Options for Sarah to recover from the 'Cash for Access' scandal - Page 17

Russophile · #**321** 08-09-2010, 08:05 PM

We shall see if Sarah has changed and/or learnt any lessons. She has been awfully quiet of late, justifiably so, so there isn't any thing really to go on.
And being the gossip monger that I am

I shall be watching to see what transpires.

kakieanne · #**322** 08-09-2010, 09:03 PM

[QUOTE=Polly;1122918]To some extent I agree with you, Russophile, but if the less sensationalist press is correct, she's extricated herself from her personal debts this time, too. And to the best of my knowledge, she's been in severe financial stress twice, not repeatedly, unless there's information about which I am ignorant.

According to Sarah's interview with Oprah at the end of May, she didn't have any money. And as far as we know, she has not worked a day since then. So if the press is right and her personal debts of 1.5m pounds have been paid, then they are probably also right when they say that it was PA that paid them off...and not Sarah.

rmay286 · #**323** 08-09-2010, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polly

Although I don't know the details of her business collapses I'm still prepared to assume that they are concomitant with the hundreds of thousands of businesses ruined throughout the entire world because of the GFC. Even many of those who were, hitherto, considered quite savvy and successful business men and women have suffered enormous losses.

Some of Sarah`s losses (Handmade Films comes to mind) had to do with the GFC, but others are her own fault. I do think Andrew paid off her personal debts because as Katrieanna says, she didn`t have any money in May and hasn`t been working since then.

It`s odd to keep reading things about Sarah`s finances from "close royal aides" including discussions of what supposedly transpired on the yacht. It sounds like someone from the staff is spilling things without the royal family`s knowledge, or someone has permission to share some details to the press to gauge possible public reaction to different scenarios, like the Queen and Andrew supporting Sarah or Sarah going bankrupt.

I do think Sarah will end up going bankrupt. I don`t really see how she has a choice. I keep getting the impression from reading the articles that are coming out, that Sarah, Andrew, and maybe the Queen and the courtiers, are all hoping for Sarah to get some big contract in the U.S. again, but I just don`t think it will happen--the time for that has passed. Maybe the Oprah thing will work out for a while--if that network ever gets off the ground.

Polly · #**324** 08-09-2010, 09:27 PM

Hi Kakieanne,

I guess that if Andrew did pay her personal debts then we shall never know.

As for not working 'since' - Sarah's written and published over 20 books. We have no way of knowing whether or not she's involved in another similar enterprise, after all.

Perhaps those press reports are from the same 'informed sources' which claimed that Sarah has stolen her children's trust fund monies? As if.

rmay286 · #**325** 08-09-2010, 10:02 PM

Sarah did say in the News of the World transcript that her daughters paid for her. I suppose we have no way of knowing if she`s earned money since the tabloid sting, but I think we might hear about it if she was involved with some new venture.

grevinnan · #**326** 08-09-2010, 10:49 PM

What Sarah needs to do is what many other women (and men) in similar situations do - get a sugar daddy. If she can not support herself in the lifestyle she likes to keep then find someone who can. Very simple.

Polly · #**327** 08-09-2010, 10:57 PM

Oh, yes, rmay286. But well-heeled daughters paying out for Mum's treats (and they wouldn't be the only ones) is vastly different from unsubstantiated allegations that Mum's stealing from the kids. Actually, as the trusts weren't set up by Sarah such actions would constitute a criminal offence. As my children have small trust funds set up by their grandparents, I know of what I speak, Australian law mirroring English law, as it does.

I only mentioned this at all because it's indicative of the extent to which some of the press will go to discredit anyone who falls out of favour this week, this month, etc.

Likewise the charges that Sarah's lazy. Maybe, but looking at her cv from the last few years certainly doesn't give me that impression.

I don't know, either, that her losses were her fault as I don't know what they actually are or how they came about. However, I have friends and family in the UK and the US who have suffered enormous losses through no fault of their own. Some who were living comfortably on investments no longer enjoy a regular income; some who were in business have almost gone to the wall because others can't pay their business accounts; some had business loans which were called in, unexpectedly, by the banks because the banks were in deep doo-doo from mismangement......there are a myriad reasons why decent, hardworking and honourable people have hit the wall. Whether Sarah is in this category I just don't know, but I'm prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt until I do.

One of my near relatives works, voluntarily, as a financial and business adviser to The Prince's Trust. I believe him, absolutely, when he says that even successful, well-funded and well-structured businesses have been in great peril in recent years with unexpected and surprise defalcations by some debtors, the banking crisis, the loss of spending power by many, and that more financial stress is still anticipated.

In sum, until I have absolute proof that the Duchess did anything untoward, un-businesslike, or downight dodgy, then I'm prepared to feel sorry for her and her financial calamities.

Best to all.

sliver_bic · #**328** 08-10-2010, 09:52 AM

You don't consider attempting to sell Andrew out as untoward, un-businesslike, or downright dodgy? It was endangering him, possibly even her daughters, depending on who she might've set him up with and where such a meeting might have taken place.

What I wonder is if she'd be allowed to go into bankruptcy? I'm not sure how it works in the UK compared to the States, I've been looking around, but would the court take into account the fact that she lives in Andrew's home, that he in fact has the money to pay off those debts if he wanted to? Would it matter that they're not married?

rominet09 · #**329** 08-10-2010, 10:04 AM

The people I pity are those to whom she owes money and who will get nothing of their money if she is declared bankrupt !

Russophile · #**330** 08-10-2010, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polly

As for not working 'since' - Sarah's written and published over 20 books. We have no way of knowing whether or not she's involved in another similar enterprise, after all.

One would think she would get some sort of residuals, my Peter does with his books.

EllieCat · #**331** 08-10-2010, 07:12 PM

Quote:

One would think she would get some sort of residuals, my Peter does with his books.

Good for him, but unless someone actually sells thousands and thousands of books, just having a book printed doesn't automatically make one wealthy. I speak as a book designer working for a book printer.

nascarlucy · #**332** 08-10-2010, 07:25 PM

In the United States Prince Andrew would not be responsible for his ex-wife's debts. I don't know British law but I imagine the same is true. Unless he co-signed on her debt, then he is not responsible for it. He really shouldn't have to bail her out. Considering what has happened, he may not be inclined to do so. If he does, he is a very forgiving person and has a heart of gold.

Will be interesting to see how this matter resolves itself.

Russophile · #**333** 08-10-2010, 08:07 PM

However, what Sarah does reflects on the BRF so the debts need to be addressed and paid for. Parliment and the people can abolish the monarchy. It behooves PA to take care of this issue.

sliver_bic · #**334** 08-10-2010, 09:01 PM

So I'm looking through my email for a Barnes and Noble coupon to buy a book and I find this within the last email they sent me.

"The Duchess discusses her new Helping Hand series of books designed to help kids and parents navigate life's challenges. "

No date on the video but the email was sent today.

Sarah, Duchess of York | Book Videos, Interviews & Podcasts from B&N Studio

Wisteria · #**335** 08-11-2010, 06:23 AM

The point is, how many times are the BRF or PA supposed to pay her debts? If they pay these will they be paying her next debts too, and don´t tell me she is suddenly going to become penny wise and live a quiet retiring suburban life.
To save the princesses´ embarassment is what I would call emotional blackmail. This could go on forever and it is about time that Sarah acquired a bit of common sense and starts to realise that she gave up being a royal many years ago and should not want to live like one.
As to saying that Wyatt and Bryan have nothing to do with this, actually I believe they were the very beginning and cause of this whole sorry affair. Wasn´t John Bryan given by Sarah the title of "financial adviser"?

Osipi · #**336** 08-11-2010, 07:26 AM

One thing Sarah doesn't have that we, the common people, have is that what we did 15-20 years ago disappears into ancient history. Think back on your own "oops" and think if it was made public because you had Fleet Street or the paps on you to remind you of it years later. Trust me.. there's a few where I'm glad I'm NOT Sarah.

She really hasn't had it easy with being a 'tween' Keep the image up for her daughters in the BRF and going on her own. She lives like a duchess.. but has to face Sarah Ferguson.

I do hope she finds herself.

sliver_bic · #**337** 08-11-2010, 09:22 AM

Can someone like her learn this late in life? We all have epiphanies but you'd have though her original struggle to clear debt would've taught her something. I'm afraid she might honestly be doomed to a life of constantly chasing a standard she can't maintain which, because of the wealthy contacts she maintains, she might always believe possible.

Osipi · #**338** 08-11-2010, 09:55 AM

On that thought I would imagine that she thought "her people" would talk to "their people". She was one that had a gaggle of people to do things for he so she'd not have to worry.. they'd adviser her of things and perhaps thsts where she said "its what I want". We don't know.

But even after PA took over the financials... the Roayl Mail office cuts her off.. there's a problem.

And can someone do it at her age? Yes! and still be an ex BRF and ex Duchess of York... NO. No matter what she does from here on in... she'll still be Fergie the Toe.

The difference is being in the public eye.

Russophile · #**339** 08-11-2010, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi

One thing Sarah doesn't have that we, the common people, have is that what we did 15-20 years ago disappears into ancient history. Think back on your own "oops" and think if it was made public because you had Fleet Street or the paps on you to remind you of it years later. Trust me.. there's a few where I'm glad I'm NOT Sarah.

The difference is that I do not keep doing those "whoops" things. I see Sarah still making gaffe's etc.
I hope, like Silver_bic asked, that Sarah actually does learn late in life.

Polly · #**340** 08-11-2010, 10:36 PM

Perhaps Sarah's first 'mistake', depending on one's point of view, of course, was to blow much of her lump settlement on clearing her deceased mother's debts. I thought this an admirable and honourable action: she was not legally obliged to do so.

Just as the Queen acted, after all, when her mother, a particular favourite of mine, died and left horrendous debts. Her Majesty paid off the Coutts bank overdraft of about £7m, in addition to the costs of her stables (£1m p.a.) and re-decoration of Clarence House, the huge staff wages bill (The Queen Mother had 60 employees at CH at the time she died). Her estate, estimated at £70m, was inherited by the Queen and was not subjected to tax, although money left to the grandchildren was. Much as I admired her, the Queen Mother was a terrific spendthrift whose extravagant lifestyle, for which she couldn't pay, continually frustrated her staff and her family.

Then there's Queen Mary's mother, 'fat' Mary Adelaide, who was so shockingly reckless with money that she averted bankruptcy only because her cousin, Queen Victoria, wanted 'May' to marry her grandson. Victoria paid Mary Adelaide's outrageous bills, which were truly enormous, and installed a comptroller to supervise all her spending in the future.

Sarah's financial difficulties are indeed a matter for the Royal Family, in my opinion. Despite her foolish actions, we are only ever given one side of the story, but I'm solid in my beliefs that she was a very hard-done-by divorcee, and that most of her problems have stemmed from that. One apropos example - when Andrew sold Sunninghill Park for £15m, although Sarah was entitled to a minor share of that sale she received nothing. This would not happen, in English law, to any other ex-wife who had lived in the marital home, no matter who paid for it. Perhaps that's why Andrew continues to provide her with board and lodging.

Sarah's far from being wise and sensible and has contributed to her own downfall. However, she's kind and generous, she's loved by her daughters, she's utterly without ill-will and spite and she's still liked and valued by those who've known her for a long time. The sheer numbers of men and women in the public eye who continue to invite her to share their lives and holidays despite her unfavourable publicity, is testament enough to that.

Because her actions, especially the notorious 'selling of favours' when she was drunk (and as I've pointed out elsewhere, Countess Sophie didn't even have that excuse years ago when she tried to 'sell' the Palace and her royal connections) do impinge on the integrity of the Royal Family, I think that they should pay her debts and install a watchdog, just as Queen Victoria did for Queen Mary's unreliable mother.

In my view, there was more than a hint of corruption behind this entrapment of Sarah and I've heard it suggested that it was but the first step in 'exposing' the growing concerns about Andrew's relationships and friendships with some allegedly 'unseemly', recent, Eastern European billionaires who have become more than just his formal trade associates.

At least then they could keep Sarah 'in house' and under wraps, much as has happened to Prince Michael of Kent and his wife.

I really question the validity of and continuing campaign to sully the person of Sarah beyond the evidence of her stupid behaviour. She is not the devil incarnate by any means and I remain convinced that she's become a pawn in the campaign to discredit and embarrass the royal family. The Family in my opinion, would be wise to save her, then continue to protect her from herself and those who would undermine them.