Sarah Ferguson loses patronage of Julia's House after Epstein apology leaks
Duchess of York's email to Jeffrey Epstein prompts charity to sever ties, citing inappropriateness of continued patronage.
Julia's House, a UK-based children's hospice charity, cut ties with Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, on Monday after weekend reports surfaced about an emailed apology she sent to Jeffrey Epstein more than a decade ago. The charity said it would be inappropriate for Ferguson to remain a patron in light of the information that emerged over the weekend. The decision came days after media outlets reported on the contents of the 2011 email and renewed scrutiny of the duchess's association with Epstein.
According to the reporting, Ferguson emailed Epstein in April 2011 to express remorse for describing their friendship as a gigantic error of judgment in a previous interview. The leaked message depicted Epstein as a “supreme” friend and included remarks that both she and Epstein had been blamed for things they had not done. In the correspondence, Ferguson said she would have preferred to take more time to consider the ramifications of her actions instead of acting from fear. Her representatives later suggested she had been manipulated by Epstein’s misrepresentations, and that she cut off contact after learning of the allegations against him.
Julia's House announced on Monday that Ferguson would no longer serve as a patron, adding that it appreciated her past support but that the decision was necessary given the weekend disclosures. A spokesperson for the charity said the information shared over the weekend compelled the organization to take the step, and that Ferguson's representative had not provided a comment in response to the recent reports. The charity's statement stressed that it was inappropriate for Ferguson to continue in her patron role.
The episode adds to a broader re-examination of ties between members of the British royal circle and Epstein, who faced multiple criminal allegations related to sexual exploitation and trafficking before his death in 2019 while awaiting trial. Epstein was previously arrested in 2006 for soliciting prostitution and later charged in a 2019 case accusing him of sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. He died in a New York jail while awaiting trial. The Epstein affair also dragged in Ferguson's ex-husband, Prince Andrew, who faced accusations of sexual abuse by Virginia Giuffre and stepped back from royal duties in 2022 after intense media scrutiny.
Ferguson's representatives told outlets at various points that she had been taken in by Epstein's deception and that she publicly condemned him once the gravity of the allegations became clear. They also asserted that Epstein had threatened to sue her for defamation for linking him to pedophilia. Reuters and AP coverage of the episode noted the ongoing legal and reputational ramifications for those previously associated with Epstein, including members of royal circles who faced criticism for their past ties.
The Julia's House decision reflects ongoing public sensitivity to associations with Epstein and the reputational risks for charities linked to high-profile patrons. Observers point to a broader pattern of institutions reassessing affiliations with public figures who become entangled in scandal, particularly when those associations involve allegations of serious criminal conduct. The charity did not indicate any further changes to its patronage structure at this time, but the episode is likely to keep scrutiny on other royal and philanthropic connections in the coming weeks.
As the story unfolds, authorities and commentators continue to review the timeline of Ferguson's comments, Epstein’s legal troubles, and how those elements intersect with royal philanthropy. The latest development—Julia's House's decision—underscores the heightened expectations placed on charitable patrons connected to high-profile figures in the UK and abroad.
In its statement, Julia's House emphasized that it remains focused on its mission to support children with life-limiting conditions and their families, regardless of the controversy surrounding its former patron. The charity did not indicate any changes to its ongoing programs or funding sources beyond the withdrawal of Ferguson's patronage, and it thanked her for past contributions. The situation illustrates the continuing scrutiny of how personal associations of public figures can affect charitable organizations and their beneficiaries, particularly in the realm of pediatric care where public trust is paramount.