Embedded Files
Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York, is facing mounting scrutiny after the publication of a 2011 email she sent to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, in which she apologized for not standing by him and praised him as her “steadfast, generous and supreme friend.” The revelation has prompted at least seven charities to cut ties with her, dealing a major blow to her philanthropic work and public image.
The email, first reported by The Mail on Sunday, was sent shortly after Epstein was released from prison following his 2008 conviction for procuring sex from a minor. In it, Ferguson wrote: “You have always been so steadfast and kind to me and never failed to help me when I was in most need. I would like to apologize for not standing by you when you were convicted and for not calling you.”
The tone of the message sharply contrasts with her public remarks at the time.
The tone of the message sharply contrasts with her public remarks at the time.
In a 2011 interview, Ferguson said she “abhors pedophilia and any sexual abuse of children” and admitted that accepting money from Epstein was a “gigantic error of judgment.” She also claimed that she would never have anything to do with him again.
In a 2011 interview, Ferguson said she “abhors pedophilia and any sexual abuse of children” and admitted that accepting money from Epstein was a “gigantic error of judgment.” She also claimed that she would never have anything to do with him again.
Ferguson’s spokesperson has since attempted to clarify the circumstances, stating that the email was written under duress after Epstein threatened legal action. “The Duchess was advised that Epstein would sue her following comments she made linking him to sexual abuse,” the spokesperson said. “The email was written on legal advice in an attempt to avert a costly lawsuit. She deeply regrets the wording and has repeatedly expressed her remorse for ever accepting help from him.”
Charities that had long associated with Ferguson responded swiftly once the email became public. Julia’s House, a children’s hospice in Dorset and Wiltshire, announced it would be cutting ties, stating: “Given the deeply concerning content of the correspondence and the inconsistency with public statements made at the time, it is no longer appropriate for Sarah, Duchess of York, to serve as patron.”
“We are grateful for the Duchess’s past support, but her ongoing involvement is incompatible with the values and reputation of our charity.” Other organizations, including the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, Prevent Breast Cancer, the Children’s Literacy Charity, the British Heart Foundation, and the National Foundation for Retired Service Animals, issued similar statements confirming her removal from their list of patrons.
Virginia Giuffre’s family praised the charities for acting decisively. In a statement to The Times, they said: “It is right that organizations entrusted with helping the most vulnerable take a strong stance. This demonstrates that accountability and integrity matter more than status or titles.”
Critics of Ferguson, however, argue that while her email was a serious misstep, the context of legal pressure should be acknowledged. “It is clear she was frightened of being dragged into a legal battle she couldn’t afford,” one source close to the Duchess told The Daily Telegraph. “But that does not excuse the tone or content of the letter.”
The scandal has dealt a serious blow to Ferguson’s long campaign to rehabilitate her public image. Over the past decade, she has sought to redefine herself through charity work and projects centered on children’s welfare, health, and literacy. With so many organizations cutting ties, her credibility as a public advocate has been severely undermined.
The resurfaced email underscores the difficulty of reconciling private actions with public statements, especially for high-profile figures. For Ferguson, the incident is a stark reminder that past associations with Epstein continue to carry heavy consequences long after his death.
Report abuse