Sarah, Duchess of York Current Events 17: June 2011-December 2013


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
It'd be money well spent. She's looking rough and I say that as someone whose always been in Sarah's corner. It would cost her 20,000...she needs to invest in herself.
 
I think Sarah looks pretty good! She looks like what she is: a woman in her early 50s.
 
I'd rather see her looking her natural self. For one thing, being "natural" is something that people loved her for in 1986. For another thing, getting work done would imply that she's spending money (who's money?) that she doesn't have.


Lord_Royal said:
It'd be money well spent. She's looking rough and I say that as someone whose always been in Sarah's corner. It would cost her 20,000...she needs to invest in herself.
Click to expand...
 
At this last appearance I thought Sarah looked much better than she did at Beatrice's graduation. She looked as if she was 10-15 yrs older in those pictures.
 
Sarah needs to embrace her age. By that don't mean do nothing but rather accept that she can't wear the same styles as her daughters anymore.

A woman of Sarah's age needs a complete make over. Her make-up needs to define her face, add colour to her lips and use softer, more flattering and age appropriate, eye makeup.

She also needs either a killer hair cut or a terrific up do. Long, loose hair on older women merely looks frumpy, or a desperate bid to look young and merely achieving the ultimate "mutton dressed as lamb" effect.

And she should never wear white again, unless it's a nightie!
 
I agree Marg. Sarah really needs to face her age and start dressing it. Her makeup could be so improved and it needn't be the most expensive. A new lipstick and makeup will do wonders for her. I think her hair has thinned and it does seem a different colour from a couple of weeks ago which may not be helping things. I have seen her with short hair and it suited her. Not too sure if she will do it or not though!
 
You know what would be neat, if someone good at Photoshop could do a nice picture of Sarah in flattering hair and makeup and in her best outfit. I do like her gray dress-suit, but it would be even nicer on her in a warmer colour.:flowers:

I think that she looked wonderful here, in 1991, for example. She'd have to have her make-up softened, but I love her hair and how it accents her eyes and cheeks. And a warm colour looks wonderful on
her.

http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/50733197/Time-Life-Pictures
 
Last edited:
Please note that all posts regarding Sarah moving to Los Angeles have been deleted as speculative.

 
Last edited:
Sarah's hair colour IMHO does seem to have 'changed' over the years and long before the present time.

When I saw her at The Guards Polo Club in 1980 and 1981, her hair was a shade that was known, unkindly, as 'carrot-coloured' or 'ginger'. When she became engaged to Andrew, I noticed that her hair had become less 'carot-coloured' and more of a 'refined' auburn shade. Her father, Major Ron, had been a redhead in his youth; he was mostly grey by the 1980's, but you could make out the 'reddish' tinge. Sarah's mother Susan was a brunette, and Sarah's sister Jane took more after her mother than her father in hair colour. Jane in fact was regarded as the 'beauty' of the family by Major Ron. I heard him make this remark on many occasions in the first part of the 1980's. I do not think it worked wonders for Sarah's esteem, as the remarks were usually made in her presence. [Jane was usually not there at the time - she was in Australia with her husband Alex Makim.]

British people are very cruel about hair colour, and Sarah's 'carrot-colour' hair and her freckles, which covered much of her body and even contributed to an all-over 'orange-like' tinge, made people regard her as rather ugly. When these physical features were added to her plump figure, I am afraid that Sarah was on the receiving end of even more unpleasantness. Before she became involved with Andrew, she was commonly known as 'big fat Fergie' or 'poor old Fergie'. And this had to be seen against a background of admiration for her mother - Susan Barrantes was felt to be a beauty; her long hair was brunette and her features quite beautiful, [although pretty sun-ravaged by the 1980's from her years on the polo fields, both in the UK and abroad]. Indeed, I can remember people remarking on how Susan Barrantes, with a flowing long hair and tight girlish jeans 'was as far removed from the style of a Sloane Ranger Mummy' as possible.

Looking at Sarah's long hair now, I wonder whether she is still subconciously clinging to the style of her mother? The long hair and the 'younger woman's clothes' are very reminiscent of the Susan Barrantes 'look'. And incidentally, I have to say that over the years, Sarah has grown increasingly to look like her mother so far as facial features are concerned. In the 1980's, sister Jane was felt to be far more like Susan Barrantes, apart from Jane's less-than-neat nose: she had the 'Ferguson hooked nose'.

A few weeks ago, I was interested to read a post here to the effect that Sarah had said that she had never had a grey hair. I wonder whether she was in fact colouring her hair at that point?

At one stage, Sarah did of course cut her hair - it was done by 'ultra-fashionable at that time' hairdresser Nicky Clarke, known for his very high prices! Sarah opened his re-modelled hair salon in London Mayfair's Mount Street [much to the disapproval of BP at that time, as it was felt to be a 'coommercial endorsement too far' by the Duchess.] Major Ferguson went on record saying that he did prefer Sarah with her new shorter, style, but she soon grew it out and went back to her 'long locks'. Diana was the first Princess of the modern era to have short hair. When I was growing up, long hair was felt to be 'more desirable' so that it could be swept up easily in a formal style in the evening. [long hair was seldom worn loose in the day time at formal occasions and events, let alone in the evening!] Sarah did not look good in the white dress IMHO, both the colour and the lack of sleeves are 'difficult' choices for someone of Sarah's build and years, and she would have looked infinitely better groomed if she had worm her hair swept up: more 'polished'.

Just another point: I have been looking at the photos in the links here and see that in her recent current events, Sarah has been featured with both a black and a light beige Hermes Birkin bag. How many of these has she, I wonder? No wonder she tends to be 'short of money'.

Just my thoughts and not meant to offend.

Alex
 
Last edited:
I think we all need to remember that we do not see ourselves (physically) as others do. Some of us are stylish and good looking, but don't feel we are. Others are frumpy and old looking and think we're just fine.

I don't think Sarah needs cosmetic surgery, there is nothing wrong with the white gown and how many Birkin bags she owns (or to which she has access) is irrelevant.
 
If someone, who is supposed to be poor and always in debt because of over spending and even desperate enough to sell access to an important husband, is seen with Birkin bags it is not really irrelevant. They may be gifts, but for me that doesn't make it better. These bags are not expensive, they extravagantly expensive.
 
But the question is....when did she buy them? If they are old, should she never use them again? Perhaps it would be better if she just used bags from Target or some other store (not dissing but wondering what will satisfy people). Sell them to pay off her debts? Will they make a dent in what she owed? Perhaps she should sell off her wedding earring as well. She wears them too. And just stick to jewelry from the likes of Forever21 (and again not dissing that store as well as I just bought some fun stuff there this weekend).

I get that people want Sarah to pay for her misdeeds and her debts.I get that some want her to exit stage left but you have to wonder....what will satisfy people? So she should never have or wear anything of value EVER AGAIN even if she already OWNS it?

Seriously?
 
Last edited:
As long as it is not a recent buy no problem. It may be the bags are old so of course she should not just throw them away or even sell them to give the money to charity, heaven forbid. If they are old then she must have bought them when she was being so extravagant. It is her way, she likes nice things and she likes things with brand names, nothing wrong with that. She certainly mixes with people who could afford to give her dozens of Birkins and a Kelly bag to boot.
I do hope she keeps her earrings though.
 
I don't know that anyone is really judging Sarah on these things, but rather making an observation. The bags may be old and that's fine but if new within the past couple of years just another example of why she was/is in debt. I don't expect Sarah to wear clothing from a second hand store but certainly she should be aware that as long as she cries "poor" people are going to notice when dresses "rich".
 
Sarah does tend to bring this on herself. When she went on The View she made mention that she had bought the dress off the rack of course it was a Michael Korrs and it was $1500 dollars. Not exactly something someone does who is just falling on their feet. She must have a huge wardrobe why couldn't she wear something she already had? One of the stories I remember reading spoke very clearly of her getting clothes to look at then keeping them too long so she had to buy them. It was shear laziness on her part and it cost her a fortune and she didn't care! Old habits die very hard and Sarah has shown she tends to fall back into old patterns. So yes we will notice that she is walking around with a very expensive handbags. Fashionista's amongst us may know if they are new or old. Me I couldn't care less about handbags but I am pretty sure she could sell them if things are that bad!
 
Or she could find a nice dressmaker to whip her some up. Our Beatrix Fan knows several very talented people who do that very thing for a fraction of the price of the Michael Korrs dress. One gets something origional, you get quality, and value.
 
Zonk said:
But the question is....when did she buy them? If they are old, should she never use them again? Perhaps it would be better if she just used bags from Target or some other store (not dissing but wondering what will satisfy people). Sell them to pay off her debts? Will they make a dent in what she owed? Perhaps she should sell off her wedding earring as well. She wears them too. And just stick to jewelry from the likes of Forever21 (and again not dissing that store as well as I just bought some fun stuff there this weekend).

I get that people want Sarah to pay for her misdeeds and her debts.I get that some want her to exit stage left but you have to wonder....what will satisfy people? So she should never have or wear anything of value EVER AGAIN even if she already OWNS it?

Seriously?
Click to expand...

Zonk, I am not a 'Sarah hater' [although I count myself as very disappointed by her behaviour over the years, and particularly so in the last couple of years on the basis that she seems to have learnt nothing from her past errors] but the point I am making is this:

Sarah talks about being 'debt free', but that has been achieved at the expense of her creditors AND IN PARTICULAR some of her personal staff - and NOT the highest paid staff - receiving only a proportion of what they were owed. My memory is hazy, but I believe that people here have quoted the figure of 25%.

If Sarah had been made bankrupt, under UK bankruptcy laws, your Trustee in Bankruptcy takes control of all your property, leaving you with (basically) with the tools of your trade and the clothes you need. Everything else goes is then realised by your Trustee in bankruptcy and used to pay your creditors.

The recession here in the UK has affected many people who have gone bankrupt, not because of their apparent greed and their almost contantly repeated failure to live within their means and instead crave a lifestyle of luxury which has never been their entitlement. No, these people who have gone bankrupt have found themselves in this predicament because of circumtances not of their own making: the firms they have worked for have gone to the wall because they in turn have not been paid for work and or goods and or services. Many local papers are full of heartrending stories of how cherished collections of LPs [albums], not especially valuable in themselves, have even been seized by Trustees in Bankruptcy and sold for whatever they can fetch, even though such sums seem very low. Holiday souvenirs - not valulable - have been seized and auctionned. Kitchen Food processors, extra mirrors, magazine racks: all have had to go, along with not-very-valuable but high in sentimental value possesions passed down through families: 'The Wedgewood Jasperware jug my mother gave me was sold for just £5 but was worth the world to me as it was the last thing that she gave me before she died etc etc etc..........' And only this week there was a story about one of these poor recession bankrupts losing her late mother's wedding ring to the Trustee in Bankruptcy so that it could be sold.......for £40. You all get the picture, I am sure.

And now consider the Birkin bag. I had to be educated on this topic by fellow forum members as I could not even even identify the bag as being used by Sarah, but having now done a bit of research on the topic myself I am able to quote from the Washington Post as follows:

It is a bag that announces that one has achieved a breathtaking level of success. It can declare its owner's wealth and status from a distance of 50 paces

I further see from Hermes' own website that Hermes bags start at $10,000 and that they do have a high resale value.......

And I also see that Sarah apparently has THREE such bags.

I am sorry, but I do not think it appropriate that Sarah should retain such bags. I honestly think that they should have been sold and the proceeds used to swell the funds that were being raised [apparently from some dodgy sources, too] to provide a pool of money from which to make the proportional payments to Sarah's creditors.

Sarah does not need any Birkin bags. She needs to have a couple of good quality leather bags and an evening bag. Harrods and Harvey Nichols both have sales twice a year when Sarah could furnish herself with what she needs for her 'work' at around £180 for the lot.

I also think that it would have taught Sarah a useful lesson if she had been made to part with some of her property in order to contribute to the fund to pay her creditors. There has been much in the press about Andrew and the queen apparently rallying round to put together the money to pay the creditors, [and some of it from dodgy sources as well if the Epstein contribution stories are true.......] but at the moment I do not know if Sarah contributed a thing...

A historical note: The case of Princess Marina. When the Duke of Kent was killed in the war, his Civil List allowance ceased the moment he died. There was no 'widow's civil list' entitlement in those days and so Marina's income plummeted. Through no fault of her own, her circumstances had altered. And so she had to sell many personal items of her propert to try to fund her [much-reduced] lifestyle. And so why should the feckless Fergie be excused such heartache, when her problems can be attributed to her constant inability to budget and live within her means..........

I must say as well that if I was one of Sarah's personal staff who had only received a proportion of what I was owed [some of those staff earning only around £15,000 p a] I would be furious to see Sarah walking around with such visible symbols of wealth.......it must be bad enough seeing her flying round the world as well.....

As a side issue, with the news of the Michael Kors dress above, I do think that Sarah does need to modify her tastes. Target merchandise? Well, what is so awful about that? If you have minimal assets and claim that you have NOTHING, then I am afraid that it is a case of 'beggars can't be choosers'. We would all love to dress in Designer clothing I am sure, but as Sarah currently seems to have a gap between her income and her perception of what she is entitled to, then I think that she should modify her expenditure pronto. [Side note: you can find some good clothes in Target: I got a jacket there for $30 a couple of years ago which I wore to Badminton this year. Not only did it escape censure, but several people stopped me and admired it.]

Final point: Sarah's supporters always claim that she has not got very much in the way of personal possessions, but I do feel that it is a pity that a formal audit of her assets has never been carried out. Although I concede that she has no 'Royal' jewellery, I am pretty certain, despite her supporters' denials, that there are various bits and pieces from Cartier, Tiffany and Harry Winston and the like, not just the Tiara and necklace set from the Queen....... WHY should she be allowed to keep all this when others have received only a fraction of what they were due?

One more thing: Sarah's supporters constantly say that Sarah was a 'victim' of the recession too because of Hartmoor going bust. When I read about its expensive NYC location etc etc it struck me that surely a contributory factor was not just the recession but the high-spending ways of its Principal..

Just my thoughts and as ever I do not want to offend, but I am just beginning to lose patience with Sarah's apparent inability to start living a more modest lifestyle. And if she does run into spending difficulties again, I jollly well hope that the BRF cry 'enough' and this time let her go bankrupt. It could be the most constructive way of Finding Sarah yet.

Alex
 
Last edited:
I have to agree with Diarist here. These are hard times in a lot of places, and it does Sarah no favours to be seen carrying or wearing very expensive things when others have had to give up so much. If Sarah didn't "talk poor", or didn't have had creditors who had to settle for so little, it wouldn't be in such bad taste.
 
Last edited:
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 agree with everything Diarist has said. I actually believe Sarah will learn nothing unless she truly hits rock bottom and goes bankrupt. Surely these rich friends off hers aren't going to continue bailing her out and while the people took the settlements they may not have felt they had much other choice. Some people have rent and bills to pay they don't get to live a life rent free the way Sarah does. It seems the poorer folk took the brunt of this and they may off had very little choice. Sarah has a lot of jewelry and it is expensive so she could have sold some to cover some of her debts but why do that when you can get your ex husband to hustle the cash for you. I see part of Sarah's problems as not really ever having to face the consequences of her actions. Until she does she will continue down this path. I think we will hear off her in money trouble again soon for the life of me I can't work out where this 100 thousand dollars a year she is supposed to be making is coming from. Unless she is getting it from her Charity?
 
If I had my own bills to pay, I think that I'd accept 25% now rather than have to wait for a bankruptcy to be settled or possibly get nothing. Can a person actually be forced into bankruptcy, or is it a decision that a person comes to because s/he has no other options? Sarah had other options apparently.

Lord_Royal said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Lord_Royal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The creditors accepted the settlement on the theory (I am guessing) that something is better than nothing. Sarah didn't declare bankruptcy therefore she didn't have to sell belongings.

And sorry, but Sarah is technically debt free if her debtors accepted a Settlement (unless of course, she has acquired new debt). That, from what I understand removes Sarah from any other financial obligations. If you accept some nominal fee with the understanding that you will not receive the rest, her debtors (or anyone elses's) can't sue for the remainder. I would imagine that a settlement agreement to that affect would have taken place. So while we can go back and forth regarding the details...it is what it is.

And I am sorry, but the notion that Sarah should not run around with expensive Hermes bags that may be new or old is baffling to me. If the bag she has is 5 years old, what do you think the depreciation on such a bag is? She isn't going to get 10,000 (which is the initial value of the bag) no matter how much she paid for it. She might get 1,000 or 200 bucks. I understand what you are saying about other people being forced to sell personal items but I think the key ingredient here is that they the FILED for bankruptcy. Sarah didn't and therefore these rules don't apply to her. Is it fair that Sarah because of her connections, had the opportunity and the resources (thru Andrew but we don't need to rehash that) that other people don't have. And as a result, they had to sell their stuff. No, its not but guess what. Life is Sometimes Not Fair. That sounds cold but thats the way it is.

Now people can talk about the expensive lifestyle that Sarah leads in regards to traveling, and buying new clothes, jewelry, etc. And I certainly get how seeing Sarah out and about and still living the jet set life may be irksome to former employees and vendors. And you have a point in some of the "issues" but to suggest that because she has no money or real assets (because its not like she has Elizabeth Taylor's wardrobe or something) she shouldn't use or wear what she has? If she was bankrupt one could definitely argue that her assets should have been sold but she didn't and they weren't.I mean, am I the only one that thinks that slightly ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Zonk said:
Exactly. The creditors accepted the settlement on the theory (I am guessing) that something is better than nothing. Sarah didn't declare bankruptcy therefore she didn't have to sell belongings.
\
And I am sorry, but the notion that Sarah should not run around with expensive Hermes bags that may be new or old is baffling to me. If the bag she has is 5 years old, what do you think the depreciation on such a bag is? She isn't going to get 10,000 no matter how much she paid for it. She might get 1,000 or 200 bucks.
Click to expand...

I guess we'd have to be experts at these bags to even know whether or not they have been in her possession for a while or not. In a way its probably a blessing for her to have things from her spending days that are durable and long lasting and of quality that will still serve her for years. As much as she has been rumored to spend, spend, spend on things, she probably has a big variety of things that she can choose from. From what my understanding is, these bags are not something that is a fad and 'outdated' when the next year rolls around. As Diarist mentioned, something of quality and a classic design can be found most anywhere and be used season to season and never go out of style. Another example is Charles and his shoes that he's worn for what.. 40 some years? (One's antique clothes show: How Prince Charles has always been king of wardrobe recycling | Mail Online) Tell that to my nehru jacket that's still hanging in the back recesses of my closet will you please? :ROFLMAO:

We have to remember too that the agreement to the settlement by Sarah's employees were probably made before folks jumped on the bandwagon to bail her out. IIRC, Andrew's office was the first to step in and offer to do something and it wasn't too long after the NOTW sting. I'm sure its in the archives here somewhere. Both Sarah and her employees at the time were between a rock and a hard place and as has been stated, something is better than nothing at all when the wolf starts barking at the door.
 
:previous: I am not an expert but the way I see is this: some things lose value once you purchase them (your new car once you have driven off the lot, your computer that is maybe 2 to 3 years old, etc.). A home, land, jewelry, and stock might be a few examples of things that increase in value.

Yes, Hermes have been a mainstay in the fashion world for expensive, good quality bags that have the potential to last a lifetime. But I would imagine that they also lose value over time unless they are owned by a particular person and the "nostalgia" feeling of owning something by Elvis Presley, Diana, Grace Kelly or Elizabeth Taylor (to name just a few) might make them more valuable over time.

I am sorry, I can't imagine bags owned by Sarah, Duchess of York would fetch a pretty price. Much less the price that they were originally paid for. So again, it comes down to the fact that Sarah was NOT bankrupt and therefore was not required to sell her personal belongings. That important fact hasn't changed.

And I still stand by my statement that just because it bothers some people as well as Sarah's former employees and vendors to see Sarah using expensive items from her past, its slightly off putting that we expect her to put them in a box and pop over to Target for a bag so not to offend. I woudln't expect that for Joe Blow, or Annie down the street (if I happened to know about her personal or business finances) so I certainly don't expect that from Sarah. I totally get that Sarah shouldn't be seen spending new money and purchasing expensive items if she hasn't got the means to pay for them but stuff she has already have? I don't get it.

The days are long gone when England had a debtors prison and people were forced to stay in jail because they didn't pay their debts or shipped off the colonies.
 
Last edited:
Mermaid1962 said:
If I had my own bills to pay, I think that I'd accept 25% now rather than have to wait for a bankruptcy to be settled or possibly get nothing. Can a person actually be forced into bankruptcy, or is it a decision that a person comes to because s/he has no other options? Sarah had other options apparently.
Click to expand...

Had one of Sarah's creditors sued her and won a judgement against her, which would have likely been easy to achieve, she would have been forced into bankruptcy if she didn't pay the judgement. You can absolutely be FORCED into bankruptcy under UK law.

Bankruptcy in the UK moves quickly, the courts act to aid the creditor in recouping their funds. If her creditors were so sloppy with their own money that they felt compelled to accept 25% of their debts, that's their problem.

Sarah, through the Duke of York's office, proposed settlements to her creditors and they accepted the deal. End of discussion.

Whatever Sarah wears, be it Michael Kors, an Hermes bag or her Garrard tiara and diamond parure, it's her right to and her business. What I've never understood about the criticism about Sarah's finances is the skewed view that it somehow impacts the taxpayer. It does not. Sarah hasn't received a pence of public money since 1992.
 
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 :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
Sarah, Duchess of York Current Events 20: Sep 2022 -
3 4 5
Replies
138
Views
9K
iceflower
iceflower
CrownPrincessJava
  • Sticky
Italy: Birthday and Anniversary Wishes 2024
Replies
4
Views
425
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
Marengo
  • Sticky
United Kingdom: Birthday and Anniversary Wishes 2024
2 3
Replies
63
Views
4K
Biri
B
An Ard Ri
  • Sticky
Birthday and anniversary wishes for the Royal Family of the Spain 2024
Replies
12
Views
1K
Biri
B
Marengo
  • Sticky
Liechtenstein: Birthday and Anniversary Wishes 2024
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
doro
doro

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom