What is your opinion about Sarah, Duchess of York?

[ysbel]

Well this has been an enlightening thread - its seems that Sarah's worst sin is being LOUD AND TACKY-she doesn't think about what shes says, wears, or does before she does it. This is what draws the most heated reaction from people - not her affairs, not the fact that she doesn't work much. I'd hazard to guess its also because she draws attention to herself and one sees an insecurity - a need to please.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Well this has been an enlightening thread - its seems that Sarah's worst sin is being LOUD AND TACKY-she doesn't think about what shes says, wears, or does before she does it. This is what draws the most heated reaction from people - not her affairs, not the fact that she doesn't work much. I'd hazard to guess its also because she draws attention to herself and one sees an insecurity - a need to please.

Hm, Ysbel, I don't think that's her worst sin. But maybe that's why a lot of people react with animosity against her, here you're certainly right. She was a Royal but not a lady, and that's something especially well-mannered ladies simply don't like.

That doesn't mean these ladies are conservative or old-fashioned, it's just that they strive to be "good" and put effort into reacting according to rules which are there to make life in human society more pleasant for all concerned. Well, not only pleasant but calculable, reliable and thus safe. I certainly see the need for each generation to change these rules, but normally this change is slight and/or if there is a radical change, polite people still try to behave the former way when around their elders.

A person like Sarah shows in her way to behave that these rules are not important for her. That is okay for a commoner but not for a Royal who takes her right to precedence from exactly these rules. And most people think or feel or both that you can't have one without the other.

And really: it's not so hard to learn these rules if you want to. To to behave according to them. I agree that CP Mary probably was warned by Diana's and Sarah's example but still I think that there are enough women around who do not need that kind of warning at all, who realize by themselves that there are rules, that they make sense and life easier for all if you follow them.

It's interesting to read the excerpt of the Paxton-book printed by the Guardian where he describes a weekend invitation ot Sandringham. He writes that even he as a "staunch republican" felt he had to say "Sir" to the Prince of Wales all the time. I take that as an example for the fact that if you don't follow the rules by choice, it's one thing. But you will always realize that you miss the security these rules give you. I've read that the POW is quite a nice host, not formal at all. But still it's a lot easier for you if you know the rules and thus the borderlines between being informal with a host who wants you to and being rude out of lack of knowledge.

That's why I try to install the rules of good manners in my son - he may decide with other kids not to use them or use a different set of rules but when I take him out into a top restaurant or hotel where people know me because of my profession he acts accordingly, thus encouraging me to take him again the next time.

As for Sarah - my very personal guess is that while she was in contact with the Royal set, she met them through the "stable door". While "stable manners" are surely a way to interact in even the most noble circles when it comes to horses, riding and sports, I guess a real lady like The Princess Royal or The Princess of Wales (I've decided to drop the "Duchess of Cornwall" as I've decided that I'm so formal as to perceives Camilla as Princess of Wales... ) or our very own Skydragon knows how to behave in the stable and at the table. Different behaviour, I'm sure but you have to have learned both kinds of manners to be a "proper lady". Mind, I have no idea how to behave around horses....

 

[BeatrixFan]

I just find it hypocritical to use examples of things she has done, when other people have done the same thing and yet they are forgiven because they are human.

It isn't an issue of forgiveness Zonk. It's an issue of simple dislike. And Ysbel is right - alot of dislike came from her being loud and tacky. I mean, have you ever seen "It's a Royal Knockout"? The others kept composure whilst making fools of themselves but Sarah was there, doing pratfalls, shouting and hollering, bouncing around, yellling - and she always seem to be loud. She never knew how to behave like a member of the Royal Family so she was never accorded the graces the others were. For example, we know that Princess Michael has had a few colourful incidents - but because she behaves like a Princess, we expect it from her. With Sarah, she never said "Royal" she always said, "trying too hard" and so yes, one of her biggest let downs was being loud and tacky.

But also, it was the fact that she just didn't do very much and now, Britain just sees her as another tired old D-Lister but it's taken on a slightly creepy Mommie Dearest flavour because she's using her daughters to keep her hand in. I mean, when I heard Beatrice say, "I want to be a mini-mummy" I almost had a coronary. Sarah is not a role-model for a glittering career. I do think that the media were fairly cruel to Sarah because she wasn't exactly a beauty, "Duchess of Pork" springs to mind. I don't think she was given a fair deal but there was no other reason for her to be a bad member of the Royal Family. She could have learned the Windsor ways but she didn't attempt to. She just tended to roll in and make people cringe. She still makes me cringe - it's very sad that she can't just retire from the cameras and be this good mother she's supposed to be behind closed doors.

 

[servingsophie]

I wonder if we were having the same forum discussion but about Princess Diana, the same people condemning the Duchess would still be sitting on their high moral horses?

Would we all condemn the Princess for her sordid little affairs with England Rugby captains or disgraced army Majors?

Would we condemn her for embarrassing the royal family in an interview on national television?

Or will the Diana apologists claim like some of us have trying to defend the Duchess, that she found life as a royal difficult?

Or is it ok for Diana to embarrass the Royals because we could argue she was more elegant?

Or do we just ignore all her faults because of the tragic circumstances of her death?

Leave the Duchess alone!

 

[Elspeth]

Thank you for that intervention, servingsophie, but the whole point of this thread is an exchange of opinions, which is a bit hard if one side is prohibited from saying anything.

 

[Furienna]

Yes, I think Diana behaved much more like a princess should, and that's why she's more liked than Sarah. Her tragical death also added to it, of course.

 

[servingsophie]

Thank you for that intervention, servingsophie, but the whole point of this thread is an exchange of opinions, which is a bit hard if one side is prohibited from saying anything.

I'm all in favour of free speech but it seems that the attacks on the Duchess are very personal and I find some of them offensive.

I remember the royal lives of Sarah and Diana with great fondness and I love them both equally. I simply don't understand the vitriol and spiteful nature of the comments criticising the Duchess.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I wonder if we were having the same forum discussion but about Princess Diana, the same people condemning the Duchess would still be sitting on their high moral horses? lone!

You'll find that quite some people who critizise the duchess for her lack of propriety are well-know Diana-critics as well.

 

[Princess BellyFlop]

Diana would be getting the same treatment (at least from me) but she is dead and it is kind of unfair to present a negative opinion of a dead body. Sarah on the other hand offers me day after day new reasons not to appreciate her and for that am I thankful to her? no of course.

 

[Skydragon]

I don't see most of the comments as being anything other than various people giving their opinions on Sarah, which is what the thread is about. I'm sorry if it upsets you that not everyone remembers the days of Sarah and Andrew as you do, but, I for one don't. As anyone will tell you I have also been a fierce critic of Diana.

Sarah may have found life as a royal difficult, so why does she try to trade on it now? Wouldn't the sensible thing have been to withdrawn from such a public life?

 

[Bella]

I wonder if we were having the same forum discussion but about Princess Diana, the same people condemning the Duchess would still be sitting on their high moral horses?

Diana wasn't viewed in the same way as Sarah for many reasons. As I've said before (when comparing the treatment/perception of Sarah and Diana), Diana's public persona was much more "agreeable" than was Sarah's. Again, Diana was quiet and elegant, she was physically more attractive and, perhaps most important, she was totally devoted to her sons. I feel people looked at Sarah as selfish and obnoxious. It was Me, Me, Me. When her children were small Sarah didn't fuss and hover over them in the way Diana did (and people loved Diana for showing open affection and adoration for her boys). There were probably just as many pictures of Pss. Beatrice & Eugenie with their nanny as there were pictures of them with Sarah. Sarah was always off on some "holiday" (often in the company of her 'financial advisor') while her daughters were left at home. Diana bucked the old royal regime by demanding her children accompany her on visits whenever they could. That says alot to many people. Also, Sarah hopped on the charity bandwagon later than Diana who was always out about something, AIDS being one of the big ones at the time - and that endeared her to alot of ppl as well. Sarah was seen more as the party girl. And I'm telling you, Diana was seen as the VICTIM in that whole cheating thing. She didn't cheat until AFTER Charles and, of course, she was DRIVEN to it by his consistent cheating (at least this is how it was perceived by many). Sarah's husband DID NOT CHEAT on her so she had no excuse for what she did (again this was public sentiment). So there are many reasons why Diana was not and will never be viewed in the same light as Sarah. I'm not saying I agree with them, but these are, IMO, some of the reasons.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I wonder if we were having the same forum discussion but about Princess Diana, the same people condemning the Duchess would still be sitting on their high moral horses?

You dont want to get me started on that one.

 

[Duchess]

while i agree that sarah certainly lacks the elegance and grace that are a requirement of the job, i find it funny that no one mentioned the fact the royal family knew her personality when her and andrew married. this is one reason why i'm on the side of "royals marrying other royals". it's easy to sit on the outside and say "this is what's expected of you when you marry into the windsors" but i'm sure there's lots of things that outsiders don't know. i like sarah's outgoing personality but it certainly did nothing to endear her to the people that could have helped her....then again diana's grace and elegance didn't help with those people either.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well, I think we're forgetting that apparantly Andrew loved Fergie and the Queen as a mother had to accept his choice just as she did with her other children. But I agree with you Duchess - it's a very very hard job and having good looks and decorum helps. But you can't beat breeding. Royals should marry other Royals - they know what's expected and what's required and it avoids upset. In saying that, we have Mary and Maxima who were commoners.

 

[Bella]

In saying that, we have Mary and Maxima who were commoners.

I know this isn't the correct thread, but I just have to comment: Mary consistently looks on the verge of a nervous breakdown, IMO. Something is not entirely right there.

As for the royal family knowing Sarah's personality, true - but I still say it was her responsibility to adhere to the protocol and regime of the royals. Most of it is common sense behavior. And while it's not fair to judge someone based on their looks/physical appearance, Sarah could have done more to "upgrade" herself a bit in terms of her dress style. Most importantly, though, she could have toned it down a bit, at least in public.

 

[iowabelle]

Initially, I think Sarah's personality was one of the reasons that the Windsors embraced her. I think the Queen Mother once remarked that Princess Michael was "much too grand for one of us", and Sarah lacked the quality of grandeur. (Diana, on the other hand, was very proud of her Spencer heritage, which some members of her family seemed to view as superior to that of the Windsors'.) Oddly enough, being average seems to have played to Sarah's detriment but to Sophie's advantage.

 

[BeatrixFan]

The Queen said of Princess Michael, "She's more Royal than any of us" but I think that MC's problem was her German heritage and her faith. Diana had the breeding but was temperamental so yes, I can see how Sarah would have been embraced at that time when there were alot of big characters in the Royal Family and I think Sophie was more "let's go for a quiet one". I think that Sarah just seemed to lack spark and more than that - she tried too hard. Philip apparantly liked Sarah and got on well with her but she soon became far too irritating because she wanted to impress too much. The problem is, how do you prepare for Royal life? Camilla has had alot of time to be around Royalty so she's more wise than say, Sarah was when she married into the family. Sarah had to take advice and she sadly chose the wrong people to take advice from.

 

[Roslyn]

Oddly enough, being average seems to have played to Sarah's detriment but to Sophie's advantage.

I'm not sure what you mean by "average" here, but Sarah and Sophie are two very different women. I can't imagine anyone calling Sophie loud and tacky, and, though I like Sarah, I have to admit that she is that way inclined.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Sophie isn't loud and tacky - but she was naive which went against her. I still haven't really taken to her.

 

[iowabelle]

I guess by "average" I meant not from a noble/grand family (like Diana's); not super-educated; not especially good-looking (like a model); not having lots of money (like Marie Chantal's family).

I do think Sophie is delicately pretty, and although Sarah can be good-looking, she really favors Major Ron too much to be pretty.

Maybe the difference between Sarah and Sophie is that Sarah has a really "big" personality, while Sophie is more quiet.

Another idea on the differences between them. I think that Sarah and Diana egged each other on (two needy people rebelling against the system), while Sarah was gone and Diana virtually out of the system when Sophie appeared.

 

[Duchess]

Sophie isn't loud and tacky - but she was naive which went against her. I still haven't really taken to her.

how do you mean "naive"?

 

[BeatrixFan]

That Sheik interview. I don't think I can quite get over her calling our dear Queen Mother, "the old woman".

 

[Roslyn]

That Sheik interview. I don't think I can quite get over her calling our dear Queen Mother, "the old woman".

That pales into insignificance when compared with "chief leper at the leper colony", which is how the delightful Diana referred to the Queen Mother at least once.

I'm not aware of Sarah speaking disparagingly about her grandmother-in-law.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Yes, isn't it nice how Diana respected her elders?How sweet and innocent that woman was eh?

 

[Elspeth]

I'm beginning to lose track of who this thread is about. We're not about to get into a Diana digression, I sincerely hope.

 

[Roslyn]

I guess by "average" I meant not from a noble/grand family (like Diana's); not super-educated; not especially good-looking (like a model); not having lots of money (like Marie Chantal's family).

I do think Sophie is delicately pretty, and although Sarah can be good-looking, she really favors Major Ron too much to be pretty.

Maybe the difference between Sarah and Sophie is that Sarah has a really "big" personality, while Sophie is more quiet.

Another idea on the differences between them. I think that Sarah and Diana egged each other on (two needy people rebelling against the system), while Sarah was gone and Diana virtually out of the system when Sophie appeared.

Thanks for explaining. Sophie was lucky not to be caught up in the Diana/Sarah problems. She had the benefit of her Prince being around all the time and not having the same obligations as his brothers.

This Sophie talk doesn't really belong here, I know, so I won't say any more.

 

[Roslyn]

I'm beginning to lose track of who this thread is about. We're not about to get into a Diana digression, I sincerely hope.

Oh no! Definitely not.

 

[ysbel]

Sarah may have found life as a royal difficult, so why does she try to trade on it now? Wouldn't the sensible thing have been to withdrawn from such a public life?

skydragon, that could be because she has a living to get and it sells better than anything else. She did trade on her royal connections because that's basically how she got back on her feet. Her family and the royal family was pushing her to do so and quite rightly so. I don't think the Queen would have held back custody of the children but if Sarah had been truly destitute, the Queen would have naturally been concerned about the girls in Sarah's care.

Sarah's family wasn't well off, Andrew didn't have a large income and she had enormous debts. I think she could have found a more decorous and respectable way to pay off her debts but with the amounts she owed, it would have taken much much longer and one has to wonder how her daughters would have fared.

I share your distaste for the loud and tacky and when Sarah was a royal, I thought she was the most inappropriate royal in the family. I cringed whenever I saw her and was glad to see her leave. Now she's not royal and she really isn't affecting the reputation and standing of the royal family in the hearts of the public. In fact, someone asked a British royal reporter whether Sarah's second financial crisis (mid 90s ?) made a damper on the royal family's reputation and he said, "No, because nobody sees her as royal anymore." Sarah stopped affecting the standing of the royal family soon after her split.

Oddly enough, although Sarah was the most inappropriate royal, ironically she is probably the most appropriate spokesperson for a Weight Watcher program. Look at the class and decorum of the other spokesperson for a weight program, Anna Nicole Smith, for TrimSpa!

In the market Sara's in - a professional spokesperson doing the American late night and talk show circuit - loud and over the top is exactly what the market wants - the louder the better. Oprah Winfrey, Rosie O'Donnell - these are all big over-the-top personalities and big personalities attract viewers and sell products.

Sarah has paid off her debts but I don't think she brimming with cash - I think this career is here to stay for awhile. But she's not hurting the Royal Family so I'm happy for her that she's making out and not in the royal family (that means not re-married to Andrew)

 

[Empress]

Well, I think we're forgetting that apparantly Andrew loved Fergie and the Queen as a mother had to accept his choice just as she did with her other children. But I agree with you Duchess - it's a very very hard job and having good looks and decorum helps. But you can't beat breeding. Royals should marry other Royals - they know what's expected and what's required and it avoids upset. In saying that, we have Mary and Maxima who were commoners.

We also have Letizia and Mette Marit, as well as Rania who are/ were "commoners". And in my humble opinion, every single one of them are doing a superbly outstanding job!

As for Marie-Chantal, well, she just has not grown on me. There is something about her that is just too much... Like she is trying far to hard to be royal, and is instead coming off a snobbish. But that is my opinion.

 

[love_cc]

I don't know the duchess well. However I believe that marrying the royal family is very difficult. It does not suit her and she failed. She certainly brought damage and embrassment to her husband and to the monarchy, but many other royals did as well. So I chose to forgive if not forget. Past is past. She is no more a royal family member and she should learn to how to behave at her age.