Highlights:
-
Sarah Ferguson described Jeffrey Epstein as a “supreme friend” in a 2011 private email.
-
The email contradicts her public statements denouncing Epstein and his crimes.
-
At least seven UK charities, including Julia’s House and Teenage Cancer Trust, cut ties with Ferguson.
-
Ferguson’s team said the email was sent on legal advice after Epstein threatened to sue for defamation.
- Advertisement - -
The controversy draws parallels to Prince Andrew’s earlier fallout over Epstein links.
-
The incident has caused public backlash and damaged Ferguson’s philanthropic reputation.
Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, is facing significant public and professional fallout after a 2011 email surfaced in which she described convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein as a “supreme friend.” The revelation has prompted at least seven UK charities to end their associations with her, highlighting the contrast between her private communications and public statements.
Sarah Ferguson Email Shows Contradictory Position on Jeffrey Epstein
The controversy revolves around correspondence sent by Sarah Ferguson shortly after a 2011 interview in which she publicly addressed her ties to Epstein. In that interview, she apologized for accepting £15,000 from Epstein, describing it as a “gigantic error of judgement” and stating she would have “nothing ever to do with Jeffrey Epstein ever again.”
Despite the public denouncement, Ferguson’s private email painted a different picture. She reportedly offered a “humble apology” for linking Epstein to abuse scandals and added that he had “always been a steadfast, generous and supreme friend to me and my family.” The email raises questions about how Ferguson’s private views on Epstein may have differed from her public statements at the time.
UK Charities Cut Ties With Sarah Ferguson
Several UK charities quickly moved to end their formal relationships with Sarah Ferguson following the email’s publication. Julia’s House, a children’s hospice, was the first to announce her removal as a patron, stating the correspondence made Ferguson’s position “inappropriate.”
Other organizations followed, including the Teenage Cancer Trust, which had Ferguson as a patron for 35 years. The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation and Prevent Breast Cancer also severed ties. In each case, the organizations cited reputational concerns and the public nature of the email as reasons for their decisions.
A spokesperson for Julia’s House noted that a patron’s reputation is closely linked to the organization itself, and the disclosure of the email created risks the charity could not accommodate. The timing of the email’s release, despite being more than a decade old, was enough to prompt immediate action.
Sarah Ferguson’s Explanation
Sarah Ferguson’s team has not denied the existence of the email but provided context for its content. According to a spokesperson, Epstein threatened to sue her for defamation following her public interview, and the email was sent on legal advice to “assuage Epstein and his threats.” Ferguson’s team emphasized that she “deeply regrets” ever being associated with Epstein.
The explanation frames the email as a strategic legal move rather than a reflection of genuine sentiment, but it has not prevented significant criticism from the public and charitable organizations.
Fallout Reflects Wider Royal Scandal
This episode echoes the consequences faced by Ferguson’s former husband, Prince Andrew, whose links to Epstein led to the loss of his military titles and royal patronages in 2022. Andrew’s BBC Newsnight interview was a turning point in public perception, and Sarah Ferguson’s email has reignited scrutiny of the royal family’s associations with Epstein.
Although divorced, Ferguson has maintained a connection to Andrew, and the email raises questions about the depth and duration of her own ties to Epstein. The incident underlines the ongoing impact of the Epstein scandal on UK public figures, particularly those with royal associations.
Impact on Philanthropic Work
For Sarah Ferguson, the fallout represents a major shift in her philanthropic engagement. Long-standing patronages, in some cases spanning decades, have been terminated, highlighting the sensitivity of charities to reputational risk. The episode demonstrates how private communications, even those written over a decade ago, can influence public perception and organizational decisions.
The case of Sarah Ferguson serves as a reminder of the lasting consequences of association with controversial figures and the fragile balance between personal relationships and public responsibilities.
