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
Copy that on the answers. I sent you a PM Diarist to explain the slang. 
