York sisters face uncertain public roles as Fergie Epstein email scandal widens

Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie could see their public roles narrowed as the fallout from their mother, Sarah Ferguson, widens this week. The Duchess of York was dropped by seven charitable organisations after a leaked email showed her apologising to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, despite publicly disavowing him. The revelations come as Prince Andrew has already relinquished public duties over his association with Epstein, a setback that now casts the York sisters’ future in the royal spotlight.

The charities cut ties with Ferguson after reports surfaced that she wrote to Epstein to apologise for publicly disowning him in the wake of his sex-offence conviction, a reversal that many organisations described as inappropriate in light of the broader public record. The organisations named included high-profile patient and medical charities as well as children’s and anti-slavery groups, all saying it would be untenable to continue their patronage in light of the new information. The developments come amid a broader royal recalibration as the royal household negotiates the fallout from the Epstein affair and related questions about how the Yorks navigate their roles without the umbrella of full-time royal duties.

Royal observers say the immediate impact on Beatrice and Eugenie’s public lives could be limited by their own independent careers and family responsibilities, but the long-term frame remains uncertain. Richard Fitzwilliams, a veteran royal commentator, noted that when a brand becomes toxic, its effects spill over to associated figures. He said the sisters are well established as a duo with constructive reach, and their ongoing projects would likely survive in the short term unless new information emerges about them personally. Still, he cautioned that the sisters’ personal closeness to their parents could mean a period—potentially a considerable one—in which they refrain from launching new charitable ventures.

Fitzwilliams added that the Yorks’ closeness as a family makes a future in a more expansive royal role more complicated in the near term. “The Duchess of York’s disgrace is huge news, and likely to cause them both enormous personal hurt,” he said, while noting that the sisters’ reputations and independent work could shield them from the worst of the fallout. Royal author Andrew Lownie also suggested there could be more to come—information that might further disrupt any prospects of Beatrice and Eugenie taking on greater official or charitable responsibilities in King Charles III’s reign.

Phil Dampier, another royal watcher, said the sisters would be devastated by the public collapse of their parents’ standing but remained convinced they could still contribute to the royal narrative in a more limited, non-official capacity. “Bea and Eugenie will obviously be devastated by what has happened to their parents, but they are old enough and now wise enough to know the truth,” Dampier told the Daily Mail. He cautioned that the path to deeper roles in the monarchy—once envisioned by some as possible under a leaner post-Harry-and-Meghan era—appears more distant given the current climate around their family.

Beyond the family dynamics, Beatrice and Eugenie maintain distinct professional and charitable profiles. Beatrice, 37, is vice-president at Afiniti, a U.S. tech company, and serves as patron of the Helen Arkell Dyslexia Charity. Eugenie, 35, works as an art director at Hauser & Wirth and chairs initiatives such as the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital Charity. She co-founded the Anti-Slavery Collective and continues to pursue projects aligned with her long-standing advocacy work. Each woman is also a mother—Beatrice with Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi and daughter Athena, and Eugenie with Jack Brooksbank and sons August and Ernest—factors that scholars say will shape how she engages with public life going forward.

Observers have noted that while their official duties are limited, Beatrice and Eugenie have already stepped in unofficially to support royal events and patronage networks. They appeared together at a Buckingham Palace garden party earlier in the year and have been linked to formal events alongside King Charles III and other senior royals. Their roles as mothers and professionals, rather than as working royals in the strict sense, may help them navigate a period of recalibration without eroding their long-standing public goodwill.

The broader royal landscape surrounding Ferguson and her ex-husband, Prince Andrew, adds another layer of complexity. Charles has reportedly sought to ring-fence his brother from public scrutiny by cutting personal funding, withdrawing security, and encouraging downscaling from Royal Lodge in Windsor. The aim, according to insiders, is to preserve the rest of the royal family’s functioning while managing the reputational risk associated with the Yorks’ ongoing associations with Andrew and Ferguson. While this does not directly bind Beatrice and Eugenie to any expanded royal role, it shapes the environment in which they operate and could influence how charities and publishers approach any future collaborations.

In the meantime, the York sisters’ own careers and family lives provide a measure of resilience. Beatrice’s and Eugenie’s individual work, combined with their status as mothers with independent lives, positions them to continue meaningful public work even as the mother-daughter dynamic at the heart of their public narrative faces reckoning. Whether they will pursue new charitable initiatives in the near term remains uncertain, but their notoriety and networks have not evaporated. The coming months will be pivotal in determining how aggressively the royal apparatus markets the sisters’ public personas and whether Beatrice and Eugenie will gradually re-emerge in a more defined, albeit still limited, capacity within the royal fold.