PA & Sarah - problems stem from not enough £?

[HolidayHideaway]

Sarah said in 1996 in all years together Andrew’s income never exceeded $50,000. Neither seem to understand money.

Has so much of this mess happened as neither had the funds for the life expected? PA had only a moderate sum from civil list & most went on official engagements & staff & his office.

An evening dress cost $4,000 & Sarah said in mid 90s (in her book ‘My Story’ written for USA audience hence dollar amounts) & she needed a lot, she began to quickly run up debt. She was expected to host Christmas parties for 250 & have hairdressers & make up artists, nannies etc. She was young & had no guidance & a spendthrift if unchecked by own admission - often buying very generous gifts for others.

The Queen seemed to give gifts NB: house but neither had money to run in manner expected.

If PA & SF had a steady & generous allowance would he have avoided ‘Epstein’ & much seediness? Presumably Will & Kate have always had access to bigger funds?

100% agree

@HolidayHideaway the Queen gave him something like £250k per annum plus there was an arrangement on housing plus staffing costs. They were a far cry from the poorhouse. They honestly had no clue the value of a £ and it showed as the Queen would frequently bail out Randy Andy.

I’ve read it & I agree.

I’ve just read Sarah’s My Story 1996 & the seeds are there. She’s clueless, alone & being given mixed messages all the time. Without any clarity. She wasn’t equipped for the job.

Well they are able to be working royals due to not having very dubious pasts.

That’s nothing like enough for the life they were expected to lead. Therein lie the seeds of some of this disaster. Most of it lies in moral failings of PA though…

er, he has a personal fortune of £3m more or less. His salary was always pocket money. He probably had more money before the settlement with Virginia guiffre. There is NO excuse for this grifting and sleazy behaviour for him or her.

look at Anne or Edward. I very much doubt either of them has earnt a decent salary. But bothe have royal duties and live very nice lives.

Are you SF? Or why are you referring to her book about herself as though this myst be the gospel truth about her situation? The late Queen was never as vain or frivolous as SF and moreover gave the impression of disliking that sort of behaviour so why on earth would you believe she “expected” SF and PA to live beyond their means? If anything I’d have thought she was appalled that they couldn’t live within their means. She has always been woe is me, always someone else’s fault and always on the look out for extra money as long as it didn’t require any real work.

That’s very fair. Do the Royal siblings all have approx the same funding/access to money? Bar Charles, obviously. Was PA’s ‘Pitch At Palace’ effectively an ego driven greedy initiative?

Has so much of this mess happened as neither had the funds for the life expected?

Funnily enough, my DP and I don't have a huge salary to live on and never had, but neither of us have thought "Hey, let's exploit vulnerable trafficked women for sex" as a consequence.

I mean, WTAF. Are you for real, OP?

I am re-reading as so astonished by the way all has gone & curious about the early seeds. I think it’s honest. She doesn’t come out of it well. Clearly though, they just can’t afford this mansion & staff & running costs in early days. She came into the relationship with debt & was gullible & naive. Could she have refused? The Maths didn’t work no wonder her debt piled up.

So why have Princess Anne and Prince Edward not have to have resorted to begging from dodgy billionaires?

Sarah and Sophie only with Sophie it was with the queen.

No I am no apologist for what PA has done! But I am looking at their maintenance costs & living expenses in earlier years & they just didn’t have the money. Maybe PA just morally bankrupt & both clueless. Simple as that.

Again, lots of people don't have much money to live on but they don't resort to facilitating the trafficking of vulnerable young women and accepting payouts from billionaire paedophiles. Your attempt to justify AMW and Fergie's behaviour is reprehensible.

Nice try, Sarah. Testing public opinion on MN to see if they'll accept your 'gullible newbie' defence.

I see you.

You are absolutely being an apologist for trying to justify what set them on the path they went on. Utterly appalling.

I am not justifying but trying to understand.

I don’t think it’s wrong to question how this all began. It’s an unprecedented situation.

Understand what exactly?

Why AMW abused trafficked young women?

Why Fergie accepted money from the paedophile billionaire who supplied the young women?

You should be ashamed for starting a thread trying to mitigate their behaviour. There is nothing to understand. Both of them should be locked up.

It's absolutely wrong. The fact you can't see why is shocking.

He is not 'Prince' Andrew anymore as you well know so I've no idea why you're using PA. He's just plain old Andrew, the assumed sex offender with a penchant for paedophile friends.

I remember SF being on This morning and Loose women a few times and always speaking about how she wanted to present and get a job there, it was awkward & odd.
Also remember her years ago doing Slim fast adverts in the US I think…strange

Have the finances between the three been equal? They are more moral clearly.

Sophie seemed to grow & mature into role. She won LQ’s respect. Was it SF & A didn’t listen or lean in to support & advice to better manage things early on? Thought they knew better?

It’s all unprecedented & astonishing.