Sarah, Duchess of York Current Events 15: October 2009-December 2010

[Patra]

Thank you for posting the entire article, I especially like the end where Fergie says,

"I'm just me and I'll never change. I always come out fighting."

She has such an honest, go get 'em attitude, which I've always admired about the Duchess. Additionally, I like how positively she speaks of Prince Andrew. She and her girls seem especially close to me.

 

[Wisteria]

"I'm just me and I'll never change. I always come out fighting.
]

Those are the words that Sarah used when she was first engaged and that was when it was said that a "breath of fresh air" was entering the royal family.
At the time I took it as meaning "I will always stay the nice simple person I am at the moment". The fighting part of this quote was not said at that time.
Unfortunately, instead of meaning the breath of fresh air it seemed to show stubborness, and it seemed she couldn´t manage to change from a carefree woman who had had already had a fairly long relationship , to the wife of a member of the British royal family. These words instead of a promise became just the opposite.
If she had given just a little, perhaps everything would have been almost perfect.
I am afraid that after she said these now famous words and on watching her wedding, when she walked down the aisle smiling and winking at people, I felt that perhaps it wasn´t going to be quite what I, at least, had taken her meaning to be.
She had everything going for her at the time.
Her debts aren´t only because of the recession, her spending ways began straight after her wedding and it is a bit like yo yo dieting, she tries and then relapses and lives beyond her means and the Queen said clearly she will not pick up the tabs.
I admire her for doing everything she can to pay her debts but if some of this fighting energy was spent avoiding getting into debt in the first place, it might be much better for her and her creditors.

 

[Skydragon]

I admire her for doing everything she can to pay her debts but if some of this fighting energy was spent avoiding getting into debt in the first place, it might be much better for her and her creditors.

I can't help but agree with you. She doesn't even run her own household and still can't manage not to get into debt. I have taken this from the Mail article -

It is understood that Hartmoor collapsed after the Duchess failed to land major endorsement deals and allegedly fell out with her majority business partner, US multi-millionaire investment banker Todd Morley, who was not her adviser

So perhaps not the innocent victim of bad advice as she makes out!

​

 

[Ukroyalist]

I've just read the Hello article and the Duchess hasn't been paid a penny for the article. She is an amazing woman. She looks fantastic at 50 and I'm so pleased her latest business deal looks set to make her fortune.

 

[Skydragon]

I take it you are referring to the hard copy Hello and not the online version.

How silly of the woman if she did it just for the publicity, the money could have gone towards paying her debts!

 

[Zonk]

But then she would have been accused of selling out on her name again.
Really, she can't win.

She does a free article to discuss the problem and she is criticized for not being smart with her business affairs (I think there a lot of people at this present time who can be accused of that). She didn't try to hide the problem by pretending it didn't happen or it doesn't exists.

Like many people in the business world, it appears that Sarah took a lot of risk with her "retirement" money. I can think of the Madoff victims to name some other recent ones. Its a shame that it didn't work out but that why some investments are called risky.

At least Sarah has the opporunity (with selling of her rights) to take care of her debts and try to get a solid footing. At her age, she needs to do a mix and mash of investments.

 

[Skydragon]

Whether she was paid or not, it was the Duchess of York name that got the article written. I don't see them offering a free publicity shot to a Madoff victim to explain why they have lost their money and can't pay their debts!

 

[rmay286]

I don't think the articles in Hello! Canada overlap with the ones in the British version of Hello, so I probably won't get to read the actual article; but from the online quotes, it sounds like Sarah had been enduring negative publicity for months and she finally decided to defend herself. What was she supposed to do? She could have kept her head down and let people think what they wanted to think, but these weren't one or two critical articles.

Ever since the Wythenshawe documentary, The Daily Mail has been producing several disparaging articles about Sarah per week, even if these are just a re-hash of old quotes/stories. And some of the stories they report are just not true at all. But Sarah doesn't have anyone in the media to defend her. At least with politics, there tend to be newspapers with different ideological slants--one newspaper will tend to be more generous to one party and more critical of another. But the papers that report about Sarah's activities tend to be tabloids or tabloid-based papers. Maybe that's partly Sarah's fault, maybe she goes to the wrong places for publicity when she wants her charitable causes to be taken seriously, and gets in the papers for the wrong reasons as a result; but there is no media outlet that sees Sarah's activities as "headline news" except the tabloids. And they can be merciless and stir up a lot of false rumours.

After an onslaught of the kind of negative press Sarah has been experiencing, I think most people would want to defend themselves. There were rumours that Sarah was bankrupt, and after what she went through in the 90s, I doubt Sarah would tolerate that kind of rumour if it wasn't true. There was also a story that she would be paid a lot of money for an exclusive with Hello!, but Ukroyalist has just said Sarah wasn't paid for the article.

If someone wrote false stories about me day after day and no one in the media bothered to check the facts and write a more balanced article in response, I would want to defend myself, too. Members of the royal family probably don't feel the same need to defend themselves against negative press because for one thing, they are used to it and know it goes with the territory; and also, they know that their status won't change after one negative article. Sarah doesn't have that kind of security. Yes, Sarah could just slink quietly off into the night and try to stay out of the media, but she supports causes that she thinks deserve media attention. Her only option then is to try to shift the direction of her publicity by telling her own side of the story, which is why she gave the interview to Hello!.

 

[rmay286]

Whether she was paid or not, it was the Duchess of York name that got the article written. I don't see them offering a free publicity shot to a Madoff victim to explain why they have lost their money and can't pay their debts!

A Madoff victim wouldn't have needed to give an interview to defend him or herself, because the papers wouldn't have been writing critical articles about him or her for weeks on end!

 

[Skydragon]

... And some of the stories they report are just not true at all. But Sarah doesn't have anyone in the media to defend her. --- ---
If someone wrote false stories about me day after day and no one in the media bothered to check the facts and write a more balanced article in response,

Are you seriously suggesting that every negative article about Sarah is solely from the Mail? Whether some of them are true or not, Sarah is hardly going to say 'yes, I owe these people money'. None of the papers IMO write 'false stories' about Sarah day after day, but when Sarah comes to the notice of the press, it is normally for doing something rather ill advised.

A Madoff victim wouldn't have needed to give an interview to defend him or herself, because the papers wouldn't have been writing critical articles about him or her for weeks on end!

Zonk compared her ill advised investment (matter of opinion as to whether that lost her the money) to a Madoff victim, hence the reply. You keep saying the press has been writing negative articles about her for weeks on end, can you link a few of these weekly negative untrue stories?

Instead of obtaining even more publicity for any and all media to dissect and point out her errors, ITO, she would have been better advised to keep her head down and pay off her debts. If Sarah didn't keep seeking publicity for herself, she wouldn't have the media writing anything about her!

 

[Ukroyalist]

The Mail seems to have a campaign against the whole York family. I've been saving recent articles as 'favourites' and you won't be able to find a positive story about any of the family that doesn't make some reference to the 'cost' of the family to tax payers.
If you live in the UK you'd understand that the mail has a reputation for writing cynical and pessimistic articles - in fact some of the opinions on here would fit perfectly into its rather billious pages...x

 

[rmay286]

The Mail seems to have a campaign against the whole York family. I've been saving recent articles as 'favourites' and you won't be able to find a positive story about any of the family that doesn't make some reference to the 'cost' of the family to tax payers.
If you live in the UK you'd understand that the mail has a reputation for writing cynical and pessimistic articles - in fact some of the opinions on here would fit perfectly into its rather billious pages...x

I don't live in the UK and I have come to understand that about the Daily Mail.

I don't mean to get too defensive about Sarah because I agree that she does make mistakes. But yes, papers--not just the Daily Mail, but mostly the Daily Mail--very often write stories about the Yorks that are based on untruths or half-truths. I'm sure they do it about other people/royals as well; I just probably don't notice because I don't know the actual facts. But I've followed the York family for a long time...probably since the year Andrew and Sarah divorced--and maybe that's why I instantly notice when something is printed that isn't true.

Just as a few examples:


1. "Sarah Ferguson is out in the cold once again after a fresh snub from the Royal Family. Although her daughters are currently holidaying with the Queen at Balmoral, the 49-year-old Duchess of York has been excluded."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1214696/Royals-loose-cannon-Fergie-freezer-exclude-Balmoral-holiday.html

Actually, Beatrice and Eugenie weren't at Balmoral but in Toronto with Sarah.

2. The Daily Mail reported that Sarah had to cancel her big birthday bash because of her financial troubles. She might have been planning a big party, I don't know--but she wasn't as of August.

“A party? My friend, can I let you into a secret? The fact that I've got to this moment is great. I live in the precious present. I don't think about parties, I don't think about the future."
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/people/sarah-ferguson-duchess-of-hollywood-20090824-evos.html

3. Newspapers often describe Geir Frantzen as Sarah's boyfriend, but she has denied she is dating him.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/royalwatch/news/article_1435293.php/Sarah_Ferguson_s_dating_denial
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/4864811/Sarah-Duchess-of-York-exclusive-The-only-thing-I-ever-succeeded-at-was-failure.html

But when Sarah and Andrew went on vacation together this past August, the Daily Mail described Sarah as being in a relationship and the Telegraph called Geir Frantzen her boyfriend: "You can't help wondering, though, if overly happily divorced couples annoy each others' current partners. What, emotionally, could the prince give Sarah Ferguson that her boyfriend couldn't?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/aug/25/holiday-ex-partners

If Geir Frantzen isn't her boyfriend, it shouldn't annoy him at all.

4. The Telegraph and other papers also made it sound as though Andrew whisked Sarah away so she could recover from the backlash over her Wythenshawe documentary, but I'm sure they would have gone to Spain whether or not this documentary had even happened. I've seen stories about the Yorks being in Spain, in late August, every year for years. It's just a regular family vacation for them.

5. 'Beatrice and Eugenie don't want me to marry again,' reveals Sarah Ferguson | Mail Online

Big headline--lots of negative comments about Beatrice and Eugenie being selfish because they don't want their mom to remarry. The only thing is, according to Sarah that's not what they said. I saw the actual interview, and to me it sounded like Beatrice and Eugenie didn't want a remarriage between Sarah and Andrew. According to Sarah they say, "No, you two are so cool like you are!" It's on YouTube. The difference in the quotes is subtle, but it makes a big difference in the way the article is portrayed.

There are lots of other half-truths about Sarah that regularly circulate through the media. Mentions of that infamous vacation with John Bryan crop up all the time in articles about Sarah, but how many of those articles point out that Sarah and Andrew were separated at the time?

I just find it interesting how newspapers can change the truth just slightly and then twist it into a big news story. Eg. if Sarah and Andrew are on a Spanish holiday that they take every year, it's not a big news story. But if Sarah has run off to Spain with Andrew for the first time ever just because she can't handle the criticism about her documentary, then the papers can portray Sarah as a weak spoiled person who cuts and runs whenever one of her projects fails. None of these are huge issues, sometimes the falsehoods don't necessarily even result in a negative story, and maybe someone other than Sarah would have shrugged off the criticism. But, there are a lot of nasty articles in the newspapers and a lot of misconceptions about Sarah's life, and I can't blame her for getting tired of it and wanting to fight back.

 

[Ukroyalist]

I've followed the life of the Duchess since she married Andrew and I accept that she has made mistakes and understand that these will not endear her to most people. However I genuinely believe she is trying to do what is best for her and her daughters in the only way she know how.
The 'press' or one newspaper in particular will always twist stories in a negative way because they think that's what sells them newspapers - the voice of the indignant middle classes! They give all secondary royals a hard time because all they think their readership care about is money and taxes.
Shame they can't see some of us care about the royal FAMILY. After all, I'm sure HM the Queen loves them all as much as any mother and grandmother would and that is why I'll stay loyal to them all...

 

[Wisteria]

I would like to just point out that most of us on the BRF thread do care about the royal family, and I am sure that the Queen loves them as any mother and grandmother.
But Sarah is no longer a member of the royal family, HM The Queen is not her mother or grandmother in cas you haven´t noticed.

 

[Skydragon]

]The Daily Mail has been producing several disparaging articles about Sarah per week

None of the links you have posted support your accusation about the Mail or indeed that there is a day in day out/weekly onslaught of negative stories.

2. “A party? My friend, can I let you into a secret? The fact that I've got to this moment is great. I live in the precious present. I don't think about parties, I don't think about the future.

It is very easy to say that no party was canceled. "I don't think about parties", but of course we have no evidence either way to confirm or deny Sarahs' statement. Parties are of course organised months in advance, so your belief that the story was inaccurate is like my belief, only our different opinions. As for Sarahs' statement that she doesn't think about the future, that much is obvious!

3. Newspapers often describe Geir Frantzen as Sarah's boyfriend, but she has denied she is dating him.

I just wonder, again, what truth there is to her statement, it's easy to deny a relationship or semi relationship, right up to the church/registry office.

but I'm sure they would have gone to Spain whether or not this documentary had even happened.

Again, it was very convenient and coincidental that Sarah decided to holiday straight after the show, most people promoting a cause would have stayed around to publicise the show.

There are lots of other half-truths about Sarah that regularly circulate through the media. Mentions of that infamous vacation with John Bryan crop up all the time in articles about Sarah, but how many of those articles point out that Sarah and Andrew were separated at the time?

And yet she did holiday with him, so it was not a lie and in very poor taste considering they were only separated.

maybe someone other than Sarah would have shrugged off the criticism. But, there are a lot of nasty articles in the newspapers and a lot of misconceptions about Sarah's life, and I can't blame her for getting tired of it and wanting to fight back.

That's just it, anyone other than Sarah... If she stopped trying to turn herself into the darling, nobody would take any notice of her but that would mean no publicity, no face in the papers and that isn't, IMO, what Sarah wants. She only wants to be portrayed as the ex and blooming wonderful ex and wonderful mother at that, but to a great many people turning your daughters into clones and basically forgetting that first and foremost she is their mother not their 'big sister', she has failed them.

My advise to Sarah would be - take yourself out of the limelight, sort out your financial problems, get yourself a house of your own and get a proper job to pay for it.

 

[Ukroyalist]

I don't really think it's your opinion that counts Skydragon when it comes to Sarah and her daughters. There are only three opinions that count when it comes to that relationship....

 

[Skydragon]

I don't really think it's your opinion that counts Skydragon when it comes to Sarah and her daughters. There are only three opinions that count when it comes to that relationship....

Probably not, but if she wants to stop receiving negative press, then perhaps she ought to take note! I would also imagine there are at least 5 opinions that are important, not just Sarah and her daughters.

 

[Lighthouse]

A comment above suggested that Sarah behaved in poor taste during her separation from Prince Andrew. I call it just deserts. It's so sexist...focus on the woman, not the seducer who whisked her down the isle in the first place.

 

[Russophile]

A comment above suggested that Sarah behaved in poor taste during her separation from Prince Andrew. I call it just deserts. It's so sexist...focus on the woman, not the seducer who whisked her down the isle in the first place.

Ah! But it takes 2 to tango. . .
I do hope the Duchess can sort her affairs out, though we have seen this one before. . . .

 

[rmay286]

There are only three opinions that count when it comes to that relationship....

I agree. Three, or five. I could definitely respond for a long time and in a fair bit of detail to refute accusations about Sarah, but it wouldn't be useful. Everyone will always have their own opinion about her, and there's nothing wrong with holding an opinion. I will say that I don't know how often The Daily Mail publishes about Sarah per week, but deserved or undeserved, has anyone seen many articles about the Yorks that aren't disparaging?

 

[Zonk]

A quick reminder that this is the Current Events thread of Sarah, Duchess of York.

So we don't need to rehash her marriage, her divorce, John Bryan, etc. I think we are pretty familiar with those details.

Zonk

 

[Skydragon]

I could definitely respond for a long time and in a fair bit of detail to refute accusations about Sarah, but it wouldn't be useful.

And yet when asked nicely to back up your previous claim regarding day in day out negative press, you were unable to do so. Unless you have absolute proof or a reliable link, as ever it is only IYO. If she wants positive press, she needs to get her life and finances in order and be seen to have got them in order.

Ultimately, the opinion regarding Sarah and her daughters is not just that of her, the girls, their father, HM, DoE, Charles and the rest of the family, but that of the British public and, to project a positive image, that of the media.

 

[Ukroyalist]

Just read the Daily Mail Skydragon. Who really knows what sort of person the Duchess is?You make up your own mind. I don't really know what you're trying to say. If you want us all to adopt your negative opinion of the Duchess then that's not going to happen.
You don't strike me as being naive but you seem to believe every negative story you read about the Duchess.
Do you ever post positive comments about her on the forums?

 

[Skydragon]

If you want us all to adopt your negative opinion of the Duchess then that's not going to happen.
You don't strike me as being naive but you seem to believe every negative story you read about the Duchess.
Do you ever post positive comments about her on the forums?

I have no interest in altering any opinion of her, as I would imagine nobody here is trying to do so to those who are less than impressed with her alleged antics. Is it naive to believe that there is some truth to the numerous articles and media reports about her, IMO no. I watched the debacle over the orphanages, I watched and read the reports on her efforts to change the eating habits of a family, I watched and read the reports on the less than informed Wythenshaw programme, so even to someone who has never had any contact with her, they would support my opinion of her.

For the record, I post all and any reports on all members of any member of the royal family, be they positive or negative, when I see them or have the time. Perhaps instead of finding negative suggestions to make about me, it might help if you actually look!

 

[scooter]

None of the links you have posted support your accusation about the Mail or indeed that there is a day in day out/weekly onslaught of negative stories.[/QUOTE/]
I take it Skydragon, that you have had an about face about the Daily Mail? Generally you are one of the first to decry the accuracy of their articles...but that's only about Charles and Camilla?

 

[Skydragon]

None of the links you have posted support your accusation about the Mail or indeed that there is a day in day out/weekly onslaught of negative stories.

I take it Skydragon, that you have had an about face about the Daily Mail? Generally you are one of the first to decry the accuracy of their articles...but that's only about Charles and Camilla?

Not at all and if you could find the time to read the posts concerned you would see that is not the issue. The accusation made by the poster was that the Mail runs several disparaging stories about Sarah per week and false stories day after day, clearly that is not the case.

I am not sure if you realise scooter but the Mail has a variety of reporters, some more accurate than others.

 

[rmay286]

Not at all and if you could find the time to read the posts concerned you would see that is not the issue. The accusation made by the poster was that the Mail runs several disparaging stories about Sarah per week and false stories day after day, clearly that is not the case.

Okay. The idea that the Mail runs false stories about Sarah day after day was an exaggeration. I didn't think it was going to be taken so literally. I'll try to be more precise with my choice of words next time. All I wanted to say was that Mail has written many negative and/or somewhat false stories about Sarah often, over a long period of time. Besides, to prove that I would have to link to every single article about Sarah in the Daily Mail for a period of several weeks and explain what was negative and/or false about it, and I don't have that much time.

I watched the Turkish orphanage documentary and heard about Sarah's other reality programs and saw clips of them, and none of them gave me a negative view of her. So even if I posted articles where Sarah said one thing and the articles reported something else, some people would believe Sarah and others would believe the newspapers' more disparaging slant. That is why in the end, this is a pointless discussion--like Ukroyalist said, everyone has their own opinion.

 

[Skydragon]

I really think you would have to search, I read the Mail online, as well as many others, even The Star and I can say that I have not seen a weekly story on Sarah, positive or negative. It is not just the Mail that gives a less than rosy view on Sarah and her antics when they run an article, nor just the papers you consider tabloids. Sky, ITV and BBC news ran slots on her at one time or another (including the Anderson interview, which was cringe worthy), and none of them showed her in a complimentary light. The Orphanage episode was unfortunate and the possible repercussions were not taken into consideration, the same with preaching to the less fortunate. I believe that she is well meaning but she goes about things in the wrong way with a belief that her way is the right way, she seems to feel she needs the publicity.

 

[Ukroyalist]

I'm not here to upset anyone and I apologise if I upset you Skydragon. One of the problems with the crazy mixed up world we live in is that everyone seems to think they can have opinions on other people's lives or that we are somehow in a position to sit in judgement of others or we know better.
I don't think that's ever the case...

 

[Skydragon]

It does become tedious when other posters forget the subject matter and appear to launch semi personal attacks, just as it does when a poster has nothing to add to a discussion, IMO and jumps in with a C & C jibe, not that you have done that!

My understanding is that this forum is here to discuss different aspects and opinions on various royals lives, otherwise it simply becomes a fanzine site and not worth the time of day.