Sarah and Eugenie: Documentary on Turkish Orphanages - November 2008

[rmay286]

Russo, you are completely???? revolting!

The trouble with the majority of the children shown is that they are profoundly mentally handicapped, whether they all were when they were sent there is unknown in many of the cases shown, but I believe (and only from watching them on screen) that quite a few of the ones shown would have been in specialist homes here. Of the few who were shown, I think unless you could be hands on, one on one, the chances of them looking after themselves or working are remote. Many children in a like for like state (again based on what I saw on screen) are lucky to be placed into the few special units left, most private, the unlucky ones are subject to 'care in the community', unfortunately the community doesn't care!

Yes, the children probably are profoundly mentally handicapped now and will never be able to function normally, but it's well-documented that nutritional deprivation and lack of parental attention/stimulation in early childhood correlates with developmental delays and even severe retardation, depending on the degree of neglect. Yes, you are correct that the most neglected orphans are the ones who were already perceived to be handicapped at a young age, but places like Romania have a broad definition of handicapped. The definition would include children who are born with genetic disabilities, as well as children who have mild developmental delays or disabilities, which in countries like Romania might simply be due to already deficient prenatal nutrition and postnatal care.

As for the rocking and flapping you mention, it is a symptom of autism, but that doesn't necessarily it wasn't caused by the institutional conditions. There is a phenomenon called "institutional autism" in which children who have been institutionalized and neglected develop autistic behaviours. These children withdraw into themselves as a form of emotional self-protection, regress because of a lack of age-appropriate stimulation, and resort to self-stimulation as a way to compensate for a lack of emotional nurturance. Here is an article that explains it: Institutional Autism, secondary to orphanage living conditions.
and here is another article that describes some of the problems the children in Eastern European orphanages face
Neglect during infancy can affect children for years | Science Blog

The Queen does a lot more in her working life than the things you've mentioned, but those things aren't publicized much because they're confidential: i.e. her meetings with the Prime Minister and her review of government papers, for example. That sort of life takes a huge amount of self-discipline.

Of course, I know this, but the Queen (and Prince Charles, and William eventually) have a unique role in the monarchy. I completely understand why monarchs and the royal family in general do not and should not get involved in politics, but I still think Beatrice and Eugenie have a very limited menu of choices when it comes to using their privilege as royals. On the topic of American viewpoints of the monarchy, it's worthwhile to mention that one of Beatrice and Eugenie's parents prefers the American lifestyle and has probably influenced them accordingly.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Maybe they'd be happy here; I've often thought we're kind of on the cusp between the UK and the US. We have our own culture with strong influences from both nations.

On the topic of American viewpoints of the monarchy, it's worthwhile to mention that one of Beatrice and Eugenie's parents prefers the American lifestyle and has probably influenced them accordingly.

 

[Glistening Seas]

Glistening Seas

It was really the right thing for Fergie to have gone and with her daughters, even though it wasn't politically oriented. It's never alright to just not care. And, if they can help bring change, well then it's for the better.

So, we know that nutritional deficiancies are the cause of most of the problems. For most of us readers whom simply don't know much about the circumstances there can someone explain are the children from young mother's or are they in an area that is poor and if so how poor?

It does seem to make one wonder, if the area is poor would it be possible for fergie's people or connections to spearhead let's say a work for food program?

For example could the charities that raise money for this build food warehouse for the charity to store food. Then people from the community would come and work 8 hours a day and get their wages in food from the charity warehouse on a weekly basis?

This would provide motivation for those whom can and want to work to work at the facility to clean and provide basic care while getting food as wages from the charities or a partial food/money payment?

Oh well maybe it's a stretch of an concept but it might just work, any opinions on that?

it's seems a shame that with Fergie and her girs ability to draw the interest of the charity groups, to not make use of that talent for such a purpose?

It's truly sad to see children whom so severely need the care the most to be so neglected??

It seems some sort of work for food program might be suitable alternative to bring relief to a much needed problem. Of course charity will have to provide proper materials and procedures for hygiene to clean the place and keep it clean, but then the charity would have a warehouse to store that.

 

[kbear]

No offense meant but most Americans could care less about monarchy, anywhere. The idea of paying someone to be better than you just because of the fate of birth is viewed as more than just a bit ridiculous and outdated. I think most Americans would give kudos to Pss B & E for being a part of exposing the horrors of these orphanages than to a royal who goes around smiling and waving and cutting ribbons. Most Americans wonder why you Brits still have a Royal Family, but that's a subject for another thread.

I can tell you in two words why the Brits have a royal family GEORGE BUSH. Turkey has refused on several occasions to allow human rights organisations to visit different facilities ( I am referring to specific prisons and refugee centres rather than orphanages) so an 'undercover operation' may have been the only option. Like many other posters I do think the Princesses should not have been involved Sarah could have done this herself. That being said she and her ex husband always seem to want the girls involved in everything so perhaps it was not malice just a bad decision on their part. And if you are going to rule a country out of EU membership based on its treatment of the mentally ill Ireland will be kicked out yesterday.

 

[Charlotte1]

Has anything really altered for the children in the earlier programmes, a few, most have lived and died in the same orphanages.

Yes Romania is the case study of how international press exposure can bring about change.

In the short term after the initial programs were shown about conditions in Romanian orphanages and institutions for the disabled, foreign charities and individuals provided short term relief and support.

Long Term the greatest change has been brought about in how disabled people are cared for. The large institutions have progressively been closed and disabled people are being housed in group homes, small numbers in especially built family style homes with carers. Occupational therapists work with the disabled.

Romania and its orphanages and homes for disabled are fairly staple current affairs stories, over the years journalists have returned to Romania and have documented the changes. Even in this current documentary Sarah visits a group home as she asked the journalist to show her something positive.

The amount of publicity this has generated is due to Sarah"s and the princesses' participation and the journalist in question knew that. It's not just made the British news but the international news too as I listened to an interview that Sarah had done defending her trip on Australian radio the other day.

Exposes like this make a difference, cynically I expect that in a few months the Turkish government will invite various media to visit the same institutions that Sarah visited and show how they have changed. Therefore the people there have benefitted, Turkey also will be on the 'disablity current affairs roster' journalists in search of a story will return and revisit the same as happened with Romania.

Why all the condemnation of Sarah for taking her daughters along? Were they dragged unwillingly? Both are adults, maybe the case was simply that both heard of her trip and wanted to come along. Beatrice said the other day that she believed that there was more to being a princess than simply cutting ribbons. Shining the spotlight on issues is well and truly what modern royals do eg Charles and his various issues. If Beatrice were the monarch then that would be problematic, but she's not.

Both the Foreign Office and Buckingham Palace knew the princesses were going to Turkey, they labelled it as a private visit. So the princesses didn't go there as representatives of the British government but as individuals, they are just as entitled to see the conditions of the places they visited as William and Harry were when they were taken to see homeless shelters when they were young. The ensuing publicity is a good thing, moral outrage from all corners and the beneficiaries are the vulnerable children who were filmed.

 

[Menarue]

Where did you see that both BP and the FO knew where the princesses were going? Was it before or after the event. If you saw this being said after, it reminds me of the landing of William in his girlfriends´backyard in his airforce plane being labelled a training exercise.
The Roumanian exposure was done by which member of the royal family?
Or did some other TV group manage by themselves.
While the Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice have the titles HRH they are not private individuals in the UK. I heard that it was suggested by the Queen that the titles of HRH should be taken away from them and then they cõuld act freely in all the exercises their mother thinks up. I had heard at the time, I may be wrong, that the Prince Andrew objected strongly to his daughters being anything but HRHs. I agree with him, but they should ask before going off on madcap, even though well meant, schemes.
I don´t know if Sarah received money for her part in this programme. I don´t think I have heard of her appearing on TV and advertising for free, she was desperately in need of money to pay her debts and didn´t pay them off by giving freebies, perhaps now that she is more well-heeled she is doing things for free. I commend her for paying off the debts she incurred but I don´t believe she could have done it without her connections to the BRF.

 

[Charlotte1]

Both the Foreign Office and Buckingham Palace released statements to the press stating that they knew about the trip and it was a 'private trip by the princesses' The Foreign Office is notified whenever a royal leaves as they are responsible for the security of that royal when outside the UK. For these trips they organised the security for the princesses in both countries.
Both Beatrice and Eugenie are over 18 if they wish to rennounce their HRHs they can, but unless the queen issues Letter patents to the effect that as granddaughters to a monarch they aren't HRH, HRH they remain. The suggestions in the past had the date that once they turned 18 they should be downgraded, this didn't happen.
Sarah doesn't do commercials anymore, the majority of her income now comes from her public speaking, she's signed to a major US speakers bureau and earns her money speaking at conventions and corporate events. She's quite wealthy in her own right and her charity work ( this trip included is done without payment) Sarah bought both her daughters their first cars, last year even paid for Andrew's staff christmas party. She was quite open about the investigative journalist using her profile to bring this issue greater awareness among people. Sarah had seen the documentary he had previously done on Romanian institutions and offered her profile to help. In the US she is more well-known in her own right than Andrew is, her connection started with the BRF but she's expanded it to be famous for herself. I see nothing wrong with Sarah or her daughters using their profile to bring large amount of publicity to this issue, neither obviously did the investigative journalist in question!

 

[Menarue]

Saint Sarah soon. If the FO knew then the British taxpayers paid for the Princesses security? Did the security officers go in disguise as well? Very interesting.
If Sarah is now a wealthy woman and can now subsidize the Queen´s second son, it is only because she was once married to him. If she had no royal connections I doubt she would have a "sous".

 

[Skydragon]

but it's well-documented that nutritional deprivation and lack of parental attention/stimulation in early childhood correlates with developmental delays and even severe retardation, depending on the degree of neglect.

On that we will have to agree to disagree, many of the most severely nutritionally deprived children, even without parental attention, grow into healthy alert adults and those who are fed a nutritionally rich diet, mixed with copious amount of love and attention from a parent or close relative, can still display the extremes as evidenced in the programme. As with much of the psychobabble research, it differs wildly from real life results

As for the rocking and flapping you mention, it is a symptom of autism, but that doesn't necessarily it wasn't caused by the institutional conditions.

To be perfectly correct, they can be two of the immediately visible symptoms of Autism and I made a point of saying, - whether they all were when they were sent there is unknown in many of the cases shown, but I believe (and only from watching them on screen) that quite a few of the ones shown would have been in specialist homes here

On the topic of American viewpoints of the monarchy, it's worthwhile to mention that one of Beatrice and Eugenie's parents prefers the American lifestyle and has probably influenced them accordingly.

Sarah would love to be able to settle in the UK, but her overriding consideration would surely have been to make money without the massive tax debt she would have incurred here. She is also not a popular ex member of the RF to those who even know who she was/is.

 

[Skydragon]

Yes Romania is the case study of how international press exposure can bring about change.

In the short term after the initial programs were shown about conditions in Romanian orphanages and institutions for the disabled, foreign charities and individuals provided short term relief and support.

Long Term the greatest change has been brought about in how disabled people are cared for. The large institutions have progressively been closed and disabled people are being housed in group homes, small numbers in especially built family style homes with carers. Occupational therapists work with the disabled.

Rumania was one of the countries featured and it clearly showed that in many of the institutions, nothing has changed. While we saw one small project, the minister stated more than once, that although they have been able to help place some of the children into family sized units, they were far from achieving the goals they had agreed to with the EU before acceptance.

The amount of publicity this has generated is due to Sarah"s and the princesses' participation and the journalist in question knew that. It's not just made the British news but the international news too as I listened to an interview that Sarah had done defending her trip on Australian radio the other day.

Unfortunately, it is in the news more because of Sarah involving the girls in such a political hot potato.

Exposes like this make a difference, cynically I expect that in a few months the Turkish government will invite various media to visit the same institutions that Sarah visited and show how they have changed. Therefore the people there have benefitted, Turkey also will be on the 'disablity current affairs roster' journalists in search of a story will return and revisit the same as happened with Romania.

The invitation was issued to any official bodies to visit, not journalists, this was before the programme was aired. Exposes such as this only ensure that it will be hidden better next time. If they made a diffence, There would have be no need to revisit Rumania.

Why all the condemnation of Sarah for taking her daughters along? Were they dragged unwillingly? Both are adults, maybe the case was simply that both heard of her trip and wanted to come along. Beatrice said the other day that she believed that there was more to being a princess than simply cutting ribbons. Shining the spotlight on issues is well and truly what modern royals do eg Charles and his various issues. If Beatrice were the monarch then that would be problematic, but she's not.

Charles speaks out in favour of many things, the only political publicity has been Hong Kong and that was in a private journal that was stolen from him and his support of the Dalai Lama. I don't recall him visiting Nepal or Hong Kong whilst deceiving (by ommission anyone), if you have an example of him doing so, I am sure we would all enjoy reading about it and comparing notes. Sarah had no right to involve HM's granddaughters in such a scheme to apparently bring herself some publicity.

Both the Foreign Office and Buckingham Palace knew the princesses were going to Turkey, they labelled it as a private visit.

No, Sarah seems to have labelled it as a private visit, not the FO or BP, both of whom were clearly caught on the back foot. Unless of course you have a statement from either the Foreign Office or Buckingham Palace to say that Sarah, Beatrice or Eugenie informed them of their intention to participate in the deception of the Turkish & Rumanian authorities, to obtain undercover footage of the mistreatment of children.

 

[Skydragon]

Both the Foreign Office and Buckingham Palace released statements to the press stating that they knew about the trip and it was a 'private trip by the princesses'

The Foreign Office and Buckingham Palace were specifically asked by the media and as already said, they may have been told it was a private trip but were they told about the deception, were they told that Sarah and her daughters had every intention of breaking the laws of the two countries to help a journalist? A little different from, we are going to XYZ on a private, what, holiday, expose, political trouble making course?

Both Beatrice and Eugenie are over 18 if they wish to rennounce their HRHs they can, but unless the queen issues Letter patents to the effect that as granddaughters to a monarch they aren't HRH, HRH they remain. The suggestions in the past had the date that once they turned 18 they should be downgraded, this didn't happen.

Or unless it is forced upon them by the government or people of the UK. Yes they are over 18, perhaps they had better stop acting like silly 14 year olds off on a jolly jape with mummy and that applies to falling out of nightclubs or partying as well.

She was quite open about the investigative journalist using her profile to bring this issue greater awareness among people.

Do you have a quote, because I can't recall that in the programme or recap.

In the US she is more well-known in her own right than Andrew is, her connection started with the BRF but she's expanded it to be famous for herself. I see nothing wrong with Sarah or her daughters using their profile to bring large amount of publicity to this issue, neither obviously did the investigative journalist in question!

The programme was not made for an American market, so her exposure in the US is immaterial, IMO. Her profile here in the UK, if people know who she was/is is very low profile, almost laughable after her 'cabbage programme'. The journalist had no problem with it, oh I wonder why!

 

[murphy's mom]

I think what Sarah did in terms of exposing the conditions in those orphanages is commendable; it shows how big of heart she has. It is unfortunate that she chose to involve her daughters; I'm afraid all the negative publicity about their involvement has detracted from the orphanages.

 

[Skydragon]

I don't like this publication and I don't always agree with this journalist either but .......

AMANDA PLATELL: Those sad orphans and Fergie's ego trip | Mail Online

Witness the opening scene, in which the Duchess described the treatment of Romanian orphans as 'Abhorrent! I'm a real mother. I have two of the most perfect children'.

Without even pausing for breath, the Duchess had managed to yoke together the inhuman suffering of the orphans with a crass boast about her own oh-so marvellous offspring. And that set the tone for much of what followed. ----------snipped----------
At one point, Eugenie even explained how 'Mummy always says that me and Beatrice share her with the world's children.' Cue to a beatific smile from St Fergie . . . and, I suspect, snorts of derision from sofas across Britain.

I'm sure Fergie's heart is in the right place. Alas, on this evidence, it is wedged uncomfortably close to an engorged ego.

 

[Menarue]

I also am not always in agreement with Amanda Patell´s journalism but she was spot on this time. I had to smile when I read her "St.Fergie" as I had said just a few posts back the next thing she would be Saint Sarah....

 

[murphy's mom]

I think that at least sometimes people who appear to have the most inflated egos actually have very low self esteem.

 

[Menarue]

You are most probably right Murphy´s mom. As I have said before I am sure that Sarah has the kindest of hearts it is just that she doesn´t have much sense and does not like to be given advice or at least to take it.

 

[murphy's mom]

She does seem to be one of those people who doesn't learn from her mistakes/experiences.

 

[Charlotte1]

Rumania was one of the countries featured and it clearly showed that in many of the institutions, nothing has changed. While we saw one small project, the minister stated more than once, that although they have been able to help place some of the children into family sized units, they were far from achieving the goals they had agreed to with the EU before acceptance.

Do some research things have changed in Romania, Chris Rogers wrote a piece about that while children are still in institutions, 200 group homes have been built. ( If nothing had changed there would be no group homes and no children placed in them) When I wrote my original post in was in response to the comment that TV exposes don’t make any difference. So I repeat again they do, going back 20 years the original exposes brought about some assistance in the institutions from outside of Romania as charities and volunteers came into Romania to work in these institutions. Periodically over the years journalists come and do their stories and these stories generate interest, outrage and some more assistance. Earlier this year an Australian current affairs show “Foreign Correspondent” did a piece about the care of disabled in Romania and showed the institutions as well as the group homes and programs for the disabled. Without worldwide publicity it’s too easy for appalling conditions of vulnerable children to be perpetuated

Unfortunately, it is in the news more because of Sarah involving the girls in such a political hot potato.

In each and every report I have read, an interview I heard, the first thing that gets mentioned is the conditions in the Turkish institutions and then the controversy so I don’t agree that it’s been overshadowed. The news and images are out there.

The invitation was issued to any official bodies to visit, not journalists, this was before the programme was aired. Exposes such as this only ensure that it will be hidden better next time. If they made a diffence, There would have be no need to revisit Rumania

What I was writing about is not invitations issued to official bodies but the fact that Turkey now wants to get some good PR out there. So I’m quite confident in stating that within some months the institution will be refurnished and journalists invited to film etc, the new facilities just to get that good PR out there. In that respect the expose did some good, the reason journalists revisit Romania is that it’s an easy stock story, either to shock ---nothing has changed or feel good----look at what they’ve achieved.

Charles speaks out in favour of many things, the only political publicity has been Hong Kong and that was in a private journal that was stolen from him and his support of the Dalai Lama. I don't recall him visiting Nepal or Hong Kong whilst deceiving (by ommission anyone), if you have an example of him doing so, I am sure we would all enjoy reading about it and comparing notes. Sarah had no right to involve HM's granddaughters in such a scheme to apparently bring herself some publicity.

Charles has openly disagreed with his own government, 2 months ago he spoke out in an interview quite strongly about GM food, the UK government supports it. In the same interview he also spoke about farmers in India committing suicide over their small landholdings as they were forced to plant GM crops. This is against the Indian government stance also on GM crops.
Value judgement on your part, how do you know that Sarah is doing this for her own publicity? She has been involved in children’s charity work in former eastern block countries since her divorce, she’s been to and supported orphanages in Poland and did one trip to Russia with Beatrice when Beatrice was 13. Sarah’s charity also worked in the Balkans during the war there.

Both the Foreign Office and Buckingham Palace knew the princesses were going to Turkey, they labelled it as a private visit.

No, Sarah seems to have labelled it as a private visit, not the FO or BP, both of whom were clearly caught on the back foot. Unless of course you have a statement from either the Foreign Office or Buckingham Palace to say that Sarah, Beatrice or Eugenie informed them of their intention to participate in the deception of the Turkish & Rumanian authorities, to obtain undercover footage of the mistreatment of children.

From the FO

'Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, and her daughter were visiting Turkey in a private capacity. The views expressed in the programme are the Duchess's own view and do not represent the view of the UK government,' they said

A spokesman for Buckingham Palace said: 'The Duchess and her daughters were on private trip and we would therefore not comment on it.

The FO have to provide security for B & E, the security officers do a reconnaissance for any security threat to where the princesses are going so they knew exactly where the princesses were going as they had done a security assessment prior. They were aware of the camera crew and knew the princesses were visiting institutions as they were had to do the security assessment.
Also the princesses didn’t do the undercover bit. From Chris Rogers article, about the institution where Sarah wore a wig.

I don’t know if she has suffered nightmares since returning, but both I and our cameraman have. Certainly her mind was filled that day with images of horror. It must have been some relief that neither Beatrice nor Eugenie had accompanied us there.
Instead, Eugenie joined us in Istanbul, where we visited a much smaller home for around 60 unwanted children. The Zeytinburnu Rehabilitation Centre looked like a small rundown school. In the playground, we were greeted by excited children who welcomed us with hugs and kisses

Or unless it is forced upon them by the government or people of the UK.

During the late 70s and all of the 80s Princess Anne was the most unpopular member of the royal family, her press was vitriolic, far nastier than anything that is written about B & E and yet there were no calls for her to renounce her HRH. Princess Michael of Kent as well, extremely unpopular and no calls for her to renounce either. I doubt whether either princess will be forced to renounce their HRH if they don’t want to.

She was quite open about the investigative journalist using her profile to bring this issue greater awareness among people.

Do you have a quote, because I can't recall that in the programme or recap.

It wasn’t in the programme but in the article that Chris Rogers wrote about the programme before it went to air.

Now she wanted to come with me on my next venture and lend her profile to a cause in need of exposure. More than that, her teenage daughters Beatrice and Eugenie wanted to join us for sections of the journey and all had agreed to allow ITV1’s Tonight cameras to follow our progress.

The programme was not made for an American market, so her exposure in the US is immaterial, IMO. Her profile here in the UK, if people know who she was/is is very low profile, almost laughable after her 'cabbage programme'. The journalist had no problem with it, oh I wonder why!

My comment was in response to the criticism that Sarah wants to be famous. Well she is famous and more famous in the US than the UK, on one of Andrew’s trips there, the press wrote him up as Prince Andrew, the Duchess of York’s ex-husband. And how do you know that the documentaries won’t be sold to overseas markets? Australia TV gets documentaries ( including the Harry in Lesotho, made for the UK market) from other English speaking countries, with Sarah’s profile this documentary could easily be sold elsewhere.

Final comment on Amanda Platell's column. This is a woman who is paid to write nasty and spiteful commentary in a column for the Daily Mail, how can anyone take what she writes as credible? It beggars belief.

 

[rmay286]

On that we will have to agree to disagree, many of the most severely nutritionally deprived children, even without parental attention, grow into healthy alert adults and those who are fed a nutritionally rich diet, mixed with copious amount of love and attention from a parent or close relative, can still display the extremes as evidenced in the programme. As with much of the psychobabble research, it differs wildly from real life resultsTo be perfectly correct, they can be two of the immediately visible symptoms of Autism and I made a point of saying, - whether they all were when they were sent there is unknown in many of the cases shown, but I believe (and only from watching them on screen) that quite a few of the ones shown would have been in specialist homes here.

Not to derail the thread into a debate about child development or psychology, but unless you have a background in psychology yourself (which I doubt since you're using the term "psychobabble" ) I don't really think it's fair, let alone accurate, to say the research differs wildly from real-life results; the subject of many psychology studies is real-life outcomes. I have a minor in psychology and had to take a statistics course, learn research methods, and study a large amount of scientific research for my child development class. We're not talking Freud here, but studies of real children which have shown that because of the way the human brain develops, children who receive inadequate care in early childhood (depending on the degree of neglect, of course) cannot possibly develop normally. I'm sorry, though, I missed your acknowledgment of the fact that they might not all have had autism when they came to the orphanages.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Sometimes I think Beatrice and Eugenie are sarah's great revenge against the "Grey Men". On encouraging them to behave like her she set up two "Mini-Mummies" (Quote by Bea) who can't be divorced/sent away because they are born princesses. Such sweet revenge!

I wonder how Charles feels now his own documentary in honour of his 60th birthday is due and all the world is talking about Sarah's...

 

[Skydragon]

Do some research things have changed in Romania, ( If nothing had changed there would be no group homes and no children placed in them)

I suggest you read what was written before suggesting I do 'some research'

Rumania was one of the countries featured and it clearly showed that in many of the institutions, nothing has changed. While we saw one small project, the minister stated more than once, that although they have been able to help place some of the children into family sized units, they were far from achieving the goals they had agreed to with the EU before acceptance.

In each and every report I have read, an interview I heard, the first thing that gets mentioned is the conditions in the Turkish institutions and then the controversy so I don’t agree that it’s been overshadowed. The news and images are out there.

Obviously I couldn't comment on what may have been shown on Australian TV or in their media, living in the UK and watching mainly UK programmes and Sky, all have reported on the controversy, IMO, more than the orphanages. Even the links from the UK papers have focused less on the problems and more on the controversy.

What I was writing about is not invitations issued to official bodies but the fact that Turkey now wants to get some good PR out there. So I’m quite confident in stating that within some months the institution will be refurnished and journalists invited to film etc, the new facilities just to get that good PR out there. In that respect the expose did some good, the reason journalists revisit Romania is that it’s an easy stock story, either to shock ---nothing has changed or feel good----look at what they’ve achieved.

It is only the official bodies that can ultimately effect change, not a journalist nor Sarah or her ill advised daughters. If changes are made, it will owe more to Turkey wanting to satisfy the criteria set by the EU, not to fill a few media spots. As I said and which you have failed to provide -

I don't recall him visiting Nepal or Hong Kong whilst deceiving (by omission, anyone), if you have an example of him doing so, I am sure we would all enjoy reading about it and comparing notes.

Value judgement on your part, how do you know that Sarah is doing this for her own publicity?

Of course it is my judgment, based on Sarahs past examples and it seems I am not the only one who views Sarah as brash, egotistical and willing to use any means to ensure her own name is linked to the Royals, unless you have evidence to prove she has indeed done this programme out of the kindness of her heart

Unless of course you have a statement from either the Foreign Office or Buckingham Palace to say that Sarah, Beatrice or Eugenie informed them of their intention to participate in the deception of the Turkish & Rumanian authorities, to obtain undercover footage of the mistreatment of children.

'Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, and her daughter were visiting Turkey in a private capacity. The views expressed in the programme are the Duchess's own view and do not represent the view of the UK government,' they said & A spokesman for Buckingham Palace said: 'The Duchess and her daughters were on private trip and we would therefore not comment on it ---- snipped----Also the princesses didn’t do the undercover bit.

I will take that as a resounding no then with regard to such a statement detailing what they were going to do, we have all read these statements, released after the details of what they had been involved in were disclosed. If Eugenie 'didn't do the undercover bit', I wonder who they used as a stand in, because if you had seen the programme, you too would be asking who they found and why Eugenie was (apparently) wiping a tear from her eye. I say apparently because it didn't even smudge the copious amounts of eyeliner.

They have to provide security for B & F, the security officers do a reconnaissance for any security threat to where the princesses are going so they knew exactly where the princesses were going as they had done a security assessment prior.

Again any evidence of this, or is this just what you think might have happened or was supposed to have happened, or as I understand, happens on OFFICIAL, sanctioned visits? How do you think the two bodyguards might have been able to override Sarah or are you suggesting that they also deceived the Turkish/Rumanian authorities? I find it hard to believe that the bodyguards do recce for skiing holidays or other 'private visits', I can't say I have seen them doing a security sweep in Mahiki or Bouji either.

I doubt whether either princess will be forced to renounce their HRH if they don’t want to.

The will of the people or their Uncle Charles, we will have to wait and see what happens.

It wasn’t in the programme but in the article that Chris Rogers wrote about the programme before it went to air.

Did anyone expect him to write "The Duch wanted some more publicity so we hit upon the idea........

And how do you know that the documentaries won’t be sold to overseas markets? Australia TV gets documentaries ( including the Harry in Lesotho, made for the UK market) from other English speaking countries, with Sarah’s profile this documentary could easily be sold elsewhere.

I wonder who might get the money apart from Rogers, I wonder if they will use it in Turkey or Rumania?? Perhaps not but I am sure the extra controversy will help someone.

Final comment on Amanda Platell's column. This is a woman who is paid to write nasty and spiteful commentary in a column for the Daily Mail, how can anyone take what she writes as credible? It beggars belief.

Do you think, value judgment aside, it seems to me, from listening to ordinary British people and reading some of the comments they have written, that she is very in touch with the British people on this occasion.

 

[Skydragon]

but unless you have a background in psychology yourself (which I doubt since you're using the term "psychobabble" ) I don't really think it's fair, let alone accurate, to say the research differs wildly from real-life results; the subject of many psychology studies is real-life outcomes. I have a minor in psychology and had to take a statistics course, learn research methods, and study a large amount of scientific research for my child development class. We're not talking Freud here, but studies of real children which have shown that because of the way the human brain develops, children who receive inadequate care in early childhood (depending on the degree of neglect, of course) cannot possibly develop normally. I'm sorry, though, I missed your acknowledgment of the fact that they might not all have had autism when they came to the orphanages.

Having 'dealt with psychologists' 'psychiatrists' and social workers over a long period of time, I have invariably found many of them to be very troubled themselves, many seem to come from troubled upbringings, who also had the help of the P, P & S. IMO, you cannot use past cases to judge the outcome of how a child might develop. I have known children from the most appalling backgrounds of poverty and neglect, succeed at school, at uni and in their chosen careers. Others from privileged backgrounds fail at school and their job. Given half a chance the human mind can come through the most terrible of childhoods and be the best of the best and that is not a clinical judgment.

 

[Menarue]

To go back to Sarah, I would like to quote two passages from "The Queen & Di" by Ingrid Seward....
The first "For all her undoubted qualities, Fergie had two flaws. One was avarice, the other was a heart that easily wandered. Together they would ruin her reputation and destroy her marriage."
The second is " It was champagne all the way with Fergie," one member of the household remembered. It led, not to the admiration she wanted, but into the cul-de-sac of condemnation. She was ridiculed for her dress sense, admonished for her spending sprees, attacked for the way she availed herself of every free first-class airline flight to any trashy jet-set gathering".
As her own father said "being the Duchess of York" went to her head.
I don´t think she will ever get married again, being the Duchess of York is her ticket to freedom from debt, because she is extravagant, and it makes her feel important.
On the whole it is a sad story, but she will probably never be different, she just has no good sense, but perhaps BP and the FO will make sure she doesn´t involve the princesses in her schemes again. Perhaps some good will come out of the "jaunt" but unfortunately I doubt it.

 

[iceflower]

Here are some more screencaps/pics of the documentary :

** 1 ** 2 ** 3 ** 4 ** 5 ** 6 ** 7 **

 

[Menarue]

Beatrice looks very much like her mother now.

 

[rmay286]

Having 'dealt with psychologists' 'psychiatrists' and social workers over a long period of time, I have invariably found many of them to be very troubled themselves, many seem to come from troubled upbringings, who also had the help of the P, P & S. IMO, you cannot use past cases to judge the outcome of how a child might develop. I have known children from the most appalling backgrounds of poverty and neglect, succeed at school, at uni and in their chosen careers. Others from privileged backgrounds fail at school and their job. Given half a chance the human mind can come through the most terrible of childhoods and be the best of the best and that is not a clinical judgment.

I completely agree with you about not putting a lot of faith in psychologists and psychiatrists, also that they come from troubled backgrounds themselves. I think you and I are just talking about two different degrees of neglect here. Coming from a poor/lower class background where there is emotional or nutritional deprivation is one thing: studies have shown that children with a special degree of resilience can bounce back from this. Profound neglect (like being tied to a bed and given little to no intellectual stimulation) is something different: it's just the way the human brain is structured that after the early childhood period of plasticity, some kinds of new learning, if they haven't taken place in early childhood, aren't possible anymore.

Menarue, I do agree that Sarah is impulsive, extravagant, and hasn't got a lot of sense, but she also has a huge heart, and that's why I don't believe this visit was *just* an ego-boosting self-promotion tour like so many claim it was. I saw Princess Diana pull many more, and worse, attention-getting stunts in her short lifetime, but that's an argument for a different thread. Being Duchess of York is her ticket to being debt-free, I'll also agree with that, but it's been obvious to me for years that being Duchess of York means emotional validation to Sarah just as much as it means money (remember, this is a woman who had a broken family in childhood and who lost both parents and stepfather while none of them were yet old) and her causes are done for real charitable reasons as much as they are done to boost her own self-esteem.

 

[Menarue]

Totally agree with you rmay. I have never doubted that Sarah has a big heart, I just think that she hasn´t
(much) sense. Princess Diana pulled stunts whenever she could, she just loved the camera, always complaining but always in view of the lens.
When she was at the height of "I`m being wronged" phase of her marriage she would do all kinds of strange things to get attention. I remember the one time that she didn´t look at all attractive, and that was only once, she had her hair all slicked back in a wet look and it didn´t suit her at all, but I believe it was the day her husband was making an important speech (or at least he thought it was) and no one even noticed they were so amazed at her hair style. No wonder Prince Charles got frustrated with her. But as you said that was another story.
Perhaps Sarah thought she was doing something wonderful and it made her feel good with herself, I am glad if she did. Just that it was a mistake to take the princesses along that is all.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Human beings are incredibly resilient creatures, I agree.

Given half a chance the human mind can come through the most terrible of childhoods and be the best of the best and that is not a clinical judgment.

 

[Skydragon]

I completely agree with you about not putting a lot of faith in psychologists and psychiatrists, also that they come from troubled backgrounds themselves. I think you and I are just talking about two different degrees of neglect here. Coming from a poor/lower class background where there is emotional or nutritional deprivation is one thing: studies have shown that children with a special degree of resilience can bounce back from this. Profound neglect (like being tied to a bed and given little to no intellectual stimulation) is something different: it's just the way the human brain is structured that after the early childhood period of plasticity, some kinds of new learning, if they haven't taken place in early childhood, aren't possible anymore.

I wasn't specifically talking about poor or lower class, over the years I have watched 'ordinary' people (well they say they are ordinary), work wonders. The point I am trying to put across, is that a great many children can recover, if they were going to be able bodied to start with.

 

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by Skydragon
Rumania was one of the countries featured and it clearly showed that in many of the institutions, nothing has changed. While we saw one small project, the minister stated more than once, that although they have been able to help place some of the children into family sized units, they were far from achieving the goals they had agreed to with the EU before acceptance

How can nothing have changed if there are now 200 group homes ( Chris Rogers article) where previously there were none!? Yes there are still insitutions in Romania where the standard is bellow par, but before all children who were orphaned and abandoned due to disabilities were in institutions, now at least some have a better chance of a life ( Foreign Correspondent report on ABC TV)

Obviously I couldn't comment on what may have been shown on Australian TV or in their media, living in the UK and watching mainly UK programmes and Sky, all have reported on the controversy, IMO, more than the orphanages. Even the links from the UK papers have focused less on the problems and more on the controversy

Well the internet is a wonderful thing and I too can read UK online papers, each and everyone that I have read, including the trashy ones mentions the institutions, and then the controversy. Comment sections are manipulated by the editors of the paper as I've consistently had my comments refused when I've posted a view contrary to what they published. One post did get through heavily edited, out of 5 sentences, one was published. Editors manipulate comment sections to reflect the view they wish to promote, please don't be so naive to believe they're an accurate reflection of opinion.
Australian media this week, the 2 major women's magazines ( the hardcopies) featured stories on Sarah and her daughters' trip to the institutions and the conditions to be found there. No mention at all of any controversy in regards to Turkey.

It is only the official bodies that can ultimately effect change, not a journalist nor Sarah or her ill advised daughters. If changes are made, it will owe more to Turkey wanting to satisfy the criteria set by the EU, not to fill a few media spots. As I said and which you have failed to provide -

Public exposure brings about change and attention is focused on a problem, we live in a visual age. Official bodies are susceptible to pressure from public opinion and lobby groups, the more people aware of issues the more they lobby official bodies to act. ( Don't quite understand what I have failed to provide)

. I will take that as a resounding no then with regard to such a statement detailing what they were going to do, we have all read these statements, released after the details of what they had been involved in were disclosed. If Eugenie 'didn't do the undercover bit', I wonder who they used as a stand in, because if you had seen the programme, you too would be asking who they found and why Eugenie was (apparently) wiping a tear from her eye. I say apparently because it didn't

The visits were labelled as private so therefore there was no statement detailing what they were doing, it was a private visit! We don't get detailed statements when they make private visits to the US to visit their mother or when they go on holiday or when William or Harry disappear into Africa. Eugenie wiping a tear in her eye ( never heard of waterproof mascara or eyeliner?) was from the visit to the institution in Istanbul, they weren't undercover there. Different place, Sarah wore a wig and Chris Rogers used a fake ID in an institution in away from Istanbul. ( Chris Rogers article)

Again any evidence of this, or is this just what you think might have happened or was supposed to have happened, or as I understand, happens on OFFICIAL, sanctioned visits? How do you think the two bodyguards might have been able to override Sarah or are you suggesting that they also deceived the Turkish/Rumanian authorities? I find it hard to believe that the bodyguards do recce for skiing holidays or other 'private visits', I can't say I have seen them doing a security sweep in Mahiki or Bouji either.

Ken Wharfe's book has details of procedure when royals travel, also too he has given numerous interviews as the what happens with royal security. Official visits the Private secretary makes a recce, along with security. Since the young royals go to various nightclubs in London they are vetted as well, also they are private clubs and have private rooms, this all adds to the security. The protection officers job is to provide security for the principal, it's not the make moral or political judgements.

Do you think, value judgment aside, it seems to me, from listening to ordinary British people and reading some of the comments they have written, that she is very in touch with the British people on this occasion

Refer to previous comment about the manipulation of editors to provide the view they want. How do you know that there weren't just as many people who tried to post disagreeing with what she wrote and the Daily Mail editors didn't publish? Moi included!