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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The job she had in the publishing world was a secretarial job but the skills needed by a secretary now are very different to those needed in 1986. Then she needed typing, filing and shorthand rather than full ability with a word processor, etc. She simply doesn't have the training or experience to get a job like that now.

No publishing house would employ someone who hasn't been in the field for over 25 years when they can get a young 18 years old and train them to do it their way.

The last job Sarah had before she married was as a book editor for a publishing house that specialised in art books. She was far more than a secretary, although that's what she started her working life as. She worked her way up to quite a responsible position, the last book she edited before her marriage was one on the Palace at Westminister, infact she continued to work on it after she was engaged (until the book was finished) I do agree however that, having a responsible job in publishing, after 25 years of not working in that field isn't exactly realistic. Nowadays a university English literature graduate would probably be employed instead.

There's quite a lot of publicity from people aged over 50 as to the difficulty of getting a new job once they become unemployed. The world of employment is not screaming out for over 50s, employers want younger people who they believe will give them 30 years of a working life, rather than an over 50 sliding down to retirement.

but she isn't the first or the last person to declare bankruptcy and then continued in her lifestyle.

Sarah has never declared bankruptcy, not now nor in the past. While she has been heavily in debt, on both occasions she has worked to repay her creditors, the easy option would have been to declare bankruptcy and her creditors would have received nothing or very little. She worked (yes, horror of horrors in the media where she was able to earn large sums of money) and repay her creditors. The lifestyle that she's managing to live now, isn't necessarily due to her spending as she has wealthy friends. Last year she holidayed on Richard Branson's private island in the Carribean as he invited her. She flew there in a private jet, another wealthy friend gave her the jet to fly to Nekker. The chalet she stays in Verbier to go skiing is given to her by her exboyfriend Paddy McNally, she doesn't pay for it. While it's easy to criticise, Sarah's reality is that she lives and moves around wealthy people, some of them help her.
 
Thanks for clarification regarding Sarah's bankruptcy situation Charlotte1!

Also, in regards to those over 50 seeking employment: employers are also hesitant to employ them because they (those over 50) are seeking higher salaries. That experience isn't cheap. So its easier to higher someone younger.
 
Also, clarification regarding US bankruptcy.
If Sarah was a US citizen, the day after her bankruptcy was discharged she would not be able to just go and ring up thousands and millions dollars of debt. She would start off slow (with a high interest rate credit card or car), and than based on that her credit would grow again.


No rules regarding borrowing after a bankruptcy. Only restrictions are as to who is willing to extend new credit. With good banking relations or private lenders you can borrow just like anyone else. It is all the matter of the risk lenders are willing to take.

High interest credit cards and/or car loans are not the financial instruments that people with access to money, contacts or family name would consider.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought Sarah negotiated with her creditors and they (the creditors) decided to relinquish the bills?
 
I thought Sarah negotiated with her creditors and they (the creditors) decided to relinquish the bills?

She's negotiated with her creditors to pay reduced amounts of her bills. Some of them have stated that Sarah, Duchess of York has settled her accounts with them. Currently outstanding is the amount of 100,000 pounds that she still owes, the sticking point seems to be the amount the two creditors will accept. (Her bills haven't been written off, Andrew paid her UK debts)
 
According to Boxoffice Mojo, Young Victoria cost 35 million and only made 27 million. I wonder if they counted in the DVD sales. Since Sarah was a producer, if the movie had made more it would have increased her investment. She needs to be a producer again of a movie that people really want to see. Something by Jane Austen or so.


The film industry is extremely high-risk! Some films which were considered "a sure thing" have tanked; others have come out of nowhere to make a fortune.
Who can say what people want to see? According to the brilliant William Goldman, "Nobody knows anything."

IMO, she should stick with employment opportunities like her Weight-Watchers sponsorship, or something that offers a measure of security.
 
I honestly think Sarah has plenty of options to make money - all in the creative / media area.

Maybe it's true that movie production is a little high risk (though it depends on the project of course) but she also has extensive TV experience (and I think she has that larger-than-life personality that comes across so well on screen), and if "Finding Sarah" goes well, it could lead onto other things. Also, don't forget her successful writing career - autobiography, kids' books, lifestyle / self-help. Her autobiography came out 15 years ago - surely there could be scope in an updated edition or a sequel? Or another coffee table book of her photos, like the beautiful "Moments"?

She's also done very well in the past from advertising and representing brands - her work with Weightwatchers increased membership by a third and earned her millions of dollars. And then there's her after-dinner speaking, which has been another good earner for her in recent times.

Admittedly, her image may have been somewhat tarnished by the NOTW sting, but I think "Finding Sarah" will be part of that process of turning her image around.

But she does need the media. Those who have talked of her going away somewhere and just living a quiet life out of the media spotlight, or getting some sort of "normal job" are being unrealistic. The only way that Sarah can earn the money she needs to maintain a lifestyle appropriate to her position is by being a "celebrity" and using that status to ensure an outlet for her creative talents. The flipside to this is that by maintaining a high media profile, she is also able to raise more money and awareness for her charity projects (check out www.sarahfergusonfoundation.org).

So opportunities are there to suit her talents, but they do require media exposure. That said, I don't think this in any way excuses some of the unfair and unjustified media coverage she has had, such as the ridiculous "flashing her cash" nonsense.
 
IMO, she should stick with employment opportunities like her Weight-Watchers sponsorship, or something that offers a measure of security.

What is really going to hurt Sarah as far as finding employment opportunities is that "cash for access" scandal. Prospective employers are going to see that as a black mark against her when considering her for employment. With her reputation for mismanaging money, that would also be another black mark. Basically all she does have going for her is that she was at one time a Duchess of York and is still a draw to the media but then again, most of the media's attention is focused on the negative and a prospective employer would see that as a reason not to hire her.
 
So opportunities are there to suit her talents, but they do require media exposure.
Ah, but does any one WANT Sarah to represent them? Fad is fickle and it seems that Katy Perry and the Kardashians (excuse Russo whilst she is ill :sick:) are all the rage and not an over 50 Duchess.
 
"and I think she has that larger-than-life personality that comes across so well on screen" Well with time it can become very tiring to watch. What can appear charming in a young girl can become very displeasing in a much older Lady. (My opinion and I have nothing against age, I am older than her !)
 
"and I think she has that larger-than-life personality that comes across so well on screen" Well with time it can become very tiring to watch. What can appear charming in a young girl can become very displeasing in a much older Lady. (My opinion and I have nothing against age, I am older than her !)


Good point!
In the entertainment industry, thirty is conmsidered old. :lol:
 
Sarah could get paid for her appearances; it's very lucrative. She shows up at parties all the time anyway, why not make it a career?

Sarah could become the spokesperson for various "lifestyle" entities. I have in mind one right now that is trying to transform itself from "edgy" to "edgy but destination." Can't say it's name - the deal just closed here in Miami and involved a, er, major brand of, er, luggage. I can think of several clever plays off the concept of rebuilding an area using high-end branding which could play to her strengths and personal history ("embracing your baggage!".) If I can think of them, a half-way decent marketing person could do much better.

Her latest book was evidently a total disaster (the Hartmoor book) so that's probably out.

She could indeed go back to book editing.

Is it that Sarah just wants the quick fix of cash without having to actually follow through? Is that what her defenders want, an endless stream of money to flow to her for doing little or nothing? The economy is no excuse for laziness.

And finally - yes, the heads of charities do in fact draw salaries, and I can speak to that from having worked at a non-profit for a number of years. Instead of swanning about council estates with a film camera, Sarah could do a hell of a lot of good by being a day to day employee at a charity. Her name still draws people - a friend of mine in Texas attended a luncheon and paid top top dollar to sit at Sarah's table (and listen to her blame the BRF for her marriage failing, by the way.) If all she did was attend a banquet every night in a different part of NYC for one month, then a tour the rest of the months throughout the US, the money she would draw to that charity would be stupendous and in return, they could pay her amply.

I know what the salaries are at the major houses like these - say, the Red Cross, the American Cancer Society - and at the level we are talking about, they are not small. You can't go to Necker Island every week on it, but you can have a good life on it. Rather than flitting from this charity to that charity, wandering about the globe - Sarah could commit to one and one only, and find a life again. A sustainable, honorable life.

Can she do that? Does she have the stones to buckle down and do one thing, and one thing well? Her history suggests not - she doesn't seem to have any longevity doing anything. (I personally believe that she has more than a touch of ADD, but I'm not a professional.)

But it's utter nonsense to suggest that simply because a woman is in her fifties, that she has nothing marketable to offer and that as a result, someone or something "owes" her some kind of tribute, some kind of entitlement. What rubbish! And what a slap in the face to every woman of a certain age, to suggest that her entire life has nothing more to offer than what her womb produced! What a slap to every working woman as well!
 
I have always been a fan of Sarah and will remain so, but I have little hope that she will settle down, find a job and be happy. As fiancee of PA, she was truly charming, everyone loved her and I thought her marriage would last. Alas, something snapped. She is not a role model, and seems to be well under the radar even though she is working for Ms. Winfrey. We Royal watchers are the only segment who would ask, "I wonder what Sarah's up to." In reality, she is obscure to most of the world. She incites us (on the RF) to comment about everything she does, so she's doing quite well at keeping her name (and antics) out there for those who are prone to follow her doings.

I hope for an awakening re: our Sarah.
 
What is charming in a 20 something is (often) ridiculous in a 50 something. IMO, Sarah's best hope is hanging on until she reaches 75 or 80 and then she may be looked upon as "eccentric". In the meantime she has to figure out how to hang on.

FYI, the Oprah Winfrey Network is not getting good numbers.
 
I know what the salaries are at the major houses like these - say, the Red Cross, the American Cancer Society - and at the level we are talking about, they are not small. You can't go to Necker Island every week on it, but you can have a good life on it. Rather than flitting from this charity to that charity, wandering about the globe - Sarah could commit to one and one only, and find a life again. A sustainable, honorable life.

Would any of the major charitable houses want Sarah as their spokeswoman/employee, though? Just wondering.

Some economists say that the recession of 2008 was really only dip in the road, and that governments have only temporarily forestalled a much larger recession with their stimulus packages. I compare that to Sarah's situation: she probably thinks she hit rock bottom with the cash-for-access scandal, and that she's now on her way up. But I think all the paths she is pursuing will come to a dead end, and then she'll really have to figure out what to do.

Everyone on this thread sees the situation and has some good suggestions, but Sarah really will not "get it" until she absolutely has to. That moment will come when even people like Oprah say, "There's nothing left in the 'Sarah brand'; you're not going to make a steady living unless you stick with one thing where you can use the talents God gave you, as well as your name."

Because it's true that Sarah does have abilities and she is not completely unemployable. She is a good public speaker, she's creative, and she does have first-hand knowledge of the media/entertainment industry and various charities. Sarah just has to come to the point where she stops coasting along on her name/her rich friends, thinking they'll open all the doors for her.
 
What is charming in a 20 something is (often) ridiculous in a 50 something. IMO, Sarah's best hope is hanging on until she reaches 75 or 80 and then she may be looked upon as "eccentric". In the meantime she has to figure out how to hang on.

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

One issue though, only rich people get to be considered eccentric everyone else is crazy.
 
Seems she is doing more than "hanging on" to me. People are still very interested in her. Alas, a lot of people would like to see her fall even further. A pox on the house of those people.
 
Seems she is doing more than "hanging on" to me. People are still very interested in her. Alas, a lot of people would like to see her fall even further. A pox on the house of those people.

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.
 
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.
 
Would any of the major charitable houses want Sarah as their spokeswoman/employee, though? Just wondering.

That's a good question, but I know that such entities welcome input from those who, however tarnished, have a personal relationship with a particular cause and can also attract money. My example of my friend in Texas who paid top dollar to sit at her table is a case in point. Perhaps the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (Sarah's stepfather died of lymphatic cancer) or the Melanoma Research Alliance (her friend Carolyn Beckwith-Smith died of malignant melanoma, and her father died of prostate cancer and melanoma) would be groups that would welcome her fund raising ability. She scatters her efforts so much as to look like a mere dabbler; by picking one and concentrating on it, she could do herself a world of good (not to mention the charitable organization.)

Unless she only wants to participate if her name is on it or she founded it - which means it's all about ego.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
....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.
 
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.
 
'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.
 
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.

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

Correction: You believe the evidence that Sarah puts forward.

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".
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom