Understanding Sarah Ferguson’s loans

[violetpink]

Why did she have to borrow money from Epstein, and others I believe?
Andrew is super wealthy and I’m sure she’s made money from her Duchess title, such as talk shows and products she’s endorsed.
i just can’t understand her loans. And why anyone would give her one. And why she has debt.
Hopefully some of you know why.
She lives freely with Andrew so no overheads there. Surely it’s a great no no to borrow money from friends.

She can't call herself a Duchess.

They are as good as 'binned'. They can't use them and once William is King there is far less likelihood of them having any connection with the RF.

I don't understand that comment. So now I'm learning the actual point of the thread is to hate on SF because she had a financial relationship with Epstein. Got it. The thread wasn't about her profligate lifestyle. Even though many people were discussing only the profligate spending. That was just a warm up to talking about Epstein's crimes ?

Ohhhhh... so maybe it was fine if she did super wasteful lifestyle as long as she didn't achieve it because of loans from Epstein? Nobody actually cares about anything else?

I am slow. Sorry. I'll leave thread since I am so slow.

I don't think this thread is in good taste, TBH, despite my joining it.

My opinion is she's a disturbed woman, not the brightest, got herself into lots of pickles, she's had cancer twice and will be monitored for life on it, so I think some 'slack' is allowed, although her loyalty to Andrew is questionable.

She's just sold the London mews house she bought a couple of years or so ago as an 'investment' at a £400k loss.

That kind of deal may give some insight into her relationship with money.

And again, here we go criticising everyone else - Andrew rightfully so yes - but I have said it before and will say it again - CAMILLA. Never worked a day in her life, found the top billionaire to shack up with and is now queen consort after being an adulteress divorcee.

Yet for some reason the focus is on Meghan and Harry again. Is there something in place that says as soon as these knobends C and C come to the throne they CANNOT be criticised?!

Or that it’s a fire sale as really strapped for cash (?)

What? No point? I don’t think you have read Entitled. Your information is out of date.

I can’t believe people are letting her off on this thread because she had a difficult upbringing! So have lots of people and they haven’t resorted to using people in the cynical way that Fergie has!

First of all, Lownie says there is evidence that SF borrowed £2 million pounds from Epstein.

And we don’t know exactly what he got in return from her for that money? That alone needs investigating imho.

Also, there is the small matter of her writing to support a convicted paedophile, and allowing her daughters to associate with him, long after she claims to have cut ties with Epstein, all the while writing children’s books and working with charities who help trafficked women to launder her image! Do you not think that gross hypocrisy is worth worrying about?

There is also the matter of her using the Duchess of York title, along with transport and police protection in some cases funded by the tax payer, long after she divorced Andrew. For holidays and so-called charity missions. So what people have been accusing Meghan of doing; Fergie has been doing quite blatantly for thirty years!

SF did raise money for charities but in certain incidences the charities did not receive the promised funds, or the split between monies raised and expenses were very murky.

Lownie also says that Sarah is quite a manipulative figure who has hinted about writing a memoir of her life in order to get around the NDA that she had to sign after her divorce. This is why she is unpopular with certain members of the RF.

Lownie also described her “sick cynicism” and “exploitative” nature in that she would borrow money and clothes ruthlessly, from people who were rich and poor, even servants, on the grounds that she would repay what was given, and then failed to do so; eg SF allegedly borrowed £100,000 from the Dowager Duchess of Marlborough to pay for a party in the South of France and only paid £5k back saying she thought that the rest was a gift!

Even worse she failed to pay newsagents and hairdressers and failed to return borrowed dresses from designers in multiple occasions. Lownie rightly points out that this pattern is cynical exploitation not just forgetfulness or lack of organisation. It’s far, far worse than just being “hopeless” with money! SF deliberately used her position and title to take advantage of others.
´
Lastly, Lownie states in one of his recent interviews that he believes that there are grounds for criminal investigations in to the financial activities of both S and A. He says he has information that he couldn’t put in the book for legal reasons that he is willing to supply to the national crime agency.

SF’s name crops up in a High Court case where PA and Ferguson were named regarding payments linked to a Turkish businessman, Selman Turk. The case involves a Turkish heiress who claims Turk defrauded her of millions of pounds and used a portion of that money to make "gift" payments to the Duke of York and his ex-wife.
So SF’s role in that needs investigating.

As does her role in the Gate Ventures collapse?

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2020/mar/13/shareholder-defrauded-firm-linked-to-sarah-ferguson-court-told

To say Sarah was simply “silly” and a victim of her circumstances is naïve and wrong!

The reports said she had sold because she thought they would have to leave the Royal Lodge so she was ensuring she/they had somewhere to live.

All large London properties of that value have fallen in the last couple of years.

Do you believe everything that authors write about the RF?
That should be your starting point.

Most of these authors are simply interested in lining their own pockets by turning rumour and gossip into fact.

She was entitled to use Duchess after her divorce, so that's a non starter in criticism.

Not saying she is blameless but at least let's stick to facts and not rumors churned out by authors on a mission.

I saw an Andrew Lownie interview the other day, and he says that Epstein got pissed off with Sarah Ferguson and dropped her. You've got to be a real piece of work for that revolting piece of shit to be disgusted with you.

Agree , it's an eyeopener .

I get so fed up with hearing stories of entitled people like her spending money they don’t have on things they don’t need to impress people who don’t care. So much for the Royals setting an “example” - people who struggle each week to make ends meet must especially despise her.

None of that would have been published without libel lawyers going over it with a fine tooth comb. There's stuff the lawyers wouldn't let him publish that has since come out, eg some of the emails that have been printed in the news media. Lownie is not just any old royal writer living off tittle-tattle. He's a high profile literary agent and an investigative journalist, and he's put his livelihood on the line battling the government through the Freedom of Information Act (and the abusive way these requests are dealt with when the government wants to keep things covered up). When he publishes his paperback version of Entitled, he's going have a whole bunch of new chapters and updated information to add in, and good luck to him, he deserves success for his tenacity and unwillingness to bend for the establishment.

I’m currently reading the Andrew Lownie book and my goodness. It’s like a good Jilly Cooper book on acid. The excess is just mind blowing . I’d actually love to see a tv show of the book, something a cross between The Crown and Rivals, with 80s music and wild outfits and champagne skiing trips . Scandalous! She spends like a billionaire, it’s all laid out in the book .

Thank you, @Teeteringpiles555 . It's interesting how some posters are prepared to excuse the behaviour of SF in all these matters.

Isn’t it? I find it incomprehensible

The mews house was somewhere to live and ride out the property market.

I think the sale was more likely an effort to raise funds to continue rattling round RL in the entitled style she'd become accustomed to.

Why couldn’t they have lived in the house she sold? Also WHY does she live with him? They’re divorced .

Not saying she is blameless but at least let's stick to facts and not rumors churned out by authors on a mission.

Andrew Lownie was very careful to list and credit his sources.

Can you explain what you mean by 'mission'?

Evidently a spendaholic on speed.

Ages ago now, but I still remember some criticism of her numerous skiing holidays, all no doubt super-top-end £££££.

She spoke of her ‘need’ to be in the mountains, to ‘find herself’, or for her emotional well being/mental health, or some such entitled/self indulgent bollocks.

Exactly. However, no doubt people will excuse her as a victim of her own personality or somesuch.

Eh??

She sold a place at a massive loss, to ensure they had somewhere to live - what?

I read an article once about someone who decorated the houses of the rich and famous for Christmas etc. They were asked to decorate a London mansion. The work cost thousands. The family decided the weather in London was rubbish so they flew somewhere warmer instead. They didn't even see the decorations. Rich people are bonkers. Andrew and Fergue aren't in that league but i dare say they spent as if they were

Because Andrews mummy used to bail them out on the regular.

This. What's really wrong, too, is the whole toxic culture that supports insane behaviour. The waste of food mentioned upthread is just obscene. In a normal world, someone would take her aside and say "Can we take this food home instead of throwing it away?" but presumably no one is "allowed" to mention it and the whole team goes along with the pretence that this is perfectly OK.