Sarah Ferguson will ‘move forward independently’ without the late queen’s corgis

The knives are really out for Sarah Ferguson, and they’ve been out for some time. While I believe that Fergie is a terrible person who (somewhat hilariously) conned $2 million out of Jeffrey Epstein, I’m also sort of uncomfortable with the fact that Fergie is, in many ways, getting worse treatment than Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. Andrew will be set up for the rest of his life in what will probably be a six-bedroom “cottage” with extensive grounds, horses, shooting parties and a lifetime “pension” courtesy of the crown. Meanwhile, Fergie is being cut adrift completely, and not only that, but the palace seems to be gleefully painting her as “demanding” a royal home and money. Well, sources close to Fergie tried to push back to People Magazine:

Sarah Ferguson is set to move into a home of her own as her ex-husband, Prince Andrew, has been told to surrender the lease to their longtime residence, Royal Lodge, following the unprecedented decision to strip him of his royal titles.

“She is going to be moving out and into a separate home,” a source who knows Ferguson tells PEOPLE.

“Contrary to reports, she has never asked for a property or any provision for herself,” the source adds. “She will continue to forge an independent life.”

A separate source close to Ferguson confirms that she will find her own place and is “going to move forward independently.”

A palace source adds that it is unlikely Ferguson will relocate to Sandringham.

PEOPLE understands that Andrew, 65, will relocate to a property on the Sandringham estate and any future accommodation will be privately funded by King Charles. Formal notice was served on Oct. 30 for him to surrender the lease, and the move is expected to take place as soon as practicable.

[From People]

Charles has apparently given Sarah and Andrew two months or more to get out of Royal Lodge, mostly because he wants them to NOT be in Norfolk for Christmas. So, Sarah does have time to figure things out, and apparently it’s going to take a while for Sarah and Andrew to move all of their crap out of RL as well. The Mail claims that “there are rooms full of [Amazon] boxes that haven’t even been opened. It will take weeks, if not months to shift all their s*** out.” The Mail also says that Sarah might finally move out of the UK: “She’s always rather lived on the hoof and aside from her children and grandchildren, there’s not a lot to keep her here. Put it this way, the invitations have dried up overnight.”

One of the craziest postscripts to this situation is about the dogs. So, in QEII’s final years, she tried to tell people that she didn’t want any more dogs. But after Prince Philip died, Andrew got his mother two corgi puppies to cheer her up. One puppy died unexpectedly, so Andrew got his mother another puppy in the final year of her life. When QEII died, Andrew and Fergie took custody of the corgis, and Fergie made a meal out of “taking care of the late queen’s dogs,” like it was the most important responsibility ever. Well, guess who’s lost custody of the dogs? The dogs, it seems, are going to Norfolk with Andrew. Buckingham Palace actually confirmed that, saying that “the corgis will remain with the family.” Bonkers.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Sarah Ferguson’s Instagram.

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

62 Responses to “Sarah Ferguson will ‘move forward independently’ without the late queen’s corgis”

  1. Tessa says:

    She should have had her own life after the 1996 divorce. She had work as sponsor for weight watchers. Did a reality show and lost the Money she earned.

  2. Mightymolly says:

    Can we all just agree that people in their 90s should not take in puppies? My biggest concern now is for the corgis.

    • Goldenmom says:

      Those poor puppers have probably seen some things…hopefully someone ELSE will take them in & give them a nice life.

    • SarahCS says:

      I have a cat now because when my grandmother lost her last dog in her late 70’s my aunt announced she was too old for another one and got her a cat.

      What no-one talks about is that it’s quite likely the fall and broken arm that finished her off at 89 was probably tripping over the cat so he has blood on his paws. She was very frail at that point and wouldn’t have lasted much longer anyway but I keep an eye on him.

      While I’m sure all the corgis over the years had a staff of their own it’s still ludicrous to get a woman in her 90’s puppies. In case we needed more evidence that Andrew only thinks of himself and not what anyone around him wants or needs.

      • mightymolly says:

        That makes me so sad, and I hope you’re giving the cat a good home. My dogs regularly try to trip and kill me. I suspect they find it funny, but they don’t really want a life without me. Just this morning I came out of the bathroom pre-dawn and one of my dogs was there in the dark and almost tripped/killed me. Animals don’t mean it. They think it’s funny. Still, they aren’t exactly humans with developed brains (just as must humans aren’t). I plan to spend my elderly years with elderly pets, but a young active animal in my elderly years? That’s just cruel.

      • CatGotMyTongue says:

        That’s an odd thing to say. He does not have “blood on his paws.” He was probably just trying to rub up against her legs, as cats do.

        It is your aunt who has blood on her paws. That was an irresponsible decision, and it should have been obvious to everyone, and something done about it.

        You can blame the cat all you like (and I know there’s this edgelord trend of saying how awful cats are) but he is a *cat.* Y’all dropped the ball on this one.

      • JesMa says:

        Ugh, it was obviously a joke. Pretty obvious. She took in the cat and is caring for it. She could easily have dropped it off at the pound.

    • North of Boston says:

      And agree that friends and family should not gift/force puppies on people in their 90’s, or anyone of any age who says “I don’t want any more dogs, I’m done”

      Those the puppies being gifted to QEIi were a yet another completely avoidable mistake courtesy of selfish idiot Andrew.

    • Preston says:

      I’m nervous about what Andrew’s next hunting party will use as prey.

  3. Nikki (Toronto) says:

    So, the married-in gets punished more than the PD file. I despise this family.

    I feel for her. However, she has two daughters whom she can shuttle between, as they both have properties on Crown lands. She’ll be fine.

    She should hire a ghostwriter and write about what that family is really like.

    • Tarte Au Citron says:

      Oh she’ll definitely be in the market for a book or TV deal, unless she has recently been made sign an NDA.
      She has nothing left to lose, she may as well tell all.

      • JenCF says:

        See, I think they had to compensate her something because of this possibility (unless they had a NDA in place at the time of the divorce although the time of family tell-alls had not spiked yet then). She is a legit author, even if it’s for children’s books. I hope she’s getting something, quietly.

      • Smatone99 says:

        The media said recently the books attributed to her are written by ghost writers (and she pays badly).

      • Nikki (Toronto) says:

        If she signed an NDA without securing a lifetime pension, she’s a fool. She should have known she’d be thrown to the wolves eventually.

    • Lucy says:

      I mean I guess I can believe she’s getting punished more, is just reiterating the contempt they have for women. I hope she does spill every secret they have. If they thought Harry giving Nick names to palace employees was worth throwing him out of the crown estates, they’ll just die if she says anything about the real dirt. If she has an nda she should move somewhere it’s not enforceable and publish a book in not English. The news will get out and it will get translated. Make it everyone’s problem.

    • Robert Wright says:

      Sarah Ferguson is not a “married in” anymore. She hadn’t been since 1996. She’s a “hanger on” to whom they have no responsibility towards. Anything she deserved as a royals wife was given to her in her divorce. It isn’t their fault she can’t handle her money.

    • Kaaaaz says:

      Well, it is on-brand for this family.

  4. Mia4s says:

    Not directly relevant but this line flattened me:

    “…aside from her children and grandchildren, there’s not a lot to keep her here.”

    Oh is that all there is? Well that’s nothing really. /s

    Do any actual human beings work for the Mail?

    • Mightymolly says:

      IKR? That’s a truly bizarre statement and maybe someone should train the chatbot writing these articles on human emotion and family connection.

    • Giddy says:

      Agreed. My children and grandchildren are the most important things in my world. I love living close enough to help when they need me, and feel privileged to be so close to them.

      • mightymolly says:

        That’s as it should be, and anyone who doesn’t understand it is barely human. I agree with Mia4s, though, in think this dumb publication no longer has human writers. ChatGPT isn’t exactly Oprah.

  5. PunkyMomma says:

    I don’t believe for a second that KCIII et al are going to cut Sarah loose without a generous payout. She has been in on the grift with Andrew and with all the fires BP’s racing around to put out, the last thing they need is Sarah selling secrets to the highest bidder.

  6. It’s about time she finally live on her own. How long has she been divorced from the pedo? Seems whatever money she has made in the past it runs through her hands like water. What does she do with it?

    • Lucky Charm says:

      What does she do with her money? This probably explains some of it:
      The Mail claims that “there are rooms full of [Amazon] boxes that haven’t even been opened. It will take weeks, if not months to shift all their s*** out.”

      • Yes that could explain now but Amazon started in 94 and she divorced in 96 so what happened to her money before Amazon? If she just a shopaholic?

      • Robert Wright says:

        She can start selling all that stuff on eBay.

      • Jay says:

        Yep, that is a classic sign of shopping addiction/hoarding. Mind you, we don’t know which of them is responsible for it – neither of them is exactly financially responsible.

      • BeanieBean says:

        Look at what she’s wearing in that top photo. Missoni coat, cashmere sweater, velvet trousers, suede boots. And she’s not shopping at Primark.

    • Lili says:

      Susan according to a documentary on YT she used to run up huge tabs at harrods buying gifts for people at one point the queen had to bail her out to the tune of 3mil pounds, so with all the amazon boxes her spending pattern hasn’t changed

    • Kaaaaz says:

      They’ve always been tight. I think she’ll have a room at Andrew’s even if she stays close to London. Or wherever she ends up.

    • Delta Sierra says:

      Read the Andrew Lownie book, Entitled. The things she wasted money on are just gobsmackin’. She seems to think if she holds out her hand, money will appear in it.

  7. Dee(2) says:

    I just don’t understand how you could be so bad with money that you could have over the course of 30 years conned people out of millions of dollars, lived somewhere rent free for 20 years, had most of your travel and major purchases comped or handled by someone else and have no money.

    From what they’ve mentioned about rooms full of Amazon boxes, there’s clearly some serious issues with compulsion purchasing. She’s going to have to figure it out though because she’s not going to be able to pitch up with Andrew right away, and her daughters if they have a modicum of sense aren’t going to invite her in to live with them right away.

    What a tale. In your 60s, was literally a Princess at one point, and essentially homeless now. These people are just incapable of utilizing their privilege in any meaningful way. In fact they seem to err towards using it in the most abhorrent way possible.

    • Eurydice says:

      You said it; she’s a compulsive spender – it’s a disorder. Lownie’s book has several stories about Sarah’s ridiculous extravagances, but somehow she’d wiggle though by hook or crook. Stores like Harrod’s wouldn’t bother charging her for her purchases because they figured they’d get paid by the RF somehow, but Amazon doesn’t care about royal connections. And now that she’s no longer connected, no one else will care, either.

      • Elizabeth K. Mahon says:

        I recall when she appeared on a reality series for Oprah’s network, OWN, Oprah set her up with a financial advisor to help her learn to manage her money. Apparently, those lessons didn’t take.

      • Smatone99 says:

        Fergie’s always struck me as having an addictive personality. She also seems to have little self control or self awareness, so ‘buy now, pay later’ or ‘pay never’ fits. It’s all ‘in the moment’ and remorse comes after. I know a woman exactly like that.

    • Marcella says:

      She could sell whatever they have in those boxes on Ebay to get some of the money back.

  8. EllenOlenska says:

    I really really dislike the whole “ blame the b*tch” so many scandals seem to spin to. Andrew was fat worse than Fergie. Maybe she was splitting the cash with andrew. She’s an idiot who’s made a zillion bad choices but I do remember when she married in, she was a breath of “ fresh air”. Andrew committed the crime. Fergie exhibited amazingly poor judgement but Andrew is the criminal who will never face charges. And I bet Epstein profited far more than the horrible procurer Maxwell too.

    • Mightymolly says:

      But it’s tradition throughout history to blame the woman. You ever heard the one about the Garden of Eden?

      Can you imagine if Fergie turned this around and decided to blow open the Epstein cover ups? The book deals, tv appearances, producer credit on the movie. Are you reading this Fergie? You could be a legend!

      • EllenOlenska says:

        Yes, I work in the banking industry and the only person “ punished” with jail in the 2008 banking mess was a female operations manager who was “ ratted out” by the male dude who had been turned down for the job. The men who really ran the show and profited the most got off with small fines which probably meant they had to sell off a minor vacation property.

    • bisynaptic says:

      🎯

  9. Amy Bee says:

    It’s very hard to feel sorry for her. I hope she realizes now that she was used by the Palace and the press in their war against Harry. I’m going to guess that she’ll probably write another autobiography.

  10. Libra says:

    Charles is a ditherer and cannot read the room. It would never occur to him to silence Fergie with a monetary gift and NDA. One of his aides would have to suggest it and I think this will happen. She’s a better ally than enemy.

  11. IdlesAtCranky says:

    As far as I’m concerned, Fergie deserves everything she doesn’t get.

    I hope someone who works for The Pedophile Formerly Known As The Prince actually loves those corgis and will continue to take care of them. They are the only ones in this whole mess who are actually innocent of any wrongdoing.

  12. Tiny says:

    She’s definitely going with Paedrew.
    Grifting family of liars.

  13. anna says:

    maybe she will just end up living with one of her daughters? a very normal thing to do
    and of course she shouldn’t get it worse than andrew, she did a ton of very sketchy money things that were likely adjacent to illegal and fraudulent …

  14. Lili says:

    I wonder if she will do a 4th Oprah interview. I hope she had the good sense to stash some money away, this Scandal has been 15yrs in the making she must have known it would explod at some point or did she never plan for the future

  15. Fina says:

    I did some real estate googling yesterday. And there are enough nice properties in Windsor or nearby that she can probably afford or her children will afford for her. I read that she recently sold a 3.5 million townhouse in London. So she should have some cash.

  16. Kim says:

    I found myself writing a whole long comment defending the dogs against being used as a bargaining chip or for spite, but then I realized I was getting a bit deranged. I hope Fergie was a bad dog owner, because otherwise it’s not cool to keep shuffling those dogs around like property cards in Monopoly.

  17. Sharon says:

    They were the Queen’s dogs, so of course they will stay with the royal family. I couldn’t believe her silly statement that when they bark it’s the Queen communicating with her. Maybe she’ll become a psychic with her own YouTube channel.

  18. L4Frimaire says:

    It was funny how the royals were embracing Sarah as back in the fold, while the papers referred to her as the Duchess of York fairly frequently, even though she’s been divorced for decades and she’s screwed up so publicly over the years. Now she once again no longer exists to the royals while Andrew once again avoids accountability while getting by on an allowance. Meanwhile, the public were expected to buy that these two were a better example to follow than the “disloyal “ Sussexes and the royal family kept drawing them closer as a way to needle the Sussexes. The former Yorks and the Royal Family deserve this mess they themselves created. No matter what they say, the stickiness of the Yorks is all over them.

    • CatGotMyTongue says:

      She is still Duchess of York. Not *the* Duchess of York, and no HRH.

      Rescinding titles is difficult/impossible by design. It would be very bad for any number of people if they change that just so Willy can go after his brother (around something that Harry doesn’t even give a fig about). It puts all titles at risk. Somehow I don’t think the House of Lords is going to go for that.

      I just feel bad for the dogs, getting shuffled around. The dogs are just fashion accessories to them. Andrew probably got them not to “cheer up” his mum, but as an additional toe hold.

      As an aside, I love how Lainey is referring to Andrew as Just Andrew now.

  19. maja says:

    Regardless of what she did or did not do, she benefited from Epstein and his system. But even if that were not the case, in the patriarchal system of the monarchy, any woman who marries into it and does not show submissiveness would be treated badly. You can clearly see the examples over the decades… or centuries. No one is good enough for the Windsor sons, especially if a woman has a mind of her own. Even Diana, whose family has older nobility than the Windsors, was just good enough to bear the heirs, then she was driven away. However, even women who place themselves in a position of complete dependence are not safe. That’s why the ludicrous press, which is above the law, will say the right thing about her, as always (cynical).

  20. QuiteContrary says:

    I only care about the corgis, to be honest. Those poor dogs, saddled with Pedrew.

  21. Jas says:

    Not letting her keep the dogs that she’s bonded with, so they can ‘stay with the family’ is petty and cruel to both dogs and Sarah Ferguson. It says a lot about how the royals view the world. Greedily holding on to possessions, even when they’re animals, and valuing people in the family much more than anyone else.
    Sarah Ferguson has her issues no doubt, but this is still a crappy thing to do.

  22. ShoppeGirlMN says:

    What is this private/personal money that Charles has that he can use to fund his brother? The money he has acquired all came to him because he was born into the wealth and into his Dutchies (sp) or whatever. I don’t know how they can claim that any of these people have their own money.

  23. Delta Sierra says:

    They better count the silver and the paintings before Sarah and Andrew leave Royal Lodge. I wouldn’t put it past them to have quietly sold some of it off over their years living there.

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment