Sarah Ferguson - just as bad as Andrew?

[TheHaplessWit]

So whilst Epstein was serving house arrest following his conviction for sex trafficking young girls, Fergie sent him messages - from the BBC:

Some emails in the latest release appear to be between Epstein and Sarah Ferguson, Andrew's ex-wife.
One email dated 4 April 2009, was signed "Love, Sarah, The red Head.!!"
It says that she was going to be in Palm Beach and wanted to have tea. The email goes on to discuss ideas for Ferguson's company, Mother's Army. The former Duchess of York refers to Epstein as "My dear spectacular and special friend Jeffrey".
She calls him a "legend" and says "I am so proud of you".
The financier was still under house arrest for his 2008 conviction when the email exchange was sent.

Ignoring the money she took and questionable business arrangements, ignoring Andrews behaviour even (that's in another thread). How can any woman, who knows this man is trafficking young girls, act like this?

Please tell me she no longers receives any sort of public funding/housing from the tax payer?

@simpsonthecat it is a distraction technique, isn't it ? don't look here look there instead!

Fergie's main crime is ridiculous levels of greed and entitlement, she is in no way comparable to a seemingly world touring rapist and potential paedo. All the (married in) Royal family women are substantially better, as people and in terms of their own achievements, than their waste of space gormless spouses, but they are dragged down and blamed for the faults of their partners. Human shields for degenerates.

Yep so grabby and grim

You say Andrew’s mother had affairs. Is that right? The Queen had affairs?

She knew what Jeffery Epstein had done, she supported him in her own right all the way through, same goes for Andrew. I do not blame her for the faults of Andrew, I blame her for her own. Of which there are many.

And Sarah's a substantially better person in terms of her own achievements? If you say so.

You’re hoping they’ll both emigrate? Why should another country have to deal with them? They’re British, they’re problems of Britain’s making and Britain should be dealing with them, not anywhere else. Hopefully having to do so might prompt the British into bringing about some change to the system that has created such creatures.

@Vixenlover
There was gossip about her close relationships with her race horse manager Lord Porchester.

Has she raped any trafficked people or gone on sex tours around the world sourced by arms dealers, Gaddafis and other undesirables? No? Then she wins. She's a better person, it's not even close.

Is there any evidence of the Windsors paying for bots?
Does the fact that I have dared to question this mean that I am now a bot?

I give up. Good luck with thinking these parents can be held to account or even traced. I have no idea how they can be held accountable for instance if the girls were over 18. Or indeed younger not living with their parents, or in foster care or living on the streets
Total naivety

🤢🤮🤮
Sarah Ferguson sending an email dripping with compliments to Epstein and ending with "Just marry me".

She really is abhorrent, this article sets out a lot of it. She was permanently on the scrounge from Epstein for money, and how she talks about her daughter is 😮😮
I wonder if Eugenie will go NC with her mother, to be talked about like that in an email to a known sex trafficker is vile

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddgv9nvj9zo

I have just watched a segment on the news about it, she has no shame or any self respect all that creeping and sucking up makes your skin crawl.

That 'shagging weekend' thing is bloody sinister to me. Is she attempting to give Epstein a graphic visual word picture of her daughter, a Princess of the realm, being engaged in sexual activity? Is it meant to titillate?

It's a bloody strange thing to add in correspondence. Let alone for a mother to a much older non-related man. Not even another woman, a man. A man with power and weird sexual preferences. What is she attempting to convey? That her daughter is sexually proficient? You don't need to add this detail even to get money.

What on earth? It's suspicious to me and now throws her meeting him with her daughter's in tow in a not just reckless, but very dark grey light at best.

And I mean, like them or loathe them, pro-monarchy or not, her daughter's are grandchildren of the late Queen, who was still alive at the time and thus representatives of the UK. Why is she, a DUCHESS, referring to them in such a sexually coarse way to people with whom they share no relation and which undermines the dignity represented by their titles?

I cannot imagine telling a man I want money from (or any man for that matter) that my daughter isn't at home because she's off for the weekend and will probably be shagging a lot. But in the context of being under duress also needing money, it's a particularly disturbing thing to mention.

Is her judgement just that bad that she genuinely doesn't see how things like this can be interpreted? She just doesn't think before she talks or types? But she's a Duchess and would she not have received training in her responsibilities? You're not just an ordinary mother. You're the guardian of the Monarch's GC who are xx many places in line to the throne. It doesn't matter that there's a very slim chance of them ever getting there, the point is there's still a (hopefully not) chance. You do everything to protect their image. You don't mention them at all to (particularly scummy) randoms if you don't need to. Let alone their sexual behaviour! I mean if you can't do it as a natural mother, surely as a Duchess?

Is this an example once again, of the LQ overlooking obvious issues? Yet another example of people in the RF not knowing their responsibilities, whom should know them? Wasn't it her responsibility to make sure they knew them?

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

A better person who was still wholly supportive of a peadophile and sex trafficker, yeah she sure wins the top notch human award.

Still interested in that list of her great personal achievements too, sexual abuse excuser and grifter not withstanding.

@TightlyLacedCorset
.

I totally agree. I cannot imagine speaking about my DD like that to some bloke who gives me money and who I know has been charged with sex trafficking of a minor.
I imagine she wants to come across as cool to him. Personally I think she took a helluva lot of money from him, more than we'll ever know. She was in hock to him, he opened doors. I think I read somewhere the daughters called him Uncle Jeffrey. I wonder if we'll hear more on that.

As an aside, I also wonder if the deal was that Andrew will get out Royal Lodge as long as his daughters still have access to the inner royal circle.

She's not a great human at all, but she is not a rapist or a paedo. The bar being so low for her to be better lies with her spouse being a literal monster who has hidden in plain sight and even now has people protecting him by deploying his human shield and telling us to look at her instead. Fuck that.

I agree. Also when she says "I am at your service, just marry me" what does she mean? It's a very odd choice to words.

Andrew is reprehensible and so is Epstein. But she knew what at least one of them was convinced of and still offered to marry him and called him the brother she always wanted! She chose to do that.

I will not excuse the peadophile excuser because her ex husband is also a monster.

The question is "Sarah Ferguson - just as bad as Andrew?"
The answer is not even close.

Really good post.

It does make you wonder exactly why she said 'shagging weekend'. My take on it is that she knew this was how to connect to Epstein by dropping a sexual reference in this way. Fergie knew that Epstein was driven by sex to such an extent that she framed it in conversation as much as possible. This implies that she knew about Epstein's proclivities years and years ago. She knew and she played on it to her advantage.

Also I think that Fergie views herself as someone who likes to push boundaries by being a bit sexually naughty and cheeky. She seems to be a flirt who likes to get attention. Also she likes to shock with the sexual inuendo etc.

A speech she did in America springs to mind. A man in the audience shouts, "I love you" and she replies, "See you later!". What a crass reply and illustrates how vulgar she is. Some journalists described it as 'saucy' which is a polite way of saying tacky!

Do you mean Andrew Mountbatten windsors biological father?

Over 18 in the USA.

There is evidence.
Part of the evidence is their social bill - their insta reels etc get an influx of likes but few comments .

There was a clumsy use of bots when William was being rightly criticised for not attending the women’s World Cup final. After this cynical photo op with Charlotte didn’t work the bots were unleashed. Must have been done in a rush and panic because many tweets had exactly the same text but different names .
Then more recently when locations were revealed on X many Harry hate sites were revealed to be in South Africa and Eastern Europe. Bot farms.
It has been long established that the Windsors have been using the right wing tabloid media to push the idea that they are popular and blacken the name of escapees like Harry. A journalist is on video exclaiming in her own defence ( quite rightly) that the Meghan made Kate cry story - which was subsequently shown to be untrue- came directly from KP so she assumed it was true.
Look at the relentless campaign against Harry’s court case re the tabloid press .

Our opinions will have to differ on that one. But I still would class her main crime as endorsing a sex trafficking child abuser, the greed and entitlement comes way down the line and are a whole heap easier to swallow.