Sarah, Duchess of York Current Events 13: October 2008-February 2009

[Zonk]

Wow!

Its been a while since I have visited this particular thread, I saw a post from Elspeth when I clicked the new posts icon, and I see NOTHING has changed. Not one bit.

Let me add, that I too used to be a regular Sarah poster/reader and decided quite a while ago that I had enough. I am not looking for a Sarah Fan Club thread, on the contrary if you have read any of my previous posts you will see that I acknolwedge Sarah's flaws. But to echo some of the other mods/admins...its gotten quite nasty and quite frankly, not a nice place to visit.

I wonder how many other members have been turned off by the tone of this thread? No one is looking for a feel good, always praising Sarah thread. But would it hurt to have a little balance?

 

[misselle]

Wow!

Its been a while since I have visited this particular thread, I saw a post from Elspeth when I clicked the new posts icon, and I see NOTHING has changed. Not one bit.

Let me add, that I too used to be a regular Sarah poster/reader and decided quite a while ago that I had enough. I am not looking for a Sarah Fan Club thread, on the contrary if you have read any of my previous posts you will see that I acknolwedge Sarah's flaws. But to echo some of the other mods/admins...its gotten quite nasty and quite frankly, not a nice place to visit.

I wonder how many other members have been turned off by the tone of this thread? No one is looking for a feel good, always praising Sarah thread. But would it hurt to have a little balance?

I agree;we can get a bit catty here.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I find that the cattiness against Sarah also applies to Beatrice and Eugenie. It's always been open season on Sarah, and I hope that her daughters won't go through their lives with the same kind of relentless criticism.

 

[Menarue]

I think that the main problem here is that in the US a person like Sarah is admired, feisty isn´t that what you say? In Europe being "feisty" isn´t such a good adjective to attach to a member of the royal family.
Not all criticism is what you call "catty",
the word catty is used by children at school when someone says something they don´t like.
Sarah seems to be making a good living in the US, good for her, IMHO she could never have done it anywhere else, she has even recovered her "The".
I hope her two daughters do go through their lives without criticism and the best way for them to do this is not to provoke it.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

No one is looking for a feel good, always praising Sarah thread. But would it hurt to have a little balance?

That is really difficult for me, I must confess. Sarah did two things that in their combination appalled me: she confessed in her autobiography that a lot of the wrong-doings she did were motivated by greed and she had affairs with men who could help her financially though she was married at that time. That together in my personal book are characteristics of a hooker.

The way she still uses her connections to the RF is thus unacceptable. Okay, there a nice hookers around and I don't have a general prejudice against women who work that way. Many are motivated by need or find themselves in a situation they can't handle without help. But Sarah had married into the most prestigious family of her homecountry and could at least have handled her affairs and her financial dealings a bit more discreet. But she didn't and thus I find her beyond the pale. IMHO, of course.

 

[Menarue]

Jo said what I am sure many people are thinking (not the ostrich people). I couldn´t have put it better, there isn´t much good to be said about a person who was so high but stooped so low and in doing so caused such damage to the BRF.

 

[Zonk]

Here's the thing. No one is Not saying that she didn't do those things.

Yes, she cheated in her marriage but guess what Andrew forgave her. And honestly, doesn't he have the right to be more angry than anyone else on this board that she broke her marriage vows?

Yes, she let down the British Royal Family and the people of Britain but guess what other than Prince Phillip, it appears that most of the BRF has moved on from that. She gets on with the Queen, and shouldn't they be the ones holding a grudge?

I don't think balance is a hard thing to do.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion but really, as Warren said...why are we still rehashing things that happened like fifteen years ago? Not to be funny, but does everyone do that in their personal lives, or do you ever move on?

I am not going to go back and forth defending Sarah about the events that happened fifteen years ago. I will pop in a couple of weeks/months to see if anything is changed. Someone how I don't think it will.

 

[Menarue]

I am fine with forgetting the past, now what are the wonderful things that Sarah is doing at this moment? Has she found another book she can write?
Is she still representing Weight Watchers or is she now just watching her weight?
She is naturally well endowed as Sky said once and there is nothing wrong with that so that is not a criticism just a query.
What IS she doing? Did anything positive happen after her raid on the orphanage?
Was she invited to the BRF Christmas or did she stay nearby as she has done for years?

 

[Skydragon]

Yes, she let down the British Royal Family and the people of Britain but guess what other than Prince Phillip, it appears that most of the BRF has moved on from that. She gets on with the Queen, and shouldn't they be the ones holding a grudge?

I can't say that I have seen a statement from HM to say she has forgiven Sarah or that she has moved on! Many Brits, IMO feel Sarah is where she deserves to be - out of the country, those that know who she is that is.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion but really, as Warren said...why are we still rehashing things that happened like fifteen years ago? Not to be funny, but does everyone do that in their personal lives, or do you ever move on?

Most people do not just forget it all and 'move on', at least not in my experience, even on this forum between posters.
-------------------
To answer Menarues question over the orphanages, there has been nothing in the news that I can see and I am sure that we would have an update if there had been any. I wonder what happened about her promise of help to the Gypsies, in view of the reaction from the Turkish Government?

 

[Menarue]

A good question, I wonder what did happen. I agree that the best place for Sarah is out of the country and I too, have never seen that the HM has forgiven her or even that Prince Andrew has, he has helped her and supported her when she has been in dire straits but that doesn´t mean he has forgiven her it just means that he is loyal to the mother of his daughters.

 

[Elspeth]

How do you know it doesn't mean he has forgiven her? It might mean it, but it might not. Obviously you haven't forgiven her, but that's a different matter.

For people asking about what good she's doing these days, I'll refer you to this thread, which I took a fair bit of time and trouble over so I hope it isn't being ignored. And please don't let's get into "oh, well, she doesn't actually mean it, it's just a way of grabbing headlines," because a lot of people are getting heartily fed up with all this mind-reading. As I said a few posts ago, and as Warren very eloquently pointed out, this sort of group moralising very often says more about the group doing the moralising than about the object of the derision.

 

[kimebear]

A good question, I wonder what did happen. I agree that the best place for Sarah is out of the country and I too, have never seen that the HM has forgiven her or even that Prince Andrew has, he has helped her and supported her when she has been in dire straits but that doesn´t mean he has forgiven her it just means that he is loyal to the mother of his daughters.

Let's be honest here. Say what you will, but you really can't believe that the very cordial relationship that Sarah and Andrew have maintained all these years is just based on "help" and "support for her dire straits", do you? I think it really irks some here to see them have such a close relationship, something difficult to handle during an amicable divorce and nigh impossible when there was adultery. Sarah's detractors would rather see her shunned in society with a scarlet letter hanging around her neck than to see them very successfully navigate a tough family dynamic.

Most people do not just forget it all and 'move on', at least not in my experience, even on this forum between posters.

Well it wouldn't hurt to try. After all, Sarah is not the only woman to have held the title of Duchess that has needed some forgiving for her actions.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I think of "cattiness" in this context as being the particular kinds of put-downs that women heap on other women: they're often criticisms of rather superficial things--dress, makeup--or else they're judgements based on the appearance of things, not on substance.

I perhaps have a different view of Sarah than folks in the US, because at one point she was a member of our Royal Family. This was at a time when it was possible that Prince Andrew could have become Regent if anything happened to both the Queen and Prince Charles. So yes, I understand the embarrassment she's caused to people who like their Royals to be dignified.

Sarah, though, was criticized as soon as the post-wedding hoopla died down. She was lambasted for her weight, for her clothes, for the decorations she wore in her hair. This in spite of the fact that she was during her duty as the Duchess of York by attending charity events and putting on her tiara as needed.

I'm bothered my the criticisms that are levelled at Beatrice because she has large eyes and tends to keep her mouth open. She inherited her eyes, and perhaps she has a nasal problem. My problem isn't with honest criticism of Beatrice and Eugenie's behaviour--or indeed of their mother's--it's the nitpicking about superficial things that bothers me.

I think that the main problem here is that in the US a person like Sarah is admired, feisty isn´t that what you say? In Europe being "feisty" isn´t such a good adjective to attach to a member of the royal family.
Not all criticism is what you call "catty",
the word catty is used by children at school when someone says something they don´t like.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Well it wouldn't hurt to try. After all, Sarah is not the only woman to have held the title of Duchess that has needed some forgiving for her actions.

I know who you mean but for me it really makes a difference if somebody is a member of the RF or not. When Camilla commited adultery, she was a private person. Since she is a member of the RF she has behaved dignified and not commited any offense, moral or otherwise. There are things that for members of Royal families are simply no-nos im my opinion and Sarah commited them. Sarah said in her book that she accepted the divorce because life as a member of the RF wasn't what she wanted and how she could finance the lifestyle she wanted - that's okay. But then she should not use her RF-connections the way she does.

 

[kimebear]

But you are holding her to such a double standard, Jo. You say that it was okay for Camilla because she was a private person. Charles wasn't. He very much wasn't a private person. Are you saying that it is only the women who should be held to a higher standard? Or only former commoners? Shouldn't it be the royals themselves that should set the example?

 

[Mermaid1962]

I wonder if anyone has done a study on how often Sarah brings up her Royal connections in contrast to how often that connection is mentioned by her interviewer? Would she talk about Prince Andrew or the York girls as much if people weren't interested in asking about them? I'm not asking as pro- or anti-Sarah.

But then she should not use her RF-connections the way she does.

 

[Bonnie Bohde]

This is a quote from Sarah: "He said I must never say this, but he said, 'We are divorced to each other, not from each other.' We are the happiest unmarried couple."

Any ideas on what this actually means?

I think it means that, while their marriage did not ork, their divorce is proceeding swimmingly.
Bonnie B., Arizona USA

 

[Jo of Palatine]

But you are holding her to such a double standard, Jo. You say that it was okay for Camilla because she was a private person. Charles wasn't. He very much wasn't a private person. Are you saying that it is only the women who should be held to a higher standard? Or only former commoners? Shouldn't it be the royals themselves that should set the example?

I think I mentioned before that I believe Charles' statement that he only started anew with Camilla when his marriage had "irrevocably broken down" - it's okay in that case to accept a new relationship - I'm not going for the church's rule: once married, always married. Or think of Alexandra and Joachim of Denmark: both behaved very dignified, ended their marriage and found another love.

What bothers me is that Sarah is still a "friend" of Andrew, even though she cheated on him. Call me old-fashioned, but I really believe that only a new, real love should be a reason to quit a marriage when neither of the spouses are abusers of the other. Maybe it has to do with "Keeping the cake while eating it" - I believe in the "For better, for worse" - and in clean cuts that allow people to move on.

 

[Bella]

The truth is, unless any of us are within the tight inner circle of the RF, we have no clue as to what is really going on between HM and Sarah or even Andrew and Sarah. Just because people are not shown scowling at each other in photos doesn't mean it's all peachy. Andrew and Sarah have been photographed dining out and doing things w their daughters. He offered her a place in his palatial home when she needed a place. He has never publically put her down or commented on their divorce. That speaks of a gentleman to me (and says something of his caliber) and obviously someone who probably does have a certain measure of concern (and maybe) repsect for the mother of his children. Are they still madly in love? Who knows? Are they even "friends?" Who knows? No one on these threads, I'm sure. And while HM - from what we read - supposedly is more open and accepting of Sarah, does that mean she's welcomed her back into the folds of the RF? Sarah is the mother of two royal princesses who seem to adore her so as a grandmother I'm sure HM is considering her granddaughters' best interests, not Sarah's.

Sarah is not a dignified discreet woman. She had made and continues to make alot of very public mistakes. And, being in the public eye (a role she willingly accepted when she married P Andrew) she knows her words, actions, choice of clothes, etc. will generate public scrutiny and interest - it's the price one pays for fame. I don't think anyone here is being catty or hateful. I'm sorry, if Ice or someone posts a photo of her with a skirt hiked up to her naval I'll say I think she looks ridiculous. If she comes stumbling out of a club at 3am looking like yesterday's soup, I'll say how horrid she looks. If I think she's done something stupid I'll say I think she's done something stupid, that's what I thought these forums were for. I don't come here to attack her. I've said many positive things about her as well; her hair, her figure, certain styles of clothing, her visits to the hospitals where she seems to be genuine and really reaches out to people. I just tell it like it is - imo - good, bad or indifferent.

 

[udyusa]

Bravo Bella! I think you have spoken for many of us who feel the same way about Sarah, but lack your ability to put it into words without offending. The written word is always so different than the spoken and people sometimes do not take that into account either. You have made many excellent points in your post and I, for one, am grateful.

 

[kimebear]

I think I mentioned before that I believe Charles' statement that he only started anew with Camilla when his marriage had "irrevocably broken down" - it's okay in that case to accept a new relationship - I'm not going for the church's rule: once married, always married. Or think of Alexandra and Joachim of Denmark: both behaved very dignified, ended their marriage and found another love.

In my opinion, if a marriage is "irrevocably broken down", one waits until the divorce is final before carrying on with another. It's not only a church rule that defines adultery, it is a legal rule. It doesn't matter if the offender is a man or a woman, royal or non royal, it is still adultery. To condone it in one case, but not the other, is a double standard.

 

[scooter]

Exactly so, Kimebear. Well said.

 

[Mermaid1962]

That's what I believe as well. If a marriage is well and truly over and the people can't stand to be in each other's company or one or both people are abusing the other, divorce. But this, "Oh I feel in love while I was married and I just couldn't help myself...it was bigger than both of us," just doesn't wash. If a person is that attracted to someone, the marriage is over. Get divorced and then move on.

In my opinion, if a marriage is "irrevocably broken down", one waits until the divorce is final before carrying on with another. It's not only a church rule that defines adultery, it is a legal rule. It doesn't matter if the offender is a man or a woman, royal or non royal, it is still adultery. To condone it in one case, but not the other, is a double standard.

 

[udyusa]

So true, Mermaid. As my husband of 50 years has always said to me, "an affair Never just happens. You have to Allow it to happen". Truer words have never been spoken, imo.

 

[Skydragon]

Well it wouldn't hurt to try. After all, Sarah is not the only woman to have held the title of Duchess that has needed some forgiving for her actions.

Camilla was not a Duchess at the time and of course, she only committed adultery with the man she has now married, the same cannot be said of Sarah.

Most people do not just forget it all and 'move on', at least not in my experience, even on this forum between posters

However, I was not talking about Sarahs adultery when I wrote my post, just an observation on human nature and unlike many on here, I do not see adultery as a 'sin', just the breakdown of a relationship, but one that people can pass through with dignity and discretion. The suggestion of waiting till the divorce is finalised is all very well, divorce can take time, especially if one of the couple doesn't consent (5 years + court time), you are a long time dead.

It's not only a church rule that defines adultery, it is a legal rule.

It may be one of the reasons a person cites as the cause of the breakdown of their relationship but there is no law against it.

 

[Bella]

So true, Mermaid. As my husband of 50 years has always said to me, "an affair Never just happens. You have to Allow it to happen". Truer words have never been spoken, imo.

50 years, udyusa!? Wow, fantastic. You're an inspiration. My ex husband and I made it ten years at least. But there was no cheating - at least none I know of.

 

[Roslyn]

It may be one of the reasons a person cites as the cause of the breakdown of their relationship but there is no law against it.

I think it's still high treason in the UK to have sexual intercourse with the wife of the heir to the throne, but I think that's the only instance where adultery is illegal. I don't think a wronged spouse can bring an action for "criminal conversation" any longer.

 

[Mermaid1962]

This is an area in which we'll have to disagree.

I do not see adultery as a 'sin', just the breakdown of a relationship,

you are a long time dead.

From what I've heard, a person needs food, water, air, and shelter to survive.

 

[Skydragon]

This is an area in which we'll have to disagree.

That is not a problem.

From what I've heard, a person needs food, water, air, and shelter to survive.

Humans also need to love and be loved, to have companionship Most animals deprived of these things fail to prosper.

 

[Emeralds and Opals]

Sarah, Duchess of York reconsiders plan to publish 'racy' historical novel - Telegraph