Image via Wikipedia

Duchess of York hypnotised for new reality show

Sarah Ferguson, ex-wife of The Duke of York, has been hypnotized in a stunt for her new series Finding Sarah.

America’s queen of talk shows, Oprah Winfrey, launched her own network this year called The Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN). Ms. Winfrey took pity on the red-headed rogue and gave her a chance to redeem herself on her own reality show. So far, it’s not looking good for Sarah.

The dazed Duchess confesses to still having feelings for Prince Andrew, the Duke of York – not that it’s much of a surprise.

“He and I both wish we’d never got divorced,” she said supposedly under hypnosis. You’re left wondering about what more their two daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, will have to publicly endure from their mother.

In the early 90s, Ferguson was photographed sunbathing topless with her toe-sucking financial adviser. It merely added to the Queen’s “annus horribilus” in 1992 with the separation of Charles and Diana. Fergie has also pushed her wallet – and those of friends – to the brink, floundering in hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. But she never trimmed her budget, even when she reached the point of no return.

The final straw came last year when Ferguson was caught on film offering an undercover News of the World reporter access to her ex-husband for £500,000. The ensuing scandal made the Royal Family think twice, and the devious Duchess was summarily banned from the wedding of Prince William in April.

The Duchess has also had to publicly apologize for letting a friend of Prince Andrew’s, financier Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender, pay off some of her debt. It’s a wonder then, when during a recent interview on the “Oprah Winfrey Show,” Ferguson expressed her disappointment over not being invited to the royal wedding.

Now she takes to the airwaves in her own reality series, bemoaning her lot in life when she has been handed every opportunity – on gold plate, no less – to succeed. Will she find Sarah, or will this just be another way to earn a buck that will soon be blown?

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011Some Rights Reserved

Questions From Some Top Royal Bloggers:

Who do you think is the most scandalous modern British royal? – Cinderella of royalty.nu

MF: Well, since Fergie’s no longer officially royal, that’s hard to say. Actually, none of the modern royals can (please pardon the pun) hold a scandal to their forbears. Murder, madness, illicit sex, and vicious scheming have been replaced by silly missteps and the occasional tempests in a teapot. Perhaps this has something to do with the power wielded by the royals. When it was nearly unlimited, their scandals reflected that. These days, with very limited power, royal misdeeds are relatively petty.

__

What is your favorite royal scandal and why? – Marilyn Braun of Marilyn’s Royal Blog

MF: There are oh so many to chose from, Marilyn, it’s really hard to say. I guess I got the greatest kick out of the truly wretched marriage of the future King George IV and his cousin Caroline of Brunswick. He was an indolent fop who drank way too much and amassed staggering debts. She was a foul-smelling exhibitionist who lacked all decorum and self control. George despised Caroline from the moment he met her. He passed out in a fireplace on their wedding night, but managed to consummate the relationship the next morning. It wasn’t easy. “It required no small [effort] to conquer my aversion and overcome the disgust of her person,” he wrote. After Caroline produced the heir to the throne, Princess Charlotte, George left her bed for good. Caroline eventually went away to Europe, where she made quite a spectacle of herself–as a stripper, essentially. At a ball in Naples, for example, she appeared, as one reported, “in the most indelicate manner, her breast and her arms being entirely naked.”

She also carried on a flagrant affair with her chamberlain, Bartolomeo Pergami. Caroline had no intention of returning to England, but then her father-in-law George III died and her estranged husband became King George IV. The wayward Princess of Wales now intended to claim her rights as queen. It was a mortifying prospect for the new king, especially because the people were firmly behind his despised wife–more out of hatred for him than any real affection for her. A bill was introduced in Parliament to deprive Caroline of her rights as queen and as George’s wife, but it went nowhere. Nevertheless, George IV was still determined to exclude Queen Caroline. When she arrived at Westminster Abbey for his coronation, the doors were slammed in her face. Several weeks later she was dead, perhaps of stomach cancer, though some have suggested poison. The inscription on her coffin, which she wrote herself, read: DEPOSITED, CAROLINE OF BRUNSWICK, THE INJURED QUEEN OF ENGLAND.
__

Have you heard any of the hints that Prince Albert took Queen Victoria away from England, on various visits to Scotland and other places for a time—because she had had a nervous breakdown? – Susan Flanders of Writer of Queens

MF: No, Susan, I have not heard that. I write extensively in the new book about Victoria and Albert’s earliest retreat, Osborne, on the Isle of Wight. They sought this refuge not only to get away from the stifling court life of London and Windsor, but, really as a place of their very own–where Albert could be the master. He created and controlled virtually every aspect of this “dear and lovely little domaine,” as the queen called it. She was content just to watch him work: “Never do I enjoy myself more or more peacefully than when I can be so much with my beloved Albert–follow him everywhere.”

After reading Michael Farquhar’s new book, Behind the Palace Doors: Five Centuries of Sex, Adventure, Vice, Treachery, and Folly from Royal Britain, I had the privilege of a great interview. Please enjoy this interview, and keep an eye out for Part 2 when he answers the questions of some prominent royal bloggers.

—

Mandy’s British Royalty: What inspired you to be a writer and historian?

Michael Farquhar: Well, I’m not a historian, per se; I’m a reporter of history. There’s a big difference: The historians are the true experts. I merely synthesize their discoveries in a (hopefully ) entertaining, readable way. I’ve always loved history, especially the juicy side, and started writing about it for The Washington Post about twenty years ago. Since then, I’ve made a career of history writing and feel like the luckiest guy in the world to be able to make a living doing what I love.

MBR: What inspired you to research rotten royals?

MF: I wouldn’t call them rotten…just extremely human, in a larger than ordinary life sort of way. People with their kind of power tended to misbehave…royally…and that makes for very entertaining reading. Although my first book, A Treasury of Royal Scandals, focused entirely on bad behavior, my new one, Behind the Palace Walls, incorporates other facets of British royal history: triumphs, tragedies, adventure, romance–as well as all the treachery, folly, and deep family dysfunction.

MBR: What is your opinion on royal behavior today? Is there enough naughtiness for a book?

MF: Misbehavior by the royals today barely registers as scandalous, especially when compared to the actions of some of their forbears. So, no book…at least by me. However, I have included several stories of the modern royal family in the new book, including the heroism of King George VI, the present queen’s father, who is featured in “The King’s Speech.” (I wrote about King George and his wartime partnership with Churchill before the film was released, and only touch briefly on his efforts to contol his stammer.)

MBR: You’ve also written about “Foolishly Forgotten Americans”, “Great American Scandals”, and produced “A Treasury of Deception”. What is it about scandals and bad behavior that intrigues you?

MF: I’m intrigued by what happens when ordinary human behavior–jealousy, greed, ambition, etc.–gets magnified by the people who make history. It’s a never ending education!

MBR: Who is your favorite royal in history?

MF: The marital adventures of Henry VIII first got me interested in history as a kid. And though so much has been written about King Henry’s life and times, he never ceases to fascinate me. I

MBR: Who is your favorite character – in general – in history?

MF: There are too many, Mandy!!

See Michael discuss his other books at the C-SPAN Video Library.

If I may be so bold, I think that allowing Ms. Ferguson to retain the use of “Duchess of York” will only cause her – and the family – further suffering.

The American Oprah interview is a strong sign that “Fergie” is looking for forgiveness and a chance to start over. The problem is that she’s done that already. There are only so many times you can start over before it looks like a hollow, shallow lie.

Ms. Ferguson claims to be a victim, though she does apologize profusely. Her explanations, however, indicate severe denial and a probable repeat of vulgar, destructive behavior. To truly prevent any further damage to herself and her family, Ms. Ferguson needs to get counseling for obsession and low self-esteem. Further counsel is sorely needed to help her manage a budget and live within her means. Sarah Ferguson is neither royal nor wealthy, and she’s just going to have to accept that fact. When she does, her whole existence will change and, hopefully, she will finally embrace who she is and realize that she’s a decent person at heart. Average, but decent.

When will Sarah Ferguson stop abusing herself and taking advantage of others? When she gets help. I pray that Prince Andrew and the Queen will set her up with a psychiatrist and a Coutt’s debt management team STAT.

In the Guardian, James Whitaker blames the Queen for giving Sarah a relatively small sum in her divorce from Prince Andrew. In fact, a few people have laid blame at Her Majesty’s feet. One commenter wrote: “Fergie was treated shabbily by the royals in the divorce settlement. She is the mother of the queen’s grandchildren”. But think of this: if your daughter-in-law had just spent you under the table, and had continued to behave in such a manner, would you be willing to give her even more money to blow annually? Giving her more is not the answer. If anything, the Queen should’ve forbidden Sarah’s use of “Duchess of York” and hired a scrupulous accountant for her instead. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie have a trust, so they don’t have to worry. Well, now that Sarah’s blown through it all, I guess they do. D’oh!

Even I can’t help you, girl.