Revelations about Sarah Ferguson’s relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein have emerged (Image: Mark Cuthbert, UK Press via Getty Images)
Sarah Ferguson’s public reputation lies in tatters following a string of charities severing ties with her amid the Jeffrey Epstein email controversy.
The Duchess of York is facing severe criticism after describing him as a “supreme friend” – with charitable organisations rushing to distance themselves from her.
On Monday, children’s hospice Julia’s House terminated its association with Fergie after it was revealed she had emailed Epstein in 2011 – just weeks after vowing never to contact him again.
The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, British Heart Foundation, The Children’s Literacy Charity, Prevent Breast Cancer and National Foundation for Retired Service Animals have also stripped the Duchess, 65, of her patronage roles.
READ MORE: MP’s damning three-word verdict on Sarah Ferguson after charity sacking
READ MORE: Charities drop Sarah Ferguson in their droves over ‘disturbing’ Epstein emails
The Teenage Cancer Trust, which she initially supported when it launched its first unit in 1990, confirmed she had been dismissed.
Industry insiders told the Mirror that the controversy could render Fergie a “toxic” brand and devastate her capacity to provide financial support for herself and her disgraced former husband, Prince Andrew, 65.
A close confidant of Fergie revealed she penned the email during a period when she faced threats of legal proceedings from Epstein, who was discovered dead in his prison cell in 2019 while awaiting trial. Fergie apologised to Epstein after connecting him to paedophilia during an interview, stating: “I did not use the P word about you”.
Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson arrive at Westminster Cathedral for the Duchess of Kent’s funeral, July 16 (Image: Ian Vogler / Daily Mirror)
PR guru Mark Borkowski warned that Fergie was in danger of becoming “toxic” and described the leaked emails as “reputational napalm”.
He stated: “The Duchess’s reputation and ability to earn a living off the back of that reputation directly affects Andrew’s finances. The leaked emails are reputational napalm… Julia’s House severing ties is not a side note; it’s a siren.
“When a children’s hospice decides the reputational risk of association outweighs the patronage of a Duchess, the verdict is clear: she is toxic. Charities are bellwethers for public trust. If they won’t touch her, then publishers, sponsors, and producers won’t either. This isn’t a PR headache – it’s financial destitution dressed up as disgrace.”
A representative for Teenage Cancer Trust said: “We have made the decision to end our relationship with the Duchess of York, and as of today she is no longer a patron of Teenage Cancer Trust. We have communicated this decision to the Duchess. We would like to thank the Duchess of York for her support.”
In an official statement, Julia’s House said: “Following information shared this weekend on the Duchess of York’s correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein… Julia’s House has taken the decision that it would be inappropriate for her to continue as a patron of the charity. We have advised the Duchess of York of this decision and thank her for her past support.”
The York’s friendship with convicted paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein has been ruinous (Image: New York State)
Nadim and Tanya Ednan-Laperouse, founders of The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, have expressed their disturbance over the Duchess’s email to Epstein. Their 15 year old daughter, Natasha, tragically died in 2016 after consuming a baguette from Pret a Manger at Heathrow Airport that contained sesame seeds, to which she was allergic.
She fell ill on a British Airways flight and suffered a cardiac arrest. As her body was being flown home, the Duchess of York, who was returning from a business trip, was seated behind them.
In a 2019 interview, the Duchess said: “I could see they weren’t just grieving: it was a different scale of misery. They were in tremendous pain. It was haunting. I contemplated: should I leave them alone, or could I do something?”
Choosing to offer comfort, she formed a lasting friendship with the family and was appointed patron of the charity. However, today, Natasha’s parents stated: “We were disturbed to read of Sarah, Duchess of York’s, correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein. Sarah Ferguson has not been actively involved with the charity for some years.
“She was a patron but, in the light of the recent revelations, we have taken the decision that it would be inappropriate for her to continue to be associated with the charity. We would like to thank her for her kindness and support in the past.”
Sarah Ferguson has been dropped by a number of charities (Image: Marc Piasecki, WireImagevia Getty Images)
Prevent Breast Cancer has announced that Fergie is “no longer a patron”, just months after she was given the role. The Duchess of York had previously spoken warmly about the charity following her own treatment for breast cancer, which included a mastectomy and reconstruction surgery, before later being diagnosed with skin cancer.
A spokesperson for Prevent Breast Cancer stated: “The Duchess of York is no longer a patron of Prevent Breast Cancer. We have advised her of this decision and thank her for her past support.”
In addition, The Children’s Literacy Charity stated: “Given the recent information which has come to light about the Duchess of York and Jeffrey Epstein, the Children’s Literacy Charity has asked the Duchess of York to step down from her role as patron.
“We are grateful for the Duchess of York’s support for children’s literacy over the years but now feel it would be inappropriate for her to continue as Patron of the charity.”
The Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson, with Epstein fixer Ghislane Maxwell, in 2003 (Image: Getty Images)
Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Olney, representing Richmond Park, commented: “I think any charity would want to know that their trustees observe the highest possible standards of child protection, and I really do think that these emails very much undermine that. So I’m not surprised that this has happened.”
When questioned if the Duchess should lose her other patronages, she replied: “It feels like it might be the right thing to do. Obviously, that’s a matter for them. But I really think these revelations about these emails make her position untenable.”
The controversy revolves around an interview published in March 2011, where the Duchess of York apologised for accepting £15,000 from Epstein – a longtime associate of Andrew.
She declared: “I abhor paedophilia and any sexual abuse of children and know that this was a gigantic error of judgment on my behalf. Whenever I can, I will repay the money and will have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein ever again.”
However, barely a month afterwards, on April 26, the Duchess covertly contacted Epstein from her private email account.
The message stated: “As you know I did not, absolutely not, say the P (paedophile) word about you. I know you feel hellaciously let down by me. And I must humbly apologise to you and your heart for that. You have always been a steadfast, generous and supreme friend to me and my family.”
