The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f113/)
-   -   Options for Sarah to recover from the 'Cash for Access' scandal (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f113/options-for-sarah-to-recover-from-the-cash-for-access-scandal-28208.html)

wbenson 07-12-2010 12:50 AM

Options for Sarah to recover from the 'Cash for Access' scandal
 
Now the Queen steps in to bail out 'bankrupt' Fergie | Mail Online

The Queen is being forced to pay to turn the Duchess of York’s life around, saving her from bankruptcy.

Sarah is almost £2million in debt after a series of disastrous business deals and is being sued by a firm of solicitors for more than £200,000.

Now her former husband Prince Andrew has ordered his private office at Buckingham Palace - which is financed by £249,000 a year from the Queen’s own pocket - to sort out her financial difficulties and cut her spending.

Mermaid1962 07-12-2010 02:16 AM

I think that HM and Prince Andrew have made a shrewd move. Someone needs to control Sarah, because she seemingly can't control herself. I wonder whether the Duke of York feels some residual guilt over not being able to be around for Sarah in the early years of their marriage?:ermm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson (Post 1110001)


Lighthouse 07-12-2010 03:24 AM

Why treat faithful staff like that?

Iluvbertie 07-12-2010 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lighthouse (Post 1110035)
Why treat faithful staff like that?


If you are virtually bankrupt you have to sack the staff no matter how faithful they have been. She has no choice.

Lumutqueen 07-12-2010 05:21 AM

I can't believe the Queen is bailing out Sarah, she shouldn't have to do that.

Mermaid1962 07-12-2010 05:33 AM

I don't think that she necessarily "has to", but the alternative is the embarrassing situation of her former daughter-in-law facing bankruptcy court and making goodness-knows-what sorts of business contracts to pull herself out of debt. Given Sarah's propensity for giving tactless interviews and showing a lack of judgement in how she conducts herself, perhaps she has had to give assurances about her behaviour in exchange for this help.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1110057)
I can't believe the Queen is bailing out Sarah, she shouldn't have to do that.


Lumutqueen 07-12-2010 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 1110062)
I don't think that she necessarily "has to", but the alternative is the embarrassing situation of her former daughter-in-law facing bankruptcy court and making goodness-knows-what sorts of business contracts to pull herself out of debt. Given Sarah's propensity for giving tactless interviews and showing a lack of judgement in how she conducts herself, perhaps she has had to give assurances about her behaviour in exchange for this help.

Sarah should go through what a normal person should go through, if they found themselves in this situation.
The Queen should not bail her out.

Iluvbertie 07-12-2010 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1110081)
Sarah should go through what a normal person should go through, if they found themselves in this situation.
The Queen should not bail her out.


The Queen is a very wealth woman. Sarah is the mother of her grandchildren and the effective de facto wife of her second beloved son. As a loving mother and grandmother she may very well feel that she can assist someone whom her son and granddaughters love rather than see them embarassed and hurt.

Lumutqueen 07-12-2010 07:35 AM

And? Just because she is a wealthy woman, doesn't mean she has to give handouts to people who are very careless with the money they do have.
Sarah is a grown woman and should not have to go to her ex mother-in-law for a handout when she gets into trouble.
Using the "i'm the mother of your grandkids" excuse is ridiculous in my opinion.

tommy1716 07-12-2010 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlottestreasures (Post 1109980)
"......Zenouska Mowatt are also believed to be among the assistants she has lost. "

Did anyone happen to catch this in the article about Sarah's staff being
dismissed.

This is Princess Alexandra's granddaughter.


I wondered about this to but then read in a newspaper colum in the daily mail or telegraph that there was "surprise" at this too. Apprently Zenouska did help Sarah out once or twice a while back when other staff fell ill but she didn't work for Sarah she was just helping out so she hasn't been "let go" or anything. I will try and find the article.


Just found article https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...deal-Slim.html its near the bottom of the page:

Considering her only employment for the Duchess of York consisted of some work experience, Princess Alexandra’s granddaughter Zenouska Mowatt, 20, was rather miffed to find herself on a list of *Fergie’s sacked staff.
‘To say we’re bemused is a bit of an understatement,’ says Zen’s father, photographer Paul Mowatt.

Zonk 07-12-2010 09:43 AM

Gotta love the Dailymail...neglected to say that Zenouska is no longer affiliated with the Duchess.

Just the facts....

Iluvbertie 07-12-2010 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1110095)
And? Just because she is a wealthy woman, doesn't mean she has to give handouts to people who are very careless with the money they do have.
Sarah is a grown woman and should not have to go to her ex mother-in-law for a handout when she gets into trouble.
Using the "i'm the mother of your grandkids" excuse is ridiculous in my opinion.


And your proof that Sarah is doing that rather than that the Queen offering to help the de facto wife of her son is...?

wymanda 07-12-2010 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 1110021)
I think that HM and Prince Andrew have made a shrewd move. Someone needs to control Sarah, because she seemingly can't control herself. I wonder whether the Duke of York feels some residual guilt over not being able to be around for Sarah in the early years of their marriage?:ermm:

I don't think it is "residual guilt". I think he genuinly loves Sarah and knows that he, and his family, were even in a small way, partially to blame for the marriage failure.

Lumutqueen 07-12-2010 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1110126)
And your proof that Sarah is doing that rather than that the Queen offering to help the de facto wife of her son is...?

I don't have anny evidence, due to the fact i fortunately don't know Sarah personaly. But to be honest I wouldn't put it past her.
It looks like The Queen is trying to shut Sarah up and attempt to "control her" by paying of her debts, she's done it before and no doubt she'll have to do it again.

Osipi 07-12-2010 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1110057)
I can't believe the Queen is bailing out Sarah, she shouldn't have to do that.

I think what's going on here is actually the Queen will be "bailing" out Sarah in the respect that the allotment that Andrew receives from the Queen for the management of his private office staff comes from the Queen's purse. His office is going to go over and analyze Sarah's finances and find places to cut costs and find ways for Sarah to use her money more wisely. I don't think the Queen in any way is going to be paying off Sarah's debts here.

I think this is a grand idea. Sarah does need guidance when it comes to spending and with Andrew doing this, it shows the rest of us that he does still care and as Sarah said in the Oprah interview, has "unconditional love".

NotAPretender 07-12-2010 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1110095)
And? Just because she is a wealthy woman, doesn't mean she has to give handouts to people who are very careless with the money they do have.
Sarah is a grown woman and should not have to go to her ex mother-in-law for a handout when she gets into trouble.
Using the "i'm the mother of your grandkids" excuse is ridiculous in my opinion.

Completely agree. It's damage control and I think it's what we had all batted around previously, that this is some kind of quid pro quo - the family pays off Sarah's debts and leashes her.

Already, it seems that Andrew's staff is now The Keeper of the Redhead as I think I mentioned when this first broke.

Sarah is like an idiot child in so many ways, and she has to be controlled in this manner. lumut, I agree that this is insulting to those who bail themselves out, that the Queen has had to step in and do this. There is no way on God's green earth that the Queen has any obligation to Sarah. Sarah has had millions of pounds running through her hand. She is the ex wife of a second son - and a completely embarassing one at that.

I think that the Queen's hand was forced on this. I mean, that Oprah interview was cringe-worthy and with that under her belt, who knows what else Sarah was capable of doing? It all reflects very badly on the Royal family, although Sarah's proven time and again that she is NOT a member of the Royal family, either in actual terms or by her behaviour.

I'm not qualified to judge whether this represents Andrew's undying and "unconditional" love (how maudlin a set of words!) for Sarah. We only have the words from her mouth that this is "reality," and I think that "reality" for Sarah is an oddly lighted place for the rest of us. IMO, Sarah is like a great big floppy golden retreiver who still thinks it can bound about like a puppy and is endlessly adorable, when in fact it's drooling, messing the floor, and reaching the time for a decision to be made.

I think it's quid pro quo and a shrewd move. It's a kindness of the Queen to do this, and I'm sure that Andrew would not make a move without the Queen's approval and approbation. This decision is 0% driven by Andrew, and 100% driven by Her Majesty. So I think for anyone that considers this is to be anything other than direct order from her Majesty (meaning independent motivations on Andrew's part,) mistakes who the boss of The Firm really is. Sarah, of course, will place the construct on it that it represent's Andrew's endless devotion to her. Let's us be a bit more clear-sighted: what other office should handle this, beside Andrew's? Clarence House? Andrew's team is in the best position to judge what is "really" an expense for the princesses versus "this is what Sarah wanted to do so she's using the girls' presence to get her way."

Sarah's greed has gotten her here. Let's see how tight that leash is point-forward. There is nothing to be done about Sarah's incredibly sordid past and decisions, so let's see how she fares when someone else makes the decisions for her.

Lumutqueen 07-12-2010 01:36 PM

Oh of course I realise that nobody but Her Majesty has decided to do this, but IMO she shouldn't have decided to do it.
Sarah is not a member of the royal family, she's already had money from her children, and from Bea's boyfriend.
She should have to go through everything a normal person would go through if they found themselves in this situation.

But she's been paid out before, by both the Queen and her own children, but she still goes and get's herself bankrupt. What makes this time any different? She's probably going to go and do something again in a year or two.

Melibea 07-12-2010 01:49 PM

Maybe there is an inside pact between the queen and Sarah; I doubt that the queen will just give her the money without demanding some kind of behaviour from Sarah.

Lumutqueen 07-12-2010 02:01 PM

Well I do hope so Melibea.

Melibea 07-12-2010 02:18 PM

Yes, I do too. If not we are going to see history repeat itself, again.

Osipi 07-12-2010 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson (Post 1110001)
Now the Queen steps in to bail out 'bankrupt' Fergie | Mail Online

Now her former husband Prince Andrew has ordered his private office at Buckingham Palace - which is financed by £249,000 a year from the Queen’s own pocket - to sort out her financial difficulties and cut her spending.

Ok.. I went back and reread the article posted on the Mail Online and actually don't see any references at all where there'll be any cash flow used to pay off any of Sarah's debts. Just that the office of Andrew will sort the mess out and cut her expenditures.

Melibea 07-12-2010 02:56 PM

^^
I think that what the article really means is that the queen is bailing Sarah indirectly as the money that Andrew receives comes from the queen.

NotAPretender 07-12-2010 03:14 PM

My thought is that there are going to be controls put in place that she can't sign contracts, can't perform certain activities, and has her credit cut off entirely so that she can't bankrupt herself again. If that's in place, then it would be nigh-impossible for her to get herself in this situation again. But then again, she's a master at making a miserable mess for herself and for others to clean up, so you may be dead right.

I tell you this much: if I had a daughter in law who had publicly cuckolded my son when he was in the service, she would be lucky to still live in my country let alone get fed so richly! Competely apart from pimping out that same son twenty years later!

Osipi 07-12-2010 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melibea (Post 1110279)
^^
I think that what the article really means is that the queen is bailing Sarah indirectly as the money that Andrew receives comes from the queen.

Yeps.. the Queen does pay for the £249,000 to finance Andrew's office. Sheesh.. that's no where near what Sarah's debts supposedly are. Really makes me realize what an ungodly mess she's gotten herself into.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotAPretender (Post 1110287)
My thought is that there are going to be controls put in place...

Hopefully Sarah would agree to such controls placed on her as she obviously has no clue of what she's doing. If all she has in her pocket is enough for a Big Mac, its Big Macs she should eat (and forget flying to her favorite Big Mac spot in Spain too... ride a bike to the corner).

The BRF have beem more than generous over the years with Sarah but there has to be a line drawn where you just don't tolerate it any longer. I'm with you on the opinion if my ex daughter-in-law acted so stupidy, I'd just moan and say "not MY problem!"

Melibea 07-12-2010 04:00 PM

But I can understand the queen, is better to bail her than see your son and granddaughters being humiliated publicly... Although if she bails her without demanding her some kind of behaviour this is just going to be repeated again and again.

murphy's mom 07-12-2010 04:05 PM

I think--and this is just my imagination--that Sarah will be allowed the use of a place to live, will receive some sort of monthly stipend, and her debts will be paid off either by Andrew or the Queen. In exchange, there will be some sort of agreement to not sign any more business deals, do any more endorsements, give any more interviews, etc. I agree that 14 years after her divorce neither Andrew nor the Queen should still be having to be financially responsible for her, but at the same time Sarah needs to have some tight controls put on her. There was an article in the press over here that she was offered "Celebrity Rehab" for $1 million. I'm sure this sort of arrangement would preclude this sort of thing from happening.

Osipi 07-12-2010 04:28 PM

I think that if Andrew's office is going to supervise and maintain Sarah's finances, that, lets say, she does do the 1mil deal for "Celebrity Rehab" then Andrew's office would manage just where that money went to. If Sarah is allowed (per her consent on restraints on contracts and such) a certain amount per month, then that is what she has and if she runs out.. its tough cookies. That way Sarah can gradually pay off her debts but with only a fixed income to control by herself, she'll have to think twice before spending.

NotAPretender 07-12-2010 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by murphy's mom (Post 1110309)
...there will be some sort of agreement to not sign any more business deals, do any more endorsements, give any more interviews, etc.

Well, that's exactly what some of us here had proposed, but I doubt that Buck Palace reads this.

I can't imagine how the Queen bailing Sarah out would spare her son and granddaughters humiliation, since it's already been beaten into them by Sarah herself. Still, as low as this is, I somehow think that Sarah could and would go lower: hence the need for control over her.

What a rotten deal Andrew got when he took on this one. Coachman, my time machine!

Russophile 07-12-2010 04:35 PM

After this is done, Sarah is going to OWE PA and HM BIG TIME. This was a very shrewd move on HM part. Hopefully PA and HM will retire the Redhead. Does anybody know how much in residuals Sarah gets from her books? It's got to be something. And what with the settlement PA got from Sunninghill he can afford to make good many of Sarah's debts.
Better to be in a proactive postion--what HM and PA are doing-- than a reactive one.

Osipi 07-12-2010 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotAPretender (Post 1110322)
What a rotten deal Andrew got when he took on this one. Coachman, my time machine!

As you said, Andrew is Keeper of the Redhead and boy over time she's had a lot of 'splainin to do. The sad thing is that this is real life and not a sit-com.

Zonk 07-12-2010 04:40 PM

The sad thing is I never NEVER imagined in my lifetime I would agree with The Grey Men and say she is completley unsuitable for Royal Life.

She is literally her WORST enemy.

Melibea 07-12-2010 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotAPretender (Post 1110322)
...I somehow think that Sarah could and would go lower: hence the need for control over her...

That's what I tried to say, some of you are saying that she was going to enter celebritie rehab... So they could be much more humiliated than they are already. And we don't know what other things Sarah is/was planning to do to reduce her debt :whistling:

Russophile 07-12-2010 04:44 PM

:previous:Which is why it was a very shrewd move on HM part. People don't realize how canny HM really is. And I highly respect her for that.

rmay286 07-12-2010 09:11 PM

I don`t think the Queen has enough money to pay off Sarah`s debts, if they are as much as is being reported. The Daily Mail says she`s almost 2 million pounds in debt, and I`ve seen that reported before.

Iluvbertie 07-12-2010 09:21 PM

The Queen could write a cheque for 2 million pounds and not blink an eyelid. Her private income is massive. That is the income she gets each year from the Duchy of Lancaster estate which has a greater income than Charles' Duchy of Cornwall estate. The Duchy of Cornwall has an income of 16 million pounds a year and Lancaster is a wealthier estate. It is the Lancaster estate that the Queen uses to pay back the money's paid to her family from the government and it is that income that pays for her private expense, such as the horse racing stables. By the time you consider the money's she repays the government each year for her children and cousins and then lives an extraordinarily wealthy lifestyle such as renting a cruise ship for two weeks she can afford 2 million pounds quite easily.

I do wonder whether they are clearing the decks for a really permanent solution - remarriage to Andrew.

charlottestreasures 07-12-2010 11:14 PM

I am going to be the devil's advocate and say that The Duchess is definitely not perfect, but she had picked herself up after the divorce, got herself out of debt. Alot of people have found themselves in financial trouble
in the recent ecomomic times.

I felt that if they had given her a fairer shake at the time of divorce, she would not have had to "sell herself", but concentrated on her charities.

One more think that always puzzled me was why she was not allowed to
live with Andrew on his Naval Duties, like the Queen herself did when she
was first married. She was left alone and had to like Diana swim or sink.

Moonmaiden23 07-12-2010 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russophile (Post 1109834)
Well good. This is going in the right direction. If you all remember, Sarah always needs a holiday to destress. I am sure firing her employees was hard on her and I would rather have her on holiday with her daughters doing something healthy than stewing about it and flipping out, and getting into the wine and ciggies again. It may look bad, however I believe it is for the best in the long run.

I completely agree. I was very disappointed to hear about Sarah's latest fiasco-I had been one of her greatest online supporters-but I am also worried about reading how emotionally fragile she is...close to a breakdown by some reports.

For goodness sake why snipe because a friend(Sir Richard) has offered to to help her get away at no cost to anyone except himself?

As for Prince Andrew, I am beginning to feel that the biggest mistake Sarah EVER made was to divorce this man.

He seems to be the best ex-husband on the planet! :whistling:

Mermaid1962 07-13-2010 01:03 AM

I think that Sarah has a grown-up woman's body, but that she's incompetent on some level. I truly believe that the Queen is holding her nose and doing this because it's the best of what options remain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1110095)
Sarah is a grown woman and should not have to go to her ex mother-in-law for a handout when she gets into trouble.
.


Moonmaiden23 07-13-2010 01:24 AM

Mermaid I think you are right...she seems a very damaged child-woman and after reading her memoirs I kind of understand why.

To be brief, Sarah's mum Susan sounds like one of the worst mothers EVER. God rest her soul, but what sort of woman tells her thirteen year old daughter to avoid all mirroirs because she is ugly?? :bang:

Then sort of sweeps off to Argentina half way across the world for a new life with her lover...leaving two
impressionable prepubescent girls with their father?

At least Frances Spencer fought hard for her children, even though she lost custody of them. :sad:

Susan Barrantes was apparently guilty of verbal and emotional abuse and neglect...and it seems to say much about Sarah's generosity of spirit that she continued to love her and welcome her into her life...unlike Diana with her own mother.

Sarah probably continues to cling to Prince Andrew because he does seem to offer her what she missed as a child.

Please forgive the armchair psychoanalysis......:whistling:

Mermaid1962 07-13-2010 01:27 AM

Couldn't it be both?
Quote:

Originally Posted by wymanda (Post 1110144)
I don't think it is "residual guilt". I think he genuinly loves Sarah and knows that he, and his family, were even in a small way, partially to blame for the marriage failure.

Some people thought it "creepy" that Andrew referred to Sarah as his "third child" in a speech that he made fairly recently (his or her 50th birthday, perhaps?). I'm coming to think that this was a truth spoken in jest. He's her guardian as well as her one-time husband.

Moonmaiden23 07-13-2010 01:50 AM

Yes, I remember that comment from PA. It didn't creep me out at all, I found it rather poignant in fact.

Sarah's daughters seem much more mature and more together than their mother. :sad:

murphy's mom 07-13-2010 08:35 AM

I sincerely hope she's finally getting the professional help--both psychological and financial--that she so obviously needs.

Wisteria 07-13-2010 10:17 AM

Options for Sarah to recover from the 'Cash for Access' scandal
 
In all this talk about how Sarah got herself out of debt, even though she managed to get herself into debt again as quick as lightning, it is quite often forgotten that her debts meant that a lot of people were owed money and they in turn, perhaps, got into debt but had no Prince Andrew to help them out.
As to the Queen helping her out, she has at least once, and I can´t see any reason on this planet for her to do it again. Was it the Queen´s son who was caught out betraying his wife? No, it wasn´t, his great sin, it seems, was to be in the Navy doing his duty and then spending too much time on his hobby instead of dancing attention on his wife, well at least the attention she wanted.
Sarah got herself into debt, she found that America loved her and she could make money there but then did a very stupid thing and burnt her boats and it must have come as a great shock to her that even her adoring American audience were growing tired of her antics.
I have nothing against her going for a free holiday but to me her life seems to be one long holiday with holidays in the middle to get over, and to get comfort for the mistakes that she, herself, makes over and over again.
I am afraid that the old adage "a leopard can´t change its spots" is very much to the point with Sarah, and I sincerely hope that the Queen does not step in yet once again, making it possible for Sarah to recover enough to start spending and getting into debt once again.

Lumutqueen 07-13-2010 10:29 AM

Wow we manage to agree again Wisteria.
Everything in your post is exactly what I think. All she does is escape on these "free holidays" i don't know who gives her a free holiday, I certainly wouldn't.

Other people are in Sarah's position and they have no Queen to bail them out, and Sarah is the ex daughter in law, The Queen should not feel obliged to "shut her up" she should know her place and keep her mouth stum.

Sarah will do this again, and someone again will bail her out. But who? Is she going to turn to her daughters again? Or how about her daughters boyfriend? Or even William and Harry? She might ask them for money because she was "friends with their mum" I wouldn't put it past her.

A leopard can never change its spots and Sarah certainly never will.

georgiea 07-13-2010 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 1110500)
Some people thought it "creepy" that Andrew referred to Sarah as his "third child" in a speech that he made fairly recently (his or her 50th birthday, perhaps?). I'm coming to think that this was a truth spoken in jest. He's her guardian as well as her one-time husband.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23
Mermaid I think you are right...she seems a very damaged child-woman and after reading her memoirs I kind of understand why.

To be brief, Sarah's mum Susan sounds like one of the worst mothers EVER. God rest her soul, but what sort of woman tells her thirteen year old daughter to avoid all mirroirs because she is ugly?? https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...anghead6mx.gif

I think Mermaid and Moonmaid you both hit it on the head. Sarah, Duchess of York and Prince Andrew have a understanding in their strange relationship. I believe the Duchess is a damaged child-woman from her teens and is like a third child to the Prince.

muriel 07-13-2010 12:46 PM

I suspect any bail out from HM comes with pre-conditions. If I were in HMs position, I would require that Sarah virtually dissappears from public view and is not allowed to speak to the press at all, or engage in any business ventures.

NotAPretender 07-13-2010 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel (Post 1110733)
I suspect any bail out from HM comes with pre-conditions. If I were in HMs position, I would require that Sarah virtually dissappears from public view and is not allowed to speak to the press at all, or engage in any business ventures.

That would be very on-the-mark and shrewd - I agree with that.

Beyond anything else, this seems to sum up that Sarah is unsuitable material as a Royal or as a wife. Before this, there was a (very!) remote shot at remarriage, the flames being fanned by Sarah (of course) who wants us to think she is so very dazzling. Well, she's proved herself a dud, again and again.

Andrew's remarks about Sarah being a "third child" say to me that he is smarter than I give him credit for...and that saying that publicly neatly scotches any idea of remarriage to her. Who would marry a child? Perhaps when they were both in their romping twenties, it made sense, but someone has to grow up and Sarah didn't.

At any rate, the Queen is making the smart move here (as she has so many times) and I think she is taking steps to sew this up. I doubt sincerely if it means more direct money to Sarah as in she gets a cheque for XX each month, but more along the lines of goods and services being provided (housing, food, transportation) and a schedule where the Duke of York's office approves appointments & engagements and handles the money, including a pocket allowance. You have to treat a child as a child.

I would LOVE to have heard what the Duke of Edinburgh had to say about all this. Can you imagine?

One last thought: ANY fool that gives Sarah ANYTHING without payment in full, in cash, up front from this point forward is out of their cotton-pickin' mind. Legal services, spa services, anything at all. Sarah is un-credit-worthy in any respect and at least everyone knows it now.

And just for the record? I didn't watch Charles & Diana's wedding, but I thought the world of this couple. What a tawdry outcome.

NotAPretender 07-13-2010 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wisteria (Post 1110656)
In all this talk about how Sarah got herself out of debt, even though she managed to get herself into debt again as quick as lightning, it is quite often forgotten that her debts meant that a lot of people were owed money and they in turn, perhaps, got into debt but had no Prince Andrew to help them out.

:queen3: <<---This queenly emoticon awarded to you for the incredible reminder that Sarah, by stiffing others and being a deadbeat, did NOT "just" hurt herself: she damaged others. An archaic legal term is "theft of services" - and that applies.

Osipi 07-13-2010 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by murphy's mom (Post 1110611)
I sincerely hope she's finally getting the professional help--both psychological and financial--that she so obviously needs.

The more I read, the more I wonder if perhaps Sarah is bi-polar. It was the "third child" remark that hit me with this idea. I have a family friend that is seriously bi-polar and I'd honestly have to say that Sarah probably handles her finances better which is a clue how bad bi-polarism can get.

With this disease and my friend, she has long suffered from self esteem issues, lives in the now with no thought to next week (as in... oh its not due till the 28th... I'll pay it later. It goes in the drawer and never gets paid), and it destabilizes her to be out of her "comfort zone".. what she is used to, she can handle. Throw her in a new enviroment or change things and its not a pretty picture.
She is very much like a child that needs to "be taken care of".

Hopefully with guidance from Andrew's office with someone in charge to make rational decisions for Sarah, she'll be able to settle into a better life for herself.

rmay286 07-13-2010 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 (Post 1110492)
Mermaid I think you are right...she seems a very damaged child-woman and after reading her memoirs I kind of understand why.

I`m not familiar enough with the symptoms of bipolar disorder to be able to say if Sarah seems to have them, but I too honestly think a lot of Sarah`s problems are related to her childhood. It`s like she never learned to live in the real world because no one ever taught her how to do it, and it didn`t help that she became a member of the royal family.

I wonder if there`s more history to Sarah`s relationship with her parents that have made her who she is today--beyond just the fact that her mother abandoned her. I remember she said in her autobiography that even before her parents split up, she was always trying to please her parents and that when her mother left, she actually felt relieved at first because she no longer had to take responsibility for her mother`s happiness. Also, the first time I read Sarah`s autobiography, one anecdote really struck me: Sarah said that in her early teens she had a bad dream and went into her father`s room for comfort, only to find him in bed with another woman who became furious with Sarah for (in her opinion) deliberately barging in on them. I was probably about 12 or 13 at the time myself when I read this, and it really made an impression on me.

It seems like Sarah was always looking for guidance or reassurance from her parents, and they were too busy living their own lives to give her any. I almost think that there was a lot more emotional abuse/neglect that went on even before the Fergusons`divorce, and we just don`t hear about it because Sarah did try to forgive her parents for their faults.

Russophile 07-13-2010 07:47 PM

:previous:If Sarah is really hooked up with the past from her upbringing there is a excellent book out by Dr. Laura Schlessinger called "Bad Childhood, Good Life." It would do her a world of good to ready it, absorb it, and move on with her life.

sliver_bic 07-13-2010 08:40 PM

The issue with blaming her childhood is that it's another cop out. Yes, many people have had bad backgrounds and we understand that it affects people but eventually it stops being the excuse.

A person who comes from an alcoholic background has a greater chance of being one but when that person keeps falling off the wagon 'cause he won't go to AA or another treatment we eventually throw our hands up, we care for them, we want to help them but eventually it comes down to wanting to save yourself.

Sarah has actually done it backwards, she did it on her own first, refusing a big divorce settlement in an effort to maintain good relations, dragging herself out of the hole she was in and then blowing it all up and now she's being bailed out.

She reminds me a bit of Edward VIII, he was such an issue after abdication that his brother had to shuffle him to the Caribbean to keep him out of trouble because of his supposed Nazi sympathies. Sarah, while not tat extreme is simply a time bomb, no matter how much control they have over her, she'll continue to make a scene if she isn't taught restraint. She'll live by their rules but still enjoy the perks, (the Branson family is deep in with the royals so those vacations don't seem like they'll go away). She'll continue to want to live the high life to the furthest possible extent and if she isn't taught otherwise she'll chafe and eventually make a scene.

tommy1716 07-13-2010 09:24 PM

Options for Sarah to recover from the 'Cash for Access' scandal
 
If Sarah is going to get back on her feet and pay off her (reported) debt how should she do it? What would be an ideal job/role for her?

rmay286 07-13-2010 09:24 PM

It`s not as easy as just "moving on", though. A lot of people do have traumatic childhoods and can`t get over this even in middle age, and I know this from personal experience with quite a few of these people. Some people have very sensitive personalities and their experiences in their childhoods make a lasting emotional impression on them.

Anyway, no, I don`t think Sarah`s childhood should be "blamed" for her financial problems. Clearly she has some problems to deal with. Sarah doesn`t seem to think or think wisely before she acts, so it`s probably a good thing that she`s taking some time out from public life--it will give her a chance to think without acting. I think businesspeople and such have been letting her get away with her overspending because dealing with "The Duchess of York" is good PR for them. Sarah needs to get to the point where she really, really has no money and no one who is willing to make risky loans or do risky business deals with her. If she got to that point, she would have to deal with the fact of having no money, just like anyone else would. Unfortunately I do think she`ll "continue to want to live the high life to the furthest possible extent" as silver_bic says. The best thing that can happen to Sarah (as bad as it sounds) is that she keeps experiencing the fallout from the News of the World sting--in terms of her reputation and people not being as willing to lend her money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommy1716 (Post 1110909)
If Sarah is going to get back on her feet and pay off her (reported) debt how should she do it? What would be an ideal job/role for her?

Sarah should be involved with some kind of an NGO or charity, a community revitalization project or something like that, but away from the practical side of it. She needs to be a spokesperson for the organization and a motivator and networker for people who do the actual groundwork. Weight Watchers didn`t keep Sarah for ten years just because she was Sarah, Duchess of York--she was actually a good spokesperson for Weight Watchers.

The only thing is that a job like this won`t pay Sarah the big money that she`s used to from Weight Watchers, Wedgewood, her public speaking engagements etc. I think those days are gone. I don`t know how long it will take Sarah to figure this out, though.

Mermaid1962 07-14-2010 12:59 AM

Andrew's sister-in-law, Diana, said that he was underestimated, in her opinion. I've thought the same for awhile.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotAPretender (Post 1110736)
Andrew's remarks about Sarah being a "third child" say to me that he is smarter than I give him credit for....


Duchess 07-14-2010 09:25 AM

sarah doesn't seem to show the classic symptoms of bi polar. while her actions tend to get her into trouble, she isn't irrational. i love her but to be honest she is just plain irresponsible. blaming her issues on her upbringing is indeed a cop out. she is a grown woman who gives no thought to the consequences of her actions. she was in financial trouble before so she knew what put her there. to have done the same thing AGAIN...inexcuseable.

Lighthouse 07-14-2010 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1110056)
If you are virtually bankrupt you have to sack the staff no matter how faithful they have been. She has no choice.

Of course. I meant in the manner in which it was done.

Moonmaiden23 07-14-2010 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duchess (Post 1111069)
sarah doesn't seem to show the classic symptoms of bi polar. while her actions tend to get her into trouble, she isn't irrational. i love her but to be honest she is just plain irresponsible. blaming her issues on her upbringing is indeed a cop out. she is a grown woman who gives no thought to the consequences of her actions. she was in financial trouble before so she knew what put her there. to have done the same thing AGAIN...inexcuseable.

I don't think I was really blaming her upbringing for her behavior..I was trying to provide some insight into why she acts the way she does...she is irresponsible and I believe nurtures a very deep seated self loathing that maybe subconsciously makes her want to screw up her life.

Because she was conditioned to dislike herself very early in life. :sad:

You are correct...it is never too late to step up, recognize what is wrong, and take steps to heal and correct.

Duchess 07-14-2010 05:30 PM

ahhh ok, i understand where you're coming from. :smile:

IMO she appears to be very impulsive. i might be wrong - perhaps it just appears that way next to the extremely structured life of a royal but if she would just seek out and follow good advice it would help her immensely.

Iluvbertie 07-14-2010 08:39 PM

Knowing from personal experience seeking out and following good advice is way easier said than done. Having suffered with severe depression and been suicidal in the couple of years after my mother's death I couldn't find anyone to help me (including the supposed depression help line in this country who were no use whatsoever so whenever I see them begging for money in shopping centres I go and listen to their spiel and then give them a spray for the lies that they are telling people).

If I could have someone to give good advice at that time I would be a lot closer to healing now - but what has saved me is my own faith that God wants me to live until he says it is time to go but nothing else.

Moonmaiden23 07-15-2010 12:21 AM

Bertie I am so sorry to hear of your pain and suffering..I lost my own mother in January and it is painful beyond description at times, but I am so happy that you have chosen to persevere.

I think what prevents Sarah from seeking advice from the right people is that she does not surround herself with the type of people who might have a positive impact on her life. She is a gregarious woman who likes high living and the party life..and she probably attracts hangers-on and like minded people.( Remember that ghastly "financial advisor" John Bryan from awhile back?)

She may need to seek out new friends. :sad:

charlottestreasures 07-15-2010 12:52 AM

I also lost my mother and have had a very difficult time.
We really do not know what Sarah is like or what her upbringing has done to her. Nobody knows, until they have walked in their shoes.

rmay286 07-16-2010 02:32 PM

Can it get any worse for Fergie? - Telegraph

This article gives a good assessment of Sarah's problems--partly critical but with some sympathetic quotes.

I was thinking about Sarah's behaviour and I don't think she's bipolar (I don't know enough about it, though). I think like some of you have said, a lot of it comes down to insecurity. People turn to excessive behaviour, like over-eating or over-spending, when they can't deal with some reality of their lives. It's like a quick fix and an avoidance tactic at the same time. I think this because I have my own experience with this, but in a different way from Sarah.

I think Sarah is trying to avoid facing her feelings about being unworthy as a person. Maybe she should get over those feelings, but they are obviously real to her, and they seem to go back to her relationship with her mother. My guess is that Sarah ignored her debts because she only thinks she matters as a person because she's Sarah, Duchess of York. She probably thinks if she has to go back to being ordinary Sarah Ferguson, no one will love her.

rmay286 07-16-2010 04:13 PM

Duchess of York makes all her staff redundant to help her finances - Telegraph
A spokeswoman for Prince Andrew said: "The Duke of York is very supportive of the Duchess during this difficult time."

Some might say that Prince Andrew is obligated to take over Sarah's finances because otherwise she'll do something reckless. Maybe, but he doesn't have to release a statement that he's very supportive of her. I'm interpreting that statement to mean that Prince Andrew is taking care of Sarah because he wants to and not just because he feels obligated. I just don't believe that Andrew does all these things for Sarah (lets her live with him, take over her finances) because he feels it's his duty but is secretly resentful. I think he married Sarah with the intention of being faithful to her for good, and whatever she's done, he's never really changed.

Lumutqueen 07-16-2010 04:13 PM

Well to be quite fair, it isn't always Andrew who has to bail her out. It's The Queen, or her children, or even her childrens boyfriends.
But I can thoroughly understand your point.
Sarah wants to be the one, in the room looking outside.

People keep saying that Andrew and his family are taking care of her because else she might do something careless? I presume that means go to press and tell family secrets?
She must know some real horrible stuff if they keep paying for her.

Russophile 07-16-2010 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmay286 (Post 1112579)
...I think he married Sarah with the intention of being faithful to her for good, and whatever she's done, he's never really changed.

Interesting point.
I wonder, however, if PA released the support statement to get the media to back off and give Sarah a chance to recover so she can MOVE ON and OUT. That would have been prudent.

Lumut, seems that SOMEBODY is always bailing that woman out. I admire her for doing it the first time--almost entirely on her own, however, it keeps happening. It will be interesting to see if Sarah breaks the cycle here.

Lumutqueen 07-16-2010 04:27 PM

I don't understand what could be so bad, that the royals are willing to go to any length.
Even if she produces a tell all biography, it won't sell that well and it'll be nothing original.
Also, if The Queen didn't pay her off, I honestly don't think she'd go to the press, because she'd damage the family her daughters are a part of.

Lumutqueen 07-16-2010 04:57 PM

Options for Sarah to recover from the 'Cash for Access' scandal
 
I don't know if it's right to start a new thread about this, but i've been wondering since the Cash For Acces scandal.
Many people have said that the royals are keeping Sarah "in check" by paying for her.
But what if they hadn't paid her off, would she write a tell all book, releasing all the information she knows? :smile:

Duchessmary 07-16-2010 05:15 PM

:previous:Unlikely. She does have some sort of confidentiality agreement with the BRF. But I for one, would devour it!! :popcorn:

Moonmaiden23 07-16-2010 05:22 PM

That would hurt and embarrass Andrew and the girls, and I can't see her deliberately doing that now. :ermm:

Melibea 07-16-2010 05:25 PM

If she didn't have children with Andrew I'm sure that at least she would have tried to do it. But I doubt that she would want to hurt her own daughters like that.

EmpressRouge 07-16-2010 05:27 PM

She wrote an autobiography in 1997. I don't know if it's tell all, but I remember that it ends with her poking around the refrigerator looking for food, or something to that effect.

CrownPrincess5 07-16-2010 05:31 PM

She'll publish a tell-all if she wants money.
But that would be hurting Andrew and it seems like the last thing she wants to do is hurt Andrew.

Russophile 07-16-2010 05:38 PM

IF and this is a BIG IF she does it, she'll sanitize it for Andrew and the girl's protection. However, I do not see her printing anything that we as Royal Stalkers don't already know.


(Unless it's some bomb-dropping revelations like Prince Philip likes to dress in women's clothing and high heels and sing "God Save the Queen" to Queen's rendition or something. . . .)

sliver_bic 07-16-2010 07:12 PM

She's got a habit of embarrassing herself but a tell all would be nothing short of suicide for her. Aside from the damage it would do to her daughters, and it wold whether she sanitized it or not, she'd find it all but impossible to live in the UK for several years, maybe even ever. She couldn't be banned obviously but it'd b hell on Earth.

Mermaid1962 07-16-2010 08:07 PM

She tells quite a bit, but she doesn't tell anything damaging about the Royal Family. At least in print, she's loyal to the Queen. The only people who really get a dressing-down are the so-called "gray men"--the courtiers in the Palace who tried to mold her into a princess. She talks about the separation and the depression that she went into after it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmpressRouge (Post 1112625)
She wrote an autobiography in 1997. I don't know if it's tell all, but I remember that it ends with her poking around the refrigerator looking for food, or something to that effect.


Mermaid1962 07-16-2010 08:10 PM

If there's been an agreement made with the Palace in exchange for Andrew's support from his office, I think we can be reasonably sure that an autobiography is banned. The fact that she hasn't said anything public since the Oprah interview is telling.

sliver_bic 07-16-2010 08:14 PM

I would've thought there was some kind of agreement when they got divorced. You don't leave such a family without a gag I would think.

Mermaid1962 07-16-2010 08:17 PM

I think that the fact that she's the mother of the Queen's grandchildren means a lot in this. The Queen might or might not help Sarah out of the goodness of her heart; but I'm pretty sure that she would do anything to protect her grandchildren from embarrassment. Embarrassment doesn't mean having horrible stuff revealed about the family; it could mean not ending the drip-drip-drip of caustic stories about her grand-daughters' mother.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1112581)
She must know some real horrible stuff if they keep paying for her.


Mermaid1962 07-16-2010 08:22 PM

No, there was no gag order when Sarah and Andrew divorced. Diana had one as part of her settlement, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sliver_bic (Post 1112684)
I would've thought there was some kind of agreement when they got divorced. You don't leave such a family without a gag I would think.


Katrianna 07-17-2010 01:22 AM

I suppose if Sarah wanted money bad enough, SHE could write a tell all book, but it would be another incredibly stupid thing she would do. Andrew and their daughters would be embarrassed and Sarah would lose support from her biggest ally, Andrew. She's already lost credibility and a scandalous book would put another nail in her tattered reputation plus the Queen and Andrew could withdraw the monetary support she's now getting. Sarah would be left in a huge lurch. You don't want to bite the hand that feeds you or pays your debts.:whistling:

Nikki63 07-17-2010 02:46 AM

I'm of the opinion...and this is strictly my opinion, that Andrew does it because his daughters demand it of him. It wouldn't surprise me if they don't turn the thumb screws quite often if he doesn't help take care of their adored mother. He's in a spot for sure. Take care of Sarah and keep the girls happy and look like a cuckold to everyone else for doing it, or kick her out on her keester and have them spitting mad at him for years, or longer, while everyone else applauds him for having finally grown a spine. Not to mention having to answer to HM every time Sarah hits the wall in a most spectacular way. I'm sure there must be days when he wonders what the heck he was thinking when he married her, no matter how much he may still care about her.

Wisteria 07-17-2010 04:09 AM

I believe that you are right about the daughters but if he looks like a cuckold, wasn´t he cuckolded very publicly by Sarah that seems to be the reason he divorced her.
I think when he first married her it was because opposites attract, she is bubbly and full of spirits and he seems so sombre and rather humourless or at least that seems to be the side he shows in public.
I think the sorriest person would be the Queen for giving her permission to the marriage and she really seemed to like Sarah. Prince Philip´s opinion on all this would be interesting indeed.
I hope that everything turns out well for Sarah and that she starts being sensible but I have my doubts that she is able to be.

Roslyn 07-17-2010 04:38 AM

I don't think Sarah would write a tell-all book, regardless of her circumstances. I don't think she would hurt her beloved daughters that way, or Andrew, or the Queen. For all her faults, I don't think she has a malicious bone in her body.

Polly 07-17-2010 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn (Post 1112805)
I don't think Sarah would write a tell-all book, regardless of her circumstances. I don't think she would hurt her beloved daughters that way, or Andrew, or the Queen. For all her faults, I don't think she has a malicious bone in her body.

I agree, Roslyn. Sarah has done some very foolish things, but I remember that she paid off all of her debts before and worked hard to do so. From memory, she wasn't well treated by the Family when she left it, unlike Diana, and I think that it's to Andrew's credit that he's given her a home and help over the years, and not only because she's his children's mother.

I've heard Sarah speak in the past about the Family and she was graceful and pleasant about them all, praising them for their hard work. It's unlikely that she'd betray any confidences at this stage.

As for her recent silliness and inappropriate behaviour, that's nothing to what I think about the scurrilous newspaper reporter who coaxed a drunken women to humiliate herself and impugn the integrity of a member of the Royal Family.

angieuk 07-17-2010 05:03 AM

The trouble is Sarah is a spender and always has been. She likes the good life and would no more tighten her belt in this time of economic gloom than step on board the Titanic. Her daughters adore her, Prince Philip loathes her, where does that leave Andrew? Somewhere in the middle who has never moved on with his life. It is a shame he never married again like Camilla's husband did. Sarah's meal ticket has always been her title DUCHESS OF YORK which she will never let go of ... not for all the tea in China!

Fergie's billionaire bail-out: it looks like the duchess is really feeling the pinch of those £2m debts | Mail Online

Wisteria 07-17-2010 05:41 AM

As long as there are people who curry the favour of anyone with a title, especially royal, and as long as Sarah hangs on to the name Duchess of York she will always be able to find a helping hand and will never change her ways. In her defence I really believe she is unable to change, it is part of her makeup.
It is very strange how a title of any kind, even an ex title can make very sensible business people do all kinds of things, they give huge amounts of money to charity, not always because they are fond of that charity or are even really charitable in their hearts, but the idea that it may lead to a title is irresistible. Strange and I will never understand it. I wonder what these people would think of someone with a title who does not use it.

Warren 07-17-2010 06:00 AM

There appear to be plenty of people with the financial acumen to help her sort out her financial mess but you have to wonder why she had to reach near-bankruptcy and public humiliation before they stepped in.

Anyway, from the Daily Mail, here's some rich, famous and not-so-famous friends...

Fergie's billionaire bail-out: it looks like the duchess is really feeling the pinch of those £2m debts | Mail Online

One tycoon's given her a £160,000 Bentley. Another's lent her his jet. Now she's partying with Branson on his private island...

On Thursday, she [boarded] the Gulfstream private jet owned by her longtime friend Peter Brant, the U.S. newsprint tycoon. Once on board, she was flown...from his Connecticut home, where she has been staying for several days, to the 60th birthday party of Sir Richard Branson on his private Necker Island in the Caribbean.

...yet another tycoon, venture capitalist Jon Moulton, was also riding to her rescue. Now running a £200 million private equity fund, the former Coopers & Lybrand insolvency specialist has quietly agreed to see what he can do to unscramble Fergie's financial affairs.

So just how does businessman Jon Moulton intend to replace the missing millions and put Fergie, now 50, on the road to solvency? No one is quite sure. 'The trouble is there is no "Brand Fergie" any longer,' declares a major public relations figure who has been consulted about her rehabilitation...Who on earth would buy anything with the Duchess of York's name backing it at the moment?

NoorMeansLight 07-17-2010 08:43 AM

^ Gosh, I hope she's not onto something weird again...:ohmy: Thank you for the info, Warren!
Wonder what P Andrew has to say about that.:rolleyes:

Blackadder 07-17-2010 08:58 AM

Let's hope not another scandal is on its way.

Irish Eyes 07-17-2010 09:38 AM

I read in the "Mail on Sunday" about three weeks ago that Sarah and the girls are planning on going to Spain for their annual holiday in August, and YES you guessed it, Prince Andrew IS joining them as normal.
I suppose God help him, he must still love her.
Seriously though I'm sure she must have some lovely qualities, he's no fool, she must be doing something right.
The phrase "her own worst enemy" could have been coined just for her.
She's very popular in Ireland and TV people who have interviewed her, and people who met her at book signings really liked her, the woman they met very different to the woman they had read about.

NoorMeansLight 07-17-2010 09:54 AM

^ This is quite interesting. Thank you for the Irish point of view ;) and welcome to TRF!:flowers:

rmay286 07-17-2010 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irish Eyes (Post 1112899)
I read in the "Mail on Sunday" about three weeks ago that Sarah and the girls are planning on going to Spain for their annual holiday in August, and YES you guessed it, Prince Andrew IS joining them as normal.
I suppose God help him, he must still love her.
Seriously though I'm sure she must have some lovely qualities, he's no fool, she must be doing something right.
The phrase "her own worst enemy" could have been coined just for her.
She's very popular in Ireland and TV people who have interviewed her, and people who met her at book signings really liked her, the woman they met very different to the woman they had read about.

Sarah is definitely her own worst enemy, no question there. But she must have good qualities, because, according to the articles, her former employees are still loyal to her despite everything. I guess Andrew could be taking care of Sarah because his daughters would resent him otherwise. But I think the fact that Sarah`s daughters do obviously love her is an indication that she has good qualities, so why might Andrew not love those qualities for himself and not just because of his daughters?

Some of the people close to Sarah do seem very loyal to her. Not the obvious hangers-on who were close to her only for themselves (*cough* John Bryan, Allan Starkie, Madame Vasso) but the people who have been staying loyal to Sarah even though they`re not getting anything out of it, like Andrew and the girls and apparently, her employees. And the people from Northern Moor who I`ve seen posting on Facebook that they wouldn`t answer any questions from reporters because they liked Sarah and didn`t want to say anything that could hurt her.

Edited to add: although I guess even loyal employees have their limits. I just saw this article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...aring-her.html

Duchess 07-17-2010 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1111362)
Knowing from personal experience seeking out and following good advice is way easier said than done. Having suffered with severe depression and been suicidal in the couple of years after my mother's death I couldn't find anyone to help me (including the supposed depression help line in this country who were no use whatsoever so whenever I see them begging for money in shopping centres I go and listen to their spiel and then give them a spray for the lies that they are telling people).

If I could have someone to give good advice at that time I would be a lot closer to healing now - but what has saved me is my own faith that God wants me to live until he says it is time to go but nothing else.

i can sympathize with you all the way bertie. i've battled depression for 30+ years...so i hope you're able to find some sort of peace :flowers:

my feeling is that sarah doesn't suffer from depression....but she just makes bad choices. i think she could find good advice very easily...her former husband for example probably wouldn't steer her wrong.

sliver_bic 07-17-2010 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmay286 (Post 1113094)
I guess Andrew could be taking care of Sarah because his daughters would resent him otherwise. But I think the fact that Sarah`s daughters do obviously love her is an indication that she has good qualities, so why might Andrew not love those qualities for himself and not just because of his daughters?

That's unconditional love that has no boundaries. There's no doubt that she has good qualities it's just that bad ones are so bad and they have to do with money. Strange that if she had a drug or alcohol issue she'd be able to garner some sympathy but this is different, money, something the vast majority of the world doesn't have, is this particular thing that one can screw up with only so often before people just roll their eyes and walk away.

Quote:

Sarah had been filmed drunkenly touting ex-husband Prince Andrew’s Royal status for £500,000 to a reporter posing as a shady foreign businessman.
Strange, Fergie said she was drunk but has that ever been proven? Seems weird that the mail, obviously not her or her family's biggest fan, would go with the line.

Duchessmary 07-17-2010 10:28 PM

I think she just needs to go on holiday, clear her mind, and then come up with a game plan, so to speak. She's done a lot of damage and it's time to recoup her losses. Dignity would help, and so would some humility.

Lumutqueen 07-18-2010 05:03 AM

How Fergie humiliated the long-suffering friend who spent 20 years clearing up after her | Mail Online

Quote:

It was always going to be a difficult phone call. But Kate Waddington, the public ­relations consultant who had doggedly protected the ­Duchess of York for nearly 20 years, had taken time to think through what she was going to say
She is already on holiday isn't she?

georgiea 07-18-2010 02:06 PM

This article (to me) says Ms. Waddington was the Duchess' adviser and needed to say she is the one who left to save face. Sarah, the Duchess of York is now advised by Prince Andrew and his advisers. Hopefully, Sarah will be able to live without getting hemmed in by Andrew's advice and break away and self destruct. If that would happen I don't know if the Prince would stay around.:ermm:

rmay286 07-18-2010 04:55 PM

It`s interesting that Sarah has gone from the control of "the grey men" (the courtiers), to some bad advisors in the days of her separation, to more recently, a team of people that included a successful PR woman, but none of them have really been able to restrain her in the end. Andrew really is Sarah`s last resort. Out of everyone, he might just be the one person Sarah will listen to, but if she abuses his resources, even Andrew will have to withdraw his support. His money and office are provided by the Queen, so there are limits to what he can do.

NotAPretender 07-18-2010 06:26 PM

But do you truly think that she will listen to him?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises