What is your opinion about Sarah, Duchess of York?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

She left the family with 5 million pounds of debt;

Yes and who ran up the debts to start with? Why should she deserve congratulations for paying off what she spent. How many small businesses struggled whilst waiting for Sarah to pay up?

[kimebear]

Originally Posted by Russophile

Couldn't tell ya if WW is known at all in Britain.
She did peddle that--what was it? Wedgewood china? They would know that. A lot of fine china was and still is made in Britain.

If Weight Watchers is known in the UK, if might have been better for her to affiliate herself with that organization upon meeting the family. The show, after all, was geared towards healthy eating. I wonder if WW asked her to not mention them in case the show was not using their specific weight loss methods. I doubt the family in question is readily familiar with the many Wedgwood collections considering their income.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Yes and who ran up the debts to start with? Why should she deserve congratulations for paying off what she spent. How many small businesses struggled whilst waiting for Sarah to pay up?

A lot of people don't. Since she'd have received a lot of criticism for not trying to pay them off, it's only fair to give her praise for facing the problem and working to clear it.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

A lot of people don't. Since she'd have received a lot of criticism for not trying to pay them off, it's only fair to give her praise for facing the problem and working to clear it.

No they don't and they deserve condemnation and/or prosecuting, but nobody deserves extra praise for clearing the debts they have run up in the first place.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by kimebear

If Weight Watchers is known in the UK, if might have been better for her to affiliate herself with that organization upon meeting the family. The show, after all, was geared towards healthy eating. I wonder if WW asked her to not mention them in case the show was not using their specific weight loss methods. I doubt the family in question is readily familiar with the many Wedgwood collections considering their income.

Most people in the lower wage bracket or unemployed couldn't afford the fee weight watchers charge or the foods they recommend in their diets.

[kimebear]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Most people in the lower wage bracket or unemployed couldn't afford the fee weight watchers charge or the foods they recommend in their diets.

I'm sure, which is why I was wondering if she wasn't permitted to mention her affiliation with them. It's a shame that healthy food has to be more expensive than food that is cheap and filling, but overall bad for you.

If she was of any long lasting help at all to this family, more power to her.

[jcbcode99]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

No they don't and they deserve condemnation and/or prosecuting, but nobody deserves extra praise for clearing the debts they have run up in the first place.

Skydragon, you make a good point and you also made me realize that my post could be mistaken for something that it wasn't. Sarah ran up serious debts as a member of the royal family--I don't know what those debts were but they very probably had something to do with trying to maintain appearances and what was expected of her image wise, home wise, etc....I'm not taking away blame from her--we should all learn to live within, or even better, below our means--but she was in a whole different world than she was used to and obviously went way overboard. I do admire her for paying off her debts just as I would admire anyone for paying off their debts; it takes a lot of work to pay down debt. I don't like the extent to which she commercialized herself, but the books and Weight Watchers I thought were good moves.
But, this discussion has made me realize that I do not know a great deal about the York divorce, the spending habits, etc... can anyone enlighten me? I'm very curious now!

[Skydragon]

THE WORLD;A Duchess: Her Life In Debt - New York Times

This is the best I can come up with right now, I hope it helps.

[Russophile]

I'm adding fuel to the fire. Here's an article by my Peter.

FERGIE: Right Royal Fuss

[jcbcode99]

Oh dear, what interesting reading! I was glued to the print. I always knew she was reckless, but she was certainly a piece of work back in the day! I always had assumed her debts came from trying manage a household and raise the children in an appropriate manner--I was actually surprised that they came from 150,000 pound vacations! I still admire her for working her way out of it but I wonder--will she repeat her old mistakes?

[Elspeth]

Presumably she won't; she seems to have worked very hard to repair the damage she did when she was younger. I remember reading in her autobiography that she said she always felt a need to please everyone, and that can be a very good way to become indebted both financially and emotionally. I assume she's older and wiser now.

[Mandy]

Is this some kind of sadistic ritual where members gather to read the oldest and most cruel news about Sarah from which you derive some secret pleasures. I could understand the laughter if you were watching a comedy, but this is a person you're snickering at. A person just like you and me. It's not a comedy. Not a scripted faux pas. It called being fallible or being human.

[Polly]

For my own part, I've always felt sorry for Sarah, duchess of York.

So far as I'm aware, she was a very good wife until her husband's continual absences put a more than awkward strain on the marriage. She was, once, also, immensely popular with her ex-husband's family.

More: I remember when, after the birth of her second child, she was castigated in the press as 'The Duchess of Pork', well before her marriage was dissolved. Such spite! But it's why most of the world feels so disdainfully towards the LCD British press.

The Duchess came to Australia to visit her husband, who was on naval duty, and she was, subsequently, bombarded with press-determined disdain of her for leaving her small children. I, for one, understood her need and wish to be with her husband, no matter how fleetingly, at such an emotional time.

And, to my certain knowledge, it wasn't as if British aristos and its immitators wasn't conditioned to handing over the well-being of their small children to others, often for much less than natural purposes.

There are one or two things in Sarah's favour which I think that we might well reflect upon, viz;

Her ex-husband genuinely likes her, helps her, and spends quality time with her, particularly time pertaining to their two children;

Her daughters, obviously, love her and admire her;

Whatever her extravagances in the past, Sarah paid off her more than $4m debt, and continues to work successfully and earn an income and her living;

She, together with her sister Jane, subsidised and paid their mother's debts and provided a healthy and wholesome life for Susan, until she died.

When her father was beseiged because of his spurious sexual peccadiloes, The Duchess of York stood by him, despite the sneers and condemnation from those who should have known better.

Ergo: She proved more than once that she was dutiful and loving and supportive daughter.

The Duchess has been the instigator and supporter of many admirable charitable causes. That there's been little public acknowledgement of this is to her credit, but her commitment is easily discerned if one but takes the trouble to look for it.

The photos of Sarah cavorting with a man, not her husband, were indeed startling and shocking. I would ask, though, how many of us might feel comfortable with photographers with long-range lenses invading our most private moments. That, to me, has always been the issue.

So, to return to Sarah's profligacy as a royal princess, I offer this assessment of the Queen Mother, one of my all-time favourites. Perhaps it's right - maybe it's wrong. If so, it has as much import as the unnecessily defensive and maladroit newspaper articles which continue to hound and try to diminish Sarah.

The Empress of Extravagance: How the Queen Mother left behind more than £7m in debts | Mail Online

[Menarue]

Mandy with all due respect, a question was asked. How did the Duchess get into debt, we find from what we read that she ran up all these debts by self indulgence and carefree spending. I am sorry she is NOT like you or me unless you are married or divorced from one of the Queen´s sons. By the way I, at least, I am not laughing, I take debts very seriously. I hope when it says she is paying of her debts that means nearly everybody has their money. These debts are not in the past if the effects have reached up to now. Let her pay them off by using her ex royal connections if that is the only way she can do it. Just let her do it as quickly as possible and let´s hope she has learned her lesson and she won´t spend enormous amounts on staff and holidays and enjoying herself in general.

[Menarue]

The Queen mother just continued to live in the way that she was accustomed but Sarah Ferguson wasn´t she was just foolish. I also think it is ridiculous of her to think that Prince Andrew would sit at home with her. I think some of the time he was serving in the armed forces..... I wonder how many army wives could expect their husbands to be home to keep them company.
I agree that the way that Prince Andrew has helped her and supported her is admirable, he obviously likes her as a person and is very loyal, but I think that is more to his favour than to hers.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Menarue

Mandy with all due respect, a question was asked. How did the Duchess get into debt, we find from what we read that she ran up all these debts by self indulgence and carefree spending. I am sorry she is NOT like you or me unless you are married or divorced from one of the Queen´s sons.

For me, the thing that really annoys me is that Sarah has used/sold out her Royal connections to live a much more luxurious life than those can live who are actually her Royal connections. The queen for example: yes, she lives in palaces she inherited but it's known that apart from the costs of maintaining the lifestyle she has to live due to her position, she in private prefers a rather simple lifestyle.

Charles enjoys the luxuries of life but one should not forget that when he took over the Duchy of Cornwall, it was a rather mismanaged estate and he invested years of his life to turn it into a sucessful venture whose gains pay easily for his luxuries.

Anne as well manages her estate and lives off the gains from it- and lives a rather frugal life herself including recycling clothes etc.

So while the actual Royals try to live in a way their "subjects" can connect with, on living frugal or earning their own keepi n order to keep the idea of monarchy in a positive way in the public's mind, Sarah uses the monarchy as a background for her own pleasures and devices. If she wasn't the former daughter-in-law of the queen, she wouldn't have gotten these advertisement contracts but in doing PR-work and sellling things, she hurts the monarchy for her own selfish interests.

Sorry, that does not sit well with me. We can just see in Nepal what happens if people decide on a new government which wants to abolish the monarchy. Within one session of parliament the monarchy is gone and the king has I believe a fortnight to vacate his palace. That fate is what endangers the queen and her family and what they try to avoid, at least the older members of the family who understand the problem of their family. And then there is Sarah who simply is not interested in the future of the monarchy, only in her daughters' and her own future.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Russophile

I'm adding fuel to the fire. Here's an article by my Peter.

FERGIE: Right Royal Fuss

Your Peter is right on the button with this

Mrs. Patrick Campbell's famous dictum about the English ("They don't mind what you do, actually, as long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses")

Originally Posted by Menarue

I wonder how many army wives could expect their husbands to be home to keep them company.

Very few.

[Bella]

Originally Posted by Polly

So far as I'm aware, she was a very good wife until her husband's continual absences put a more than awkward strain on the marriage.

Are you kidding??? She had blatant adulterous affairs with AT LEAST 2 men in front of her children while her husband was serving his country. Good wife?? Never! She brought the shame and disgrace upon herself and she will always have that stigma to deal with, fair or not. It's the way it is and always will be for her.

[kimebear]

Originally Posted by Menarue

These debts are not in the past if the effects have reached up to now. Let her pay them off by using her ex royal connections if that is the only way she can do it. Just let her do it as quickly as possible and let´s hope she has learned her lesson and she won´t spend enormous amounts on staff and holidays and enjoying herself in general.

If you would be so kind as to share knowledge of who she is indebted to today? As far as I was aware, her debts were paid off years ago. That being the case, she can spend her ready money in any way she pleases to enjoy herself, just like anyone else can.

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

For me, the thing that really annoys me is that Sarah has used/sold out her Royal connections to live a much more luxurious life than those can live who are actually her Royal connections. The queen for example: yes, she lives in palaces she inherited but it's known that apart from the costs of maintaining the lifestyle she has to live due to her position, she in private prefers a rather simple lifestyle.

Charles enjoys the luxuries of life but one should not forget that when he took over the Duchy of Cornwall, it was a rather mismanaged estate and he invested years of his life to turn it into a sucessful venture whose gains pay easily for his luxuries.

Anne as well manages her estate and lives off the gains from it- and lives a rather frugal life herself including recycling clothes etc.

So while the actual Royals try to live in a way their "subjects" can connect with, on living frugal or earning their own keepi n order to keep the idea of monarchy in a positive way in the public's mind, Sarah uses the monarchy as a background for her own pleasures and devices. If she wasn't the former daughter-in-law of the queen, she wouldn't have gotten these advertisement contracts but in doing PR-work and sellling things, she hurts the monarchy for her own selfish interests.

Sorry, that does not sit well with me. We can just see in Nepal what happens if people decide on a new government which wants to abolish the monarchy. Within one session of parliament the monarchy is gone and the king has I believe a fortnight to vacate his palace. That fate is what endangers the queen and her family and what they try to avoid, at least the older members of the family who understand the problem of their family. And then there is Sarah who simply is not interested in the future of the monarchy, only in her daughters' and her own future.

With all due respect Jo, the royal family has to answer to the public for its lifestyle. Sarah does not. This discussion has been had many times. She is no longer royal. The Queen may well prefer a simple life, but it is not necessarily an altruistic gesture towards her subjects. She may just get tired of constantly being surrounded by such oppulence that she enjoys simple things more.

As far as Prince Charles is concerned, he has no high ground regarding cashing in on royal connections for commercial gain. His entire estate has its own label! Duchy Originals is capitalism at its finest, but he doesn't receive the negative press that Sarah gets. You can't convince me that it would be doing as well as it is doing if he was just a regular farmer. People buy the brand.

Anne may live off her estate and live frugally, but again, that is her choice. I am sure though, that the yearly cost of her equestrian pursuits would house several families annually if you want to get right down to brass tacks.

Sarah lives like a woman of means, but I don't think that necessarily translates as living above the royal family in terms of comfort.

[misselle]

Originally Posted by Mandy

Is this some kind of sadistic ritual where members gather to read the oldest and most cruel news about Sarah from which you derive some secret pleasures. I could understand the laughter if you were watching a comedy, but this is a person you're snickering at. A person just like you and me. It's not a comedy. Not a scripted faux pas. It called being fallible or being human.

I agree with you;there are too many people who just salivate over the chance to malign and ridicule,to post their overly negative opinions about others!