Options for Sarah to recover from the 'Cash for Access' scandal

[NotAPretender]

Originally Posted by sliver_bic

There are some vindictive people in the world but not all every anti-Fergie person is evil. Many are hard working souls who are disgusted by her avoiding the consequences of her actions.

Exactly. That's kind of a strange little dynamic here at TRF; there are some who post that believe that one must only worship at the altar of whatever Royal is the subject of that thread, and laud the person endlessly. If you are "anti" (fill the name in here) or critical, then the other worshipers feel the need to interpret it as a character flaw or an underlying evil as its root cause. Calling a spade a spade seems to personally offend.

In Sarah's case, I would agree with you that her sense of entitlement is appalling and has led her to some pretty silly decisions. Since her livelihood is as a public figure, then we as the public are in the position to judge her - absolutely.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Princess of Durham

FYI, the Oprah Winfrey Network is not getting good numbers.

That's interesting. That might be the reason why they said she was too boring.

[sliver_bic]

Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta

Your comment is astounding, sliver bic. What does hard working have to do with being disgusted by Fergie. I can't even imagine your concept of "consequences of her actions." After all, it's only money -- not mine and not yours.

Can you honestly blame an individual who puts in the work time and time again just to get by for being thinking badly of someone like Sarah Ferguson?

Plenty of hard working individuals have nothing to show for the blood, sweat and tears that they've put into this life and yet Sarah's been living in someone else's house, living off of someone else's money and not paying the majority of the debts she accrued.

People have to play the hands they've been dealt but there's no rule that says they can't be pissed about the person who's constantly reshuffling to their leisure.

[Polly]

The point that I would make is that no one knows anything about her or her lifestyle, or her financial arrangements, other than what is printed in the tabloids.

I suggest that the brouhaha created by her stupid 'access' died down because it wasn't so clear cut as the newspaper claimed; Duchess Sarah was obviously drunk; questions were raised about the newspaper's access, etc.

I repeat, do you think that if there were not genuine affection and concern for her that she'd continue to live where she does with the Queen's goodwill; her ex-husband's care and attention and the signal devotion of her daughters?

Nor does the gutter-press mention Sarah's hard work and financial sacrifice to pay off all of her late mother's debts, and her stepfather's, to her own disadvantage. There was no legal reason, whatsoever, for her to do so. That, however, doesn't suit the thoughtless, playgirl image which low-brow tabloids promote.

As for her livelihood's being a public one - why, we could say that about every royal, strictly speaking. Without a high public profile and support their roles would be significantly altered.

I don't mind people being critical of Sarah at all, but I do believe that anyone who believes all this arrant newspaper nonsense, in spite of the evidence of her obvious good standing with her family, is extremely gullible.

[sliver_bic]

I find it hilarious that you would call people gullible while spouting the drunk excuse. It's called a cop out. She had multiple meetings with those people, she knew exactly what she was doing, so unless you can prove it please state it as an opinion not fact.

As for her right choices, no one here has claimed that she hasn't done any good, what we've made the point about is that her bad choices have been horribly bad and she's not learned from the mistakes. People like this exist all over the world, the difference is
that Sarah gets to walk away from the car crashes she causes.

As for her family will standing by her. That's families do, family will take a lot more than others.

And the Queen's goodwill, where is your proof of that? That she's allowed to live on her ex's dime doesn't mean she's liked, considering her actions it can easily mean that Sarah's tolerated because throwing her out on her behind might cause her to do something stupid on an epic scale.

And it's Sarah, Duchess of York not Duchess Sarah.

[NotAPretender]

Originally Posted by Polly

....anyone who believes all this newspaper nonsense......

Just as anyone who considers blatant falsehoods to be truth (for instance - that "all" Navy wives commit adultery as one individual said here, in defense of Sarah's affairs,) - or that anything that comes out of the press offices of BP or CH regarding, well, anything - constitutes the entire truth, is genuinely self-delusional.

Given that one of these two sources - the press (vs "the Palace") - generally has a better history of putting out more truth than untruths, I think anyone that blindly accepts the sweetest possible construct to anything in the public arena is really using the hobby of Royal-watching as a substitute for a Disney cartoon.

[KittyAtlanta]

Originally Posted by sliver_bic

Can you honestly blame an individual who puts in the work time and time again just to get by for being thinking badly of someone like Sarah Ferguson?

Plenty of hard working individuals have nothing to show for the blood, sweat and tears that they've put into this life and yet Sarah's been living in someone else's house, living off of someone else's money and not paying the majority of the debts she accrued.

People have to play the hands they've been dealt but there's no rule that says they can't be pissed about the person who's constantly reshuffling to their leisure.

Eek! Sounds like you are jealous of the life she leads. Is she not playing the hand she's been dealt? I think she is, and it's not been pretty.

[Polly]

'Duchess Sarah' is a common enough expression although I am quite aware of her formal title. It is not unusual to hear people of this rank alluded to, thus, in many settings.

It remains my belief that Sarah is on good terms with the Royal Family, including the Queen, and especially Prince Charles. She is her father and mother's daughter, both of whom were close friends of the Queen and Prince Charles, respectively. There is ample evidence that the Family, if nothing else, is admirably loyal to its friends.

Do I think that Sarah would be living at the Royal Lodge without the Queen's approval and consent? No, I don't. Do I think that it's a holding operation to protect the Family from any future indiscretion? No, I don't.

Sarah is a likeable and much-liked woman, as was her mother, who was renowned for her immense personal charm. I think her guilty of poor judgement, from time to time, but in this, she's not on her own. I refer to her good friends and family members who remain her supporters. I believe the evidence of actions and circumstances more than tabloid newspapers.

Nor is she without honour: her striving to pay off all of her mother's and stepfather's debts, which were not insignificant, did her great credit, though inevitably affected hers.

[sliver_bic]

Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta

Eek! Sounds like you are jealous of the life she leads. Is she not playing the hand she's been dealt? I think she is, and it's not been pretty.

God yes! I hope and pray to be leeching off of my ex and my children when I'm fifty.

Originally Posted by Polly

I believe the evidence of actions and circumstances more than tabloid newspapers.

Correction: You believe the evidence that Sarah puts forward.

Originally Posted by Polly

Nor is she without honour: her striving to pay off all of her mother's and stepfather's debts, which were not insignificant, did her great credit, though inevitably affected hers.

I, once again, mention that no one had claimed her to be without good points. You, like a few others on this board, seem to want to gloss over the bad ones by defending her at every end rather than saying, 'you know what? There's no excuse for that".

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by sliver_bic

God yes! I hope and pray to be leeching off of my ex and my children when I'm fifty.

I think this is what bothers me most: that Sarah, by her own admission, thinks it's perfectly fine to rifle her daughters' trust funds.
She should be ashamed of herself.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Mirabel

I think this is what bothers me most: that Sarah, by her own admission, thinks it's perfectly fine to rifle her daughters' trust funds.
She should be ashamed of herself.

Are you suggesting that she stole the money from her daughter's trust funds rather than asked if she could borrow some when she needed some money?

I know if my parents needed money I would lend it - as I would assume would most people if they love and care about their parents.

As the trust funds are the only independent means of income the girls have this would be the only money they could use to help her. Usually with trust funds a person can only access the income and not the capital anyway.

[Sternchen]

I know some children who lent money to their parents and never got anything back, because the parents claimed, "well, we have invested so much into you until you were independent, so the money you gave us is only a small amount, you would be ungrateful to ask it back!"

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

I know if my parents needed money I would lend it - as I would assume would most people if they love and care about their parents.

Yes, so would I, and gladly!
The difference is that I can't imagine ANY circumstances under which they would ask me for money, or accept it if offered. And as for living off my trust fund (if I had one, which I haven't) that would never even occur to them.

[Zonk]

I would hope that no one is accusing Sarah of raiding her daughter's trust funds without providing evidence to support such a claim.

Beatrice and Eugenie appear to be very close and protective of their mother. So I would guess that they are supporting her of their own free will.

[Polly]

Originally Posted by sliver_bic

I, once again, mention that no one had claimed her to be without good points. You, like a few others on this board, seem to want to gloss over the bad ones by defending her at every end rather than saying, 'you know what? There's no excuse for that".

Well, I rather think that we come from two different perspectives. Of course she has 'bad points', as do we all. The burden of my song is that she is castigated too frequently on the basis of spurious scuttlebutt continually published in discredited, so-called newspapers. Two, in particular, have printed nonsense stories about Sarah, which I was confident were untrue. Cleverly, these rags employ expensive lawyers which enable them to skirt the libel laws whilst simultaneously managing to besmirch the Duchess' reputation by imputation and inference.

The upshot is that even those who might have been expected to reject Sarah have become more solid in her defence and now support her, believing her to be unfairly victimised. Many of them know just how she feels!

For my own part, I believe virtually nothing that the gutter-press might print, especially about any commoner who marries into a royal family. I always require more substantial opinion and/or evidence before I'm willing to believe in 6 impossible things before breakfast.

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by Zonk

I would hope that no one is accusing Sarah of raiding her daughter's trust funds without providing evidence to support such a claim.

Beatrice and Eugenie appear to be very close and protective of their mother. So I would guess that they are supporting her of their own free will.

I never said she was simply helping herself without her daughters' permission; I doubt she could do that legally. I'm sure they are willing to use their money to support Sarah.

What I'm saying is that, imo, she should be ashamed to take money from her daughters, whether they are willing or not.

[Zonk]

If that what Beatrice and Eugenie (two grown adults) have chosen to do. That's their business and Sarah's. I am sure that the powers that be (the Duke of York, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh) probably know about it and most likely are watching on the sidelines to make sure that everything is above board.

If they are using money from the trust from the Queen Mother (the only person in the position to give money to the girls unless they have living trusts from other members of the BRF), I am sure she (the Queen Mother) put some safeguards up regarding the trust. Basically its not like they gave the ATM card to Sarah with the PIN number.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Zonk

If that what Beatrice and Eugenie (two grown adults) have chosen to do. That's their business and Sarah's. I am sure that the powers that be (the Duke of York, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh) probably know about it and most likely are watching on the sidelines to make sure that everything is above board.

If they are using money from the trust from the Queen Mother (the only person in the position to give money to the girls unless they have living trusts from other members of the BRF), I am sure she (the Queen Mother) put some safeguards up regarding the trust. Basically its not like they gave the ATM card to Sarah with the PIN number.

Part of Sarah's divorce settlement (the largest part actually) was put in trust for the girls, so they also have that Trust Fund.

[Hissy]

Someone earlier on mentioned that Fergie paid off her mother's debts? I had never heard that before. If that is true I find that an interesting angle to the Fergie story....

As for the back and forth about all the different Royal family members I think if you truly like someone the truth about them shouldn't be a bad thing, even if everything they did wasn't great. It seems at times if someone likes a certain royal they feel they must stop anyone from saying anything that's not glowing about them. It makes me wonder why it is taken so personally?

Sarah was interesting when they first married, things have not gone exactly well for her, she has messed up several times, and I can see how it bothers people when she seems to get chance after chance. We will never see Fergie out on the street and many other people in the world don't have that net below to catch them when they fall as she knows she has (even if her intentions are good to not mess up financially again).

I know a favorite thing to say here is: it is not our business (true unless somehow she owes them money, etc.). Then why have a royal forum though? Why post on it? Why even read it if it is no one's business? Nothing they do good or bad is technically anyone's business but they are public figures and so people are interested, have opinions, and biases, and will discuss them. Don't think the royals don't discuss, and gossip, about others. We all know they do, at least Fergie and SWessex have been caught on tape doing just that of course!

Certain other royals in Britain do the same as Sarah yet nobody can seem to see that for what it is. Fergie is so boisterous that I think she sometimes becomes a bit of a scapegoat for any bailed out royals because she is simply more well known (a bit notorious ).

I do wonder about her Budgie? helicopter books, how they did/do sell?

[rominet09]

For the Budgie books, I read once that the latest one was selling extremely badly but I don't remember the very low figures.