What is your opinion about Sarah, Duchess of York?

[princess olga]

But Sarah didn't live up to the expected behavior, dignity, discretion or decorum of being a royal so why is protocol and addressing a royal properly suddenly so important to her? We know why. Because she holds on to her RF connections through Andrew and her daughters for dear life. She continues her social climbing that started when she married Andrew.

well, in all fairness to Sarah, she after all got the title of Duchess of York for life, didn't she. Correct me if that's wrong. If it isn't, she has all the right in the world to go and flaunt that stupid title, doesn't she.

 

[princess olga]

I have a question. Forgive my ignorance on this one, but I just to this day don't get why she racked up so many debts during her marriage. Didn't she get a reasonable allowance of some sort? What on the planet did she (over)spend it on?! Didn't she have everything she needed in Buckingham Palace where she and Andrew had a condo?! Again, how did she manage to reck up millions of debt? How much was it anyway? And what happened with her 'second financial crisis' some of you are alluding to? how come she got into trouble again? She doesn't have a gambling habit or anything of the sort, does she?

 

[Tzu An]

I have a question. Forgive my ignorance on this one, but I just to this day don't get why she racked up so many debts during her marriage. Didn't she get a reasonable allowance of some sort? What on the planet did she (over)spend it on?! Didn't she have everything she needed in Buckingham Palace where she and Andrew had a condo?! Again, how did she manage to reck up millions of debt? How much was it anyway? And what happened with her 'second financial crisis' some of you are alluding to? how come she got into trouble again? She doesn't have a gambling habit or anything of the sort, does she?

From what I've read, she's never been able to control her appetites. She just couldn't/can't control her whims and desires. Again, a case of no self dicipline. She had regular shopping sprees in New York, not to mention in London itself.

As for her recent behavior, yes, I think she should start acting her age, but I doubt she will. She's dragging her kids to parties that are somewhat unsafe due to the people there (rap artists, other such), etc. and can't seem to comprehend the fact that she's almost what, sixty? The reason I think the royals are justified in exiling Fergie is because of the sheer reckless disregard for what was expected of her. It isn't asking for too much for her to behave in a dignified manner and remain aware of what is expected and rising to the occasion.

As for residency, well, they had apartments at Buckingham Palace, then their home Southyork, plus other places I'm sure. The allowance was mainly for spending money I think, but Fergie wanted out of season foods, extravagent clothing and jewels, which were at times too expensive. Plus she shamelessly abused her position as Duchess of York, blatantly requesting designers to send her free clothes and shoes.

What burns me is that it is up to the younger generation to clean up the mess the older generation has made. Fergie and Diana cheapened the titles that were bestowed upon them at marriage and had lots of fun, but in the end their kids are the ones paying the tab. Please don't start about Charles, I'm tired of people acting as if he's the only one who caused all the problems. In the end I am not a Fergie fan.

 

[Bella]

and can't seem to comprehend the fact that she's almost what, sixty?

She may look almost 60 (with all her nips and tucks) but she's not even 50 yet. Poor thing.

 

[Laviollette]

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...

Princess Mary hardly looks like she is "on the verge of a nervous breakdown." She has restored my faith in princesses and the standards of behavior they should represent while still being a princess of the people. She has not cheapened her title in any way. She is insanely popular in Denmark. Now, back to Sarah.

 

[Skydragon]

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.

Many women are able to earn themselves a decent amount, without having to constantly remind people that they were married into such and such a family. I think what annoys me about her, apart from anything else, is her need to remind people, in the hope that they will treat her as something special, which of course she is not. Neither Sarah or the children were ever going to be destitute, Andrew still paid the girls upkeep and school fees and I didn't notice Sarah going without new clothing, makeup or food.

 

[Skydragon]

As for residency, well, they had apartments at Buckingham Palace, then their home Southyork, plus other places I'm sure. .

It's called Sunninghill and it's in Berkshire, it was of course nicknamed Southyork after the house in Dallas.

Here is a small article on her debts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/02/27/nduch27.html

 

[Elspeth]

As for her recent behavior, yes, I think she should start acting her age, but I doubt she will. She's dragging her kids to parties that are somewhat unsafe due to the people there (rap artists, other such), etc. and can't seem to comprehend the fact that she's almost what, sixty? The reason I think the royals are justified in exiling Fergie is because of the sheer reckless disregard for what was expected of her. It isn't asking for too much for her to behave in a dignified manner and remain aware of what is expected and rising to the occasion.

As for residency, well, they had apartments at Buckingham Palace, then their home Southyork, plus other places I'm sure. The allowance was mainly for spending money I think, but Fergie wanted out of season foods, extravagent clothing and jewels, which were at times too expensive. Plus she shamelessly abused her position as Duchess of York, blatantly requesting designers to send her free clothes and shoes.

I realise you don't like her, but there's no need to start playing fast and loose with facts. She was born in 1959, which means she's in her mid-forties, and her marital home is called Sunninghill Park, not Southyork, which is a media invention.

 

[ysbel]

Many women are able to earn themselves a decent amount, without having to constantly remind people that they were married into such and such a family. I think what annoys me about her, apart from anything else, is her need to remind people, in the hope that they will treat her as something special, which of course she is not. Neither Sarah or the children were ever going to be destitute, Andrew still paid the girls upkeep and school fees and I didn't notice Sarah going without new clothing, makeup or food.

I'm afraid I could easily see Sarah ending up destitute after the Queen refused to bail her out the last time. The girls would have been taken care of but Sarah, I just don't see the Queen or her family helping her out if she didn't get her financial house in order.

Playing a little devil's advocate here, if I may, skydragon, I think perhaps, you are very knowledgeable about the royal family and behavior of the British upper classes but the area of commecial endorsement in America, is a totally different world with different forms of expected behavior.

Commercial endorsement a time-worn way for a public figure to get back on one's financial feet and yes, of course, one is expected to trade on connections, or to play up whatever reason the public would have to be interested. With Sarah it was her association with the royal family. Its probably why Weight Watchers hired her; I don't think they would have liked it if she had refused to let them use her royal associations in their campaign.

Again, playing a little devil's advocate, you may well think that Sarah is nothing special, but she's getting on David Letterman and getting on the cover of Ladies Home Journal so quite a few people must think she's special or these people and organizations wouldn't give her the time of day. These people are in a business and they are not going to put her on their cover or put them on their TV show if they don't think she will attract interest. Its true that Sarah would not get this attention without her connections to royalty, but in this world, people don't care.

Sarah is not royal any more and she lives in a different world now with different expectations. If she was too loud and boisterous to be a royal when she was a royal, I think it was a little unrealistic to expect her to tone it down when she was no longer royal. Actually I see Sarah as a better fit in her current line of work than she was when she was a royal. The prim and proper way, I fear, was never going to be Sarah's way. To be honest, in her current area of business, she has had success and she has lasted a lot longer than other celebrity spokespersons.

Perhaps, as a member of the British upper classes you are most annoyed with her for betraying her own people, the British upper class and betraying the strictures and morals that the class represents? I come from a class-based upbringing in the American South but no doubt, its quite different from yours. But Southerners too react with horror when they perceive that one of their own has betrayed them.

I hope you don't take offense, skydragon because with my background, I can totally understand your aversion to Sarah because part of me totally recoils to anything that is attention-seeking, loud, brazen, or (as the Germans would say) unvershaemt (shameless).

On the other hand, now that I'm in New York and working with people in sales, marketing, media, and public relations, I am beginning to see how the other side lives so to speak and it definitely lives under the equally-held belief that the world is so saturated with images, soundbites, news and information that unless a person is loud, unique and forceful, that person won't be seen. In other words, bad attention is better than no attention.

Its a curious (and to me a foreign) way of living but one of my dear friends definitely comes from this world. She has a heart of gold but she embarasses me every time we go out. She, like me, grew up in the socially conscious and very strict Southern society and while it didn't bother me, it just about killed her and she couldn't wait to get out of it. It wasn't until I met her that I realized that there were some people whose personality was so big that a refined and conservative environment would kill them.

 

[Princess BellyFlop]

Playing a little devil's advocate here, if I may, skydragon, I think perhaps, you are very knowledgeable about the royal family and behavior of the British upper classes but the area of commecial endorsement in America, is a totally different world with different forms of expected behavior.

Perhaps, as a member of the British upper classes you are most annoyed with her for betraying her own people, the British upper class and betraying the strictures and morals that the class represents? I come from a class-based upbringing in the American South but no doubt, its quite different from yours. But Southerners too react with horror when they perceive that one of their own has betrayed them.

I certainly understand that the area of commercial endorsement in America is a totally different world with different forms of expected behavior. A also understand that a member of the BRF SHOULD NOT display those kind of behavior.

No need to be a member of the British upper class to be annoyed by Sarah's activities. I'm just a middle-class Canadian and I'm upset to watch her degrade the royal family of my country.

 

[Elspeth]

She isn't a member of the Royal Family any more, though.

 

[servingsophie]

Again, playing a little devil's advocate, you may well think that Sarah is nothing special, but she's getting on David Letterman and getting on the cover of Ladies Home Journal...

Thank you Ysbel! At last someone who shows some common sense and sensitivity to the argument!

 

[Skydragon]

Sorry ysbel, destitute to me speaks of the unfortunate souls who cannot even afford a bedsit, (a room in a house that is the bedroom and living room, sharing a bathroom and kitchen with several others), who cannot afford food, clothes, botox or anything else. This was never going to happen to Sarah, she may have had to suffer the indignity of 'cutting down' but, she would never have been destitute. The royal family or her own family would, IMO, have helped her out with accomodation and a small allowance, but she would have been expected to work at paying everyone she owed. The times I have heard someone say they have absolutely no money, only to find that is because the balance in their current account has fallen below £15,000 and they may have to take some money from their saving accounts!

I don't have any problem with her working. We all know of 'celebrities' and their commercial ventures and endorsements and we all except that. Just using the title DoY would have got her work, it's her perception that she has to remind people of who she was and what she once had. Her need to introduce herself as the DoY rather than Sarah. You can always spot a faded or failing star when they have to remind you of what they actually did.

I don't think people especially think she is something special, they want her in the hope that she will let slip some little snippet, a piece of gossip, something she has heard from her daughters. That by associating themselves with her, it will bring them kudos. If she was 'special' surely she wouldn't need to keep reminding people of her 'royal' past.

I am in some ways 'old fashioned', I listen to the quiet person, who holds your attention with that indefinable something, I buy from the person with a quiet, but absolute confidence in the product they are selling. Unique, yes, loud and aggressive, no.

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.

 

[sashajones]

I always thought that Sarah was some what a free spirit, full of fun, and one that really enjoyed life. Yes, she may have fallen from grace, but she is human. I kinda like her.

 

[Australian]

I always thought that Sarah was some what a free spirit, full of fun, and one that really enjoyed life. Yes, she may have fallen from grace, but she is human. I kinda like her.

I agree with you. I like her too, ok, she has made mistakes but who hasn't? It must be very hard to be a member of the Royal Family. I like the fact that she was always true to herself and did not change her 'out there' personality just to please the family. What you saw was what you got and I liked it.

Although, I don't like the idea of her encouraging her daughters to attend parties hosted by P Diddy etc. I love parties, don't get me wrong, its just that those sort of parties are not the sort of parties I thought parents would encourage their kids to attend.

But apart from that, it's thumbs up for Sarah from me

 

[Skydragon]

Although, I don't like the idea of her encouraging her daughters to attend parties hosted by P Diddy etc. I love parties, don't get me wrong, its just that those sort of parties are not the sort of parties I thought parents would encourage their kids to attend.

Oh, I love parties and I think the girls should be encouraged to go out and enjoy themselves at parties suitable for their age, but not with their mother. What is suitable for a woman of her age to attend, is not normally suitable for her daughters!

 

[Alexandria]

She isn't a member of the Royal Family any more, though.

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.

 

[ysbel]

Sorry ysbel,

No need to apologize skydragon, I know what you mean about the relativity of destitute - the owners of the Biltmore near where I used to live (its the largest private house in the US) were reported to be so destitute that they had to shut down Biltmore. We later found out that their assets were down to $1 million. I could do a lot with a million dollars.

I do know of people from well-to-do and well-educated families who ended up homeless because they had so many problems the families couldn't deal with them and basically cut their ties. I don't think something that drastic would have happened to Sarah but she was out of control, much more than she is now, so if she hadn't gotten her life in gear, it would have been understandable if the families had cut their ties and taken custody of her daughters away. At the time, I was actually very surprised that they didn't. When Sarah lost her jewels in an airport, that act seemed so careless that she didn't seem to be responsible enough to handle children.

I don't think people especially think she is something special, they want her in the hope that she will let slip some little snippet, a piece of gossip, something she has heard from her daughters. That by associating themselves with her, it will bring them kudos.

I understand that a lot of Sarah herself isn't that special. However, for a lot of people what makes someone special is the fact that by associating yourself with them, it will bring you kudos or some sort of inside scoop. In certain circles, it would be said that the Duchess provides value for that fact alone.

Mind you, I'm not trying to convince you that this is the right way, I don't even believe it myself. Only to open the discussion to another way of thinking and the possibility that the society that Sarah is inhabiting now is one for which her temperament is well-suited.

it's her perception that she has to remind people of who she was and what she once had.

Yes, I understand what you mean. My one complaint with Sarah (and to a lesser extent Andrew) is that they're just not moving on. Its been 10 years since they've divorced and they seem still joined at the hip. I wouldn't even mind if she talked about Andrew and her daughters. I understand that they still have a lot of fondness for each other. But the idea that she is still hanging onto the hope of an invitation from Buckingham Palace for this or that, and Andrew working behind the scenes to get her invited makes me want to tell both of them to get over it. It didn't work out and they should get their own lives in gear.

I am in some ways 'old fashioned', I listen to the quiet person, who holds your attention with that indefinable something, I buy from the person with a quiet, but absolute confidence in the product they are selling. Unique, yes, loud and aggressive, no.

I don't think that's old-fashioned, skydragon, just temperament. Some people I think are prone to respond more favorably to quiet confidence and others are more prone to respond to excitement and drama. I'm not that old and I still prefer a more reserved atmosphere whereas, people old enough to be my parents respond more to the excitement. They complain that the quiet confident person is cold and lacks warmth. (Incidentally, that was the very complaint Diana had about the royal family, I could see warmth and caring among the family members, but apparently she couldn't. I suspect the volume was too low for her)

I do think though lately the pendulum has shifted towards more excitement and drama at the expense of self-respect. In America, the sports world has been fixated on a football player who has self-destructed with two teams already for getting into loud conflicts and drawing undue attention to himself. He's on his third team now, and justed OD on painkillers. The press is eating it up even though the situation is dangerous to the player and distracting to the team. Actually its pretty sad and I think the same way that I thought about Sarah when she was married to the royal family - was that this guy has got to get away from it.

 

[ysbel]

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.

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.

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)

 

[Zonk]

Yes, I understand what you mean. My one complaint with Sarah (and to a lesser extent Andrew) is that they're just not moving on. Its been 10 years since they've divorced and they seem still joined at the hip. I wouldn't even mind if she talked about Andrew and her daughters. I understand that they still have a lot of fondness for each other. But the idea that she is still hanging onto the hope of an invitation from Buckingham Palace for this or that, and Andrew working behind the scenes to get her invited makes me want to tell both of them to get over it. It didn't work out and they should get their own lives in gear.

While I do like Sarah, I admit that everyone has stated very valid points on their issues with Sarah BUT I am going to have to respectfully disagree with some of the above.

Yes its admirable and very wise that they have managed to remain a cordial relationship and have shared in the raising of their daughters. Too many divorced couples upon divorcing their spouse take it upon themselves to divorce themselves from any relationship with their children.

If it was one or the other who was NOT moving on and in essence hindering the other (Sarah or Andrew) from having another relationship then I would agree. As we all know both Sarah and Andrew have had relationships since they divorced but always come back together. But it appears that both of them having problems moving on but the better question is WHY SHOULD THEY?

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. In the perfect world, he should be able to have the same relationship with Sarah that Charles and Camilla had prior to their marriage. Accepted as an official companion and not part of the royal world.

 

[Alexandria]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.