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
 
  #541  
Old 09-22-2011, 02:37 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess of Durham View Post
All of the above justification are fine HOWEVER, Sarah does need to clam up about her poverty stricken state. Whether old or new, dangling luxury items at the same time as crying poor is really quite ridiculous. IMO, of course :)
What I'd like to see are direct quotes from Sarah about being poverty stricken/broke/poor.

Certainly, she has said it once or twice, but it sounds as if she's constantly pleading poverty and I just haven't seen evidence of that.
__________________

  #542  
Old 09-22-2011, 02:31 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Royal View Post
What I'd like to see are direct quotes from Sarah about being poverty stricken/broke/poor.

Certainly, she has said it once or twice, but it sounds as if she's constantly pleading poverty and I just haven't seen evidence of that.
Haev you read "Finding Sarah"? there are some references in there. The book is at home and Russo is at work so I shall look them up and post them when I get them.
__________________

__________________
"Not MGM, not the press, not anyone can tell me what to do."--Ava Gardner
  #543  
Old 09-22-2011, 03:48 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russophile View Post
Haev you read "Finding Sarah"? there are some references in there. The book is at home and Russo is at work so I shall look them up and post them when I get them.
I've read bits and pieces of it in the bookstore at JFK airport...but the book is one outlet. I didn't hear her moaning about it on her Oprah appearances, nor did I really hear it on OWN's "Finding Sarah"...I just think the criticism that she's constantly pleading poverty is somewhat off base.
  #544  
Old 09-22-2011, 04:27 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Royal View Post
I've read bits and pieces of it in the bookstore at JFK airport...but the book is one outlet. I didn't hear her moaning about it on her Oprah appearances, nor did I really hear it on OWN's "Finding Sarah"...I just think the criticism that she's constantly pleading poverty is somewhat off base.
I believe that it was mentioned by her on OWN's Finding Sarah and IIRC it was the first segment where she sits and talks with Suze Orman.
  #545  
Old 09-22-2011, 05:17 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Royal View Post
I've read bits and pieces of it in the bookstore at JFK airport...but the book is one outlet. I didn't hear her moaning about it on her Oprah appearances, nor did I really hear it on OWN's "Finding Sarah"...I just think the criticism that she's constantly pleading poverty is somewhat off base.
I would think a good producer would edit the numerous references of her crying poverty out.
__________________
"Not MGM, not the press, not anyone can tell me what to do."--Ava Gardner
  #546  
Old 09-22-2011, 06:56 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 160
Right, so if they've been edited out, they haven't been in the public domain. All I'm saying is, a lot of people say "Oh put your Birkin's away Sarah, you're always moaning you're skint!" when the fact is, she's said she's been in a financial mess and that it's been sorted.
  #547  
Old 09-22-2011, 07:40 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 1,300
IMO saying one is "homeless" means no money, but then, who knows maybe some homeless people carry Hermes bags. :)
  #548  
Old 09-22-2011, 07:44 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Royal View Post
Right, so if they've been edited out, they haven't been in the public domain. All I'm saying is, a lot of people say "Oh put your Birkin's away Sarah, you're always moaning you're skint!" when the fact is, she's said she's been in a financial mess and that it's been sorted.
Indeed, however, I haven't the faith in Sarah that you have. I expect Sarah to get into financial difficulty once again. In reading her bio, "Finding Sarah", I don't find her sincere about changing. I've read this before in "My Story". I've read it in "What I Know Now". I DO hope she changes and keeps a low profile as she still reflects upon the BRF, however, I don't think she wants to.
However, time will tell. I do hope I am wrong, though. So much easier if Russo is wrong. . . .
__________________
"Not MGM, not the press, not anyone can tell me what to do."--Ava Gardner
  #549  
Old 09-22-2011, 07:58 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
It wouldn't be a great shock to me if there's another scandal involving Sarah and money. I hope I'm wrong. For one thing, I'd hate to see Beatrice and Eugenie being judged by their mother's behaviour yet again. It's time for those two young women to be known by their own interests and and concerns. It would be nice to see Andrew find another lady for the long-term if he wants to; and I think that will happen only if Sarah becomes independently established--and that will happen only if Sarah settles for a life-style that she can afford. A private, discrete life can have its own rewards.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Russophile View Post
I expect Sarah to get into financial difficulty once again.
  #550  
Old 09-26-2011, 04:22 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Royal View Post
Sarah's had valuable trinkets thrown at her for decades. Baubles and bags and clothes. She can say she 'popped into Michael Kors' but that doesn't necessarily imply that she purchased anything, in fact, mentioning the designer could have been a condition of receiving the dress as either a loan or gratis.

The only issue I have with Diarist's perspective is that the people who received 25% of their debt from Sarah agreed to accept that settlement. No one, under UK law, can be forced to accept a settlement.

Had Sarah's staff, creditors etc not accepted her proposed settlement, which was carried on by The Duke of York's office on her behalf according to HELLO!, Sarah could have been forced into bankruptcy and then the Bankruptcy Trustee could have collected and sold off her assets etc.

That didn't happen, settlements were agreed to and under UK law the matter has been settled to the satisfaction of all parties.

I take the point about what people agreed to accept, Lord Royal, which is well made. The difficulty I have here is that I am not sure whether there would have been 'full disclosure' or not: I am afraid that we will never know the full position, but I do wonder whether those owed money from Sarah [the private individuals I worry about the most, not the commercial firms - Solicitors and the like who, I reckon, were always well-positioned to know that extending any from of credit or similar facility to Sarah was in a way a LARGE risk - ] were aware that Sarah herself was apparently not going to be required to contribute ANYTHING to the 'assets' pool out of the assets [more than just mere 'trinkets' surely, since some valuable jewellery is concerned] which her creditors were to be paid. The Birkin bags - it seems she has 3 of them - could fetch 3,000 each and the jewellery that she has could be worth around 250,000 to 375,000 bearing in mind its provenance - and in view of the tremendous amount that she owed to people, I do think that she should have been required to make a contribution. This discussion also belongs on other threads, to which I will now continue it.

Alex
  #551  
Old 10-14-2011, 03:31 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 11,557
Covering up this time Pippa? Fergie shows more flesh than Miss Middleton at breast cancer charity event | Mail Online
  #552  
Old 10-14-2011, 04:55 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 650
QUOTE=sndral;1326136]Covering up this time Pippa? Fergie shows more flesh than Miss Middleton at breast cancer charity event | Mail Online

Sarah's pix is halfway down. I assume these charity events raise money by selling expensive tickets - are there a % of free tickets handed out to celebs to get publicity for the charity and/or to encourage wealthy persons to buy tickets to attend in order to mingle w/ the celebs?[/QUOTE]

I have transferrred this from the 'Interviews and Current Affairs' thread so that I do not go Off Topic.

Please can I help with a little bit of information here?

Over the years, UK charity fundraising events have changed very much in their nature: For many years up until the 1990's or so, upscale 'Society' charity Evening events consisted of Balls and Dances and Film Premieres etc with a few Receptions at Private Views [Art and Antiques exhibitions] etc. Funds were raised by the sale of tickets and the actual organisation was done [usually] by the beneficiary charity's own [paid] staff. 'Assisting' these charity staff members was a 'Committee' formed for each event under a Chairman. The Committee consisted of 'Society' ladies and their friends - with (usually) the grandest acting as the Chairman. The Committee used to do very little work - mostly their 'organising meetings' were actually rather social get-togethers at the Chairman's house. The purpose of the Committee was really for its members to sell the Event tickets [and the inevitable raffle tickets] to their friends and members of their wider circle. There were usually no 'Celebrities' as such; the 'celebrity factor' were mostly provided by the presence of the 'Society Ladies', e.g. Lady so-and-so. The Committee ladies usually bought tickets to their own events, although I suspect that one or two managed to get freebies. The money raised was the net proceeds i.e. money raised from the sale of tickets less the expenses of putting on the event.

[For the sake of completeness, I should also mention that some of the large balls were actually organised by a certain breed of 'quasi-Society lady' who took a fee for her services - this practice was, to a certain extent frowned on].

Things started to change very much as the 1990's advanced; the reason for this was probably because of the decline of 'Society' and the rise of the 'Celebrity culture'.

The social programme also changed, including slightly less 'upscale' events i.e. - some felt to be a little.........hard to define this exactly, but vulgar is probably the nearest description. Perhaps the other most significant change was the increasing prevalence of Sponsorship, with companies underwriting some or all of the expenses of putting on the event, which meant that more of - or if the sponsorship was total - ALL of the ticket price going to benefit the charity. It also became the practice to start inviting celebrities, who not only did not have to buy a ticket, but sometimes received an 'appearance fee' for their attendance.

It the Ball was not unwritten ENTIRELY by one company, certain components were sometimes sponsored - for example, the Programme [nearly all charity events have a programme, listing something about the event and the charity etc which is then sold to the attendees]. Sponsoring the wine / champagne is another common practice. This means that the charity beneficiary will receive more of the ticket price.

One matter common to both the pre 1990s and the contemporary Event scene is that ALL organisers try to secure a Royal presence at the ball / premiere / reception etc. The presence of a Royal means that the ticket price be fixed at a much higher price than would otherwise be the case. And of course, the 'hotter' the Royal, the higher the ticket can be priced at!! Plus, of course, the 'hotter the Royal', the quicker the tickets will sell! In the 1980's, a ticket for an event graced with the presence of Princess Diana would be quite expensive and sell out very quickly when compared with (say) a ticket for an event by Princess Margaret. [ I digress here, but the other problem of Princess Margaret gracing an event was that she was prone to to cancel.....]. I should make it clear that tickets to sit at the table of the Royal were not any more expensive than tickets to sit at the less-grand tables, [ a difference with the USA] and there was never any guarantee that there would be an introduction to the Royal guest] but 'Top Table' guests are inevitably Society people and / or those of those who have given a lot of money to the charity concerned and/ or are from the Sponsors etc.

Another point: I have attended several 'fundraisers' in the USA over the years, and from my own personal experience, I can tell you that ticket prices in the USA are MUCH more expensive than a corresponding ticket to a UK event would be. I think that this is for a variety of reasons: Americans on the whole have a greater history of large scale philanthropy and also some of their tickets are, I believe, tax deductible.

Having finally explained all of the above, I would assume, based on what I know from my own experiences of charity events, BUT with no inside information about the event in question, is that Fergie and Pippa Middleton and most of the other celebrities were at the event on 'Freebies', both to attract other guests and also to attract publicity [press coverage] for the event [and thus the beneficiary charity]. I am fairly certain that Pippa would not have been paid to put in an appearance; I hardly dare like to think whether or not Sarah was paid to attend....... Certainly, rumours of her receiving money for appearances at charity events have dogged her for years and years - from long before her divorce incidentally!!

Slightly OT, based on what I know from my own circle, I would think that Buckingham Palace may start to feel a slight unease at the increasing appearance of Pippa Middleton at events. I do NOT think that the papers are at fault for apparently 'building up' Pippa by continuing to feature her at various events etc. In my very humble opinion, Pippa Middleton is becoming increasingly socially prominent purely because she is Catherine's sister, and BP can get a bit sensitive at what they sometimes see as people apparently 'cashing in' on their Royal connections.

Just my thoughts, and not meant to offend,

Alex
  #553  
Old 10-14-2011, 05:11 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,455
Quote:
In my very humble opinion, Pippa Middleton is becoming increasingly socially promient because she is Catherine's sister, and BP can get a bit sensitive at what they sometimes see as people apparently 'cashing in' on their Royal connections.
Diarist, I always enjoy your knowledgeable posts.

But, as long as Pippa is modest and dignified in her public appearances, why should this be an issue? Pippa was known as a young mover and shaker for a number of years before The Wedding, and was undoubtedly in attendance at events similar to these.

As far as 'cashing in' goes, should she say, oh, please ignore me! Or should she just stay at home with the telly and the cats? It would seem that her (so far) classy appearances at such events can only reflect favorably on her sister.

She has a lesser degree of privacy as it is (Pippa gets coffee! Pippa wears plaid!), with the papers stalking her. She can't help having 'Royal connections'; does she need to turn down invitations just to keep from upsetting the Grey Men? I am really interested in your opinion as to what she should do.

Meg
  #554  
Old 10-14-2011, 05:36 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 650


Thank you for your kind remarks, Meg. Let me make it clear though that although you very kindly call me knowledgeble, I don't claim to be an expert on anything, I just write from what I happen to know, which may well be different from another's perception.

With regard to Pippa Middleton, you are right, she certainly used to go to various events before the Wedding. To answer your question, I can only quote from my own personal knowledge. Before doing so, I agree 100 per cent about Pippa being in a 'difficult position', and indeed, I did say BP 'might' get a bit worried...... so I would stress that I am not definite on the point!

The sister of one of my friends once dated Prince Charles and a friend of my cousin once went on ONE date with Prince Andrew. [talk about the 'friends of friends' cliche!!] Anyway, the 'rule' that people were advised to follow was that if invited to anything, they had to ask themselves ''Am I being invited BECAUSE of the Prince Charles / Prince Andrew connection, or am I being invited because 'I am me?' ''

Following this rule, Pippa possibly might have had cause to consider whether she should have had Front Row seat at the Paris Fashion show the other day; so far as the present event [breast cancer charity event] is concerned, Pippa was possibly 'on safer ground' if she had been present at events for the SAME charity before The Wedding, and she would DEFINITELY have been on safe ground if she had paid for her own ticket...

The thing is, Meg, that life is unfair. When I was in the Civil Service they used to drum into us that where politics / royalty etc was concerned, 'perception is reality', even if the perception is not wholly accurate and/or EVEN if the perception is unfair!! If Pippa keeps on 'popping up' at events, even if those events are those that she had previously attended, however unfair it might seem, the perception (which I accept may NOT accord with the actual reality) is that Pippa is 'cashing in' on her [sister's] royal status..

At the end of the day, it is a tough call, because the dividing line is a difficult one. And I am sure that other forum members will have equally valid views to the one I have stated, even if their opinons differ from mine,

Alex
  #555  
Old 10-14-2011, 06:01 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Galway, Ireland
Posts: 342
CONFIRMED: The Duchess of York will Speak at the Global Forum – Not For Sale: End Human Trafficking and Slavery
  #556  
Old 10-14-2011, 06:06 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 650


Oh how I wish that people would stop referring to Sarah as 'THE Duchess of York'!
  #557  
Old 10-14-2011, 06:20 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 11,329
Let's not go there again.

If you read the link, they also refer to her as Sarah Ferguson, The Duchess of York which tells me that no fact checking was used in this announcement at all.

Unfortunately for us royal watchers who have a general idea on the correct way to use royal titles, some people don't. That's why Kate, Camilla, Sophie and yes Sarah are often referred to as Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge, Camilla Parker Bowles, Duchess of Cornwall, etc.

Honestly it looks like they are more interested in ending human trafficking, than the correct usage of what a divorced British woman should be called.

Good for Sarah in participating in such a worth while event. Every possible effort needs to be made to stop this horrible practice. I did a project on an organization in the States that works with homeless teenagers....the number of US kids that are victims of this practice is staggering! I can only imagine how this affects other countries as well.
__________________
.

  #558  
Old 10-14-2011, 11:34 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
Excellent! I'm very pleased to see Sarah involved with this cause. I hope, hope, hope that she sticks to the topic and not talk about herself or her daughters or Andrew. If she can achieve this, this kind of publicity could be her redemption.


  #559  
Old 10-15-2011, 02:25 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 7,032
Spletnik -Sarah, Duchess of York, is 52.
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"
  #560  
Old 10-15-2011, 06:41 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
The neckline!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
__________________

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 15: October 2009-December 2010 Zonk Current Events Archive 618 01-01-2011 10:32 AM
Sarah, Duchess of York Current Events 7: December 2006-February 2007 Avalon Current Events Archive 191 02-02-2007 05:19 AM
Sarah, Duchess of York Current Events 6: September-December 2006 Avalon Current Events Archive 170 12-24-2006 01:07 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary cocktail dresses crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll fashion wedding dress grand duke jean greece infanta elena fashion iran kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess charlotte of cambridge princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats 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 tiaras


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 03:58 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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