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

[Princess of Durham]

IMHO, Sarah didn't lack "training", she lacked just plain ole common sense. What bride doesn't know that they should not wink and behave foolishly when walking down the aisle???? And on and on it went ..... Sarah has played the "good ole girl, brick, jolly, for far too long. That may work when one is 17 or 18 but it is not appropriate any time after that AND she still doesn't seem to get it. That is her persona developed over a lifetime. She has just never grown up. She is still the silly, foolish, person she was at 18. Being jolly just isn't cute after a certain age unless one aspires to being an eccentric aunt and eccentric aunts are usually only an embarrassment to themselves and not to their families. They also usually appear to be well meaning and Sarah has also passed the well meaning mark a long time ago and entered the realm of the self serving, IMO.

[FergieFan]

Originally Posted by Princess of Durham

IMHO, Sarah didn't lack "training", she lacked just plain ole common sense. What bride doesn't know that they should not wink and behave foolishly when walking down the aisle???? And on and on it went ..... Sarah has played the "good ole girl, brick, jolly, for far too long. That may work when one is 17 or 18 but it is not appropriate any time after that AND she still doesn't seem to get it. That is her persona developed over a lifetime. She has just never grown up. She is still the silly, foolish, person she was at 18. Being jolly just isn't cute after a certain age unless one aspires to being an eccentric aunt and eccentric aunts are usually only an embarrassment to themselves and not to their families. They also usually appear to be well meaning and Sarah has also passed the well meaning mark a long time ago and entered the realm of the self serving, IMO.

Or possibly the jolliness was always a cover for deeper insecurities and vulnerabilities - a way of exhuding a sense of confidence and self-belief that you don't always feel deep down.

Personally, this notion of the two sides of Sarah (fun-loving, jolly, eccentric VS. sad, vulnerable, lacking in confidence) has always fascinated and entranced me. I think both sides are equally representative of her in different ways, and I think that as she has got older, she has felt able to come to terms more with that more vulnerable side of her.

But do also so love that "jolly" side of her, that joyful lust for life that she has. I know it can wind people up, and I guess you're one of them, but I know there are many people who are captivated by that charisma and unique personality she has.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Diarist

I was, I have to say, also rather shocked last week to see a photo of Sarah leaving Mosimann's after a meal there. Mosimann's is one of London's most expensive restaurant/dining clubs. It is easy to spend around £200 per head there - not including wine. WHAT WAS SARAH doing there?

That I can understand from a foodie's view on eating out. One of my first cookbooks and still a kind of "bible" has been Mosimann's "Cuisine à la carte" of 1981, which is named "Meisterkurs für Hobbyköche" (Master's secrets for hooby cooks) in its German edition which has been advanced with additional material by Mosimann. A wonderful book! No frills but lots of practical tips and "secrets" so you really can cook on that level if you are willing to take the time and the money for careful preparations and the use of good quality ingredience.

In 1991 Mosimann had just opened his "Belfry"-Club restaurant. Back then (don't know if it's still that way) you had to become a member at Mosimann's (with a slight difference in membership fee for foreign members while London-based guests payed more for the privilege) to be able to book a place at the main restaurant or in the several banquet rooms and salons of what is a former church.

Due to the fact that I'm friends with a German master chef who had learned his profession alongside Mosimann in Switzerland and stayed a friend of him, I was granted my wish for a table in his restaurant. Well, it was expensive but the food was good and the wines suited perfectly, especially the Taylor's LBV to go with my Stilton (did I mention that I was a tourist from Germany willing to sample British cuisine?). When we arrived Mosimann greeted us and showed us around the house and allowed us to take pics of the I think it was Wedgewood and Gucci rooms? But then he told us not do do any pics that night in the restaurant and not to stare! because Charles and Diana had booked a table as well. Okay, I saw them and they didn't look that happy. But as we did as we were told we didn't stare and thus I cannot tell anymore except that we were in the same room in June 1991.

But that's what is so nice at Mosimann's: you are completely private there, noone stares and noone talks to you if he is not acquainted and everything there "reeks" of discretion. Mosimann had told me that his guests want an atmopshere that is as private and as friendly as possible and that's what we got, too. And maybe that's what Sarah needs? And maybe she was invited?

[Irish Eyes]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

But that's what is so nice at Mosimann's: you are completely private there, noone stares and noone talks to you if he is not acquainted and everything there "reeks" of discretion. Mosimann had told me that his guests want an atmopshere that is as private and as friendly as possible and that's what we got, too. And maybe that's what Sarah needs? And maybe she was invited?

You are probably spot on Kataryn. Sadly I haven't had the pleasure of dining there but that's what I've always read about it.
According to the Daily Mail she was dining with Andrew so it's probably a very popular spot with the royals for the reasons you mentioned.

[NotAPretender]

Originally Posted by Irish Eyes

You are probably spot on Kataryn. Sadly I haven't had the pleasure of dining there but that's what I've always read about it.
According to the Daily Mail she was dining with Andrew so it's probably a very popular spot with the royals for the reasons you mentioned.

Yes. The fake sheik took Sarah to dinner at Mosimann's as part of the cash for access process.

[Princess of Durham]

Well, you know what they say .... "the way to a man's/woman's heart is through their stomach".

[Irish Eyes]

Originally Posted by NotAPretender

Yes. The fake sheik took Sarah to dinner at Mosimann's as part of the cash for access process.

How ironic! It sounds like a place for all occasions NaP

[Diarist]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

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.

[Diarist]

Originally Posted by NotAPretender

Sarah often boasted that her family had been around Royalty forever, essentially, and from what I've read, needed no coaching at all to understand who had to curtsy to her, what they had to call her (both of which she strictly enforced and insisted upon) and had her coat of arms ready at the moment it was required. In her estimation, she had the job nailed down before she set foot in Westminster Abbey.

Her subsequent failures as a working member of the Royal family strongly suggest that she "knew it all" and refused any such coaching; based on the 25+ years that have passed since she drifted in and out of the Royal family, she still can't retain the lessons of who and what she is, versus the very brief glory time of decades ago.

Sad.

You never learn anything the second time you are kicked by a horse.

An excellent post NaP, but one thing I would like to ask all members here is: Do you really consider that it is that difficult to be a Royal? Sarah to my mind had a tremendous advantage in growing up mixing with the BRF [I am sure everyone here remembers the picture of the 8 year old redhead with Andrew, taking at a Polo Match.

Sarah herself did also know how to behave before she had 'secured' Andrew: the strongest evidence of this I have is when she was dating Andrew but they were not engaged: Sarah and the PoW paid a visit to Andrew's ship. In those days, royal protocol was that 'girlfriends' were not 'acknowledged' [protocol had been changed by the time that Catherine appeared - she and William were an established 'couple' in a way that none of the Prince of Wales's or Andrew's girlfriends ever were]. Anyway, back to the visit; the Princess of Wales and Sarah boarded Andrew's ship to be welcomed by him; at that stage, in PUBLIC, Sarah could show no public response to Andrew. SHe handled that test with consummate ease - she knew what to do. SHe looked apporpriately dressed [in a striped dress that had apparently been borrowed from the Princess of Wales]. I am sure that the Queen was watching to see how Sarah coped, and that she had passed the test with flying colours.

Once Andrew was safely 'hooked', all seemed to change with Sarah's behaviour. The winking at the wedding was vulgar, but of no real consequence; Sarah's first failing to me was 'selling' an interview to the Daily Express; this was a double no-no: traditionally, members of the BRF do not sell interviews; Sarah also began her habit of disclosing personal information in that interview and finally she even told an untruth - although she knew she was pregant at that time [as did the BRF] Sarah told the Express that she and Andrew had no plans for a family at that stage.

In my very humble opinion, if Sarah had been dealt with there and then - i.e. made to return the money etc, I feel the whole unhappy saga that followed could have been prevented. I do not know whether it is accurate or not, but the broadsheet papers have, for years, been saying that the Queen is 'rather too soft' as a monarch, and never 'slaps people down' in a way that (say) her father or her grandfather would have done.

Only my opinons

Alex

[MRSJ]

Originally Posted by Diarist

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.

A bit OT but Alex has such knowledge- did this rule apply to the saphires Diana was given as a wedding present from Saudia Arabia (I think)? Are those the Crowns now or were they passed to her children?

Edit- nevermind question answered because Catherine is wearing the saphire earrings given to Diana at today's celebration for Prince Phillip

[sophie25]

I actually have no desire to get involved in this debate. I happened, quite by chance, to see the DOY on American TV drive past Buckingham Palace frantically pointing out where she once lived. I think, seriously, for her own sanity she has to move on and get over her past life.

[Russophile]

Has Sarah committed to being on Dancing with the Stars yet?

[sliver_bic]

Originally Posted by Russophile

Has Sarah committed to being on Dancing with the Stars yet?

Don't talk rubbish. It's Celebrity Apprentice or nothing!

[RubyPrincess168]

Originally Posted by sliver_bic

Don't talk rubbish. It's Celebrity Apprentice or nothing!

She won't make it very far!

[Princess of Durham]

Oh dear, "The Donald" is not a kind person.

[Diarist]

Originally Posted by NotAPretender

Yes. The fake sheik took Sarah to dinner at Mosimann's as part of the cash for access process.

Mosimann's is indeed a wonderful 'dining club' as I think it is known as, rather than a straightforward 'restaurant' but either way, do forum members consider that - whoever is paying - it is an appropriate place for Sarah to be seen to be eating? In my very humble opinion, bearing in mind that Sarah's creditors all had to accept only a proportion of what they owed, it is not right for any recent 'debtor' [Sarah or otherwise] to be seen in such a public place still 'living it up at the highest level' when, to paraphrase the politicians' quotation ' a period of discretion would now be in order'. I also think that it is not good for Sarah to be taken to places that continue to whet her appetite for high-living. Unless and until she has her long-term income sorted out, I think that she should 'cut her coat according to her cloth'. Fellow forum members here, always so well-informed, have posted details of Sarah's projected earnings from her latest projects, and whilst I wish her well, I feel that she tends to be a 'spender' [and how!] rather than a 'saver' and that she would be well advised to put some money aside for a rainy day. Fans of Sarah's say she has a very generous heart: what happens if she then says to Andrew next week/ month 'Right, I'm back from the USA, had a great time, let's go out to Mossiman's again, my treat.....?' Speculation of course, but I just think Sarah has got to learn to conserve what she has, otherwise the whole vicious circle could start again..........

Just my thoughts,

Diarist

[Diarist]

Originally Posted by MRSJ

A bit OT but Alex has such knowledge- did this rule apply to the saphires Diana was given as a wedding present from Saudia Arabia (I think)? Are those the Crowns now or were they passed to her children?

Edit- nevermind question answered because Catherine is wearing the saphire earrings given to Diana at today's celebration for Prince Phillip

Well, thank you MRSJ, but my knowledge is very specialised - i.e. I only know things from my work [not confidential things, either] and I would say that the specialised knowledge of some of my fellow forum members here is quite fantastic; thank you to them for sharing..

Whilst we seem to have resolved the question of the Saphires, I do have some knowledge of royal assets and their destinations that is pertinent to many of our discussions - since I don't want to take this thread OT, could someone suggest where I should post this? It is relevent to Catherine, Sarah, the Queen, Camilla etc - well, you get my drift. Help!

Thanks in advance

Diarist

Alex

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Diarist

Mosimann's is indeed a wonderful 'dining club' as I think it is known as, rather than a straightforward 'restaurant' but either way, do forum members consider that - whoever is paying - it is an appropriate place for Sarah to be seen to be eating?

Alex, I agree with you here, it is surely not appropriate considering her creditors (I hope you weren't one of them...just kidding!.) But I'm afraid at the moment she has no choice. Her only hope for recovery is appearing as if the series "Finding Sarah" ended with her as a winner. This series is now being aired and she is in the media, thus she has to present a "suitable" lifestsyle of a sucessful winner type. I wouldn't weonder if she herself or whoever does her media work at the moment informed the media about her shopping spree in the Bentley because for her any news is good news. I doubt she cares for her creditor's feelings at all. Nor does she care for the reputation of her ex-husband and her daughters. One positive aspect, though. If anyone still has doubts whether the Duke of Edinburgh let Diana be killed off must realise that it's not the Duke's way to deal with family problems that way. Otherwise Sarah would be long dead!

[Diarist]

Thank you for your input Kataryn. Yes, I am sure that you are right about Sarah needing to keep a 'high media profile' and yes, I am sure that the media is 'tipped off' to ensure that Sarah is photographed. This of course brings Sarah into conflict with BP media policy - the Royals try very hard to avoid being photographed unless at an official public appearance [e.g Derby, Royal Ascot] or at an official working engagement. It makes it harder for them to plead for their privacy if one of their number is continually putting themselves in the press eye - Sarah of couse is no longer royal, but she used to appear in photoshoots etc etc for money when she was a member of the BFR - apparently much to Queen's fury. Leaving the now non-royal Sarah out of it, Beatrice and Eugenie however are still members of the Royal Family, and I would think that Prince Philip will explode with rage if he sees that they have appeared in 'Finding Sarah'.

Your final remark about 'killing Diana' is very interesting - Diana's death is a serious matter of course, but reputedly the Duke of Edinburgh did make just such a remark appparently at the height of Mohammed Fayed's allegations. [Off topic I know, but many people say that the reason MF started these allegations was to ensure that there was no question of a lawsuit being brought against him [or rather Dodi's Estate] for negligence on the grounds of causing Diana's death. [American forum members might well remember that the family of Carolyn Bessette Kennedy successfully claimed against the Kennedy family following the death of their daugher in John Kennedy's plane that crashed]. In English law, such claims [genearlly] have to be brought within 6 years of a person's death - by the time Diana's inquest took place [it having been strung out for years during the claims and counter claims] it would have been too late to bring actions for Diana's death......]

Got to go now - I have a ticket for the Garter Ceremony procession.

Alex

[swtnsassy]

This will be my last post of this subject because it appears to have already been "beat" to death.

My final comments are as follows: To begin with, it must have been a slow day in the tabloid news. Do the "journalist" (I use that term rather loosely...I find the person who staged this to be a yellow belllied coward and one sorry low life human being) in the UK have nothing better to report on other than to see if they can "set up" someone in any way connected with the Royal Family? They knew Sarah was in financial trouble so they just decided that it was acceptable to kick a person while they are at their lowest? Karma is a b*t#h and she WILL come calling.

As far as those who claim that since Sarah grew up around the Royal Family that she should have KNOWN how to act, etc. This is a load of bull! Unless you live a certain lifestyle 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, there is no way possible for her to have known all the ins and outs! I worked closely with the President of a company for 20 years. Upon his retirement, I purchased the company from him and now, 5 years later I am still learning things about this business in which I had no previous knowledge.

I hope the reporter that did this at least lost his job.