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
 
  #601  
Old 10-26-2011, 10:31 AM
FergieFan's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarist View Post
Muriel, I think that the difficulty that those of us who wish Sarah well constantly have to contend with is Sarah's complete inability to distance herself from her distant royal past. I am not a Sarah hater, and want to see her happily settled. Her current events now - so far as they relate to the non-social part of life - appear to be positioning herself as an advocate for good causes, which I understand that she is acheiving with the help of Lord Bell, PR Guru. Her 'trafficking speech' would appear to be her first step in that new direction [i.e post-Oprah and her book]. And the best way forward for Sarah must now to drop all references to her Royal past. If Sarah truly wishes to move forward, then I am sorry to say it, but continually presenting herself in the way that she is doing - i.e. reminding everyone of her 'royal' connections - will not be much of a help in 'moving on'. To me, Sarah, when she is out forging her new role, should NOT be carrying a bag - however sweet and charming it may be - with the faces of her Royal daughters, as to me it appears to be saying ' look at my royal connections' rather than ' I am Sarah moving forward in my new professional direction' and to appear with a garment bag monogrammed with a Coronet is also NOT the way forward. IMHO, the Coronet should have disappeared when Sarah became divorced. Sarah's supporters may, of course suggest that the garment bag is old [ members - and particularly the younger generations of British Royals] used to buy monogrammed goods from royal supplier Eximious, and that firm is no longer trading] but I still think it would be far more beneficial to Sarah's new life if she simply unpicked the Coronet on her bag........

Only my views, and not meant to offend,

Alex

First of all, I wonder if I might ask a question, Diarist - is there a sense in which Sarah is not entitled to use the S with the coronet? I just wonder, since I have several pieces of monogrammed stationery from her (in response to my own letters, cards, etc.), all with the coronet, and I had never questioned its usage before. I know that technically she shouldn't be "the" Duchess of York (not that it bothers me in the least, I admit! And nor would the coronet to be honest) But I'd be curious to know if this is this a similar situation?

In addition, I'd like to make a couple of points.
Firstly, I really don't see the bag as saying "look at my royal connections" but as saying "I love my daughters". I think her daughters are so important to her, and so much of a major part of her life, that she could never play down that connection. She is rightly very, very proud of them both, and wants to shout it from the rooftops - good on her!

Secondly, she cannot reject all connections to her Royal past, as it is this past that helped to make her who she is. It gave her the public position that enables her to make both a living and a difference to others. Her daughters the Princesses and indeed Prince Andrew are not part of her past, but part of the life she is living now. In every interview she does, someone will ask her about them, or about the RF. In my view, for Sarah to move forward in life, she does not need a clean break from everything royal, but an acceptance of the past and how it shaped her life, and a clear optimistic view of the future. From reading "Finding Sarah", I believe that she is on the way to achieving that.
__________________

__________________
"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
  #602  
Old 10-26-2011, 11:56 AM
NotAPretender's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WPB FL/Muttontown NY, United States
Posts: 852
The picture in the Daily Mail has a closeup of Sarah's right hand and its rings.

Does anyone know the significance of each of them?

I am guessing -and this is a guess! - that on her pinky is her wedding ring from Andrew. There is a second gold band, also appearing to a plain wedding ring, which again, I am guessing, is a wedding ring from one of her parents.

Any guesses or clues on the others?

I agree with Diarist and I was thinking along the same lines; Sarah continues to drag her daughters along (literally and figuratively) everywhere she goes. Is it to remind herself that she was once Royal and that her children are still Royal? Or to remind others, as a method of puffing herself and adding to her "worth" in the market? It would be so nice to see her finally lay aside the need to constantly constantly constantly trumpet all of that (and good catch on the garment bag btw.) Does she think that anyone might forget? Does she think she may actually vanish if that is not paraded? It's really sad to contemplate, how hard she clings to the past.

On a personal note, my own family loves its children dearly and our various Facebook accounts and avatars are fairly stuffed with pictures of them in all stages of their lives. I spoke to my sisters in law about Sarah's jewelry and handbag displaying her daughters, and they each shook their heads kind of sadly.

I so wish she'd find something truly worthy of devoting herself to, other than continuing to cling to a past that has long since left her behind, and images of herself and her daughters as they once were. It's almost....pre Norma Desmond-ish.

Sarah has a lot to offer, but she's built her own limitations.
__________________

__________________
"Me, your Highness? On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells"
  #603  
Old 10-26-2011, 06:04 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Galway, Ireland
Posts: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAPretender View Post
The picture in the Daily Mail has a closeup of Sarah's right hand and its rings.

Does anyone know the significance of each of them?

I am guessing -and this is a guess! - that on her pinky is her wedding ring from Andrew. There is a second gold band, also appearing to a plain wedding ring, which again, I am guessing, is a wedding ring from one of her parents.

Any guesses or clues on the others?

Sarah has a lot to offer, but she's built her own limitations.
I zoomed in on a few previous pics, and the thinner wedding band is her own. Like you NaP I'm guessing the other wedding band was her mother's (I've read on more than one article previously that she sometimes wears it). On the other finger she appears to be wearing two rings, not 100% sure but one of them looks like the eternity ring Andrew gave her.

By complete chance I tuned into the Not for Sale forum when Sarah was speaking. IMO she did well. She was dressed smart and spoke from the heart. She was very serious and passionate about the topic and that came accross, but she also got a few laughs along the way.
IMO Sarah and Mira Sirvino were the most impressive speakers.
Judging by the twitter comments during the live transmission I think few would argue with me. Say what you like about Sarah but she's very hard to ignore and she definately got people listening.
It was good to see her with fire in her belly about something very worthwhile.
  #604  
Old 10-26-2011, 09:44 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,004
Agreed. There's a video on YouTube in which she's speaking about something passionately, and she's very good at it. This is her real forte IMO. If she could find a cause or two that brings her out of herself and that she can concentrate on, I think that it would really help her "come back."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Eyes View Post
It was good to see her with fire in her belly about something very worthwhile.
  #605  
Old 10-26-2011, 11:08 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,328
From a purely West Coast/Pacific Point of view, the princesses are virtually unknown. No one I know could pick them out of a line-up. Not one of my students (in a class of 30, aged 18-25) had a clue who they were; 10 knew who Sarah was; 2 recognized Big Ben. So, if Sarah wants to keep her children's own "royal brand" going - she needs to get their faces out there. When I showed them again with their wedding hats, then people guessed they were British princesses, but did not know exactly how they fit into the family or what their names were. "Cousins of William" was the best answer (and correct!)

I did this just this week and used a recent picture of Sarah standing in front of the human trafficking charity signs.

BTW, all 30 knew William and Kate, and 22 recognized Harry. 27 recognized Prince Charles, 30 recognized Princess Diana (including a male who is 18 and from El Salvador). 6 recognized Camilla. I ran out of time but I should see if they recognize HM and Prince Phillip. I wonder.
  #606  
Old 10-27-2011, 06:24 AM
iceflower's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: , Germany
Posts: 32,697
___________________


Sarah, Duchess of York attended the 10th Annual Elton John AIDS Foundation's "An Enduring
Vision" benefit at Cipriani Wall Street on October 26, 2011 in New York City.



** Pic 1 ** Pic 2 ** gettyimages/zimbio **
__________________
**** Welcome aboard! ****
  #607  
Old 10-27-2011, 06:36 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by iceflower View Post
___________________


Sarah, Duchess of York attended the 10th Annual Elton John AIDS Foundation's "An Enduring
Vision" benefit at Cipriani Wall Street on October 26, 2011 in New York City.



** Pic 1 ** Pic 2 ** gettyimages/zimbio **
Wow! Sarah really looks amazing in these photos! I love that dress on her.
  #608  
Old 10-27-2011, 07:35 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 885
Sarah looks better here then she has in awhile. That dress is a lovely colour on her and she had her hair and makeup down. Such a difference. What is with that purse again? She seems to have had that everywhere with her lately.
  #609  
Old 10-27-2011, 09:50 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meadow View Post
Sarah looks better here then she has in awhile. That dress is a lovely colour on her and she had her hair and makeup down. Such a difference. What is with that purse again? She seems to have had that everywhere with her lately.
I am starting to think that maybe the butterfly is kind of a token she carries with her to remind herself of her metamorphosis... the changes she is trying to put forth in her life. Its always been a symbol that folks in recovery use to remind themselves.

Anyone know if that butterfly had made an appearance before her "Finding Sarah"?
  #610  
Old 10-27-2011, 09:58 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 3,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by iceflower View Post
___________________


Sarah, Duchess of York attended the 10th Annual Elton John AIDS Foundation's "An Enduring
Vision" benefit at Cipriani Wall Street on October 26, 2011 in New York City.

Is she compensated for her appearance at such events, or does she appear gratis?

I know she didn't receive remuneration when she was still a member of the BRF, but I wondered about now?
(I've tried researching this but found no definitive answer, and I'm very curious about it).
  #611  
Old 10-27-2011, 11:28 AM
FergieFan's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 147
Beautiful photos! Great to see her looking so vibrant and elegant! Osipi's speculation about the butterfly motif is an interesting one - it's certainly been a standby for her with many recent outfits. Perhaps it does indeed have symbolic significance in this way, it's a fascinating idea.
__________________
"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
  #612  
Old 10-27-2011, 11:46 AM
Al_bina's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 7,032
Spletnik -Sarah, Duchess of York was among the attendees at the 10th Annual Elton John AIDS Foundation's reception.
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"
  #613  
Old 10-27-2011, 01:20 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
Is she compensated for her appearance at such events, or does she appear gratis?

I know she didn't receive remuneration when she was still a member of the BRF, but I wondered about now?
(I've tried researching this but found no definitive answer, and I'm very curious about it).

A good question, Mirabel.

Could I try to help with a little information? I did come across this very point when I was working full time in my job.

When Sarah Ferguson married Prince Andrew in 1986, the couple received a payment from the Civil List. Briefly summarised, this was money from the taxpayer that in those days was paid to all official working members of the Royal Family [except for the Prince of Wales, who received the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall.] Up until the time of his marriage, Prince Andrew had received a payment from the Civil list based on the fact that he was a single man. On his marriage, this sum was increased substantially to take into account that he now had a wife. [Fergie]

If I may say so, there has always been a slight misunderstanding about Civil List payments. They were always intended as 'payments to cover the expenses of performing royal duties' rather than 'a large amount of money for the royal concerned to spend as he or she pleased'. Thus, the Civil List payments were intended to cover UK expenses of carrying out royal engagments, such as transport costs, clothes for royal duties, office support and admin, salaries of staff etc. And they are officially audited as such. All private, personal expenditure of the BRF could NOT be met from the Civil List payments: thus royals' private wardrobe costs and their personal holidays and their 'nights on the town' etc COULD not be charged to their Civil List payments.... such expenditure had to be covered by the Royals' own private means..........

Sharp eyed members will notice my bold type for 'UK': this is because all costs of Foreign tours [transport, clothes, staff etc] are met by the Foreign Office.

After various controversies that hit the monarchy, and huge complaints about 'the amount the monarchy was costing the UK taxpayer' the Queen herself took over [in practice] the funding of many members of the BRF, by reimbursing to the taxpayer [the Treasury] the sums of money that royal family members such as the Duke of York, the Kents, Gloucesters etc received. I could go into much more detail, but am summarising the basic principles for the sake of space-saving.

One of the fundamental mistakes often made by people who believe that Sarah was 'short-changed' in her divorce settlement, is thinking that the 'civil list / equivalent' sum in excess of £250,000 that Prince Andrew was receiving was part of Andrew's resources available to meet Sarah's divorce claim. In fact, this sum had to be left out of the Divorce calculations, because it did not represent Andrew's own private resources. I was told by various people that even Sarah never understood that the Civil list payment [and its successor] was actually 'ring-fenced money' for royal duties, not 'money to spend as she and Andrew wished'.

Until Sarah married into the BRF, it was a sacred principle that NO member of the official working British Royal family [in receipt of Civil List or its equivalent] was to receive ANY payment whatsoever for the performance of royal duties etc. Thus, if a particular organisiation wanted a 'royal visit', no payment was required from the requesting organisation. [ There is a slight refinement I should mention - all royal family memebrs have 'trust funds' - for example, when Diana joined the BRF, she opened her own trust fund, making an initial payment herself of £100 into her fund. The purpose of these private trust funds is to make donations to charities etc etc. One main source of funding for these private trusts is payments made voluntarily by organisations - particularly large corporations that have received royal visits, and possibly benefitted commercially from the visit too - in the past, a company that was able to (say) publish a picture of the Princess of Wales in logo'd safety uniform as she visited their processing plant would find themselves with possibly huge sales increases - the royal photo in effect acting as a form of 'advertisement', and for this reason, it was often felt politic that the commercial organisation should make some form of financial donation (to the trust fund) to reflect this.]

When Sarah joined the BRF, one of the most shocking things that she did at the time [with hindsight it seems mild] was giving a paid interview to the Daily Express. At that time, apart from Princess Michael, royal family members hardly ever gave personal interviews to the press unless it was in connection with their charitable works [for example, the Princess Royal has given selected interviews about her work with the SCF] and certainly NOT for money. Sarah and Andrew then sold pictures of themselves with baby Beatrice to Hello. Again, this caused shockwaves for the BRF.

So far as 'appearance money' for attending royal engagements is concerned, Sarah was never able to shake off allegations that she did in fact receive payment for some of her royal appearances. The idea of doing so originally started innocently enough with what is now seen as a watershed moment for Sarah; on one occasion during her marriage to Prince Andrew, Sarah had to cancel an appearance at an engagement. There was a good reason at the time, which I cannot remember - pregnancy possibly. Her place was then taken by one Selina Scott, then a very well known prominent tv personality. Selina [as she was quite entitled to do] receieved a fee for her appearance. However, it is said that this particular event convinced Sarah that she could demand a fee for attendances on royal duties etc. Although nothing was ever proved conclusively, when Major Ferguson was Polo Manager at the Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club, that organisation used to offer 'sponsor day packages', enabling a company to 'host' a polo day at the Club, complete with lunch, tea and polo for its corporate hospitality guests. The event was built around a polo match, 'sponsored' by the company, who also provided a trophy and prizes for the players. Some of the most expensive packages featured Fergie presenting the prizes. It was often said in my circle that Sarah was in receipt of a fee for her services. I hasten to add that nothing was ever formally admitted, and so proof that this is true is not available.


Following Sarah's divorce, I believe that at the very least her expenses are met on every 'engagement' that she undertakes, and very often, for commercial [as opposed to 'charity and not-for-profit appearances'], Sarah does receive remuneration, often substantial. Proving this is not so easy however. I know that one reason for Sarah losing 'day-to-day involvement' with the running of Children in Crisis was attributed to concerns that she was using that organisation to fund her own personal activities. One such example was given by Dr Allan Starkie in his book about Sarah. Obviously, I have no way of kinowing whether Dr Starkie's observations had any merit....

The only other members of the BRF to accept payment for appearances etc have been Prince and Princess Michael of Kent. They have never been official full-time working royals [although they have sometimes officially represented the Queen abroad, such as at the Belize Independence celebrations and the Coronation of the King of Swaziland] and have never recieved civil list or equivalent funding to finance the duties that they [voluntarily] choose to undertake. Otherwise, any company that wants the Michaels' presence have to pay the couple's expenses. Notably occasions in the past include a tv manufacturer that reputedly gave Princess Michael 14 [!] colour televisions in return for her visit to the company's factory. Another [bizarre] instance that attracted amazed press comment at the time was when Princess Michael opened a branch of a fast food chain [the Happy Eater!!], a hamburger outlet not unlike McDonald's, on the A3 highway in Surrey. The company paid for her helicopter journey and also reputedly paid her a handsome sum in respect of 'expenses'. [not with hamburgers presumably]. The Happy Eater no longer exists - the premises are now a coffee bar, but the plaque unveiled by Princess Michael to commerate the event still remains!

To return to Sarah [but still in keeping with the world of the bizarre!] one commercial offer that she did receive [post separation] was from Sophie Rhys-Jones, when the latter was still working as a PR girl [and before her marriage to Prince Edward]. This was a PR publicity stunt offered to Sarah, who was required to sit in a bath of jelly [jello]. Sarah did turn this down, although apparently because the remuneration was not good enough, not for any reason of decorum etc.

As to whether Sarah is receiving funding for her present appearances, I am sure that she must be. A not-for-profit organization will presumbly just be paying her expenses, some no doubt quite generous, with even a dress allowance [whether or not she actually buys a new frock is, I think, a moot point] as well as travel. Any commercial concern is probably going to pay her an appearance fee. Possibly quite substantial, although of course we do not know this for sure.

I hope some of this is of interest, but as always I will close with my usual comment that I do not wish to offend by anything that I have written here.

Alex
  #614  
Old 10-27-2011, 02:27 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
There was a rumour going around a few weeks ago that she was going to move to LA. Now she's in La, and so maybe the rumour was true after all.
As I understand the position, Sarah would find great difficulty in officially moving permanently moving to the USA, because I understand there would be visa and residence problems. Apparently, Sarah's rather precarious financial position and her less-than-robust financial history would not be acceptable to Uncle Sam!!
  #615  
Old 10-27-2011, 02:42 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
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.
...............

Zonk, you are so right in your general point about people not knowing the correct way to address royals etc. But I think that you may have misunderstood that point that I was trying to make, which of couse is my fault.....

I DID read the link before posting, and that was why I am upset. The link led through to the Official Not for Sale organisation page, and I was upset that they had not got the 'Sarah, Duchess of York' right. I presume it is because of sloppy editing. In the UK, when announcements are made about the BRF by charities etc, great care is taken to ensure that the Royal is correctly described. Sarah is of course no longer royal, but she is still using a title derived from her days as a member of the offical BRF, and I am just annoyed that someone from the organisation apparently could not be bothered to get it right. I would not have posted as I did had the link led [say] through to an American newspaper article.


The other reason I am upset is this; I now feel that Sarah has GOT to drop all her connections to her distant former royal existence. She now has to move forward. And harking back to her distant previous married life is, in my opinion, not helpful. There is another reason, which is probably too subtle for most people and it is this: Royals have to be very careful with supporting any campaign where there might be political overtones, [even in the widest sense]. This is because members of the BRF have to avoid any connection with political matters, however worthy these matters might be. The work of the NOT FOR SALE campaign is vitally important. And I mean vitally important. But because of the fields in which the organisation operates, there is some political 'cross-pollination' and whilst I think it is wonderful that Sarah is identifying herself with the cause, I think that any mention of her royal past could potentially [and I did say 'potentially'] cause difficulties.
  #616  
Old 10-27-2011, 03:23 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by FergieFan View Post
First of all, I wonder if I might ask a question, Diarist - is there a sense in which Sarah is not entitled to use the S with the coronet? I just wonder, since I have several pieces of monogrammed stationery from her (in response to my own letters, cards, etc.), all with the coronet, and I had never questioned its usage before. I know that technically she shouldn't be "the" Duchess of York (not that it bothers me in the least, I admit! And nor would the coronet to be honest) But I'd be curious to know if this is this a similar situation?
Hello FergieFan. The use of coronets is quite interesting. Following strict protocol, the rule that we were all taught at our mothers' knees, is that 'Coronets belong on the head ONLY'. Thus for reasons of what I can really call 'etiquette and good taste', traditionally, Coronets should NEVER appear on people's writing paper etc. However, I have seen many letters and indeed received a good few myself from Peers and Peeresses which do indeed display a Coronet. It is therefore, I think, becoming acceptable for a Coronet to be displayed on writing paper etc provided the following rules are followed: 1. That the Coronet is small 2. That the Coronet is discreet [and see below about my comments on writing paper] and 3. That the person is entitled by rank to display the Coronet. Which of course in the present case, Sarah is not. Following her divorce, she is no longer entitled to her rank as wife of the Duke of York. Her rank is based on her own birth [as she has achieved no honour in her own right]. She is therefore regarded as 'the daughter of an Esquire' as she is the daughter of Major Ferguson. Thus Sarah is is no sense entitled to display a Coronet on her writing paper. Or anywhere else, come to that. So start unpicking the Coronet on that garment bag!!


In 2. above I mentioned writing paper and if I expand on this, you may well understand further about the Coronet. Traditionally, correct form is that a person's personal writing paper should be 'as simple as possible'. Therefore, it should be either white, with the address engraved [not printed] in black, and with no other decoration; i.e. NO coat of arms, crest, coronet etc. It is also acceptable to have personal writing paper in cream with the address engraved in red. It is also acceptable to have pale blue paper with the address engraved in darker blue. But simplicity is the key - no illustrations, no rounded edges, no picture of one's home, no coat of arms etc. etc.

Those are the strict rules. People often misunderstand etiquette and protocol, equating it with snobbery, although the true purpose is meant to be exactly the opposite: to set out a well known, common standard of guidance for everyone to follow. But having said that, in my own life, I feel that the most important thing is good manners and I therefore think that you can ignore strict etiquette by following the simple maxim of 'treat others in exactly the same way that you would like to be treated yourself'. Only my views of course, but let me give you an example: if I receive a thank you note from a guest who has spent the weekend with me, I don't even notice whether the writing paper is 'properly engraved' etc. I am just delighted that the guest has taken the trouble to write etc. and even more delighted that my guest has had a good time.


And that is where I think that Sarah is so wrong: to me, and this is my own opinion, I think that she is often saying 'look at me and my royal connections' by the messages she sends out by incorporating the Coronet etc etc. Only my opinion of course.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FergieFan View Post
In addition, I'd like to make a couple of points.
Firstly, I really don't see the bag as saying "look at my royal connections" but as saying "I love my daughters". I think her daughters are so important to her, and so much of a major part of her life, that she could never play down that connection. She is rightly very, very proud of them both, and wants to shout it from the rooftops - good on her!
I see where you are coming from FergieFan, but in my humble opinion, this is actually another example of where Sarah is very wrong. It is very good and right that she is proud of her daughters. But - and leave the question of the bag out of consideration at this point - in my humble opinion anyone's maternal pride should be worn lightly in public, not 'displayed'. I wonder if any members here can recall listening to people reeling off the acheivements of their beloved daughters and wishing for a bit of modesty! And so far as the bag is concerned, I do think that Sarah has to be careful because to most of us, it is also a way of saying ' I am the mother of two princesses'.

It is perhaps less pleasant to dwell on the wider aspects of Sarah's references to her daughters, but I personally feel that much of what she has done over the years does not always show her in the light of a good mother. As parents we all are conscious of making mistakes in our children's upbringing I am sure, but I do think that Sarah in her recent current events has been at fault in two glaring ways: first, I find it unforgiveable that she has been 'living off her daughters' trust funds'. I also have to say that I found it distressing beyond belief that she allowed her daughters to be seen sobbing on Oprah. [It also struck me as a tad dishonest as well - in the clips of the interviews I saw, Sarah's daughter seemed upset at 'they' coming to hurt Sarah. It was as if some malicious outside presence was threatening the children's safety, rather than the real reason - the consequences of her reckless behaviour catching up with Sarah.

There is another reason why I always feel a bit uncomfortable about Sarah and her relationships with her daughters, and this pre-dates TRF. Nowadays, Sarah is often photographed with her daughters and IMHO seems quite content to 'use them' in furthering her [alleged] royal connections. They appear at engagements with her, she appears holding their hands etc. But I well remember - and it does pain me to say this - that when B+E were young babies, Sarah seemed to have little time for them. I remember in particular how she was always leaving them. It now seems to me that - although I do not doubt she loves them - Sarah is also well aware that the two girls are an asset to her social and professional aspirations....



Quote:
Originally Posted by FergieFan View Post
Secondly, she cannot reject all connections to her Royal past, as it is this past that helped to make her who she is. It gave her the public position that enables her to make both a living and a difference to others. Her daughters the Princesses and indeed Prince Andrew are not part of her past, but part of the life she is living now. In every interview she does, someone will ask her about them, or about the RF. In my view, for Sarah to move forward in life, she does not need a clean break from everything royal, but an acceptance of the past and how it shaped her life, and a clear optimistic view of the future. From reading "Finding Sarah", I believe that she is on the way to achieving that.

And without wishing to hurt or offend you FergieFan, this to me is exactly why I feel that Sarah should immediately drop all her 'royal reference'. To me, she is attempting to capitalise on her once royal past. She split from Andrew after a relatively short marriage; allegations about the 'grey men' aside, Andrew's main fault appeared to be that he was boring and was away in the Navy, whereas Sarah preferred the company of the super-rich. Now that the Steve Wyatts and co have deserted her, poor old Andrew does not appear so useless after all. I do not like Sarah using her royal connections in her current events and I wish that she would try to build her life around her own personal qualtities.

I have spoken harshly above and I am not meaning to offend people, particularly Sarah's supporters. But now, I feel, the time is right for her to move on. I am no great admirer of Simon Cowell, but I thought that his advice to Fergie, quoted elsewhere in this forum, was spot on.

Alex
  #617  
Old 10-27-2011, 03:26 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
From a purely West Coast/Pacific Point of view, the princesses are virtually unknown. No one I know could pick them out of a line-up. Not one of my students (in a class of 30, aged 18-25) had a clue who they were; 10 knew who Sarah was; 2 recognized Big Ben. So, if Sarah wants to keep her children's own "royal brand" going - she needs to get their faces out there. When I showed them again with their wedding hats, then people guessed they were British princesses, but did not know exactly how they fit into the family or what their names were. "Cousins of William" was the best answer (and correct!)

I did this just this week and used a recent picture of Sarah standing in front of the human trafficking charity signs.

BTW, all 30 knew William and Kate, and 22 recognized Harry. 27 recognized Prince Charles, 30 recognized Princess Diana (including a male who is 18 and from El Salvador). 6 recognized Camilla. I ran out of time but I should see if they recognize HM and Prince Phillip. I wonder.

That is fascinating, Princess Kaimi, and thank you for sharing this with us. I do feel some sympathy with your students though - there is a 'royal precedent' for their confusion: some years ago there was much mirth when a teenage Viscount Linley had to ask Princess Margaret exactly how Prince Michael was related to the BRF!
  #618  
Old 10-27-2011, 03:45 PM
Susanna Wynne's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jackson Hole, United States
Posts: 266
Diarist: Your nuanced responses are most appreciated. Good manners and good form seem to have always eluded Sarah, Duchess of York, and it cannot be, considering her schooling and time in the royal family, that she did not know at least some of the larger obligations, if not the finer points, of acceptable behavior, especially considering the circles in which her family traveled and her subsequent entrance into the BRF.

She has a penchant for making incredibly self-centered decisions without regard to how such decisions will affect others close to her, especially her daughters, for whom she professes such deep love. She has engaged in much inappropriate, even ludicrous, behaviour, but to me, nothing compares with the embarrassing, truly cringe-worthy involvement of her daughters on the Oprah show. I feel this proves she will stoop to anything to achieve her ends. And, considering all the controversies she and her daughters have been involved with, trooping herself and her daughters off to the Ecclestone spectacle is yet another example of her lack of sense and concern for her girls.
  #619  
Old 10-27-2011, 04:09 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,071
Apologies Zonk, this is the wrong place to pose this question but Russo has seen Alex/Diarist on a tear and has to ask this question before she pops out:
Can HM grant Andrew lands like PC has with the Duchy of Cornwall so he can gain income as well? Seems to me that would be much better than always dipping into her privvy purse.
__________________
"Not MGM, not the press, not anyone can tell me what to do."--Ava Gardner
  #620  
Old 10-27-2011, 04:16 PM
NotAPretender's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WPB FL/Muttontown NY, United States
Posts: 852
When she was with MacMillian and with All American Speakers, her fees to speak started at $50K for the "lowest" level, i.e. appearance fee. Her fees go up from there. That was a while ago, but due to her notoriety, I'm sure she can still draw a crowd. For a high-ticket table fee, the organizers of a charity can afford to pay a decent fee, as in turn it guarantees higher attendance. One hand washing another.

Their sites have a lot of detail on this type of work, they're worth a look.
__________________

__________________
"Me, your Highness? On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells"
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
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 october and november 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie 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 05:45 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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