Queen Elizabeth had to put some royal relatives in (gasp) the servants’ quarters

110693PCN_Royal32

Here are some newish photos of Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh attending church on Sunday in Sandringham. The Queen left London last week to finalize all of the preparations for Sandringham, which is apparently one of her favorite estates out of all of her crazy estates. I think Sandringham and Balmoral are her favorites, correct? Anyway, there’s a lot of drama with the royal Christmas stuff this year, because every single royal and royal-adjacent wants to be at Sandringham this year. Some say it’s because it’s Prince George’s first Christmas and everyone wants to see the baby. Some say it’s because a lot of people think this could be Prince Philip’s last Christmas. So, the result is some Downton Abbey-esque lodging drama:

Finding space for all the Christmas guests is never easy – even in a mansion like the Queen’s estate at Sandringham. But then, not many families have the option of stashing their relatives in the servants’ quarters.

Her Majesty has invited the largest gathering in decades to celebrate Prince George’s first Christmas, meaning her frantic staff will have to put some visitors in servants’ rooms. Although even with some 30 of her nearest and dearest arriving today, the Queen still could find no room for Prince Andrew’s ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson. The Duke of York and his daughters Beatrice and Eugenie are reportedly on the guest list, but their mother was left off.

Many who did get an invitation will have to share bedrooms, move to cottages on the estate or sleep in servants’ quarters. It is quite a change from last year, when the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge spent Christmas Day with Kate’s parents in Berkshire and Prince Harry was on duty in Afghanistan. The year before, Prince Philip was in hospital for an operation.

Those likely to have servants’ rooms include the Queen’s nephew Viscount Linley, his wife Serena and their children. His sister Lady Sarah Chatto, her husband Daniel and children are also likely to be included. They could be housed in what is known as the Bachelor Wing because it houses single male staff members, usually chefs and kitchen porters. The influx of guests could see them relegated to the footmen’s bedrooms.

A source said: ‘Sandringham is a large house but everyone will be crammed in like sardines. There are just so many young royals now with children and the numbers keep going up. It’s great for the Queen but a nightmare to cater for.’

Sandringham House, in Norfolk, has been the private home of four generations of British monarchs since 1862. Despite being set in 600 acres of woodland, the house is small by royal standards and quarters are said to be ‘cramped’.

The Queen will insist on guests joining her today. The family follow the German tradition of opening presents on Christmas Eve before donning black tie for a candlelit banquet. At 10pm, the women adjourn, leaving Prince Philip to serve port or brandy to the men.

On Christmas morning, they attend St Mary Magdalene, the church on the estate, before a turkey lunch at 1pm. They watch the Queen’s Christmas message on television before playing games. Prince Philip usually organises a Boxing Day shoot.

[From The Daily Mail]

Boxing Day is the 26th, just FYI to the Americans. I think I was well into adulthood when I finally realized that “Boxing Day” is a thing, just not in America. I always forget that there’s a “Viscount Linley” in the family – I flashed to the Inspector Linley books and TV show. God, I miss that show. That was a great show. Long live Sharon Small! Where was I? Ah, yes. One’s cramped quarters. It was my understanding that Sandringham had any number of guest cottages on the property, correct? While I understand that royals may take some pride in being “in the mansion” even if they’re staying in a footman’s room (such horror), I think I would prefer my own little cottage?

Also – Duchess Kate and Prince William’s next big royal tour will be happening, just not as soon as I thought. Wasn’t the original plan for Will and Kate to tour Australia in, like, late January/early February? Well, now the plan is for them to tour Australia and New Zealand in April. Prince George is coming with them, maybe (I think definitely, but nothing has been confirmed). Here’s something interesting: this will be the first time Kate has ever spent time in Australia or New Zealand. Ever. Australia seems to have a growing republican streak too, so we’ll see if Kate’s curls can save the empire.

110693PCN_Royal36

110693PCN_Royal10

wenn20909559

Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News, WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

104 Responses to “Queen Elizabeth had to put some royal relatives in (gasp) the servants’ quarters”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. paola says:

    Things I love about this article:
    1. The Queen’s rosy cheeks. They’re amazing.
    2. Kate’s curls trying to save the Aussie empire
    3. The Queen wearing a tartan plaid in the car
    She really is the best.

  2. Eleonor says:

    The Queen knows how to rock a hat.

  3. LAK says:

    PG tips isn’t the only baby this year. There is also Maud Windsor [born in August].

    Fergie always goes to Sandrigham. She just doesn’t stay at the big house.

    This isn’t the first time they’ve all had to cram into every nook and cranny because HM invited the entire family. They do it every so often. They did it Kate’s first christmas as a royal.

    • Florc says:

      Did William, Kate or both of them ever show up for christmas with the Queen last year? Or was it spent entirely at the Middleton’s home?

    • Suze says:

      I’m not sure why it would be expected that Fergie should show up at the family dinner table for Christmas Eve. It’s been a good sixteen, seventeen years since they divorced. I know, I know, she’s still in Andrew’s life and all, but legally they are divorced. It would be odd to have her at dinner.

      And if she’s staying somewhere on the estate, she is in close enough proximity to her daughters, which is her whole life at this point.

      She is a sad figure to me, but I really don’t think the royal family owes her any family allegiance at this remove.

      I do understand wanting an invite, since I personally would love to spend Christmas at Sandringham. I’d have to get myself hired as a footman or something for that to happen, though.

      • LadySlippers says:

        You misunderstand. The Duchess of York isn’t expecting an invite to the big house. She goes to one of the smaller houses on the estate to be close to her family. She’s done this for ages now.

        Although last year, HM did invite her up to the big house until Philip arrived. It made the papers it was that unexpected and rare. A lot of people speculate that once Philip passes, Sarah and Andrew will remarry.

      • Suze says:

        Lady Slippers, I understood ; ). I was mocking the Daily Fail, since they always makes a big deal out of Fergie’s absence – from everything including royal weddings to the Christmas Eve dinner. It isn’t exactly news but they always try to make it so! I think Fergie herself has been around the royal family long enough to know what invitations to expect and what not to expect.

        She’s integrated into the family to the degree that everyone is comfortable. It’s the press that keeps blaring the headline “Fergie Is Being Ignored – Again!” when she’s actually around the royal family quite a bit.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Sorry Suze!!! I wondered too… lol

        I think the DM likes to sh!t stir as they write one thing today and completely the opposite tomorrow. All in an effort to increase sales. They were the ones being the loudest when the Duchess was up in the big house before… *eye roll*

        Although, I must say, I really want the Duke & Duchess to remarry. I think that’d be super sweet. 🙂

      • Decloo says:

        Fergie and Andrew have a very good relationship and, of course, she is the mother of the Queen’s granddaughters. I can see why she would be invited to Christmas if they are having all those others like Viscount Lindley and his sister and their families.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Decloo, The rules are pretty hard and fast on who attends Christmas at the big house — only current members of the family plus fiancés/ fiancées. Since the Duke & Duchess are divorced, she would not be invited to the big house. However, she and others, often stay in some of the smaller houses on the estate over the holidays. People forget or confuse there is more than one house on the Sandringham estate (Diana grew up in one).

      • Snarkweek says:

        Sophie of Wessex is an exception because her elderly father stays every holiday. He and his daughter are close, he is frail and the queen and Phillip get along well with him.

      • LadySlippers says:

        SnarkWeek, here’s another title issue. Sophie of Wessex is incorrect in the UK because in the UK the ‘of X territorial designation’ is strictly held for those born into the Royal family. So Sophie Wessex is okay but not ‘of Wessex’ because that means she’s a child of Edward’s not his wife. Hope that helps.

        As for Sophie’s father, I still think he’s staying at a smaller house but is able to come up for Christmas Day. But even that assertion has been contested before so I’m not 100% sure.

      • bluhare says:

        I have read that Charles has his nanny, Mabel Anderson, come to the main house for Christmas. Not sure about this year, though.

      • Snarkweek says:

        Lady,
        That is so cool, I did not know that! So that means that Kate would be Kate Cambridge but her son would be Prince George of Cambridge, right? I love these random fact LOL.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Yes! The ‘of Cambridge’ can only be used for William’s children. Same with the ‘of York’ and ‘of Wessex’ can only be used by Andrew’s and Edward’s children, respectively.

        Another example: Charles is not ‘Charles of Wales’ (there is a blogger on tumblr that repeatedly makes this mistake). When born he was ‘Prince Charles of Edinburgh’ and his sister ‘Princess Anne of Edinburgh’ as their father was the Duke of Edinburgh (remember in the UK everything is traditionally patrilineal). Once the Duchess of Edinburgh became Queen (she loved being called Dss of E) they became ‘Charles & Anne of the United Kingdom’. Their younger siblings always were ‘of the UK’ as that is how children of the Soveriegn are designated (children of the Soveriegn are also given a The in front of Prince/Princess. So Prince Charles is The Prince Charles whereas his sons are only Prince William/Harry. On an interesting side note, Prince Philip was given the ‘The’ designator by his wife a few years after she ascended the throne so like his children he is The Prince Philip).

        This is in contrast to other European ‘Royal’ countries that create the married in spouse a Prince or a Princess in their own right (Denmark & Sweden) even though they weren’t born in (I use ‘Royal’ as a blanket term even if the family isn’t Royal. For example the Monegasque Princely Family isn’t Royal nor is the Japanese Imperial Family Royal but it’s simpler to use).

    • LadySlippers says:

      Yup. I’m not sure why this is news as it’s not the first time they’ve been overflowing at Sandringham.

      Also, I wish they’d talk about what ‘exploratory surgery’ Philip had done over the summer. I do hope he sees many more Christmases.

      LAK any word yet that the Duchess of York will indeed be at one of the smaller houses again?

      • Snarkweek says:

        Is she still so titled?

      • LadySlippers says:

        Yes ma’am.
        In the UK, you retain your title after divorce (custom in the US too, I’m still a Mrs after my divorce). In fact, you can retain your title after you remarry if you so choose but the custom is to take your new husband’s title. The difference is, you no longer carry the perks of being a courtesy peeress after a divorce (there used to be some but those have diminished for all peers/peeresses). However, Diana was an exception as she kept a great many of her perks after divorce (she kept her place in the Order of Precendence, for example).

        Most people don’t know you can still call Sarah just the Duchess of York as Andrew hasn’t remarried. The custom in placing the name in front of the title is to distinguish between two women that share the same title and that only comes into play if a woman is a dowager (widow) or a divorcee. So using: Sophie, Countess of Wessex is incorrect as it assumes there is another Countess of Wessex and we all know there isn’t one. Make more sense now?

    • mayamae says:

      LAK, or any other royal observer –

      Is there any chance Zara may name her baby Elizabeth if it’s a girl? I’m sure it’s considered a great honor, so perhaps the name is being saved for Kate and William?

      The description of what happens on Christmas Eve sounds like the plot of a regency romance.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Possible but not probable. My opinion mind you.

      • LAK says:

        Zara is too far down in the line of succession for names given to her children to matter.

        She’s free to choose any name she wants even if William or Harry give their kids the same name.

        With regards the Sandrigham Christmas, they still live in Edwardian times as far as that household is run. I always think of GOSFORD PARK or DOWNTON ABBEY: 1st season when i think about Sandrigham. Small talk i can do, but the various clothing changes and enforced activities a day would do my head in.

      • mayamae says:

        Thanks ladies. I always thought Diana and Charles would have named a girl Elizabeth. After realizing the coolness between Charles and his mother, maybe not. I just love the name and hope it shows up again before HM dies.

      • LadySlippers says:

        I think Zara will also go untraditional just like Peter did.

  4. whipmyhair says:

    I can’t prove this but i’m pretty sure that the staff quarters would be nicer than my house, so I wouldn’t mind staying there. Of course i’m common, I may even have some convict ancestors (Clutches pearls)

    And not many people invite their Sons ex-wife to Christmas… At least not in my family.

    • IzzyB says:

      I was coming to say the same thing. Their servants quarters are probably nicer than anything I could ever afford.

      *Looks around bedsit* Change that probably to a definitely.

    • Decloo says:

      I visited Sandringham a few years ago and, while the grounds are lovely, the interiors are pretty awful. I was able to go inside some of the Royal Family’s private rooms and I was shocked how crummy they were. It looks as though nothing had been touched for generations–very shabby and sort of run down. I was kind of shocked. If the family rooms are like that I can’t imagine the servant’s rooms are too commodious.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Decloo, Apparently only the newly rich have things up to par at all times. The old rich are comfortable enough with their status not to keep everything spiffy all the time. Funny, eh?

      • LAK says:

        it’s decidely nouveau to have a sparklingly brand new place. Same applies to clothing and outward appearance. It’s sod’s law that Kate has to be well turned out, but her version of turned out is distinctly nouveau. Cressida looking like an unmade bed is exactly what someone of her class does!!!

      • Decloo says:

        @LAK: Naturally the RF doesn’t want to something spiffy and nouveau but there wouldn’t be anything wrong with updating Lucy and Ricky’s living room.

      • Snarkweek says:

        Ladies I respectfully disagree. Some people have style and some do not, regardless of how old their bank account. Both Charles and Di loved tailored clothes and beautiful, modern amenities. Anne and Fergie rarely got it right. The queen is notoriously thrifty and probably would balk at refurbishments. Updates to BP in the 50s only got underway after Phillip had a mini meltdown and Liz threw in the towel.

      • LadySlippers says:

        QM (and other aristos) looked down on anyone buying new stuff — it’s a great honour to have moth eaten crap. That isn’t a joke either. Old money *might* patch something up but new stuff was terribly gauche and avoided at all costs (read To Marry an English Lord and other various Royal/ Aristo biographies).

        Diana and Charles redecorated in the early 80’s when a lot of those rules were seen as outdated and conspicuous consumerism was all the rage. So it’s not really fair to use them as good examples. However, the backlash that Andrew and Sarah was inline with the idea that it’s unseemly for old money to be so ‘in your face’ about their status. The backlash also highlights the double standard given to the heir and the spare.

        And Charles has been seen in public with a patched suit. Anne has long been known to rewear things from decades ago. The Duchess of Kent also sports old clothes…

      • Kate says:

        maybe the rooms are rundown because Her Majesty doesn’t want anyone to get to comfortable. the guest might want to stay longer.

      • LAK says:

        Decloo/Snarkweek: An MP, Alan Clark, who summed this up perfectly in an insult about Jeffrey Archer, a very successful author. He said he looked like the sort who bought his own furniture. i doubt there was a person in Britain who didn’t understand the insult because Alan Clark famously lived in his family castle complete with hand me down furniture.

        It’s a very fundamental thing about the British upper classes. This might be because they are asset rich and cash poor which makes it impossible to upgrade their surroundings and clothing, but it’s a real thing to wear old clothes and have old crumbling furniture.

        The thing to note about the refurbishments that the royals make, including Charles and Diana or even Philip, it only happens when there is a fundamantal shift eg Charles purchased Highgrove just before his wedding, so it needed to be refurbished at that point. I doubt anything’s been done to it since then except to remove Diana’s belongings when they separated.

        Ditto Diana refurbished their KP apartment to her taste when they separated, and that would have been that.

        CH wasn’t refurbished until QM died and it passed to Charles.

        Amner Hall is currently being refurbished for WK, and will probably remain untouched for rest of their lives.

        Philip made changes to private spaces, but again nothing to scare the horses and nothing has been changed since then.

        Edward and Sophie to Bagshott, Anne to Gatcombe Park etc.

        The point being that it is only made when absolutely necessary otherwise you make do and mend.

  5. Chrissy says:

    LOL. Australia? A growing Republican streak? Not with Tony around!

    p.s. Out of curiosity, is the international media trying to rile something up between Australia and the monarchy? Because I haven’t read a single thing in our papers lately.

    • MisJes says:

      I really do think the media is trying to conjure up this image of Australia struggling against it’s British ties. It’s simply not true. Many, many of us Australians love our Queen, and are proud of our place in the Commonwealth.

  6. QQ says:

    The Queen looks 3 kinds of adorable in these pics

  7. Suze says:

    I’d hide out in one of the servants rooms just to get a seat at that candle lit dinner.

  8. Steef says:

    The debate over remaining a part of the monarchy or becoming a republic has been raging on for years in Australia. There was even a referendum on this very subject in 1999. Australians voted against the model proposed as an alternative to the monarchy – though it was hardly overwhelming. Roughly only 55% voted against the proposal. So, 45% of people preferred the half cooked proposal to the monarchy. If the proposal had been well though out, well, we’d probably have been a republic over a decade ago. To phrase it as if republicanism is a newly considered venture in Australia, is to be quite ignorant of our history.

    • Suze says:

      Yes, but this is a celebrity blog, not a history or political blog. So to be “quite ignorant of our history” isn’t exactly a horrible crime.

      Thanks for letting us know what is going on, though. It is interesting. I have a feeling that both Wills and Kate (and George, and Carole ; ) will be warmly welcomed by the Aussies, regardless of people’s stand on becoming a republic.

      • Steef says:

        It’s not as cut and dry as that. You can’t just make incorrect ascertains about another culture or history and then suggest that one is privileged to do so because this type of blog falls under the ‘celebrity’ banner. I wouldn’t write a history blog and say ‘and Keanu Reeves, noted vampire/actor was one of the principal men involved in staging the Boston Tea Party’.

        Not that, in my opinion, good commentary on celebrities can be separated from discussions about self, identity, race, privilege, politics, or broader societal issues. I think Lainey does a fulsome and well balanced job actually.

        And, reading this blog over the last few years it seems as if Kaiser also fancies herself as a quasi political/social commentator, so I wish she’d do her research before making those types of comments.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Steef, I do understand where you’re coming from but gossip blogs make all kinds of errors. Since we’re on a post about the British Royal Family, I’ll use that as my example. Titles and names on CB, and on other gossip blogs, are quite often reported incorrectly. For example, ‘Duchess Kate’ is wrong, wrong, wrong but that doesn’t stop anyone from using it — even after being told it’s incorrect. All one can do is educate and hope others take what you’ve said and learn from it.

        Many long time Royal watchers will know Australia’s mixed feelings when it comes to the BRF. Hopefully others do too — if not before your comment — they will after.

      • Suze says:

        Well, Steef, I kind of think your example of Keanu Reeves is exactly something I would see on a celebrity snark blog and find hysterical. But I understand – I think – where you’re coming from.

        Thank you – sincerely – for enlightening us. I learn a lot from commenters on celebrity blogs.

      • Missykittens says:

        Suze, you seem to imply that people who read celebrity gossip must not be very … what? Smart? Interested in history or other academic type subjects? Knowledgable about the world? Sometimes you just need a mental break and celebrity gossip is the perfect mindless drivel.

      • Suze says:

        I am implying no such thing. Reading that into my comment is looking for trouble.

        I think the Celebitchiests are smart. There are lots and lots of wonderfully insightful comments on this blog from all kinds of commenters from all places.

        The focus of this blog is celebrity gossip, so not every post will be highly researched and every nuance vetted. That is the way of a gossip blog, particularly one that posts as many entries a day as this one. I was simply saying it was forgivable of Kaiser (NOT the commenters, btw) to be unaware of the political climate in Australia with regard to royalty.

        I said nothing and implied nothing about the comments on this blog being stupid, nor did I imply anything about the interests or intelligence level of the commenters.

      • LAK says:

        This blog draws many intelligent posters. If Kaiser posts something that people disagree with, someone always comes along and corrects her which inevitably leads to a really interesting and informative conversation at tangents with original post.

        Whilst one shouldn’t look to a gossip blog for hard news, it doesn’t mean that we are ignorant of world view. And if someone does post something we don’t know anything about, isn’t that a window for others to investigate further?

        Suze is always irreverent and a pleasure to read. She’s never been rude to anyone or implied the same.

      • LadySlippers says:

        I second what LAK said. Suze is always polite and informative — even when another poster misunderstand her (see our exchange up thread).

        I am always learning and also teaching at the same time. Those attributes are delightful bedfellows!

        AND, Kaiser will probably keep the tidbit of info gleaned here and incorporate it into a new post. Watch and wait.
        🙂

  9. Renee says:

    I read somewhere else that fergie was not invited this year. Probably the DM. And I thought the entire Middleton clan was invited??

    • Florc says:

      DM likes to stir the pot and post stories that project the image of the Middletons being accepted as royalty by the royals.
      If anything the Midds will stay at Amner Hall (if it’s finished), but won’t go to the main gathering.

    • Justme says:

      Fergie never stays at the house (at least not since the divorce, and never participates in the family Christmas). The Middletons are never invited for Christmas (although the press report they will be every year.). And yes they have had this squeeze before – and have used the servant’s quarters.

    • LadySlippers says:

      Renee, the Duchess of York is usually at one of the smaller houses on the estate over Christmas. But the DM is commenting because last year, the Duchess was up at the big house (by HM’s invitation) until the Duke of Edinburgh arrived. The DM is contrasting that with her invite last year but last year was something special and they are stupid if they think otherwise. (Stupid and pot stirring because even last year everyone was in awe over the DssoY being at the big house).

      Speculation was increased after her visit to the big house that once the DoE passes, the DoY and the DssoY will remarry.

      • mayamae says:

        I’m very torn on this subject. On the one hand, Sarah is a hot mess who has made many, many mistakes. On the other hand, waiting for your daddy to die so you can marry the woman you love? What if Charles had put off Camilla like that? It just sounds very cowardly, especially since Elizabeth is the reigning monarch, not Philip.

      • LadySlippers says:

        The thing is — the press really has inflated her mistakes and downplayed other people’s. That’s what upsets me.

        ETA: HM may reign but Philip rules the roost on the home front. HM made it clear that she would try to emasculate him as little as possible; and since she is so shy anyway — she rarely (if ever) over rules his decisions.

  10. TheCountess says:

    I unabashedly love the Queen specifically and the royals in general but I still have to giggle over John Oliver’s recent description of Her Majesty as a “nut-obsessed pensioner.” 🙂

  11. The Original Mia says:

    So…I’m taking this to mean they are like every other family during the holidays.

    The DM should remove their lips from the Cambridges’ backsides. Prince George isn’t the only new grandchild in the family. Heck, Zara is close to delivering herself. The entire clan was probably invited because Phillip is healthier than last year and is present with them.

    • Justme says:

      However Prince George will be the only newborn baby at Sandringham. Maud Windsor, the daughter of Lord Frederick Windsor and granddaughter of Prince Michael, (hence the great great granddaughter of George V) will not be there. The Queen sees her cousins at the Buckingham palace luncheon she gives a week before Christmas.

  12. Tiffany says:

    Yeah. I think this could be Prince Philip’s last Christmas as well. The poor man does not look like he is holding up well. If he were to pass on in 2014, I do wonder what this will mean for Queen Elizabeth.

  13. Neuron says:

    Can someone please explain what’s going on between Prince Philip and Fergie?

    • LadySlippers says:

      I’ve heard lots of things but all I know is there is something about the Duchess of York that the Duke of Edinburgh objects to. What? I don’t know as HM and the Duchess are still on relatively good terms. But I’m not going to guess as I really can only speculate.

    • LAK says:

      Philip thinks Fergie is beyond the pale for the way she *embarrassed the family. As far as he is concerned, she’s persona non grata and what he says goes as far as family matters are concerned.

      In practise, this means he rarely sees her unless he can’t help it and the other members of the family don’t rub it in his face when they do and or maintain the relationship.

      For the sake of the family’s public face, she doesn’t attend any public events officially. When she does attend, it’s done very quietly and she doesn’t sit with the family so as far as the public is concerned, she’s been erased from the family’s life.

      *getting caught and splashed all over the media as opposed to what she actually did!!

      • taxi says:

        How did HM react to Fergie’s attempt to “sell” access to Andrew? Philip probably didn’t like it.

      • LadySlippers says:

        But why does he hold her to a different standard than the rest of the family? That’s my question as I’ve heard what you’ve written before. To me, it seems unfair. I don’t wonder if they had personality issues long before the Yorks’ divorce but her ‘scandals’ are used as a convenient excuse as to why he doesn’t like her.

        Thoughts LAK? (Open to anyone)

      • LAK says:

        Taxi: I don’t know for sure, but there were rumours that prior to the ‘selling Andrew’ debacle, there had been a gentle thawing in relations with Philip, but after that she was completely shut out. HM was probably livid, but not enough to shut her out completely because she is still seeing her privately.

        Everyone else’s scandals were every other year – on average until the war of the wales really kicked off.

        Apart from a brief media honeymoon, Fergie was pictured in the papers often of her marriage doing something that embarrassed the family. So in that sense, she had a scandal nearly every month/year. Most of it was press choosing to report on her in this way.

        So when the real scandals showed up, it was too much. Her currency was completely devalued so she had to go.

      • karmasabiatch! says:

        LadyS, I can’t help with answers. But I would love to know, as well. British ladies, anyone?

      • Sloane Wyatt says:

        OK, here goes, but I have to warn you my theory is complete fanfiction!

        Back in the day, Prince Philip was mightily intrigued by Sarah’s succulent toes and roguishly pinched Sarah’s bottom. It’s whispered in the servants’ quarters that when Fergie coldly rebuffed his advances, Philip was livid. Now, ever since the ‘Bottomgate Affair’, the Duchess of York has been frozen out.

      • mayamae says:

        Wouldn’t Philip treat Diana pretty much the same if she were still alive?

        Maybe along with all the faux pas, and the fact that she was middle class, Sarah overshadowing her husband was just too much?

      • LadySlippers says:

        But Sarah wasn’t ‘middle class’. She was part of this set, unlike Kate or Sophie. In fact, she’s descended from Charles II like so many other aristos (Diana was too).

        I don’t doubt that selling access would burn bridges but I want to know what happened before that. And why HM still sees her post selling access.

        Questions I’m sure I’ll never have answers to.

        *sigh*

      • LAK says:

        Sarah is the opposite of middle class. Her family is aristocratic all the way. They ‘lost’ their title because Sarah’s father was born to a *daughter* as opposed to a *son*. Meaning daughters can’t transmit titles whereas sons can.

        On her father’s side, Fergie is related to the Gloucesters by blood via Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester who was Major Ron Ferguson’s [Fergie’s dad] second cousin. Princess Alice and Major Ron’s mother were first cousins, grand daughters of the 6th Duke of Buccleuch. Lady Alice married the HRH Gloucesters whilst Lady Marion married plain Colonel Andrew Ferguson with no titles.

        On her mother’s side, Fergie has various aristocrats of different ranks culminating in her great grand father, 7th Viscount Powerscourt, but again titles couldn’t be transmitted via daughters and so her mother was plain Susan Wright.

        And that’s before you factor in the main branch of the Windsor family where she is related by dint of being a direct descendant of Charles II. This is also how the Spencers are related to the main Windsor family which makes Sarah and Diana relations as well.

        She didn’t just grow up around the royal family, she is very closely related to them. Much more than people realise because they don’t hold a title.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Thank you LAK for explaining Sarah’s aristo background (what I meant with ‘this set’). I was too lazy to go and get the necessary details.

        ETA: Diana, Sarah, and Camilla all had basically the same training as was given to young women of their class back in the day. Marrying well was really their ‘job’ so they didn’t get fancy degrees to find a good husband.

    • bluhare says:

      No one really knows for sure but I certainly don’t blame Philip for not wanting anything to do with her. The Queen might be softer on her because Andrew (who’s supposedly her favorite child) loves her, but with everything Sarah’s done I’d be livid too.

      • LadySlippers says:

        But bluhare, Sarah’s exploits aren’t really much different from anyone else. And the press really fanned the flames as well. That’s part if the reason I think there is something else at play here.

      • bluhare says:

        Really, LadySlippers? Haven’t heard of any other royal exes trying to sell their ex husband for 750,000 pounds or whatever amount of money it was. That would be enough for me; perhaps it was for Philip.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Philip cut off ties with Sarah LONG before that. And Andrew has forgiven her repeatedly because he acknowledges his part (and the BRFs part) in her stumbles. It isn’t solely due to his feelings for her and the fact that she’s the mother of his children that he’s so understanding and forgiving.

        I could be completely wrong to think there was a personality clash between them but the lengths Philip goes to avoid her is unusual.

        (Sloane your ‘theory’ is funny!)

      • bluhare says:

        I know that, LadySlippers. My post wasn’t particularly clear but I was trying to say if I were Philip that stunt would have meant no going back.

  14. lisa says:

    i’m madly in love with hmq’s berry coat over the royal blue dress, rock it lilibet!

  15. Duchess of Corolla says:

    Cheers to Her Majesty! Love her to bits!

  16. Zombie Shortcake says:

    Yes! Put the Middletons in the Servant’s Quarters- Ha Ha!

  17. opdketfkfhys says:

    lol yu tell em gurl

  18. raincoaster says:

    If I’m not misremembering, Fergie shares a house on the Sandringham grounds with her ex-husband. She’s not invited to family things because she’s an ex, but it’s not as if she’s banished from the grounds.

  19. Lou says:

    Do you guys in America not do Boxing Day? Do you have a public holiday on the 26th??

    • Suze says:

      No, no public holiday. There are many people who have the day off, but many, many people head back to work. No rest for the wicked!

      • LAK says:

        i was a very confused english person the years i spent Christmas in USA. No boxing day, no mince pies, advent calenders christmas pudding, brandy butter or mulled wine…..:( on the plus side, necessity forced me to learn how to make them

        …..i love a mince pie…sigh.

        come January 6th, i’m on a sugar detox!!

      • LadySlippers says:

        I think Boxing Day is a lovely tradition but we have a lot of stuff going in Christmas Eve that may or may not make up for a lack of Boxing Day stuff.

        Note to non-Americans: The vast majority of Americans have no clue what Boxing Day is and it’s various traditions or history. Even me, English/British history freak, didn’t know for a long time. So keep that in mind when you chat with us. 🙂

      • Lou says:

        I feel like you are all getting cheated out of a lovely day of sleep-ins, cuddles, and leftover pudding…