What is your opinion about Sarah, Duchess of York?

[Alexandria]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Why should she submit herself to the restrictions of a royal if she's not royal any more? Did the divorce not mean anything? Yes she did keep the title but that wasn't a special case made for Sarah.

The divorce is exactly what makes all the difference. As the ex-spouse of Prince Andrew, if she wants to hawk her little red dolls or her jewellery line she should be doing so independent of her Duchess of York title. It may be part of her name but she doesn't have to use it. Upon her marriage to Charles Camilla automatically became the Princess of Wales along with a littany of other titles, but she doesn't use them on a regular basis.

Why should she get to be free of following protocol but get to use a royal title still? Why should she have her cake and eat it, too?

Originally Posted by ysbel

As far as trading in on her connections, she has good company with Princess Michael who is also in restrained financial circumstances and has traded on her title to write children's books, and make appearances. The difference is that Princess Michael is still in the royal family which should be more of a cause for concern (and according to BeatrixFan, has style, don't know if that means anything as far as character goes but I'll agree with that one)

And I agree that it isn't right for Princess Michael to use her title to sell her books either, just as it wasn't right for Sophie to have her PR business while carrying out royal duties as the Countess of Wessex.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Zonk

Despite Sarah inability to fit into the "royal" world, and the fact that she cheated on Andrew. Its apparent that they both share a love for each other that can't seem to find with anyone else. Yes, Sarah does want to maintain a relationship with the Royal Family and Andrew works behind the scense to make sure it happens. If we are going to blame someone, why not Andrew? Why won't he leave it alone...she's not making him. Its because he cares about her. I've said it once and I've said it before... Andrew loves Sarah despite all the flaws that have been discussed in great detail. He gets it and he's okay with it. Why should they get over it? You can't help who you love.

Actually I'm blaming both of them, Andrew and Sarah, zonk. :) I totally respect that they have affection and understanding for each other which is why I give them both of them the benefit of the doubt more than once. I don't believe, for example, that Sarah just latched onto Andrew for his money and title or she's just using her connections with the royal family to bolster her self-esteem. I think both of them really lost something from her inability to make a successful transition to member of the royal family.

But the sad fact is that no matter how much love and affection they both have, the opportunity is gone. Sarah can not handle what is expected of royals even on short visits. She doesn't dress right, she doesn't walk right, she doesn't say the right things, these are all small things but they're very important to this family.

She gets small snubs to her self-esteem every time she tries to go back to the Royal Family because she just doesn't fit in. Its not her fault; its not the royal's fault, its just the way it is. Yes, Sarah is loud and tacky on the Letterman show, etc. but at least she's with people who can appreciate her for what she is, warts and all. She's never going to get that with the Royal Family.

I think her trying to get invitations from Buckingham Palace is much sadder than whatever she says on the David Letterman show.

Yes, I think its incredibly sad when a square peg tries continuously to fit into a round hole and gets banged around in the process. I, at least, want them to keep from banging their head against the wall and go where they will be accepted and appreciated.

Sarah and Andrew may care deeply about each other but I don't think they're really helping each other by hanging onto each other. Perhaps I am oldfashioned in that I was taught that there's never just one person in the world that's meant for you. You can't help who you like and who you don't like but love can develop from someone you like and trust and are willing to spend time with to develop a deeper relationship. Otherwise the people who are widowed from accidents, illnesses, or war would never find someone else.

I think rather that Andrew and Sarah haven't found a special love with someone else because they haven't really tried.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Alexandria

Why should she get to be free of following protocol but get to use a royal title still? Why should she have her cake and eat it, too?

That's a good question, Alexandria, and I don't know the answer except that the tradition for the divorced royal wife is to keep the title (Duchess of York) and drop the royal (HRH). With Diana it was the same (actually Diana used the Princess title quite a bit after her divorce, it was considered normal) and in fairness I think Diana benefitted from her royal connections in her first big American event after the divorce from Charles and her campaign against the landmines, and her relationships. Actually I was more disturbed by that first American event than anything that Sarah has done because Hillary Clinton showed up while she was still First Lady, and Hillary's presence as the wife of Head of State gave the event the feeling of an 'official' status even though Diana was no longer with the royal family.

Diana may have had more class, more beauty, more decorum, more panache after her divorce than Sarah but I still think that if she had remained Lady Diana Spencer, she wouldn't have generated as much interest from people. I don't think Hillary Clinton would have invited her to the White House. I also think that despite her panache, Diana was working through some issues of low self-esteem with her public persona, much like Sarah is now but Diana had much better instincts about what would make people like her.

Originally Posted by Alexandria

And I agree that it isn't right for Princess Michael to use her title to sell her books either, just as it wasn't right for Sophie to have her PR business while carrying out royal duties as the Countess of Wessex.

Actually I disagree on this one, especially about the Countess of Wessex. Edward is a minor royal with not much income and the royals are getting complaints that they are not earning their keep. Its hard for them to do so if they're not allowed to generate income outside of what they get from the taxpayers. Same with the Michael's, if they're not on the Royal List and not getting a grace and favour residence from the Queen, they should be able to use whatever assets they have to generate income. A royal title is an intangible assets and intangible assets are leveraged for income all the time.

I think for current royals there should be limits on the types of enterprises they get involved in because they're still representing the royal family but for ex-royals like Sarah, I don't see the need for limits.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

There are people who do not thrive in a refined and conservative society, so why did Sarah marry into one of the most conservative institutions in the UK.

I forgot to answer this question, skydragon (and as you can all probably tell, I'm avoiding going into work by spending some very enjoyable time on the royal forums! Grrr! I'm going to regret it Monday)

I think Sarah made the grave mistake of marrying into one of the most conservative institutions in the UK for the simple reason that she and Andrew were in love with each other and they thought that love could conquer all.

Silly thought actually, but other people have been known to make the mistake so I don't hold that too much against them.

However, marriage isn't only about loving each other, its about being able to make a comfortable and conducive life with each other.

[Alexandria]

Originally Posted by ysbel

That's a good question, Alexandria, and I don't know the answer except that the tradition for the divorced royal wife is to keep the title (Duchess of York) and drop the royal (HRH).

I think the loss of the HRH and in other cases becoming an HH or whatever isn't necessarily noticed especially at places such as David Letterman or the like. The distinction between an HRH and an HH is lost on those who may not know or understand the difference. Ask any person on the street and I bet they can't tell you the difference between HRH the Duchess of York as opposed to HH the Duchess of York.

When Sarah goes on David Letterman or the Today Show, she is introduced as the Duchess of York -- for all intents and purposes to the general American audience she is still a member of the royal family.

Originally Posted by ysbel

With Diana it was the same (actually Diana used the Princess title quite a bit after her divorce, it was considered normal) and in fairness I think Diana benefitted from her royal connections in her first big American event after the divorce from Charles and her campaign against the landmines, and her relationships.

I don't know what relationships you are referring to exactly, but on the subject of landmines, I would be willing to make an exception only on the basis that at least the cause Diana was using her royal title for at least benefitted others rather than filling her own pockets. Endorsing Weight Watchers, selling her little red dolls and her Buggy books (or whatever that plane is called) and her Duchess of York jewellery line are things that are meant to fill Sarah's coffers, even if they were originally meant to dig her out of bankruptcy.

If instead of Weight Watchers Sarah used her Duchess of York title and her association with the British royal family to support or promote AIDS research or whatever, I wouldn't have an issue because at least it is in accordance with what the royals would do: Use their name to bring attention to worthwhile causes.

Originally Posted by ysbel

Actually I disagree on this one, especially about the Countess of Wessex. Edward is a minor royal with not much income and the royals are getting complaints that they are not earning their keep. Its hard for them to do so if they're not allowed to generate income outside of what they get from the taxpayers.

Edward and Sophie seem to be okay now with Edward and Sophie focused more on their royal duties than their private enterprises.

I agree that they are in a harder "damned if you do an damned if you don't" position but I think there are other ways around it. They both could certainly be involved in businesses that don't play on their titles and family associations as much. For example, in Spain, both of the King's daughters work to support their families (they are in a similar position as Edward and Sophie in that they do not carry out as many royal engagements and as such are not supported by the royal coffers) and both have chosen fields that do not play on their titles. Elena is a teacher in an elementary school while Cristina works for a bank supporting their cultural endeavours. Could both of the Infantas have these job were they plain old Elena de Borbon and Cristina de Borbon? Probably. But could the Duchess of York landed her Weight Watchers contract were she plain old Sarah Fergson? Probably not.

Originally Posted by ysbel

Same with the Michael's, if they're not on the Royal List and not getting a grace and favour residence from the Queen, they should be able to use whatever assets they have to generate income. A royal title is an intangible assets and intangible assets are leveraged for income all the time.

I don't know enough about their situation to really comment on it, so I won't. And I agree that everywhere people use whatever they can to leverage themselves in this world, but it seems "declasse" to do so with a royal title. We are not talking about Paris Hilton using her family name to make a CD. Using your HRH Prince/Princess title to sell a book seems so unroyal and makes the distinction of being royal less and less and closer to the common person.

Originally Posted by ysbel

I think for current royals there should be limits on the types of enterprises they get involved in because they're still representing the royal family but for ex-royals like Sarah, I don't see the need for limits.

To use the example of Edward and Sophie before they became full time royals, I think this is a contradiction of your above point. Before Sophie left her PR company and Edward his film production company they were members of the royal family but mostly by name only. They carried out very special engagements such as Trooping the Colour but that was it. And on those occasions even Lady Helen Taylor comes out (she stands on the balcony with her kids) and Lady Helen is well-known for representing Armani, a private enterprise. Edward and Sophie at that time were for all intents and purposes working at their own businesses and doing royal duties on the side, but their salaries earned at their various jobs were to support their life. They weren't representing the royal house that much and I think that this is where the waters get murky about what is acceptable and what isn't.

To the general public Sarah is certainly much more recognizable than Sophie and so for Sarah to be using her royal title for private enterprise is far worst in my opinon than for Sophie to be using her royal title or connections for her (then) PR business.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Alexandria

I think the loss of the HRH and in other cases becoming an HH or whatever isn't necessarily noticed especially at places such as David Letterman or the like. The distinction between an HRH and an HH is lost on those who may not know or understand the difference. Ask any person on the street and I bet they can't tell you the difference between HRH the Duchess of York as opposed to HH the Duchess of York.

When Sarah goes on David Letterman or the Today Show, she is introduced as the Duchess of York -- for all intents and purposes to the general American audience she is still a member of the royal family.

I agree with you there which is why I think the Royals may reconsider letting a divorced royal keep the title if Sarah's actions become a pattern with other royals.

I don't know what relationships you are referring to exactly,

Dodi al-Fayed

but on the subject of landmines, I would be willing to make an exception only on the basis that at least the cause Diana was using her royal title for at least benefitted others rather than filling her own pockets. Endorsing Weight Watchers, selling her little red dolls and her Buggy books (or whatever that plane is called) and her Duchess of York jewellery line are things that are meant to fill Sarah's coffers, even if they were originally meant to dig her out of bankruptcy.

Since my sister lost about 80 pounds from Weight Watchers and has been able to keep it off for 15 years, I would say that Weight Watchers does help people. Its not free but it does provide a useful service to society and I have no problem with people getting paid from working with Weight Watchers as long as it provides a useful service.

One thing that Sarah has contributed to society through her work with Weight Watchers that is free to the general public is that she has given people a role model that is not stick-thin. You may not like her, I may not like her, most people on the board may not like her but she does resonate with enough people to generate a public image and if her public image gives a curvy teenager a sense of self-esteem so this same teenager doesn't diet herself to death in a world dominated by images of stick-thin models, then that is a benefit to society that I don't think should be disparaged or looked down upon.

One thing about Diana's landmines cause, though, is that although it was oh-so-noble, oh-so-worthwhile, it ultimately wasn't successful. The world is now in a much more dangerous situation than it was when Diana toured Africa and the area of Africa that she toured is still unstable and ravaged by conflict. With AIDS, Diana had greater success because she wasn't the only one pushing it. There was a mass upswelling of the creative community to bring attention to AIDS, Elton John, etc.

If instead of Weight Watchers Sarah used her Duchess of York title and her association with the British royal family to support or promote AIDS research or whatever, I wouldn't have an issue because at least it is in accordance with what the royals would do: Use their name to bring attention to worthwhile causes.

Again I think Sarah's work as a spokesperson for women with body issues is worthwhile. The fact that she gets paid for it in my mind doesn't make it any less worthwhile. I think she is very effective in that role because she's lived the life of someone with weight issues and she has credibility.

I do think Diana did provide awareness and a lot of good things with her AIDs campaign but I don't think she provided as much benefit as those who had actually come close to AIDS and either had it themselves or had a loved one die of AIDs. I'm thinking of a young man Pedro who was on MTVs a Real World and let MTV film his life for six months. The show in general was pretty cheesy but it gave people a chance to see that a person with AIDS was human and you wouldn't necessarily get AIDS by sharing a bathroom with them. I think for women with weight issues, Sarah provides the 'been there, done that'.

I agree that they are in a harder "damned if you do an damned if you don't" position but I think there are other ways around it. They both could certainly be involved in businesses that don't play on their titles and family associations as much. For example, in Spain, both of the King's daughters work to support their families (they are in a similar position as Edward and Sophie in that they do not carry out as many royal engagements and as such are not supported by the royal coffers) and both have chosen fields that do not play on their titles. Elena is a teacher in an elementary school while Cristina works for a bank supporting their cultural endeavours. Could both of the Infantas have these job were they plain old Elena de Borbon and Cristina de Borbon? Probably. But could the Duchess of York landed her Weight Watchers contract were she plain old Sarah Fergson? Probably not.

You know more about the Spanish Royal Family than I do Alexandria but I would think that Cristina's job with cultural endeavours would have definitely been helped by her royal title. Princess Martha-Louise of Norway has a cultural-related job and to be fair she is getting criticism that she is trading on her royal title but her response is that she gets no money from her title and has to make a living. The King and Queen obviously support her in her endeavours and because she joins them on family occasions and King Harald trusts her enough to represents the Norwegian royal family in overseas events. Incidentally one of Martha-Louise's endeavours is as a writer of children's books (hmmm, Sarah, Princess Michael, Martha-Louise what is it about royal princesses that make them go into children's book writing?)

I don't know enough about their situation to really comment on it, so I won't. And I agree that everywhere people use whatever they can to leverage themselves in this world, but it seems "declasse" to do so with a royal title. We are not talking about Paris Hilton using her family name to make a CD. Using your HRH Prince/Princess title to sell a book seems so unroyal and makes the distinction of being royal less and less and closer to the common person.

I totally agree with you there, Sarah is declasse but it doesn't bother me because she's not royal any more. If Americans are so royal-ignorant not to know the difference between Sarah and a full-fledged member of the royal family, that is hardly Sarah's problem and in my humble opinion, that's hardly the Royal Family's problem either. Sarah doesn't inaccurately represent herself as a current member of the Royal Family. I don't think the problem exists in Britain because the British don't see her as royal any more.

I think the problem is not so much what Sarah does for a living after her divorce is that I think its the women who are marrying into the royal family now and the fact that divorces are accepted now so you have more situations where someone who was royal no longer is royal. The more that happens the more of a chance you get that an ex-royal is not going to behave royally.

I agree with Elspeth's statement before that its one thing to be acquainted with the royals on a social basis as Diana and Sarah were and another thing to know what the position requires. That's why I think there's a lot to be said for royals marrying royals, not necessarily arranged marriages but there is an advantage to encouraging royals to look for prospective partners among those who have a better chance of knowing what they are going to get into.

I think the middle classes have had some success in marrying into royalty because of their work ethic but it hardly guarantees success. The beautiful, popular, and hard-working Alexandra of Denmark could not make her marriage to Prince Joachim work.
[quote]

To the general public Sarah is certainly much more recognizable than Sophie and so for Sarah to be using her royal title for private enterprise is far worst in my opinon than for Sophie to be using her royal title or connections for her (then) PR business.

Hmm, interesting, Alexandria. I have an ethical problem though with condemning one person for doing the same thing as another simply because more people know about her actions. It just doesn't feel right.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Alexandria

I think that even though Sarah isn't a member of the British royal family anymore she is still associated with them on a personal level enough to not be out endorsing even good companies like Weight Watchers or hawking her little red doll books or her own jewellery line.

As she has pointedly made note of in various interviews she is the mother of two princesses whose grandmother happens to be the Queen of England. She's clearly using her title, the Duchess of York, to draw attention for these products and for herself. Would Weight Watchers have hired her if she didn't have a title or weren't famous? If she were just plain old Sarah Ferguson who went on their program and lost a certain amount of weight? Why would they have chosen her specifically of all their thousands of other success stories?

Just as she wouldn't be on David Letterman, the Today Show or Ladies Home Journal if she were some regular British gal. She is connected to the royal family in a more personal way than as some servant or ex-employee or someone whom Charles plays polo with (i.e. a more casual connection), and I think she needs to respect that as the royal family doesn't officially endorse anything she shouldn't either. Even as an ex-family member. So long as she keeps reminding people that she is connected to the royal family she shouldn't use her Duchess of York title or name to associate herself with Weight Watchers or any other organization. If she steps out on her own on her own merits (which would be hard at this time since its so ingrained in the public eye) then that is something different.

To me, she's clearly someone who is trying to have the best of both worlds. She escaped the strictness and protocol-dominated world of the royal family and gets to have her freedom and to do whatever she wants. But she's still using her connection to the very family she's disassociated herself from by divorce to promote herself and to make herself money.

I think in Britain she's seen for what she is - an ex-royal who's had to cash in on her title and contacts to make money to pay her debts and who's continued to cash in ever since because even her past association with royalty makes her marketable in the States. There wasn't much precedent for a divorced royal in her 30s with a couple of children and a bunch of debts; the nearest thing in recent times, and this isn't all that near, was probably Princess Marina, who was widowed young and who was raising her children on her own with not a lot of financial help from the royal family and very restricted in what she could do to supplement that money. If Sarah was faced with the choice of respectable poverty or vulgar moneymaking, and given that by then she'd probably got the message that the press would criticise anything she did just because it was her doing it, it's understandable that she made the choice she did. As ysbel says, we don't have to like it, but it's understandable. She isn't misrepresenting her position; she isn't an HRH or an HH and she isn't pretending to be one; the sad thing is that she does seem to be starting to live through the reflected glory of her daughters' titles, but I have a feeling the Queen might put a stop to that if she perceives it as being damaging to the princesses.

I think the Michaels are more resented by a lot of British people because they're perceived to be trading on the royal name while still part of the family whereas Sarah does at least have the advantage of being out of the royal circle.

[BeatrixFan]

the nearest thing in recent times, and this isn't all that near, was probably Princess Marina, who was widowed young and who was raising her children on her own with not a lot of financial help from the royal family and very restricted in what she could do to supplement that money.

Ah but Marina was different. She lost her husband, she didn't divorce him and she was respected and a huge asset to Britain. Sarah never was. Winston Churchill helped Princess Marina because Princess Marina had worked so hard and was so devoted to her charities and to Britain. Sarah was always seen as lacking and not quite Royal enough, so people were less eager to help.

I think the Michaels are more resented by a lot of British people because they're perceived to be trading on the royal name

But in all fairness, they've never been portrayed in a positive light by the press.

[iowabelle]

It was also a major difference that Marina was a born royal. Due to her birth family's straitened circumstances, she knew how to maintain her dignity while presenting a facade to the public.

But had Marina had a broader life experience (a better education or a job history), she might have had some options to better her financial circumstances during her widowhood.

[BeatrixFan]

Well, Marina exhausted almost every avenue and finally wrote to Churchill to say that if she wasn't given a loan from the Government, she'd have to take the children to Greece. Churchill was horrified and transferred money from his personal account to Marina's. He was quite sweet on Marina and if the conspiracy theories about George's death are true, maybe a little guilt. But you're right iowabelle - Marina was born a Royal and so didnt have a hard job fitting in.

[iowabelle]

I didn't know that Marina had threatened to move the family to Greece! But she wouldn't have been the first royal to do something like that (look at Queen Mary's family!).

Well, I don't approve of a lot of things Sarah has done, I think she deserves credit for digging herself out of the hole (and taking on the responsibility for her mother's ranch as well).

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by iowabelle

I didn't know that Marina had threatened to move the family to Greece! But she wouldn't have been the first royal to do something like that (look at Queen Mary's family!).

Somehow I don't think Weight Watchers would have wanted Princess Mary Adelaide as a spokesperson...

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Somehow I don't think Weight Watchers would have wanted Princess Mary Adelaide as a spokesperson...

That's so funny Elspeth! No, I don't think having a spokesperson nicknamed 'Fat Mary' would have been good for their image.

You put into words a lot better what I was trying to say. There was not a lot of precedent for the situation that Sarah was in. I think its a new era in the royal marriages taking who knows what the effect of the current marriages are or if the divorce rate remains high, what the effect of a growing number of ex-royals will have on the institution.

[Bella]

Regarding Sarah using her title to land jobs, I don't think of it as that horrible. Let's face it, opportunities for royals are shrinking. The need for royalty (outside of fairy tales which are fun because no one has to pay for them) and the allure of royalty is not the same as it was even a generation ago. Royals like Edward & Sophie, the Infantas, etc. will need a way to support themselves, esp. as more and more criticism is thrown their way by "The People" in terms of paying for their upkeep and lifestyles. I think it is going to get worse, not better, for royals in the years to come. That said, someone like Sarah, who will be forever linked to the BRF, is sort of in a tight spot. She can't just go off and get an average job in an office or someplace because of her ties to royalty. And yet she is condemned for using her royal title/connections to get a job that, true, she probably wouldn't have if she did not have her royal title/connections. Again, on many levels, I see Sarah is being caught between a rock and a hard place.

[Duchess]

let's face it folks...the only reason that company's want people like sarah is very simply because she was royal - nothing more or less than that. if she'd been married to andrew smith they wouldn't have given her a second look. celebrity sells and if the public's buying then why shouldn't she cash in on it.

[Tzu An]

For all her faults though, I must admit that she never accused the Queen of being a three headed dragon and/or a member of the demonic Illuminati when she divorced Andrew.

[Laviollette]

On the question of Sarah's charity work and why she doesn't use her celebrity for little more than Weight Watchers, selling children's books, hawking jewelry and a little charity work on the side, well she was never that much into helping people when she was actually HRH The Duchess of York. She didn't run up her, what was it, 6 million dollar debt by visiting hospitals and throwing herself into comforting others. All I remember from that time is her vacations and generally not doing anything. Could this be the reason why the press turned on her? The frumpy, extravagant clothes and her inelegant manner just gave them ammunition. There is no reason why she would become any less self-absorbed now that she is divorced from the BRF.

On Sophie: I like her but I think that her and her husband's business ventures early in their marriage became a liability to them and their public image which is why I think they are not as popular as they could be or as appreciated as they should be especially now for their full-time royal duties. Sure they had to make a living to pay their expenses but they didn't have to move into that monster mansion of Bagshot Park. It reminds me of Sunninghill, the former residence of Prince Andrew and Sarah; unnecessarily large and out of the range of what their yearly allowance was.

Andrew is supposed to be moving to the Royal Lodge, former residence of the Queen Mother, if he hasn't already done so and he has an apartment at Buckingham Palace. Why wasn't smaller and more modest living arrangements worked out in the first place for both the Duke and Duchess of York and the Earl and Countess of Wessex? And why Sophie and Edward are not the Duke and Duchess of something just boggles my mind. Just more tackiness and laspe in protocol that has, unfortunately, enveloped this once most revered and respected royal family in the world.

[BeatrixFan]

This is the strange thing, despite their divorce, Andrew and Sarah are extremely close. In Brian Hoey's "At Home with the Queen", he says that at the Duke of York's apartments in Buckingham Palace, the sign on the door still says, "TRH The Duke and Duchess of York" and when some workmen removed it to replace it "HRH The Duke of York", Andrew went mad and insisted on the old sign being immediately returned. He also has quite a few portraits of Sarah around so I think that he must love still feel something for Sarah - but maybe the problem is that we never did. We never connected with her so she became unpopular putting a strain on the marriage. Or that's my own personal conclusion.

[Laviollette]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

This is the strange thing, despite their divorce, Andrew and Sarah are extremely close. In Brian Hoey's "At Home with the Queen", he says that at the Duke of York's apartments in Buckingham Palace, the sign on the door still says, "TRH The Duke and Duchess of York" and when some workmen removed it to replace it "HRH The Duke of York", Andrew went mad and insisted on the old sign being immediately returned. He also has quite a few portraits of Sarah around so I think that he must love still feel something for Sarah - but maybe the problem is that we never did. We never connected with her so she became unpopular putting a strain on the marriage. Or that's my own personal conclusion.

She has clearly remained an albatross around her ex-husband's neck.

[BeatrixFan]

Indeed. I suppose it's nice for Beatrice and Eugenie but is it good for Andrew?