Sarah's Interviews and Television Appearances


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I ask myself: How much more do we, the TRF audience, have to put up with from Sarah ??
 
I ask myself: How much more do we, the TRF audience, have to put up with from Sarah ??

Actually we don't have to put up with anything from Sarah as we could very easily skip by any thread that pertains to her. I think we stay tuned because sheesh, she can get so interesting at times. Kind of like another redhead that was always getting herself in some sort of "fix" and had 'splainin' to do. :D
 
I wonder where she got this Australian publicist?Ok, in the US probably Oprah's team arranged the TV appearances and interviews and thanks to Oprah's influence, they were really soft on her. Maybe Australia is next for "Finding Sarah"? Or she felt that this country/continent is worth a try, as she was well received down under as a young Royal. But I doubt Oprah has influence in Australia, so now come the real questions.

Or maybe she was set up again by her "publicist"? I mean - he did create a big story,,, And the "F..." word is really damaging for his "client" Sarah, so I'm not sure in whose interest he works.
 
Apparently 'anything' for publicity does not include appearing in Big Brother
Sarah Ferguson denies signing up for Celebrity Big Brother 2011 | Unreality TV

Was the 60 minutes interview shot in Australia? If so I wonder why she went there. I haven't watched 60 minutes for years, but it used to be a pretty hard hitting, well researched program w/ expose style journalism. If it's still like that then whomever advised her to go on the show did her no favors, she didn't fare well in the short 10 questions Time interview and that was pretty soft, IMO, the reporter/editor backed down pretty fast, somebody should have known 60 min.s wouldn't back down so easily.
Interesting that her excuse for her behavior in the 60 minutes interview is "I was entrapped" wasn't that one of the excuses for the cash for access deal? Her team needs to get together and come up with some new excuses, the ones she's been using lately are getting a bit worn out.
:previous:
Michael Usher -from Australian 60 minutes - travelled to interview Sarah.

The questions were pre-approved, they were discussed in advance.

However, Michael apparently asked her to watch the 'News of the Word - -entrapment interview', which obviously upset her.
IMO it is to be expected that she would one day be shown the footage.

Who knows? maybe they should have had it pre-approved, but also maybe she shouldn't be doing interviews for awhile.

*For her own health, I hope she takes time out to look after herself*
xoxos
 
I wonder where she got this Australian publicist?Ok, in the US probably Oprah's team arranged the TV appearances and interviews and thanks to Oprah's influence, they were really soft on her. Maybe Australia is next for "Finding Sarah"? Or she felt that this country/continent is worth a try, as she was well received down under as a young Royal. But I doubt Oprah has influence in Australia, so now come the real questions.

Or maybe she was set up again by her "publicist"? I mean - he did create a big story,,, And the "F..." word is really damaging for his "client" Sarah, so I'm not sure in whose interest he works.
:previous:
Sarah has always been well received here (Australia) - she has a Sister, a nephew & 2 neices here.
But like the rest of the world, some of us are scratching our heads;)
No Oprah doesn't influence us - but she is like by many.
 
I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps Sarah believes that when she does an interview, that she should be deferred to and that in no way should they overstep the boundaries that would put her into a bad light. Perhaps she doesn't realize that the programs and the interviewers are not seeing Sarah as royalty (or even ex-royalty) or even the mother of princesses, but see a woman that's created a few waves by her own actions and are asking questions relating to this?

Osipi - I do believe you have struck on something there.

The interviewers aren't seeing her as anything beyond a woman who attempted to trade her ex husband for money, in a sting operation. The fact that she is ex-royalty doesn't enter into it. I think we are looking at an age gap; anyone age 35 or under never really knew her as Royalty and have only seen her as the scandal plagued person who continually trades herself down in her life choices. Whereas she still sees herself (I believe) as semi-Royal by virtue of continued contact with her daughters and Andrew.

I also believe she still sees herself as some winsome young thing, hence her imitation of Catherine Cambridge's eyeliner. This round of interviewers now are far less deferential; they've seen this tape and they see a drunk (her assertion) woman rubbing her eyes in glee and bragging about her access - and looking every year of her age. They don't see a person to whom to defer based on former (long-gone) status or personal presence.

I said in the other thread that I am certain she is contractually obligated to continue these appearances and interviews. And any interviewer worth their salt and who is next up on her interview schedule is now keen to get the next version of Sarah Stalking Off In A Snit footage; who wouldn't, given the international airplay that this is getting.

But yes, Osipi: I think that Sarah thinks she was/is/remains one thing and above others, whereas the reality is far different.
 
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. 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? I guess Oprah didn't help Sarah Find herself clearly she hasn't learnt anything. If she admitted it and said she was truly sorry and answer questions honestly people would move on. But it is clear she isn't telling the truth and the press will continue to help her on her way down. 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. It looks like she is in Royal Lodge again so she hasn't moved out. 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.
 
As to Big Brother, I think Sarah wouldn't last beyond the first show.

Nobody there would act deferentially towards her, and it could ruin what's left of her reputation of media personality.
 
As to Big Brother, I think Sarah wouldn't last beyond the first show.

Nobody there would act deferentially towards her, and it could ruin what's left of her reputation of media personality.

Those shows are at least partially rigged. Wouldn't surprise me if they kept her around just for the ratings.

Kind of like another redhead that was always getting herself in some sort of "fix" and had 'splainin' to do. :D

BLASPHEMY!!! You dare compare Sarah to Lucy? Hang your head in shame, Osipi.
 
But would she agree to this?
I realise her reputation is already shot, but Big Brother may well be a step too far ??

Even so, I read the Wikipedia page on Sarah D.o.Y. for the first time, and I was pleasantly surprised about how much she has achieved over the years.
 
Last edited:
Ok, in the US probably Oprah's team arranged the TV appearances and interviews and thanks to Oprah's influence, they were really soft on her.

What? Where do you get this 'fact'? Whether or not 'Oprah's team' arranges interviews to promote 'Finding Sarah' - loooonnnnggggg since over - only happened prior to the show's airing, certainly not since - there is no 'thanks to Oprah's influence'. No one - not even Oprah (being the journalist she is) - would be 'soft' on Sarah. Oprah does not wield - nor attempt to wield - that kind of 'influence'.
 
Actually, she is demonstrating at these moments that she has the inner where-withal to be an interviewer, to be in media. I know that pinches some folks - but its true. She's a character - developing a public persona with a backbone - she could do it - if she gets real, if she gets honest. I wonder...

IMHO, I don't think being arrogant and refusing to admit a fact that is available for all to see (the NOTW video and its accompanying betrayal) demonstrate "backbone". I see a sense of entitlement and a belief in Sarah that she is entitled to control the media on her own terms, regardless of circumstances.

As for being an interviewer, don't most people want honesty from the one asking the questions, too? She doesn't seem to want to face core issues with honesty (or without blaming someone around her or without trotting out the entrapment excuse).:bang::bang: If she is seen as a dishonest character, I don't see how she could develop a successful persona as a hard-hitting interviewer or even an "Oprah". Oprah, who is a much softer sell than 60 Minutes, still has an impeccable reputation for honesty, both about herself and those she interviews. I remember how she called out the author who wrote a best-selling "memoir" that was all based on lies. Sarah now has published two memoirs which contradict each other on many points; does she even know which is true?:whistling:

Maybe I'm too harsh, but I honestly believe that unless she demonstrates a capacity to be a humble, honest and responsible human being - the media will continue to toss her around like a broken and flawed toy. Sarah's persistence at playing with fire in her relations with the media (and her attempts to use the same) make her candy to any journalist out for a minor headline and a laugh.

If she could control her desire to interact with the media in any manner for a long period of time, her very reticence would bring back some respect. The media love to chase people for headlines, but despise with a vengeance those who chase them for publicity. IMHO, that's the fatal flaw to her relations with the press et al; as long as she shows a need for media attention, the media will treat her with contempt and scorn. Of course, that's not quite fair, but at fifty-one, Sarah has certainly had many chances to see that the media have never played fairly with anyone, not to mention the basic fact that life itself isn't always quite fair.
 
Last edited:
BLASPHEMY!!! You dare compare Sarah to Lucy? Hang your head in shame, Osipi.

:ohmy: Oh my! Me bad! One should never ever imply that another could ever hold a candle up to the Queen of Comedy and I have been sorely remiss. My apologies.

Let me rephrase that statement to say: We all do tune in to see what Sarah does next perhaps as we do Charlie Sheen and his antics just because they're so um... interesting.

There. Hope that is better!
 
IMO, these interviews are even more damaging to her reputation that the cash for access video. The one thing that Sarah always had going for her was her extremely likeable bouncy personality. Now she is coming across as demanding, arrogant, untruthful and having a sense of entitlement.

Sadly, the comment that is heard most often now is "I used to like Sarah".
 
What? Where do you get this 'fact'? Whether or not 'Oprah's team' arranges interviews to promote 'Finding Sarah' - loooonnnnggggg since over - only happened prior to the show's airing, certainly not since - there is no 'thanks to Oprah's influence'. No one - not even Oprah (being the journalist she is) - would be 'soft' on Sarah. Oprah does not wield - nor attempt to wield - that kind of 'influence'.

No, probably not, but it was surely clear to all interviewers that for Oprah's new network this docu-series was important and at the moment I don't think many would stand up against Oprah in taking this series overly critically but rather as a service to an admired and still very sucessful collegue. You know, interviewing and asking the "wrong" questions is a very open thing of going against someone and thus far, nobody wants to do that, as Oprah still is influentially, her channel might still be a success and you never know if you don't need her or her channel one day... :flowers:
And it's not sooooo important to be unkind to Sarah for an American journalist, she is after all not an ex-member who shames one of the US-Royal family. aUstralians might see that in a very different light, as will British journalists do.
 
Guess she still hasn't found Sarah, and likely never will as long as she keeps running way from herself.
 
I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps Sarah believes that when she does an interview, that she should be deferred to and that in no way should they overstep the boundaries that would put her into a bad light. Perhaps she doesn't realize that the programs and the interviewers are not seeing Sarah as royalty (or even ex-royalty) or even the mother of princesses, but see a woman that's created a few waves by her own actions and are asking questions relating to this?

Yes, I think Sarah still sees herself as royal, or at least royal-ish and that's part of the problem. I remember a reporter talking about the guidelines the press had been given in advance of the Cambridges' tour of Canada - what they were and were not allowed to ask, when they were and were not allowed to approach and speak to the couple, the types of questions W and K would and would not answer, etc. It was, for the most part, accepted etiquette by the press in dealing with royalty, and IMO part of the reason it works is because the royals hold up their end of the bargain - they give the occasional comment or even more rare interview but they always maintain a bit of distance and they don't put their personal problems up for sale to the highest media bidder.

Sarah could have been treated the way she sees herself - as an unofficial member of the royal family - if she had played by the rules the media and the family itself has regarding how royalty acts.
 
Why would she be upset with the NOTW question since it's pretty much the reason she's getting all this attention? It put her name back in the headlines. Got her interviewed by Oprah. Which in turn got her a television show and more attention. I'd feel for her if it were something she wants to put behind her. But it seems like it's just part of her public persona.
 
She's upset because, at least in her mind, she's gotten past it and as such everyone else should. "What's in the past is the past. At least if it puts me in a negative light."
 
Sarah Ferguson storms out of Australian TV interview, claiming she was ambushed | Mail Online

QUOTE Sarah Ferguson storms out of TV interview claiming she was ambushed UNQUOTE

Well, my immediate thought is 'what a pity that she did not immeidately storm out of the 'Fake Sheikh' interview claiming she had been ambushed!!

Jokes apart, what Sarah seems NOT to have grasped is the difference between 'A TV Programme' and 'A Commercial'.

The difference is that with a TV programme, the editorial team is in control and the purpose of a programme is to benefit the audience. A commercial is something that is paid for by the advertiser to promote its product.

Part of the problem is that over the years this very important distinction has become blurred so that 'chat shows' etc have become little more than commercial for the so-called [celebrity] 'guests' who appear on the show basically to plug their new film [movie], book, product etc. And the trouble is that the tv producers go along with this [probably in the USA this is because a lot of programming has to be sufficiently 'on-message' because all programmes are basically funded by advertising and sponsorship etc]. Here in the UK, even our publically funded TV Channels [The BBC Channels] have started to go down the same route, producing chat shows where the guests turn up and sit and shamelessly plug their product. Indeed several people are now complaining about this, because the guests are in effect doing no more than giving a commercial for their product, with the BBC also paying them a hefty fee for their appearance. As a viewer, I find this annoying; the guest is probably interesting in a number of ways but because the programme editorial team are so supine, they are prepared to agree with any demands made by the guest's 'handlers' about what will or will not be discussed and woe betide the interviewer who tries to probe more thoroughly [shades of Sarah's Time interview come to mind]

IMHO, if Sarah chooses to appear on tv, then she just has to take the rough with the smooth.

As a side issue, these interviews do very much to remind me how incredibly lucky Sarah was to marry Andrew in the first place. Her conduct and her behaviour, as exposed in tv programmes and in interviews, has served to remind us that she really did 'hit the jackpot' when Andrew proposed to her, as in reality she had SO VERY LITTLE to offer on her own account:

It's a horrible thing to say, but aristocrats [and I will include Royalty by implication] tend to marry for love, but, as Nancy Mitford so accurately put it, they tend to 'love' where money and beauty is. Eased into expensive couture under the watchful eye of someone like Lindka Chierach, and with her face very carefully painted, Sarah Ferguson looked beautiful. But before she 'caught her prince', there was very little of Sarah that would have ensured her success in the marriage stakes, and it is certainly being made clear by her current media appearances that she has even less to offer now, as she has not even got youth on her side........and she certainly seems rather charmless.....

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 Argentinian 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.....

A couple of other points: how does Sarah count herself as 'homeless' when she can be filmed at her family's farmhouse at Dummer [regardless of the fact that she owns at least a share in her mother's ranch in Argentina, and may indeed even own the ranch outright]. And I was amused to read in one of the articles about how TWO Range Rovers were necessary when picking up Sarah Ferguson: one for her AND ANOTHER ONE FOR HER LOUIS VUITTON LUGGAGE. Very nice for those of her staff who received only a fraction of what they would have received under an Individual Voluntary Agreement [as such things are known in England] drawn up to help a person avoid Bankruptcy

It is a funny old world.

Just my thoughts and not meant to offend,

Alex
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
Last edited:
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, 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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.


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
 
Last edited:
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].
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom