I am most upset, because I hit the wrong button. At any rate, The BRF lives at the very top. The nonsense about them being "modest", in spending, is just an illusion. If you are paying they are buying and when you are not, they think. Why, I don't know. The queen cried when they took away her yacht, which "you paid for". When she could have had one, at her expense, you are right she didn't. Gifts of millions of dollars of jewels given by Arab sheiks are quite acceptable. No matter what their country's policy's are. They live very elegant circumstances. They don't fret where their next dollar or in their case pound is coming from. They, until a few years ago, paid no income taxes, unlike the "regular folk. Where do you think they have. somewhat amassed their fortune from? The still have tax evasions, passing huge jewles from "soverign to soverign" and then distributing them, without any taxation. How clever. Sarah, is a novice at scamming the public, she has had good teachers, with a holier than thou attitude of the BRF.
I don't feel that it is quite fair to describe my post as a hyocritical diatribe - I am trying to argue quite neurally.
To take your points above:
Please re-read my post: I was comparing Sarah's spending to
members of the British Royal Family OTHER than the Queen: And it is still my humble opinion that the spending of the Duchess of Gloucester etc is still much more modest than Sarah.
The Queen did indeed cry when the Royal Yacht was decomissioned, but I don't see what is wrong about that. The RY was not her private property either - it actually had a dual function - it was also a Hospital Ship and although it was not able to see service in the Falklands as such [apparently due to the fact that times had moved on since it was built and its oil burning capacity made it unsuitable etc, which I don't really understand but the Admiralty made statements about this but it did see service abroad as an evacuation ship [the Far East I believe and no doubt one of the experts here will be able to correct me]. I believe that a new Royal Yacht would cost around £500m if it was to be designed as a hospital ship. The UK has not got this money and the Queen has not got this as part of her 'free capital' ['free' as in available - she does not have liquid assets of this amotnt].
Gifts from the Shiekhs are made to the Country rather than being used as the Queen's personal property. They become part of the UK's 'assets' in the same way as the Queen's pictures and Crown Jewels are part of the UK's assets. Interestingly, if any member of the royal family who receives a gift of (say) jewels wishes to keep it, they have to buy it themselves. The most clear example of this was when Camilla was observed wearing some lovely jewels two or three years ago; they proved to be a gift from one of the Rules of the UAE I beleive; BP was then swift to point out that they were not a 'private gift'. This would be most clearly seen if Charles and Camilla were to divorce - these jewels would not count as part of Camilla's personal property, but that of the Crown.
Apart from that, I stand by what I said. Leaving aside the QUeen and the PRince of Wales, no other member of the BRF lives such an cash-excessive lifestyl as that which Sarah, who, has in fact been 'non-royal for 25 years' aspires to.
Two years ago, the Sunday Times calculated that Sarah had 'spent her way' through £22m: apart from the money from the Queen, this was apparently based on her contracts with Weightwatchers, Royal Doulton [Waterford], motivational speaking, interviews for which she charged, documentary fees she believed autobiograhpy and similar books plus her owh children's books. No other minor member of the BRF has spent on this level - don't forget, Sarah had managed to get herself onto the verge of bankruptcy. As to whether these sums are accurate none of us knows, although it was not immediately challenged by Sarah, which leads me to belive that it is not a wildly inaccurate figure....
The only viable way forward for Sarah is I think for the QUeen to re-agee a settlement for Sarah, comprising a modest monthly income and a small grace and favour house on the Crown Estate [ a bit like the house now occupied by Marina Mowatt] paid to her on the strict understanding that she no longer uses the 'Sarah, Duchess of York' style and title and contrives to live a quiet life unless or until she re-marries.
but that's what I've always read about it.
Why is it a witch hunt when you voice the opinion that what Sarah does at the moment is wrong? Was her Cash for access-sale right? Is it right that her creditors got only part of their money but she continues to live a luxury life in the eyes of the media? Of courseit is her right to do whatever she likes on telly but as she continues to bring in her Royal connections, one has a right to say that it is not adequate behaviour in my opinion. 
