Sarah, Duchess of York: "Cash for Access" - May 2010


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
wingsofsky said:
This is a kind of bribery, so it is not ethical, but I agree she isn't happy.She should IMO stop comparing herself with Diana's ghost and move on. also she should know that as an adult, wealth does not compensate for her emotional gaps. She shouln't consider herself as a door handle, orelse everybody around her will use her.
Click to expand...
According to Tina Brown's book on Diana, they weren't even on speaking terms when Diana died.
 
She married a sailor, she had to know that meant being away for longer periods of time.Also she had comfortable accomadations to live in (first Buck House and the Southyork) and official duties to undertake to keep her busy. Thousands of spouses of service people manage to keep their lives together with much fewer resources without running off to the south of France to have their toes sucked by their "financial advisor".
Sarah pulls out any excuse possible for bad behaviour, except personal responsibility.
In many countries influence peddling is a criminal offence. She will be lucky if the law doesnt come knocking on her door asking more pointed questions than Oprah did.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sarah was not a "shrewd " woman when she made the faux pas.. of cash for access..........
 
Influence peddling is not a faux pas.....in many countries it is a criminal offence. She will be very lucky if the law doesnt come knocking on her door asking much more pointed questions than Oprah did.
She may have very seriously harmed Andrew's ability to continue in his role as UK Special Trade Representative.
 
Interpol and James Bond will not go knocking on her door; although it might be the thing that would have been correct to do just to sort things out etc..... . It just won't happen.imo
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Probably not (if she is lucky), but I bet there will be more questions asked when she is back in UK. Hopefully no MP will ask for a parliamentary inquiry as that would open up a whole lot of questions about the role Andrew and other memebers of the Royal Family, and of course the costs, that no one would really want to see.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apparently not as hard done by as she might want people to think.
From Marlene's blog:
The Sunday Telegraph published the details of Sarah's divorce agreement, having received the information from senior court officials who were "incensed" by Sarah's claims that she had been "abandoned financially."

Senior court officials provided "precise details" about the divorce package:

* £500,000 provided by the Queen to purchase a new home for her and the children
* £1.4 million provided by the Queen to set up a trust fund for Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie
* £350,000 in cash provided by the Queen "which had no restriction on its use."
* An agreement that the Duke of York would pay for all school and university fees
* A "modest allowance" based on the Duke of York's salary as a naval officer.

The newspaper noted: "furthermore, the Royal Family did not insist on an all-binding confidentiality clause as a part of the divorce settlement." Sarah earned more than $2 million pounds in connection with her autobiography.

Incidentally, the broadsheets largely got it right in 1994, when The Times and The Daily Telegraph reported on the York divorce settlement
 
However most of this 'money' wasn't for her but for her daughters or never materialised e.g. the house was never bought so that money was never paid. The Trust Fund was was Beatrice and Eugenie not for her so again nothing for her.

She got a one of payment of 300,000 pounds and a modest annual income of either 15,000 or 20,000 pounds. Even with no mortgage I couldn't live on that amount so I don't see how anyone can say that she got a good divorce settlement.

Many people have lost a lot of money during the GFC and Sarah has been one of them so she chose a perfectly legal way to get some money and has been pilloried for it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for that Iluvbertie,post #612
Not all provisons of the settlement that were promised were actually given as agreed upon, Why not a parliamentiary enquiry into that? Is that not a form of embezzling her or defrauding Sarah I wonder?
This is another example ofthe BRF's slight of hand and mastery of legerdemain. Some hounds on the board; quite bloodthirsty want to see Sarah in handcuffs and chains for this alleged influence peddling and the mind bogglng ramifications it could have.....
 
Jaya said:
Some hounds on the board; quite bloodthirsty want to see Sarah in handcuffs and chains for this alleged influence peddling.
Click to expand...
If it would scare her straight, I might be for that.
 
angieuk said:
Sarah Ferguson backlash as America condemns Oprah interview | Mail Online
Click to expand...

Ahh...of course, it`s a backlash from hundreds of angry viewers!

I went on the Oprah website when I saw the article. There were 141 comments and, because apparently I`m very interested in whether the papers ever report anything accurate, I counted up the comments. It seemed to be about 50/50 for positive and negative comments. (I counted 44 positive comments and 45 negative comments. And by `negative`, I mean any comment suggesting that Sarah seemed unstable/deceptive, even it included some words of support. The rest were just replies to comments, or discussed Oprah in general rather than Sarah.)

I guess this equates to a massive American backlash by hundreds of angry viewers, though...:whistling:

I really don`t think most Americans care.
 
Osipi said:
Yes.. it is all very sad. Alcoholism could possibly be one of her problems but she is the only one that would know that. It is a disease among quite a few other possibilities and actually the drinking is just one symptom of the disease. The only person that could really decide that is Sarah herself or a trained medical professional. I'm seriously hoping that she does take stock of herself, find the right path for her and live a happy life. We all deserve that.
Click to expand...


I agree...none of us are perfect....all of us are searching for happiness.
 
Iluvbertie said:
Many people have lost a lot of money during the GFC and Sarah has been one of them so she chose a perfectly legal way to get some money and has been pilloried for it.
Click to expand...

What in this whole influence peddling scandal would you characterize as legal, or even remotely ethical?
 
I am an American, and do care whenever I see someone hurting or who has made a serious blunder in their life. Unfortunately for Sarah, she has to do this with all the world judging her and that must be difficult, no matter if she is in the wrong or not. I feel for anyone in pain. I wish her happiness, as I wish all of humanity happiness and joy in living their lives.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How do they actually know the amount she was given in the settlement? I thought the info was all tied up in confidentiality agreement. So how would they know this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
baguetteprincess said:
I am an American, and do care whenever I see someone hurting or who has made a serious blunder in their life. Unfortunately for Sarah, she has to do this with all the world judging her and that must be difficult, no matter if she is in the wrong or not. I feel for anyone in pain. I wish her happiness, as I wish all of humanity happiness and joy in living their lives.
Click to expand...

I understand you care, but you`re posting on a royalty forum. ;) I doubt most Americans follow royalty much, and when they do, see them as minor celebrities. Oprah has a huge audience, so 40-some negative comments on her website don`t really amount to an angry backlash, IMO.

The Daily Mail probably gets twice as many negative comments as that every day on an average royal-bashing article.
 
Jaya said:
Thanks for that Iluvbertie,post #612
Not all provisons of the settlement that were promised were actually given as agreed upon, Why not a parliamentiary enquiry into that? Is that not a form of embezzling her or defrauding Sarah I wonder?
This is another example ofthe BRF's slight of hand and mastery of legerdemain. Some hounds on the board; quite bloodthirsty want to see Sarah in handcuffs and chains for this alleged influence peddling and the mind bogglng ramifications it could have.....
Click to expand...

If she didn't buy a house why would it be paid to her? That would just be throwing money at her to squander. Her daughters were well provided for so there would have been no expense to her there.
Divorce settlements are not subject to parliamentary inquiries, taking money to influence a public official is.
Sarah's alimony was based on Andrew's income as a naval officer. He was not a wealthy man, and even today will never be as rich as his older brother. Why would she get more just becuase some members of his family have substantial wealth.
Sarah was not a child when they divorced and certainly not unworldly. She had lawyers and "financial advisors". If she was badly advised then let her sue those individuals for compensation.
She has written several books including her autobiography, there was money from the Young Victoria movie.....she squandered everything and now must deal with her own mess. I wish her luck with that, but please keep your daughters and ex husband out of it. Relocation to LA might be a good idea, they are used to flakey celebrities there, but please di it under your own name and stop using your husbands title for commercial purposes.
I would suggest the taxmen in UK, USA, Canada take a close look at her charities to make sure the money raised for them did not go into supporting the Duchess in the style she wished to be accustomed to.Desparate people do desparate things and I would not be at all surprised to find that the "administration" costs of her charities were quite high for unknown reasons.
 
rmay286 said:
I understand you care, but you`re posting on a royalty forum. ;) I doubt most Americans follow royalty much, and when they do, see them as minor celebrities. Oprah has a huge audience, so 40-some negative comments on her website don`t really amount to an angry backlash, IMO.

The Daily Mail probably gets twice as many negative comments as that every day on an average royal-bashing article.
Click to expand...

I understand what BagPrincess is saying. You're right, most Americans do not follow royalty. Actually most Americans think Queen Elizabeth is the only queen. I agree, 40 comments is not angry backlash. These people need to get it right.
 
Most Americans don't care, because in the end result this is petty nonsense. On a site such as this these disscusions can go on for days, but in the real world, with real problems, this is junk. Sarah, is Sarah. Andrew is Andrew. Nothing really happened. And influence peddling is done every day. The RF accepts big gifts, from many different places, that hang around their necks. That, too, in influence peddling. It just isn't look at askance by those who accept and wear them. The whole big "scandal" in a world beset by major problems is such utter nonsense.
 
If you are comparing Sarah's settlement with the the wealth of the Royal Family, yes I would agree that it doesn't look good but lets take something things into consideration....

1) Sarah has never had to struggle as most divorced women do. So, she didn't get a lot of money from Andrew as it was based on his naval salary.. but she did receive something. Andrew never had his driver's license canceled because he didn't pay his alimony.
2) Sarah has never struggled to put food on the table for Beatrice and Eugenie nor has she ever had to worry about where they would sleep or who would pay their school fees. That was all taken care of by Andrew and again, he has never lost the right to drive or his income tax refund because he was behind on his child support and alimony payments.
3) Sarah has had the ability to work and has done so, VERY WELL I might add since their divorce. Is it Andrew or the Queen's fault that after many years, she STILL DOESN"T know how to live within her means?
4) Sarah has lived with Andrew since their divorce and I am going to go out on a limb and say she has never had to kick in any money to pay the mortgage and/or the electric bill. And Andrew isn't living in some small house in the suburbs. She is living nice.

It looks like the Queen might have forked over some money to Sarah (as she did to Diana) when the marriage ended. Must she continuously bail out Sarah because of Sarah's mistakes? I, for one, have always defended Sarah and looked the other way when people complained that she was living off her title and such, because honestly, as Sarah, Duchess of York...what kind of job was she really going to get to make an honest living.

What she needed to do (or it might be hard to now because of the scandal) was to try to become a member of a Board for a major corporation. Not sure how it is in the UK, but they are usually paid a nice bit of change. She could have made a couple of millions off of that per year. Of course, she would need to make sure the company was legit and didn't have sweatshops or some other illegal activity.

And really, Sarah can't be totally blamed for losing all of her money. I mean, a lot of wealthy people lost TONS of money when the markets tanked (IRA's, stocks, etc.). I, for one have only taken one Economics course, but doesn't everyone know that you should put some of your money (if you are in the lucky position to be able to save money) in a safe account? I mean, you earn one dollar, fifty cents of that goes to your bills, twenty five is risky investments, and the other twenty five cents goes into your piggy bank never to be touched? Her problem was that she failed to tone down her style of living.

And finally, I would be hesitant to believe any tabloid Headline about this whole mess! Its all about a catchy title, and try to get people interested in reading your article based on a headline. Why lets something like the truth get in the facts of that?
 
Last edited:
All posts regarding Sarah and suicide have been deleted.

Let's move on.

Zonk
British Forums Moderator
 
NGalitzine said:
What in this whole influence peddling scandal would you characterize as legal, or even remotely ethical?
Click to expand...

I never said it was ethical but it is perfectly legal to offer to introduce two people for money. That is all she did - offer to introduce person A to person B for a fee and that is legal and is done all the time.

Whether it is ethical is a separate issue and I have never gone there as what I might see as ethical another might not.

There was no crime committed by Sarah (by the 'fake sheikh' on the other hand - I have massive problems with the legality of his actions but as he has done this at least twice before to members of the BRF that also must be legal or he would have been stopped before now).
 
fergalicious said:
Yes I think that is true.:) I feel sorry for Sarah. The press has destroyed her live.
Click to expand...

The press, the salacious public who loved the way the press turned on her in the 1980s and have never let her get up from being down and her own actions, often triggered by her devastation at the way things turned out.

Imagine how she must have felt in 1986 with the cheers on her wedding day and then nothing but negative headlines about her clothes and her weight and even leaving Beatrice in England to spend some time with her husband when he was in Australia. Nothing she did was ever right in the eyes of the press who in turn made the public hate her as well so she went off the rails. Remember the early press reports were usually about how badly she dressed in comparison to their pin-up Diana. By the end of 1986 she must have already been getting depressed and this is the result.

People can be very cruel and when it is anonymous even more so but for the victim of this bullying (and that is what it is) it is a very real feeling of despair.
 
Zonk said:
4) Sarah has lived with Andrew since their divorce and I am going to go out on a limb and say she has never had to kick in any money to pay the mortgage and/or the electric bill. And Andrew isn't living in some small house in the suburbs. She is living nice.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong on this but isn't it rather recently that Andrew offered her a room in the Royal Lodge? Perhaps since October or something when financial crisis really hit Sarah? I didn't think that they've lived together since the divorce.
 
Sarah, to my knowledge has not had a place to call her own since they divorced and the place she lived in the UK burned down. I am sure someone can provide a name and date, but since that time she hasn't "lived" with Andrew but moreso stayed with him when she was in the UK.

The Queen Mother has been dead since what 2002? I am thinking she had at least stayed with Andrew for the last three to four years, so that 2006....and I am trying to give her a cushion of a year or two.
 
Iluvbertie said:
The press, the salacious public who loved the way the press turned on her in the 1980s and have never let her get up from being down and her own actions, often triggered by her devastation at the way things turned out.

Imagine how she must have felt in 1986 with the cheers on her wedding day and then nothing but negative headlines about her clothes and her weight and even leaving Beatrice in England to spend some time with her husband when he was in Australia. Nothing she did was ever right in the eyes of the press who in turn made the public hate her as well so she went off the rails. Remember the early press reports were usually about how badly she dressed in comparison to their pin-up Diana. By the end of 1986 she must have already been getting depressed and this is the result.

People can be very cruel and when it is anonymous even more so but for the victim of this bullying (and that is what it is) it is a very real feeling of despair.
Click to expand...

I do think back then with Andrew and Sarah following somewhat close behind Charles and Diana getting married that the press did do an awful lot of comparisons between the two newlywed brides and most was NOT favorable for Sarah. I remember headlines of "Duchess of Pork" and when Diana hit London with Sarah it was "wild". It must have been a blessing I think for both Diana and Sarah to pal up in the early years. Sarah was alone without Andrew around (Sarah has remarked that when Andrew WAS home.. he'd prefer to play couch potato) and Diana preferred London to the quiet countryside that Charles loves so much. Perhaps back then too Sarah's natural outgoing nature did a bit to bring the "shy Di" out of her shell and they did find solace in each other. This I think is what Sarah referred to in the interview in a roundabout way referring to Diana.

The press can and will nose out any story to have a scoop before anyone else and even blow the headlines out of realism to get folks to buy the paper and read the latest "scandal". If you're in the public eye though you learn that early on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Sticky
United Kingdom: Birthday and Anniversary Wishes 2024
6 7 8
Replies
217
Views
15K
Blog Real
Blog Real
Marengo
Sarah, Duchess of York Current Events 20: Sep 2022 -
4 5 6
Replies
177
Views
16K
iceflower
iceflower
iceflower
The Duchess of Edinburgh's Fashion and Style, Part 2: July 2024 -
2 3
Replies
62
Views
6K
iceflower
iceflower
Janet H
Forum Update - We're back! Ask your questions here.
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
19K
Kaye1850
Kaye1850
iceflower
The Duchess of Sussex's Fashion and Style Part 1: November 2023 -
6 7 8
Replies
239
Views
29K
princess gertrude
princess gertrude

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom