Sarah's Interviews and Television Appearances

[Iluvbertie]

She agreed to answer questions about the NOTW sting.

She did not agree to have to sit through watching it.

Simple - she had every right to walk out when they decided to do something that hadn't been agreed to in advance.

All questions had been submitted and so she knew and agreed to answer questions but why was there a need to show her the footage - to see her squirm I suppose as there would have been no other reason to do so.

If they felt that the Australian public mightn't know what it was about they could easily have shown that footage as part of the interview but without forcing Sarah to sit through it again.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Meadow

If things were pre approved then what was the problem looking at the video? She already knew he was going to ask about it. I must admit Sarah comes across as arrogant and rude and as we all know it isn't the first time. To demand things get deleted like she should be obeyed. I really think she needs to be reminded she is no longer a Duchess just a sort of celebrity known for who she was once married too. It also drives me crazy that she and others continue to call her The Duchess even on her own website it is The Duchess this and The Duchess that. The Queen needs to do something because even though she is no longer a member of the RF there are some who look at interviews like this and still link her to the family.

She does interviews like this as her only way to make any money is to sell herself and thus she needs to have a public persona.

What would you like the Queen to do?

The style of Duchess of York is the same one that any other divorced wife of a peer uses and is outside the remit of the Queen.

The Queen could put her on the royal payroll with an annual allowance for life on the condition that she never does another interview or public appearance but would Charles and William be prepared to keep that going? Probably not - and why should the Queen do any such thing?

I don't know why she even did the interview I haven't heard anything about her show being bought over here unless it is to promote her book?

Maybe Channel 9 is going to buy the show - who knows - I would be surprised if it isn't shown here at some time.

I guess Oprah didn't help Sarah Find herself clearly she hasn't learnt anything.

I don't know. Was the 'Finding Sarah' supposed to make her go away and be invisible or make her more aware of who she is and have a positive self esteem, in order to rebuild her life?

If she admitted it and said she was truly sorry and answer questions honestly people would move on.

She has admitted it and tried to explain it but of course she must be lying to some people.

But it is clear she isn't telling the truth and the press will continue to help her on her way down.

How is it clear she isn't telling the truth?

[quote[Not that she can get much lower although she isn't doing Big Brother I wonder if she got told that would be too far or worked it out herself. [/quote]

Maybe she was never asked and it was BB that put out the story to drum up some interest. Then again why shouldn't she do it - she is a private individual as people here keep saying so she is free to do what she likes.

It looks like she is in Royal Lodge again so she hasn't moved out.

When was it suggested that she would move out? As she is still broke she has no where else to go until she is able to make some money - and that means people wanting to buy what she has to sell - herself.

Makes you wonder what she learnt from Dr Phil and why with all the money she has made recently she hasn't gotten her own place! Someone should ask her that.

What money - a couple of 100,000 isn't going to buy a house and give her the means to maintain it - sorry - she might have been able to buy a one bedroom flat somewhere but what would she then have to live on - you know buy basics - food for instance and pay the electricity bills etc.

She needs a regular income and she hasn't got that.

[sliver_bic]

Diarist, great post as always. My question is why did Andrew not fall into the same category as most of the other people in that group? Did Fergie simply overwhelm him? Was she so different from the others that he was stunned?

[camelot23ca]

For a start, it is a horrible thing to say, but with aristocratic men, so often personal qualities don't count as much as beauty does - remember Earl Spencer during his Funeral Oration praising his sister for her beauty - yet beauty is NOT an attribute, it's a gift. Carefully photographed and lit in a tv studio under the sympathetic direction of Oprah, or airbrushed on the book jacket of 'Finding Sarah', Sarah looks a beguiling, unlined Titian Goddess. Caught in a true light, she looks unattractive and lined. At nearly 52, she is not going to attract a wealthy man on her looks........

Looks should not matter in an ideal world, only sweetness of character etc [although I am not sure that I would even attribute that much to poor old Sarah at the moment...] but unfortunately in this world how you look is very important.

I have mentioned elsewhere several times in other posts I have made that I actually met Sarah shortly before Diana's marriage, and I had seen her around at Polo numerous times before that. She was badly dressed [not a crime of course] and was very loud - if not actually shouting [which she almost always was] everything about her, from her whoomph whoomph walk to her loud, braying voice, suggested noise.

She was known as 'Fergie' or, mostly, 'Fat Fergie', [to distinguish her from her polo-playing Father, who was also known as ' Fergie' to many], or, even worse as 'The Ginger Lump', because her rather uncontrolled hair was carrot-coloured and she was covered in freckles which all contributed to an orange glow. Horrid to judge a person on her looks, but as I have said, that is unfortunately what an awful lot of people do. The other problem was that Sarah's very ordinary looks stood out because her mother, Susan Barrantes, was an acknowledged beauty [even though the sun was beginning to damage her looks].

Sarah also had no wealth of her own [not that she needed it, but Diana was the beneficiary of a trust fund, which had also funded the purchase of her flat at Coleherne Court.] Even worse for Sarah, moral standards were a little more strict 25 or 30 years ago, certainly in public. With two public lovers behind her [Kim Smith-Bingham and Paddy McNally] Sarah was not much of a catch in the eyes of the eligible men [or more importantly, their mothers, many of whom were also a bit dubious about the daugher of a well-known Bolter.] Sarah's sudden accession to the status of Royal Bride and wife to the then admired [war hero] Prince Andrew, rocketted Sarah to the very top of Society. As a result of this 'lucky catch'. Sarah seems to have developed a sense of entitlement over the years, and this is now coming through in practically every tv appearance or interview that she now does.....

Suddenly I feel very lucky to have come from a long line of peasants...

[Diarist]

Originally Posted by sliver_bic

Diarist, great post as always. My question is why did Andrew not fall into the same category as most of the other people in that group? Did Fergie simply overwhelm him? Was she so different from the others that he was stunned?

Thank you silver_bic. Do not know of the best thread to answer this, because it is not striclty on topic here; I was tracing the history of this sense of Entitlement that is now so apparent in Sarah's interviews and tv appearance. I put this sense of entitlement down to the sudden complete turn around in Sarah's fortunes, from a girl who, in the first part of the 1980's was regarded as a nobody to Duchess of York, married on a wave of popularity to the Queen's war hero son.

Before Zonk has to get out the deleting pen, where can we discuss why I think [speculate] why Andrew married Sarah please?

Thanks

Alex

[sndral]

Originally Posted by Diarist

Very nice for those of her staff who received only a fraction of what they were owed under the Individual Voluntary Agreement [as such things are known in England] drawn up to help a person avoid Bankruptcy

Alex

Alex, I always look forward to your posts because you give a glimpse into a world I cannot even imagine. According to this article, Sarah did not enter into an official IVA, indeed it was the 'extra' payments to 2 of her former employees by 'friends of Sarah' that created more headlines. Although, with the exception of these 2, everyone else got 25% of what they were actually owed. I don't know english law as it relates to insolvency, but I was under the impression that an IVA had restrictions and required payments to creditors going forward for up to 5 years by the debtor.
Prince Andrew used 'shady' ex Tory Treasurer to pay Fergie debt in secret deal | Mail Online
This gives an interesting take on Sarah and money, from over a year ago.
The Duchess And The Scandal: Fergie
I find it so odd that she claims to be a philanthropist yet is so irresponsible in meeting her obligations/commitments to those she worked personally with. My grandmother had a saying - charity starts at home- in other words before you go running around trying to save the world, you should demonstrate that you can take responsibility for yourself. That's an interview I'd like to see - how she justifies treating others so callously financially while she waltzes around 'doing good.'
Not sure what she thinks she'll gain going forward with these ongoing interviews. "Brand Sarah' (her words) is seriously flawed and there are, after all, younger, more interesting and 'real' royals now - Zara (I know Zara is technically a commoner - but you get my drift) and Harry come to mind and they actually do something other than try to be famous.

[AristoCat]

She was known as 'Fergie' or, mostly, 'Fat Fergie', [to distinguish her from her polo-playing Father, who was also known as ' Fergie' to many], or, even worse as 'The Ginger Lump', because her rather uncontrolled hair was carrot-coloured and she was covered in freckles which all contributed to an orange glow. Horrid to judge a person on her looks, but as I have said, that is unfortunately what an awful lot of people do. The other problem was that Sarah's very ordinary looks stood out because her mother, Susan Barrantes, was an acknowledged beauty [even though the sun was beginning to damage her looks].

I don't understand it; just because she didn't have perfectly good looks, we are supposed to sympathize. Lots of kids grow up looking like potatoes, but they don't spend their lives getting involved in one shady deal after another. Or committing chronic adultery wiht a variety of men.

Sarah also had no wealth of her own [not that she needed it, but Diana was the beneficiary of a trust fund, which had also funded the purchase of her flat at Coleherne Court.] Even worse for Sarah, moral standards were a little more strict 25 or 30 years ago, certainly in public. With two public lovers behind her [Kim Smith-Bingham and Paddy McNally] Sarah was not much of a catch in the eyes of the eligible men [or more importantly, their mothers, many of whom were also a bit dubious about the daugher of a well-known Bolter.]

For all that Diana had money, she had insecurities, mainly that until her brother was born, her family stood in danger of losing the family estate to a near relative, which would have then proceeded to strip Diana and her sisters of their inheritance rights. Second, so what? Lots of people are born dirt poor, without illustrious connections of their own to end up relying on to meet a prince and then get married to him via a connection to a Princess of Wales. Sarah had ot make her own way in the world and there's nothing wrong with that at all. The fact that Sarah chose to jet set instead of staying at a stable job likely told most mothers all they needed to know about Sarah, moreso than her long term relationships. It's not like anyone pushed Sarah to jet set and live off of these men.

BOT, I don't see any good coming of any more of these appearances. She looks worse and worse and worse and she isn't owning up to it like she has wiht her past mistakes. She does not see herself as others see her.

[Diarist]

Originally Posted by Diarist
Very nice for those of her staff who received only a fraction of what they were owed under the Individual Voluntary Agreement [as such things are known in England] drawn up to help a person avoid Bankruptcy

Alex

Originally Posted by sndral

Alex, I always look forward to your posts because you give a glimpse into a world I cannot even imagine. According to this article, Sarah did not enter into an official IVA, indeed it was the 'extra' payments to 2 of her former employees by 'friends of Sarah' that created more headlines. Although, with the exception of these 2, everyone else got 25% of what they were actually owed. I don't know english law as it relates to insolvency, but I was under the impression that an IVA had restrictions and required payments to creditors going forward for up to 5 years by the debtor.
Prince Andrew used 'shady' ex Tory Treasurer to pay Fergie debt in secret deal | Mail Online
This gives an interesting take on Sarah and money, from over a year ago.
The Duchess And The Scandal: Fergie
I find it so odd that she claims to be a philanthropist yet is so irresponsible in meeting her obligations/commitments to those she worked personally with. My grandmother had a saying - charity starts at home- in other words before you go running around trying to save the world, you should demonstrate that you can take responsibility for yourself. That's an interview I'd like to see - how she justifies treating others so callously financially while she waltzes around 'doing good.'
Not sure what she thinks she'll gain going forward with these ongoing interviews. "Brand Sarah' (her words) is seriously flawed and there are, after all, younger, more interesting and 'real' royals now - Zara (I know Zara is technically a commoner - but you get my drift) and Harry come to mind and they actually do something other than try to be famous.

Hello Sndral, thank you for your kind remarks. You're quite right, Sarah did not enter into an Official IVA, I was talking speculatively, as I referred to a person rather than Sarah; my sloppy phrasing, sorry, which I will put down to trying to get everything down quickly as it is very late in England: a definite article needed qualifying in what I said, and I will go back and amend it; as you say, two of staff did very well, I was writing about those members of staff who did not! From memory, I have seen it quoted in The Times that Sarah had around 15 staff. Under an IVA I presume that all staff would have received exactly the same proportion of money that they were owed, which by consensus appears to be around 25%. I take this view because I presume that creditors who were staff would not have been happy if some were offered around 80% of what they were owed, whilst others received a great deal less...


If Sarah had had an IVA drawn up, then it (as I understand it) has to be publically registered and the tabloids would have been there faster than the speed of light, so I think we can safely assume that one has not been drawn up yet...

So far as the world I inhabit is concerned, this does give me a much needed opportunity to say that I hope you understand that I am no one special or important at all, but very lucky because of the advantages I have had being born into a family which for a good few generations have been fortunate. I should also make it clear though, that my loving parents always made it very clear to me that I was lucky to enjoy these advantages. They paid for an expensive education for me, but insisted I stuck at it - it was fashionable when I was 16 to rush off to finishing school for a 'bit of fun' [Diana Spencer, Camilla Parker Bowles etc] but my parents both said that they wanted me to acquire the qualifications to enable me to earn my own living, so no rushing off to ski etc, it was back to the school room. We had staff at home, but in the school holidays, my mother insisted that I made my own bed, tidied my room and cleaned my own shoes etc [quite right too!] Outside formal meals, if I wanted something to eat and drink we had a pantry so that I could make my own cup of tea and toast etc without bothering the housekeeper etc.

I am not a personal friend of any member of the BRF - and I am certainly not a member of the Royal Household as someone suggested! I have been lucky enough to go to various royal occasions etc but it is not because the Queen invites me personally...

And I concur that Sarah's claim to be a Philanthropist beggars belief! But then I was watching the TV news some months back and there was an item saying that Sarah was flying out to American to receive her award for being Mother of the Year.......... In my humble opinion, the criteria for this would appear to be a triumph of wishful thinking over the known evidence...

I had better go and get my amending hat on:

Thanks again


Alex

[Diarist]

Originally Posted by AristoCat

I don't understand it; just because she didn't have perfectly good looks, we are supposed to sympathize. Lots of kids grow up looking like potatoes, but they don't spend their lives getting involved in one shady deal after another. Or committing chronic adultery wiht a variety of men.

AristoCat you are quite right and I so agree with what you said. the trouble is, in my humble opinion Sarah lost all sense of values when she suddenly she went from a 'nobody to a somebody' [speaking metaphorically].

[AristoCat]

Originally Posted by sliver_bic

Diarist, great post as always. My question is why did Andrew not fall into the same category as most of the other people in that group? Did Fergie simply overwhelm him? Was she so different from the others that he was stunned?

Fergie didn't come from the same category as the majority of the women that Andrew had dated. She wasn't a model, wasn't some minor starlet, and she wasn't at any point fresh from a movie where she had showed off her breasts. She was a country girl, from the minor aristocracy/gentry and she has been part of the horse-mad set that all the royals come from. She knew the rules, knew the people, and not having much money doesn't really count against a person, so much as knowing how to behave.

I don't see her recuperating from this for the very reason, that she knew better than to pull something like this, but did anyway.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by AristoCat

I don't see her recuperating from this for the very reason, that she knew better than to pull something like this, but did anyway.

I really don't see her regaining any kind of major popularity as she once owned either. As the previous posts have shown, she's gone from being a nobody to a somebody because of her marriage to Andrew. Once that marriage was dissolved and time passed, the only thing that remains is a popularity that once was, heading quickly to being a nobody who thinks she should be somebody but it doesn't seem that anybody really seems to care. Her interviews have not done her any favors and I kind of sense that she's growing angry that people aren't seeing her as she wanted them to see her as.

Sarah's sell by date has come and gone. No means of repackaging it is going to do much good I'm afraid.

[HRH Princess Sonya]

A long overdue self imposed & highly suggested exhile seems to be in order. Although I doubt it will happen.

[AristoCat]

She's run out of options and other identities to morph into. How many times can she make mistakes and be forgiven? She's too old for this and her interviews keeps showing a woman with an unjustified superiority complex.

[Meadow]

Thankyou for your insights Diarist it is quite fascinating. I would love to read why you think Andrew chose her. Because even back then some thought she was an odd choice for a wife for him. As to Iluvbertie how you can say Sarah hasn't lied is beyond me. Clearly she has, she said she didn't sell access to Andrew she did, she said she didn't get a bag full of money she did it is all on tape for the world to see. If you read her first biography and then the second you will find it is very different so clearly she is either lying in the first or the second. No one's past suddenly changes. Sarah said her mother was abusive then she back tracked. So yes I feel very comfortable calling Sarah a liar others here have also called her one so I'm not sure why you are picking on my post. She is no longer The Duchess of York yet continues to call herself this so people will pay attention. Her name is Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York and that is how she should be addressed not The Duchess as she herself continues to call herself in interviews and on her own official webpage. As for her moving out I would think that a 52 year old woman who has earnt well over 200,000 thousand dollars it will be much more then that with the interviews etc she has done can afford to RENT a house of her own instead of living off an ex husband. The show was supposed to help Sarah start a fresh and find out why she did what she did. Problem was that Sarah didn't really want to admit any mistakes and Dr Phil never really helped her but she did get to put a label that really pleased her on some of her actions. She is a people pleaser just not the people who worked for her who she owed and owes so much money for working for her or the shops etc who she bought things but didn't pay. I have no respect for her any I had is well and truly gone her behaviour on 60 minutes is something to be ashamed off. She knew what questions where being asked and she has watched that footage before on Oprah so why it was suddenly a big deal to her is odd. You may believe her lies but I don't Sarah blames everyone else for everything and never looks at herself as the problem. Sarah even lies about being homeless she at least part owns but more then likely fully owns the place Argentina given all the money she has said she gave her mother and has put into the place over the years and then there is a very large property in Tuscany that she gets rent from. I think Sarah thrives on getting sympathy and thinks getting people to feel sorry for her will help them forgive her. It has stopped working however she seems to be revealing her true colours. Sarah's own feelings of self entitlement and arrogance in demanding things that can and can't be shown are far from endearing. Channel Nine might buy the show but usually an interview is done to promote something and there has been no word that they have bought it. I would think with all this publicity it would have been mentioned as part of the PR but it hasn't which makes me think it could be the book. Or why is Sarah even doing an interview here in Oz? According to her recent Hello magazine Sarah isn't in debt and has an income of 100,000 dollars a year so the whole she can't afford to move is just ridicules. Plus she gets an allowance of 15,000pounds from Andrew. Pretty sure most of us could live in a nice house, pay our bills and eat very easly with the money she gets! I think she stays at Royal Lodge so people will buy the whole Andrew and I are still really together stuff she tries to sell and because it makes some people think she is close to the Royal Family and it is a great address to have. Sarah needs really to just go away and be quiet for awhile. She isn't a celebrity she is the ex wife of a prince who still wants to live the life she once had. Pity she didn't think of what life would be like when she had the affairs and whined how hard it was to be Royal! Sarah got her wish but it hasn't turned out like she thought it would. I think she thought she would get a rich man especially after her affairs with wealthy men but I guess they didn't think she was the marrying kind! It is just sad now like watching a train wreck and I think she has further to fall. As for Big Brother on what planet would Sarah going on such a classless show be good for her daughters and Prince Andrew. You say she is a private citizen but she isn't she doesn't want to be and what she does matters it gets printed world wide and it causes distress for her own children and Andrew. Many people here have suggested what could be done and the Queen giving her an allowance is an idea in exchange for her behaving herself of course. I actually don't think it would work because for Sarah it would never be enough and I don't think the Queen should be lumbered with her. Sarah seems to want to be famous but has no actual talent to be. She married a Prince that didn't take skill and people didn't get to choose her. I don't think she has hit rock bottom yet and nothing she will do will surprise me at this stage! The next interview she does will be interesting though.

[4Pam]

Really I want to say "Poor Sarah" but I don't know if I can anymore. Everything is just getting repetitive.

[Princess of Durham]

I was talking to a friend this evening who is definitely not a Royal watcher. I don't know how it came up in conversation but we started talking about Sarah and she said she had seen a commercial on TV here where she was "running through a field and there was a close up of her and she looked terrible". This is from a woman who is approximately the same age. She thought the whole thing was very strange and said that though she had liked her in the beginning that she didn't anymore because of all the nonsense she had heard about her. I mention this only because I think there are probably a lot of people out there that feel the very same way.

[Katrianna]

Sarah did have a right to get up and storm out of the interview, however, what did she expect from a news program such as 60 Minutes, if the Australian version is anything like the US version. The US version doesn't tip toe around questions and I cannot believe that Sarah was blindsided by the video.
Perhaps she was, anyway, her actions by storming out and creating a fuss have backfired because the news show is showing her walking out as a juicy teaser for the show. People who storm out of interviews actually do themselves more harm than good. For someone to go on the high road is to face what he/she did and explain or apologize, but remain in control, reporters want persons to do as Sarah did and unfortunately she fell for the bait. I must say Sarah isn't the only one failing, we've seen many celebs, people do the same and it made things worse for the person.
Alex, thank you for your posts, as always they are very insightful.

[Mermaid1962]

The sad thing is that we've "found Sarah" lately, and we don't like what we've found.

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

Guess she still hasn't found Sarah, and likely never will as long as she keeps running way from herself.

[Osipi]

All I can think of as far as the NOTW scandal segment of 60 minutes which Sarah got upset about is that although she agreed that questions as far as the scandal could be asked, it would then be answered with her generic "we don't want to talk about that" so the interview moves on. It might have thrown her for a loop when the interviewer wanted to go over the actual footage with her and she realized that she was kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Perhaps Sarah was hoping that with doing the "Finding Sarah" series and follow up book, that would divert attention away from the Cash for Access scandal and all interviews would be about her remarkable insights, how great Andrew still is and how close they are and her adept skills as a mother. In other words, paint a bright picture of the "new and improved Sarah".

Who wants to bet that Sarah is fuming that the clips of her walking off the set and demanding editing are even being aired?

[Mermaid1962]

I've often thought it too bad that Sarah didn't learn a more lady-like walk. She'd wear a tiara and a ballgown and beautifully coiffed and made-up, and then she'd ruin the effect by walking like a farm-hand--a MALE farmhand. A professional woman, let alone a royal duchess--current or former--shouldn't walk like that. It's not noticeable when she's standing at a podium or giving interviews, of course.

Originally Posted by Diarist

from her whoomph whoomph walk to her loud, braying voice, suggested noise.