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

[CrownPrincess5]

If it is true that she was given I think 20,000 pounds per year for the divorce settlement, then I say yes it is unfair. She should have taken Andrew to the cleaners then she wouldn't have this problem.

[Lumutqueen]

She's back.

Make-up free Sarah Ferguson puts on a brave face as she jets back to Britain for the first time after cash for access scandal | Mail Online

The Duchess of York returned to the UK today for a reunion with her daughters and ex-husband following the cash-for-access scandal.

She landed at Heathrow Airport following a newspaper sting that recorded her offering to sell access to the Duke of York for £500,000.

Sarah had been in the United States amid the fallout and yesterday recorded a public apology on the Oprah Winfrey Show as she attempts to rebuild her life.

[CrownPrincess5]

If she moves to the USA then good for her, but I don't see why she can't still live in the UK. She can rebuild her life anywhere, it's no excuse, unless she's just running away.

[NotAPretender]

Originally Posted by Princejohnny25

I dont think she will be able to get any more money out of Andrew, her financial situation changed as well. She became a millionaire, then lost it, then got it again, then lost it again. She has showed that she can make a living and survive, but always loses it by her own fault. Plus, it was Fergies toe suckin photos that instigated the official divorce. I dont really see how they could make a good argument to get more money for her? Are there any law or divorce experts to dish out facts?

You know, I hadn't given thought to that aspect. Andrew didn't ask for more from her when she was outearning him.

She's made and lost a fortune: I think the BRF, in return for forking over the cash, now has full rights to govern her actions.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by AuntyTam

I am disturbed by that admission too. She should not be able to touch that money.

Is anyone reporting on today's anticipated meeting between Sarah and PA yet? So far, I haven't come across any information...

If her daughters wish to give their mother that money why shouldn't they? Isn't it sad though that they feel as if they have to support their mother because she can't support herself?

No one can stop the girls doing what they want with the Trust Funds. I am also assuming that at this stage the girls are only able to access the interest and not the capital - that is usual with Trust Funds until the recipient is a certain age.

I also read somewhere that these were the Trust Funds set up by Andrew when they were born and not the ones they were left by the Queen Mum - but either way they are the girls' Trust Funds and therefore they are free to use that money any way they wish - including supporting their mother.


Why would anyone be reporting on a meeting between Andrew and Sarah? That will be a private meeting with probably just the two of them present and no one will know what was said on either side unless either of them choose to make a statement.

[tommy1716]

Seems Sarah didn't get as bad a deal as she has been making out
Duchess of York's divorce settlement was worth £3 million - Telegraph

Senior sources have given The Sunday Telegraph precise details of the divorce settlement in order to disprove the Duchess's "outrageous" claims. Her package agreed in 1996, when the couple divorced, included:

• £500,000 provided by the Queen for her to buy a new house for her and her children.

• £1.4 million provided by the Queen to set up a trust fund for Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.

• £350,000 in cash provided by the Queen which had no restrictions on its use.

• An agreement that the Duke of York would pay his daughters' private school and university fees.

• A modest monthly allowance which it is believed was then based on the Duke of York's salary as a Royal Navy officer.

Royal sources estimate that the cost of 14 years of school fees and the modest monthly allowance total well over £500,000 meaning the Queen's former daughter-in-law and her children have received around £3 million from the Royal family in the past 14 years.
Furthermore, the Royal family did not insist on an all-binding confidentiality clause as part of the divorce settlement which has enabled the Duchess to cash in on her royal connections, including earning £2.2 million from writing her autobiography.

[COUNTESS]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

If her daughters wish to give their mother that money why shouldn't they? Isn't it sad though that they feel as if they have to support their mother because she can't support herself?

No one can stop the girls doing what they want with the Trust Funds. I am also assuming that at this stage the girls are only able to access the interest and not the capital - that is usual with Trust Funds until the recipient is a certain age.

I also read somewhere that these were the Trust Funds set up by Andrew when they were born and not the ones they were left by the Queen Mum - but either way they are the girls' Trust Funds and therefore they are free to use that money any way they wish - including supporting their mother.


Why would anyone be reporting on a meeting between Andrew and Sarah? That will be a private meeting with probably just the two of them present and no one will know what was said on either side unless either of them choose to make a statement.

You are right. All of this is poppycock. No one knows anything of their own knowledge. But it is okay, if you want to trahs, Sarah.

[Mermaid1962]

At the time, he might not have had a lot of his own money. Perhaps if they had sold Sunninghill then and Andrew had moved back into Buckingham Palace until something else could be worked out...

Originally Posted by CrownPrincess5

If it is true that she was given I think 20,000 pounds per year for the divorce settlement, then I say yes it is unfair. She should have taken Andrew to the cleaners then she wouldn't have this problem.

[Mermaid1962]

I remember hearing/reading about the settlement for money for a house at the time of the divorce. I should look in my old royal magazines to see whether there were any reports of the settlement at that time.

Originally Posted by tommy1716

Seems Sarah didn't get as bad a deal as she has been making out
Duchess of York's divorce settlement was worth £3 million - Telegraph

.

[CrownPrincess5]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

At the time, he might not have had a lot of his own money. Perhaps if they had sold Sunninghill then and Andrew had moved back into Buckingham Palace until something else could be worked out...

But the BRF is wealthy. It makes sense to have their separate funds, but how is it possible to be low in money when the Queen has considerable wealth? I would think Andrew would be considered rich...

[LadyHylton]

Originally Posted by tommy1716

Seems Sarah didn't get as bad a deal as she has been making out
Duchess of York's divorce settlement was worth £3 million - Telegraph

Senior sources have given The Sunday Telegraph precise details of the divorce settlement in order to disprove the Duchess's "outrageous" claims. Her package agreed in 1996, when the couple divorced, included:

• £500,000 provided by the Queen for her to buy a new house for her and her children.

• £1.4 million provided by the Queen to set up a trust fund for Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.

• £350,000 in cash provided by the Queen which had no restrictions on its use.

• An agreement that the Duke of York would pay his daughters' private school and university fees.

• A modest monthly allowance which it is believed was then based on the Duke of York's salary as a Royal Navy officer.

Royal sources estimate that the cost of 14 years of school fees and the modest monthly allowance total well over £500,000 meaning the Queen's former daughter-in-law and her children have received around £3 million from the Royal family in the past 14 years.
Furthermore, the Royal family did not insist on an all-binding confidentiality clause as part of the divorce settlement which has enabled the Duchess to cash in on her royal connections, including earning £2.2 million from writing her autobiography.

Thank you for posting that. It proves what we all know....that the RF are often maligned when they are actually generous to a fault.

One question, the money from Weight Watchers & Wedgewood is in addition? Yes, a tidy sum, even after paying off the debts. It is troubling to know that the Queen specifically indicated money for a home, yet the vulgar quote that has been in the press all week..I don't like that phrase so I shan't quote it.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by CrownPrincess5

But the BRF is wealthy. It makes sense to have their separate funds, but how is it possible to be low in money when the Queen has considerable wealth? I would think Andrew would be considered rich...

''

Its not the family's wealth that comes into consideration at the time of divorce but rather than the wealth of the two parties involved in the divorce proceedings. We do hear a lot about some of the minor royals living on "grace and favor" which (correct me if I'm wrong) means basically that the Queen pays for the upkeep of their residence etc. As was stated before here, at the time of the divorce, the settlement was decided on Andrew's net worth at that time not his parents nor his grandmother's.

For Sarah to go after more from Andrew now would make about as much sense as me going after my ex-husband's just inherited windfall because Uncle Jebediah passed on and left all to him. What I am and Sarah is entitled to depends on what the partner earned and what he was worth during the time of the marriage. Maybe the laws in the UK are different from here?

Could you just see all of The Donald's ex-wives going back to court for more each time he makes another billion?

[Iluvbertie]

There have been a number of cases reported where one partner has successfully gone back for more when the other partner has come into money after the divorce.

It was also reported in 1996 at the time of Diana's settlement that she could have got a lot more based on Charles' predicted future wealth as King, so obviously the notion of future income can be considered.

I have just spent the afternoon with a friend who is a family lawyer here in Australia and we discussed this case. She pointed out the fact that as Sarah has lived under the same roof as Andrew for much of the period since their divorce she could easily be considered a 'common law' or 'de facto' wife and thus is entitled to a new settlement now based on his current wealth if they decide to cease co-habitating with the argument being made that their relationship has been virtually continuous since their wedding 24 years ago and thus she would be entitled to a much larger settlement based on nearly a quarter of a century and not just the years of the official marriage as 'common law' partnerships are now treated much the same way as formal marriages. What she would argue in court was that they never ceased to have a mutual relationship involving both monetary and emotional support and thus she would be entitled to much more now (like half his current wealth) plus maintenance payments to entitle her to live in a style befitting the wife of the second son of the monarch. If she was Sarah's lawyer she would be setting a minimum of Diana's settlement based on the fact that Diana only shared a home with Charles for 11 years whereas Sarah has shared a home with Andrew for double that time.

[Osipi]

[QUOTE=Iluvbertie;1087019]There have been a number of cases reported where one partner has successfully gone back for more when the other partner has come into money after the divorce.

Musing it over I think that the only real possibility that Sarah could go back and get more would be from the sale of the marital home.. Do we know if the Queen gifted it to just Andrew or was it to the both of them?

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by tommy1716

Seems Sarah didn't get as bad a deal as she has been making out
Duchess of York's divorce settlement was worth £3 million - Telegraph

Senior sources have given The Sunday Telegraph precise details of the divorce settlement in order to disprove the Duchess's "outrageous" claims. Her package agreed in 1996, when the couple divorced, included:

• £500,000 provided by the Queen for her to buy a new house for her and her children.

• £1.4 million provided by the Queen to set up a trust fund for Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.

• £350,000 in cash provided by the Queen which had no restrictions on its use.

• An agreement that the Duke of York would pay his daughters' private school and university fees.

• A modest monthly allowance which it is believed was then based on the Duke of York's salary as a Royal Navy officer.

Royal sources estimate that the cost of 14 years of school fees and the modest monthly allowance total well over £500,000 meaning the Queen's former daughter-in-law and her children have received around £3 million from the Royal family in the past 14 years.
Furthermore, the Royal family did not insist on an all-binding confidentiality clause as part of the divorce settlement which has enabled the Duchess to cash in on her royal connections, including earning £2.2 million from writing her autobiography.

Not exactly a fair assessment of how much money she got. Yes 500,000pounds was offered to buy a house for the girls and Sarah to live, but this house was never bought. The one that was considered suitable would have been too expensive for Sarah to run, so it was never bought. The house too was to be put into the girls' name so not an asset for Sarah. So that's 500,000pounds that Sarah never got so subtract that from the 3million.

The 1.4 million pounds put in trust for Beatrice and Eugenie, that money didn't go to Sarah, it went to the princesses! Are they not also Andrew's daughters, why list that money put in trust for them as Sarah's money!? So subtract that 1.4 million from the 3million.

Now we're down to a settlement of 1million.

Fine Andrew paid their school fees, how is that Sarah's income!? Was Andrew not to contribute at all to the cost of his daughters' living expenses? Why was Sarah to be totally responsible for all their living costs? Subtract the 14years of school fees from the 1 million that was left. Sarah paid for everyday expenses for her daughters which came from her allowance and earned income.

The lump sum Sarah received from the Queen, half of it she gave to her mother to save the Argentinian ranch that belonged to Hector Barrantes (Sarah's stepfather) that was heavily in debt. Sarah still owns a share of that ranch, inherited after her mother's death.

Sarah may not be the most savvy financial brain around but this article has a totally mischievous warped viewed to exactly how much money she actually received. Far far less that what the story's headline states.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

There have been a number of cases reported where one partner has successfully gone back for more when the other partner has come into money after the divorce.

It was also reported in 1996 at the time of Diana's settlement that she could have got a lot more based on Charles' predicted future wealth as King, so obviously the notion of future income can be considered.

I have just spent the afternoon with a friend who is a family lawyer here in Australia and we discussed this case. She pointed out the fact that as Sarah has lived under the same roof as Andrew for much of the period since their divorce she could easily be considered a 'common law' or 'de facto' wife and thus is entitled to a new settlement now based on his current wealth if they decide to cease co-habitating with the argument being made that their relationship has been virtually continuous since their wedding 24 years ago and thus she would be entitled to a much larger settlement based on nearly a quarter of a century and not just the years of the official marriage as 'common law' partnerships are now treated much the same way as formal marriages. What she would argue in court was that they never ceased to have a mutual relationship involving both monetary and emotional support and thus she would be entitled to much more now (like half his current wealth) plus maintenance payments to entitle her to live in a style befitting the wife of the second son of the monarch. If she was Sarah's lawyer she would be setting a minimum of Diana's settlement based on the fact that Diana only shared a home with Charles for 11 years whereas Sarah has shared a home with Andrew for double that time.

All I can say to that is WOAH! Very interesting! And it does make sense. I'd forgotten about them both living at Royal Lodge and taking family vacations and whatnot together all this time. That certainly would make a big difference. As you stated when Charles and Diana split.. that was it. Sarah and Andrew have had an ongoing relationship since the divorce.

[Lumutqueen]

Princess Beatrice's boyfriend proves to be a knight in shining armour | Mail Online

This is shocking.

Princess Beatrice’s boyfriend of four years, Dave Clark, has proved himself to be quite the knight in shining armour.
The dashing 28-year-old, who works for Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic group, has offered to assist Bea’s cash-strapped mother, the Duchess of York.

So she turns to her daughters boyfriend.

[Wisteria]

From what I have read in the previous posts it seems that Prince Andrew instead of trying to keep his divorce amicable for his daughters´ sake should have shunned Sarah and not even spoken to her again.
It doesn´t matter how much she can get from Prince Andrew on a second round, it
won´t ever be enough. If she would stoop to the point of using her daughter´s inherited fund money then she is ready to do anything.
Any reasonable person could live a good life on what she got, without a retinue of course, why does she need a secretary, assistant etc.
She should try not getting into harebrained schemes to make "an easy" buck.
I hate the idea that Prince Andrew is going to be made to pay for doing the decent thing.
He didn´t commit adultery, he was the innocent party and now he is expected to pay more.
The girls are well cared for, that should be Sarah´s main concern.
I don´t know whether she is actually suited to any kind of employment but if she just lived quietly and in a dignified way I am sure she would get by. Of course there is the annoying little problem of paying off her debts but surely Andrew can´t be blamed for that.

[Wisteria]

While writing the above Lumut gave a link saying that Sarah has turned to her daughter´s boyfriend. He may be wealthy but if he starts on that path it will never end.
Really, this saga seems to be going from bad to worse.
One thing that Sarah should be grateful for is that she isn´t living in the time of Charles Dickens.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Wisteria

While writing the above Lumut gave a link saying that Sarah has turned to her daughter´s boyfriend. He may be wealthy but if he starts on that path it will never end.
Really, this saga seems to be going from bad to worse.
One thing that Sarah should be grateful for is that she isn´t living in the time of Charles Dickens.

Or married to Henry VIII. She would have been beheaded as Anne Boleyn was.

It may be odd but my gut is telling me that maybe deep down she's enjoying all this attention she's been getting this past week and milking it for all it can be worth.