William urges Charles to disown Fergie and Andrew over Epstein scandal, but king weighs loyalty

Prince William is pressing his father, King Charles III, to disown Sarah Ferguson and Prince Andrew amid renewed scrutiny over their friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, a royal source told the Daily Mail. The king, however, is portrayed as reluctant to sever ties completely, citing the couple’s loyalty to the monarchy and a desire to avoid a repeat of what he views as the Sussexes’ public exit strategy. The discord highlights a broader struggle within the royal household over how hard to line up against its most controversial figures while safeguarding the stability of the Crown.

William is described as urging his father to act decisively, arguing that the optics of keeping the Duchess of York and her ex-husband at public events could damage the monarchy’s standing. The unrest is underscored by past public episodes in which the king and the prince reportedly disagreed on how to handle missteps within the wider royal orbit. One insider quoted in the Daily Mail described William as having grown more vocal about the need to cut ties, contrasting his stance with that of the king, who is portrayed as valuing loyalty and the late Queen’s approach to family ties. The row comes as the royal family prepared to observe events where the Yorks have previously appeared close to the throne, including the funeral of a senior royal.

The furore around Ferguson and Andrew intensified as several charities announced they would end or suspend their patronages following revelations about Ferguson’s past comments and Epstein associations. In the wake of the disclosures, seven charities publicly severed or paused relationships with the Duchess of York within a 24-hour span, with others still reviewing their positions. Among the organizations cited were the Teenage Cancer Trust, which said Ferguson was no longer a patron after three decades of involvement, along with Julia’s House, Prevent Breast Cancer, and The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation. The British Heart Foundation also said Ferguson would no longer serve as an ambassador.

Charles and William are said to be weighing a path that would allow the Yorks to step back from royal duties without a full break from the institution. The king has been portrayed by some sources as reluctant to evict the couple from Royal Lodge, a 30-bedroom Windsor property that would become easier to handle if they moved to a smaller home. Andrew’s reported refusal to relocate to Frogmore Cottage has added friction, undermining any simple resolution. Observers note that Ferguson’s ability to continue as a public figure is already constrained by the backlash over Epstein, including messages in which she referred to Epstein as a “supreme friend” and sought to downplay her past ties.

The royal household is also weighing how to respond publicly to the evolving narrative about Epstein and the couple. Some insiders suggested the palace could guide Ferguson toward a carefully managed apology, but without revisiting the fallout from Andrew’s 2019 Newsnight appearance, which critics said amplified the family’s troubles. In private emails disclosed by outlets late in the cycle, Ferguson apologized to Epstein and described her past distancing as motivated by a need to protect her reputation and philanthropic work. Those communications have been cited by charities and commentators as evidence of a pattern that complicates any future rehabilitation of the Yorks’ public image.

The broader context includes a long timeline of Ferguson’s public life, marked by a series of personal and financial upheavals that have repeatedly placed her in the spotlight. Since joining the royal family in 1986, Ferguson’s fortunes have oscillated between high-profile patronage and controversial headlines, with a pattern that continues to influence how the monarchy is perceived by the public. The latest disclosures come as the family confronts questions about accountability, the cost of royal arrangements, and the boundaries between intimate loyalty and public duty.

Observers say the crux of the dilemma is whether loyalty to family should outweigh the duty to uphold the Crown’s image in a modern, increasingly scrutinizing world. The king’s decision will almost certainly shape the future of Ferguson and Andrew’s roles within official life and may influence the term of their ties to Royal Lodge. If the king chooses to act more decisively, it could set a precedent for how the monarchy handles controversial associations associated with former members of the royal circle. If he opts for a more cautious approach, the dispute could linger, reflecting the broader tension between personal history and constitutional duties that continues to define the era after Queen Elizabeth II.

As the royal household navigates these conflicting pressures, the world watches closely. The outcome could have lasting implications for how the monarchy balances tradition, loyalty, and accountability in a modern age where public trust hinges on how leaders respond to difficult, often painful revelations about those who sit close to the throne.