She was Andrew’s wife, how was no one aware?
Being someone’s spouse doesn’t make you guilty (or often even aware) of the thing that the spouse did…
To be fair, which Sarah Ferguson may not deserve, she was married to Prince Andrew in 1986, separated in 1992, and divorced in 1996.
The earliest allegations against Prince Andrew are from 2001.
It is entirely possible Sarah Ferguson had no information into what Prince Andrew was up to or knew Jeffery Epstein in any way.
This recent letter however would definitely seem to indicate otherwise.
You can be temporarily married to a shitty person, lots of people are, and we try to give them the benefit of the doubt. But that only goes so far.
For real. The headlines about it all read like “woman married to open racist outed as a racist too”. Like yeah, no shit.
Maybe just over the point of being too public?
(And that can be damaging to ones career - especially if the full files get released)With celebrities and powerful people you often see handwashing after something becomes bad in public’s eye.
Like Weinstein, nobody except him was punished (well, not even him really), and so many worked with & supported him when they knew beyond any doubt what he was doing - but the pubic didn’t.
And all these people had to do was to say they distanced themselves from him when the stories got a hold in the pubic media.
Andrew spent a week with Epstein after he was released from prison. There’s no denial on her end that makes sense.
No, not Andrew/Sarah, Natalie I mean.
I’m saying that she prob knew but even a few years ago you could still get away with it at such distance - now Epstein is getting much more attention bcs Trump admin & the risk is higher.This is also why they are desperate to not actually release any names. They know the names are just the beginning of the web of people involved. And people will start back solving based on dates and events and context once the names are all out there.
[off topic?]
One thing that I find strange is that the public knows exactly what the subject of the biography looks like, and yet they always seem to cast actors who are much better looking than the original.
Sarah was never as pretty as Natalie; Margo Robbie was much, much better looking than Tonya Harding.
Here’s my all time favorite example.
The actress who played Leona Helmsley
https://www.picclickimg.com/S2cAAOSwj7lmRWV8/Suzanne-Pleshette-in-Leona-Helmsley-The-Queen-of.webp
The real Leona Helmsley [nsfl]
https://alchetron.com/cdn/leona-helmsley-5cce11df-bf07-4316-a026-5afb19de3ea-resize-750.jpeg
Go look at any year book of a large Theatre Conservatory for any year in the last couple of decades and literally only a handful of people there are not significantly above average in terms of looks.
The major Theatre conservatories know very well that in this day an age Looks are at least as important as acting ability, even in Stage Theatre, so they already take it into account when selecting whom they taken in as pupils.
We live in an age of superficialism.
It’s worse in the music world.
Ella Fitzgerald would never get a recording contract these days.
Movies are made to make money. People won’t pay to go look at ugly people. Simple as that.
Monster (2003)
There are exceptions to every rule. And their entire marketing was based on being the exception.
And most of that marketing was “look at how ugly Charlize is”
Oh absolutely. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just an interesting exception
The marketing for that movie heavily emphasised how brave beautiful actress Charlize Theron was for daring to have herself uglified for the role.
I have also noticed that studio albums seem to have much cleaner sound and better recording quality and timing than live shows.
This reminded me of a show I went to once, where they screwed up and the singer said, “ah, fuck. Well, if you want to listen to us play perfectly, buy our fucking record” 😂
“ah, fuck. Well, if you want to listen to us play perfectly, buy our fucking record”
It was a great opera though.
Margo Robbie was much, much better looking than Tonya Harding
What in the heteronormative hell…
It dates waaaaaaay back. Do you really think court painters did accurate paintings of the result of generations of inbreeding?
I actually saw some paranormal show with reenactments. And the real one was way prettier than the actor. This anecdotal evidence happened precisely one time in my life lol
Cherish this moment. Memorialize it.
Big names draw money and big names in Hollywood are often (but not always) conventionally attractive. I think part of the appeal of historical/biographical productions is that we get to see a more exciting and stylised representation of a “true story”, and that often means the characters are more conventionally attractive than they otherwise would be. It is quite amusing though, similar to how teenagers are often played by actors well into their 20s (sometimes even older in the case of extras and minor roles).
They should have gone with someone with the spark and charm of a young Leona Helmsley
That line is exactly what I always think of when someone mentions Leona Helmsley.
That is what happens to me just about any time someone mentions an American celebrity who was relevant before 2013. I just think, “Oh, that person that they mentioned on 30 Rock that one time!”
A small part of it must be that most people would look better than themselves if they were carefully prepared for a scene, and they had the right lighting and framing, and the focal length was flattering, and the perspective and cinematography was flattering, etc.
True story.
They asked Stormy Daniels* what the difference was between her porn sex and her personal sex life.
She said that she’d done a lot of wild and weird things in her personal life, but never once had she had a makeup artist and a hairstylist clean her look up in the middle of the act.
*You may have forgotten her, that Trump scandal was so long ago and there have been so many since then.
People are naturally more inclined to prefer attractive people.
I didn’t understand any of that
Reading the article would have helped I imagine.
That was the problem. I read it.
And I don’t understand what any of those people have to do with each other other than the Epstein files haven’t been released which is honestly what matters.
Natalie Dormer has said she won’t promote ITV and Britbox‘s upcoming drama series “The Lady,” in which she plays Sarah Ferguson, following revelations over the Duchess of York’s connections to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The Brit actress has also said she has donated her entire salary from the show to charities focused on child abuse
You read that paragraph, not even to mention the entire rest of the article that goes into more detail, and couldn’t parse who these people are and what they’re doing?
Thats concerning for you.
The only name I recognize is Epstein.
I didn’t even know there was a duchess of York
Right, and Wikipedia will tell you everything about that. If you didn’t know, that’s chill, but it doesn’t indicate unclear writing.
Weird cuz that paragraph tells you there is one. I mean it tells you Natalie Dormer is a British actress. You now know who she is. I don’t understand the disconnect here. It tells you that Ferguson was the Duchess of York. You now know who she is. What’s to get here buddy? That’s how information is conveyed. If you want more information there’s more if you keep reading.
I guess I don’t understand what the article is talking about? It seems a lot of filler for “Natalie Dormer feels bad about taking rapist money” but I don’t exactly understand what the connection is because the article doesn’t make any goddamn sense…
Why would a Duchess of York have a TV show, and why would Epstein care about it?
Brother I’m deeply worried about your reading comprehension cuz all of that’s in the article.
