Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Sarah Ferguson flies in from the cold as Queen invites her to stay

The Duchess of York is spending the weekend with the Queen at Balmoral after being accepted back into the fold.

Good for you, Sarah. Welcome back.

by Anonymousreply 18008/25/2013

One Balmoral source said: “It’s just like old times. The Duchess is being treated as if she and the Duke were still married.”

by Anonymousreply 108/14/2013

This will last as long as the amusement of her daughter's engagement holds. She might still be around until JUST AFTER the wedding. Then it's Siberia again.

by Anonymousreply 208/14/2013

As soon as the old bastard Philip finally dies, Sarah and Andrew will remarry. Maybe they won't even wait until he kicks off.

by Anonymousreply 308/14/2013

That would be nice if true. She's an enabler but a fun one.

by Anonymousreply 408/14/2013

She probably invited her to serve tea cakes and walk the dogs.

by Anonymousreply 508/14/2013

I love Sarah. I don't care if she screwed up once in a while. Who hasn't? She's good-hearted and the queen knows it. Philip can kick the bucket not soon enough and let Sarah and Andrew remarry. Everyone deserves to be happy. And say what you will, she raised two nice daughters.

by Anonymousreply 608/14/2013

What makes you think they want to remarry?

by Anonymousreply 708/14/2013

R7. Remarriage is just speculation. Sarah and Andrew live together. It seems logical that it's a possibility.

by Anonymousreply 808/14/2013

This proves it: Philip has Alzheimer's.

by Anonymousreply 908/14/2013

I remember reading somewhere that the Queen actually liked and got along with Fergie, even after the divorce.

by Anonymousreply 1008/14/2013

The SUN has the best headline:

NICE TOE SEE YOU AGAIN, MA'AM

by Anonymousreply 1108/14/2013

That old fart Prince Philip should have kicked the bucket long ago and the same goes for the Duchess of Horsewall.

by Anonymousreply 1208/14/2013

The Balmoral staff is probably very busy as we speak, making sure that all silverware in the castle is safely under lock and key.

by Anonymousreply 1308/14/2013

[quote]I remember reading somewhere that the Queen actually liked and got along with Fergie, even after the divorce.

As badly as Fergie behaved she never actively tried to undermine Andrew or the monarchy, like Diana. She didn't really do anything terrible. Certainly no worse than what Andrew got up to. She was just a fun, spunky party girl not really suited for a marriage to a Prince. The Queen likes a bit of spunk in people.

Her recent money troubles are a little embarrassing, but probably not a huge deal.

by Anonymousreply 1408/15/2013

Now that she's been brought into the fold her new title must be The Cuntess of Pork.

by Anonymousreply 1508/15/2013

Andrew has always been the queen's favorite child. She has always coddled him. Read any insider account of his childhood. He was a horrible spoiled brat who physically attacked servants and got away with it numerous times. So this is not that surprising. He wanted Sarah back in the fold. Done.

by Anonymousreply 1608/15/2013

Someone please provide an executive summary as to why Andrew and Sarah divorced in the first place (wasn't the toe sucking incident post-divorce?) and what Phillip has to do with it.

by Anonymousreply 1708/15/2013

R17. Sarah and Andrew always loved each other, but one of the main reasons for their divorce is that he was never home. He was in the military and was only home about 42 days of their first couple of years of marriage.

Sarah was left alone to fend for herself and didn't know what she was supposed to do as a young mother, a married duchess, who the royal family ignored.

William is reaping the benefits of all that Sarah and Diana went through with this awful family. Now they treat Will and Kate with kid gloves. They treat Kate with respect--something Sarah and Diana never received, who were just supposed to put up with being treated like shit.

by Anonymousreply 1808/15/2013

Good for her.

by Anonymousreply 1908/15/2013

[quote]As badly as Fergie behaved she never actively tried to undermine Andrew or the monarchy, like Diana. She didn't really do anything terrible.

Neither one of them did anything terrible, but perhaps some actions not suitable for princesses who were supposed to preserve an anachronistic system unfriendly to outsiders.

They both had husbands who ignored them. Andrew actually liked Sarah, but he was away in the military. And Diana's husband is an entitled asshole who was having an affair from before her marriage even began. Diana didn't undermine the monarchy. She just expected a faithful husband, and she got a douchebag. And when he fought back, she was the one who was undermined.

by Anonymousreply 2008/15/2013

[quote] And when he fought back, she was the one who was undermined.

R20 here...Sorry, I meant to type: when SHE fought back (meaning Diana), she was the one who was undermined.

by Anonymousreply 2108/15/2013

Most of what Diana did (her affairs, her interviews, her sanctioned biography, her flashy public appearances) was designed as revenge against Charles. She more or less said in the TV interview that he was unsuitable to be King.

If that's not undermining the monarchy I don't know what is.

Sarah, on the other hand, just tried to find some happiness for herself. There was nothing devious about anything she did.

by Anonymousreply 2208/15/2013

Thanks R18. And Phillip? I take it he just detests her?

by Anonymousreply 2308/15/2013

Sarah and Diana were on their own in a big palace where they had to keep their shades drawn and lightbulbs at low wattage. They had their fun for a few years, doing nothing all that offensive but may have been too high-spirited for some.

In an interview with Oprah around 1997, shortly before Diana died, Fergie said that there were things going on in her marriage but she was the one who was caught. And she cried because Diana cut her off after the comment about getting warts after Diana wore her shoes.

by Anonymousreply 2408/15/2013

Philip. One "l", please...

by Anonymousreply 2508/15/2013

The Queen is very fond of Beatrice and Eugenie. The girls are sweet, and open, and fun. They have also made themselves indispensable, accompanying Granny to events, and were especially solicitous when Prince Philip took ill after the interminable Jubilee celebrations.

So, if Fergie is "back," she's there because of her daughters. Period. And do not be under any illusions. Fergie is under strict rules. If she wants to enjoy the grace & favor of the Royal household she has to hold up her end in terms of her behavior.

I even wonder if perhaps there is a secret illness or something or maybe wedding plans are in the offing for one of her daughters. If Fergie, for example, was diagnosed with cancer, it may be that the Royals do not want to appear cruel. Would not surprise me if Harry, who's close to B&E, might have also put in a good word.

Andrew is right now scared peeless that Charles is going to ice him and his family out of the equation in terms of his allowance.

by Anonymousreply 2708/15/2013

Sophie has also has been treated much better than Diana and Sarah were.

by Anonymousreply 2808/15/2013

Andy also wanted to fuck around with beauty queens and models--he's done that for twenty years, and now he's old and fat and wants to spend time with the woman he still loves.

Fergie's problems were that she was loud and embarrassing and never had enough money to lead the high life she wanted. Andrew gives her enough now so she can lead the high life without embarrassing him, and Harry has now done far more embarrassing things than anything Fergie has ever done--and the royal family can't expel him the way they did her.

Finally, Fergie's biggest enemy was always Philip, and he's basically a dessicated husk these days.

by Anonymousreply 2908/15/2013

I think Sarah's most recent screw up (getting caught trying to sell access to Prince Andrew) was really only partly her fault. I think Andrew was completely involved in this too. He doesn't have a lot of his own money (like Charles or William/Harry). Andrew is probably the one who cooked up this entire scheme and put Sarah up to it.

And I'm sure it wasn't the first time they did this either. It was just the first time they got caught. Why do you think Andrew stepped forward and bailed out Sarah financially? He's a cheap bastard. It isn't like she can just go out and get a job. He didn't want to risk her selling her story and he definitely wanted any further questions about selling access to him to stop immediately. Lest anyone question if they ever did this type of thing before. The Queen wanted this kept quiet too

by Anonymousreply 3008/15/2013

What's the backstory on the tension between Fergie and Philip? I never knew that story.

by Anonymousreply 3108/15/2013

[quote]Most of what Diana did (her affairs, her interviews, her sanctioned biography, her flashy public appearances) was designed as revenge against Charles. She more or less said in the TV interview that he was unsuitable to be King.

Diana was trying to save herself. She also was not putting up with a philandering husband and Camilla, a woman she considered a whore and meddler. Charles and Camilla were undermining the monarchy by undermining Diana's marriage and well-being. Also, Diana's appearances were not flashy. She was considered the icon of style and taste during her time in the public eye.

Diana and Sarah, despite whatever bumps along the road, dragged the royal family kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Their freshness and modernity gave the monarchy relevance. Charles, Camilla, Will and Kate are all benefitting from two young women, Diana and Sarah, who were often thrown to wolves but in doing so made their mark and changed this crazy, dysfunctional family.

by Anonymousreply 3208/15/2013

Why didn't the Queen make sure Diana and Sarah had a permanent friend/adviser/servant to help them make the transition to Royal life?

by Anonymousreply 3308/15/2013

Philip doesn't like Sarah because he didn't like her behavior and openness while at the same time ignoring the behavior of Charles, Camilla and Andrew (to a certain degree, although Andrew didn't do anything all that scandalous).

Philip does everything to preserve the status quo. Sarah upset that. Diana upset that too, but she had more power as the Princess of Wales.

Philip also seems to have not much respect for Andrew; otherwise, he wouldn't always put the screws to Sarah when Andrew obviously cares for her.

by Anonymousreply 3408/15/2013

Andrew didn't do anything all that scandalous? He dated Koo Stark, star of "Emily."

by Anonymousreply 3508/15/2013

R33. Because the queen is from a different era. She didn't know; didn't realize. The queen is from a different generation when you conducted your affairs and dysfunction in private while sacrificing your well-being.

Elizabeth's sense of duty came from being a princess by birth. Elizabeth was just happy to have her sons off an finally married to two girls who should not have been ignored--and then criticized for not knowing royal protocol and dysfunction. Sarah and Diana showed they had personalities, something severely lacking within the royal family.

by Anonymousreply 3608/15/2013

Yuck. Why would anyone actually want to be accepted by the Queen? I wouldn't.

by Anonymousreply 3708/15/2013

A few things:

1. Sarah was always expected to present herself in a similar manner as Diana; however, she didn't have the same resources (i.e., a husband with the Duchy of Cornwall income or an Earl as a father). I don't believe she's tried to live an exceptionally glamorous life, but she has certainly lived beyond her means.

2. Sarah will definitely OFFICIALLY re-enter the fold once Prince Philip dies. She wouldn't be living in a royal household without The Queen and Prince Philip's consent...the only catch is, re-marriage isn't seen as a viable option until Sarah shows she's truly capable of exercising self control (which she's managed to pull off over the past few years). Also, unlike Diana, she has never spoken disparagingly about her husband or his parents...and as the mother of two Princesses of the United Kingdom, she's not exactly a pariah. Plus, since Prince William and Prince Harry are close to her daughters (especially Harry), Sarah has often travelled/socialized with them...and their opinions do matter to their father.

by Anonymousreply 3808/15/2013

[quote]Why didn't the Queen make sure Diana and Sarah had a permanent friend/adviser/servant to help them make the transition to Royal life?

She didn't expect that anyone would need help doing that. She is from the generation of royals who knew their place and did their duty. She expected these young girls to just know what to do and not complain. They were commoners but they were from the upper echelons of British society. Particularly Diana. They should have just known.

But of course they didn't. They were from another generation and time. They lived in THIS world while the Queen lived in a world many generations past. She's learned a lot since then.

by Anonymousreply 3908/15/2013

It's interesting that the mothers of both Diana and Sarah were bolters.

by Anonymousreply 4008/15/2013

[quote] Diana was trying to save herself. She also was not putting up with a philandering husband and Camilla, a woman she considered a whore and meddler

Don't forget after Princess Diana outed Charles and Camilla's affair in her Andrew Morton book, Prince Charles had his friends (Nicholas Soames for example) go on television and give interviews about how unbalanced, paranoid and mentally unstable Princess Diana was because in no certain terms was Prince Charles having any type of affair with Camilla. He said this was all in her imagination. This went on for years (up until charles finally admitted it in a tv interview). The rest of the press followed up and printed all kinds of Princess Diana has a mental illness stories.

History has shown Charles and camilla were gigantic liars who were having an affair the entire time he was married to Princess Diana

by Anonymousreply 4108/15/2013

When Philip was ill a couple of months ago, I was so hoping that he was finally going to bite it but, unfortunately he is still alive and kicking.

by Anonymousreply 4208/15/2013

"There were three of us, so the marriage was a bit crowded." Diana, Princess of Wales.

Diana should have publicly kicked Charles in the balls and exposed Camilla for the whore that she was. Overall, Diana was more than polite and diplomatic to those two whores.

Diana put up with that shit for as long as she could. And although Andrew wasn't cheating, Sarah only put up with the royal family and them judging her for so long--and then she said, 'I'm out of here.'

by Anonymousreply 4308/15/2013

They have to keep Fergie close because she knows they killed Diana.

by Anonymousreply 4408/15/2013

R43, Diana was beyond naive to expect a Prince and the future King to be faithful. Charles was beyond naive to believe that he shouldn't have been upfront with Diana, given her the choice of marriage with a 3rd party or nothing.

Aren't both Charles and Andrew bisexual, and didn't both of their wives catch them with men?

by Anonymousreply 4508/15/2013

Charles had another lover besides Camilla. From Italy?

by Anonymousreply 4608/15/2013

Sarah getting her toes sucked by the side of the pool was what done her in.

by Anonymousreply 4708/15/2013

[quote] Plus, since Prince William and Prince Harry are close to her daughters (especially Harry), Sarah has often travelled/socialized with them...and their opinions do matter to their father.

Agree with everything at r38 but this. William & Harry both close to the girls esp Harry, but William supposedly despises Sarah and pointedly made sure she wasn't invited to his wedding (yes it was him and not Buck Palace). Not sure of the exact reason, he hasn't liked how she's exploited her friendship with Diana in her books and interviews since her death.

He also is said to now dislike Bea's bf Dave Clark, although he introduced the two of them....William is not all sweetness and light as is portrayed by some.

In terms of why Philip and Sarah don't get along and the backstory there, add the strong rumor/s that he had a brief fling with her mother Susan when she was still married to Ronald Ferguson, who played polo with him for years.

r26, r27 & r28 are all correct.

by Anonymousreply 4808/15/2013

"William is not all sweetness and light as is portrayed by some."

Please tell us more on this point, r48!

Also, since it sounds like you know what you're talking about - what is Kate like, and how do the rest of the family feel about her?

by Anonymousreply 4908/15/2013

Sarah has been invited because Beatrice is getting married and The Queen thought it was appropriate so they could relax and discuss the wedding. While it's true Sarah and The Queen have always gotten along, the rest of the family cannot stand her.

And you can forget Andrew and Sarah ever remarrying. The Queen would never grant consent to that.

by Anonymousreply 5008/15/2013

I always think Charles is the one who made the wedding vows to Diana, not Camilla, so it's Charles who should be blamed for the fucked-up relations between himself and Diana.

I think dataloungers like to make Camilla the guilty party because (a) she's homely, and DLers hate homely people; (b) because they love choosing sides in female-female rivalries (think Meryl v. Glenn or Hilary Swank v. Annette Bening), and (c), most of all, because many of you have this bizarre 1950s attitude towards always blaming "the Other woman."

But Camilla really owed nothing to Diana, ever. The person who actually made promises to Diana and who fucked her over was Charles, and Charles alone.

by Anonymousreply 5108/15/2013

R50...don't be so sure about Andrew and Sarah not remarrying.

As far as the rest of the family not liking Sarah, no one in that family even sees each other except for formal affairs.

Besides, whatever the reason for Sarah's invitation by the queen, the fact is--it happened. They could have have had Sarah stay in one of the guest houses as they've done before. But this time, Sarah was allowed to stay in the main castle with everyone. That says something.

by Anonymousreply 5208/15/2013

R51. The thing that Camilla owed Diana was to stay the fuck out of her marriage. To respect the fact that Diana was a very young married woman and mother who did not need a 30-something carrying on with Charles. Camilla owed Diana some decency.

Yes, Charles made the vows, and he's an asshole too, but it doesn't take a friggin brain surgeon to tell camilla to back off and get the fuck out. She should have known better,and not just gone along because Charles said it was okay. Camilla is equally to blame. She should have told Charles to divorce or not marry at all. Charles lacked the balls.

by Anonymousreply 5308/15/2013

[quote]They could have have had Sarah stay in one of the guest houses as they've done before. But this time, Sarah was allowed to stay in the main castle with everyone.

It's interesting to note that at the start of this vacation, the queen didn't stay in the main castle. She spent the first week in one of the guest houses.

by Anonymousreply 5408/15/2013

No inside info sorry! Just read a lot about the royals. On William, its been said many places that he's more subversive than the public realizes, he knows what power he holds and isn't fearful of using it. When he got engaged and the Palace sent over some list of 100s of guests he'd never met, he marched straight over to see his Grandmother (unheard of) and told her he and Kate would make up their own list, allowing for only those strangers who needed to attend due to protocol. And she conceded.

Is grudge-holding too, this I've heard over and over...if he feels you've betrayed him or his loved ones or sold them out, you're toast.

I think Kate is generally liked and respected by the royal family. She waited a long time, has been discreet, performs her role well and takes care of William. The stories about tension between her and the York girls I think are bunk, there's no evidence of it.

by Anonymousreply 5508/15/2013

I was told that Charles thought that Diana was so anxious to marry him, shy and submissive, that she would have put up with anything, including his affairs with both men and women. Camilla had met Diana, and agreed.

Then he found out that she really was a virgin, and not schooled in sexual matters like Camilla. Diana expected patience from Charles which was not his style. Does anyone know if that was true?

by Anonymousreply 5608/15/2013

Prince William really is a vindictive little asshole. He and Diana weren't on the best terms when she died because his buddies at Eaton were teasing him about Diana dating Dodi. Also, while Diana didn't play favorites, she and Harry were much much closer.

by Anonymousreply 5708/15/2013

[quote] The Queen likes a bit of spunk in people.

And Andrew, so it goes, likes a bit of spunk in him.

The word around London for a long time has been that Andrew is HIV+ and that Fergie knows. It was also rumored to be Diana's trump card...a truly massive scandal.

But Fergie also knows that you play that card once and you're done.

Even her children couldn't forgive that.

by Anonymousreply 5808/15/2013

I always heard the Queen and the royals were homophobic. And I read about gay staff being banned in one of the bios about Diana.

So I'm really curious about these rumours of Charles and Andrew having gay affairs? Tell me more!

by Anonymousreply 5908/15/2013

R56. Charles wasn't sexually impatient with Diana. He was impatient because he wanted out of the house to go fuck the Rottweiler.

Charles, the entitled douchebag, thought he could have his own way and fuck who he wanted (since he was not allowed to marry Camilla at the time).

He (and Camilla) never expected that 'Shy Di' would fight back and call them on their on their affair and lying bullshit. If Diana was nothing else, she a was modern woman who wasn't going to put up with a cheating husband. After all, this was the 1980s--it wasn't the damn Middle Ages or even early 20th century when women had to put up with that philandering shit.

by Anonymousreply 6008/15/2013

Charlie is said to have had a long-time thing going with one of the men on his staff.

by Anonymousreply 6108/15/2013

R51

And what about the vows Camilla made to her husband? Didn't she owe it to him to not be fucking around on him? Aren't we allowed to hate her for just being a dirty whore?

by Anonymousreply 6208/15/2013

Sarah didn't exploit her friendship with Diana. They were friends and had been for a long time. William has nothing to bitch about regarding his mother and Sarah.

Yeah, they might have grown apart as the years went on, but come on, Diana became an international sensation traveling the world rubbing elbows with heads of state. Of course, she moved on a bit. And apparently Diana was none too pleased when Diana lent Sarah a pair of shoes and Sarah said she got a plantar's wart--a rather ridiculous thing to fight about, but it offended the princess of Wales.

And Sarah was on the outs with the royal family, so Diana had to watch geting too close during those last couple of years since Diana was having lots of trouble with the family all on her own. Both girls were persona non grata. Diana just had more clout because of who she was as the mother of the future king.

So Sarah and Diana had their ebbs and flows, but they were longtime girlfriends. Diana was the one who brought Sarah around and played a bit of a matchmaker so Sarah could meet Andrew.

It was also repeorted that when Diana had her fatal accident, Sarah heard it on the news and was immediately on the phone calling Diana's mobile trying to get to her. That's a true friend--she still had her number and could call her at a moment's notice.

I'd say that the time, the trouble and those turbulent royal circumstances is what Sarah and Diana to grow apart--and often times to come back together and bond since only the two of them truly knew what things were like behind the palace doors.

Sarah should have been invited to the William and Kate's wedding. He's friends with his cousins, Beatrice and Eugenie. He should have showed them more respect than he did. He's probably a bit of an asshole like his father.

by Anonymousreply 6308/15/2013

William is his mother's son. He saw first hand how powerless she was at times against the royal machine. You just know that she told him pointedly, "Make sure that whomever you marry doesn't have to put up with this crap" . So I think (as has already been said) that both Diana and Sarah paved the way for a less controlling environment for future Windsor brides. Wm would be very sensitive to it.

And, not to be downplayed, as one of the heirs to the throne, William has a lot more power in the royal household than Diana ever could have had. I'm sure that she made it a point to tell him that he had that power and for him to use it against anyone who tried to control his life. (Supposedly Diana and Fergie had their lives made miserable by the 'grey men' who ran things at the palace.) William clearly will not tolerate anyone telling him what to do but will be respectful to the Queen.

I've also been so fascinated with the role of the in-laws in William's marriage. Kate is so bonded with her family and Wm clearly knew that before he proposed and seems to love their 'normal' lifestyle (if you can call having a $30M company normal). I was really surprised when W & K spent last Christmas with the Middletons. That would have been unheard of in Diana's time to do that.

(If anything, most of the in-laws complained that after their daughters married into the royal family they never saw them much after that. Princess Anne's first in-laws said the same thing.) Once Charles is king, I can see Wm asking him if the Middletons can join the royals at Sandringham.)

by Anonymousreply 6408/15/2013

[quote]And what about the vows Camilla made to her husband? Didn't she owe it to him to not be fucking around on him?

Not defending Camilla's affair with Charles, but you do know that Andrew Parker Bowles was one of the biggest male whores in upper class Britain in his heyday. Was never faithful to Camilla, before or during their marriage.

by Anonymousreply 6508/15/2013

"Supposedly Diana and Fergie had their lives made miserable by the 'grey men' who ran things at the palace."

This. The Japanese version of this is responsible for all the nervous breakdowns in the women of the Japanese royal family.

Kate is very lucky she can hide out in Wales.

by Anonymousreply 6608/15/2013

[quote]Sarah should have been invited to the William and Kate's wedding. He's friends with his cousins, Beatrice and Eugenie. He should have showed them more respect than he did. He's probably a bit of an asshole like his father.

Agree with this post except this part. My uncles' ex-wives aren't invited to family weddings since their divorces, and we all like our cousins just fine. Still like our ex-aunts too.

William's close to Peter and Zara Phillips but their father wasn't invited, and he was a member of the family longer than Sarah was.

by Anonymousreply 6708/15/2013

I've read that fidelity is not the norm in upper class marriages or among Royalty in much of the world. Divorce is still considered a messy scandal, in part because of the amount of money involved.

by Anonymousreply 6808/15/2013

Sarah was at Balmoral for just one night and she had to leave before Prince Philip arrived. She's been there once before since her divorce but it was a house separate from the larger house. She's also had tea with The Queen twice and attended a horse race or polo match with her a few years ago. So the ties were never completely severed, there was some contact. Really, we'll never know, Sarah and The Queen may even chat on the phone once in a while but no one talks about it because Sarah has a gag order from talking about the royal family.

by Anonymousreply 6908/15/2013

Andrew Parker Bowles dated Princess Anne. I think that was just prior to meeting Camilla.

by Anonymousreply 7008/15/2013

[quote]Sarah has a gag order from talking about the royal family.

Does this include talking about her own daughters?

And I agree with the previous poster that was suspicious of what Andrew's role was in Fergie's schemes. I don't think for a second she was acting without his knowledge.

by Anonymousreply 7108/15/2013

I don't think it includes her daughters or Andrew because she's said plenty. But she's never said anything juicy about anyone else, and lord knows what she's seen.

by Anonymousreply 7208/15/2013

Given how shady Andrew is, he had to be in on all of her schemes, not to mention a few other rather unsavory things:

by Anonymousreply 7308/15/2013

For what it's worth, it's suspected that Diana tipped off the tabloids about Sarah and that Texas billionaire because they were set to reveal the sordid details of her own affair with Oliver Hoare.

by Anonymousreply 7408/15/2013

[quote]Sarah should have been invited to the William and Kate's wedding. He's friends with his cousins, Beatrice and Eugenie. He should have showed them more respect than he did. He's probably a bit of an asshole like his father.

No she shouldn't have. She had just been caught by the tabloids trying to sell access to Andrew

[quote] Not defending Camilla's affair with Charles, but you do know that Andrew Parker Bowles was one of the biggest male whores in upper class Britain in his heyday. Was never faithful to Camilla, before or during their marriage

Camilla was a big whore in her day too (especially before her marriage to Andrew). Charles isn't the only person she had an affair with during her marriage to Andrew either. She slept with other men in their social circle. Camilla isn't the only person Charles had an affair with during his marriage either. Andrew parker bowles and Camilla are both pieces of shit. They were social climbers and would have done anything to maintain a friendship with Prince Charles. Andrew was actually proud his wife was fucking the future king. Camilla has always has been EXTREMELY proud that her great grandmother was the whore of King Edward VII

by Anonymousreply 7508/15/2013

Diana was no victim and she well-understood what she was getting into and how royal life worked. Her grandmother was a good friend of The Queen Mother for years and was a Woman of the Bedchamber.

Camilla was not having an affair with Charles in the beginning of the marriage and Diana is the one who first strayed. Only then did Charles return to his old comforts.

Diana was the mother of a future King and was always going to have a significant role and place in royal life. Sarah was married to a relatively poor second son who had no money of his own. She was beyond the pale with her behavior and reckless spending. And she was and is an idiot like Andrew is.

by Anonymousreply 7608/15/2013

[quote] Camilla was not having an affair with Charles in the beginning of the marriage and Diana is the one who first strayed. Only then did Charles return to his old comforts.

That isn't true. Former employees have written about this. Prince Charles has come clean and admitted he cheated first also

by Anonymousreply 7708/15/2013

here are the pictures of Sarah that first got her into trouble with the royal family

by Anonymousreply 7808/16/2013

The toe-sucking episode was what really did Sarah in. It was so unseemly and trashy she couldn't recover from it.

by Anonymousreply 7908/16/2013

[quote]Camilla was not having an affair with Charles in the beginning of the marriage and Diana is the one who first strayed. Only then did Charles return to his old comforts.

This is not true. There were reports that Camilla's presence was well felt during the Royal Wedding and Honeymoon. Something which Charles never denied.

by Anonymousreply 8008/16/2013

So what, he was kissing her feet. People do it. She wasn't kissing his feet. Sarah and Andrew agreed to split in January 1992. The foot kissing happened in August 1992.

by Anonymousreply 8108/16/2013

Charles was fucking around with Camilla before and during his marriage. Camilla gave Charles cufflinks just before his marriage to Diana. The cufflinks were engraved with the initials F&G, which stood for Fred and Gladys, the pet names Charles and Camilla had for each other. A gift like that doesn't happen unless you're having some sort of an affair and fucking the 'other woman.'

It was also reported that Camilla was calling Charles while he was on his honeymoon--and Diana knew it. Charles and Camilla are slimy, sleazy whores who undermined Diana's marriage from the start and they didn't care who knew it. Diana could only put up with that bullshit for so long--and then she checked out emotionally and called them on their shit.

by Anonymousreply 8208/16/2013

[quote]This is not true. There were reports that Camilla's presence was well felt during the Royal Wedding and Honeymoon. Something which Charles never denied.

Charles and Camilla were always friends. So why deny that 'her presence was felt'? That doesn't mean he was cheating. Diana was fucking her personal detective and Charles took that as permission to resume his physical relationship with Camilla.

by Anonymousreply 8308/16/2013

quote]My uncles' ex-wives aren't invited to family weddings since their divorces, and we all like our cousins just fine. Still like our ex-aunts too. William's close to Peter and Zara Phillips but their father wasn't invited, and he was a member of the family longer than Sarah was.

R67. Sarah versus Princess Anne's former husband, Mark Phillips, is not quite the same situation--by the mere fact that there was lots of speculation as to whether Sarah would be invited. No one was wondering if Mark Phillips was going to be invited.

For one thing, Mark Phillips has long been gone from the scene. Sarah is still sort of on the scene and has a close relationship with her daughters. Mark Phillips does not have that same social, somewhat high profile relationship with Zara and Peter Phillips.

Anne is remarried. Mark Phillips would not have been invited with Anne's current husband accompanying her. Sarah lives with Andrew, so despite the divorce, they are still apparently somewhat of a family. Sarah and Diana were also friends. In remembrance of his mother's friend and out of respect for his cousins, there wouldn't have been anything wrong with William extending an olive branch to his cousins--and an old friend, who was also his aunt by marriage. Diana was not friends with Mark Phillips. There was no reason to invite him.

And perhaps if Sarah's 2010 financial scandal hadn't happened, then she very well might have been invited to the 2011 wedding especially since she had been previously invited to Balmoral in 2005 and 2008. Things were thawing and cordial between Sarah and the royal family.

by Anonymousreply 8408/16/2013

[quote]Charles and Camilla were always friends. So why deny that 'her presence was felt'? That doesn't mean he was cheating. Diana was fucking her personal detective and Charles took that as permission to resume his physical relationship with Camilla.

Right because it's normal for your spouse to be "just friends" with someone on a strictly platonic level and have a their palpable presence felt.

Whatever you need to believe.

by Anonymousreply 8508/16/2013

[quote]Andrew Parker Bowles dated Princess Anne. I think that was just prior to meeting Camilla.

Talk about the horsey set.

by Anonymousreply 8608/16/2013

Why should anyone expect that Fergie be invited to William & Kate's wedding just because she was part of the family and is the mother to his cousins? So what?

Maybe William doesn't like her for his own reasons, having nothing to do with his mother of his family.

It was his wedding. He's not obligated to have anyone there he doesn't want or like.

And the majority if you, if it were your own weddings and someone tried to force you to invite that Aunt, Uncle, Co-worker or whoever else you couldn't stand, you'd probably tell them to fuck off.

by Anonymousreply 8708/16/2013

R83. Don't be so damn naïve. Charles wasn't waiting for Diana to give him a signal that it was okay to cheat. He just did it. Diana was 20 years old and a young mother. The two whores, Camilla and Charles, were well into their 30s. Charles was carrying on with Camilla from the start. He's a pampered, entitled douchebag who figured he could cheat and no one could stop him. Yes, Diana left the marriage; however, Charles left it first--and from the beginning.

Charles and Camilla may be respectable now, but 30 years ago, they were whores. These two should have nothing to say about Diana or Sarah. Charles and Camilla were far, far worse.

by Anonymousreply 8808/16/2013

I believe it's always been Fergie putting around the story about her and Andrew remarrying. She's always referred to him as her "bestest friend" (what is she, six?) and I think she'd love that. Keeping that story in the air almost keeps her relevant and respectable.

Can't imagine what he'd get out of the deal though. He's got his freedom to play golf and sleep with whomever he pleases and she can't complain. Why change that unless it's for an independently rich woman?

by Anonymousreply 8908/16/2013

It's possible to view Charles and Camilla differently as soulmates kept apart by his parents. Charles didn't want to marry someone like Diana. He had to.

by Anonymousreply 9008/16/2013

R83. The undermining infidelity problem of Charles and Camilla always was that from before the very start of Diana's marriage, Charles and Camilla were never "just friends."

by Anonymousreply 9108/16/2013

I would agree with you R88 if this were a small non-public wedding. But the royal wedding is about more than just the bride and groom. It was poor form to have the Princesses there and not to invite their mother. It seems like a deliberate snub.

She was not some side piece who got knocked up by Andrew, she was married to him and it seems as if she has done a decent job raising the girls. It was wrong not to include her. She wouldn't have had to be a big player, she could have just walked in among all the other minor players in the royal world.

by Anonymousreply 9208/16/2013

[quote]He's got his freedom to play golf and sleep with whomever he pleases and she can't complain.

Whomever he pleases? Let's not get carried away.

by Anonymousreply 9308/16/2013

r84 I disagree in several areas. First one being that wondering or speculating about who would be invited has nothing to do with actually -receiving- an invite. I hardly think that public speculation would influence William & Kate's decision on whether to invite/not invite Sarah (or any other former family member).

[quote}...Mark Phillips has long been gone from the scene. Sarah is still sort of on the scene and has a close relationship with her daughters. Mark Phillips does not have that same social, somewhat high profile relationship with Zara and Peter Phillips.

Mark and Anne have remained highly cordial since their divorce-Mark and his wife Sandy were invited to Diana's funeral in '97. Mark is -extremely- close to his two older children, very much a part of their lives. To imply he isn't as close to them as Sarah to hers is ridic. And the "high profile" angle again is irrelevant to whether he (or Sarah) would/would not garner a wedding invite.

[quote]Anne is remarried. Mark Phillips would not have been invited with Anne's current husband accompanying her. Sarah lives with Andrew, so despite the divorce, they are still apparently somewhat of a family.

Anne's re-marriage would have -nothing- to do with it, Mark, Anne, Tim and everyone gets along just fine. The fact that Mark doesn't live in the same property with them is irrelevant; in fact he does live very close to Gatcombe so you could say they live "very close by". To say that Sarah & Andrew are "more of a family" b/c she bunks with Andrew is again ridiculous, and mildly insulting to Anne and Mark (and their children).

[quote] Diana was not friends with Mark Phillips. There was no reason to invite him.

Absolutely false, Diana was good friends with Mark during and after their marriages and he was invited to her funeral along with his then wife. Diana and Mark got on very well during their mutual yrs in the Royal Family.

by Anonymousreply 9408/16/2013

R89...Is Andrew really sleeping around at this point? I doubt it. Wouldn't the paparazzi be spreading around a few photos now and then showing a new girlfriend?

And yeah, Andrew has his freedom--but not really. Sarah and he live in the same house. So how much freedom do either one of them really have? I never heard Sarah refer to Andrew as her "bestest" friend. I've heard, "best friend" and "my guy." And no independently rich woman is going to be all over Andrew now--maybe a few years back when he was a good-looking, eligible guy. But not now.

Sarah likes him, maybe even loves him. But not some wealthy dame.

by Anonymousreply 9508/16/2013

There is really no doubt that Camilla and Charles were always together and always screwing. There is footage of him mooning at Camilla as he was walking down the ailse for his wedding of the century. I can't hate him for being forced into a corner but the way he treated Diana who was a virgin, nearly half his age and pretty much under his thumb shows what a spoiled snot he is. I hope Elizabeth lives to be a a hundred and eleven.

As for Fergie and Andrew they clearly consider themselves married.

by Anonymousreply 9608/16/2013

Sarah 'bunks' with Andrew? Whatever, call it what you will. He must like having her around or he wouldn't do it. This Windsor royal family isn't prone to endlessly 'feeling sorry' for others so Andrew must want or like her there. Andrew and Sarah have a relationship that perhaps many don't understand.

Also, Andrew doesn't have Sarah living at the house because she'll spill all the secrets if he lets her loose. There are no more secrets. We know everything.

We all can criticize these two, but they raised two good girls who grew into young women who are never in trouble and never cause any scandal.

by Anonymousreply 9708/16/2013

Fergie's no fool. She spends beyond her means and had to be bailed out twice financially from very large debts. She likes the good life and the prestige of being the ex wife of a royal. She manipulates and brown noses Andrew (who laps it up) and makes sure she keeps him under her thumb.

From what I've read she's basically c*** blocked any other women from getting too close to him so that she can keep shacking up in his mansion rent free and get him to pay off her bills. I also read that her daughter's trust funds have helped her out.

She just seems like a basically nice woman who is an overgrown child, desperate for Andrew and her children's love and emotional/financial support. A weak but nice woman who is shrewd enough to know she needs their money and love to keep her afloat.

While I think she loved Andrew years ago and is still genuinely fond of him, I also think she now views him as her lifeline to the good life is she is adamant that no other woman is going to come between her and her husband's wallet.

by Anonymousreply 9808/16/2013

Charles has never denied daying to Diana (re Camilla) ..." do you really think I am going to be the first Prince of Wales NOT to have a mistress??!!??!?!". Diana was expected to know how to play the game - much like the Queen had to with Phillips many dalliances.

by Anonymousreply 9908/16/2013

r98, I agree with that to a certain extent, but I think Andrew was involved in the access scandal.

She took the heat for it in exchange for continuing to live in that house.

by Anonymousreply 10008/16/2013

Oops , I meant " saying " not daying. R99

by Anonymousreply 10108/16/2013

Wow, you folks really care about the lives of strangers. Its really quite odd. Passing judgement about peoples lives.

by Anonymousreply 10208/16/2013

r75 That little piece of information about Camilla's great-grandmother seems to be known by so few, and I am astonished. Alice Keppel was the main royal mistress, the dying king actually asked to see her when on his deathbed. How come this isn't mentioned when people are flinging shit at Camilla(which she so richly deserves) Granma musta' known a lot of tricks.

by Anonymousreply 10308/16/2013

R102 must be lost, poor thing.

by Anonymousreply 10408/16/2013

It's worse than caring about the lives of strangers, r102. The British pay these people to provide them a living soap opera. Now I'll prepare for the British posters to call me "fat": that's their only riposte to any Americans who direct any criticism their way, despite their own chronic obesity. What a fucked up society.

by Anonymousreply 10508/16/2013

[quote]Wow, you folks really care about the lives of strangers. Its really quite odd. Passing judgement about peoples lives.

Why are you at DL, R102? Did you come here to get the baseball scores? Why did you open this thread? Were you expecting to get information about Queen Anne furniture?

by Anonymousreply 10608/16/2013

[quote]I've read that fidelity is not the norm in upper class marriages or among Royalty in much of the world.

Absolutely true. The problem with some of the posters here going on and on about how Charles and Camilla had a responsibility to be faithful to their spouses and so on are nonsense. They're applying middle class values to upper class people. It doesn't work.

by Anonymousreply 10708/16/2013

R107, Thank you for agreeing with me. In some circles, marriages are not equated with long term passionate love but with socially acceptable partners behaving properly whenever in public. It's an attitude of "do whatever you wish in private but don't scare the horses."

What I don't understand is why Diana, growing up so near to royalty, in an upper class environment where affairs were common, wasn't more aware of the choices that she was inevitably making in marry a prince.

by Anonymousreply 10808/16/2013

R108 - I don't think Diana was all that bright. She WAS a young girl at the time and no doubt had dreamy notions of her fairytale prince and being a princess and all that. But all she had to do was look at her own family to know that her own marriage was probably not going to be very rosy.

But again, she was a silly young girl who had dreams of her Prince Charming saving her away from all that.

And you're right that, at least in the old days, marriages at that level of society were often more like business arrangements. These days we like to think everyone marries for love. But the fact is that some still marry for money, prestige, and fame. And often for a title. Men and women equally.

by Anonymousreply 10908/16/2013

...and they call me trash. Sheesh!

by Anonymousreply 11008/16/2013

R107, R109, That's why I'm so surprised by most of the comments on this thread. In how many non-upper class marriages in the US are partners sexually faithful?

The norm is to marry someone of whom your family approves, and then, thanks to Bill Clinton, who changed the definition of sex outside of marriage, to quietly get BJ's from whomever you wish, perhaps at an out of town business conference. Many men purposely chose someone completely wild. Some couples even slept in separate beds, supposedly because one snored. They led separate lives but at least they didn't divorce.

by Anonymousreply 11108/16/2013

Andrew and Sarah technically live in the same house but I believe their living areas are totally separate. They don't bump into each other going to the loo in the morning.

It benefits him because he can fend off any over-eager admirers by saying he still lives with his ex... not that it's really an issue anymore. I've read most of his female companions are provided by the host in whatever country he was visiting in his rah-rah British trade ambassador role.

It benefits her economically and socially because it looks to the world like they are still a couple, or they would be if those nasty interfering royals would just kick the bucket. I doubt they will remarry although I'm sure she'd wish it. When Charles becomes king, he is going to make some changes re royal freeloaders.

At the moment it's just a matter of convenience.

by Anonymousreply 11208/16/2013

[quorte]Wow, you folks really care about the lives of strangers. Its really quite odd. Passing judgement about peoples lives.

And yet, here you yourself are on a gay gossip forum!

Imagine!

by Anonymousreply 11308/16/2013

[quote]Some couples even slept in separate beds, supposedly because one snored.

For Kevin Jonas and his beard, they slept in separate bedrooms --- until they became reality stars.

by Anonymousreply 11408/16/2013

[quote]Wow, you folks really care about the lives of strangers. Its really quite odd. Passing judgement about peoples lives.

It's called "gossip." As in "get your fix of gay gossip, news and pointless bitchery."

by Anonymousreply 11508/16/2013

[quote]Wow, you folks really care about the lives of strangers. Its really quite odd. Passing judgement about peoples lives.

What's odd is coming to a gossip site and then complaining that people are gossiping about other people. THAT's odd.

by Anonymousreply 11608/16/2013

In Europe, it is considered chic to sleep in separate bedrooms.

by Anonymousreply 11708/16/2013

Hey, stupid queen that apparently doesn't know how to quote correctly:

It's left bracket [

Then "quote" in all lowercase letters

Then the right bracket ]

Do it right, already.

by Anonymousreply 11808/16/2013

I wonder if the queen will provide for Andrew and Anne and Edward in her will. She has millions of her own, besides the money that belongs to the crown outright.

by Anonymousreply 11908/16/2013

[quote]I wonder if the queen will provide for Andrew and Anne and Edward in her will.

I believe inheritance taxes in The UK are excruciating, Princess Margaret's children had to sell their mother's jewels they inherited.

by Anonymousreply 12008/16/2013

[quote]I wonder if the queen will provide for Andrew and Anne and Edward in her will. She has millions of her own, besides the money that belongs to the crown outright.

It IS the tradition. The monarch does not leave anything to the heir because they inherit the crown. Their private estate is usually divided (not necessarily equally) among the remaining children. Edward the VIII apparently took it very personally that no money was left to him by George V

by Anonymousreply 12108/16/2013

[quote] I've read that fidelity is not the norm in upper class marriages or among Royalty in much of the world.

It isn't, but Charles and Camilla weren't just screwing. Camilla used to live with Charles at his and Diana's house half of the week. Princess Diana would go home for the weekend and 20 minutes after she left on Sunday evenings Camilla would pull up in her car to stay for a few days. The staff had to treat her like she was the lady of the house. This went on for YEARS. That's the kind of stuff that pissed of Diana. When she said there "were three of us in this marriage", she meant it literally

It also bothered her that most of Charles friends (and hers) knew about all this, helped cover up the affair and even let Charles and Camilla have sex in their guest houses. These people didn't bat an eye when they would see Princess Diana. She hated the hypocrisy.

Camilla used to also bad mouth princess Diana to everyone they knew for being an airhead who was only interested in clothes. Thirty years later we find out Camilla had major plastic surgery, got new teeth and has an entire staff who handle her clothes, hair and makeup (more people than Diana ever had). Despite all of this fat, lazy Camilla always looks ridiculous. Her former image/media consultant called her the laziest woman in the country

by Anonymousreply 12208/16/2013

R122, That's quite a different situation from the married man who goes to his country house on weekends to enjoy whomever. The whole truth was never revealed. Usually legal wife and mistress/long-term male lover have very different roles, are kept at a respectful distance, and pretend the other doesn't exist. Was Charles still enjoying his rumored man servant/valet/assistant too?

How disrespectful for Camilla to publicly bad mouth Princess Diana, and thus encourage Royal gossip. What did the Queen say when she heard the whole truth?

by Anonymousreply 12308/16/2013

r120 I always felt sorry for Margaret. All she wanted was to marry a divorced(horrors!) man, Peter Townsend, and Betty put the kibosh on it. Look at all of The Queen's progeny, and the lovely little scandals they generate?

by Anonymousreply 12408/16/2013

Will Sarah have to muck out Camilla's stall?

by Anonymousreply 12508/16/2013

[quote]Camilla used to also bad mouth princess Diana to everyone they knew for being an airhead who was only interested in clothes.

Link please.

by Anonymousreply 12608/16/2013

Were Charles and Camilla ever in an off period or was the affair always going on? I know that Diana has said when she walked up the aisle at St. Paul's cathedral, she saw Camilla's face in the crowd and thought to herself that she'd won and Camilla had lost.

by Anonymousreply 12708/16/2013

[quote]Wow, you folks really care about the lives of strangers. Its really quite odd. Passing judgement about peoples lives.

This is a gossip website and the "strangers" we're discussing are royalty and live off of the public dole.

You're a massive idiot.

by Anonymousreply 12808/16/2013

r127, I think you got the story wrong. Right before the wedding, Diana discovered that Camilla had sent Charles cofflinks with "G & G" inscirbed on them, which were for "Gladys and George," their pet nicknames for one another when they were dating. Diana instantly knew they were still having an affair, and wanted to call the whole thing off just a few nights before the weding. Diana's sisters stayed up with her all night and explained at this point it was too late ("Dutch, they've already printed up the tea towels for it--you can't go back"), so she had to go through with it.

When her father walked her down the aisle of St. Paul's, she spotted Camilla in the crowd, and was depressed--she knew Camilla was a part of their marriage.

I think Charles and Dina did have a few good periods in their marriage very briefly even so. I think they were very happy together when William was born. But she said she knew it was over when she gave birth to Harry and Charles wouldn't stay with her in the hospital (he was initially depressed, because for some reason he wanted a girl--and he also was unhappy the baby had red hair, the famous Spencer family male trait).

by Anonymousreply 12908/16/2013

I thought this thread was about Sarah. But as usual the sad people from the various royal gossip forum turn the thread into a rehash of Charles nd Dianas marriage. They roll out chapter and verse of the Andrew Morton book. And speak/write as if they were intimately involved in the marriage. Lol. These people are sad still so pasdionate about a 30 year old story. Lol how absolutely pathetic. Nothing in your pathetic lives gets you going as much as this tired old story.

by Anonymousreply 13008/16/2013

[quote]Nothing in your pathetic lives gets you going as much as this tired old story.

Well what gets you going, you crotchety old battle axe? Trolling people on the internet? Bitching people out on threads that clearly don't interest you?

Sounds pretty pathetic to me.

by Anonymousreply 13108/16/2013

Game, set, and match to R131.

by Anonymousreply 13208/16/2013

R130, If requested, I could start a new thread on what really went on in Diana's marriage as DL experts always seem to uncover most of the truth, on any subject matter. Gossip is a relief form everyday disappointments too.

by Anonymousreply 13308/16/2013

R130 is superior to you, R131 because she wanted to discuss Sarah, not Diana and Charles and Camilla. Discussing Sarah is soooooo much classier than discussing those other lowlifes.

by Anonymousreply 13408/16/2013

Yes talk about Sarah!

133 rightly suggedts you Start another thread if you want to discuss Charles and Diana or better stll visit roysl gossip forum or royal insight forum. As you will find thresd after thread that discuss this. But you are probsbly trolls from those sites anyway

I want more discusdion about Sarah going to balmoral and what this indicates

by Anonymousreply 13508/16/2013

R135, I've never even heard of Royal gossip forum or Royal insight forum, and am not a troll. If you feel that this thread is being derailed, and I just thought that we were comparing how non-Royals marrying into the family were being treated, I will gladly start a new DL thread on request.

by Anonymousreply 13608/16/2013

[quote][R130] is superior to you, [R131] because she wanted to discuss Sarah, not Diana and Charles and Camilla.

Who says things like that?

by Anonymousreply 13708/16/2013

I wanna go to Balmoral too. What do you think meals are like there?

Do you think the "joke gifts" you hear about on the holidays are things like Charles giving his mother a dildo and Elizabeth setting a whoopie cushion under William's seat?

I'll bet they're a stitch and a half.

by Anonymousreply 13808/16/2013

I used to be quite the British Royal expert many years ago as I was obsessed with them and read everything about them.

From what I've read, R138, Balmoral is supposed to be on the casual side. The royals have a lot of picnics and BBQs while they are there. There is also a large ball (is it the ghillies' ball?) where royals, guests and ataff drink a lot and dance with each other.

by Anonymousreply 13908/16/2013

I can not get up any interest in Sarah or the Queen and I'm kind of curious about people who can.

by Anonymousreply 14008/16/2013

r102 = Princess Bea

by Anonymousreply 14108/16/2013

I like Sarah. She's got spunk. I hope she's back in the royal fold to stay. Remarry her, Andrew.

And she's got staying power. I started this thread; never thought it would get so many responses.

by Anonymousreply 14208/16/2013

Remarrying might be exactly what they need to garner some interest in them after Charles becomes King, i.e., give them some income after they get cut off.

They'll be able to re-write their entire relationship and market it as a fairy tale after all!

by Anonymousreply 14308/16/2013

[quote]I like Sarah. She's got spunk

I hate spunk.

by Anonymousreply 14408/16/2013

Royals threads are simply one of the best genre there is on DL. A close second to Michfest threads.

The quality has been excellent the last few years. The seriousness of the posters is part of what makes them so great... they are a look down the rabbit hole of royal knowledge, and how pointless it is, but also, such an authentic interesting demonstration of it, that you kind of get into it. Like almost any niche interest.

Carry on, carry on.

by Anonymousreply 14508/17/2013

Do you suppose losing TWO members of the British royal family in a tunnel may look like carelessness?

by Anonymousreply 14608/17/2013

Andrew is very fond of Sarah, and they are great friends, but he has a long time girlfriend, and he is also given to certain, ah, excesses, and being married would open him up to a level of scrutiny about his personal sexual habits that he and the royals would certainly not welcome.

Sarah is still a bit of a wild thang herself. Her days of kinky sex with foreigners may be over, but she likes to hire the occasional young man from time to time. Sometimes the more the merrier. So no marriage, just being mates is fine with them both.

by Anonymousreply 14708/17/2013

r145 there are many knowledgeable people on DL on a number of obscure-offbeat topics. You can sometimes learn a nugget of something useful or interesting.

Royalty isn't that niche, there are a ton of blogs and forums devoted to it, many well-done and well trafficked. If you think the posters here are informed you should see some of these people. There are a few who've made careers out of it, writing books, articles - one blogger was even invited to be a tv guest commentator at a European royal wedding.

by Anonymousreply 14808/17/2013

[quote]Andrew is very fond of Sarah, and they are great friends, but he has a long time girlfriend

Where's the proof of that? If Andrew had a girlfriend, the paparazzi would have uncovered that secret by now. Same goes for Sarah if she had a boyfriend.

by Anonymousreply 14908/17/2013

Sarah had two boyfriends, neither turned into long-term arrangements but both of them would have been lucrative financially. One was an Italian count who was either a real estate mogul or a hotelier. The other was Norwegian and was rich from a frozen fish company. She would have had to give up her post-divorce surname 'Duchess of York' and become either Countess Gaddo or Frau Fishstick.

by Anonymousreply 15008/17/2013

Wasn't she still going with the wealthy Norwegian about two years ago?

by Anonymousreply 15108/17/2013

R150. Yes, Sarah did have a Norwegian boyfriend from a wealthy Scandinavian family who owns a frozen food company. They dated for a while, 2010-2011. But that's my point, we know who these people are dating from time to time since it's reported. It's very difficult for them to see anyone or have a normal dating relationship even when they try to keep it low key and out of the news.

by Anonymousreply 15208/17/2013

R147, Are you implying that Andrew and Sarah are into swinging? Do they hire upscale rent boys or play with other members of the upper class? Are the young men that Sarah acquires shared in any way or watched by Andrew?

Is it true he enjoyed his shipmates? Did Charles too?

by Anonymousreply 15308/17/2013

Sarah will be ferociously holding on to that title until her dying breath. No matter how wealthy any future boyfriend is, he can't offer her a title. And her ego needs to keep the one she's got.

Yes, it's the 21st century, but having a title in the UK still carries a bit of a cachet. To be referred to as "the very wealthy Mrs. Fish Sticks, a former duchess" doesn't have quite the same ring to it as the "Duchess of York".

She has a comfy financial and living arrangement set up for life and can date anyone discreetly while living under her husbands roof and continue to keep the address and the title.

There is no incentive for her to ever get off the Windsor dole completely.

by Anonymousreply 15408/17/2013

Sarah, Duchess of York, you work it girl. Don't ever let the Windsors off the hook.

by Anonymousreply 15508/17/2013

"She has a comfy financial and living arrangement set up for life and can date anyone discreetly while living under her husbands roof and continue to keep the address and the title."

It can't be THAT comfy a financial arrangement - isn't she constantly broke, bankrupt, in debt, and hustling for money in ways either legal (her Weight Watchers whoring) or illegal (the access-selling thing)?

by Anonymousreply 15608/17/2013

Sarah isn't a duchess and doesn't have a title. 'Duchess of York' is like a surname now, she can never properly be referred to as The Duchess of York. She isn't a duchess, royal or otherwise.

by Anonymousreply 15708/17/2013

R157. You say potato; we say potahto. Whatever. Surname or not, Sarah, still retains Duchess of York following her first name.

She is not Sarah, "The" Duchess of York, because she forfeited her HRH after the divorce. It was the same situation with Diana, "The" Princess of Wales; after her divorce, she lost her HRH and became Diana, Princess of Wales.

by Anonymousreply 15808/17/2013

A reminder to all that the law requires the Queen's permission for Andrew to marry, even if it is to re-marry Sarah. The same is true for Harry and Beatrice (i.e., the first six people in the line of succession). Before this year, all royals and even distant cousins needed the Queen's permission. A marriage without the Queen's permission is simply not recognized as a legal marriage.

by Anonymousreply 15908/17/2013

Well then, R159, when Philip dies, the queen will grant permission to her favorite son, Andrew, to remarry Sarah.

by Anonymousreply 16008/17/2013

Duchess of Pork.

by Anonymousreply 16108/17/2013

Cammy, nothing more than a Rottweiler.

by Anonymousreply 16208/18/2013

Fuck that shit, honey. I'm also Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay, and Countess of Carrick, and Lady of the Isles. And very soon, I will be the Queen.

Suck on that.

by Anonymousreply 16308/18/2013

'Duchess of York' is like a surname now, she can never properly be referred to as The Duchess of York.

Even though she is officially "HH Sarah, Duchess of York" according to court protocol, she is constantly referred to as "The Duchess of York" in the media. Just do a simple Google search.

[quote]She isn't a duchess, royal or otherwise.

No, there you are just wrong.

She is not royal, but she is still Duchess of York, and she will always be unless she re-marries (if ever).

by Anonymousreply 16408/18/2013

R156, what I meant by "comfy financial arrangement" is that she would likely be scrambling for rent without financial support from Andrew and her daughter's trusts.

She can continue to live in a royal residence and have Andrew and her children, for all intents and purposes, support her for life. She likely doesn't have a pot to piss in regarding her own net worth, but Andrew and her daughters will always make sure she maintains a comfortable life. I would guess she gets some kind of monthly allowance of some sort.

Oprah's network did a 6 episode series on Sarah rebuilding her life a few years ago after the "cash for access" fiasco. (To which Fergie indignantly replied that she was NOT selling access to Andrew but was 'just trying to get money for a friend who desperately needed it.' The image of Sarah sitting in a hotel room with a bag of cash on a table pretty much sealed her fate with some royal lovers though.)

Financial advisor Suze Orman and Dr Phil were brought in to 'mentor' her on the show. (Sarah did not like Phil basically calling her on her stuff. To be fair, she had a pretty lousy adolescence when her mom ran off w/a polo player to Argentina when she was 12 and her dad was very cold to her after that. Sounds pretty awful and explains some of her neediness as an adult.) Suze was trying to get her to get financial independence from Andrew but I think Sarah knows a gravy train when she sees one.

by Anonymousreply 16508/18/2013

'Duchess of York' is merely a surname now, R164. She is Sarah. Her surname is Duchess of York. She isn't an HRH but she isn't a peerage duchess (Her Grace) either.

by Anonymousreply 16608/18/2013

All wives of Peers lose their rank, title and precedence upon divorce. These are held only through marriage and not in their own right. They hold their former titles as a style unless they remarry, but they are no longer a Countess, Marchioness, Duchess, etc.

Until 1996, there had never been a divorce of a son of The Sovereign. The Queen issued Letters Patent in August 1996 confirming former wives of Princes of the UK have lose their right to royal rank upon divorce.

As such, both Diana and Sarah automatically took the style of their former titles as ex-wives of Peers, but lost their royal rank as HRH with divorce. They were no longer a Duchess or a Princess because these attributes arrived with marriage and departed with divorce.

by Anonymousreply 16708/18/2013

R163

And yet Camilla knows better than to dare go by the title Princess of Wales. Must suck to be her knowing that your husband's ex will always be liked better than you by the public.

by Anonymousreply 16808/18/2013

Not to change the subject slightly, but Sophie Winkleman aka Lady Freddie Windsor had her baby this week, in LA. Maud Elizabeth Daphne Marina.

Four names. I don't think this child is even royal is she? Its a bit much even for Pushy's grandchild. And per the press release "the Queen has been informed"- wtf? Why would QEII need to know or even care. Some people get ideas above their station.

by Anonymousreply 16908/18/2013

I bet Cammy wears a sash around the palace that says Princess of Wales

by Anonymousreply 17008/18/2013

Comilla is fairly well liked in the UK these days. She works hard and has a sense of humour. I think it is probably just a few Diana diehards who have an issue with her.

by Anonymousreply 17108/18/2013

So now we know why this "feel good" royal thawing occurred...what [italic]nice[/italic] people those royals are!

Diana's suspicious death is in the news again. We're finally learning about the mechanics of the conspiracy despite the best efforts of TPTB.

So, was she about to reveal Charles' OTHER longstanding extra-marital affair - the one with his valet?

by Anonymousreply 17208/18/2013

[quote] Prince William really is a vindictive little asshole. He and Diana weren't on the best terms when she died because his buddies at Eaton were teasing him about Diana dating Dodi. Also, while Diana didn't play favorites, she and Harry were much much closer

Wow, some of you people are so fucking crazy.

"Eaton"?

And classmates taunting th future king of England?

Get a fucking grip, girls

by Anonymousreply 17308/18/2013

[quote]Must suck to be her knowing that your husband's ex will always be liked better than you by the public.

I console myself by imagining Diana's body moldering in the ground as I try on the many different diamond tiaras she will never get to wear again.

She'll never ever get the chance to wear the Koh-i-Noor, will she? But I will. :-)

by Anonymousreply 17408/18/2013

In "The Diana Chronicles" Tina Brown describes a scene that occurred at Eton when Diana drove there to tell William that some stories were going to come out about some romantic dalliance or another. I think it may have been when the pictures of her and Dodi on the yacht were going to come out. (It's been a few years since I read it) William was described as being highly upset after she left. I don't know if he was being teased, but it's a pretty safe assumption that classmates were discussing his mother outside of his presence and he knew it.

As far as vindictive, what evidence is there that he is? Because Sarah wasn't invited to the wedding? I'm sure that had more to do with her running into trouble trying to peddle access to Andrew. And don't forget that this came on the heels of Andrew trying to get that Florida billionaire pedophile to pay of Sarah's debt. It would have been too unseemly after the financial stuff (even if Andrew was involved).

by Anonymousreply 17508/18/2013

Daphne is a really lovely name. Marina obviously for Prince Michael's mother. Is that the baby's great grandmother? Maud also had royal connotations.

I don;t know why they'd need to tell the Queen. She doesn't need to know.

by Anonymousreply 17608/18/2013

[quote]I console myself by imagining Diana's body moldering in the ground.

But Camilla, the sad thing is that Di's decayed face still looks better than yours....

by Anonymousreply 17708/18/2013

Now the Telegraph is citing a 'friend' as saying "Mark my words, they will remarry. It is only a matter of time."

by Anonymousreply 17808/25/2013

[quote] Prince William really is a vindictive little asshole. He and Diana weren't on the best terms when she died because his buddies at Eaton were teasing him about Diana dating Dodi.

[quote] In "The Diana Chronicles" Tina Brown describes a scene that occurred at Eton when Diana drove there to tell William that some stories were going to come out about some romantic dalliance or another. I think it may have been when the pictures of her and Dodi on the yacht were going to come out. (It's been a few years since I read it) William was described as being highly upset after she left. I don't know if he was being teased, but it's a pretty safe assumption that classmates were discussing his mother outside of his presence and he knew it.

It's a pretty safe to say that these things Never happened. She didn't meet Dodi until the summer - when school was out - even "Eaton" is closed for the summer. The Princes were in Scotland with their father when their mother died. None of his buddies from "Eaton" were anywhere near him. And Tina Brown knows shit. All she did was piece together lots of known facts written by other reporters and added a little bit of her own crazy thoughts to her so called book

by Anonymousreply 17908/25/2013

[quote] Daphne is a really lovely name. Marina obviously for Prince Michael's mother. Is that the baby's great grandmother? Maud also had royal connotations

Maud does have royal connotations. She was associated with Lady Godiva. They were freedom riders

by Anonymousreply 18008/25/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.