Options for Sarah to recover from the 'Cash for Access' scandal - Page 24

Russophile · #**461** 11-09-2010, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fergalicious

. . . she has never been given an appropriate settlement and this caused problems.

And whose fault is that?

fergalicious · #**462** 11-09-2010, 05:05 PM

the wine's.

Russophile · #**463** 11-09-2010, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fergalicious

the wine's.

Possibly. Sarah, per the Starkie book and the Leslie Player book, was drinking a lot and popping pills she shouldn't have. I'm sure her mind was clouded and she could not make a rational decision.

**Zonk** · #**464** 11-09-2010, 05:25 PM

Off topic posts about drinking have been deleted.

Also, per TRF rules all speculative comments can and will be deleted. "Sources" are not a legtimate and should not be considered in lieu of established facts and persons.

Zonk

sliver_bic · #**465** 11-10-2010, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fergalicious

there are better wines than Merlot out there to bet on.

Iluvbertie is right, she has never been given an appropriate settlement and this caused problems.

She agreed to that settlement. She said she took less in hopes of having a better relationship. She then dug herself out of debt, making the settlement a moot point because she didn't have to depend on it. She then wasted that money. Her choices, not the big bad BRF's, are what has her in hot water. Her need to live high on the hog and burn through millions are why she's in such bad shape not a small settlement set up nearly fifteen years ago.

rmay286 · #**466** 11-10-2010, 10:46 AM

I don't know whether Sarah's settlement was "fair" or not. Andrew had no real income except his naval salary, so I guess it was "fair" for Sarah to receive a portion of that, even if it was very small. I think what iluvbertie was trying to point out, though, is that Sarah's daughters were princesses, so if she wanted them to stay with her, she had to uphold a certain standard of living. But from everything we've read, Sarah has been very reckless with money (twice) so I still think she's more to blame than anyone else. I don't think it really matters, though, because Sarah hasn't really lost much at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel

I am not sure Sarah's is a sob story. It is a story of an irresponsible and selfish girl with few morals who had it all and lost it all twice in 25 years. She is a clear and living example to her daughters of how not to conduct their lives.

See, Sarah has definitely not lost it all. You are portraying her as this miserable bankrupt person when in fact, she's probably living very comfortably at Royal Lodge and seems to still have the support of friends and family. There's this theme of "she could have had so much, and she threw it all away"...well really, I think Sarah has exactly the things she always wanted. She has family who love her and friends who still treat her like she's royal.

Osipi · #**467** 11-10-2010, 12:10 PM

Royal or not.. she's the mother of princesses. What she does will and can reflect on her daughters as well as her ex husband. In this respect I think Sarah is very well assured that whatever she does, she will never be at a loss for food and shelter and those little things like vacations. We will never see her peddling a bike to the local McD's and paying in coin for a Big Mac. She will never be bankrupt.

With the divorce settlement she agreed to, it was HER choice to do so and in the years that followed, she's never once said anything negative against Andrew and his family. In this respect, I do admire Sarah.

She's made bad choices and has to live with them. What happens in the future is up to her but I do believe that no matter what, she'll have Andrew and the girls on her side.

kakieanne · #**468** 11-10-2010, 08:51 PM

What Sarah has lost is respect. When she worked hard and dug herself out of the hole the first time she earned the respect of a lot of people. And while she has the continued love and support of Andrew and her daughters, I doubt even they can have any respect for her now.

Katrianna · #**469** 11-11-2010, 02:21 AM

I agree that if Sarah received the same amount of money as Diana received in her divorce settlement, Sarah would have blown that money as fast as she received it. She's a chronic spendthrift and perhaps Andrew and their daughters love and respect her, but they also enable her.
There's much that has been said about her divorce settlement and how "measly" it was. Whatever Sarah has stated and written, there still is the facts of her running around with Steve Wyatt and other men while Andrew was on his naval duties at sea, then the infamous pool party pictures with John Bryan occurred while she was topless and her children were present also.
At the time of the divorce, who held the cards? The Royal Family. Sarah was the one who humiliated and publicly embarrassed Andrew and his family. I'm the Royal Family's attitude was, "we will make sure your daughters are well provided for and generously taken care of, however, you, Sarah will take whatever settlement we decide on because you disgraced our family." In Sarah's case I think she hardly could have made demands of a high divorce settlement in her case. Diana was viewed as the "wronged wife" while Andrew was perceived as the "wronged husband." This is only pure speculation on my part, but I don't believe Sarah had any choice what so ever as to the amount of money she received. She got what she got and then she was on her own.

Russophile · #**470** 11-11-2010, 06:19 PM

Don't forget Diana threw Sarah to the wolves to see which way the wind blew and when it went badly for Sarah she worked on her St. Diana persona which garnered her more money.

Irish Eyes · #**471** 11-11-2010, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russophile

Don't forget Diana threw Sarah to the wolves to see which way the wind blew and when it went badly for Sarah she worked on her St. Diana persona which garnered her more money.

I agree with you on this one Russo, I think Sarah was a far better friend to Diana (bad joke re shoes not withstanding) than Diana was to her.
It's a pitty they didn't make amends, Diana I suppose had her own issues and she must have found it impossible to know who she could trust.
I think at times she got it wrong, she cut off some of her real genuine friends and remained close to some hangers on. Life in the public eye is a game of chess, Diana learned how to play, Sarah did not.

Say hello to Mr. Russo.

Katrianna · #**472** 11-12-2010, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russophile

Don't forget Diana threw Sarah to the wolves to see which way the wind blew and when it went badly for Sarah she worked on her St. Diana persona which garnered her more money.

Yep, and I may be wrong, but when things blew up for Sarah, Diana wasn't around and I don't think she stood up for her in private family meetings. Just my opinion.

Wisteria · #**473** 11-12-2010, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katrianna

I agree that if Sarah received the same amount of money as Diana received in her divorce settlement, Sarah would have blown that money as fast as she received it. She's a chronic spendthrift...

I agree with everything you say. Sarah was in the wrong so she would never have had the upper hand, also she would never have got a divorce settlement equal to Diana´s, just two reasons among many, one is that she was at fault and second she was NOT married to the Prince of Wales. Sarah was married to a younger son and not to the direct heir to the throne.
Sarah misbehaved, I can imagine her as a child and then as a young woman, doing outrageous things and then smiling all dimples and everything would be made better and up to a point at her age she still manages to do this and everyone throngs to do what they can for that sweet little Sarah but she went one step too far and involved her husband in her latest money making scheme, and not only involved him, managed to bring him into the public eye as being behind the scheme and he had suggested the money she should demand, this came at a time which was very bad for him as he had been under criticism for his role as Trade Ambassador or whatever and being give the sobriquet of Airmiles Andy. I must say he lost a lot of my respect when he answered the question what qualified him for the job and he said that "it was genetic" or words to that effect.
The involvement, of course, has been denied, and is no doubt true, but it appeared on the video and will always put doubt into the minds of some people.
I am sure she is bubbly and all her friends love her, but she just went too far and was caught out. It won´t make much difference though, she will never have to go through the difficulties that other lesser beings will have to, she will always be looked after and any money that is directly handled by her will disappear as quickly as the other fortunes she went through.
I find it a shame, I think she is the epitome of that saying "she is her own worst enemy".

muriel · #**474** 11-12-2010, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russophile

Don't forget Diana threw Sarah to the wolves to see which way the wind blew and when it went badly for Sarah she worked on her St. Diana persona which garnered her more money.

Well said.

That said, Diana pressed the nuclear button on her marriage through the publication of the Andrew Morton book only 8-10 weeks after Andrew and Sarah's separation was announced - that is hardly a great move for a master tactician who has sent Sarah out on a reccee mission.

rmay286 · #**475** 11-12-2010, 10:14 AM

I think that the book was actually calculated to justify Diana leaving her marriage--make the royal family look like the villains so people would sympathize with her. Maybe Diana thought that if the book backfired, she could still stay in the marriage. The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh were trying to persuade Diana and Charles not to divorce, so in a sense, Diana knew she had support within the RF.

I read something recently that said divorce is a social phenomenon. People who are friends with other people who get divorced are more likely to get a divorce themselves. And women who want to get a divorce really do encourage their friends to do the same thing. I guess they are seeking moral support. It's sad that Diana did what she did because I think the situations between Charles and Diana and Andrew and Sarah were pretty different. It doesn't seem that either Charles and Diana were interested in working on their marriage ("it had irretrievably broken down") whereas by all reports Andrew did not want to divorce Sarah, and there are stories that she also had second thoughts.

AnnEliza · #**476** 11-12-2010, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmay286

I think that the book was actually calculated to justify Diana leaving her marriage--make the royal family look like the villains so people would sympathize with her. Maybe Diana thought that if the book backfired, she could still stay in the marriage. The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh were trying to persuade Diana and Charles not to divorce, so in a sense, Diana knew she had support within the RF.

That is how it seemed to me, also, that the book and the timing were self-justification and making the royal family look like the villains. Not sure about whether she thought she could stay married after publishing the book, but who knows.

Russophile · #**477** 11-12-2010, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnnEliza

That is how it seemed to me, also, that the book and the timing were self-justification and making the royal family look like the villains. Not sure about whether she thought she could stay married after publishing the book, but who knows.

Tina Brown's book on Diana seemed to think so.
She was calculated, that one. Sarah, not so much. So! She ought to get more calculated to see what she can do to help herself.

xaristocratx · #**478** 11-14-2010, 04:34 PM

It seems like the only problem Sarah has is that she is.. dumb. Air-head dumb. She never seems to learn from anything or build any strategy. She just seems to go through life cluelessly.

Sarah is someone that I never understood the appeal of. Why would a prince choose her to begin with? Not that it particularly matters.
She seems to embody the danger of a royal marrying the "wrong woman". It seems like once even a minor royal male marries and has kids with a woman, he is then stuck looking after her forever if she doesn't feel like supporting herself after divorce. After all the embarrassing scandals the poor guy has to let her live with him or she'd be homeless...

At least Diana got a life and moved on from Charles.

Russophile · #**479** 11-14-2010, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaristocratx

It seems like the only problem Sarah has is that she is.. dumb. Air-head dumb. She never seems to learn from anything or build any strategy. She just seems to go through life cluelessly.

I don't consider Sarah to be dumb. I consider her to be her own worst enemy, however. IMO Sarah doesn't like Sarah so it is rather hard for the rest of us to like her as well.

Katrianna · #**480** 11-15-2010, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russophile

I don't consider Sarah to be dumb. I consider her to be her own worst enemy, however. IMO Sarah doesn't like Sarah so it is rather hard for the rest of us to like her as well.

Exactly, and Sarah is used to having someone others take care of her and bail her out when necessary and will continue to do so. There was an item in The Sun ( I know, not the most exact source), in late Oct. that Sarah arrived in L.A. and rode in one luxury car and had her luggage hauled in another luxury vehicle behind, she just doesn't get it and never will. I just can't see this new "venture" on Oprah lasting at all and whatever she earns, she'll spend just as fast.