Talk:Sarah, Duchess of York

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

British Royalty This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Kabbalah Portal
This article is supported by the Kabbalah WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Kabbalah-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Duchess of York

I was reading this article and again I have found and removed a quote which reads 'Sarah did not renounce her full title but agreed to drop the HRH in her title'. This quote implies that Sarah kept the title Duchess of York which is inacurate. Sarah dropped the style HRH and the title Duchess of York but instead of having a title she received a style normally reserved for the ex-wives of peers. Her title means Sarah Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly the Duchess of York and not Her Royal Highness the Princess Andrew, the Duchess of York. A similar paralel to deciphering titles comes with the Queen Mother. The title itself does not always imply what it seems to imply as many people assume that the title means the Queen's mother which it strictly speaking does not. Although Queen Elizabeh was the Queen's Mother she didn't have this title purely for that reason. As the wife of the reigning King she served as Queen Consort hence 'the Queen' part of the name and 'Mother' is her relationship to the monarch. Had she not reigned as Queen she would probably as in the case of the Duchess of Kent (Queen Victoria's mother) be known as the Queen's mother. Similarily had the Queen Mother outlived her daughter she would probably have been known as the Dowager Queen Mother. Another paralel is a normal husband and wife such the wife of Mr Andrew Parker-Bowles who later went on to divorce her husband and marry the Prince of Wales. During her marriage she was Mrs Andrew Parker-Bowles and after her divorce she was Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles. The change in name from her husbands to her own is the key difference which distinguishes whether or not she is married Mrs Parker-Bowles is merely a style which after a divorce means formerly the wife of Mr Andrew Parker-Bowles and that style would lapse as is evident in the case of Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles in that she is now referred to as the Duchess of Cornwall (a title taken on following her subsequent re-marriage to the Duke of Cornwall). Should she divorce the Duke of Cornwall she would lose her title and adopt a style and would change from HRH The Princess Charles, the Duchess of Cornwall to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. The latter example is an exact paralell between the Duchess of Cornwall's hypethetical divorce to Sarah Fergusons divorce.

[edit] Uncategorised

Hope this move is okay. Move it back if you disagree. -- Oliver PEREIRA 23:58 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

so she didnt have any boys?? 4.33.96.253 02:47, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC) (unsigned)

That's right, she has two daughters, Beatrice and Eugenie. - Vague | Rant 10:31, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fergie is a Fatty

I've reverted the most recent edit...I did a search and couldn't find a song by that name. The IP who added it is most welcome to add it back with a source. On that note, I'll find written sources for Duchess of Pork. Mike H 03:34, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Style of Sarah, Duchess of York

Is "Your Grace," the proper way to address Sarah, as with other duchesses? 青い(Aoi) 09:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No. She should be addressed as "Duchess" or "Madam". Proteus (Talk) 10:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good. Thanks for the quick response! 青い(Aoi) 09:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

No. During her marriage Sarah Duchess of York was entitled to the style of Her Grace as she was the wife of a Duke. However, this style was never used as it as surpassed by her use style of 'Her Royal Highness' as the wife of Prince of Great Britain. Both these style were attached to her marriage and were discontinued on divorce. She is only entitled to use the style Sarah Duchess of York. She is referred too or addressed as duchess or ma'am. Technically speak she is no longer a duchess and she is not married to a duke. As is the case all former wives of english peers, the title is used a surname e.g Sarah Duchess of York.

Does this mean that "Sarah Duchess of York", without the comma, would be a better place for this article? It would solve the problem with the title seeming to suggest that her name is Sarah and that she is Duchess of York. -- JAO 19:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
No. It's not "used as a surname" at all. (You'd look rather silly if you addressed her as "Mrs Duchess of York", for a start.) Proteus (Talk) 20:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Proteus.

I draw your attention to www.baronetage.co.uk/Diana. It's clearly explains the position of former wives of british nobility and royal. It mentions that following divorce, former wives of nobles or royals lose all social precedence attach to the former husband rank and styles such as Your Grace or Your Royal Highness are discontinued. The former wives adopts her title as surname e.g. Sarah, Duchess of York or more correcly Sarah Duchess of York (as per debretts). She is referred too and addressed as a duchess or princess by courtesy, as technicially she is no longer duchess or princess since she is no longer married to a peer or royal. The Queen also issued letter patent in 1996 where she states the former wives of british princes who enjoy the style and personal attribute of royal highness who ceased to be royal highnesses and would lose the social precedence they previous enjoyed through the former husband rank.

I have included for your information and extract from www.baronetage.co.uk regarding the legal position of divorce peeress's and royals:

"A divorced duchess continues to use her previous title, preceded by her christian name, but does so as if the title were a "surname"****. Lady Diana, Princess of Wales, is thus also Lady Diana, Duchess of Cornwall, and because the title is regarded merely as a name, the status held by the wife of a duke is lost, as is the prefix of a duchess ("Her Grace"). Accordingly, although it appears not yet to have been clearly explained by the Government to the general public, following the analogy of a divorced duchess, Lady Diana, Princess of Wales is no longer a princess, just as Lady Diana, Duchess of Cornwall is no longer an English duchess. The rank of princess came with marriage and it went when the marriage ended."

Baronage is wrong in that regard. (I'm ever so slightly amused that you're quoting it as an authoritative source when it says Diana's style after her divorce was "Lady Diana, Princess of Wales", which is utter nonsense.) And please don't patronise me. Proteus (Talk) 07:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry if you feel patronised that was not my intention but I would refer to your own previous comments which could be certainly considered patronising as well !!!. You criticise my sources of information Baronetage and debretts but you offer NO source to substantiate your claims. It would seem from your a opinion the Sarah, Duchess of York is technically a duchess. But is she ?. The duchess is the wife of a duke (unless she is widowed or hold the rank in her own). Sarah is not the wife of a duke as she is divorced. If was technically still a duchess then she would enjoy the prefix Her Grace....she does not. As to the reference to Lady Diana, Princess of Wales. Diana was the daugther of Earl and was therefore entitled to courtesy title of Lady in her own. She chose to be styled as Diana, Princess of Wales but she could have chosen to be style as Lady Diana Princess of Wales as she was still technically Lady Diana in her own right. Furthermore I thought this was discussion where people could share the opinions and views. That is the essence of having a discussion page !!!. I find rather agressive and dismissive treatment of other people right to express the opinion decidedly unneccessary.

If www.baronetage.co.uk says that Diana's name after her divorce was Lady Diana, Princess of Wales then it is unambiguously wrong. It must raise serious questions about the reliability of all its information. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 21:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the website's wrong at all actually. Diana after her divorce had no royal title (which means HRH, princess, duchess, etc) because all of that was derived from marriage to the Prince of Wales - upon divorce she forfeited everything. Yes, she was STYLED "Diana, Princess of Wales" but not TITLED as such - the only title she had after divorce was the one she had before marrying him - being "Lady Diana"."Princess of Wales" did thereafter act as her surname because The Princess of Wales is the wife of the Prince of Wales (not the divorcee) - Diana was not any princess after her divorce as the rank came with the marriage only - this is why her style would have lapsed should she have remarried. It is true Diana never styled herself "Lady Diana, Princess of Wales" but that is legally what she was. Just because she didn't style herself as Lady Diana did not mean she didn't legally hold the title (she was always throughout her life the daughter of an earl), it just would have sounded odd in practice since everyone knew her styled as "Princess of Wales". Similar to this is Caroline, Princess of Hanover. Like Diana she is styled a princess by courtesy & a Royal Highness, when in fact legally she is neither ( although she IS legally titled a Princess of Monaco and Serene Highness, but thats different) - "Princess of Hanover" whilst being a legal name is in fact just that - a name, not a title (there are no titled Princesses of Hanover anymore) As regards to Buckingham Palace etc confirming she was to be styled Diana, Princess of Wales (comment below), this is true, but we have to differentiate here betwee STYLE and TITLE. Am individual may be titled something but styled something else, or a style having a resemblance to a title (Diana, Princess of Wales bearing a very close similarity to The Princess of Wales). Indeed, the Duchess of Cornwall styles herself such when legally she has the titles of Princess of Wales, duchess of Rothesay, twice a countess etc. It's just easier to refer to the one thing (Diana, Princess of Wales) rather than the rather cumbersome and confusing Lady Diana, Princess of Wales. I know theres an argument raging here, and I think it's open to discussion. However, at the moment, there doesn't seem to be any justification that "Princess of Wales" didn't act as her surname - if she was divorced from the prince, from whom she derived the title, how can she have still been a princess? "Post divorce title" - what is this referring to? Legal or royal title? Diana certainly throughout her life had a title (but so does everyone, Mr, Mrs, surnames etc..) the question is whether it was a royal one. If "Princess of Wales" was not a surname after divorce - what was it? It doesn't seem as though it was a royal title.

They might say that you are wrong in your opinion. Perhaps we could find an authoritative source?
Mmmm. Lets see. Who was consulted when the royal articles were being written? Oh yes, Buckingham Palace, St. James's Palace, the Lord Chancellor's office, and the Press Offices of the Queen and the Prince of Wales. And of course other evidence exists in the official briefing documents issued explaining Diana's post-divorce title. And statements concerning the constitutional position delivered in Parliament. Oh and Diana herself said that she was Diana, Princess of Wales and nothing else. Oh and the Court Circular. They all rather beats some constitutionally illiterate website.FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 21:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you provide a link, please?
The details, as Proteus and all those who participate in the discussions can confirm, are all covered in exhaustive detail in months of archives on many pages on Wikipedia. Please read the archives. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 21:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I couldn't find any source for your statement.

In addition to what you'll find, the issue of divorced ex-partners of members of the Royal Family was dealt with by Letters Patent issued by the Queen in 1996. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Baronetage does not say the Diana style following her divorce was Lady Diana, Princess of Wales. Its simply that she could have used that style if she wished. Its does state that Diana chose to style herself Diana, Princess of Wales and that she could use the title Lady before christian as she was the daugther of Earl....

Could we please get a definitive source on this? Something that can be checked?

  • Actually Diana was styled "Queen of Hearts", in recognition of her role in saving the world from landmines, and leading the fightback against AIDs and oppression. According to my sources, Sarah is styled "Her Excellency Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York and Countess of Inverness". She has the style Excellency due to her role as an ambassador. The Queen also allows her the syle Highness when she attends royal events such as the funeral of Queen Mother. This is to avoid the unfortunate situation of the mother of Princess Beatrice having to curtsey to the likes of the Duchess of Kent (who is Catholic). 158.180.64.10 16:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide a link or source where you mentioned Sarah, Duchess of York is allow to use of highness at at royal events ? To my knowledge Sarah, Duchess of York is not regarded as a member of royal family anymore and rarely attends royal events. She was not invited to Earl of Wessex marriagw nor was she invited to the Prince of Wales's marriage. The only royal events she has been invited since her divorce are royal funerals. Also, although she attended the funeral of The Queen Mother she was not list as a member of the royal family in Court Circular. And a source where she is entitled to style of excellency ? The style of 'Her Excellency' is normally reserved for official ambassadors and often used a prefix in foreign nobility. To my knowledge Sarah, Duchess of York is neither.

I think it is rather clear that Sarah, Duchess of York is NOT a duchess, as per sources provided by various unsigned comments. As such, I will be changing all mentions in the article to "The Duchess" (except as part of her style). JSIN 04:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving in with Prince Andrew?

Is it true she's moving back in with Prince Andrew? (Alphaboi867 18:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC))

Hmmm, doesn't she and Andrew already live together, even though they are divorced? They are still very good friends (oh, the temptations...)but anyway, I wouldn't be so sure. Maybe someone can confirm it with teh Royal Family. :) Lyly-Kim 23 January 2006

[edit] Picture is Edited

That picture on Fergie is edited, that is not her body.

[edit] Liberian ancestry?

Just like Charles is a "scion of Genghis Khan and the Prophet Muhammad"...Right! What a wonderful way to define and continue the Commonwealth, sort of like "Defender of Faith as opposed to "Defender of the Faith". Please, don't be silly. IP Address 09:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] She is very beautiful

If only princess camel-toe could look this nice :)

My serious point is: does she always look very formal like the queen or does she have those "off days" like cherie Blair?


I relise she could never look THAT awful- but does she have her moments? 195.93.21.74 23:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tea Quote

Is this quotation correct (apart from the darn aristocratic styles)? If so, does someone here have a source?

"As long as it's hot and wet and goes down the right way, it's fine with me."
--Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York, on tea. (Newsweek)

--Slashme 12:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for Removal of Kabbalah reference

This reference was removed because the Duchess of York's involvement with Kabbalah was rumoured in 2004 and at that time her own representatives told MSNBC reporter Jeanette Walls "She's not declaring herself a Kabbalahist," the rep tells The Scoop. "But she has a lot of interest in spirituality." Furthermore, there has not been any evidence of the Duchess of York actively pursuing this interest in Kabbalah since the news in 2004.

[edit] Removal of 'the' in front of daughters titles

This could be a minor point but I've removed the word 'the' from the front of the titles of her daughters. Prior to this it was 'the Princess Beatrice and the Princess Eugenie'. To my knowledge, use of 'the' in front of a royal title such as Prince/Princess is reserved for children of a sovereign. As well, in the article for Diana, Princess of Wales, her sons are referred to as Prince William and Prince Harry, not 'the' Prince William and 'the' Prince Harry --Mdieke 21:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1992 Toe sucking scandal

This Wikipedia bio seems to gloss over the fact that her marriage to the Duke of York was (shall we say...) less than ideal. Where do you want to put this?

The practice of toe sucking (an aspect of podophilia) gain global attention when in 1992, surreptitiously taken photographs of John Bryan, an American financial manager, sucking on the toes of a topless Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York (then separated but still married to Prince Andrew, Duke of York) were published in the English tabloid newspaper The Daily Mirror. The Duchess was exposed to widespread public ridicule and contributed to her further estrangement from the British Royal Family and later divorce from the Duke of York.[1]

I wrote that for the foot fetish and toe sucking page. I wonder where to put this fact in, in Fergie's Wikipedia bio. And yes, this was pretty notable back in 1992. --Eqdoktor 21:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I put this in as a "scandal" sub-heading of the "Marriage" section. Interestingly enough, it is better referenced with independent respected sources for verification than 90% of this overly deferential biography (yes, its my non-NPOV opinion). Whole swathes of this article appears to be original research with absolutely no citations of sources for verification of the facts. --Eqdoktor 09:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of unsourced portions of this article.

I am going to go ahead and remove all the unsourced material on this page. First, its an article on a biography of a living person WP:BIO and having unsourced material on a living person is a big no-no on wikipedia WP:LIVING. Secondly, even in denying plagiarism in this article is borderline libelous given there is no external source cited that even mentions such plagiarism. Thirdly, its all "fan" person style writing - overly deferential and writing in the style that the author would not be privy to unless they were the duchess of york or prince andrew ("they had no hard feelings for each other..."). I believe the majority of this article is original research accumulated from a bunch of "Hello" magazines. --Eqdoktor 06:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 9/11 Section

While it is certainly of note that she could have potentially been in the WTC during the attacks, this section is entirely unsourced and borders on the ridiculous:

"Early in the morning of 11th September 2001, Sarah Ferguson was due at a meeting on a high level floor in the World Trade Center. Had she arrived on time, she would have surely perished, but due to a late arrival, minutes after the first plane had struck the WTC, her aids bundled her straight back into her taxi and away from there, thus saving her life. Some conspiracy theorists suggest that this is beyond coincidence following only shortly after the sudden death of her sister-in-law, Princess Diana."

Shortly after? Is 4 years "shortly after"? Who are these "conspiracy theorists"? No person with any working knowledge of world history, international relations, or politics would ever begin to approach the argument that Sarah Ferguson's potential presence in the WTC was a motive for the terrorists. I would also like to see sources that she was slated to be in the WTC- I've heard many stories of people miraculously out of harm's way on September 11 for one reason or another, but many of them are pure bunk.

It probably is bunk - I removed the whole 9/11 section. Totally unsourced and has no place in a living bio article. --Eqdoktor 19:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fergie

See Fergie (singer), where they want to move the disambiguation page and place the singer in its place at Fergie. 70.55.84.112 06:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2 fergie articals

why are there 2 fergie articals —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macs RULE! (talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Unsourced bodyguard material

I have removed:

(This might make her a relative of Alexander "Kez" Wingfield, security guard to Mohammed Al-Fayed, the late Dodi Fayed, and the late Diana, Princess of Wales: Kez was the bodyguard not chosen for the fatal ride away from the Ritz Hotel in Paris; he was also a close friend of Trevor Rees-Jones, who was the sole survivor of that ride.)

from the main article. Please feel free to re-add it with sources, without '(' parentheses ')' and in a more suitable location in the article. —Sladen 17:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hair styles

Unless I am way out of the loop on something then I believe the last edit by fergiefergie2 is unnecessary and should be reverted to its previous state. sarahferguson.org does not exist and the information added has nothing to do with Sarah Ferguson. I don't want to act unilaterally (as I may well be out of the loop), so if someone else agrees with me then it will be reverted. Thanks. Sjbodell (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] aircraft training?

The Budgie book series mentions that it was influenced by Sarah's aircraft training, but there is no mention of this in her biography. Can somebody fill in the gaps? Dtiran (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Externa link pages

Can these be added yesy or no please say http://duchessofyork.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolierasic (talk • contribs) 20:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)