Ah, I've just found this thread - and it has answered the questions I was asking on the other thread.
I will start by saying that in the UK papers this weekend, Sarah is quoted as saying that she wasn't in fact abused and that this is the wrong impression people are getting. I am unclear whether Sarah is 'backpedalling' i.e. having claimed she was abused is now seeking to change her mind, or whether she is claiming that 'Finding Sarah' has been edited in such a way as to make it look like she has been abused when she has not... There is also a suggestion that parts of the programme had to be re-edited when OW decided that they were 'not sensational enough'. If this 're-editing claim' is accurate - then oh dear me!
I have not seen the programme of course, and so can only comment on what others have said, but I have to say that my immediate impression is not good and that Sarah - and I hate to say it - is being manipulative.
'Cash for Access': If Sarah did not think it was wrong, why then did she set up the rendezvous secretly, without the knowledge of her staff? [in fact, didn't one of her senior executive staff resign in disgust when news of the sting came out?]People here have suggested that it is not a crime to set up introductions and receive money for so-doing as it is common in business. I agree - in the commercial world you can 'introduce people' but it isin these particular cirumstances it is 'selling access' to a member of the royal family and that is not commercial, it is bribery. I am sorry, but I am convinced that Sarah knew she was doing wrong.
Appearance of her children in the documentary: I am sure that the Queen will be horrified: I think they should be 'left out' rather than being used to try to justify their mother's failings. In fact, I am quite sure that this will hasten B+E's 'relegation' to 'ordinary citizens'. The move away from 'being royal' has started with the removal of their police protection; I wonder, do forum members now think that the Queen might remove the girls' titles [which has been done with other members of the royal family in the past] to enable them to live more 'private lives'.
I think that the Queen and Prince Philip will be furious that Sarah has allowed someone connected with the programme to interview her at Royal Lodge [asssuming I read the above review correctly]. I am sure that this will now act to speed Sarah's departure from Royal Lodge.
I feel desperately sorry for anyone who as a child has been abused, but I do wonder whether Sarah is putting this light on things simply to try to dramatise things for the documentary in order to make the product more 'saleable'. To my mind we have had various 'confessionals' from Sarah for the best part of 25 years - why has she never mentioned this before now - is it because she has only just come to terms with it, or because there has been no abuse but Sarah desperately needs something to make the documentary more 'saleable'. Whilst some aspects of Sarah's upbringing might seem cold, it seems to be that it is really the typcal 'upper class' childhood. In fact on the basis of what Sarah has said, it appears that her actual childhood was much cosier than many of her upper class contemporaries - in many households, Sarah's mother would not be much in evidence [which is why I would cast doubt on the 'beating' stories] - this is because upper class children are raised on a day-to-day basis by nannies and tend to see their parents [usually for an hour or two before dinner, when they have been carefully washed and brushed by their nannies] and this hour or two is more 'social' rather than an opportunity for disciplining and correcting etc. Bearing in mind the upper class childhood and that Sarah went away to [boarding] school at eight and that her mother 'bolted' when Sarah was 13 or 14, I doubt whether Sarah even had that much contact with her mother. This might seem severe to many forum memebrs, but belive me, it is not strange for upper-class offspring.
I am sorry, but this does not ring true; I feel that Sarah was not abused at all, but is just trying to 'hang' her behaviour on something.
Incidentally, according to one of the quotations reproduced in the weekend papers here in the UK, Sarah says that she DID speak to her mother on the day that Susan Barrantes was killed and that her mother DID tell her that she loved Sarah.
I just don't feel that Sarah is moving forward at all with this. I think she should keep silent and seek any necessary therapy on the British National Health Service [free!!]
As for the 'I wanted to be with my man'. Well, I am sorry, everyone knows that if you marry a sailor, he is going to go away for periods - and all other naval wives put up with it. I can tell you that the Navy actually deferred to Andrew a lot - for example, they flew him back to the UK when Sarah was having Beatrice - most navy wives do NOT get this privilege. Service life for Sarah cannot have been such a mystery - her father was in the army, after all.
So, Sarah concedes she got an allowance from the Queen? I know that the Queen gave her one as soon as she got engaged: I am pleased Sarah now admits this; it does however make it look bad that she could not manage on what she had been given: as she had no private money of her own, I think that she should have been both grateful and careful with her spending....
Final point: who really knows what goes on in another's marriage? Well, arguably, only those in the marriage really know. As well as having met Sarah, I have met the Duke of York a good few times. And I would say this; he struck me as a 'good sort, albeit not very, very bright'. His only main passions appeared to be golf, a bit of photography and watching videos [DVDs]. This is only my personal opinion, but I am getting the impression that he bored Sarah. I remember how, at a weekend house party, Sarah, whilst pregnant with Beatrice, was sitting on the lap of one Steve Wyatt [the son of texan socialite Lyn Wyatt] and when the hostess and others tried to remove Sarah, Steve Wyatt instead drawled that 'nothing comes between mah woman and me'. Unfortunately for Sarah, there were a lot of guests at the house party and news of her behaviour soon found its way both to the newspapers and back to the Queen.
Incidentally, I have been told - although I do not know whether it is true, but I would not be surprised if it is - that Andrew never reads the papers: on that basis, I would conjecture that he has never really graped exactly what form Sarah's behaviour has taken on occasions.
The above thoughts are only my opinions and I don't wish to offend, but I am getting seriously exasperated with Sarah. I do NOT dislike Sarah, but feel that instead of all this public confessional, she really does need to 'get a grip'.
Alex
I will try to keep my commentary out of my updates, even if I can't help some parenthetical remarks!
grow up already. Maybe I'll feel differently when I have the chance to watch the whole thing.
