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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anyway, I was just over on the DoY's thread and read in an article link where he is being criticized (again) that Sarah only received 300,000 pounds in their divorce settlement and now he's sold their home and gotten 15 million pounds, but isn't sharing. Is it just me, or is that just wrong? I'm very disappointed in Andrew's behavior and I feel quite badly for Sarah. No wonder whe wanted out of this family.
It might be just you. When I left my ex husband, I left him the house and came out with 13K, which is what I went in with, a little trust fund I was left. He went on to sell the house and make some serious dough, and then snorted a lot of the proceeds up his nose (which was where my other trust fund went!)--but the point is, why whine about it? What's done is done. 300,000 is a good chunk of change and she got to stay in the house as well with servants to help with the child care. She got tools to make money and her life work. She used them. I think the past is the past in this case, move on.
 
At this point, perhaps Sarah has more personal money than Andrew has.
 
Anyway, I was just over on the DoY's thread and read in an article link where he is being criticized (again) that Sarah only received 300,000 pounds in their divorce settlement and now he's sold their home and gotten 15 million pounds, but isn't sharing. Is it just me, or is that just wrong? I'm very disappointed in Andrew's behavior and I feel quite badly for Sarah. No wonder whe wanted out of this family.

I can't see any reason the the Duke of York needs to share any profit out of the supposed 15 million pounds with his ex-wife. According to some articles the home was owned by the Queen until 2000 when she signed it over to Andrew, well after the divorce. I can't see that Sarah would have any claim on a gift to Andrew from his mother at that stage. That is, if the transfer of ownership is true anyway. I always thought it was owned by the Crown Estates.
 
I don't necessarily think that Duke needs to share proceeds of the sale of the house (an article link hinted that he should)--I'm just surprised that Sarah only received 300.000 pounds in the divorce settlement. Then, the Queen signs the house over to Andrew and he clears 15 million pounds on it. It makes me see Sarah in a new, more respectful light than I did.

I don't think it is justme, and while I know that 300,000 pounds seems like a lot--but in the British Royal Family it really isn't all that much. Diana received a huge settlement--now, Sarah wasn't married to the heir, but she was in the family. It really just surprised me. However, I did read somewhere today (in the Duke of York thread) that Sarah earns more than him, so it all turned out well enough, I suppose. I will say that Sarah is much nicer than I am--
 
I recall reading somewhere (don't ask where as I can't remember) that HM paid off Sarah's overdraft at the time of the divorce, which may account for her "small" settlement. Alas, after the divorce, she ran up another huge overdraft, housing, clothing, etc. It was then she and the girls moved back into Sunninghill with Andrew, and before she became the spokesperson for Weight Watchers. Please note this is from memory and may not be entirely accurate.

Cat
 
I don't necessarily think that Duke needs to share proceeds of the sale of the house (an article link hinted that he should)--I'm just surprised that Sarah only received 300.000 pounds in the divorce settlement. Then, the Queen signs the house over to Andrew and he clears 15 million pounds on it. It makes me see Sarah in a new, more respectful light than I did.

I don't think it is justme, and while I know that 300,000 pounds seems like a lot--but in the British Royal Family it really isn't all that much. Diana received a huge settlement--now, Sarah wasn't married to the heir, but she was in the family. It really just surprised me. However, I did read somewhere today (in the Duke of York thread) that Sarah earns more than him, so it all turned out well enough, I suppose. I will say that Sarah is much nicer than I am--
I think because Diana took a much more public role than Sarah did I think they all expected Sarah to just go away, that Diana received more. Also Prince Charles has his Duchy of Cornwall so he has a LOT more money than Andrew ever has had.
 
That's why Charles had to borrow money from his mother to pay part of the divorce settlement. :D
 
That's why Charles had to borrow money from his mother to pay part of the divorce settlement. :D
This is hypothetical, but I would imagine that Charles didn't want to sell any assets to pay Diana. Also, Mumsy gives better interest rates than the bank! :D
 
I recall reading somewhere (don't ask where as I can't remember) that HM paid off Sarah's overdraft at the time of the divorce, which may account for her "small" settlement. Alas, after the divorce, she ran up another huge overdraft, housing, clothing, etc. It was then she and the girls moved back into Sunninghill with Andrew, and before she became the spokesperson for Weight Watchers. Please note this is from memory and may not be entirely accurate.

Cat

I don't know HOW I could have neglected to remember that HM paid off a lot of Sarah's overdrafts (wasn't Sarah still in debt after the divorce??)--
I'm getting fuzzy headed in my old age!
Then, I reverse my previous statement--Sarah probably got a good deal after all---
 
I think because Diana took a much more public role than Sarah did I think they all expected Sarah to just go away, that Diana received more. Also Prince Charles has his Duchy of Cornwall so he has a LOT more money than Andrew ever has had.

I think the main reason that Sarah got less was that she was the wife of the second son. In a system of primogeniture the first son gets the majority of the assets (like you said i.e., Duchy of Cornwall) while the rest get peanuts. Andrew's income has always been minuscule compared to Charles'.

The debts I think were a small part of the equation. The Queen may have been irritated by them but she wasn't really inconvenienced by them either.
 
From an April 1997 promo for a (then) upcoming interview w/Sarah:

'I'm not going back to Andrew - I'd like to start dating'.
'I don't know where the money went - It just went. I don't even like shopping'.
'I don't want to be commercial but I have to be'.
'I find every day very, very difficult'.
How she prefers the likes of Marks & Spencer and Levis to designer clothing.
How she has to continue working to clear her debts and settle a major tax bill.

A NY TIMES article about how the queen did not bail Sarah out of her debts:
CHRONICLE - New York Times
 
From an April 1997 promo for a (then) upcoming interview w/Sarah:

'I'm not going back to Andrew - I'd like to start dating'.
'I don't know where the money went - It just went. I don't even like shopping'.
'I don't want to be commercial but I have to be'.
'I find every day very, very difficult'.
How she prefers the likes of Marks & Spencer and Levis to designer clothing.
How she has to continue working to clear her debts and settle a major tax bill.

A NY TIMES article about how the queen did not bail Sarah out of her debts:
CHRONICLE - New York Times
I've said it before: Sarah's a Libra, if this doesn't demonstrate the scales tipping back and forth, I don't know what does!!
 
I can't see any reason the the Duke of York needs to share any profit out of the supposed 15 million pounds with his ex-wife. According to some articles the home was owned by the Queen until 2000 when she signed it over to Andrew, well after the divorce. I can't see that Sarah would have any claim on a gift to Andrew from his mother at that stage. That is, if the transfer of ownership is true anyway. I always thought it was owned by the Crown Estates.
The party was held at a £10m home the Queen gave Prince Andrew and his former wife Sarah Ferguson as a wedding gift in 1986.
Princess In 'Boozy Birthday Rave' |Sky News|UK News
Sunninghill Park, near Ascot, was a wedding present from the Queen in 1986.
Airmiles Andy racks up £100,000 private jet bill for taxpayers (after selling his house for £15 million) | the Daily Mail
The 12-bedroom home, which is located just on the outskirts of Windsor Great Park, was given to the former couple as a wedding gift
Last Transaction Hero - Forbes.com
Sunninghill Park - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:flowers::flowers:
 
I think its fair to say that despite the claims by the newspapers that the couple didn't have joint ownership of the house. If they had, Sarah would have gotten half the proceeds from the sale.

That's not that unusual. My parents left a house to my brother - not to my brother and his wife.

Also Sarah mentioned that when she moved back to Sunninghill after the divorce, it was hardly a cushy situation; she was in the maid's quarters. If I had had half ownership of a house, there would be no way that I would stay in the maid's quarters.
 
Last edited:
I think its fair to say that despite the claims by the newspapers that the couple didn't have joint ownership of the house. If they had, Sarah would have gotten half the proceeds from the sale.

That's not that unusual. My parents left a house to my brother - not to my brother and his wife.

Also Sarah mentioned that when she moved back to Sunninghill after the divorce, it was hardly a cushy situation; she was in the maid's quarters. If I had had half ownership of a house, there would be no way that I would stay in the maid's quarters.
No it is not unusual for the house to be given on the occasion of a marriage, but with an understanding that as it was a gift from his parents, in the event of adultery she would not have a claim on it. The marriage and divorce were before equal rights for women and it would probably have just been his name on the deeds.

It is also possible that when discussing the divorce settlement, she signed the property over as she would not be able to afford the upkeep, especially as she was already in serious debt.
 
No it is not unusual for the house to be given on the occasion of a marriage, but with an understanding that as it was a gift from his parents, in the event of adultery she would not have a claim on it. The marriage and divorce were before equal rights for women and it would probably have just been his name on the deeds.

It is also possible that when discussing the divorce settlement, she signed the property over as she would not be able to afford the upkeep, especially as she was already in serious debt.

I see that the Wikipedia link states that the house was built on land purchased for the Queen from the Crown Estate. That must be the connection I had in mind before about the Crown Estate owning it.

According to this article in regard to the property "The Queen retained ownership until 2000, four years after the Yorks divorced, when she signed it over to Andrew."
Link to Article
 
I see that the Wikipedia link states that the house was built on land purchased for the Queen from the Crown Estate. That must be the connection I had in mind before about the Crown Estate owning it.

According to this article in regard to the property "The Queen retained ownership until 2000, four years after the Yorks divorced, when she signed it over to Andrew."
Link to Article
Aha! That's what I was thinking when I wrote what I wrote! :cool:
 
Sarah Ferguson turned back the clock as she revisited her eighties fashion past in London last night.

The Duchess of York, 48, flashed her legs in daring black opaque patterned tights with a rose motif

Back to the eighties: Fergie revisits her fashion past with racy patterned tights | the Daily Mail


Oh Skydragon--what a hoot! I love the photos of Sarah from the 80's in the fruit hat, the polka dot dress, etc...with the caption below saying that the DUchess was known for her elegant taste! Such sarcasm!
I will say though, that Sarah has "come a long way, baby" since then, but I stand by a previous post where I suggested that perhaps Sarah had found a sale on ugly patterned stockings--I think these are the worst.
 
Yikes! That was a mistake. :ROFLMAO:

One day she'll surprise us all. She'll appear at an evening event dressed really elegantly, with a nicely cut dress of an appropriate length, not too tight or low cut but still showing off her nice shape, with tasteful accessories and and wearing ordinary stockings and standing up straight, and with her hair worn up in a French roll or something else chic.

:prettyplease:
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to hold my breath and would somebody turn "TAINTED LOVE" off???
Whaddareyou? Stuck in the '80's???










:D
 
Actually, I think that's why Sarah was "shuved" out of the fold...no one wanted to be seen beside the travelling circus that was the Duchess of York...:D

I mean, the woman even made a tiata look bad! How on EARTH can anyone make a tiara look bad?.lol. I don't know, but she did it!

I respect her, quite a lot, and think she's no doubt a top lady, but she has no idea!!!
 
Last edited:
Come to think of it, did anyone feel oblliged to tell her that It's A Royal Knock Out wasn't an ongoing series?...
 
Last edited:
Oh, she really made a tiara look bad (well, except on her wedding day--she looked lovelyl)--but who can forget that hideous Southern-belle purple gown she wore with the tiara--I mean,SHUDDER SHUDDER. I was embarassed for her. I can't find a pic--anyone????
I thought it was in that article SkyDragon posted???
 
Yes, it is true that Sarah has no taste. But, I have seen the queen dressed in what looks like a white bag, with a tiara, and, if you did not respect her, she is no fashion plate, either. Actually, she often looks better today than for many years, when she just looked frumpy. And Princess Anne wore a cape at King Haakon's birthday that made her look like a bagpipe. Anne has a stunning figure, but her dress sense is lacking, too. It just isn't garish. How could Sarah ever put on some of that junk, I don't know. I, think, she had advisors, but, they may have had no taste, either. And, jcbcode99, Andrew doesn't looked embarassed, he looks befuddled. He could have told his wife, that doesn't become you. The gown didn't arrive 5 minutes before they left. Sarah is an easy target. Today's picture is just as bad as the others.
 
Yes, it is true that Sarah has no taste. But, I have seen the queen dressed in what looks like a white bag, with a tiara, and, if you did not respect her, she is no fashion plate, either. Actually, she often looks better today than for many years, when she just looked frumpy. And Princess Anne wore a cape at King Haakon's birthday that made her look like a bagpipe. Anne has a stunning figure, but her dress sense is lacking, too. It just isn't garish. How could Sarah ever put on some of that junk, I don't know. I, think, she had advisors, but, they may have had no taste, either. And, jcbcode99, Andrew doesn't looked embarassed, he looks befuddled. He could have told his wife, that doesn't become you. The gown didn't arrive 5 minutes before they left. Sarah is an easy target. Today's picture is just as bad as the others.

Andrew has the same look on his face that my husband had when I tried to get into a pair of pre-pregnancy jeans. It couldn't have been pretty for him to see, I must admit.:eek:
But, Countess, you make an excellent and often overlooked point--Sarah is an easy target. She certainly looks better today than she did in the past--but she still never looks right or together, do you know what I mean? There have been times when she looks fantastic, but that is when she is something simple and tailored with minimal extra stuff. I think Sarah likes to have fun and that she thinks that reflects in her clothing choices--I do feel badly for her. She just can't get it right--
and those stockings--enough already. Poor Russophile is going to go blind!
 
Oh, she really made a tiara look bad (well, except on her wedding day--she looked lovelyl)--but who can forget that hideous Southern-belle purple gown she wore with the tiara--I mean,SHUDDER SHUDDER. I was embarassed for her. To illustrate my point:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4096&d=1050009510 I mean, really, even Andrew is looking pretty embarassed!


Andrew did not look embarrassed. He was smiling goofily as usual. As for Sarah's gown, well, as a woman who matured during the '80s, I can state with undeniable horror that we had a rather large and unfortunate affinity for puffy satiny gowns that didn't look good on anyone. I can offer a glimpse of my bridesmaids in my wedding album to anyone that wants to see how poofy satin gowns make fashion disasters of any woman regardless of waist size. I'm amazed that they still talk to me today.:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom