Duchess of York faces renewed scrutiny as Epstein email prompts charity withdrawals and resurfaced TV footage

London — The Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson, is facing renewed scrutiny as several charities terminate or reconsider relationships in the wake of disclosures about her past dealings with Jeffrey Epstein and after resurfaced footage from a 2011 television interview drew renewed attention to a separate cash-for-access controversy.

The sequence of events centers on two intertwined threads from more than a decade ago. First, reporting indicates that Ferguson apologized in April 2011 to Epstein after publicly disowning him in the media, a telecom and written exchange that later emerged in a broader conversation about accountability and remedies in high-profile philanthropy. Second, the resurfaced footage from a 2011 interview with 60 Minutes Australia shows Ferguson being pressed about a separate matter: whether she offered access to her ex-husband, Prince Andrew, for substantial sums. The dual focus has coincided with charities stepping away from her patronage.

During the 60 Minutes Australia interview that aired in 2011, host Michael Usher confronted Ferguson with a package of footage from a May 2010 sting by the News of the World in which she is heard offering access to Prince Andrew for £500,000. The exchange captures the moment when the journalist asks if she took money in connection with those offers. Ferguson replies that money was exchanged, saying it was given to her and returned, and she grew visibly frustrated as the line of questioning continued, arguing that the interview had taken an unfair turn. The reported set piece includes the line in which she is heard saying, “£500,000 when you can, to me, open doors.” When pressed again, she responds, “Absolutely yes, it was given to me and I got it in the car and then returned it straight away.”

The interview scene grew tenser as Usher pressed Ferguson on the line of questioning, prompting a moment in which she indicated she did not want to continue with that segment. After a pause, she suggested moving on to subsequent questions. The footage resurfaced as part of a wider discussion about her public role and the scrutiny that has followed her family since the mid-1990s.

Within days of the video’s spread on social media, several organizations announced they were ending or reassessing their associations with Ferguson. Julia’s House, a children's hospice in Wiltshire and Dorset, said it would be inappropriate for her to continue as patron in light of the newly disclosed material. Other charities followed suit, including Prevent Breast Cancer and The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, along with the National Foundation for Retired Service Animals. The British Heart Foundation also said Ferguson was no longer serving as an ambassador. Collectively, the announcements marked a rapid narrowing of a charitable footprint that had long been a feature of the duchess’s public life.

The charities’ actions were intertwined with a broader reckoning over Ferguson’s ties to Epstein. In April 2011, reports emerged that she had emailed Epstein after publicly disavowing him, describing him in the correspondence as a “supreme friend.” James Henderson, Ferguson’s spokesperson at the time, told reporters that the email came after a “really menacing and nasty” phone call from Epstein and that the note reflected the pressure she faced while trying to protect her family. He recounted that Epstein had warned of consequences for her if their communications continued, and he described the exchange as part of a tense, complicated period for the duchess.

As the charity withdrawals unfolded, attention returned to events from 2011 that Ferguson publicly referenced in interviews at the time. In March 2011, the Evening Standard published her remarks in which she apologized for accepting £15,000 from Epstein, saying she abhorred paedophilia and any sexual abuse of children and that she would repay the money and have nothing more to do with Epstein. A little over a month later, reports in The Mail on Sunday described a message Ferguson sent to Epstein in which she expressed remorse and referenced her family’s status, noting that she had previously been advised to have no further contact with him.

The public response to Ferguson’s emails and her past has included statements from relatives and supporters of Epstein’s victims. Members of Virginia Giuffre’s family, who has been among Epstein’s most vocal accusers, praised the charities’ decisions to part ways with Ferguson and stressed the importance of accountability for those connected to Epstein’s network. They emphasized that recognizing and addressing such ties is essential to safeguarding vulnerable individuals from exploitation and trafficking. Epstein’s death in a New York federal jail in 2019, ruled a suicide while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges, continues to frame the broader conversation about the network and its influence.

The latest developments come within a longer arc of Ferguson’s public life, which has been marked by a mix of high-profile associations and turbulent headlines since she joined the royal circle in 1986. The timeline of events includes years of intense media attention, with notable episodes in the 1990s and early 2000s that have shaped public perception of the duchess. Analysts and observers note that the current wave of disclosures and philanthropy withdrawals is part of a broader reassessment of public figures who were once central to charitable campaigns but whose associations have, in some cases, come under renewed scrutiny after revelations of controversial or ethically fraught connections.

Observers caution that the evolving story is as much about accountability in philanthropy as it is about the duchess’s personal history. Several organizations have reiterated that they must balance public trust with the legacies of the people who lead or advocate for their missions. The decision of Julia’s House and other groups to sever ties underscores a growing expectation in the nonprofit sector that relationships with patrons and ambassadors be aligned with an organization’s values and safety commitments for the people they serve.

Meanwhile, Ferguson has long maintained that her public life has required difficult decisions and that her family’s welfare guided her actions. The current crisis amplifies the tension between a high-profile celebrity’s philanthropic ambitions and the reputational risks that can accompany associations with controversial figures or controversial past actions. For supporters, the focus remains on the charitable work she has conducted and the potential for future engagement, while critics argue that past associations must inform present-day decisions about advocacy and leadership roles within nonprofit partnerships.

The Duchess’s representatives did not respond to requests for comment on the charity withdrawals. In the wider royal ecosystem, the episode adds to ongoing debates about how former members of the royal orbit navigate philanthropic work and public scrutiny after stepping back from full royal duties. As charities reassess their affiliations, the episode serves as a case study in how past actions and archival media can shape real-time decisions about partnerships and public trust in the realm of Culture & Entertainment.