LONDON, Sept 22 – Several British charities have ended their association with Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, after the resurfacing of an email in which she referred to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein as her “supreme friend.” The revelations have raised fresh questions about her past connections and cast a shadow over her longstanding role as a patron of charitable organizations.
Charities Sever Connections
Julia’s House, a charity that provides hospice care for children in southwest England, confirmed that it had decided to discontinue her patronage. In a statement, the organization explained that, following recent reports about her correspondence with Epstein, it would not be appropriate for her to continue in such a role.
Similarly, Natasha’s Allergy Research Foundation, led by Nadim and Tanya Ednan-Laperouse, said they were “disturbed” to learn of the email and had also removed the Duchess as a patron. The founders noted that Ferguson had not been actively engaged with the charity in recent years, but they nonetheless felt compelled to officially sever ties in light of the information now in the public domain.
Other organizations, including the Children’s Literacy Charity, Teenage Cancer Trust, and Prevent Breast Cancer, also confirmed they had ended her association. Each emphasized that their decision was based on the principle of maintaining trust and integrity with supporters and beneficiaries.
The Email to Epstein
According to reports, the correspondence dates back to 2011. In the message, Ferguson described Epstein as a “steadfast, generous and supreme friend.” At the time, she had recently given a critical interview in which she pledged to cut all ties with him, a move she now says was advised in order to safeguard her career as both a children’s author and philanthropist.
In that interview, Ferguson labeled a £15,000 loan ($30,000) from Epstein as a “gigantic error of judgment” and promised never to associate with him again. However, the email contradicted that public stance, sparking criticism from both the media and organizations she supported.
The Duchess’s Explanation
A spokesperson for the Duchess has since clarified that the email was sent under pressure, describing it as part of an effort to calm potential legal threats from Epstein. Reports suggested that Epstein had been considering a defamation lawsuit against her after the public statements she had made at the time. The spokesperson stressed that the message should be understood in the context of that period rather than as a reflection of her true feelings.
Despite this explanation, the damage has been significant. Charities that once benefited from her public profile and royal connections are now distancing themselves, citing the reputational risks of remaining aligned with someone tied, even indirectly, to Epstein’s legacy.
A Complicated Public Role
Sarah Ferguson has long been a figure of fascination in Britain. Married to Prince Andrew in 1986, she divorced him a decade later, though the two have remained unusually close. The pair still share a home at Royal Lodge in Windsor Great Park, and Ferguson has frequently expressed her loyalty to Andrew, even during his own highly publicized downfall linked to Epstein.
In recent years, the Duchess has built a second career as an author and media personality, while also serving as patron to various charities. Her presence at the funeral of the Duchess of Kent just last week signaled what appeared to be a tentative reentry into the public spotlight alongside Prince Andrew. The latest revelations, however, have complicated those efforts and reignited scrutiny over her past decisions.
The Broader Epstein Shadow
Epstein’s death in 2019, while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges, did not end public interest in his network of relationships. In fact, documents and reports released in recent years have only deepened the scandal, pulling prominent names from politics, business, and royalty back into the headlines. The Duchess of York’s email is the latest example of how Epstein’s influence continues to reverberate years after his death.
Earlier this month, fresh disclosures revealed personal notes and correspondence connected to Epstein, sparking renewed debate about how far his influence extended. Political figures on both sides of the Atlantic have faced questions, while institutions and individuals once linked to him have found themselves under intense public and media scrutiny.
A Question of Reputation
For the charities involved, the decision to cut ties with Ferguson reflects a broader concern about public trust. Organizations that rely on donations and goodwill cannot afford associations that may tarnish their reputations. By moving swiftly, they signal to supporters that safeguarding their mission and values takes precedence over long-standing relationships with high-profile figures.
For Sarah Ferguson, the consequences are more personal. Although she has long sought to reshape her image as a dedicated philanthropist and public figure, the resurfacing of her words to Epstein has reopened old wounds. While her representatives insist the email was the result of external pressure and legal threats, critics argue that her willingness to describe Epstein in such glowing terms undermines her credibility.