Sarah, Duchess of York Current Events 10: November 2007-February 2008

[ysbel]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 Family but she can avoid tittletattle about the royals.

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.

I didn't see anything forced or insecure about Sarah's early behavior and from what I read of the impression she gave to others, I don't remember anyone saying that she seemed insecure even the people who knew her when she was with Paddy McNally. Before they were married, Diana had actually looked up to Sarah as the more confident one. She seemed brash but comfortable in her brashness and gave the impression that she knew what she wanted and went out for it. And unlike Diana, I didn't see her blame the royal family for the failure in her marriage. From what I remember, Sarah said that she simply wasn't cut out to be royal.

In fact Sarah's story reminds me a little of Pamela Harriman's. Pamela was a daughter of the country aristocracy who as long as she was in the country had an amazing self-confidence and pluckiness, but when her mother brought her to London, she was a flop on the debutante circle and in society because she was considered a little too ungainly looking and acting and a little uncouth and she ended up marrying Randolph Churchill who although he was the son of Winston Churchill was considered to be somewhat of a loser. Pamela had an amazing cofidence as long as she was in her element, the country but as soon as she got to society, her insecurities showed and she wasted her time and energy trying to get someone else's approval.

Sarah reminds me like that.

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.

No I think at the beginning she was just being realistic. Being realistic about what your options are does not equal being weak. The royal connections were her biggest sellable asset and she had to get out of debt. She has more options now.

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.

Well I think she needs to make it on her own but I think dropping all mention of the Royal family would mean she would simply stop acquiesing to one mob (the mob that wants to use her connections) and she'd start acquiescing to another mob who simply wants to forget she ever existed. She needs to break the ties but I don't think that building her self-esteem will happen if Sarah lets herself disappear to make some people happy. Abasing yourself to avoid annoying others is hardly the route to a healthy self-esteem.

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"

Well I admit I prefer my quote better than yours, Janet. I don't think Sarah harmed the royal family much. I remember after the separation when an American reporter asked a British royalty expert whether the Sarah debacle had hurt the monarchy. The expert say, No because no one considers Sarah a royal anymore so whatever happens to her can't touch us. I think that was a fair statement. Of course Andrew suffered but Andrew is not the entire royal family. I think the royal family can survive Sarah even despite Andrew's pain.

 

[Russophile]

In fact Sarah's story reminds me a little of Pamela Harriman's. Pamela was a daughter of the country aristocracy who as long as she was in the country had an amazing self-confidence and pluckiness, but when her mother brought her to London, she was a flop on the debutante circle and in society because she was considered a little too ungainly looking and acting and a little uncouth and she ended up marrying Randolph Churchill who although he was the son of Winston Churchill was considered to be somewhat of a loser. Pamela had an amazing cofidence as long as she was in her element, the country but as soon as she got to society, her insecurities showed and she wasted her time and energy trying to get someone else's approval.

Sarah reminds me like that.

Miss Pam was also a husband stealer Lady Keith's second LeLand Hayward. The quote Lady Keith gave (a.k.a. "Slim") "Pam Churchill? Pam Churchill! nobody MARRIES Pam Churchill!"

 

[ZaJa]

Honest question, does anyone like her on this forum?

 

[Russophile]

Hmmm. Let me think about that.
Okay.
No.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I both like and respect her, and that hasn't always been the case. She has taken a life that was in tatters and has made something useful out of it.She doesn't hold grudges. She has an excellent relationship with her children, who appear to adore her. Her bond with Prince Andrew is remarkable, everyone should handle a divorce the way those two have. I wish they had stayed married, because I believe that they are soulmates.

I don't like all the shilling for Weight Watchers and the other stuff, but hey. If she needed money and the BRF were willing to foist her off without any she is doing what she has to do to stay solvent. She is not hurting anybody, and she has made a decent life for herself. So good for her.

 

[skhaynie]

Honest question, does anyone like her on this forum?

I like her, quite a bit actually. I like her more now, than when she first married Prince Andrew. IMO, if she'd been allowed to live in base housing, or whatever it is called in the UK, near Andrew, when they first married, their marriage might have lasted. If she hadn't been immediately immersed in a round of patronages and Royal duties, but allowed to be a wife, first, then a "Royal", their marriage might have survived.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I like her, quite a bit actually. I like her more now, than when she first married Prince Andrew. IMO, if she'd been allowed to live in base housing, or whatever it is called in the UK, near Andrew, when they first married, their marriage might have lasted. If she hadn't been immediately immersed in a round of patronages and Royal duties, but allowed to be a wife, first, then a "Royal", their marriage might have survived.

I completely agree. So much of the early criticism about her was baseless and petty, IMO. So what if she wanted to take a holiday alone with Andrew when Princess Beatrice was still an infant?? Since when is it unusual for Royal and aristo Moms to leave their children with a nurse? I read that when JFK Jr was six weeks old and Caroline was three their mother sent them to Palm Beach with their nanny for almost a month because the White House was being renovated and she(Jackie) didn't want them around until the nursery was completed....no one thought this was unusual and by all accounts the children came out fine! But no...just because Diana toted Prince William to Australia with her(which she later admitted as a huge mistake) it meant that unless Sarah did the same thing with her kids she was a rotten mother.

I was so angry at the Press and public over that incident, and I still am as you can see!

 

[ysbel]

Hmmm. Let me think about that.
Okay.
No.

Are you pretending to speak for everyone in the forum Russophile?

Actually when I think about royals, I don't think in terms of like or dislike. Its a matter of fitting into their role. I don't hold Sarah up to a royal standard because she's not a royal anymore and so some of the criticisms I would have had of her are no longer relevant.

Diana didn't fit into the Royal Family and she didn't go well together with Charles. Sarah didn't fit into the Royal Family but she was able to have a good relationship with Andrew all things considering. The women had scars to prove it; Diana ended up losing her life; Sarah ended up broke a hefty beating to her self esteem but with a good relationship with her ex-husband, and able to get herself back on her feet again so in the long run, I think all things considering I'd rather be in Sarah's shoes right now than Diana's. At least she is around to see her children grow old and she can find a new life for herself.

Does that mean I like her? Well she'd probably annoy me if she started to talk nonsense neo-healing which she is very fond of and I wouldn't like to go with her someplace quiet and refined but I could see where she would be good company and a lot of fun at the proper occasion.

 

[Roslyn]

I like her.

I think she's straightforward and honest. Although she has made some monumental blunders she admits it and doesn't blame others for her woes. She accepted her situation, faced her challenges and moved on and did what she needed to to get out of her financial difficulties. She has managed her divorce and relationship with her former husband better than most, and has raised two daughters who adore her. I think she's done rather well.

 

[judith14011]

I have mixed feelings about Sarah. I used to love her - then I lost respect for her when her ego (and it was huge) emerged around the time of her affairs and subsequent break up of her marriage. I relunctantly admired her as she struggled back on her feet but now I believe that she is ultimately a user. It is clear to me that she desperately wants to be remarried to Andrew. I am also dubious of her constant and ceaseless claims about her wonderful parenting skills. God forbid it if those girls fall off the pedestal she has but them (and herself) on in this area. She has made them so vulnerable with her own pathology. I can't see her ever letting go of them in a healthy way.

 

[rmay286]

I have mixed feelings about Sarah too, but in a different way. I like her. I don't generally "like" or "dislike" people most of the time, let alone people in the royal family...just try to understand them and evaluate them based on what life has handed them and how they've dealt with their abilities and experiences, positive or negative. But there are definitely some people in the royal family that I tend to like or dislike more than others. Sarah is one of those I like (though technically she's not a member of the royal family anymore). My mixed feelings about her come from the choices she makes. Because I like her...and can't really explain why other than that maybe I have the sense that she's a childlike person at heart, naive and somehow incapable of ever completely hiding her true self under a false persona...but because I like her, I find myself rooting for her.

In the past I've seen her as a naturally unrestrained personality who impetuously made bad choices, and was unnecessarily castigated by the media for this despite her recognition of her own mistakes and her attempts to change. And she's been criticized for things that she can't change, like her appearance and personality. At these times, I've sympathized with Sarah. At other times...like right now...I just get impatient with her because I think she hasn't really learned from her mistakes. She's trying to over-compensate for her youthful failures--trying to be a goal-driven, confident, sexy 18 year-old because she probably thinks she wasted her youth being insecure about her weight and making rash impulsive decisions. The thing is, the person she's trying to be just isn't natural for a 48 year-old, and it isn't Sarah. It's some persona she's trying to adopt to fit other people's expectations as far as I'm concerned (she claims she's learned not to be a 'pleaser' but I sometimes get the sense Sarah's bending over backwards to fit some mold she's fixated on) and I don't think it's doing herself, or her daughters, any good.

 

[jcbcode99]

. . .I just get impatient with her because I think she hasn't really learned from her mistakes. She's trying to over-compensate for her youthful failures--trying to be a goal-driven, confident, sexy 18 year-old because she probably thinks she wasted her youth being insecure about her weight and making rash impulsive decisions. The thing is, the person she's trying to be just isn't natural for a 48 year-old, and it isn't Sarah. It's some persona she's trying to adopt to fit other people's expectations as far as I'm concerned (she claims she's learned not to be a 'pleaser' but I sometimes get the sense Sarah's bending over backwards to fit some mold she's fixated on) and I don't think it's doing herself, or her daughters, any good.

Well, well, WELL said! I completely agree!

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I strongly disagree that she wants to be remarried to Andrew! I think it's quite the opposite, that he has never gotten over her.

Why would Sarah want to be back in the BRF? She must know that she has burned her bridges there...she is financially independent and can pretty much do or see whomever she wants.

This would NOT be the case if she was Andrew's wife again.

I do think she is still in love with him, though. I saw photos of her dressing room and it is a shrine to him...more pictures of him than of her children. And she still wears her ruby engagement ring.

 

[normalil]

I truly admire her for the way she has got herself back onto her feet, socially and financially. Also for the way that she and Andrew and their children are so close. Her loyalty to the Queen deserves praise too.

 

[jcbcode99]

I agree that she got back on her feet herself and managed to take care of herself and I also think that they way she and Andrew have conducted themselves (regarding remaining friends after a divorce) is a wonderful model for how people should strive to behave for the sake of the children. And, I also think her loyalty to the Queen is admirable as well. BUT, I don't care for her buddy buddy attitude with the girls--it makes for undisciplined, spoiled children with no direction.

As for Sarah wanting to be married to Andrew again--I'm not so sure. I think he still loves her-he positively beams when she is around--and I'm sure she still loves him, too. They have a good history together--perphaps they will one day remarry, perhaps not, but I do like the way they continue to interact with each other.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I agree that she got back on her feet herself and managed to take care of herself and I also think that they way she and Andrew have conducted themselves (regarding remaining friends after a divorce) is a wonderful model for how people should strive to behave for the sake of the children. And, I also think her loyalty to the Queen is admirable as well. BUT, I don't care for her buddy buddy attitude with the girls--it makes for undisciplined, spoiled children with no direction.

As for Sarah wanting to be married to Andrew again--I'm not so sure. I think he still loves her-he positively beams when she is around--and I'm sure she still loves him, too. They have a good history together--perphaps they will one day remarry, perhaps not, but I do like the way they continue to interact with each other.

I absolutely agree that Andrew lights up around Sarah. But I don't think they will EVER remarry while the Duke of Edinburgh is still alive...I understand that he loathes Sarah.

Sarah's children seem to be the most "normal" and least spoiled of all the children in the British Royal Family. Unlike with Diana's boys and with Freddie Windsor, you never hear about wild partying and problems with drugs. (Even though Lord Frederick appears to have calmed down a bit)

Beatrice and Eugenie strike me as almost old-fashioned wall flower types...they dress MUCH too old for girls so young and attractive, IMO.