The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f113/)
-   -   What do you think Sarah's effect is on the Royal Family? (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f113/what-do-you-think-sarahs-effect-is-on-the-royal-family-15637.html)

ysbel 01-27-2008 11:53 AM

What do you think Sarah's effect is on the Royal Family?
 
Sarah, duchess of York seems to generate a lot of discussion here and especially on her relationships with the Royal Family in particular her daughters and ex-husband.

So we took a look at all the discussions surrounding Sarah on the boards here and came up with this question for our TRF members:

What do you think Sarah's effect is on the Royal Family?

Please explain your choices.

jcbcode99 01-27-2008 12:00 PM

She's an irritant who is tolerated because she is the mother of Monarch's children.

ysbel 01-27-2008 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcbcode99 (Post 722226)
She's an irritant who is tolerated because she is the mother of Monarch's children.

Does that mean she has a good effect, bad effect or nonexistant effect on the Royal Family?

TheTruth 01-27-2008 12:08 PM

I've voted Nonexistent. Might be a hard judgement but that's how I feel about her role in the RF. She did some great job in charities and associations but I can't say she's been a 'major' royal. Fergie did, IMO, more damage than good actions in the BRF. Moreover, her relationship with her girls is quite strange ...

jcbcode99 01-27-2008 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel (Post 722232)
Does that mean she has a good effect, bad effect or nonexistant effect on the Royal Family?

Not bad but not nonexistant; just an irritating effect because she is no longer a major royal, but still influences her daughers.

ysbel 01-27-2008 12:20 PM

Thanks Janet for clarifying,

By the way, we have some votes that Sarah is a bad influence because she is an influence on her ex-husband and daughters. Would anyone care to elaborate?

sirhon11234 01-27-2008 12:41 PM

I voted nonexistent, IMO she has caused more embarrassment then good for the Windsors.

selrahc4 01-27-2008 01:06 PM

It wasn't easy to choose because many of the choices are overlapping. I chose "Not Good, the past is past but her actions today are hurting the reputation of the Royal Family".

There are several other choices I could have easily made as well. I chose the one I did because I think it hurts their reputation when she so freely speaks about them and her long-lost inclusion thus coupling with royalty her other questionable actions in the public mind. I wouldn't consider her current actions very damaging to the royal family as a whole, though, if she would simply refuse to talk about the royal family (other than her daughters, that's only fair) in her interviews. Nearly 16 years after the separation, nearly 12 years after the divorce, it's time to drop the pretence that she has insights to share.

Elspeth 01-27-2008 01:16 PM

I think her antics during her marriage were part of the reason why the royal family was so unpopular in the early 1990s, and her blatant freeloading was one of the causes of the popular revolt over using taxpayers' money to repair Windsor Castle after the fire and possibly even the decision to shrink the Civil List recipients as far as they did. More than anyone else, she seemed to personify the dangers of grabbing all the privileges of royal life and shirking the responsibilities. Even if that wasn't the case, it's the perception, and even if the press had decided to give her that label in order to create controversy and provide a contrast to Diana, she didn't seem to go out of her way to dispel the image.

However, for the future she probably has less influence than she used to, because her daughters aren't likely to inherit the throne. Beatrice is already fifth in the line of succession and likely to drop even further as William and Harry start their own families in the next few years. I remember reading Mabell Airlie's book which contained some reminiscences about her time as a lady in waiting to Queen Mary, and she said that when George V died, it didn't take long for Queen Mary and her household to be referred to as the "old court," and I think that during the next reign, when Andrew is no longer in the direct line of descent from the monarch and Beatrice and Eugenie are cousins rather than grandchildren of the monarch, Sarah's influence will become even less important.

Personally I don't think she's doing Beatrice any favours at the moment by appearing to use her as a means of keeping herself in the news, and taking her to so many celebrity-type events. The perception of Beatrice at the moment is beginning to be rather similar to that of Sarah - someone who grabs the privileges but isn't so keen on the work - and that might eventually become a factor in the decision about how far to downsize the monarchy in the future. However, it isn't clear whether it's Sarah's need for publicity or Andrew's basic laziness that's resulted in Beatrice coming across as more of a celebrity than a royal.

ysbel 01-28-2008 07:36 AM

Well this is interesting. Overall 22 votes, nonexistent is winning out but only barely. Some that Sarah was harmful, some were that she was helpful to the monarchy.

Would anyone who voted care to share their impressions with the rest of us?

Bella 01-28-2008 09:28 AM

I put non-existent, too. I don't think the RF gives her too much thought outside of being the mother of the York girls. I don't think her actions have any effect on the RF. It's not like she's the mother of the heir and spare where her influence was more closer to the throne (that might be cause for concern). I don't think she wants to effect the RF anyway. I think she wants to keep a level of respect going, at least in her interviews she always seems to defer to them.

BeatrixFan 01-28-2008 11:47 AM

I'd say as the mother of Beatrice and Eugenie she does have an effect albeit from an unusual direction. She still manages to mess it up though.

Russophile 01-28-2008 06:08 PM

I believe Sarah and Diana both, unwittingly really did damage to the Monarchy. Granted, being in that position is not the easiest thing to do, but talking and collaborating to the media was a dangerous game that had a double-edged sword. I don't think either of them really understood the media and by exploiting them both, for good or ill, has really done damage. And the craziness of it all. Now, in America, we have 17 papp's assigned to Britney Spears. 17! And it all started with Diana-mania, then Fergie-mania. A real Pandora's box. Because if you let them in, just once, being "nice", then they expect that. They are all over you. If you by chance pick your nose, or get that lettuce in your teeth it's EVERYWHERE in minutes.
Sarah's actions currently and in the past have not helped her case.
I really don't know what to make of her.

COUNTESS 01-28-2008 07:58 PM

Why blame Sarah. She is who she is. Not a favorite of mine, but she is no worse than many of the RF. She has no taste and she is bawdy. That is her personality. Andrew married her knowing that. At least she appears human. Beatrice is her daughter and she loves her mother. How dare anyone assume that ,that is not acceptable. Her mother loves her. Beatrice, also, has no taste. Too bad. But then again, Prince Andrew is no trip through the tulips, either. Neither are some other close members of the family. And then to blame Diana and Sarah, while Charles was busily skuling around trying to be a "tampon" Princess Margaret had an affair with a bvery young man. Stop and think. The days of awe for royalty are over. Lots of skeltons in the closet.

LadyCat 01-28-2008 08:26 PM

And the skeletons are harder to hide in these days of 24/7 news channels, internet news-as-it-happens and all the other technology we have available. In the "good ole days" (read the first half of QEII's reign and those of her predecessors) these things did not exist and it was a lot easier to keep the skeletons in the closet where they clearly belonged. Diana and Sarah both came along just as the technology we have now was in its infancy and their divorces occurred when probably (maybe?) 50% of the people in both the US and GB had PCs and dial-up internet. I think Sarah's effect on the royal family during her marriage and separation was not so good. Since the divorce I'm not sure she has an effect one way or the other. Now that her daughters are grown, I would think none at all.

Cat

COUNTESS 01-28-2008 08:37 PM

I think you are quite right.

Bella 01-29-2008 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by COUNTESS (Post 722806)
Why blame Sarah. She is who she is. Not a favorite of mine, but she is no worse than many of the RF. She has no taste and she is bawdy. That is her personality. Andrew married her knowing that. At least she appears human. Beatrice is her daughter and she loves her mother. How dare anyone assume that ,that is not acceptable. Her mother loves her. Beatrice, also, has no taste. Too bad. But then again, Prince Andrew is no trip through the tulips, either. Neither are some other close members of the family. And then to blame Diana and Sarah, while Charles was busily skuling around trying to be a "tampon" Princess Margaret had an affair with a bvery young man. Stop and think. The days of awe for royalty are over. Lots of skeltons in the closet.

OMG!!! This post is cracking me up! I was actually laughing out loud! I agree w alot of it, though.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises