Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, has come under fire once again as new allegations suggest she maintained connections with Jeffrey Epstein for at least two years following her public claims of severing ties with the convicted sex offender. These startling claims by royal biographer Andrew Lownie, featured on RadarOnline.com, cast doubt on Ferguson’s integrity and raise further complications for her former husband, Prince Andrew.
Known as the ‘Duchess of Disaster’, Ferguson publicly expressed remorse in March 2011 for accepting financial assistance from Epstein, labeling it a “gigantic error of judgment.” At that time, she assured the public that she would never associate with Epstein again.
However, Lownie’s newly released book, The Rise and Fall of the House of York, claims that Ferguson continued to derive benefits from Epstein’s circle until at least 2013, potentially receiving up to $3 million—significantly more than the $20,000 she previously admitted to accepting from him.
A former aide to the royal family commented, “It has become increasingly clear that the duchess’ apology was far from complete. She publicly declared that she had severed all connections, yet in private, she remained entwined in Epstein’s world. This revelation poses serious implications for the Palace.”
Lownie references a New York resident’s testimony indicating that Ferguson stayed at an apartment tied to Epstein’s brother in 2013. Furthermore, sources close to Epstein suggested that Prince Andrew may have facilitated a substantial financial arrangement between Ferguson and the disgraced financier to help settle her debts.
A palace insider remarked, “The staggering amount of money involved has heightened the severity of this situation. If the figure is indeed $3 million rather than $20,000, it poses the question: what was expected in return? This is deeply concerning for those within the institution.”
Lownie points to an email from Ferguson to Epstein in April 2011, which undermines her claims of breaking off ties. In this correspondence, she referred to him as “a steadfast, generous and supreme friend,” mere weeks after she had publicly denounced him.
“These new details further illustrate the insincerity of Fergie’s 2011 apology,” Lownie notes.
Ferguson has faced ongoing criticism for her financial management. Following her separation from Andrew in 1992 and their eventual divorce in 1996, she gained notoriety for her extravagant spending and lavish holidays.
By the mid-1990s, she was living in multimillion-pound rentals in southern France while concurrently asserting financial struggles.
One source associated with the royal household indicated, “This scenario transcends mere poor judgment; it reflects a continuous pattern of financial issues, extravagant preferences, and seeking assistance from dubious individuals. The King is resolute that such associations will no longer undermine the monarchy.”
In light of these revelations, several charities have already cut ties with Ferguson, including Julia’s House, Prevent Breast Cancer, and the Teenage Cancer Trust. The British Heart Foundation and the Children’s Literacy Charity swiftly followed suit.
Lownie observes that Ferguson’s reliance on Epstein echoes a longstanding behavior pattern, stating in his work, Entitled: “Sarah Ferguson has led a life of extraordinary luxury since her separation from Prince Andrew… reports of her excesses commenced in 1994 when she rented Domaine La Fontaine near Cannes for $25,000.”
Though the property was meant to be self-catering, she brought along her staff, including a butler, two housekeepers, a dresser, a general assistant, and a nanny.
A senior royal source commented, “The sentiment within the Palace is that the Duchess has once again been uncovered. Her connection with Epstein endured much longer than she has claimed, and that is an issue the monarchy cannot ignore any longer.”
