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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Zonk said:
I believe the inference is that Sarah is doing damage to the title of Duchess of York thru her actions. This in turn will impact Harry's wife, assuming that 1) Andrew will die at which 2) Harry will become Duke of York and 3) he will marry and his wife will 4) become the HRH The Duchess of York as a result of Sarah's past actions will not be respected because of the previous titleholder.

I believe that's it.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your kind answer to my question.
 
HRH Princess Sonya said:
I didn't get the reference to Harry's future wife here so was asking for an explanation.
Click to expand...


You are not alone in asking that question I wondering how Harry comes into play in this. Was it announced somewhere that since Prince Andrew does not have a son the Prince Harry would be the Duke of York afte Andrew?[/QUOTE]


It has never been announced that Harry would get Duke of York after Harry dies due to two factors:

1. Andrew is only just 51 and could easily live for another 30-40 years making Harry well into his 50s or even 60s before he gets a dukedom and
2. Andrew can remarry at any time and have a son - that son would inherit the York title.

Just imagine Harry marries and gets an Earldom in anticipation and then Andrew, aged 78 marries some young 20 year old who immediately gives him a son - Harry can't become Duke of York because that son would be the heir to that title.
 
AristoCat said:
You are not alone in asking that question I wondering how Harry comes into play in this. Was it announced somewhere that since Prince Andrew does not have a son the Prince Harry would be the Duke of York afte Andrew?
Click to expand...

I never said anything like that!!!!!!!

I just said, that since Harry, as second son of the future monarch, will likely at some point become Duke of York (when I never said and don't know), his wife will have a hard time living down the actions of her predecessor.
Click to expand...


However, I would say it is extremely unlikely that Harry would ever be Duke of York due to Andrew's age and the possibility of him finding a younger woman to marry and for that lady to have a son.

When Harry marries I would expect him to get a dukedom of his own at that time rather than be told you have to wait until you are in your 50s or 60s to get that title (bearing in mind by that time William might have two or more sons of his own and want the title for his own second son).
 
Last edited:
This is only rumour of course, but several years ago people were speculating that Harry would be made Duke of Sussex. [I think the occasion was when Edward and Sophie married, as several British 'Royal Watchers' had expected Edward to be made either Duke of Cambridge or of Sussex and since he wasn't, 'Sussex' was perhaps being kept free for Harry.

Alex
 
fascinator said:
I don't disagree with you. The Queen has no obligation to her at all. However, Sarah's faults are not youthful transgressions. She truly has poor judgement and a lack of conscience. I don't think that Andrew and her daughters would be so forgiving unless they realized she was not going to get better and miraculously change.

If you accept that she will not change, perhaps because she is incapable of it, she will, with the excuse of needing money, engage in increasingly degrading acts. Sometimes, people are beyond "punishment"- they don't know how low is low enough. I have known people like this. You are left with two choices: let them sink, or help them, even though they may not deserve it. I am suggesting that the Queen could choose the latter.
Click to expand...

I really wish I had you're maturity, unfortunately I don't talk as much sense as you. I have to say I don't disagree with you either. It's just I think (Don't know for absolute certain) the Queen has given her enough second chances, obviously for her grand-daughters sakes, it's just how many second chances can one person have?

Ya know what, I'm just gonna have to agree with you LOL, coz what you said makes a lot of sense. Take care.
 
Well, I watched the first three episodes of 'Finding Sarah'. Lots of stuff in there.

Significant moment when Dr Phil zeroes in on the motivations behind the 'selling access to Andrew' - the patience! of the man! - anyway, it flitted through my mind that she is protecting someone, possibly Andrew. That what she did was for Andrew - for the reasons Dr Phil suggests - she is beholden to Andrew, she needs to keep him happy. I think someone on this thread or another suggested that Andrew was using her in this way. In the scene with Dr Phil when she realizes that Dr Phil understands why she did what she did, the relief in her is obvious. I wonder - was 'the friend' she was doing it for actually Andrew?
 
I personally think that she has no real future for any representative position or business endeavor. She will never live this down and she's too high risk of a liability for an organization to hire her and take her seriously. Another factor is business; she won't be able to be placed in any position of substantial trust, will she? After "Finding Sarah," I don't see much happening. If she messes up again, it will be finito.
 
Tyger said:
Well, I watched the first three episodes of 'Finding Sarah'. Lots of stuff in there.

Significant moment when Dr Phil zeroes in on the motivations behind the 'selling access to Andrew' - the patience! of the man! - anyway, it flitted through my mind that she is protecting someone, possibly Andrew. That what she did was for Andrew - for the reasons Dr Phil suggests - she is beholden to Andrew, she needs to keep him happy. I think someone on this thread or another suggested that Andrew was using her in this way. In the scene with Dr Phil when she realizes that Dr Phil understands why she did what she did, the relief in her is obvious. I wonder - was 'the friend' she was doing it for actually Andrew?
Click to expand...

Sorry Tyger, the show isn't available in Europe so would you mind filling in the blanks .... I know we could speculate and debate whether Andrew was aware of Sarah's meetings and discussions, and then took the fall for the both of them. But what do you mean that she might have been doing it for Andrew and that he was using her in this way???
 
Irish Eyes said:
Sorry Tyger, the show isn't available in Europe so would you mind filling in the blanks .... I know we could speculate and debate whether Andrew was aware of Sarah's meetings and discussions, and then took the fall for the both of them. But what do you mean that she might have been doing it for Andrew and that he was using her in this way???
Click to expand...

Oh, I thought everyone was seeing it - then its not fair to discuss it maybe?

But to clarify - the psychologist identifies that Sarah wants to please and be liked - those are her motivations. She kept saying that she did the 'access to Andrew' to get money 'for a friend'. When I watched, it felt like she was in some sort of denial - in fact, she 'spins' that event in several ways - suggesting (to me) that there is something underneath it all that she is trying to avoid saying. If she and Andrew were in this together - if she were doing the 'pitch' with Andrew fully part of it (as in aware) - then she is protecting him. She can't talk about it - she has to move on as she keeps saying - because she depends on Andrew for a place to live, etc. Plus I think she still loves him - there is still love there so she is at his behest - possibly - I am spinning. Its a scenario - but total speculation on my part based on something someone said on these threads that got me thinking.

In the end Dr Phil says to her - you have to learn to just say 'no' and not be worried about being liked/accepted. Something so simple but it was like a light bulb going off in her mind. She does not appear to be - or to have been - very self-reflective. There were a few moments when I was taken aback at her lack of understanding of phrases and words - like 'primordial'. Phrases were used that a well-educated person would know - yet she asked 'what does that mean?' Unusual. Made me wonder where she got her education - did she attend university? Anyway, its interesting watching her go through this - and its clear what her motivations are. Its unambiguous.
 
Last edited:
Again, none of this bars her from employment within the daytime talkshow media - which is probably what she's hoping for (if she strategies at all).

I'm struck by how limited Sarah is (her show was one for 2 hours today, so I finally got to see snippets). She looks bewildered most of the time.
 
It would be interesting to see how she would do as a talk show host.
 
:flowers:Unfortunately for Sarah, I think the best thing she could do is remove herself from publicity - I say unfortunately because I do believe she feels the need to prove herself publicly.
Sarah has to accept that she is divorced, and therefore not a Royal anymore.
(this makes me sad because I always liked her)
It is the best thing she could do for her daughters, the Princesses need to be able to grow without fear of new revelations bringing bad publicity to them - through no fault of their own.
If Sarah was provided for financially, she would not need to speak to any TV or Magazine reporters...so it is in the "firms" best interested to ensure she is taking care of - modestly NOT in grandeur - so that wants for nothing but lives out of the lime light.
In time we would see her at her daughters' events; Birthdays, Engagements & Weddings and we could all cheer for her discreetness and elegance.
Long live Fergie - just quietly so as to protect herself and her girls. xoxo
 
She should have an income in exchange for a quiet life and she should have a conservator handle her money and give her an allowance.
 
How much would be enough? Sarah wants a lifestyle beyond her means and I don't see why the Queen should pay for that. I also don't see her going off quietly she likes to be seen and get the attention of the press. I agree she needs someone to look after her money I just don't think she would like to be told no when she wants to go buy a new expensive handbag or something else she doesn't really need but she wants.
 
Tyger said:
Oh, I thought everyone was seeing it - then its not fair to discuss it maybe?

But to clarify - the psychologist identifies that Sarah wants to please and be liked - those are her motivations. She kept saying that she did the 'access to Andrew' to get money 'for a friend'. When I watched, it felt like she was in some sort of denial - in fact, she 'spins' that event in several ways - suggesting (to me) that there is something underneath it all that she is trying to avoid saying. If she and Andrew were in this together - if she were doing the 'pitch' with Andrew fully part of it (as in aware) - then she is protecting him. She can't talk about it - she has to move on as she keeps saying - because she depends on Andrew for a place to live, etc. Plus I think she still loves him - there is still love there so she is at his behest - possibly - I am spinning. Its a scenario - but total speculation on my part based on something someone said on these threads that got me thinking.

In the end Dr Phil says to her - you have to learn to just say 'no' and not be worried about being liked/accepted. Something so simple but it was like a light bulb going off in her mind. She does not appear to be - or to have been - very self-reflective. There were a few moments when I was taken aback at her lack of understanding of phrases and words - like 'primordial'. Phrases were used that a well-educated person would know - yet she asked 'what does that mean?' Unusual. Made me wonder where she got her education - did she attend university? Anyway, its interesting watching her go through this - and its clear what her motivations are. Its unambiguous.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks very much for your kind reply Tyger.
Don't worry at all, everyone has been discussing the show.
 
I feel sorry for Sarah. I really think that she has a lot of problems. I do think that she feels that she was neglected and perhaps abused as a child. Maybe other people don't see it that way but in the end it's how the abused person feels that matters. She clearly is trying to make up for something she feels was lacking in her life and I think that she feels what was lacking was love.
It's VERY easy to be on the outside of that and say "just get over it." But for those of us who grew up that way it can be a life long struggle to put it behind you and learn to love yourself.
I am sorry if other people don't see it that way but there is something about her that makes me feel in my gut that Sarah really does have extremely low self esteem. If she can't get help then she won't ever get better and will constantly be looking outside herslef for that love and acceptance.
 
[but there is something about her that makes me feel in my gut that Sarah really does have extremely low self esteem. If she can't get help then she won't ever get better and will constantly be looking outside herslef for that love and acceptance.[/QUOTE]


I agree that she needs love and support; emotionally and financially to help her heal within herself and her "image".
But it is in her and her Daughters' best interests that she seeks help quietly, discreetly and in a manner so as not to bring any unwanted bad attention to any of her family.
She may then hold her head up and say at least I did right by them in the end!
xoxo love to Sarah xoxo:flowers:
 
What comes across very clearly - and something she articulates very well - is that she is in 'nostalgic grief'. The poor thing, one can well imagine! She is looking at her life and regretting her choices - clearly she is regretting the loss of her marriage to Andrew - but there is nothing she can do to make it all back to the way it was. She talks about the pain of being excluded from her daughters' celebrations - like Christmas. Its really heart-rending - and true.

What also comes through clearly is that she wants to support herself. She lost everything with the 'access to Andrew' scandal. All her income dried up. (Bizarrely, she states at one point that she was not aware she had crossed a line with the 'access to Andrew' situation. I really think there is more to it than she will ever be able to say - else risk ostracism to Siberia.) She is adamant to Suze Ormond - the financial advisor/life coach - that she must support herself. She seems to want her own life in the US - she's received here and accepted for who she is.

Its clear she feels worthless - she states it. Others state it to her.

She comes across as vulnerable and a 'jolly sort' up for anything - she's likeable. I think the show 'Finding Sarah' is pulling in an audience, too. I don't think she could handle an interview show - she really doesn't seem suited for that, its not where her 'intelligence' lies - yet who knows. I could see her managing some sort of show. Its a question of finding the right concept. I hope she comes through with something - and I think it will happen - because Oprah identifies with her as Oprah even says that Sarah is where Oprah was at the age of 23. Oprah went through much of her own struggle and personal development through her show, with her audience. In a way, the show 'Finding Sarah' is her audition, or 'extended interview'. If its a success, Oprah may give her additional work. We'll see!
 
Last edited:
fascinator said:
I don't disagree with you. The Queen has no obligation to her at all. However, Sarah's faults are not youthful transgressions. She truly has poor judgement and a lack of conscience. I don't think that Andrew and her daughters would be so forgiving unless they realized she was not going to get better and miraculously change.

If you accept that she will not change, perhaps because she is incapable of it, she will, with the excuse of needing money, engage in increasingly degrading acts. Sometimes, people are beyond "punishment"- they don't know how low is low enough. I have known people like this. You are left with two choices: let them sink, or help them, even though they may not deserve it. I am suggesting that the Queen could choose the latter.
Click to expand...
Fascinator, I've just found your post-GREAT, I couldn't agree more. Sarah will not change-Sarah cannot change and for that matter, it's impossible for ANY of us to go beyond the boundries of our own parameters making our scope for change limited. Add to this the very real possibility, in Sarah's case, of HPD, the behaviours she displays are typical of it, and I fear that the only permanent "cure" would be a frontal lobotomy, which, thankfully, is no longer used. I, too, have experienced these personality types, and have been taken in by their guileless naivete until it dawned on me that this was my Groundhog Day and I was enabling them. Like you, I see two choices but deciding which one to take is much easier when ones is sitting on the sidelines.
 
I wonder how many of us here have a university degree in psychology ?

And is it helpful to refer to other people as "personality types" ?

Or mentioning "frontal lobotomy" ?
 
Renata4711 said:
I wonder how many of us here have a university degree in psychology ?

And is it helpful to refer to other people as "personality types" ?

Or mentioning "frontal lobotomy" ?
Click to expand...


Not a degree but I did do two years of psychology in my History degree and as a requirement for my teaching qualification.

Am I qualified to describe someone else's mental state etc - definitely not.
 
I did a minor in psychology in university, but - I don't really think it's such a good idea to diagnose public figures (who we don't know) with personality disorders. It doesn't just happen on this forum, I've seen it on other forums as well.
 
:previous:Well that's got Russo beat. She used to fall asleep in Psych class every day at 3:15. (Found out later it was anemia. Poor teacher probably thought she was a bore as Russo sat right up front.)
 
She did what was called a "business course". Now it would be called an administrative assistant's course. It's a course of one or two years that teaches skills necessary for working in an office.

Tyger said:
There were a few moments when I was taken aback at her lack of understanding of phrases and words - like 'primordial'. Phrases were used that a well-educated person would know - yet she asked 'what does that mean?' Unusual. Made me wonder where she got her education - did she attend university?
Click to expand...
 
Mermaid1962 said:
She did what was called a "business course". Now it would be called an administrative assistant's course. It's a course of one or two years that teaches skills necessary for working in an office.
Click to expand...

Ah, thank you, explains a lot. Its clear her intellect is not 'well-stocked' - which is not saying she is not bright and intelligent. She appears to be a very good-hearted, even simple, soul. Given that, it is amazing what she has accomplished in her life - truly remarkable - and I'm not talking about marrying a prince. The idea that she is lazy and someone who lives off others is a remarkable spin the media has successfully engineered (I guess, who else would it be?) because in no way has she been anything but enterprising, hardworking and creative.
 
Tyger said:
AGiven that, it is amazing what she has accomplished in her life - truly remarkable - and I'm not talking about marrying a prince. The idea that she is lazy and someone who lives off others is a remarkable spin the media has successfully engineered (I guess, who else would it be?) because in no way has she been anything but enterprising, hardworking and creative.
Click to expand...

I think Sarah can be hard-working and enterprising - but perhaps about the wrong projects?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom