Sarah, Duchess of York Current Events 16: January-May 2011

[Mermaid1962]

He didn't think about HM and his family's reputation when he got involved with Epstein and went to the house in Florida that had the evidence of an unhealthy interest in young girls hanging on the walls. No, I don't think that HRH The Duke of York thinks about the consequences of his actions and how they affect the rest of his family, either his parents or his daughters.

He is fully committed to HM and his royal heritege, but has love and in his own way is equally committed to Sarah and their family.

 

[Irish Eyes]

He didn't think about HM and his family's reputation when he got involved with Epstein and went to the house in Florida that had the evidence of an unhealthy interest in young girls hanging on the walls. No, I don't think that HRH The Duke of York thinks about the consequences of his actions and how they affect the rest of his family, either his parents or his daughters.

I accept what your saying Mermaid1962.
I suppose what I was trying to say was that he will never give up his royal title and right to the thrown for Sarah, but equally he is not giving up on their family unit. After all these years he was still prepared to go to great lengths to help her rather than cut all ties. I just hope in the future he's not caught in the middle so much, and that the road isn't as rocky.

 

[sliver_bic]

I'm sensing a witch hunt mentality about Sarah again, and that always makes me feel uneasy.

I think her biggest mistake was making any sort of apology and saying she would give the money back. Did the money Epstein provided come from the proceeds of child prostitution or some similar activity? Unless it did, I see no reason why she should. The deal was brokered by Andrew, yet he is going to come through this OK. He is just as responsible for this, if not more so because he is the Queen's son, and he owes his daughters' welfare the same consideration as their mother, yet it is Sarah, once again, who is getting most of the criticism.

Epstein's been convicted of the crime and paid the penalty, as I understand it. The mere fact he has a hankering for underage teenagers, and acted on that hankering, does not, in my opinion, mean that Sarah should not have accepted the money. The two issues are completely separate, IMO.

It's call getting tarred with the same brush. It happens in all walks of life, you're taught to not hang out with certain kids cause of the mistakes of one member, someone is forced to resign a position because of a mistake unrelated to their work.

The fact that he was convicted of that kind of crime is why her taking the money is seen so badly. Drunk driving, perjury. even some violent crimes can be excused but crimes against minors, (teenagers not children but still easily influenced), especially a man being convicted of such crimes, is poisonous. It takes quite a long time to wash the smell off from that one. And with fresh allegations, the stench is worse than ever.

Once again, Sarah doesn't think, she simply saw her debts being erased for her and ran with it. A lot of people would've done it, granted but when you're that disliked, why are you being that stupid?

 

[Osipi]

Epstein's been convicted of the crime and paid the penalty, as I understand it. The mere fact he has a hankering for underage teenagers, and acted on that hankering, does not, in my opinion, mean that Sarah should not have accepted the money. The two issues are completely separate, IMO.

Perhaps Mr. Epstein has been convicted of a crime and has certain "leanings" in his personal life but we have to realize too that his profession is basically in financial matters I believe. Hedge funds and such? Sarah and Andrew both having anything to do with this man could solely be for professional reasons only. I'm sure that there were a lot of financial dealings going on with Michael Jackson and his music profession that had nothing whatsoever to do with any "alleged" crimes he was taken to court for too.

I have seen no allegations whatsoever that Andrew has been involved with anything other than business dealings with Mr. Epstein whether its been for the UKTI or personal. Sarah trusts Andrew completely and I don't believe she's done any wrong either in this matter.

 

[MRSJ]

In my opinion it's a question for each persons moral character. I for one would never take $ from someone convicted of a crime against a child, it would feel wrong to me... Maybe Sarah didn't know before (to give her benefit of doubt) and if she offered to return it (did she?) maybe that's because she felt bad (or because she got caught?) but my opinion is she just wanted debt paid and didn't bother to care where payment came from

Ps... When child molestation allegations first came out against Jackson he lost a lot of business contacts, and fans and was never as popular again, in fact he became a national joke and ot wasn't till he died that he was reinstated to icon status - and he was never found guilty of the charges....

 

[bethaliz6894]

this man did his time. there are plenty of people that do change and go on the straight and narrow. it is only money. i dont have a problem with him wanting to help sarah out. the only problem i would have is if he had her leave her underage daughters at his house while he bought her a month long vacation. that didnt happen.

Oral Roberts needed so much money or god would take his life, remember? he took 'blood money' that was obtained from gambling, therefore god saved his life because he got the money. my point being. green is green regardless of what field it comes from.

sarah needs to be given a break.

 

[RubyPrincess168]

3.8.11: After the heavy rains | New York Social Diary

The question unanswered in this mindless scandal is: what does Epstein’s pedophilia charges have to do with giving money to a friend, even if the friend is the Duke of York or the Duchess of York. If he weren’t an accused pedophile, would we care if it appeared that he was “buying” rich powerful friends? Probably not.

The British royals, especially the Queen’s immediate family, are in many ways isolated from the rest of us with all those rules that precede them; the bowing and curtsying, the ma’am-ing and sir-ing, laying out a field of pretense of regal superiority. But as it is with money, once the pretension becomes part of the lifestyle, it’s hard to shake, and no one really asks for justification. Instead it’s called tradition.

It’s not their fault. They don’t know any better. If Andrew’s mother weren’t the Queen Elizabeth II, if he were only an ordinary duke instead of a royal duke, he never would have had this trouble in the first place. He might have had a wife who always needed to be bailed out. And he might have more than a few friends that wanted to wine and dine and yacht and fly him. But he’d probably be regarded by many of his social peers and sycophants as a smart guy, forging relationships with financial hotshots like Jeffrey Epstein and political dictators’ sons – like Sakher El Materi, the son-in-law of deposed Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Until, of course, the Great Fall.


​

 

[FergieFan]

I guess the truth is that we don’t know for sure how involved Sarah herself was with giving the green light to Epstein’s offer to her to help her out, or if it was mainly or entirely dealt with by her people or Andrew’s people. We can’t expect her to have a detailed mental picture of every single financial measure that was arranged on her behalf to pay off her debts (especially as $25,000 amounts to a relatively small percentage of the overall debt).

So let’s lay this issue aside, and assume for the sake of argument the worst interpretation – that she knew the money came from him and gave it the green light. How do we then regard her decision?

For me, we need to take a sympathetic view of the situation in which Sarah found herself at that time. She was desperate. Her business interests in the US, which had been very successful for her in the past, had been wiped out due to the global financial crisis. Like so many people throughout the world, she was facing financial meltdown – the horror of ever-expanding debt and ever-decreasing income. As we know from her Oprah interview, she was in a “bad place”, in the “gutter”, drinking heavily and scared of the future. Then came the cash-for-access story. A result of her desperation – when people are under huge pressure, they often act wrongly and irrationally. And then a vicious witch hunt by the world’s media. Pressure mounts, unhappiness grows. And then Andrew, whom she still cares for so much (and he for her), offers her an escape – a chance to be debt-free, to put her misery behind her and look to the future...

This is the background and the context in which she (directly or indirectly) accepted Epstein’s money to help pay her debts. Put yourself in her shoes and feel some empathy. I can’t say I’d have necessarily turned it down – not under those circumstances.

 

[Jacknch]

This latest affair has been quite distasteful. I am sure there was once a time when people coming into close contact with the royal family were checked out beforehand to avoid awkward associations. I just hope that both Andrew and Sarah will consider more carefully who they choose as trade/business associates. The world of business can sometimes be abit "if you do something for me, I'll do something for you" and unless you work to a strict ethic code, you leave yourself open to scandel and alls orts of things.
I do hope things settle down for Sarah and after this situation, I really do not expect it to happen again. As I said before, Sarah needs to concentrate on a simpler life with limited business interests (like sticking just to story writing). As for Andrew, I do hope that he concentrates on using his ambassadorial skills in countries that are actually likely to benefit British trade. To me, that means avoiding potentially corrupt and dictatorial countries whose leaders care more about prestige than the good of their countries (sorry if that's abit political!).

 

[Russophile]

this man did his time. there are plenty of people that do change and go on the straight and narrow. it is only money. i dont have a problem with him wanting to help sarah out. the only problem i would have is if he had her leave her underage daughters at his house while he bought her a month long vacation. that didnt happen.

Give it time. It will happen. These type of people don't change--sad to say. I know this for a fact.

 

[NotAPretender]

this man did his time. there are plenty of people that do change and go on the straight and narrow.
sarah needs to be given a break.

Pedophilia has the highest rate of recidivism and re-offense of any major crime. Plenty? Wrong. Try "next to no chance of going straight and narrow."

sarah needs to be given a break.

Why? Seriously, why? For close on thirty years, she has be given nothing but breaks and second chances.

Someone else here called out for empathy. Empathy for someone who guzzles greedily at every consumable and leaves others to pay the bills? "Put yourself in her shoes," they cry. I don't run up debts I can't pay, and I don't get drunk and sell out my ex-husband. So I'm not about to put myself in the shoes of anyone who does so.

"Global financial meltdown" to most people meant lost jobs, savings depleted, becoming homeless, and reduction to poverty. For Sarah, it meant nothing at all - she's back partying in the Caribbean, skiing the slopes. So really, what kind of empathy should someone who has lost their home back to a bank and is putting her children on the school lunch program so that they have one decent meal a day, supposed to have for a person who gets a pedophile to pay off her debts and then goes partying around the globe?

Sorry....anyone who compares Sarah's self-inflicted woes to the millions whose lives have been completely wrecked by the global financial meltdown is simply not making a reasonable comparison. It's like comparing a fender bender to a ten-car pileup - Sarah's woes being the fender bender, of course.

I doubt that even Oprah Winfrey would want anything to do with her now. I'm really amazed at the level of justification being fronted for a child molester, but I know that even Oprah has limits.

 

[Princess BellyFlop]

I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of "forgiving" Sarah because due to her situation she was desperate. I believe that royal or not we should all assume the consequences of our actions. And I'm naively tempted to believe that Sarah is leaning on my side on this.

Sarah herself said what she did was stupid and will pay back (will she really do it is another question). Of course she can say that as another one of her childish attempt to manipulate the public opinion and get away with it one more time .

All teenagers have done that at one moment or another with their parents - telling them the exam was so but so difficult that when the results arrive the parents who were afraid of a total failure are happy with a less than usual results. But Sarah is no longer a teenager, isn't she?

 

[Polly]

Because attacks on Andrew and Sarah, particularly, continue, it is perhaps worthwhile reflecting on all criticism as to their lack of judgement about Epstein.

Jeffrey Epstein was/is a highly-regarded financial whizz, a self-made billionaire, whose influence, friendship and stock exchange knowledge has frequently been sought out by others - President Bill Clinton; former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak; New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; Donald Trump and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers; Al Gore; Kevin Spacey amongst other high-profile actors, Katie Couric, George Stephanopolous, etc. His friends also include a number of high profile footballers, and Rosa Monckton, close friend of Princess Diana. Epstein has been a serious and respected player in the highest reaches of politics, of both major political parties, and, hitherto, an admired philanthropist. Harvard University has stated that it won't be returning the $30m which Epstein gave them, nor Princeton, nor the many high-level scientific projects he sponsors.

Allegedly, Epstein escaped more serious charges which would have attracted a 20 year jail term, for reasons best known to the federal authorities and the Republican US Attorney-General at the time, Alberto Gonzales. It's been noted, as well, that Epstein's high-powered and expensive legal defence team included, amongst others, Ken Starr, who hounded and berated President Clinton for years about an alleged sexual liaison with Ms Lewinski.

Co-incidentally, and allegedly, at the time that even more damaging charges were to be laid against Epstein, a major hedge fund prosecution in which Epstein offered to give evidence was heating up. To the best of my knowledge, Epstein didn't give evidence and the charges against him were, allegedly, drastically reduced,i.e. federal charges were dropped.

There is much which can be said about this entirely sordid affair but this is not the place. Suffice it to say that, instead of continually gnawing at Sarah York's lack of judgement and probity, consider that she found herself in excellent company, much of which was more worldly-wise than she, and certainly much more intelligent.

As for the view expressed that her daughters must be ashamed of her - not so. They adore their mother and have frequently said so.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I have the impression that Sarah left her debts for Prince Andrew's office to sort out while she went off holidaying. It's like she didn't care where the money came from or who had to do without full payment. It would have been more honest to declare bankruptcy when she realized that her debts couldn't be paid. There have been so many people who have suffered because of the economic melt-down. Really suffered, as you say, NaP.

Sorry....anyone who compares Sarah's self-inflicted woes to the millions whose lives have been completely wrecked by the global financial meltdown is simply not making a reasonable comparison. It's like comparing a fender bender to a ten-car pileup - Sarah's woes being the fender bender, of course.

 

[MRSJ]

I have the impression that Sarah left her debts for Prince Andrew's office to sort out while she went off holidaying. It's like she didn't care where the money came from or who had to do without full payment. It would have been more honest to declare bankruptcy when she realized that her debts couldn't be paid. There have been so many people who have suffered because of the economic melt-down. Really suffered, as you say, NaP.

In the US if you declare bankruptcy you still have to pay off the debt (change to law), is it the same in England? Maybe she thought her finances would become public if she filed but you're right she would have been better off in light of this scandel, I think

 

[Polly]

Whatever the rights or wrongs of Sarah's actions now, all of her financial worries are and always have been predicated on the miserable treatment she received from the Palace at the time of her divorce. Her settlement of $15,000 pa (now $22,000 pa) was insulting and offensive to many. Advice to her at the time to not accept the offer and to contest it was unheeded by her as she said that she didn't want to cause 'more trouble' for Andrew. This was discussed in Parliament and is verifiable.

Sarah's behaviour whilst married, was justly questionable, I agree. However, she wasn't the only one who was behaving adulterously. One of the most disappointing things about the whole issue was the breathtaking hypocrisy which was directed at her. One of her greatest critics, the late Princess Margaret was splenetic in her attacks on the Duchess: Princess Margaret, of all people, who led, arguably, the most questionable life of all.

The reality is that the Duchess, who'd lived within the royal family for 10 years and in such a style, was virtually discarded, homeless and nearly penniless. She was the mother of the Queens only granddaughters, at the time, and many people found her treatment, and the apparent expectation that she jet a job at Tescos, little short of disgraceful. To me, it's always been a massive blot on the standards of decency and probity in the family, which I've always found painful and worrying.

I feel compelled to defend Sarah only in the light of unfair reporting about her in the trashy tabloids and the willingness of some to attack her on the basis of this tosh. Those who have little knowledge of her history in the royal family should not believe everything which is written about her today.

For instance, who really believes that her 'selling' her husband to an undercover journalist was her idea, and hers alone?

 

[rmay286]

I have the impression that Sarah left her debts for Prince Andrew's office to sort out while she went off holidaying. It's like she didn't care where the money came from or who had to do without full payment. It would have been more honest to declare bankruptcy when she realized that her debts couldn't be paid. There have been so many people who have suffered because of the economic melt-down. Really suffered, as you say, NaP.

I don't have a problem with Sarah leaving her debts to Prince Andrew's office, because I don't think she was capable of sorting them out herself. But I do agree that she went wrong in adamantly refusing to declare bankruptcy under any circumstances. It seems that in her eagerness to avoid bankruptcy, Sarah was willing to let anyone pay her debts for her, and was willing to pay her former employees a fraction of what she owed them. It has really backfired on her now. And she is just as indebted as she ever was, if Prince Andrew, Epstein, and her other "friends" have been paying her debts.

I have to say, though, that I sometimes think Sarah takes the fall for scandals while Andrew somehow gets away because he is a member of the royal family. If the Duke of York's office was taking care of her financial affairs, then even if Sarah knew what was going on, I think Prince Andrew should be held mostly responsible. It's just too coincidental that he was pictured with Epstein in December, and shortly thereafter, Epstein was reported to have paid 15,000 pounds to Sarah's former employee.

Anyhow, I think once again people are too hard on Sarah. To me, she just makes huge errors of judgment, but I think that comes from being naive and somewhat self-centred. I don't think she's the greedy villain some of you are portraying. And at least Sarah apologized (whether it was sincere or not). I notice Prince Andrew hasn't apologized at all for his friendship with Epstein, probably because he sees it as beneath him as a royal.

 

[rmay286]

For instance, who really believes that her 'selling' her husband to an undercover journalist was her idea, and hers alone?

You know, I still wonder about this--and I wonder if we will find out someday that Prince Andrew did "know" (or should have known, in much the same way as even though he didn't "know" Epstein was a pedophile, he should have guessed). The reason I say this is because when I have watched or read interviews with Prince Andrew, he sometimes comes across as confident to the point of arrogance about "the job he is doing for Britain." I remember Sarah saying in the NOW video that Andrew "meets all these amazing people" and then "sends them my way." Is it beyond the stretch of the imagination that Sarah came up with the idea to sell access to Andrew because Andrew often tells her how important he is and that he can drum up business for anyone she might send to him?

I remember that in her autobiography, Sarah says that she received immense criticism for allowing Hello! to do a photo spread of her family at Sunninghill--but she noted that Andrew never came in for the same criticism, even though he was in the pictures and obviously agreed to the photo shoot.

I do think there is a double standard--one for Sarah, and one for Andrew and other members of the royal family.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She was the mother of the Queens only granddaughters, at the time,

Zara was born in 1981 and was and is the eldest granddaughter of the Queen.

Beatrice wasn't born until 1988 and Eugenie 1990.

 

[NotAPretender]

Whatever the rights or wrongs of Sarah's actions now, all of her financial worries are and always have been predicated on the miserable treatment she received from the Palace at the time of her divorce.

Hogwash.

She has made literally millions since that time. Millions - pounds or dollars - trading on Brand Sarah which was entirely predicated on her former title. Since that title came from the Royal family - letting her keep it in any form was a pretty hefty financial gain; the Queen, as the font of all such, could very easily have stripped her even of the style normally accorded to the divorced wife of a peer. Having been a Royal duchess - and retaining the style of 'Duchess of York' - was a very lucrative outcome for her. Who would buy anything from a mere Sarah Ferguson? But Duchess of York - that sells: and sell that, over and over and over again, Sarah did.

Restated very simply: remaining (or retaining) "Duchess of York" was a financial bonanza for the former Sarah Ferguson, that paid dividends for decades. That was her settlement.

So her financial worries are not because of what she didn't get - it's because of what she spent. And spent. "All" of her woes due to that settlement? Hogwash. Pure hogwash. Millions have passed through her hands, into an endless void.

So now she scrapes not even the bottom of the barrel, but down into the bottom wood of the vessel itself.

Oh, Andrew's right there in it; I'm not excusing him for any of this. He was up to his now-jowly neck in all of this and every step of the way for the past twenty-odd years.

Hell, I even have one of her books, when I was going through Weight Watchers. I paid retail, so I supported her.

Now? I can't even find a solution for her as I attempted to do under the Cash for Access.

Seriously - I wonder what the Duke of E has to say about all of this.

 

[NotAPretender]

....

She was the mother of the Queens only granddaughters, at the time, and many people found her treatment....

Those who have little knowledge of her history in the royal family should not believe everything which is written about her today.

Perhaps her history has been revised, then, because Zara Phillips would take issue with you erasing her from the "history in the royal family."

 

[Mermaid1962]

Does the person have to pay the entire debt, or a portion of it in the US? It's a portion here, but the person of course loses their credit rating until they pay off what the creditors have agreed on.

In the US if you declare bankruptcy you still have to pay off the debt (change to law), is it the same in England? Maybe she thought her finances would become public if she filed but you're right she would have been better off in light of this scandel, I think

 

[Mermaid1962]

She was given money to buy a house for herself and her daughters. She needn't have got a job at Tesco's, because she had worked in the publishing field before her marriage and also had marketable office skills. She took a secretarial course before that, which is what many, many women have used over the years to get a foothold in the business world. She could have gone back into the publishing industry. Her name was valuable, given the jobs that were given to her and the way that she must have attracted investors to her various business ideas. Woman, ordinary women, have been successful with much less. But when people want "champagne on a beer budget", debt is what happens.

The reality is that the Duchess, who'd lived within the royal family for 10 years and in such a style, was virtually discarded, homeless and nearly penniless.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She was given money to buy a house for herself and her daughters.

Money was set aside for her to buy a house but as no house has been bought the money has never been given - it could still be given of course, but so far it hasn't been as it was earmarked for a house and Sarah has never found a suitable residence.

She was given a paltry settlement as it consisted of about 15,000 pounds a year, two trust funds for the girls (not for her) and the money to buy a house when a house was bought - effectively she got 15,000 pounds a year and nothing more. The rest either has never been given or is for the girls but not for her. The total amount was about 3 million pounds with the bulk of that for the girls and for the house.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Wow. That's less than $30,000 a year, American - right? That would never, ever happen in the Blue States of America. How long were they married? Of course, perhaps she settled for what they offered (that's the decent thing to do).

I know people in California who get temporary payments for palimony that fund their expensive attorney so they can get way more.

 

[MRSJ]

Wow. That's less than $30,000 a year, American - right? That would never, ever happen in the Blue States of America. How long were they married? Of course, perhaps she settled for what they offered (that's the decent thing to do).

I know people in California who get temporary payments for palimony that fund their expensive attorney so they can get way more.

She told Oprah she settled for less in order to mantain a good relationship with the RF (which means she didn't wanna fight)

 

[MRSJ]

Does the person have to pay the entire debt, or a portion of it in the US? It's a portion here, but the person of course loses their credit rating until they pay off what the creditors have agreed on.

It stays on your credit rating ten years so even after you've repaid it's still on there, I believe they make agreements for portion owed but depends on case- attorneys get paid first

 

[Iluvbertie]

Wow. That's less than $30,000 a year, American - right? That would never, ever happen in the Blue States of America. How long were they married? Of course, perhaps she settled for what they offered (that's the decent thing to do).

I know people in California who get temporary payments for palimony that fund their expensive attorney so they can get way more.

It was based on Andrew's naval pay at the time - not potential inheritance from his mother and grandmother.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Nothing suitable? I wonder what that means, exactly? I'd think that, in a place with as many buildings as the London area has, that she'd be able to find something.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I see. Thanks, Mrs.J.

It stays on your credit rating ten years so even after you've repaid it's still on there, I believe they make agreements for portion owed but depends on case- attorneys get paid first