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

[Wisteria]

Originally Posted by lumutqueen

Okay i'm sorry but you cannot compare the funeral of Princess Diana to the divorce settlement of Sarah and Andrew and her catastrophic mistakes afterwards.

In the eyes of the Queen, Diana was certainly not perfect, in fact Sarah was better, she never went to the press, she never tried to sell her story, she never tried to through herself down the stairs when she was pregnant with Bea or Eugenie.
I'm sorry but for £3,000 a month i would go away. I would make my own life and I would deal with my circumstances.
Sarah, as Zonk said had to change her lifestyle because she did not have the same amount of income. However, she wouldn't, she wanted to keep her royal lifestyle, and if she had handled her money and invested in the right places, maybe she could have.

The Queen should NOT have to sort out and play off another problem of someone who has nothing to do with her. It is SARAH who got herself into this mess and SARAH should get herself out.

It wasn't Dianas fault she died in that tunnel, and the Queen came under huge amounts of pressure to fly the flag at half-mast, to give her a full blown funeral. I see none of the same pressure for Sarah.

Oh dear, I am in full agreement again. Sarah is an adult, she got herself into trouble and why should the Queen give her more money so that she can keep on spending and getting into debt, because from past experience we see that is exactly what she will do. The Queen´s main problem now is her son, Prince Andrew, but I am sure she will be able to deal with that particular problem.

[royals-royce]

If Scotland Yard says that Sarah didn't do anything wrong then she didn't. It's not like she was selling drugs, dark family secrets, or whatever. People do this all the time she's probably not the only European royal that has done these types negotiations. Personally don't find any fault in it. She has a lot of financial problems she had to what she had to do. She lives off her daughters trust funds but not in manipulative way. And she is currently being sued. So she needs to get funds one way or the other. Her actions are justifiable.

Prince Philip has another reason not to like her. Sarah will have wait until he dies to be in good terms with that family. Again.

[Zonk]

Just because its not a crime doesn't mean its not immoral or not ethical.

In Andrew's position he should promote British business but its an objective position. You shouldn't have to pay to have access to him. It makes him and the position look shady.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Zonk

Just because its not a crime doesn't mean its not immoral or not ethical.

In Andrew's position he should promote British business but its an objective position. You shouldn't have to pay to have access to him. It makes him and the position look shady.

BINGO Zonk! You took the words right out of my mouth. I feel for the Princesses.

[suztav]

Very poor judgement on Sarah's part. I do like her and wish she could have eventually reunited with Andrew -- that will NEVER happen now!

Not illegal ... more unethical than anything. For shame

[ZaJa]

Originally Posted by Princejohnny25

I have a suspicion there may be a backdoor deal going on here. Sarah will take all the heat and shame for this, and Andrew and Co. will help sort out her financial mess. I do not believe that Andrew is entirely innocent, I just cant. This seems like something that both Andrew and Fergie would agree to, at least to a certain extent.

Sarah has self-destructed again. She built up a rather good life for herself and did some pretty decent things, but not she has kicked it in the butt. It will definitely be hard to start all over, again. As long as Andrew is protected from this, I think in a few months time we will have a calmer and tamer Sarah. Simply because I think her daughters and ex-husband will put a stop to her flashy ways.

The York Princess's no longer need mummy and daddy to play happy families anymore, the relationship between Sarah and Andrew is going to have to be redefined. Either remarry, or move out and apart. I like Sarah and I'm sure she will bounce back somewhat and not just disappear completely, she doesnt have a choice really. Her daughters will be in the public eye for the rest of their lives and I don't think they will tolerate a loose canon mother embarrassing the future roles they will create for themselves.

Is there any evidence that he has ever been a part of these sort of dealings? Without that I don't think it's wise to include him as a possible conspirator in these sad dealings. I don't see any reason to suspect him. His ex wife made a mistake which isn't criminal. Unethical yes but not criminal. I do feel sorry for her to a certain extent but I feel more for her husband bc her wrong decision now leaves him open to people thinking he's guilty of something.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by lumutqueen

I said that about Harry's children. Might have got confused about Beatrice children, i don't know the law back to front.

The 1917 Letters Patent make it clear who gets titles. Those who get HRH -

The children of the monarch - Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward
The male line grandchildren of the monarch - William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James, Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent, Michael of Kent and Alexandra and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

Great grandchildren of younger sons who don't have titles e.g. Prince Michael of Kent - pass on Lord or Lady.

That's it - no one else gets a title.

Harry's children won't get HRH until Charles becomes King, nor will any of William's except his eldest son (or course the Queen could issue LPs to change that as happened in 1948 when she was pregnant with Charles when George VI issued LPs giving HRH status to all chidren of Princess Elizabeth)

The Queen has not right to ask for her not to use the title, it is Sarah's by right. She only looses it when she or Andrew remarries.

She looses it on remarriage but the ending of that marriage would allow her to revert to using it.

Andrew's remarriage would have no effect on Sarah's right to style herself, Sarah, Duchess of York. This is NOT a title for Sarah but a style. If Andrew remarried his wife would be xxx, The Duchess of York and Sarah would remain Sarah, Duchess of York.

[Saragli]

There is no evidence, its just my little hunch. Andrew and Sarah seem too chummy in my eyes for him not to know what is going on. Its just the way that Sarah talks about Andrew in the footage that makes me a little suspicious. But this is just me throwing up ideas.

[Tarlita]

A few months ago I heard that Sarah had her financial troubles sorted out and was going well, until the global financial crisis wiped out her money that was invested. Now it appears that she is desperate again. Either Sarah accepts very bad advice or she is naive and foolish. This journo is well known for setting people up and she should have been more circumspect. I just feel sorry for her now. Especially as this scandal will strain her relationship with Andrew.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Russophile

Bullocks! Sarah made a TON of money off her books, engagements, spokesperson contracts, etc. and here she still is again, spending and getting herself into trouble.
The problem, as I see it, with Sarah offering as the go-between is that it opens a whole kettle of rotten fish. If Prince Andrew can be seen as "Being Bought" then his reputation will be at risk in his career of Trade Envoy. Is that something anybody wants to see happen?

Had she been given a decent divorce settlement she wouldn't have needed to make those deals to get into those positions but would have been able concentrate on doing charity work only.

Her divorce settlement was pitiful considering that she is the mother of the Queen's grandchildren and when compared to the 17 million that Diana got. Sarah got about 1500 a month, a house and a flat figure of about 1 million.

Now to you and me that might be fine (although I couldn't live on 1500 pounds a month and my children aren't the Queen's grandchildren and I don't have a mortgage having paid my house off 20 years ago) but she also has to be able to live according to a style that befits the mother of two princesses so she can't buy her clothes at K-Mart and would be expected to have some new formal dresses a year etc.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Zonk

But why should the Queen offer a settlement? She wasn't married to Sarah. It isn't the responsibily of the mother of the husband to pay off someone's divorce...its the responsibilty of the respondents. And lets face it, prior to their divorce...did Andrew have any money?

He wasn't born when George VI died so not sure if he was left anything for the Queen's future children when he died. Phillip's parents had nothing. Any older royals (i.e. Marie Louise, etc.) left money to their god children (Prince Richard of Gloucester). The only time Andrew has come into any type of money (to our knowledge) has occured when the Queen Mother died. And Andrew and Sarah were divorced WAY before that.

Andrew didn't have any real money at the time as he hadn't inherited any. He was then and still is largely reliant on what his mother given him. Even now his job for the government is unpaid so his only real income comes from the Queen and the interest on any trust funds he has from the Queen Mother, and any other deals he might have been able to make such as selling Sunninghill.

[rmay286]

Just because Sarah talks about Andrew as though they are very close doesn't mean she tells him everything. I think she exaggerates about how close they are...for instance I doubt he really calls her "five times a day." So I would not be surprised if Andrew didn't know the details of what went on; however, I agree that when I watched the video of Sarah and the reporter, some of what she said made me feel that Andrew must have known a little bit about it.

The thing now is that any possible hint that Andrew has misused his job will get much closer scrutiny (even closer than it already gets, if that's possible). The door has been opened now and I have a feeling journalists will be doing their best to dig up the dirt on Andrew's dealings with Middle Eastern sheikhs, ex-Soviet politicians and oil tycoons, etc.

[Zonk]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Had she been given a decent divorce settlement she wouldn't have needed to make those deals to get into those positions but would have been able concentrate on doing charity work only.

Her divorce settlement was pitiful considering that she is the mother of the Queen's grandchildren and when compared to the 17 million that Diana got. Sarah got about 1500 a month, a house and a flat figure of about 1 million.

Now to you and me that might be fine (although I couldn't live on 1500 pounds a month and my children aren't the Queen's grandchildren and I don't have a mortgage having paid my house off 20 years ago) but she also has to be able to live according to a style that befits the mother of two princesses so she can't buy her clothes at K-Mart and would be expected to have some new formal dresses a year etc.

Thats what I said...Andrew had no money at the time.

I am sorry, Queen's grandchildren or not. All divorce settlements are based on the actual person in the marriage. That's Andrew and not the Queen. Therefore, Sarah got what was due her. I am sure the money she had did not include child support for Beatrice or Eugenie. She didnt have to pay their living expenses off that figure.

No one least of all me is begruding Sarah earning a living. Even a living off the Duchess of York title. My point is several millions have passed thru her hands...even accounting for the global economic melt down..she should have somethign to show for it.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Had she been given a decent divorce settlement she wouldn't have needed to make those deals to get into those positions but would have been able concentrate on doing charity work only.

Her divorce settlement was pitiful considering that she is the mother of the Queen's grandchildren and when compared to the 17 million that Diana got. Sarah got about 1500 a month, a house and a flat figure of about 1 million.

Now to you and me that might be fine (although I couldn't live on 1500 pounds a month and my children aren't the Queen's grandchildren and I don't have a mortgage having paid my house off 20 years ago) but she also has to be able to live according to a style that befits the mother of two princesses so she can't buy her clothes at K-Mart and would be expected to have some new formal dresses a year etc.

She HAD a decent divorce settlement. She kept racking up the debt and spending way beyond her means. And it keeps happening.
If you read the Starkie book you know her charity work is whimsical at best. She is not consistant, she is not grounded. Even if she were given a decent settlement at the time of her divorce to Andrew Russo bets a good bottle of Merlot she would have mucked that up as well. The woman is seriously flawed. I have no respect for her because she hasn't any for herself.

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by Zonk

No one least of all me is begruding Sarah earning a living. Even a living off the Duchess of York title. My point is several millions have passed thru her hands...even accounting for the global economic melt down..she should have somethign to show for it.

With Weight Watchers for ten years Sarah got one million or two a year. I think she should have something left. 10 million or 20 million is a lot of money to spend. I really think this time she might have really made Prince Andrew mad. His work reputation is in question now. I am very interested to see what happens to their relationship.

[Zonk]

I dont think Sarah was with Weight Watchers for ten years. And i do think she lost some of her money in the global climate....but hasn't anyone learned from the Great Depression?! The market crashes of the 80's and 90's?

You don't put all your money in risky investments. You put a portion of it in that. You keep some of it in accounts you can't touch...that you give you a low rate of return.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Zonk

I dont think Sarah was with Weight Watchers for ten years. And i do think she lost some of her money in the global climate....but hasn't anyone learned from the Great Depression?! The market crashes of the 80's and 90's?

You don't put all your money in risky investments. You put a portion of it in that. You keep some of it in accounts you can't touch...that you give you a low rate of return.

Heck she could have just invested through her bank! They always have a series 6 or 7 banker on hand who could have put her in bonds or mutual funds that were low-risk. It CAN be done!

[Zonk]

The problem is that Sarah lived beyond her means. She wasn't the first and wont be the last. Living beyond ones means certainly caught a lot of people in the last economic nightmare that we are still living in. She simply had more money going out and less money coming in.

I wonder if her business dealings were as a LLC or a corporation. Then she would have had less personal liability. Which isn't a comfort to those she does business with but it would have helped her a bit and lessened her loss.

[princess gertrude]

Originally Posted by Russophile

She HAD a decent divorce settlement. She kept racking up the debt and spending way beyond her means. And it keeps happening.
If you read the Starkie book you know her charity work is whimsical at best. She is not consistant, she is not grounded. Even if she were given a decent settlement at the time of her divorce to Andrew Russo bets a good bottle of Merlot she would have mucked that up as well. The woman is seriously flawed. I have no respect for her because she hasn't any for herself.

I have to agree, whatever the settlement, she'd have spent all of it. Definately living beyond her means. When you think about it, she really could have had a tidy little life. Live free of charge with Andrew, see her girls whenever she wanted and done some charity work on the side. She could have banked her payments and still taken decent vacations and bought nice clothes.

[AuntyTam]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

This might of course trigger a re-marriage strange as it seems. The royals would have more control over her if she was fully in the family rather than a loose cannon out of it.

This would be the most sensible approach, IMHO. The other option floating around - setting her up with a home and monthly allowance, in return for good behaviour - I'd label as second choice.

"Cutting her loose" would be very unwise at this point, methinks.