Reply With Quote
  #1080  
Old 08-25-2013, 07:26 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 624
Some people see a 25th birthday as a significant one so it could be that.
Sarah first visited Balmoral again, after her divorce, in 2008 - it wasn't a significant age birthday for Beatrice or Eugenie but was significant as it was Beatrice's birthday that year on the 8.8.08 and she was born on the 8.8.88. It was said at the time she was there to celebrate the birthday privately with the Queen.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
duke of york, old photos, pictures, prince andrew, princess beatrice, princess eugenie, sarah duchess of york


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 13 (4 members and 9 guests)
IldaBuelke, melanie.logie, msleiman, Pranter
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
General Questions and Information about the Danish Royal Family paulette Royal House of Denmark 137 11-27-2014 07:09 PM
Queen Alia Al Hussein (1948-1977): Information and Pictures salma Royal House of Jordan 181 10-23-2014 01:29 AM
Prince Amedeo - News & Pictures, Part 3 Marengo Current Events Archive 293 07-06-2014 05:24 AM
Relationships between members of the Norwegian royal family. Dennism Royal House of Norway 78 11-22-2012 08:04 AM
General News & Information: Prince Albert & Princess Charlene 1: July 2011 - Feb.2012 iceflower Prince Albert, Princess Charlene and Family 843 03-01-2012 03:38 AM




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima 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 05:39 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]