Duchess of York faces charity exodus after Epstein emails

London — The Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson, is facing fresh fallout after newly uncovered emails in which she refers to Jeffrey Epstein as a 'supreme friend' and offers a private apology for her public rejection of him.

According to the Daily Mail, the emails were published this week and show Ferguson describing Epstein in glowing terms while seeking to manage the fallout from previous public statements. In the same messages, she reportedly expresses remorse for having publicly rejected Epstein, a figure later identified as a convicted sex offender who faced global scrutiny for years.

Since the Mail on Sunday publication, seven charities have dropped Ferguson as a patron and others are examining their affiliations with her as the fallout ripples through the royal-connected charity world. The withdrawals mark the latest headline-making development for a member of the British royal circle whose financial and personal ties have repeatedly been the subject of intense media attention.

The revelations come against a backdrop of Ferguson’s long history of media scrutiny and controversy, most notably the 2010 cash-for-access allegations connected to a News of the World sting operation. Royal biographer Andrew Lownie, who researched the Yorks for a joint biography, describes how Fleet Street had long debated Ferguson’s role in arranging meetings between Oxford-educated businessmen and Prince Andrew, then the Duke of York, during his tenure as a government trade representative.

Lownie’s account portrays Ferguson as seeking to leverage her royal connections to facilitate introductions that she said could help her business interests. The biography notes that reporters claimed Ferguson boasted of introducing two tycoons to Prince Andrew and luring business figures to meetings under the banner of access tied to the Duke’s role. Investigators described a scheme in which Ferguson would connect business leaders with Andrew, with a reported expectation that payments would follow to Ferguson’s own ventures or to charitable causes linked to her.

Undercover footage by Mazher Mahmood, known as the Fake Sheikh, captured Ferguson discussing arrangements that, in the journalist’s narration, involved substantial sums and a hope that money would “open doors.” The reporting suggested she would push for a share of any deals and directed a portion of proceeds toward a charity set up to fund schools in Asia. The sting also entwined details of a Mayfair intermediary and the alleged use of Ferguson’s contacts to facilitate meetings between Andrew and wealthy figures.

The fallout from that 2010 episode extended beyond Ferguson’s public apologies and palace statements. Lownie indicates that sources at the time described Ferguson telling reporters that she could mobilize access to “the most amazing people” who could assist with Andrew’s work. The narrative, which has persisted in royal biographies and media coverage, also highlights tensions within the royal household over who knew what and when, and how denials were framed by Buckingham Palace.

The broader arc of Ferguson’s public life includes a string of high-profile moments that reporters and biographers have framed as crises. After years of headlines—ranging from marital estrangements to televised endorsements and debt stories—the 2010 episode is regularly cited as one of the defining turning points in her public standing. Lownie’s recounting emphasizes that the scandal did not merely involve Ferguson in isolation but touched on the duke’s career and the royal family’s relationship with media scrutiny and political civilians alike.

In the years that followed, the Yorks faced continued turbulence. The couple’s finances and living arrangements remained under scrutiny as they navigated life outside the core royal apparatus. By the mid-2010s, Ferguson had pursued various media projects and business ventures, while continuing to visit charitable organizations and engage with public-facing appearances. Yet the undercurrents of the 2010 sting—questions of access, influence, and propriety—surfaced repeatedly in interviews and legal filings connected to Ferguson’s broader financial footprint.

The current wave of attention underscores Ferguson’s enduring association with controversy. The Mail on Sunday’s report ties the new emails to a broader narrative about how she has managed relationships within the upper echelons of business and politics, as well as within the royal ecosystem. The timing coincides with ongoing debates about the extent to which royal figures should engage with philanthropic bodies and the scrutiny applied to how such affiliations are sourced, negotiated, and disclosed.

Beyond the 2010 episode, the notes recount a timeline of Ferguson’s public life that has repeatedly intersected with the media spotlight. The 1990s saw a rapid sequence of personal and financial challenges, including separations within the royal couple and a succession of high-profile media appearances. The 2000s brought new ventures but also new scrutiny, with Ferguson and Andrew listed as living at royal properties and participating in various charitable and media-related initiatives. The notes describe moments when Ferguson’s financial status and decisions drew public attention, including instances where she faced legal and commercial pressures.

More recently, reports indicate that the controversy around Ferguson’s ties to Epstein has become part of a broader dialogue about accountability and transparency among senior royals and their spouses. The 2025 sequence—emails suggesting a close, even deferential, view of Epstein paired with charities removing their patronage—has intensified questions about the boundaries of royal-era relationships with controversial figures and the responsibilities that accompany patronage.

For Ferguson, the fallout is likely to continue to unfold in the coming weeks as additional charities assess their positions and as commentators analyze how these disclosures fit into the long arc of her public life. Buckingham Palace has not publicly commented on the new revelations, and spokespeople have historically been cautious about involving the royal family directly in private patronage matters when those arrangements remain private.

The story remains a developing one, with the Mail on Sunday and other outlets continuing to examine the ramifications for Ferguson’s reputation, her charitable associations, and the broader conversation about how royal ties intersect with philanthropy, diplomacy, and public accountability in a modern era of heightened scrutiny.