The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Current Events Archive

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #361  
Old 03-10-2011, 02:13 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
Nothing suitable? I wonder what that means, exactly? I'd think that, in a place with as many buildings as the London area has, that she'd be able to find something.

If you are referring the the home one home was rejected due to security concerns - i.e. they were going to be too high.

The home would also need to have been relatively close to Windsor more than London as Beatrice didn't go to boarding school so Sarah would need to be living close to her school to share the parenting.
__________________

  #362  
Old 03-10-2011, 02:18 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
I see. Thanks for your reply, Iluvbertie.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
If you are referring the the home one home was rejected due to security concerns - i.e. they were going to be too high.
__________________

  #363  
Old 03-10-2011, 04:25 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,868
With only around 2000 EUR a month you can't live in a town like London. Especially not if you have to pay the rent.

I wouldn't wonder if they both felt helpless after that divorce settlement and Andrew decided that it was not his way to treat an ex-wife he still felt something for but the court's. For he has been an officer and those were taught to take care of what is theirs to protect. So IMHO the taking care of Sarah started and maybe, because he simply couldn't command the same money as his brother Charles, the search for quiet but lucrative business associations.

No excuse that but maybe a bit of an explanation.
  #364  
Old 03-10-2011, 04:45 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 664
First, Sarah's retaining her title was a legal outcome and not within the gift of the royal family, unlike the title, HRH.

Second, she was indeed treated appallingly by the royal family, and is the actual reason that she retains as much support and as many friendships as she does. Given the circumstances of the time, I think that they've been very lucky that she's never once turned on them. For their part, had they not been so parsimonious in their treatment of her, they would not be at risk of reaping the whirlwind as fall-out from the outrageous character assassination that she's suffering.

Third, there is and always has been, no small degree of international resentment at Andrew's role as trade ambassador. As I mentioned earlier, there are good, historical reasons why those with the most money to spend prefer him, thus UK business, over many others. Recently, in Kazakhstan, for instance, he has been instrumental in securing nearly 160 major business opportunities for British exports which can take advantage of that country's huge oil reserves. It is a repeat of the success he enjoys in the oil-rich Middle Eastern countries, nearly all of which are former British colonies or protectorates: at the very least, Britain was instrumental in forging those countries from the defeated Ottoman Empire.

Other jealous nations look askance on Andrew's successes and are irked that in the eyes of these countries they cannot match the prestige which he offers. Thus, we are regaled with newspaper reports of his 'boorish behaviour' in one country, mixing with pedophiles in another, complaints about his cost to the nation without attention to the billions he has enabled British exports to earn, etc. Whereas it's true that he mixes with those whom most wouldn't, nor befriend, it's also true that western governments do exactly the same if it's judged to be to their advantage. Andrew follows the pattern of his government's ingress - always has.

One tried and true way to attempt to undermine Andrew has been to persecute his ex-wife of whom he remains very fond. It's part and parcel of a general smear which, if you're on terms with a senior journalist from a responsible news outlet, you may confirm for yourself.
  #365  
Old 03-10-2011, 05:09 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada, Canada
Posts: 1,062
I do think the media seems to have a vendetta against Prince Andrew and the Yorks in general. I'm not sure why, but I know that I have a sense that journalists are "digging" to find dirt on Prince Andrew (and have done the same with Sarah). After the Epstein story came out, the Daily Mail and a few other papers started printing stories about Prince Andrew's friendship with different corrupt leaders--first one and then another. I am sure that other royals have questionable friendships as well, but they're not being reported on as often.

And just as an example of the bias towards Andrew: Ghislaine Maxwell is supposed to have recruited girls for Epstein--she was directly involved in this scandal, far more than Prince Andrew. Yet he is the one taking all the criticism. I haven't yet seen a story in the Daily Mail devoted to Ghislaine Maxwell's role in this; they're not bothering to investigate it, because they are focused on trying to bring down Andrew. Of course Andrew and Sarah (particularly Sarah) bring the criticisms on themselves, to an extent; but the journalists also really overplay every story about the Yorks.
  #366  
Old 03-10-2011, 05:10 PM
NotAPretender's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WPB FL/Muttontown NY, United States
Posts: 852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
With only around 2000 EUR a month you can't live in a town like London. Especially not if you have to pay the rent.

I wouldn't wonder if they both felt helpless after that divorce settlement and Andrew decided that it was not his way to treat an ex-wife he still felt something for but the court's. For he has been an officer and those were taught to take care of what is theirs to protect. So IMHO the taking care of Sarah started and maybe, because he simply couldn't command the same money as his brother Charles, the search for quiet but lucrative business associations.

No excuse that but maybe a bit of an explanation.
I can see a bit of your point there. Don't necessarily agree, but I can see where that might be a construct placed on the actions.

Well, Sarah made millions off her courtesy title which was and remains a gift of the Queen. Both Diana and Sarah were in a position where it was touch-and-go as to whether their titles and styles were to be stripped altogether, since essentially new law was being written to accommodate their divorces. Sarah walked away with a gold-plated license to print money, i.e. her courtesy title, as a gift from HM the Queen. It's absurd for her to have traded off that title all these years, yet moan constantly about her settlement.

Sarah has the unique advantage of being able to whine and cry about her settlement, knowing full well that the Royals will never answer what her bleatings are about it. She walked away with the price of a house and title that gave her entree into several fortunes which she had and squandered. If her pickiness led to her not spending that money on a house, then that's really not the Queen's fault, now is it?

And as for her living at Royal Lodge with Andrew? Something tells me that Andrew is still paying for every expense there (whether it's from his pocket or is billed to the Crown and ultimately the taxpayer is an interesting question.) I can't see that the head of staff sits down with Sarah and says "Now, the pantry expenses were 500 this month, and you were the only one in residence for most of the month, that should be 75% yours........the lighting bill was 700, the gas was 400, the liquor bill was 25,000.....your share is this" - let alone Sarah whipping out a chequebook and actually paying her share of expenses at Royal Lodge!

So she has no living expenses. All she has is expenses associated with living a public and luxurious life.

And she whines about that! Is simply forced to pimp out access to Andrew, must absolutely take money from child molesters, just to make ends meet!

I think the only gig she might be able to get now would be one that might benefit her immensely: MTV's "You're Cut Off!"
__________________
"Me, your Highness? On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells"
  #367  
Old 03-10-2011, 05:31 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada, Canada
Posts: 1,062
I know that Sarah has been living an unsustainable lifestyle, but I just can't join the calls of asking her to be "cut off."

Maybe it's because I don't think Sarah would ever have fit well into a nice little 9-5 job somewhere. The things that a lot of people can do well--show up to work on time and do minor clerical tasks--I think Sarah would never do very well. Even before she joined the royal family, she had an overactive imagination, poor judgment, a tendency to overspend, and an obsession with making people like her. When she was married, the media and her wealthy friends just magnified all these personality traits. Then she had a ten-year career as a "celebrity" in the U.S., which was bound to distort her sense of reality even more.

Sarah has not lived in "the real world" for a long time--I think that's what people forget. You can call her greedy, whiny, selfish, whatever, and those things are probably true, but I don't think Sarah even knows how to live within her means anymore because she doesn't have a sense of what her "means" are. She's been living in a bubble where it appeared (to her) that she had limitless wealth--first as a royal, then as a celebrity with a lucrative Weight Watcher's contract.

Asking Sarah to be frugal like the Queen or other more sensible members of the royal family is like asking everyone on this forum to start thinking like Sarah--it's like asking a leopard to change its spots. Sarah has a completely different personality from most people. I'm sure she could have been much better integrated into the "real world" at some point. Maybe if Andrew hadn't been royal, and they'd married, they would have had a comparatively normal life. But now, after the life she's led, I honestly don't know where Sarah is going to even start developing a realistic idea of what her lifestyle should be--where she should be living, working, how much money she should be spending.
  #368  
Old 03-11-2011, 12:14 AM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 664
That the attacks on Duchess Sarah are orchestrated, I'm convinced, and take advantage of her relative lack of any guidance and protection. I repeat, this hoo-ha is an oblique attack on Andrew's continuing success in bringing money into the UK. Even his most stringent critic couldn't deny his successes, here.

Let's recap. The man who inveigled the Duchess into a long, boozy dinner, placing $US40,000 in fresh notes beside an ashtray, and ordering another bottle of wine afterwards is Mahzer Mahmood, whose elaborate stings have trapped celebrities, other royals and crooks.

It was Mahmood who, in 2001, posed as an Arab sheikh and met up with the former PR woman, now the Countess of Wessex, at a £1200-a-night suite in London's swank Dorchester Hotel.

There, with his trademark alcohol-based modus operandi, he pitched for a phantom £20,000-a-month PR account supposedly promoting a Dubai investment company.

Just as the Duchess of York slurred incomprehensibly, so the Countess of Wessex allegedly let fly with embarrassing remarks about everyone from her in-laws in the royal family, to the then prime minister, Tony Blair. However, in this case, the royal PR machine went into top gear when the Countess told her husband, and the palace immediately set the lawyers in train. Not one word was published - although the Countess, strangely, gave the paper an exclusive interview with an apparently approved front-page headline: ''Sophie: my Edward is NOT gay.'' (ick: who cares? it's none of our business, after all. His private life is his own and not worthy of comment).

For the besieged Duchess of York, however, there was no PR machine, no royal lawyers. She issued a statement, alone, after being seen crying her way across the Atlantic to receive an award for her outstanding charity work. And what did the less sensational press have to say?

A number of newspaper columnists labelled the tabloid sting "far from a major scandal", with some saying they felt "sorry" for the Duchess as she struggles to keep financially afloat after her divorce.

The Guardian's columnist Guy Dammann wrote that "flogging influence for cash is an ancient practice in business".

"What makes Prince Andrew so special that, as a man of influence in his capacity both as international playboy and British trade envoy, people shouldn't buy an introduction to him if they see fit?

"And why should it be so shameful to sell this introduction?" It's normal business practice, after all.

Sam Leith of the London Evening Standard said it was "hard for people to remember that being vulgar isn't a moral failing, and it certainly isn't blanket licence for spite".

"Humiliating the Duchess of York in the papers isn't a public service. It's a sport, and not a skilled sport like fencing or archery - more a recreation."

Terence Blacker said in a column for The Independent that she was "not the villain of the piece" and the royal family were to blame for not supporting her after her divorce from Prince Andrew.

"When the Duchess of York was released into the peculiarly nasty outside world, the Windsors might have ensured that she was given some kind of help and protection, not least from herself, but they did not.

"As a result, this ordinary, not particularly bright woman, has been left to tout her semi-royalty, her fragile celebrity status, in order to make a living.

" ... Like a fat girl who wants to be liked, the Duchess of York is the perfect victim for these playground bullies, as time and again she tries to ingratiate herself, never with any lasting success."

Similarly, years ago, a young Alex Montagu worked for and with my husband. This Australian man, now the 13th Duke of Manchester, and his delightful mother, Lady Montagu, have suffered dreadfully at the hands of an harassing and nasty UK press. Alex' life was often topsy-turvey, (at one stage, as a young man, he was imprisoned) but reading about him in the tabloids in the UK, one might have thought him the devil incarnate. He wasn't, despite his many difficulties. Today, he lives in the US, quite quietly and anonymously, so far as is possible. I'd be surprised if he ever contemplated returning to the UK as he believes its press intolerable, e.g. a few years ago, a Texas millionaire offered Alex a huge amount of money to sell his title (only in Texas, only in Texas!). Of course, it wasn't legally possible, and Duke Alex was greatly amused. However, press reports in the UK screamed "Duke of Manchester, Diana's cousin, to sell title to highest bidder."

If I were Sarah,I'd follow suit and join Alex in California. America certainly has problems with an intrusive and incursive tabloid press, but it's rarely as vicious and as ill-founded as the UK's.

And did anyone else notice that beginning 2 years ago, Sarah has been the Queen's guest at Balmoral? Probably not - it just doesn't make good tabloid copy.
  #369  
Old 03-11-2011, 01:19 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAPretender View Post
Well, Sarah made millions off her courtesy title which was and remains a gift of the Queen. Both Diana and Sarah were in a position where it was touch-and-go as to whether their titles and styles were to be stripped altogether, since essentially new law was being written to accommodate their divorces. Sarah walked away with a gold-plated license to print money, i.e. her courtesy title, as a gift from HM the Queen. It's absurd for her to have traded off that title all these years, yet moan constantly about her settlement.
Sarah, like Diana's post divorce styles were not a 'gift' from the monarch but the standard form for any divorced woman - the right to continue to use the married name in some form. For ALL divorced wives of a peer of the realm it is to use the former title as a surname, just like the divorced wife of a commoner can still use her married name instead of reverting to her pre-married name.

The ex-wives of Earl Spencer both continued to use Countess Spencer as their name after divorce (only stopping it on re-marriage).

Sarah, Duchess of York and Diana, Princess of Wales are no more 'courtesy titles' than Mrs John Smith using Mrs Jane Smith on her divorce from John.

The Queen used the LPs to strip them of HRH but not until after Diana's divorce - Sarah kept it for many months after her divorce as she divorced earlier than Diana but at the time of Diana's divorce the LPs were issued removing the HRH but the Queen couldn't stop them using the divorced form of the wives of peers of the realm without stripping ALL women of the right to continue to use their married style on divorce.
  #370  
Old 03-11-2011, 06:41 AM
FergieFan's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 147
Thank you to Polly for that marvellous defence of the Duchess of York, and her wonderfully insightful exposition of the deplorable bully-boy tactics used by the tabloid newspapers.

I'd like to add one more quote from Piers Morgan's column (Princess Eugenie: 'If I were Queen, I'd make Mondays part of the weekend' | Mail Online), ironically published in the Daily Mail, one of the worst offenders in the bullying of the Duchess. I've no great love for Mr. Morgan, but I think he does make some good points:

"The scandal dealt her another crippling financial blow, and she’s been battling hard to fend off bankruptcy. As I said at the time, though, the real scandal is that the Royal Family have never properly looked after her since her divorce from Prince Andrew. You can’t make someone a duchess, benefit from all the wonderfully positive publicity she brought the Royals in the early days, and then toss her to the wolves when things get rough. That’s not how a family should behave".

Hear, hear! And this part at the end is very interesting:

As the Puligny Montrachet flowed, I asked Fergie which of the Royals had been the most supportive since the scandal broke.

‘Oh, Andrew’s been amazing,’ she sighed. ‘He really came through for me. Camilla and Prince Michael of Kent were lovely, too.’

Interesting – and very telling – that her biggest support came from three members of the firm who often attract the most negative press coverage themselves.

‘What about the Queen?’

‘She’s always there for me.’
__________________
"There is no triumph without struggle, no wisdom without misjudgement, no character without getting knocked down and picking yourself up again".
- Sarah, Duchess of York
from Finding Sarah: A Duchess' Journey to Find Herself (2011: Simon & Schuster, New York)
http://duchessdiscoveries.com
  #371  
Old 03-11-2011, 09:53 AM
NotAPretender's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WPB FL/Muttontown NY, United States
Posts: 852
Well, you never learn anything the second time you are kicked by a horse, eh?

or

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me repeatedly over decades....I deserve whatever I get.

It's not hard to dupe those who willingly agree to be duped. At this point, it's just funny.
__________________
"Me, your Highness? On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells"
  #372  
Old 03-12-2011, 06:31 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAPretender View Post
Well, you never learn anything the second time you are kicked by a horse, eh?

or

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me repeatedly over decades....I deserve whatever I get.

It's not hard to dupe those who willingly agree to be duped. At this point, it's just funny.

Could you please explain this post as it doesn't make sense.
  #373  
Old 03-12-2011, 07:00 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 3,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly View Post
That the attacks on Duchess Sarah are orchestrated, I'm convinced, and take advantage of her relative lack of any guidance and protection...

Let's recap. The man who inveigled the Duchess into a long, boozy dinner, placing $US40,000 in fresh notes beside an ashtray, and ordering another bottle of wine afterwards is Mahzer Mahmood, whose elaborate stings have trapped celebrities, other royals and crooks.

Have you never heard the saying: You can't cheat an honest man!?

Sarah's divorce settlement may be considered inadequate in some quarters, but don't forget she was the party at fault. She publicly cheated on her husband and made him a laughingstock in front of the entire world.
(I don't know whether that is taken into consideration in the U.K.)

Besides that, any positive press she brought the BRF in the early days has long since been overwhelmed by the negative media coverage. It's been a very long time since she was anything other than an embarrassment.

You are probably correct that she's been made a target; but the media couldn't have done so if she had not given them the ammunition.
  #374  
Old 03-12-2011, 07:13 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bronx, United States
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Could you please explain this post as it doesn't make sense.
You can't see the forest from the trees.
  #375  
Old 03-12-2011, 07:29 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
I still don't understand what NAP was trying to say and your comment is equally confusing - what are you both trying to say?
  #376  
Old 03-12-2011, 08:42 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bronx, United States
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I still don't understand what NAP was trying to say and your comment is equally confusing - what are you both trying to say?
Essentially, you're so pro Sarah that you can't see when you're having the wool pulled over your eyes. You'd rather defend her, regardless of evidence.
  #377  
Old 03-12-2011, 09:06 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada, Canada
Posts: 1,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by sliver_bic View Post
Essentially, you're so pro Sarah that you can't see when you're having the wool pulled over your eyes. You'd rather defend her, regardless of evidence.
I don't know about Iluvbertie, but I'm not confused about what you and NAP are implying. I would suggest, though, that someone who has a different opinion from yours isn't necessarily deceived about the evidence--they've just chosen to interpret the evidence differently from you. Which, I think, is just fine.
  #378  
Old 03-12-2011, 09:11 PM
Duchessmary's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: San Diego, United States
Posts: 1,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
Have you never heard the saying: You can't cheat an honest man!?

Sarah's divorce settlement may be considered inadequate in some quarters, but don't forget she was the party at fault. She publicly cheated on her husband and made him a laughingstock in front of the entire world.
(I don't know whether that is taken into consideration in the U.K.)

Besides that, any positive press she brought the BRF in the early days has long since been overwhelmed by the negative media coverage. It's been a very long time since she was anything other than an embarrassment.

You are probably correct that she's been made a target; but the media couldn't have done so if she had not given them the ammunition.

You have to remember that Sarah was legally separated from Andrew when the other men came into her life.
Just a thought.
  #379  
Old 03-12-2011, 09:48 PM
SASSY's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 551
Just how much sympathy does she deserve?? She's been making the same financial mistakes for the past 20yrs!! The woman is 50 years old and still manages to embarrass herself, her family, and the royal family. Andrew gives her money because he blames himself for the failure of their marriage. Meanwhile they've raised 2 daughters that seem to be headed down the same path. They need some sort of family counseling.
  #380  
Old 03-12-2011, 09:56 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 11,330
How are Beatrice and Eugenie falling into the same path?

Are we tarring everyone with the same feathers because they happen to be Yorks?

I realize that the bad press that Sarah and Andrew face these days are the result of actions and decisions that they made, and they need to deal with the consequences of their actions but this consistent York bashing is getting tiresome.

Anyone remember the days when we had objective posters in the York subforums? They don't come around anymore. I can't say that I blame them.
__________________

__________________
.

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sarah, Duchess of York Current Events 18: January 2014 Zonk The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 864 Yesterday 04:35 AM
Sarah, Duchess of York Current Events 1: January 2003-September 2004 Jacqueline Current Events Archive 170 09-23-2004 04:30 PM




Popular Tags
andrew scott cooper ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coronation coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events dictatorship duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy murder new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess marie events princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess mette-marit fashion and style queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:21 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises