Sarah should have known better. NOTW has more articles online, and a video. (I see that Sarah is smoking again.)
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/new...on-plots-to-sell-access-to-Prince-Andrew.html
The fall-out
is going to be huge, and rightfully so. I can't say that I am really surprised by this, because Sarah tried to deal with her financial problems in the same way back in the early 90s.
The one thing that stood out to me, though, is that the NOTW articles repeatedly insist that Prince Andrew knew nothing about what Sarah was doing. How would the journalist know this for sure? My feeling is that Andrew is being set up in a way, too. If he wants to defend Sarah against the accusations that she lied and duped him, he'll have to say that he knew something about what went on. If he admits that, though, he'll probably lose his job as trade ambassador.
It's like the paper is challenging Andrew to defend Sarah, or choose his reputation over her. On another day, the papers might accuse Andrew of cashing in on his trade ambassador job by selling Sunninghill for more than the asking price, etc. But suddenly he is the prince with the spotless reputation who needs to be protected from Sarah, the "loose cannon"! I feel like News of the World had two victims here--Sarah, and Andrew by association with Sarah--but is putting on a great pretence of being concerned for Andrew and the monarchy.
Personally, I think Sarah may have not given Andrew all the facts, but I suspect he did know something about her interactions with the "businessman." I find it hard to believe that Sarah would tell a "businessman" that Andrew knew about the money if Andrew were completely in the dark. If this man were a real businessman and met with Andrew eventually, he could very well mention something to Andrew about the deal. Unless she never intended to let him meet with Andrew at all, which I think is what the NOTW is implying, but I also find that hard to believe, because Sarah must at least realize that people can and will take their story to the papers if they are promised something and don't get what they want.
I also am a little suspicious about this "close royal associate" who apparently went to the News of the World as a "whistleblower" because he or she was concerned that Andrew's reputation was being damaged. I'd think that someone who was really concerned about Andrew would talk to Buckingham Palace and let the Queen deal with Sarah. It's not like Andrew's reputation is going to benefit from a big tabloid expose about how his ex-wife is trading in on Andrew's business connections. It reminds me of how the royal courtiers in the early 1990s made sure the newspapers knew about Sarah's bad behaviour. Sarah has only herself to blame for this, but at the same time, I think there's more people who aren't exactly blameless here.