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.
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.
). The targets aren`t just the royal family, but anyone perceived as an elite or an aristocrat. The media is behind this campaign, and I suspect that some of the people Andrew deals with or their own connections are also behind the campaign. Leaders in the Western world have been exposed as unethical lately, but don`t think that non-Western business and political leaders are any different, or that they wouldn`t like the positions of power currently occupied by hereditary aristocrats in Europe. And to gain power, popular support is important, thus the strategy of whipping up public resentment against "the elites" through biased articles and even set-ups like the News of the World sting. 
