Sarah Ferguson - just as bad as Andrew?

[TheHaplessWit]

So whilst Epstein was serving house arrest following his conviction for sex trafficking young girls, Fergie sent him messages - from the BBC:

Some emails in the latest release appear to be between Epstein and Sarah Ferguson, Andrew's ex-wife.
One email dated 4 April 2009, was signed "Love, Sarah, The red Head.!!"
It says that she was going to be in Palm Beach and wanted to have tea. The email goes on to discuss ideas for Ferguson's company, Mother's Army. The former Duchess of York refers to Epstein as "My dear spectacular and special friend Jeffrey".
She calls him a "legend" and says "I am so proud of you".
The financier was still under house arrest for his 2008 conviction when the email exchange was sent.

Ignoring the money she took and questionable business arrangements, ignoring Andrews behaviour even (that's in another thread). How can any woman, who knows this man is trafficking young girls, act like this?

Please tell me she no longers receives any sort of public funding/housing from the tax payer?

She has endorsed them somewhere. But surely her name is toxic now.

I imagine she gets some sort of deal from them but now??

Why the sympathy for cancer?
I had cancer during 2024/25 but am cancer free now.
has no bearing on who I am now.
she deserves all the vitriol coming her way.
Zero fucks given here that she had cancer.

Agreed and I'm saying that as someone who's dad had cancer last year.

Yes of course it's a shame she had cancer but it doesn't exonerate her. She deserves everything coming her way.

But he is plainly sex offender, somehow women are always judged and punished more harshly than men. Let's try to remember that the only person in prison for the Epstein scandal is a woman - plainly an awful immoral woman, but it was obviously men who were the actual abusers.

There was a sexual trafficking law in place from 2003 - the ‘photo’ of AMW/VG was taken in 2001 (as confirmed by GM in emails to JE). So technically AMW couldn’t be held to account for this incident. However it takes years to draft / create new laws so this would be public discourse - and even if had passed AMW and the whole of his police protection and civil service logistics support, by - it would have been judged morally repugnant not acceptable - similar to DA and rape in marriage - no one thought that was fine and dandy before laws were passed.

Also sex addicts like AMW are driven by their compulsion and I have non doubts that this wasn’t contained in UK soil. There will be many young women who have been groomed, coerced, trafficked and raped by AMW and his mates. It’s a ‘when’ not ‘if’ this all comes to light as currently the only ‘transparency’ is US based via Epstein. I don’t believe SF knew nothing being in such close physical and financial intimacy with AMW. Maybe she was his UK fixer - or knew so much she was able to bribe him and the BRF to keep quiet for cash?

By the way it's that drama based on her dresser Jane Andrews and the murder trial tonight.

Natalie Dormer was cast as SF but refused to promote it after the Epstein stuff came out

https://metro.co.uk/2026/02/22/itv-nervously-releases-controversial-sarah-ferguson-drama-days-andrew-arrest-27046168/

I've just seen a clip of this. The whole story is absolutely extraordinary in a most macabre and tragic way.
Sarah got very close to Jane Andrews

It’s all very interesting, isn’t it @Chesterdrawss?

‘Any sexual offence alleged to have been committed between 1957 and 1 May 2004 will be prosecuted under the Sexual Offences Act 1956’ (ref below).

It could be even worse for the monarchy were AMW to be charged under the older Act, as some of the offences he is alleged to have committed (procuring, conspiracy to procure) would potentially pull named royal properties like Buckingham Palace into the mix.

This firm of solicitors explains it well, I think.

https://www.kangssolicitors.co.uk/historic-sexual-offences/#:~:text=Historic%20sexual%20offences%20usually%20involve,1956%2C%20although%20there%20are%20exceptions.

Hope it’s ok to paste some text from the telegraph article about SF’s stay in Switzerland for the whole of January:

The facility helps treat “addiction, burnout, depression, anxiety and trauma” and charges around £110,000 for a three-day “comprehensive check-up” or £350,000 for a one-month residential programme.

Ms Ferguson previously told The Telegraph: “I am not embarrassed to reveal the clinic offered me a sanctuary, renowned as it is for its bespoke, cutting-edge treatment for those grappling with mental health and addiction issues – particularly those whose struggles are often hidden behind the facade of a public role.”

She claimed she had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) there.

Jan Gerber, the founder of the Swiss clinic, describes it as a “sanctuary where individuals can receive the highest standard of care, free of judgement”.

AMW’s inheritance? Maybe she persuaded him to transfer some of it to her.

I expect he’ll get taxed heavily on his savings now that he’s no longer royal.

I wonder who has the Queen’s corgi’s now?

Too bad non of Epstein victims got a chance to go there. I think their PTSD might have been considered a bit more pressing.

What a pile of self absorbed and tin-eared shite …. hidden behind a public role !! What public role does she have?

I am sick to the back teeth of these vile people yapping on about their stress, even PW going on about the stress he is under since AMW arrest and other family members ‘concerned’ for his MH / well-being of AMW - all just this week when they have all been smoked out. No concern for the victims throughout the last 25 years

(Posted this on an Andrew thread but probably more relevant here):

I might be completely out of order here but I’m beginning to feel a teeny tiny bit of sympathy for Ferguson. As DoY she became insufferable; demanding, greedy, rude, spending beyond her means (she had hardly anything).

But the more I read about her, the more I feel she became all of the above because of the RF and what she was lead to believe she was entitled to, on account of her marrying into the RF. She was a very flawed individual before it no doubt, but I think the RF has destroyed her. I’m not saying she had no agency in this and could have chosen a more ‘honour able’ path as DoY. But given how weak she was, the combo of the huge excesses that being a member of the RF gave her access to + bowing & scraping and the inherent deference of the public sector, private sector, police (less relevant), created the pitiful woman she is today.

@Dancethroughtherain, I believe that Andrew is custodian of the corgis.

I've copied my reply here too!

I would have had sympathy but she had every opportunity to dial back her behaviour, and didn't. Having read the Rise and Fall of the Yorks, she was so so much worse than we knew about. She treated the little people awfully, using and abusing them, not paying her bills. And then her 'charitable work' where she was using donations as personal expenses. She just seemed to have no moral compass of any sort
Yes I think some of the royal family bear some responsibility for indulging her. QE2 paid off her debts time and time again, just to protect the name of the Monarchy. No one tried to rein her in so for a woman with her character, it was a green light to go ahead getting worse and worse.

Sorry you did ask for comments!

No sympathy for Fergie at all. She claims she now has PTSD?! This is an insult to the people who genuinely suffer from PTSD. Now she is in a spa licking her 'wounds', feeling sorry for herself! No doubt this spa break is a freebie.

Marrying into the royal family didn't make her this way. It is her personality! Access to money and privileges encouraged her to behave in a more entitled way but she continued to expect privileges when she divorced Andrew.

She made her own choices and is a strong character. To blame her behaviour on the Royal Family in this case is a joke.

The corgis were seen being walked near Wood Farm at Sandringham last week - so Andrew has them.

They were married for such a short time. Obviously he should pay for his children but I don't understand why she thinks the royal family owes her anything. She's made a fortune from using her duchess title anyway. She could have had a very good standard of living compared to most people. I genuinely think the pair of them feel hard done by and that they are some sort of victims. Her "friends" are concerned for her mental health - I'll save my sympathy for Virginia, her family and all the other people affected by their behaviour

I wonder if their marriage was an arrangement between them? AMW felt pressure make a marriage and heirs, but he needed someone who would let him carry on doing what he liked, when he liked. He wanted a woman who would turn a blind eye and/or join in with the grift, the moral turpitude and the tacky enjoyment of self-imagined status.

They are both of them venal, unintelligent types, whose royal placement allowed them to both be users and to accumulate a circle of users in turn. They thought the users were friends and admirers. Worryingly, they taught the daughters how to be ‘royal’ inside this model, which has now crashed and burnt.

This entire mess started a very long time ago, and unfortunately the heirs and advisors of Elizabeth II have a lot of explaining to do. So would she were she still alive. But of course the great unraveling is only possible because she is dead.

Just watching The Lady on ITV - about SF personal dresser - it’s very engaging. All the actors are fantastic and play all the RL individuals very authentically - but the SF character is an absolute drunken brazen loon. Stands out like some sort loud, obnoxious, chaotic, drunk pantomime dame on steroids. It’s quite the contrast to the rest of the cast.

I remember the murder and I thought then, and do now, "Fergie had a dresser?"

Sorry, that is a really flippant thought, a man was brutally killed.

I’m just reading that the Turkish government are considering prosecuting Fergie for her Turkish orphanage film. I’ll try and find the link.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16531752

Is that the correct link? - just asking as the article linked is 14 years old.