What is your opinion about Sarah, Duchess of York?

[Jo of Palatine]

Kime, what I get from what Jo says is that though Sarah isn't royal and doesn't have to answer to the masses, she keeps plugging her royal ties.
Jo, correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Sky, yes, My Peter has a way with words does he not?

Not only with words - in fact his words and the facts he presented really convinced at least this one of his readers about who Anna Anderson in reality was!

And yes, you're right, Mrs. Russo, my point is that Sarah still tries to appear a family member of the BRF while living a life that is damaging to their public image. And they obviously can't do anything about it.

 

[Skydragon]

Give me such capitalism any day! Because the gains of Duchy Originals are used 100%& to fund the prince's charities. We would live in a much better world if all gains from companies went to charity instead to the stockholders.

And they do sell exceedingly good produce!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

And they do sell exceedingly good produce!

We have a supermarket in the next village which caters to the "upper crust" of people living by the lakeside of Ammersee and there I can buy all sorts of Duchy Original products. They sell pretty well, I was told and no wonder: especially the orange cookies are worth walking to the next village! (Okay, okay, I use that as a reason on going there while walking my dog along the lake....).

 

[Skydragon]

When I said she sounds common I´wasn´t talking about her speech, she, which is only natural, sounds completely upper class. I was referring to the way she speaks loudly so as other people can hear her, that is common.

Menargue, speaking loudly so that others can hear is not something confined to the lower classes or 'commoners'. Certainly not here anyway. You only have to go into one of the Gentlemans clubs (yes some of them allow women) in London, to disprove the misconception that it is the commoners that are the worst offenders.
Sarah can be loud and has in the past been indiscreet, but common she aint!

 

[Kezza]

Vulgar, Vulgar, Valgar......Thats what they said about her once.

 

[Menarue]

You are confusing commoner and common they are two different things.
I should have said "acted in a very common way" and they do let all kinds of people into what used to be exclusive clubs these days.
I will take with gratitude what Kezza said and put common (from my point of view) = vulgar or vice versa. The act not the person.
There is a wonderful little phrase from Nancy Mitford´s "Love in a Cold Climate" when she is describing a lady and says (paraphrasing) she is very vulgar and hasn´t even got the excuse of being low born.

 

[rominet09]

I think she should stop wearing short skirts, her legs are horrible

 

[Bella]

I think she should stop wearing short skirts, her legs are horrible

Exactly. I like a little more length will be way more flatteing anyhow.

 

[Roslyn]

Knees are generally not attractive in anyone over the age of 20, and Sarah's are no exception. Her calves and ankles seem fine though.

 

[Russophile]

Actually, I think she has fine legs, you just don't expose them when they are as white as hers are without nylons. They tend to look like dead fish, and I'm no exception!!

 

[Polly]

Are you kidding??? She had blatant adulterous affairs with AT LEAST 2 men in front of her children while her husband was serving his country. Good wife?? Never! She brought the shame and disgrace upon herself and she will always have that stigma to deal with, fair or not. It's the way it is and always will be for her.

True, that does seems despicable.

On the other hand, not too many spouses would have been subjected to long photo tele-lenses which intruded on their most private and intimate moments.

I'd also like to suggest that Sarah wasn't the only royal engaging in adulterous affairs, at the time. No excuse, of course, but might we keep this in perspective? Logically, one can't be condemned and t'others exonerated or glossed over

I don't know, factually, that her little children were there, at all. Don't, please, tell me that photographs don't lie!!!!

All in all, Sarah's done well enough to re-establish herself, in my opinion. Her faults may well have been grevious, but not so very remarkable in this day and age. Basically, she was guilty of having been 'found out'.

I remember the late princess Margaret's reportedly saying to Sarah, which was publicly reported: how could you have done this to us?

Like many other royal watchers, I was utterly flabbergasted!

 

[Menarue]

Anyone could take my photograph with a tele-lens and it wouldn´t cause me any embarassment. The children were there because it was beside the swimming pool and they were in the pool, it was their holiday too. You shouldn´t take your children with you on a holiday if your financial adviser is your lover and is going with you. If I remember rightly it was the very fact that the children were present that really brought about the divorce. I don´t think that the fact that other people do this or have done this is any excuse.

 

[kimebear]

I don't approve of extramarital affairs, but it was hardly Sarah's biggest crime as a royal as far as they were concerned. As history remembers, she certainly married into the right family for it. Sarah's crime was getting caught. There is enough blame to go all around.

The problem with the royals marrying commoners for the past couple of decades is that the lives and habits of each were certainly different. It was a whole new concept of what was acceptable and what wasn't. Which lead to all the divorces IMHO. Anthony Armstrong-Jones, Mark Phillips, Diana, Sarah. It was only with the more recent and experienced marriages that we see any success. Sophie and Camilla got to observe for a long time before joining the firm. I think it made a real difference. But even with exposure it it not always successful. Although Timothy Laurence had significant experience with the royals, it is still rumored that his marriage to Princess Anne is in trouble.

Sarah's problem was discretion. She was given a very very long rope, but couldn't manage to be discrete enough to prevent hanging herself with it. It doesn't make her a bad person. Just a bad royal.

 

[Skydragon]

The problem with the royals marrying commoners for the past couple of decades is that the lives and habits of each were certainly different. It was a whole new concept of what was acceptable and what wasn't. Which lead to all the divorces IMHO. Anthony Armstrong-Jones, Mark Phillips, Diana, Sarah. It was only with the more recent and experienced marriages that we see any success. Sophie and Camilla got to observe for a long time before joining the firm. I think it made a real difference. But even with exposure it it not always successful. Although Timothy Laurence had significant experience with the royals, it is still rumored that his marriage to Princess Anne is in trouble.

Anne was not the one who had an affair, that was her commoner husband and the only trouble with her marriage seems to be the gossip hounds who will write anything to sell a story. I don't think Anne is having anything more than the normal minor glips, in a marriage for a couple their age with their amount of commitments!

 

[kimebear]

I don't think I said anything about Anne having an affair. I was trying more to make a point about how marrying into the royal family was difficult and that historically the royals in general have not been overly observant of the sanctity of marriage vows. Its a difficult family to be in, whether born or married into it.

 

[Skydragon]

I don't think I said anything about Anne having an affair. I was trying more to make a point about how marrying into the royal family was difficult and that historically the royals in general have not been overly observant of the sanctity of marriage vows. Its a difficult family to be in, whether born or married into it.

Ahh, sorry, I misunderstood. But unfortunately nor have the commoners who married into it been overly observant. It is difficult to marry into most families, they all have their foibles and just like everyone, some succeed, some don't. The only difficult thing for the royal family in Britain now, is the level of intrusion the 'public' expect.

 

[Duchess]

I don't approve of extramarital affairs, but it was hardly Sarah's biggest crime as a royal as far as they were concerned. As history remembers, she certainly married into the right family for it. Sarah's crime was getting caught. There is enough blame to go all around.
...

Sarah's problem was discretion. She was given a very very long rope, but couldn't manage to be discrete enough to prevent hanging herself with it. It doesn't make her a bad person. Just a bad royal.

good points but all this only works in your favor if you're born royal or, as in diana's case, are the mother of the future monarch. unfortunately for sarah, she married the second son so she didn't have either of these things to help her.

 

[Russophile]

But, from her book, she had "The Men in Grey Suits" telling her what to do and what not to do and she still did what she wanted to do anyway.

 

[Glistening Seas]

Glistening Seas

all things considered i think Fergie and Andrew have come a long way. they have done a good job on raising the children. Quite frankly, the girls appear to have great taste in fashion as well and they did the right thing to speak up for the girls.

It's important to note haute coutoure isn't for the faint of heart. It's important for every one to develope a style and hemline that is all their own at every age. For those whom think a one piece or the longer hemlines are all there is to life and fashion. Well, they and their closets will forever be stranded in the "droll halls of mediocrity". Ugh that doesn't even sound slightly appealing even on paper.

The entire fun of fashion is to experiement with clothes and accessories that appeal and reflect one's own mood and preference for that moment. Therefore, in light of these thoughts quite honestly the butterfly hat was/is quite beautiful i just don't see why anyone could possibly find fault to that especially since the hair accessories such as that have been in style since the late 90's or a variations thereof. Obviously, whomever wrote the article didn't seemed informed of that.

Well, as well informed as the press usually is it was surprising to have read the printing. Perhaps before having printed the article they should research their fashion commentaries or simply take some time to go shopping before commenting. As far as the weight well, most people would give their right arm to be a size 10 at any age.

People seem to make weight more of an issue than it needs to be especially at this age or any age.

So at least the butterfly hat as well in keeping with style and fashion and she probably didn't even realize it and just bought it because she liked it.

So, to that we say good job it's important in fashion to stay true to one's self and to enjoy one's choices and to develope one's style so that it reflects what one enjoys and one is happy wearing that is the ultimate decision as to what one should wear.

The thought of being stranded into the mediocure realm of fashion should never be appealing to anyone. So, one should wear what one thinks looks good on them and what one feels good about wearing.

 

[PrincessofEurope]

Fergie did alot of damage to the monarchy - the affairs carried out openly in public were a disgrace, her massive debts, the cashing in on her title and connections before and especially after her divorce (its hard to image one month in Hello magazines without one "new" exclusive interview with either Sarah or the girls - its frankly boring to read the same stuff about her past, her battles with her weight, how she overcame her debt problems, her "close" friendship with Diana, her "charity work", how she escaped 9/11 ...... we've heard it time and time again its like a broken record ) probably worst of all was her fashion the woman had and still has no taste in clothes

but she and Andrew have managed to reamin close friends and brought up their children in a loving and happy environment

what worries me is the impact she will have on her children who have been stated in saying they want to be "Mini-mummies" heaven help us in Britain if you thought one Fergie was bad enough look out we've got two more on the way who have inherited their mother's lack of fashion sense

i dont ever see the monarch getting rid of Fergie as i dont think she will ever remarry because then she would become plain "Mrs X" and be forced to loose the gold cheque that is her title of Duchess of York

 

[Bella]

Sarah will always be tied to the BRF because she is the mother of two royal princesses. That will never change. I do think that as time passes and Charles succeeds his mother to the throne and the Wales boys become more involved in their royal duties (thus all eyes will be upon them, their respective wives and children) Sarah's relevance will fade as her daughters' relevance will fade.

I do hope that Pss' B & E step up to their family responsibilities and take on royal duties themselves, much in the way (as is repeatedly pointed out) of Pss Alexandra and the Duchess' of Kent and Gloucester. For Sarah, however, I think once her daughters are fully grown (living away from Mummy) and begin to marry and have their own families, she will fade even more into the background. Maybe then she will be able to find a life away from the RF that she will find stimulating and fulfilling.

 

[Furienna]

I think you might have a point there. In a couple of years, William and Harry will probably get married and start families of their own. And then, their cousins and their mother will probably fall into the background. However, I expect both Beatice and Eugenie can and will have real royal weddings too, when (if) they get married.

 

[Glistening Seas]

Glistening Seas

I think people make way too much out of Fergie's or daughter's fashion sense.

First off, their taste isn't at all a problem. Fergie stays true to her sense of style and what she feels good about wearing and quite honestly that is all one can do.

If the status quo was all there was to fashion and hemlines then there wouldn't be any fun to fashion. Fashion is all about experimenting with what one likes and feels at that time is appealing to them. Otherwise their closets would be classifiable as hopelessly mediocure. Goodness knows mediocure doesn't sound appealing at any level irrespective of finances.

Some people just are too inhibited by their own prehistoric ideas as to whaaat fashion is all about to ever get past the point of mediocrity within the confines of their own closet space and wardrobe.

However, other's can manage to rise above inhibitions and experiment to develope and refine their taste and hemlines to make a style and fashion that is reflective of their mood for whatever outing they might be attending.

Some are able to challenge themselves to have looks that are inspiring and breathtaking no matter what their income level. Good taste isn't reserved for the wealthy.

For example the butterfly hat of Fergie's daughter was quite beautiful and well within appropriate style and with their hair color it was quite in keeping with something someone of her age or any age could proudly wear as it was quite flattering. So she could quite proudly feel that she had done a good job at making a good choice especially since due to her age she hadn't seen the other butterfly hair accessories that have flooded the market places over the years.

With their hair color Fergie and their daughters are in the unique position to be able to wear more splashy colors and it works for them.

Haute couture isn't for the weak of heart. The entire 'fun" of haute couture is the experimenting with new styles.Over the years fergie's style hasn't appeared to be lacking in taste. However, what appeals to one may not appeal to another however, that is preference therefore quite subjective to the individual.

The objective for anyone of any age is to stay true to oneself and to truly enjoy what one chooses to wear. What a dreary world this would be to be stuck with a closet that never rises above the "mediocure' because of one's unwillingness to be brave enough to just simply try something new or different.

 

[Menarue]

Being too different is usually interpreted at "eccentricity" and can never be described as fashion. Fashion has been described to paraphrase, as a "common taste shared by a large number of people at the same time" the eccentric does not share a common taste with anyone, I am sure he/she feels absolutely fabulous with what he/she is wearing but other people don´t.
There have been some terrible fashions in the past, we shudder when we look at some of them but at the time they were fashionable and people were all conforming to the "rage" and so were called fashionable.
An eccentric walks alone and can never be called fashionable.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

snip long message about fashion

What a dreary world this would be to be stuck with a closet that never rises above the "mediocure' because of one's unwillingness to be brave enough to just simply try something new or different.

I think you have explained your view on fashion already some pages back but obviously you still think you didn't get your point across.

So I'll try to tell you why I personally think that you're wrong.

1.) "Bravery" and "overcoming one's inhibitions" have nothing to do for me with experimenting with fashion. Because fashion is IMHO about looking as good as possible, not looking as different from others as possible. If those two aspects come together, great. And fun to look at and fun to think about it. But as with any art, the person selecting or designing clothes for themselves and/or for others should have a basic artistical instinct and know what looks good and what makes a positive, impressive or at least harmonious impression on others.

2.) Basic rule for fashion: there are types of bodies and basic cuts that do something positive for a body and others who don't. Once you have identified the cuts that enhance your looks, you may experiement to your heart's delight with materials, colours, decorations, accessories etc. But if you, like Sarah and her daughters at the moment, are not able to even identify these basics, then you can experiment as much as you like, the whole outfit will look either wrong or even ridiculous.

3.) You should dress according to a situation. Wearing a "daring" hat on a wedding simply is embarrassing in the (even unconcious) try to upstage the woman whose day a wedding day is by rights. Especially when you are a princess born and the bride is a child of the lower middle class trying to fit in with your august family. A young lady talented when it comes to fashion should have realised that and settled for eg an outfit like the one she wore, but with a jacket following her gown in its lines and enhancing the colours (a radiant blue one maybe) and bought shoes and a small hat in exactly that colour. The way it was the hat appeared ridiculous and upstaging because of the rather demure jacket she wore it to and the fact that the matching dress was hidden under her jacket. IMHO, of course.

4.) Classic style is anything but mediocre, it's eternal fashion, designed once for all times because it does what fashion should do: make a positive impression. There are classical pieces suited for any type of body, even for the extremely slim model-type or the over-weighted primadonna (Monserrat Caballe and her classical Spanish style comes to mind), so Beatrice should be able to find one or the other classical piece for her individual body as well.

So, well, yes, once Beatrice found the right cuts for her body (I've given up on Sarah), she may experiment as much as she likes as long as she favours colours who do something positive for her.

 

[Menarue]

Right on every point Jo.

 

[Glistening Seas]

Glistening Seas

Jo Some of these points on different cuts are valid. however, being uninhibited means "unique". Wearing whatever everyone else is wearing is totally droll and unappealing when the whole concept of style is to be unique. As the saying goes if 2 people agree on everything--one of them isn't necessary. otherwise we could all wear tent dresses in same fabric same color and call it style, you see.

however, seriously it's really unfathomable that anyone would think such a beautiful hat would "upstage" anyone. it wasn't worn with the intent to "upstage" is the impression given and understood by all parties at the event is the obvious. just the intent to enjoy what one wears imho.

However, some cuts of style are suited more to others is true. however, once again experimentation is involved and fashion is almost always a work in progress for most anyone. So, if one "enjoys" wearing it and "feels" sexy or good about wearing it more power to you--that feeling will always come accross. 'tis all.

 

[jcbcode99]

Jo, you hit the nail on the head once again with regard to that ill timed butterfly hat and ensemble.

 

[Skydragon]

Jo, I agree with every word, well said!

Some people just are too inhibited by their own prehistoric ideas as to whaaat fashion is all about to ever get past the point of mediocrity within the confines of their own closet space and wardrobe.

However, other's can manage to rise above inhibitions and experiment to develope and refine their taste and hemlines to make a style and fashion that is reflective of their mood for whatever outing they might be attending.

That's all very well, but many of us found a look that satisfies the image we wish to portray, not one that someone else wishes to. Goodness only knows that most people have made the most horrendous fashion mistakes, but most of them learn from their mistakes and disregard the people more interested in selling their wares than what we look like in them. It is not always a case of inhibitions, but of having the self confidence to 'know' what suits you and what doesn't.

Having said that, I would rather be considered 'inhibited' than a fashion victim.

 

[Menarue]

If everyone suddenly turns up in a butterfly hat we will know that Princess Beatrice has started a fashion......