Sarah and Eugenie: Documentary on Turkish Orphanages - November 2008

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

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'

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.

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

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.

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

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 -

Originally Posted by Skydragon

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.

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

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

Originally Posted by Skydragon

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.

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

'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.

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

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.

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

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.

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

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........

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

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.

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

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]

Originally Posted by rmay286

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]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

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.

Originally Posted by Skydragon

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]

Originally Posted by rmay286

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!

[Menarue]

Charlotte you won´t give up will you. Saint Sarah it is. You´ve won, she did all the good in the world, the next Mother Theresa. Sorry, I don´t know whether she read your posts even though she may be able to use internet in the intervals of her "do gooding" but when she does she and her daughters will be most encouraged and we can expect some more surprise visits sanctioned by the FO. BRF.
If you are lucky she might decide to visit Australia and stay there.

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by Menarue

Charlotte you won´t give up will you. Saint Sarah it is. You´ve won, she did all the good in the world, the next Mother Theresa. Sorry, I don´t know whether she read your posts even though she may be able to use internet in the intervals of her "do gooding" but when she does she and her daughters will be most encouraged and we can expect some more surprise visits sanctioned by the FO. BRF.
If you are lucky she might decide to visit Australia and stay there.

Why should I or anyone else with a diverse view be silenced? Why the "you won't give up will you?" question. I have a different view and what I consider valid rebuttals to the views put forward, accept that not everyone has the view that Sarah is the worst person on earth or what she and the princesses did is the downfall of the monarchy. I don't think the criticism dished out to Sarah in this case was just, apparently it appears it's acceptable to condemn her and villify her, but not to put forward valid arguments in support of what she did. It's not as simplistic as believing in a St Sarah, I'm not a twitty teen, but rather looking at an issue beyond what is fed to you by the tabloid media and the view they wish to put forward.


FYI her sister lives in Australia so she visits on a regular basis!

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

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.

First of all: I think it is important to help those poor children but I think also that you should do it without violating laws and the usage of deception in order to get even more shocking pictures. I have no way of knowing if it is true what the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet claims, but they write that the orphanage was so overcrowded at the moment because they do renovations in other parts and had no other possibility to care for the patients of these units. That the TV-team was informed about this reason and has been asked to wait till the work is done to come and film.
Okay, that's their side of the story.

Private visit? They went there to work for and bring publicity to a political magazine on TV, how can this considered to be a private task? Each country has its own rules for media conduct and I'm not sure the Turkish media laws allow these kind of scoops. While it is okay to do that for plain Mrs. Sarah Windsor, it is IMHO not correct for TRH, princesses of the Blood Royal.

AFAI understood all visits were undercover insofar as the people working in the portrayed institutions were not aware that they were to become part in a TV-documentary. I find it laughable that someone like Sarah, who complains all the time about the intrusion of the media into her and her daughters' life does exactly that same to others. Obviously she is of the opinion that the end justifies the means, as long as she is the one to set the rules.

Sorry, I don't buy into her act of selflessness. The title of the show tells me all: "Duchess and daughters - their secret mission" is as attention grabbing as "The Duchess in Hull" was. Sarah is trying to reestablishing herself as no only "a" "Duchess" but "The Duchess" in the British public and she uses her daughters to get more attention. Just like she used Beatrice as "actress" in the film about Victoria she worked for.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

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)

I don't really know how to make it any simpler, I repeat again, this time in red - 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

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.

On that we will have to disagree,even the online papers have led with the story of the controversy, apart from The Mail on this occasion.

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)

No public exposure doesn't bring about change, no matter how 'visual' the age, otherwise the problems in Darfur, etc would have been solved years ago!
You stated that Charles had been involved in similar controversy, I asked for examples of any deceit or duplicity connected to any visit he has made, 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. - therefore you have been unable to provide any examples of such a deceit.

The visits were labelled as private so therefore there was no statement detailing what they were doing, it was a private visit!

Again, you stated

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

So clearly they didn't tell the whole story when mentioning to the FO or BP this 'private' trip, they didn't do a recce and it was not approved beforehand.

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,

I suggest you watch the programme, especially the piece where Sarah, Eugenie & the reporter decided the staff were getting suspicious and they ought to leave.

In Istanbul, she and Eugenie, the youngest sister, visited homes in the guise of potential donors

I have never seen waterproof mascara stand up to such 'upset', let alone eye liner, but whether I have heard of it, seen it, use it, wasn't actually put up for debate.

Ken Wharfe's book has details of procedure when royals travel,

I'm sure it has, but it seems to be out of touch, Many nightclubs do have private rooms but as has been seen, William and Harry do not always use them. I wonder how many examples of 'private' trips, undercover reporting he has actually been involved in!

Refer to previous comment about the manipulation of editors to provide the view they want.

Again you seem to have missed a section of my post when reading it, from listening to ordinary British people, manipulation by the moderators/editors aside, that is not so easy to brush aside

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

W but rather looking at an issue beyond what is fed to you by the tabloid media and the view they wish to put forward.

And yet, you haven't seen the programme and therefore are 100% reliant on what the tabloid media are feeding you!

[scooter]

It appears that certain posters here can't stand to see any positive coverage of the Duchess at all (I have noticed that those posters seem to be the same ones who constantly attack the late Princess of Wales). I say that she was trying to help these children by exposing the conditions at the orphanage. Why not cut her a little slack for 5 minutes and give her a little credit? Would that be fatal?

[Menarue]

Scooter perhaps you would like to name these people you have noticed. I suggest you read the posts carefully, no one said it wasn´t a good idea to expose bad conditions at an orphanage, what was bad was doing it in an underhand way, giving the idea that they would be donating money to these orphanages, what a let down for the people working there when they reaslised they were being used politically and no money coming in to help them better their conditions.
Also the Duchess didn´t want to be a Duchess, she wanted out but she just doesn´t seem to be able to stop using the BRF for her ends, whatever they are. She took her daughters, who are British Princesses, with her and to anyone who can read it will be obvious that she took them without informing the people she should have informed before doing so and the reason why she was taking them.
Diana Princess of Wales, loved attention, that is not putting her down, it is stating a fact, she did everything possible to compete with her own husband and she wasn´t above using her boys for a photo opportunity too. She is dead and gone, I will never understand why she wasn´t wearing a seatbelt but that is too late to even think about now. She has gone, she is dead RIP. No one wants to put her down, that is in your imagination, it is just that she wasn´t the saint that many people think she was. That is not a crime, not many people are saintly. What I object to now is the
gradual edging towards the title of the "People´s Duchess" that Sarah seems to aiming for.
I hope on her next trip to Australia she stays longer with her sister.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by scooter

It appears that certain posters here can't stand to see any positive coverage of the Duchess at all (I have noticed that those posters seem to be the same ones who constantly attack.......Why not cut her a little slack for 5 minutes and give her a little credit? Would that be fatal?

Have you seen the programme?
You constantly attack 'certain posters', is that different then?
It would be a stretch of the imagination to call it positive coverage for Sarah!
Give her credit for what exactly, failing to mention the reason behind her private visit, encouraging her daughters to be economical with the truth, breaking the laws of the land she is visiting, or do we mean investigating, deceit, giving false hope, the list goes on but I would like to be clear what we are supposed to give her credit for. Neither she nor her daughters had any need to be visibly involved in this programme, ITV would have shown it without their involvement.

[agogo]

Good for them to tackle such an important subject.

[Mermaid1962]

The problem was that, because Sarah took Beatrice and Eugenie along, it became an international diplomatic incident involving the Royal Family. Had Sarah gone by herself, it would have had the same impact on the world's conscience, but it wouldn't have involved the RF--which ultimately involves the Queen.

Originally Posted by agogo

Good for them to tackle such an important subject.