What is your opinion about Sarah, Duchess of York?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Yes, but do you think somebody could invent this? And they have to keep the tiara somewhere... why not in this locker?

Most Tiara's of any worth are kept in safety deposit boxes or even safes, not in lockers.

[Warren]

I doubted this story too when it was first discussed in another thread a while ago until it was pointed out that the (modern) bedroom suite at Sunninghill probably included a built-in safe. Maybe Sarah was happy to leave the tiara in Andrew's keeping knowing that it would be secure. It wasn't widely publicised at the time but some years ago she had jewels stolen from her baggage at a US airport (ground staff or baggage handlers were responsible). They were quickly recovered but the experience may have encouraged her to place the tiara under what is effectively royal protection.

[LadyCat]

Originally Posted by Bella

Don't quote me, I was just saying that, from what I know/have learned about pieces of jewelry (for which I believe a tiara qualifies) being given to titled persons on occasions such as marriages and births, they are usually given to the title rather than the individual person. Now if HM gave that tiara as a personal gift to Sarah then it would be Sarah's regardless of what became of her marriage to the Duke of York. And she could do with it as she pleased; pass it on to one of her daughters, give it away, sell it. I guess the question is How was the tiara given to Sarah?

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the title Duke of York was reserved for the sovereign's second son and merges back into the crown upon the death of the current Duke of York. Since the last two Dukes of York became King, which did effectively merge the title into the crown, I can't be certain.

At any rate, if this is the case, and the tiara wasn't given to Sarah but to the title, wouldn't it also merge into the crown upon Andrew's death?

Cat

[Russophile]

I would think that HM would let the girls wear it or keep it upon marriage. But that's just me.

[yvr girl]

Originally Posted by LadyCat

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the title Duke of York was reserved for the sovereign's second son and merges back into the crown upon the death of the current Duke of York. Since the last two Dukes of York became King, which did effectively merge the title into the crown, I can't be certain.

At any rate, if this is the case, and the tiara wasn't given to Sarah but to the title, wouldn't it also merge into the crown upon Andrew's death?

Cat

If Andrew has a son, the title will pass go to him, like a normal dukedom.

The title "Duke of York" is associated with the second son of the monarch, but that is because the holder has usually either died without male heirs or inherited the throne. It has no special status like the Duke of Cornwall title.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Warren

I doubted this story too when it was first discussed in another thread a while ago until it was pointed out that the (modern) bedroom suite at Sunninghill probably included a built-in safe.

The tiara is said to be kept in a bedroom at the Royal Lodge, which of course is a rather well protected house on the Windsor Estate.

[LadyCat]

Originally Posted by yvr girl

If Andrew has a son, the title will pass go to him, like a normal dukedom.

The title "Duke of York" is associated with the second son of the monarch, but that is because the holder has usually either died without male heirs or inherited the throne. It has no special status like the Duke of Cornwall title.

Okay, so the Duke of York is passed down through the male line, and it's just a coincidence that the title has usually been available for the sovereign to pass to the second son. I have been edumicated!

Since Andrew has no male issue and it is highly unlikely he will at this point (never say never), so upon his death the title will revert to the crown. That being the case, I hope the tiara was given to Sarah so the York girls will have it for the future. I think it would make a nice tradition for Sarah's tiara to become their family wedding tiara.

Cat

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

But do you think this was a diplomatic or even clever thing to do? She's now told the media that
a) Bea reads articles like that and is hurt by them.
b) Bea is not yet grown-up in her mum's eyes but needs protection.
c) (that's between the lines) Bea's mum thinks herself that while bea has a lot of achievements, she is not a beauty.
d) Bea's mum can be reached on attacking her daughter.

Sorry, but for me this is much too much to give away to the vipers of the tabloids. IMHO there should never have been a comment from Bea's side or her family's side. But that's Sarah for you.

(More about that on the Bea-thread, if you are interested.)

gee Jo i think this is a bit of a stretch. i have a daughter and no matter how old she is i will always go to any length to defend/protect her as most mothers would do. as for saying the sarah doesn't see her as a beauty i don't get that all from this. i think sarah has learned a great deal about herself over the years is teaching her daughters that the press will attack anything about you but that doesn't mean that she doesn't see her daughters as not being beautiful.

[kimebear]

Here is a photo of her wearing her wedding tiara to Elton John's White Tie and Tiara Ball in 2001 (sorry, its sideways). Since that is well after her divorce, the tiara is most likely a gift to her personally unless Andrew gives it to her for fancy dress parties.

Corbis: photography, rights, motion.}

[Mermaid1962]

That's a great picture of Sarah, sideways or not! She had some horrible evening wear in the early years, but her jewelery was always very nice.

[Bella]

I agree, that is a very nice photo of Sarah. She looks every bit the Duchess.

[xlouisex]

yes id o like sarah alot of ppl dont like her because all they worry about is the future of the monachy all the time doesnt seem to matter what ppl have gone through when they have married into the royal house hold.

[Skydragon]

I have to wonder why she has this apparent 'need' to be in the media. Now we have her in a ridiculous programme called the Duchess of Hull... which she isn't!

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I have to wonder why she has this apparent 'need' to be in the media. Now we have her in a ridiculous programme called the Duchess of Hull... which she isn't!

Wasn't it "The Duchess in Hull"? And there she was...

[jcbcode99]

It's nice to see her wearing her tiara again, but those South Sea pearls--WOW. I wonder if they're hers or borrowed?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Wasn't it "The Duchess in Hull"? And there she was...

Blame the BBC Jo, she was doing an intro this morning and that is how they introduced her!

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Blame the BBC Jo, she was doing an intro this morning and that is how they introduced her!

Probably they made fun of the whole thing as the documentary is, IIRC, an ITV production...

[sophie25]

I think she's stuck in a time warp circa 1991-92, ie she thinks that she is still a very significant public figure which she just isn't anymore. I saw her on Sky news talking about being wary about coming back to Britain as the public may not want her back etc, most people couldn't care less what she does as there is a whole new generation who don't even know who she is. She also described Andrew as "Britain's great Prince" I think once she's back in this country a while she'll realise that he, and her daughters, are rather obscure to the general public even though she loves to bang on about them being Princesses and, de facto, really important whilst in the scheme of things they are not as important as she (and Andrew) would like to think they were. It's 2008 and times have changed. Sarah will soon learn that in the U.K. the Yorks are not the big newsworthy family they were in the 1980's and early 1990's.

[Russophile]

Well it's cyclical. Like in the 80's and 90's everybody was a Royal watcher.
Like that really, really loathsome over done 70's hard metal music is back (my kid just went to one of their concerts--YIKES!) and in a couple years they'll be sporting Buffy and Muffy in checked lime green bahama shorts with pale pink polo's and pink Ked's again. . . .

Actually, I believe Sarah has to court the media to turn a spotlight on her charities.

[Kezza]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

But do you think this was a diplomatic or even clever thing to do? She's now told the media that
a) Bea reads articles like that and is hurt by them.
b) Bea is not yet grown-up in her mum's eyes but needs protection.
c) (that's between the lines) Bea's mum thinks herself that while bea has a lot of achievements, she is not a beauty.
d) Bea's mum can be reached on attacking her daughter.

Sorry, but for me this is much too much to give away to the vipers of the tabloids. IMHO there should never have been a comment from Bea's side or her family's side. But that's Sarah for you.

(More about that on the Bea-thread, if you are interested.)

You may have point.

Sorry Fergie, I can't stomach you or your porky pies | Mail Online