Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, has always had a great relationship with her ex, Prince Andrew. There are even stories about how Andrew didn’t want to divorce Fergie and he was forced into it by the Queen and Prince Philip following a series of scandals. Post-divorce, they’ve been a model of cooperative co-parenting, taking family vacations together and generally seeming like they still really enjoy each other’s company. So, it’s no surprise that Andrew invited Fergie to join in on a family vacation at Balmoral. Sarah joined Andrew, Eugenie and Beatrice for a few days, but she had to be shuffled out at the last minute because Prince Philip still hates her.
The Duchess of York, 54, arrived at the Scottish estate on Thursday, ready for a long weekend accompanied by former husband Prince Andrew and daughters Beatrice and Eugenie. Fergie plans to enjoy some quality-time with the Queen – who is understood to be very fond of her former daughter-in-law – but will have to leave before Prince Philip arrives on Tuesday because “he won’t have her in the house”, according to The Sun.
It is understood that Prince Philip refuses to see Fergie, due in part to his confusion over his son’s continued, complicated relationship with his former wife, who live together in the Duke of York’s Windsor home.
A source told the Sun: “Prince Philip won’t have her in the house. He cannot understand why she’s living under the same roof as Andrew after all these years. Normally members of the royal family stay a week or two, but the Duchess has to cut short her stay”.
Regularly used by the Royal Family for their summer breaks, the Queen is due to stay in Balmoral Castle for the next two months. While the Duchess of York has visited the Scottish castle since her divorce, it is believed that last summer was the first time she had been asked to stay in the main castle since the end of her marriage in 1996.
In the 18 years since the divorce, the couple have often been photographed enjoying nights-out together and have reunited for a family holiday with their daughters each of the intervening summer. The royal source added: “Many people have speculated they will remarry, which could be more likely if Prince Philip drops his opposition”.
Some have claimed that Prince Philip has never forgiven Fergie for the embarrassment she caused the family during the nineties – a decade in which she began an affair with Texan tycoon Steve Wyatt while still carrying her second daughter. It was also the decade in which the Duchess of York was the scandalous subject of an infamous ‘toe sucking’ photograph.
Speaking back in an interview in 2000, the Duchess of York said that she and her ex-husband had spoken about the possibility of remarrying – but that Prince Philip had not allowed it. It is thought that the Queen thinks of Fergie as a ‘good mother’.
I tend to think that Prince Andrew probably does NOT want to remarry Fergie but he does love her. At this point, Andrew gets to have his cake and eat it too – he gets to enjoy close relations with a companion/wife/best friend figure (Fergie), plus he gets to have younger girlfriends on the side. He’s living the dream (for many men but #notallmen). Granted, even if Fergie and Andrew remarried, I’m sure she would still be fine with him having girlfriends on the side, but as it is… why would he want to change their current dynamic? But I do think there will be changes in whether Fergie comes “back to the royal fold” if and when Prince Philip passes on. I believe that part of it. It’s Philip who despises her. And I think the Queen is just tired of the drama, especially when it concerns her favorite child, Andrew (Philip’s favorite child is Anne, reportedly).
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Prince Phillip looks very scary in that first photo. I would not want that man angry at me. He has always given off weird vibes
It’s the eyebrows. I’m 99% sure of it.
Looks like Jim Carrey as Count Olaf. He looks like my dad too, lol.
He looks like a Death Eater o.0
He reminds me of that walking corpse looking priest in “Poltergeist”, Reverend Kane. I can imagine him riding in that carriage with The Queen while humming “God is in his Holy temple”. He creeps me out. Plus, I just dont like him.
fergie and andrew are both useless
but HMQ’s fuchsia outfit is killing me, so much love
Me, too. Fergie and Andrew–blah, blah, blah. Then that stunning photo of the Queen in fuschia. What a beautiful woman in a gorgeous outfit!! Eat your heart out, Kate.
The fuchsia outfit outshines them all lol
I simply adore the Queen! She looks quite fetching in her fuschia! Call me crazy, but I love the way she dresses. Not at all my style, of course, but love her dresses, hats, and bling bling. This woman has not once made a wrong step in her many years as monarch. I have absolute respect for her.
I’ll never forgive the Queen for not doing more to keep Britain out of Iraq, shame on her.
The Queen has no political power. She does not have any influence on being in or out of Iraq so quit blaming someone who has no control. Blame Parliament and whoever was PM at the time.
BW: actually she holds a veto which IF she’d exercised would have kept us out of Iraq. She may not have party specific political power, but she retains the power to veto many, many things.
A few years ago, the guardian newspaper forced a court to order partial revelation of some of the items she’s veto’d or simply passed over the years and the Iraq war was one of them.
Just because this particular monarch chooses not to use the small powers she has, doesn’t mean that she doesn’t have them.
Yes, exaclty. THere’ve been reports that Charles has exercised his influence on political matters – I remember reading something in the Guardian. The whole ‘they’re symbolic’ mantra is in some ways just a fiction. All you need is a Dubya type to come roaring through the birth canal of a Windsor and then the world is even more screwed than it already is. And because I am so cynical (because: see world history forever and ever) the parliament would find a way to endorse the decisions of a King Dubya Windsor.
The Queen was taught to believe that it is the governments job to protect the people from the monarchy, which used to be true. She cannot or will not believe that the future of the monarchy lies in protecting the people from the government. In that way she has far outlived her usefulness. I wish she would step down but I know she vowed not to.
@Looloo, Dubya was that unique combination of privileged entitlement, willful ignorance, wrapped up in an incurious vengeful brain. Throw in some charisma along with a well respected “legacy” father, white house press not doing it’s job, and an American public who looked away from the truth, and you have the perfect storm that was Dubya.
The outrage that erupts whenever Charles’ ‘meddling’ is leaked is an indication that we expect our constitutional monarch to be purely ceremonial. HMQ has been extremely careful re showing her cards always, though human sentiment has sometimes overtaken this, as it did on her State visit to Ireland, where she manaaged to convey a very great deal (of regret and of positivity) in an apparently frictionless speech. Chazza’s far more emotionally driven.
LAK shows clearly that there’s a misapprehension in our understanding of royal power…..we like to think they are both important somehow, yet without influence. We’re going to need to bring this area into broad daylight in time for Charles III, in order to be clear about our respective limits/expectations.
@mayamae not to mention puppetmaster Darth Cheney pulling the strings behind the curtain.
I did not know that the Queen has a veto! That is very interesting – that makes me even more interested to see what Charles does when he gets the top job. Given his propensity to make his opinion known on political matters now, I wonder if he will become more interventionist when he is King, or if he will follow HM’s footsteps and become a more neutral figure. I always assumed he would become more neutral (and that he would hate it!!) but I didn’t know about the veto.
Love the fuchsia hat and the matching fuchsia lipstick!
For Fergie, I think, it’s less about remarrying Andrew (although I wouldn’t be shocked) and more about NOT being outside the Family. Being on the inside comes with many perks and I know she’s spoken before about how awful it is to be on the wrong side of The Firm.
But! I don’t think any significant changes will happen until Prince Phillip dies.
I’m truly no fan of either Fergie or Andrew (“Air Miles Andy”) as both come across as more than boorish, and think quite highly of themselves. Yet, credit where credit is due; they have created and sustained a very positive and solidified family environment for Eugenie and Beatrice – post divorce, and whatever their many faults they are to be commended for that. Both daughters come across as very well adjusted, well spoken, and genuine, and Fergie and Andrew DO deserve full marks for that. Fergie is what Fergie is, but there is no denying she has been a great mum to her two daughters.
Prince Philip cannot stomach Fergie for her indiscretions? LOL! That’s rather rich, considering Philip’s well known numerous amorous adventures through the decades – pot calling the kettle black. The only difference between Philip and Fergie is that he conducted these affairs under the radar.
I wouldn’t at all be surprised if Fergie and Andrew remarry after Philip’s death – wouldn’t surprise me in the least. It would seem Andrew can’t or won’t stand up to Philip re Fergie (I’m guessing here). These two have an unbreakable bond.
From what I understand “under the radar” is everything.
Bluhare, Exactly!!!
No sin is worse than having one’s indiscretions in the media. That’s a bigger sin than the actual indiscretions.
Diana, had she lived, would have been treated exactly the same way barring chilly public occasions when they couldn’t exclude her.
The only difference between Phillip and Sarah, was that Sarah was papped.
Why are we suppose to “forgive” Charles & Camilla for the embarrassment that they caused, to the image of the royal family as a whole? It seems to me that the the the behavior of these two, was far more disconcerting, and with greater consequences for the royals, with Charles as heir. (and all that money they have spent remedializing his image…) Maybe it would have been just too much work to include Sarah…
What is Phillip thinking?! He looks like a hypocrite.
Wolfpup: with the exception of those audio tapes, there was never any real evidence of Charles and Camilla in the media. Infact, the public remained clueless until DIANA outed them in her Andrew Morton ghosted memoir.
Of course the media knew as did most of society, but the point remained that Camilla wasn’t a media talking point nor can one truly point to any one thing (with concrete proof).
Of course biographers have since talked to various society people and we are all aware of the story, but Camilla herself remained schtum per the dictats of her social class.
Diana, was a blabber. And she was always creating media stunts. She was nearly frozen out completely at the time of her death because of it.
Believe it or not, but Fergie has been forgiven from time to time, but she keeps on being indiscreet. The ‘selling of Andrew’ was the final straw. They’ll never be another thaw.
@Wolfpup, I completely agree, and love your points about Camilla and Charles. Will there ever be anything as embarrassing as the audiotape of Prince Charles wishing he was a tampon? Ever?
I’m not a Sarah fan, but she is the mother of Philip’s grandchildren. He should suck it for their sake. What a brat.
Re: indiscretions: it was rumored that Prince Andrew’s father is not Prince Phillip but . . . Hmm. It will come to me. For some reason I’m thinking Porchie (aristo nickname).
Can someone help?
@Dena – there have been rumours that Andrew’s father is Lord Porchester, the Queen’s former racing manager and close friend. There is somewhat of a resemblance between Andrew and Porchester, but when you do the math Andrew was actually conceived when Prince Phillip returned from being away on the Britannia for some months, not while he was away, which is what some conspiracy theorists think.
@Jaded. Thanks. I was just circling back to to write Lord Porchester. U gave details that I couldn’t. Thanks again.
If QEII has had “indiscretions”, those are going to the grave or straight to the top of just about every best seller booklist if former staff et al decided to write a tell-all.
Jaded/Dena: Andrew is a conundrum. As a baby/child, he didn’t look like any of the family, but teens -> present, he is the spitting image of various Bowes-Lyons relations.
Timeline wise, Philip’s return and a happy reunion squash the rumours, but I wish he had visible Mountbatten genes, like Harry, so that it would squash that rumour forever.
Toes sucking does not seem as bad as Charles telling Camilla he wanted to be her tampon.
when there’s an old school family grudge the Royals are just like us.
I’ll never understand why the Queen doesn’t kick Phil in the teeth and put him in his place. She’s the boss, and if she likes Sarah, she should allow her to stay and have family time with her daughters.
It’s been said many times over the years that when it comes to the marriage of the Queen and Prince Philip, she is (of course) recognized as head of state, and he is acknowledged as head of the family. She defers to his decisions in regards to personal family matters. I’m not defending Philip at all, but that seems to be the way it is with them.
Yeah. Despite her public role, the Queen is still a woman of her times and he is a man of his times. So they probably have a traditional marriage in terms of gender roles.
Or he could have “needed” a sense of power as well and “running the family” gives him that basis and it perhaps serves as an outlet for some of his ego needs. *Hunches shoulders* Who knows?
Yes, I think a good of it is their traditional view of marriage, but I also think the Queen is still, after all these years, absolutely gaga over that man, and would walk through fire for him. The way she looks at him…whatever dirt he’s done in their marriage, she still adores him. That’s why she lets him have his way in family matters.
I think so too, epiphany. I think it was LAK who posted aphoto of them where he was in ceremonial dress where the look between them really was lovely.
Liz has been quoted saying that she tells Phillip he can have or do anything he wants – then makes sure it is *only* what she wanted him to do or have all along. And there are instances where she has stood her ground and prevailed. The queen adores her husband and wants him to feel worthwhile and significant but I have seen no real reasons to accept the excuses for her handling of family matters.
Philip wears the pants and that´s no secret. He is dominant and always had affairs, he does what he wants the way he wants and The Queen is the dutiful aristocratc wife who looks away and remains silent. Queen or not, she is a daughter of her time.
Philip is a hyprocrite when it comes to Fergie. Would there have been internet and social media around when he was the young, dashing Prince Consort … oh my the scandals.
Word! It’s well known that he was all but pushed into the marriage by his “uncle”Mountbatten and wasn’t as keen on it as Elizabeth was who was completely smitten by him. His attitude about the Queen was that it was a death sentence for him when she gained the throne so young. Suddenly he was the nobody, the second guy over there who had to defer to his wife of all people in public no less. Not to mention the affairs he’s had, including the Queen’s first cousin Princess Alexandra of Kent! That had to be a wallop to the Queen when she first heard about it. I think the Queen gave him cart-blanch over the family and estates, so long as he didn’t embarrass her or drag her name down. In that regard he hasn’t done so, other than embarrass himself with his outdated mouth.
Philip is a racist, classist, probably misogynist POS so if i were Sarah i would take him not liking me as a massive compliment.
Philip is 93 years old: a person cannot change at that age. When people get old become less accomodating and more intransigent about their stuff, that’s why dealing with old people can drive you crazy.
I would not care about his “hate”, she decided to not meet him, that’ s fair enough for both of them, I think.
a person CAN change at any age, if they want to. 🙂
His age is irrelevant; he was always those things, and very proudly, vocally so. How many awful quotes have we heard from him dating back decades?
My grandmother is 91, and she is the epitome of true grace and class, and has never been a gross bigot. Let’s not tar elderly people with the same Phillip feather (if that makes sense).
But it’s not like he hasn’t been like this for decades. He could have changed if he wanted to. The Queen has changed a little over the years maybe because she had to but Philip hasn’t either way.
What am I saying is that if he has been an a-hole for all his life he will not change now at 93.
As a wise old sage told me once, “bluhare, when you get older your worst traits get worse but your best ones don’t get any better!”.
People are different. From personal experience how a big bully in my family became more and more mawkish and sentimental as he got older. The same thing with his father who was the “beat-the children-with-a-belt” parent in his younger years and then became over-the-top sentimental in his extreme old age.
ArtHistorian
Very interesting. I would say your examples are proof positive that Phil is a true, organic pos. when someone softens or improves with age I always wonder if stressors affecting their personality/disposition have fallen away over time and letting them finally be reasonably decent. But when someone is a jerk his whole life then you should believe him when he keeps proving it.
Dame,
Make no mistake, my grandfather was still a bully, especially towards my grandmother, when she became increasingly blind and deaf. I guess stressor brought it out in him. My mother is much like him, and she’ll never change (though she suffers from a serious mental disorder). However, he became a blubbering mess when he had to make a speech at his and grndma’s 60th anniversity. People are complicated.
Boom. Truth. Thank-you.
I agree. I have never gotten his appeal.
Same here, and Ag is right–people can change if they want to.
I’m not talking about anything other than his dislike for Sarah here, but in this case if she’d married my son I wouldn’t think too much of her either.
The tales have me believing the whole yard is full of bunnies bopping…there isn’t a one of them that isn’t. I don’t blame the queen if she had a lover, because “everyone else is doing it” (the standard excuse for upper crust trysting).
Egah, does he have any? Or, I suppose he would again say that it’s just us plebs who don’t understand his dry, cutting humour. We’re what we think is wrong with him in his mind, you know. Of course, when you’ve been telling the same joke for 75 years…
I don’t doubt he’s all those things, like many of that generation. But he’s not *only* those things…..I ‘file’ him with another curmudgeon of similar views: Kingsley Amis, and I still like both of them….whereas I loathe certain others who are nothing *but* those views, right to the core.
Many years ago, I knew a woman who worked at Balmoral. She said the staff dreaded it whenever the queen and Philip came to visit, but she made sure that I understood that it wasn’t the queen that was the problem. The queen was actually very nice. Philip – not so much.
Wasn’t Fergie caught trying to sell access to Andrew/the Family for cash? I always figured that was the real reason she was frozen out and not allowed at/invited to family events anymore.
She was frozen out well before that… right after the scandalous photos were published.
She’s been on the outside since her divorce, but that was a huge scandal and a big deal, considering that she was selling access to Andrew in his official trade capacity. This was the scandal that moved her from tacky (the book, the Weight Watchers, etc) to a problem. Wasn’t it the reason why she wasn’t invited to Will and Kate’s wedding?
Andrew was the originator of that scheme from the very beginning. Partially explains why he owes her so much.
Yes Dame, sounds true, rings the bell.
The only things that interest me about this are 1) Prince Phillip morphing into Mr.Burns. 2) EIGHTEEN YEARS!!!!!!!! Where has the time gone!?
Smithers! Release the hounds!
That reminds me, your Dameship
Was it not you who sought certain tweedy sporting apparel for Mr Snark? I hope that worked out, it was a charming idea. Pip pip!
What a memory you’ve got! The plus fours are gift wrapped and hidden in the back of the armoire as we speak. His birthday is the 15th of this month! I’m packing him off to Amelia Island to play golf at the Cloisters with friends 🙂 I’m pretty excited and I have plenty of Haagen Dazs on hand to deal with his absence lol.
My dear, I hadn’t realised you were not being dragged along as a caddy! Even better, some delicious space for yourself. Lovely plotting, best wishes all round. 🙂
Well, Sarah has exploited the family a lot, so it’s not a huge surprise that some of them don’t care for her. I’m sure Charles and Anne are in that camp as well, I mean Charles doesn’t even want Andrew’s daughter’s to reap any royal benefits.
This does not seem anything like the love in a home of regular families. It sounds just awful. We know that they are not saints – yet this infighting doesn’t sound normal at all, nor a healthy family, to happen to be born into. People need love. Most of us have our families for that. Does wealth and power actually trump love?
Poor Sarah. She can’t be that bad if her ex still loves her, and she’s made her daughters a center in her life. I wonder about the shady money and power deals of Charles (sticks and stones…). If they could fix his image(?), they certainly could embrace Sarah as well. She looks like the sin-offering of the royal family; they chased her from the camp like the ancient jews did with the black sheep or goat, so they could be free of sin themselves. (then Jesus came and was declared to be the sin offering of mankind).
While a don’t think Sarah’s “bad” (just a mess,) I don’t think having the love of Andrew is a sign of a good person. He seems to hang around with a group of despicable people.
I have always gotten the vibe that the BRF has some dysfunctional behavoural patterns. and If you look back on the family relations between Elizabeth’s father, his older brother and their parents you can detect a pattern of dysfunctional behaviour.
That the thing with dysfunctional families – it is often a pattern of behaviour that is perpetuated over generations. I have had the displeasure to be caught in such a pattern in one side of my family – and have since found out that that particular dysfunctional pattern has replicated itself over4-5 generations. It takes a lot of insight and determination to break such patterns.
I have always though that it must have been hard for Charles to grown up in a family knowing that his parents loved his siblings more than him. Whatever his faults as an adult, no child deserves to be put in that situation – and children always know when they are less loved (or even unloved). I felt that this is a big failure on the paret og the Queen and Philip – and I must admit that I am not very forgiving when it comes to parents that fail their children in a significant way.
Just read biographies of the Hanovers (including pre-1714) for a glimpse into familial dysfunction…..ye gods, loathing one’s firstborn seems to have been de rigueur! When Victoria slammed shut the door on the generations of warring fathers and sons on her accession, it seemed to heal the family line, until little green shoots of error sprang up again, despite attempts at normalising family life. Gawd, you couldn’t make it up.
Chris: Victoria loathed her first born with a passion. Her loathing probably calcified into outright hatred after she blamed him for her darling Albert’s death.
Though I am agog about Goerge V’s position on parenting chiefly that as he was afraid of his own father who in turn had been afraid of his own father, he’d make sure that his own kids were terrified of him!!!
And terrify them he did.
LAK
Tis true, I’d forgotten that re VR.
I remember though how she hated pregnancy ( I shudder at the thought meself) and was an enthusiastic consumer of both cannabis (surely not spliffs?!) and opiates for ‘laydees’ problems’…..perhaps that makes me think she had a drop of normality about her. Who am I kidding; the ould bat!!
I didn’t know she hated being pregnant, but her diaries apparently attest to the fact that she very much liked the activities that led to pregnancy!
When the ex that still loves you is THAT ex, that makes things murky.
So Charles is no one’s favorite? Aww. Poor little ole prince. That does, however, explain his devotion to Camilla.
Charles was apparently the Queen Mother’s favourite
Well, at least there was THAT! 🙂
Poor Edward, maybe he was Nanny’s favorite.
Charles was also Lord Mountbatten’s favorite,
Mountbatten was only interested in Charles’s status and how it could advance his own -see also his interest in Philip.
I always wonder whether Charles might have married Diana IF Mountbatten had been alive to continue sheparding him (and eventually William) towards his own family.
That man was a social climber beyond measure!!
@LAK I did read that Mountbatten orchestrated the courtship/marriage of the Queen and Prince Philip. I don’t think Charles would have married Diana either if Mountbatten had lived. I think he steering Charles to marry Amanda Knatchbull.
That’s another “sounds true” bell for me. Mountbatten hadn’t finished with Charles… Perhaps the whole Diana debacle could have been averted, with his guiding hand. Charles would have listened to him (rather than to a grey man); and perhaps Diana, would have listened as well. They both still needed father figures. The family seems too political to have father figures.
Charles was a delicate boy with an absent mother and a dominant father.
It´s said that the calm Camilla cares for him and understands his feelings. She supports his ideas and plans. It´s that easy. His teenie bride needed care herself.
LAK
I *never* knew that about Lord Mountbatten! At the time of the assassination I was a right little anti-royal rebel, but still, I’d picked up the notion that he was the very pattern of decency, honour, and all that jazz. (Knew about Lady M and Nehru, but toffs are toffs about these things) . Oh dear, there’s a great market for feet of clay, isn’t there? 🙁
Mountbatten used a guest cottage on his estate so Phil could tryst in privacy and comfort. He also arranged, ahem, playdates for Charles so he could acquire sexual knowledge. It was rumored that Charles found Camilla intriguing but once he verified that neither Mountbatten or his father had been with her he was even more thrilled to begin seeing her. Mountbatten was totally gross, lol.
Ouch, shades of Louis XV and his menagerie, procured for him by his maitress en titre Madame de Pompadour.
I’d compare this to his sons. William and Harry are not favorite grandsons for HM and Philip, but they were raised in the direct line and so are favored in some ways. I would think Charles has a similar relationship with his parents.
He did really have a cold childhood, compounded by ‘Dotheboys Hall’ boarding school horrors. Andrew might have fared better in his place, but it seems that Charles definitely needed the missing warmth and affection. (This is a great part of my own delight in his present happiness…..I grew up ‘alongside’ a very unhappy young prince, for all that he had a fabulous social position)
Ooh ah, details!
Dame S
Nohh! Just meant as a kind of contemporary, he being only about 7 yrs older than moi.. You know, you’d hear little things in the news about his childhood/ boarding school/Cambridge…..and through it all the impression was one of isolation.
Then came a blur of years featuring the pressure to marry. And suddenly, bam! The virgin sacrifice, and the pre-divorce/ wedding ceremony at St Paul’s Cathedral. Grim stuff.
I must be the only person who did not know Andrew and Fergie still lived together. Besides Phillip having an opinion about anything, that’s the biggest thing I got out of this article.
I had NO idea. WTF?
Btw, if Sarah behaved so scandalously, what should we call Charles’ tampon tapes? Yeah, that’s what I thought. Sucking toes is nothing compared to Charles and Camilla.
It is if it’s a picture of said foot kissing whilst topless and your toddler is sitting close by, as opposed to audio tapes.
And that came months after pictures of her pregnant on holiday with Steve Wyatt.
I guess that depends on which you think is worse then. Personally I don’t think either of them was the picture of class back then but at least she wasn’t first in line. The audio tapes themselves are of course not as jarring as pictures but the content isn’t so classy. Not to mention Charles’ whole mistress “thing” that went on forever.
@LAK, I was an avid follower of Sarah’s fall at the time, but somehow it escaped me that she was having an affair while pregnant. Beatrice is clearly a Windsor, but was there any whisper or concern before she was born?
How embarrassing and humiliating for her..can you imagine being papped in your very worst moment-to be defined by, for the rest of your life? I bet that Charles could not be King if he were papped in some of his embarrassing positions with his lovers, or concerning the dealings and letters he wishes hidden. And Phillip too for that matter. Maybe Andrew forgave her because he had done the same thing, in some way. I’m not saying that Sarah didn’t look terrible, only that I don’t think that the men in the royal family are less guilty than the man sucking Sarah’s toes. It was gross. But geez, we could all move on if they stopped punishing her. I call this SEXIST because women are to be “pure”, and she was as nasty as they.
They HAVE to deal with Charles. Sarah, on the other hand, was an appendage they thought they could remove.
Mayame: she was pregnant with E. The people who insist that Harry is a Hewitt might have made something of baby E and Steve Wyatt.
The only saving grace, Fergie is visibly pregnant in the pictures, and E looks exactly like the QM and by extension Andrew who also favours QM’s side of the family in looks.
Littlemissnaughty: in terms of whose scandal had more impact, i’d say Sarah’s because one had to call a number to hear the tapes, which was of interest to gossips. Sarah’s pictures were front page news of all the tabloids. Unavoidable even if one wasn’t a gossip.
Naturally we all here have our own heroes and villains, but I do think that ‘Tampongate’ was the lesser outrage by far….C&C had every reason to believe that virtual ‘pillow talk’ conversation would be overheard by absolutely no-one on earth but themselves.
I am probably way off key here but feel that for this reason alone, it’s been left alone to desiccate rather than live on as a problem….from general feelings of disgust about the phone-tapping business itself.
@ LAK and Chris: Yes, photos have more impact because they’re almost unavoidable. I’m not old enough to actually remember any of these scandals or how they played out. I just think it’s so silly that Sarah’s scandals are still an issue for Prince Philip when clearly, he’s fine with whatever his son, the future King, pulled for years. But I guess that’s fine because he’s a man? I don’t know. Those tapes horrified me more than the toe sucking.
Charles had the big bucks to spend on PR rebranding, Fergie did not. Charles flew under the radar and spent considerable energy on philanthropic and environmental issues, Fergie lampooned herself with tacky money grabs. Charles had the support and advice of the palace, family and powerful family friends and associates, Fergie had no loyal backers. Charles was a male with a highly cultivated sense of ancient noblesse oblige, Fergie is a female who dared to step out of line. She never stood a chance.
Rusty – I read about 6 months ago that Fergie lives with Andrew. I was quite surprised.
I also learned a lot about BRF shortcomings from this editorial I recently found titled “Look what you’re marrying into, Kate”.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/13/catherine-bennett-kate-middleton
Awesome. Thanks!
If you scroll further down to other articles, there is one by Ken Wharfe talking about William’s new job. Very interesting thoughts.
Dame, that was comprehensive, and so beautifully worded.
I want the Broach on HMQ’s jacket. That is all 🙂
I don’t know how much credit should go to Andy and Fergie for how well their daughters seem to be doing. Cooperative parenting after divorce is huge so kudos to them for that. But OTH it could also be said that the daughters are doing well in spite of their money-grubbing, adulterous parents.
Call it for the money-power grubbing, adulterous men in the royal family. Heaven forbid if a woman does the same as they!
If I were Fergie, I’d worry less about what the old man thought of me and more about what Charles thinks. He’s already making noises about cutting off the lesser royals and that doesn’t bode particularly well for the mother of the lesser royals, who, by all accounts, relies on her daughters and ex for everything down to a place to live.
So, everyone’s singing for their supper…
I don’t think Andrew was forced to divorce Sarah. I don’t think he wants to marry her again. He’s a player. Let’s be honest. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk and a whole herd of other cows for free? Also, I don’t think Andrew can afford to marry a spendaholic.
Remember when Sarah was caught on video selling access to Andrew? She’s an opportunist. If Andrew married her again, I think there’d be nothing but Sarah using her position to get whatever she wants from others. She comes off as never having ‘grown up.’ I don’t think she’s a rational person nor self-disciplined.
I can understand why Philip wouldn’t want her around him. I bet she’s like a gadfly, buzzing in his & his wife’s ears, trying to get favor with them. I think she still thinks that being the loudest person in the room is charming. But it’s probably very annoying, especially to older people.
They were definitely forced to divorce.
Andrew didn’t start dating other people for several years though he’s made up for lost time.
She’s had dalliances, but nothing serious as well.
They might have divorced years later naturally, but when she was so publicly disgraced, divorce was the ONLY option given to them. No cooling off, discussions etc. Andrew made it known that he had let *her* down despite her indiscretions. And I think that’s the key to why he keeps her around.
I always thought Andrew must have cheated on her as well. If he did not cheat, and still defended her – that is very sweet. They seemed like soul mates, too bad they couldn’t make it work.
Mayamae: He never cheated on her. However, it wasn’t much of a marriage. He was barely around. She had a proper military marriage with hubby away for months at a time. With no family support and The Palace and public expectation to deal with.
Andrew only appreciated her predicament when all the scandals erupted, and he finally stood up for her, but it was too late because the ONLY option that was deemed acceptable was divorce.
There are lots of theories why he stood by her, each more scandalous than the last, but I think he really regretted not being available and giving her the necessary support when she needed it. And his regret was such that he didn’t blame her for the affairs, and he has stood by her ever since.
LAK
Both comments very nicely done.
I never did care for this couple, some of the reasons for this being downright snobbery, I’m afraid……but given even only the acknowledged scandals there, fair play to both for not letting things get even more ghastly, and it’s hard to sneer any more when people are doing their best in difficult circs for both. Sarah must hurt a very great deal, and Andrew’s ‘best’ is limited, so I do hope she still has her old optimism, and I know the ‘girls’ are her great joy.
Dear me, if nothing else, the BRF are worth the fee just for their human interest Dynasty/Dallas/Brookside value!
I actually think if they had managed to stay married, the marriage would be much like their relationship today. They would (quietly) date other people from time to time but remain very happy with one another.
“Why buy the cow when you can get the milk and a whole herd of other cows for free? ”
Ugh. We’re still saying this?
Whatever godwina. If you don’t like what I write, then just ignore all my posts from now and into the far future.
I see Sarah has embraced Duchess Kate’s banana curls.
I had NO idea Fergie and Andrew were possibly still canoodling. I thought they were like done-done. MIND BLOWN.
/goes back under rock
I’m one of the few who actually feels kinda sorry for her. Andrew was away most of the time – she once said she’d seen him a grand total of 2 weeks out of an entire year. She had two babies by then that she was basically raising on her own, and the palace grey men certainly never made her feel welcome. She was lonely, ignored, clearly suffering from some self-esteem issues, and made some bad judgement calls as a result of the emptiness in her life.
Which is why I don’t get all “off with her head” with her. Imagine being in that situation and the only person who has your back can’t be bothered to spend more than two weeks with you. You either get mentally unstable (Diana) or someone who handles as best they can (Fergie). The RF must be a psychoanalyst’s wet dream. These weird little scenarios people are put in and just waiting to see how they crack.
Who is the sovereign here? Show him who’s Queen, your majesty! If you like Fergie, tough on Philip. What can he really do to Elizabeth? She so outranks him. Maybe he can try to divorce the Queen if she pisses him off, lol…..I guess she really loves him and despite her station, yields to his tantrums to keep the peace, just like regular mortal spouses often do.
She’s not exactly Catherine the Great!
I’m sure she still sees her dashing and handsome young naval officer when she beholds him, and we all know he calls her “Cabbage” in private.
I see little possibility of a lucrative divorce for Mssrs Sue, Grabbitt, & Runne! (I know we’re only kidding here)
Why does he call her “Cabbage” in private?
Is it like “mon petit chou” as a term of endearment?
Bucky
No idea! It was in the movie ‘The Queen’.
(I hadn’t even thought about ‘mon petit chou’! Duh.)
Someone here will know, for sure.
LOL…if she had the kind of power Catherine the Great had, Fergie wouldn’t have made it to the present day! Given enough time, many folks seem to have found forgiveness of Fergie…it would be nice if Philip could too 🙂
They probably have a Selina/Andrew (Veep) situation. They’re getting together but they’re not getting back together. Marriage doesn’t always work for people sometimes. These kinds of situations do. I don’t think they’ll ever remarry. 100 years from now it will turn into a scandal (over embellished) but for now “meh”. It works for them, who cares. Neither one of them is liked anyway. I thought both were just trotted out when the British Public needed someone to moan about (you know, when the popular ones are having boring week).
This is interesting — because I just watched all the YouTube clips I could find of that hot mess “Finding Sarah.” It was the docu-series on Oprah Winfrey’s network.
After watching that — I honestly don’t blame Philip for his ill will toward Sarah. This woman has done some pretty embarrassing things for money.
Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nVjbBQSylw
I was shocked this clip featuring Princess Eugenie was even allowed to air: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=preC7K8Qbjs
On the flip side, you could argue the RF backed Sarah into a corner since the divorce, and she didn’t have many other options. If you’re Sarah Ferguson, what other hand do you play? How do you come out from under the RF’s shadow?
I thought she went to Balmoral every year and left early, before Prince Phillip arrived.
PHILLIP IS SO WRONG IN THE PUBLIC SHAMING of a woman.