This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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.

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)

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)

What is this nonsense? Is it a Wikipedia project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:8C90:1E2F:31A2:EE6E (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

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. FearÉIREANN\^(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.FearÉIREANN\^(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. FearÉIREANN\^(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)

I'm a bit confused--the British Monarchy's listing of members of the Royal Family in the Lord Chamberlain's Office specifically mentions "Sarah, Duchess of York" as a member of the Royal Family (albeit the lowest-ranked member). So is she still "royal" or not? If the Lord Chamberlain says she is, I would think she is; not an HRH, but nevertheless granted precedence after all the other members at functions she's invited to (such as Lady Thatcher's upcoming funeral). Is this true or not? I mean, are we at Wikipedia going to decide who is or isn't royal or are we going to take our guidance from the Queen? 74.69.121.132 (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The page currently introduces her as a member of the British royal family. As Sarah is not an HRH, this statement is at odds with the page on the British royal family, which explains that "Those who at the time are entitled to the style His or Her Royal Highness (HRH), and any styled His or Her Majesty (HM), are normally considered members". According to that definition, Sarah should not be considered a member of the royal family. The Royal Family website also doesn't list her as a member. Thus, I think it's best that reference to her being a member of the royal family is removed. However, the previous comment mentioned that the Lord Chamberlain's Office mentions Sarah as a member of the royal family. Thus, if we must mention her as a member of the royal family, perhaps it's best to refer to her as a member of the extended royal family - as a half-way point between the contradictory sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.140.101 (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The website doesn't list those who don't hold the HRH style, yet Sarah, Peter Phillips and Zara Tindall are considered to be members of the extended family and are introduced as such. Not to mention that all of them, including Sarah, were listed as members of the royal family in the guideline published by the monarchy for the 2012 diamond jubilee. Keivan.f^Talk 04:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm watching an interview with the duchess on right now on Piers Morgan tonight and she's discussing this incident... that should be documentation enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.244.121 (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

My Dutchmess, I think of you often I pray that you & your family Are getting along greatly. I love you as a friend. I would love to hear from you if possible. I live in New Orleans, LA, USA. IBHOPE THE YOUR 2 daughter's are well. I am sure Prince Andrew & you still love each other. Reply if possible. James Stewart lll (talk) 06:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

JAMES STEWART lll James Stewart lll (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wow, I don't have anything against this woman, but it amazes me how there is a positive slant on her no matter what the subject or event. This reads like a fan page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.246.77 (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In the event of her ex-husband marrying again, the new wife would become the Duchess of York. If that happens, whilst Sarah is still living, would she still be Sarah, Duchess of York - or would she lose that title? Werdnawerdna (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It is unlikely that any future wife of Andrew would become Duchess of York certainly while Fergie is still alive, it would be very bad form for HMQ to strip her of the title once bestowed. Camilla did not become Princess of Wales when she and Charles married. It is more likely any future wife would be given a different title. However, I for one would be highly surprised if he ever marries again...it is pretty common knowledge that he is still besotted by Fergie...time will tell 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Of course Andrew's second wife would be Duchess of York. Sarah ceased to be Duchess of York 13 years ago. She is referred to as Sarah, Duchess of York, but she doesn't hold that title anymore. She is not "the Duchess of York". Andrew's next wife would be HRH The Duchess of York, while Sarah would remain Sarah, Duchess of York. Please read the article about The Duchess of Cornwall to see why she doesn't use the title of Princess of Wales, although she is entitled to it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Should Andrew re-marry, his wife would of course become [name], Duchess of York. Andrew holds no other titles, and as such, his wife could only use the feminine forms of the titles he does have. Therefore, she WOULD become the Duchess of York. Camilla only refrained from using the title "Princess of Wales" out of RESPECT for Diana, and to avoid any possibly controversy. However, she is still entitled to use such a title, as is her legal right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.83.90 (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Andrew is also Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.

Can we have a source for the assertion that Sarah would remain ‘Duchess of York’ if Andrew gets himself a new wife, who would be called ‘The Duchess of York’? 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:DD9F:6D8F:B51A:29B4 (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

There are currently two sections entitled "Ancestry", which screws up section links. I'm not sure if there's a WikiProject style guide specificly addressing these sections, but somehow it should be resolved. —JAO • T • C 10:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• In 2009 she stayed for ten days in Northern Moor, a suburb area in Wythenshawe, Manchester, England, and filmed there. Her report on the area caused criticism.
  • What dates between? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The photo should be changed to one that better displays Fergie. --70.239.93.147 (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No reference to her life before the age of 26. It was assumed that she determined to become a Royal bride while on the rebound from racing-driver Paddy McNally, who had refused to marry her. Interesting link with her dresser Jane Andrews who went a bit further than that when her own boyfriend likewise refused to get down on one knee. (Still in jail). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.150.171 (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Might be worth restoring the link to the newly-expanded Wiki page on Jane Andrews, as she is up for possible release in 2012 - certain to provoke controversy. 86.179.199.83 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention the odd behaviors of the Turkey government when she made the TV-program. How come? Here is a source
How I nearly got Sarah Ferguson locked up in a Turkish jail as we exposed barbaric orphanages, by Chris Rogers, The Daily Mail, March 14, 2010
JohanGraham (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Turkey is a sovereign country which has jurisdiction over offences committed on its soil. Whether one likes it or not Turkish laws are still laws which need to be respected or one will face the Turkish courts. It would be important to not here that Turkey recognises the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. As such, Ms. Ferguson has the right to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights if she wishes to do so. However, Turkish laws are very clear on the subject. One cannot trespass onto Government property. If Ms. Ferguson had knowledge of illegal activity in a Turkish State orphanage she could have notified Turkish Authorities which then would have initiated a judicial response. What Ms. Ferguson did was use an isolated incident as a smear campaign against Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.68.189 (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Always good to hear from the Turkish Embassy. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:DD9F:6D8F:B51A:29B4 (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

And your proof of this is what, exactly? Your Reliable Source should be used to improve the article - providing you have one.HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added her coat of arms. I have a source for it's appearance, but I can't find the blazon of it. If I find one I'll add it to the template. Cheers. A1 Aardvark (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think her coat of arms is correct - in the blazon the thistles are described as being conjoined in base and I think this means that they need to be coming from the base of the shield, rather than placed in the middle (so that it is like how it is on the lozenge version of her arms). If I'm wrong about the thistles needing to be in base, there is still the question why there is a difference between the placing of the thistles in the lozenge version and the shield version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.0.144 (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I came here to ask why the media insist on referring to her by her maiden name Sarah Ferguson, a name to which she has never reverted. Then I noticed that, even though we call this article "Sarah, Duchess of York", our infobox is headed "Sarah Ferguson", with "Duchess of York" in smaller type. Oops!! Both parts of that are quite wrong. Referring to her as the Duchess of York suggests she has that title either in her own right or as the current wife of the Duke of York, neither of which are true. All she has is a courtesy title as the divorced ex-wife of the Duke: Sarah, Duchess of York - only that exact formulation will do at the top of the infobox. In any event, having an article called X but an infobox headed Y is the height of inconsistency.

She may be called "Fergie" colloquially, but that does not mean her full correct name is "Sarah Ferguson". If we like, we can mention in the text that the media sometimes, inexplicably, call her "Sarah Ferguson", but we should not be calling her that - because it's not her name. It would be like us calling Mr Bob Geldof "Sir Bob Geldof" just because the media usually but erroneously call him that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess the "name" parameter uses the maiden name and the "title" parameter uses the highest title she held. See, for example, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon; the infobox refers to her by her maiden name and the "title" is "Queen consort of The United Kingdom", that being her highest title (instead of "Queen Mother", which was a lower title). Then again, I think we treat Diana differently. How about removing the last name? Surtsicna (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The title of the articles for Sarah and Diana should be their birth names - Sarah Ferguson and Lady Diana Spencer. I don't understand why the special treatment. Look up the queen consorts and the titles are Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Mary of Teck and Alexandra of Denmark. All birth names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.228.180 (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The difference is, they (Elizabeth, Mary and Alexandra) were queens consort and never divorced. When Diana divorced Charles, her name, independent of marriage, became Diana Princess of Wales (the comma may be in there). She did not assume her birth name. We don't put everyone as their birth name. Likewise for Sarah. Their surnames could be said to be, respectively, Princess of Wales and Duchess of York. Seven Letters 19:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This makes no sense. Marry someone and don't divorce and the name of your article is your birth name. Divorce someone and your title becomes your surname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.228.180 (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I looked it up and Letters Patent were issued naming her Sarah, Duchess of York. The name of the article is correct. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.228.180 (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

We do not need a succession box for her title and having one may mislead the reader. It looks as if she was Duchess of York in her own right. Succession boxes for titles gained by marriage are OK if we are dealing with a queen consort or empress consort because the position they hold is quite notable and relevant. What kind of a position does a Duchess of York hold that would make a succession box neccessary? We might as well have a succession box for being "second daughter-in-law of the monarch". Besides, such succession boxes are not used in any related articles; see Diana, Princess of Wales, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Sophie, Countess of Wessex, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The article claims: "Despite this pedigree, she and her family - like the Spencers and Diana before her - are considered to be commoners rather than nobility or royalty."

Excuse me, but Lady Diana Spencer was the daughter of John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer and her family (the Spencers) had been peers (Earls) and thus members of the high nobility since the 18th century. Lady Diana Spencer thus was noble from birth, belonging to a noble family on the agnatic side (which is what counts in this regard). The Fergusson case is entirely different, because the Fergusson family isn't noble. It doesn't matter if you have some noble ancestors on the cognatic side (and in the end, probably all living Europeans have some distant cognatic noble ancenstry) if you aren't noble yourself (i.e. if your own (agnatic) family isn't noble). NestedWilliam (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, Diana had a better (and more English royal) family tree than Charles. No way was Diana a commoner. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 17:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"Better" is a matter of opinion. There is the legal nobility in the UK but there is the extralegal nobility, which are the relatives, descendants, heirs and agnates of the peers. Is aristocracy a better term to use? Seven Letters 18:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Noble is not a term which has any legal or official basis in the UK – there are three types of people: the Monarch, substantive Peers and commoners. Ergo, anyone who is neither the Queen nor a peer is a commoner. So, yeah, we really should avoid "noble". DBD 18:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone would think being distantly related to someone who murdered the previous dictator, who murdered the previous.......makes them special, they are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.71.160 (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI, there is a discussion on the usage of the pagename "Fergie", see Talk:Fergie (singer)#Requested move (November 2010) 2. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Sarah herself is using the surname Ferguson these days: Twitter – @SarahTheDuchess. Perhaps we should note that she has reverted to her maiden surname after divorce? DBD 18:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I recall an episode of the Simpsons were she was mentioned. Groundkepper Willie was high and was "kissing" Fergie, but in reality it was a rake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.184.113.224 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

According to several accounts Sarah descends from Charles II through his illegitimate daughter by Barbara Villiers, Anne Lennard, Countess of Sussex by both her mother and father. Is Lady Anne not considered his daughter? I see there are debates, but she was acknowledged as Charles's daughter and eventually took on the surname Fitzroy. Sarah's maternal great-grandfather, Mervyn Wingfield, 8th Viscount Powerscourt is a descendant as well as her paternal great-great-grandfather Henry Brand, 2nd Viscount Hampden. -- Lady Meg (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If Prince Andrew were to ever remarry, and his wife would become the new Duchess of York, would it be required of Sarah to denounce all claim to this title and as such it would no longer be her surname, i.e. Sarah Duchess of York — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.83.90 (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it would not be. Surtsicna (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The usage of Fergie is under discussion at Talk:Fergie (singer) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The following, which appears after a semicolon, is not grammatical. Would someone fix it please as I am unable. ... under "The Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003", which applies to 79 countries, including members of the British Commonwealth and the U.S. as well as Turkey, the Home Office Extradition: processes and review requires that must be present for an extradition request to be executed. --User:Brenont (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done I restored an earlier version of the paragraph. HelenOnline 17:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sarah, Duchess of York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120617061915/http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Coats%20of%20arms/ANNEX%20C%20-%20Royal%20Family%20Aug11.pdf to http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Coats%20of%20arms/ANNEX%20C%20-%20Royal%20Family%20Aug11.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120617061915/http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Coats%20of%20arms/ANNEX%20C%20-%20Royal%20Family%20Aug11.pdf to http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Coats%20of%20arms/ANNEX%20C%20-%20Royal%20Family%20Aug11.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120615153623/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/MonarchUK/Symbols/UseroftheRoyalArms.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Symbols/UseroftheRoyalArms.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sarah, Duchess of York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120927235559/http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/index451.htm to http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/index451.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Sarah was not invited to the 2011 wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, or the weddings of Peter Phillips in 2008 and Zara Phillips in 2011. How is this related to this cash for access scandal? Why is it under this section? It could possibly be suggesting that she was not invited as a result of the scandal, but this wouldn't make sense since Peter Philips's wedding was in 2008 and the scandal was in 2011. Also, would Sarah have much to do with Peter and Zara? It's not like they're related. I don't understand why it's necessary to write that she wasn't invited to their weddings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.29.101 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't know. I've moved it. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

In trying to edit the lede, I learn from Celia Homeford that Sarah 'doesn't have a controversial private life'. Of course. I can't think what gave me that idea, except possibly a few references in the article itself. I stand corrected! Valetude (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't quote me out of context please. It's clear from my edit summary that I was referring to love life, for which 'private life' is a euphemism. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I quoted you word for word, with no suggestion that private life meant anything other than love-life. Even the Talk page mentions this. Valetude (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You selected part of my comments and cut out the surrounding text. That's what 'out of context' means. I'm glad you agree that private life means love life, but then that doesn't explain why you think she has a controversial love life after 1996. She doesn't. There's no mention on the talk page of this before now as far as I can see, and certainly not from me. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I dislike bringing this up when a similar debate has been exchanged and stalled on Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, but I digress; is Sarah really considered a member of the royal family since her divorce? Off the top of my head, I recall that on a personal level, she doesn't carry out engagements with the royal family (except occasionally, her daughters), doesn't officially partake in Sandringham holiday celebrations, and doesn't attend public events such as Trooping of the Colour (although she does make appearances at Ascot.) The page British royal family states that the royal family usually includes the Monarch, their children, and later "all of their current or widowed spouses", of which the Duchess of York is neither? I can see how the Princess Diana precedent might apply here, but Diana was the mother of a future king and second in line to the throne. Regardless, thoughts?--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Kzzhrc and @Ishakharlee. I do believe that the same IP address might be behind both these accounts, but until the investigation is closed, I will go on good faith. Multiple unexplained reversions is unacceptable and typically lead to an edit war. Wikipedia policy stresses the importance of refraining from doing so and discussing the matter on the talk page instead - specifically this relevant section.--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This matter has also been discussed under the "Style of Sarah, Duchess of York" section. It seemed that listing Sarah as a member of the extended British royal family was a reasonable compromise between those who argue that she is a member and those who argue that she isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ff462 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)