Sarah, Duchess of York Current Events 16: January-May 2011


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nothing suitable?:ermm: 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!"
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mos...en-Id-make-Mondays-weekend.html#ixzz1GHoWTr6Z
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
I still don't understand what NAP was trying to say and your comment is equally confusing - what are you both trying to say?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Just how much sympathy does she deserve??:veryevil: 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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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 am not unable to see the evidence but when cryptic posts are made I ask for the poster to explain their posts - NAP has still failed to explain the post that I queried and I still have no idea what point was being made.

I like Sarah - now - but didn't for many years. Maybe I have come to like her simply because of the vitriol that is written on this board. Being and Aussie it is natural to support the underdog - it is part of our national character whereas some other nations revel in rubbishing people who are unable to defend themselves.
 
Just how much sympathy does she deserve??:veryevil: 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.


Let me get this clear.

Two young women - aged 22 and 20 attend nightclubs once or twice a week and they are doing something wrong are they?

William, Harry, Zara and Peter attended numerous nightclubs when they were aged 22 and 20 but somehow Beatrice and Eugenie are doing something wrong.

William and Harry still attend nightclubs regularly but that is ok - but they are boys (and Diana's sons so can do no wrong) but... Sarah's girls do something like that and they are a disgrace - sexist and simply anti-Sarah and anti-Andrew feelings being transferred to the two young women who are still full-time students. We didn't hear about William doing this sort of thing at uni because there was a deal in place to protect him from these stories but the press/Andrew have never been able to put in place a similar deal to protect Beatrice and Eugenie while they complete their educations.

Sometimes I think people forget just how young these two girls are - and expect them to be behaving like Zara is now - rather than comparing them to Zara etc at the time that Zara and William etc were 20 and 22 (when both of them were at uni and did uni student type things). Beatrice and Eugenie even go to events for charity - as royals do - and still they are criticised.

I do hope that both girls get worthwhile jobs away from the public eye and leave Kate to be the young 'princess' to do all the young 'princessy' jobs that come along.
 
Exactly, Iluvbertie. I expect that once Beatrice and Eugenie finish university, they'll settle down to some kind of work and have adult lives. This is the time of life when young people are figuring what they want to do with their lives and what kind of people they want to be and be with, and it's reasonable to see them doing things that their friends are doing.


Sometimes I think people forget just how young these two girls are - and expect them to be behaving like Zara is now - rather than comparing them to Zara etc at the time that Zara and William etc were 20 and 22 (when both of them were at uni and did uni student type things). Beatrice and Eugenie even go to events for charity - as royals do - and still they are criticised.
 
Yes, this is true, Zonk. I don't think that Sarah and Andrew are nasty, evil people. I think that, for all their wealth and trappings, they aren't particularly sophisticated and get in over their heads with things. With Sarah, it's financial mismanagement; with Andrew, it's the appearance of friendships that aren't appropriate.


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.
 
Andrew and Sarah aren't evil people, they haven't used the best judgement and that is now apparent. I can say this because I'm not immune either.
 
Maybe they're being consistently bashed because they're consistently creating they're own scandals but whatever...I'll leave the York threads to the objective folks.:goodluck:
 
Even in the early days, when everyone called Sarah refreshing and fun, I never liked her. I thought she was bumptious and self-absorbed.

I now believe she is completely selfish and has no regard for anyone else, as long as she is able to live in the style that she wants (no matter that she can't afford it, and it is at the expense of other people). I don't at all see where she may be considered an underdog.
 
Last edited:
Sarah, Duchess of York, out and about in London on March 8, 2011:

Her hair's a more flattering length, and still such a lovely colour, but boy does she look tired!
 
I know sarah in person when she comes here, argentina, in 2004, I thinks she is a loverly person, she makes mistakes, a lot! but she still is the mother of two princess, its very sad that william don't invite her to his wedding, I still remember william when he was a little boy in sarah' weddind kissing andrew in buckingham palace's door.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom