Sarah, Duchess of York: "Cash for Access" - May 2010

[Tarlita]

Sarah just isn't savy enough to act as a clandestine lobbyist. Rupert Murdoch's press are always looking for ways to discredit royals or anyone else for that matter.
But I can't believe that the Windsor Royal house hasn't learnt from the past. Go back a bit to King George III's sons, who were always in debt, lived beyond their means (except for Adolphus) always asking for more money and were savaged in the press. Scandal after scandal with those sons. Then came along Qu Victoria's son Bertie/Edward, no job but ended up being the best foreign affairs man the uk ever had. Yet lived beyond his means, always asking for more money. And endured many scandals in the press. Then the Duke of Windsor, always asking for money especialy during the second world war. So having embarrassing relatives who are always broke is not new to them.
Surely by now they would have worked out a better way to pay off these relatives to keep them quite and scandal free.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by NotAPretender

I quoted your entire post because it's brilliant. There simply is no comparison between the two women's proceedings.

I agree there is no comparison.

One woman deliberately lied to the Queen - 'Oh no I had nothing to do with the Morton Book' - deliberately lied to the public - 'there were three of us in this marriage' conveniently forgetting the three or four that she added to the marriage and I could go on. She made repeated public announcements through the press and in interviews to discredit her husband and the monarchy in general by association - it was deliberate and calculated to harm the monarchy in general and Charles in particular in their public roles.


She deliberately run down the father of her children in public and to the public.

The other, while indiscreet, was entitled to think that a private place was just that - a private place where the press would respect that privacy. She hurt people yes but it was deliberately in public designed to hurt them and discredit them in the eyes of the public.

Sarah has made mistakes certainly.

As for the divorce settlements - Diana was rewarded for his vicious attack on Charles and there is no question about that. Sarah wasn't rewarded for having an affair and being found out.

The difference was that throughout their married lives the press made Sarah out to be the bad one and Diana the saint and a lot of people have bought into that myth because of her lies and deliberate contortions of the truth for which she was rewarded.

Sure she should have received a decent settlement as the mother of a future King but Sarah is also the mother of princesses and should have received a decent settlement as well rather than the pittance.

As for their respective wealth - the Queen and the Queen Mother were both reported as having to help pay Diana's settlement as Charles couldn't affort to and has been reported a number of times as having been almost wiped out financially by the settlement (over the top to have the husband in that situation when the wife already has a substantial fortune of her own which wasn't also divided and half given to Charles). Sarah got a house, a small annuity, which isn't much even today for a woman whose daughters are princesses, and a paltry 1,000,000 pounds or so in comparison.

She had to earn a living and had to use her association with the RF to do so and that is all she has to use for the future. That she has to rely on handouts from her daughter's trust funds says a lot about how deep she has been affected by the GFC which has wiped out many many people with investments etc.

I don't see her as greedy but as desperate to get out from a hole and fully empathise with her and her situation.

She has been a great mum and a loving friend to Andrew but she has also been the butt of a vicious press campaign since day 1 and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if she did something awful and tried to commit suicide and maybe even succeeds over this. Thankfully it seems as if Andrew had already decided to stand by the mother of his children if the reports I have seen this morning are right and that he 'forgives' her.

[Russophile]

For those who insist that Sarah should have been given a better settlement, here is just a list of books she authored or co-authored during her marriage and since the divorce to let you know the income was there and beyond what she would have made in support payments:
(These are not in order)

Little Red's Christmas Story
Sarah Ferguson: My story
Dining with the Duchess
Dieting with the Duchess
What I know now
Energy Breakthrough
Budgie the Little Helicopter
Budgie goes to sea
Budgie at Bendict's point
Little Red
Tea for Ruby
The Royal Switch
Budgie and the Blizzard
Little Red's Autumn Adventure
Little Red's Summer Adventure
Hartmoor
Little Red to the Rescue
Every Mother's Heart (to be published in December of 2010)
Sleep and Dream of Happy Things
Travels with Queen Victoria
Win the Weight Game
Reinventing yourself with the Duchess
Victoria and Albert: Life at Osbourne House
The Palace of Westminster
Bright Lights


Have I missed any?

[rominet09]

Did these books sell well ?

[Mermaid1962]

I believe that she took what was called "a business course." She could upgrade her early-80s office skills and work that way. She would have to learn to manage her money, but she'd have self-respect.

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

She has no real work skills, no real work experience, is 50 years old and needs an income.

[COUNTESS]

Yes, yes. Poor Charles. He would have to live in a hovel. He would have to borrow to buy his mistress a gift. He would have to rent himself out as a tampon. Oh, stop it. This family is worth billions. Charles and Andrew are the benefactors of this. Their wives put up with a lot of crap. Sarah is still alive and dealing with it. And, yes, Sarah is desparate. It is sad. People do desparate things when they are desparate. It is easy to be good with a budget, when you don't have to really have one. The queen is frugal, but lives like a "queen".

[Mermaid1962]

I'm on record as saying that Sarah should be given a modest place to live and a living income in exchange for not doing any more interviews or dubious deals. That said, I don't believe that Sarah lives in "the real world." A person who lived in the real world would realize that she can't live comfortably by spending more money than she earns. A person who lives in the real world doesn't blame her own bad behaviour on her ex-in-laws. I think that Prince Andrew has been more than kind to his ex-wife. How could working harder provide more for Sarah? He receives his income from his mother. His training is entirely military; even if he could, how could he go out and get a civilian job that made the kind of money that Sarah could want? People don't like their HRHs having everyday jobs.

Originally Posted by Hereditary Thane

And as for those Christians here who advocate the Duke of York cutting her adrift and evicting her from her home, please do remember she is the mother of his children, and if he worked harder and provided for her then perhaps she would be as compliant in public as many of the other royal spouses are. Three cheers for someone near the royals who lives in the real world.

[Mermaid1962]

But don't lobbyists work for organizations, and not for themselves? And lobbyists, I believe, have codes of conduct.

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Yes, she was acting like a lobbyist.

[sthreats]

[QUOTE=October;1085786]I'm personally far more disgusted with the NOTW than I am Fergie. They secretly recorded, what to me appears to be an emotionally unstable drunk person, with-out said person’s knowledge or consent in a deliberate attempt to create a scandal for their own use. Yes, she's an adult and what she did was unethical, but I still put what Considering her measly divorce settlement and that she has no real work skills or income to fall back on I don't see how she could possibly support herself; I think this is a common element with many divorced women in her age group because they were part of the last generation where it was a semi-acceptable idea that a girl could go through life and never worry about money if she married well.

But.. Her divorce was about 12 years ago. She is well aware of how much money she gets per month. I admire how she pulled herself out of debt and how she re-invented her self as a positive living guru. I don't understand how she has managed to become this much in debt again. And if she has limited means, why does she keep spending so excessively.

[Jaya]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

I agree there is no comparison. One woman deliberately lied to the Queen...

Beautifully put...........
Diana was contemptuously favoured. The more harm she inflicted on the royal Family - the more they rewarded her..... Sarah should have received a better settlement as she was caught "once " in her 'dalliance" but Diana had a string of these affairs with a system and a method;.really weird initiatives like hanging up telephones and making indiscreet calls.Haznat Khan,[flying to Pakistan to meet his family?} Captain james; Dodi;Hoare the art dealer; Gulu Lalavani; a list of men;

I think Diana's nose would have been out of joint had Sarah gotten a better settlement because

[Duchessmary]

As I've said before, Andrew was and is madly in love with Sarah and I think it's mutual. She messed up~royally~on this one. But as biographer Robert Lacey pointed out~what human being would walk away from a pile of $40,000 in cash on a table? Especially if you are in dire straights.
I also wonder how many glasses of wine TNOW plied her with. 2? 3? 5? I'm not arguing that she had a serious lack of judgement, but let's cut the woman some slack, shall we?

[Vasillisos Markos]

Cut her some slack? Why? Because she should have obtained a better divorce judgment, or Diana should have received a lesser one? Is it relevant that Diana may have lied more, cheated more, aired more dirty laundry and this now explains Sarah's behavior, or justifies it? I say no. She is pathetic but what she did is unforgivable people and cutting her slack simply because she is a former member of the royal family is not warranted. Indeed, if the press has been hounding her through the years, one would think she would behave better or at least be a little wiser in her financial dealings.

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Sure she should have received a decent settlement as the mother of a future King but Sarah is also the mother of princesses and should have received a decent settlement as well rather than the pittance.

Can someone explain to me just why Diana got such a huge divorce settlement compared to Sarah (other than "she was rewarded"?). The difference is really striking. I was too young when Charles and Diana were divorcing to pay any attention to news about the financial settlement. Is it because Diana was the mother of the future king and therefore wasn't expected to go out to work?

Because Beatrice and Eugenie have trust funds, and Sarah and Andrew have joint custody over their daughters, I don't think Sarah was expected to pay for all their expenses out of her divorce settlement. In fact, years ago I read that Andrew and Sarah split the cost of all expenses for the girls right down to a haircut. I don't agree in any case with people who claim that Sarah was driven to desperation by her a stingy royal family. Since her divorce, Sarah must have earned millions from Weight Watchers.

I'm personally far more disgusted with the NOTW than I am Fergie. They secretly recorded, what to me appears to be an emotionally unstable drunk person, with-out said person’s knowledge or consent in a deliberate attempt to create a scandal for their own use. Yes, she's an adult and what she did was unethical, but I still put what Considering her measly divorce settlement and that she has no real work skills or income to fall back on I don't see how she could possibly support herself; I think this is a common element with many divorced women in her age group because they were part of the last generation where it was a semi-acceptable idea that a girl could go through life and never worry about money if she married well.

If there can be levels of disgust, then I'm also more disgusted with NoTW than Sarah. That being said, I'm not at all impressed by Sarah either. I really thought she had done a lot of worthwhile work in the last few years and hadn't run into any major scandals, so I thought she had matured. Also, in the last little while I've paid more attention to British newspapers, and it's become very obvious to me that Sarah has reason to believe they have it in for her. But in this case, although she was set up by the malicious press, there's still no excuse for what she did. She calls Andrew her best friend, and yet she betrays him by agreeing to accept these ridiculous amounts of money for access to him. It really seemed not only dishonest but delusional.

I don't think Sarah is going to commit suicide or something like that because she looked quite happy in the photos from today. That says to me that Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie are all being supportive of her. I wouldn't be surprised if they think Sarah was taken advantage of and are blaming the News of the World more than her.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by rominet09

Did these books sell well ?

The ones released only in England not so much. Sarah's "My Story" was enough to get her out of debt in no time at all.

[Idriel]

Originally Posted by Jaya

Sarah should have received a better settlement as she was caught "once " in her 'dalliance"

Sarah had more than one dalliance.
This one particular affair (with the 'toe sucker') was just the one that could not be ignored.

Diana had a string of these affairs with a system and a method;.really weird initiatives like hanging up telephones and making indiscreet calls.Haznat Khan,[flying to Pakistan to meet his family?} Captain james; Dodi;Hoare the art dealer; Gulu Lalavani; a list of men;

What are Haznat, Lalvani and Dodi doing on this list?
System and a method? Okayyy...

It was fun comparing Diana's and Sarah's settlements for a while but I really fail how a dead woman's behavior, perceived morality and financial affairs or events more than a decade old are in any way relevant to this thread.

Sarah has proven time and time again her financial incompetence, so all this settlement talk is derivative at best. She the kind of person who, if given $1 billion, would find a way to spend $2 billions.

I was at first willing to give her some slack because of the desperation factor but I'm not willing to do that anymore. Her arrogance and lack of shame in the aftermath of this debacle is really glaring ('Woe is me! Grown ups are mean!').
As a point of comparison, Koo Stark is destitute and homeless and yet has show more loyalty and discretion towards a former boyfriend than Sarah has towards the father of her children.

Iluvbertie, let's agree to disagree.
I will note however that I find amusing that you are always so vigilant amount where tax-payer money is going in William's and Harry's thread (two active Royals who actually serve their country), but you seem to have a much more generous position towards a woman who was hardly ever an asset of any king either to her country or to the Royal family.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Idriel

Iluvbertie, let's agree to disagree.
I will note however that I find amusing that you are always so vigilant amount where tax-payer money is going in William's and Harry's thread (two active Royals who actually serve their country), but you seem to have a much more generous position towards a woman who was hardly ever an asset of any king either to her country or to the Royal family.

I see a difference between what an extremely wealthy family was prepared to reach into their coffers to pay for two ex-wives - i.e. that is their private money compared to what the British people are expected to pay for two young men.

One is private wealth compared to the public purse.

I would have no problem with them using some of that private wealth to pay for their own protection when on private time (and that goes for every member of the family).

[Idriel]

^the only reason why Charles needed help to pay the settlement is that, at the time and like many landed aristocrats, he was land rich but cash poor. It was a cash flow issue, not a net worth issue. We all know Charles a bit of a drama queen so his cries of poverty should be really taken with a grain of salt. He's an extremely wealthy man. Andrew was not (I would say he's affluent these days, but still not in Charles' league).

So the fact that the Queen is privately wealthy doesn't change the fact that settlements are based on the spouse worth, not the family's worth, and so that they were proportionate in both cases.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by rmay286

Can someone explain to me just why Diana got such a huge divorce settlement compared to Sarah...?

Most likely it was to shut her up. So she wouldn't go to the press and tell them everything else.

Sarah knows newspapers she had to live with them for so many years, she should realise how decieving they are. This mistake is her fault.
I don't think she is going to commit suicide, because she likes herself too much, and the smell of money.

[Dierna23]

Originally Posted by October

.However if it's not illegal for a tabloid to secretly record someone for financial gain than it ought to be.

I wonder if it could be considered as "under false pretenses"? I mean, as we all know the guy who talked with her wasn't a business man, he was a reporter. So, this man lied to her to get his big scandal. Hm...

I'm not defending Sarah's behavior (and why should I?), but I still think that this kind of journalism is disgusting. It's like playing Candid Camera with the BRF. After the incidents concerning the Countess of Wessex and Princess Michael of Kent, she could have known it better, but even those stories I found rather unfair. Of course they will go blabbing if they feel secure etc.

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by Idriel

It was fun comparing Diana's and Sarah's settlements for a while but I really fail how a dead woman's behavior, perceived morality and financial affairs or events more than a decade old are in any way relevant to this thread.

That is what I've been trying to figure out myself.
The fact remains is that Sarah and Sarah alone got herself into this predicament. Not Diana, The Queen, or Andrew. So bringing Diana into this discussion to prove some point is not cutting it. I have always liked Fergie but she got herself into this mess.