Sarah, Duchess of York Current Events 7: December 2006-February 2007

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Avalon

FERGIE SAYS 'QUEEN' MOVIE LED TO SENSE OF REMORSE

The Duchess of York has revealed how watching Helen Mirren in the acclaimed movie The Queen led to a feeling of regret over her behaviour in the wake of her split from husband Prince Andrew, and concern that she had hurt her former mother-in-law.

Is it really possible that it was not until she saw the film that it occurred to her that she might have hurt the Queen, betrayed people and let down the monarchy?

[Zonk]

Sarah has in the past expressed regret that she let the Queen down. I think these comments have reappeared as she was asked what she thought of the movie, The Queen.

[Warren]

The Hello! story is slightly ambiguous in the first paragraph, but the timing is made clear in the third:

The 47-year-old admitted that after her divorce from Andrew she felt she had "betrayed everybody and let down the monarchy".

Her view on HM:
"The Queen is one of the finest ladies I've ever met in my life. I'm so honoured to be able to say we are friends. I love her. She's given up her whole life to her country. She's a great lady and a wonderful grandmother."

[Duchess]

i think it's wonderful that they still consider themselves a family and that they can live together when sarah is in London. i'm sure it's been a source of strength for the girls. this relationship is one of those very rare examples of love no matter what happens. i'll bet that the "suits" really hate it that sarah and andrew have stuck together through all this.

[Skydragon]

Tacky....

Andrew to date.... Do you fancy coming back to mine for a coffee
Date.... Oh, that would be lovely, but isn't Sarah staying again this week
Andrew... Don't worry she won't mind!



Stay friends - wonderful, stay close - lovely for the children, allow your ex wife to come and live with you, as a couple, when she is in the UK, (at the taxpayers expense, I might add) tacky and wrong.

If he want's to live with the woman, then get married again instead of this pretence at being 'a family'. Does being a 'family' and living in this way, mean they can both have as many sexual partners as they want, without any repercussions?

[Zonk]

What do you mean by repercussions? They are both free (not committed to anyone else from what we can see) and over the legal age of consent. Whatever their relationship is, it works for them. Her continued presence in Andrew's life seems to be a mutual thing.

And in reference to the taxpayers, I believe you said it best. The British Taxpayers never have much say in who they pay for within the royal family or after they leave it.

[Skydragon]

repercussions - you really can't see what lesson it teaches young married men and women. Oh it's OK for us to sleep together, even though we are divorced because a member of the royal family does it, (we will say sorry to your new partner later).

Andrew and Sarah can have as many sexual partners as they want without having to bother about making a commitment, what message do you think it sends? The damage it is doing to the repair of the royals reputation. Sarah was never very popular, especially after she was seen with her lover in the swimming pool, in the UK, IMO, now she is making Andrew an even bigger laughing stock.

You have seen the complaints about Catherine taking taxpayers money, how do you think it would be seen, if news slows down further and one of the papers runs the story of Sarah sponging off of the UK, again.

[Zonk]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

repercussions - you really can't see what lesson it teaches young married men and women. Oh it's OK for us to sleep together, even though we are divorced because a member of the royal family does it, (we will say sorry to your new partner later).

Andrew and Sarah can have as many sexual partners as they want without having to bother about making a commitment, what message do you think it sends? The damage it is doing to the repair of the royals reputation. Sarah was never very popular, especially after she was seen with her lover in the swimming pool, in the UK, IMO, now she is making Andrew an even bigger laughing stock.

You have seen the complaints about Catherine taking taxpayers money, how do you think it would be seen, if news slows down further and one of the papers runs the story of Sarah sponging off of the UK, again.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But based upon what young people (both married and unmarried) see on television and read in the news...I am sure Sarah and Andrew's "relationship" is not going to be the deciding factor in how people decide to act.

I don't have access to the full British media, so I don't know if Andrew is or is not considered a laughing stock by the British public for continuing to support Sarah. But from what I can see 1) it doesn't matter to Andrew what anyone thinks about his relationship and 2) I don't think the British media thinks about Sarah at all. In reference to one of the papers reporting that Sarah is sponging off the UK, it doesn't really matter. She is always going to get bad press , some of deserved and some of undeserved IMO.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Zonk

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But based upon what young people (both married and unmarried) see on television and read in the news...I am sure Sarah and Andrew's "relationship" is not going to be the deciding factor in how people decide to act.

I don't have access to the full British media, so I don't know if Andrew is or is not considered a laughing stock by the British public for continuing to support Sarah.

Most of the young people I know, know that what they see on the tv is just acting and not a basis on how to live their lives. They also don't see actors as 'real' or (as they put it) 'of this earth or fullers'! They do comment on the successful second marriage of Charles, the relief that they are not in the same boat as Catherine and that TS is still 'milking him', poor sap'.
She earns enough I would have thought to support herself, then again, she never could handle money and spend less than she or he earned!

[Sereta]

It sounds like a "disposable" relationship. It only stands when it's "convenient" for them, and then they go off and date other people.
I'm more concerned about the confusing message it must be sending their own daughters. No wonder Eugenie always seems to have a perplexed/unhappy look on her face. I wonder if she's a very sensitive person.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Sereta

It sounds like a "disposable" relationship.

"Disposable"?? Anything which has endured in one form or another for over 20 years can hardly be dismissed as "disposable"!

[Sereta]

Originally Posted by Warren

"Disposable"?? Anything which has endured in one form or another for over 20 years can hardly be dismissed as "disposable"!

Well, when people only live together as a couple when they feel like it and still date other people, then yes to me that sounds like a disposable relationship. Not much of a commitment. It sounds dysfuntional to say the least.

[Avareenah]

I agree with Sereta and, personally, I don't think their relationship is all that wonderful for their children, contrary to popular opinion. What does it teach them about the serious commitment of marriage when their parents divorce but simply carry on as before? I don't understand how divorced couples can still be "good friends". If that's the case, there should be no need for them to divorce in the first place. Obviously, a cordial relationship is necessary where children are involved but anything more is...strange...in my opinion.

Sarah couldn't handle the self-control needed for royal life - that's why she divorced Andrew who, to his credit, has stuck by her thick and thin.

They both see other people, though apparently sometimes live as a "married" couple.

I don't see that as positive for the young princesses at all.

[Zonk]

I love it how everyone automatically assumes that they are sleeping together. Because a man and a woman just can't be friends, even after a marriage and two kids.

[Avareenah]

Just friends, living together in the same house? Don't think so!

[Warren]

Yes, remaining on good terms with one's ex is regarded by some of our members as "dysfunctional" and setting a bad example for the children. An acrimonious splitup is apparently the preferred and better option for all concerned.

[Skydragon]

Nobody has said it has to be an acrimonious divorce, nobody is suggesting that they can't remain friends. It does send out the wrong signals, it is telling the world and the daughters, that Sarah can have her cake and eat it!
If Andrew had another partner and Sarah was allowed to stay by that partner, that is one thing. For Andrew and Sarah to be living as a couple, whatever it involves, is tacky and wrong.

"new partners often don’t understand their close relationship. She said: “If we have boy and girlfriends it does have an effect."

Oh, how surprising!

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Do not forget that Andrew professes to belong to the Church of England. This relationship as described by them is not right in the eyes of the church, and there is where I have my beef. (I would be glad to elaborate on that, but please PT me if you wish to discuss the point- otherwise, this thread will turn into a heated religous discussion that has no prayer of staying on topic!)

[sophie25]

Actually the Church of England is one institution that wouldn't have a problem with them sleeping together because in the eyes of the Church they are still married. Like the Catholic Church it dosn't recognise divorce and a marriage can only be dissolved on the death of one or both partners. That's why Camilla and Charles could only get a blessing but not re-married because in the eyes of the Church Andrew Parker-Bowles is still her husband.

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Yes- but that's what makes it so their relationships are wrong in the eyes of the church, that and other things.