The commercial and charitable activities of adult members of the royal family are a legitimate topic of investigative reporting, but there does appear to be a layer of suspicion that is currently being applied to the York princesses which exceeds that applied to Peter Phillips, Zara Tindall, the Earl of Snowdon, Lady Sarah Chatto, or Prince Michael of Kent, who are all similarly non-working-royal adult grandchildren of a British monarch with their own private business and social commitments. (I am aware that some of the named grandchildren have received some scrutiny and criticism of their business activities, but I do not think those situations compare.)
And I am referring to mainstream news media: comments by the general public on social media go far beyond "suspicion".
Even from the BBC (November 1) – which rarely writes about junior royals:
“Beatrice was pictured at an investment summit in Saudi Arabia. Her family have long-held links to the Middle East and she also recently appeared in a promotional picture for a UAE bank.
Meanwhile, Eugenie was pictured in Paris with friends.
And while there has been some sympathy for the princesses, they also haven't been able to completely avoid the scandals around their parents.
Earlier this week, a picture resurfaced showing Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and Harvey Weinstein at Beatrice's 18th birthday party in Windsor.
The Telegraph also reported a leaked email from Epstein to his UK-based lawyer that suggested Ms Ferguson and the princesses visited Epstein in New York after he was released from prison in 2009.
A source close to Ms Ferguson insisted that neither she nor her daughters had any recollection of such a visit, according to the newspaper.
[...]
Both princesses also have their philanthropic endeavours. Eugenie set up the anti-slavery collective, a charity whose focus includes victims of sex trafficking. According to the most recently available accounts, it has raised £1.5m in donations last year but has so far distributed very little, with £1.3m carried forward.
BBC News approached the charity to ask for a comment in light of the latest controversy surrounding Andrew and Epstein, but it has not responded.”
The scandal engulfing Andrew is of his own making but has had a profound impact on his immediate family.
www.bbc.com
Although this is pure speculation, it would not surprise me if the reason Princess Eugenie’s anti-slavery charity has distributed very little of the donations it raised in 2024 is that other actors in the anti-slavery field are afraid of the negative publicity if they were revealed to be funded by a charity run by someone whose family is notoriously associated with Jeffrey Epstein in the public mind.
I think it is valid to question the princesses’ judgment for (allegedly) accompanying their mother to visit Jeffrey Epstein in 2009, after his release from prison for soliciting a minor for prostitution, but even on Jeffrey Epstein’s own account, Sarah, Duchess of York, was the one who actively wanted to visit him, and her 19- and 20-year-old daughters were merely “in tow”.
“[Jeffrey Epstein] wrote to his British lawyer Paul Tweed saying: '[Fergie] took apartments in New York. She was the first to celebrate my release
with her two daughters in tow. She visited me with [a] policeman sitting at my front desk. She has asked for help with her charities.'”
In the previously unseen emails, Epstein reveals Fergie was so desperate to cosy up to him that 'she was the first to celebrate' his release from jail 'with her two daughters in tow'.
www.dailymail.co.uk
I do not think most adults, especially at age 19-20, apply the same level of diligence to vetting their parents’ friends whom their parents “tow” them to visit, compared to choosing their own friends.
The same could be said of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and Harvey Weinstein’s presence at Princess Beatrice’s 18th birthday in 2006 – it was most likely the Duke of York who invited them (given that
he hosted them at his home on that occasion).
