Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Thoughts on Beatrice & Eugenie re the Epstein scandal?

382 replies

TheRealGossipGirl · 02/02/2026 22:50

For a long time, I felt sorry for Beatrice and Eugenie. I thought they were just caught up in their parents’ mess, paying the price for Andrew and Sarah’s awful judgement. Poor girls, wrong family, wrong parents, etc.

But new reports have really shifted that for me. Leaked emails suggest Sarah Ferguson was “the first to celebrate” Jeffrey Epstein’s release from prison, and apparently did so with both daughters in tow. At the time, Beatrice was around 20 and Eugenie 19 - not children. Fully grown young adults.

And this wasn’t before everything came out. Epstein had already been to prison by then. They would have known who he was, why he was jailed, and what sort of man he was. He wasn’t some vague family friend with rumours - he was a convicted sex offender. Many of his victims were the same age as them.

I’m finding it hard to buy the idea that they were completely clueless or had no understanding of what was going on. Yes, parental pressure is real, and Fergie’s judgement is notoriously dreadful - but at 19 and 20, you’re old enough to know that celebrating a paedophile’s release is deeply wrong.

So are they really as innocent as they’re often portrayed?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
CathyorClaire · 05/02/2026 09:59

TightlyLacedCorset · 04/02/2026 22:35

The rumours about Eugenie cutting them off is bokum apparently. I watched a journalist from the Telegraph saying yesterday that she is very much still supporting them, just more discreetly than Beatrice.

Edited

To no-one's surprise I'm sure.

Another royal pair who are two cheeks of the same arse.

Twonewcats · 05/02/2026 13:46

Choux · 05/02/2026 08:05

The only blood princesses of their generation was my full phrase. it is used in the article below which also notes that Eugenie’s salary for the art gallery she worked at was. Less than £35k a year. So she needed someone to pay all her living upper class living and travel expenses.

The other granddaughters of QEII are Zara and Louise neither of whom are styled ‘Princess’ although Louise is technically a princess but doesn’t use the title. Zara is not a princess as the title derives from the father’s title not the mother.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/22/going-pay-beatrice-eugenie-prince-andrew-sacked-11199634/

Edited

That's incorrect, tho, afaik.
Anne chose for Zara not to be a princess, but it was offered.
Louise is a princess - so I just don't understand his point.

JustAnotherWhinger · 05/02/2026 15:30

I think the "blood princesses" thing started in the 90's when Charles' plan that his nieces and nephews wouldn't play a part as working royals was becoming more clear, so before Louise was born.

RainbowBagels · 05/02/2026 15:46

Twonewcats · 05/02/2026 13:46

That's incorrect, tho, afaik.
Anne chose for Zara not to be a princess, but it was offered.
Louise is a princess - so I just don't understand his point.

Thats incorrect. The Queen offered Peter Phillips a title so the kids would have one. She would never be a Princess. She would at most been Lady Zara. Louise is a Princess because her father is a Prince. The sexism means that Louis children will be prince/ Princess but unless Charlotte marries a prince, hers wont be. There has been no indication that this will change, despite Charlotte being higher in the LoS.

Choux · 05/02/2026 15:52

Louise goes by Lady Louise Windsor so she isn’t styled as a princess even though, as the daughter of a prince, she IS a princess.

She is younger than B&E and the royal world changed a bit between them and Louise being born with talk of slimmed down monarchies etc. But Andrew, who loved people to use his title and show deference to him, would have been aghast at his daughters not using their princess titles like Louise.

JustAnotherWhinger · 05/02/2026 15:55

Choux · 05/02/2026 15:52

Louise goes by Lady Louise Windsor so she isn’t styled as a princess even though, as the daughter of a prince, she IS a princess.

She is younger than B&E and the royal world changed a bit between them and Louise being born with talk of slimmed down monarchies etc. But Andrew, who loved people to use his title and show deference to him, would have been aghast at his daughters not using their princess titles like Louise.

Edited

Also on the wedding day when the titles for the future Wessex children were announced Edward and Sophie weren't planning on being full time working royals.

She was keeping her PR business and him his tv production company.

Lavender14 · 05/02/2026 15:57

TheRealGossipGirl · 02/02/2026 22:50

For a long time, I felt sorry for Beatrice and Eugenie. I thought they were just caught up in their parents’ mess, paying the price for Andrew and Sarah’s awful judgement. Poor girls, wrong family, wrong parents, etc.

But new reports have really shifted that for me. Leaked emails suggest Sarah Ferguson was “the first to celebrate” Jeffrey Epstein’s release from prison, and apparently did so with both daughters in tow. At the time, Beatrice was around 20 and Eugenie 19 - not children. Fully grown young adults.

And this wasn’t before everything came out. Epstein had already been to prison by then. They would have known who he was, why he was jailed, and what sort of man he was. He wasn’t some vague family friend with rumours - he was a convicted sex offender. Many of his victims were the same age as them.

I’m finding it hard to buy the idea that they were completely clueless or had no understanding of what was going on. Yes, parental pressure is real, and Fergie’s judgement is notoriously dreadful - but at 19 and 20, you’re old enough to know that celebrating a paedophile’s release is deeply wrong.

So are they really as innocent as they’re often portrayed?

I kind of think it's a bit cult like and I do think there's certain people Epstein will have 'groomed' who are adults (in order to access younger vulnerable people and to maintain credibility/ status) and there's a level of vulnerability in that. Just because someone is rich or famous doesn't mean they can't be vulnerable to someone predatory. These men are extremely manipulative and intelligent so to me it makes sense that there will be some people associated with him who are equally predatory and like will have attracted like, and there will be some adults who will also be victims in this. And I think it's going to be very difficult for us to tell the difference in some cases. It's absolutely grim.

Twonewcats · 05/02/2026 16:09

RainbowBagels · 05/02/2026 15:46

Thats incorrect. The Queen offered Peter Phillips a title so the kids would have one. She would never be a Princess. She would at most been Lady Zara. Louise is a Princess because her father is a Prince. The sexism means that Louis children will be prince/ Princess but unless Charlotte marries a prince, hers wont be. There has been no indication that this will change, despite Charlotte being higher in the LoS.

Everything I've now googled about it says Anne and Mark chose not to give them titles.

diddl · 05/02/2026 16:11

I do think that they might not have known the extent of what was going on.

However they do now but still want to keep contact with their parents?

That's hard to understand to me.

JustAnotherWhinger · 05/02/2026 16:17

Everything I've now googled about it says Anne and Mark chose not to give them titles.

From what I've read Captain Mark Phillips was offered a title on marriage, same as the husbands of Princesses Margaret and Alexandra. Like Alexandra's husband he (well they) turned it down therefore the children had no automatic titles.

Then the Queen reiterated the offer of titles (either for him or the children) when Peter Philips was born and they turned it down again.

diddl · 05/02/2026 19:18

That worked out well for Peter & Zara as I don't think that could have the sponsorship deals that they do otherwise.

Bimmering · 05/02/2026 19:23

Twonewcats · 05/02/2026 16:09

Everything I've now googled about it says Anne and Mark chose not to give them titles.

Titles but not Prince and Princess - that was never on the cards for Zara and Peter

CrystalMighty · 05/02/2026 19:51

I don't know- is it just me whose first thought was that E&B "showing him around" was a euphemism?? And that it was payment for whatever favour 'ferg' had asked him??

Lifestooshort71 · 05/02/2026 20:19

Going back briefly to Charlotte and that enthusiastic hug from a MOTP - I thought she probably got a gentle chat later re boundaries so can't imagine she will be that exuberant in the future. She always seems keen not to put a foot wrong.

OneWaryGoose · 06/02/2026 01:32

Going back to the question why Sarah flew to New York to see Epstein, I would think she probably had a message from Andrew that was needed to be delivered in person. Just as he felt the need to fly out and take a walk in a cold public park with Epstein rather than have a chat in the warm house over drinks. Similar thoughts occur about why Eugenie got involved with the anti-trafficking charity and has had her sister and mother attending events and 'supporting ' the charity in the past.

Dagda · 06/02/2026 01:48

diddl · 05/02/2026 16:11

I do think that they might not have known the extent of what was going on.

However they do now but still want to keep contact with their parents?

That's hard to understand to me.

I’m Irish, not a royalist, have no skin in the game really: but I completely understand not wanting to cut your parents off. because they are their parents: maybe they had a good life with them, maybe they are confused right now. I’m sure the daughter who was described as being on a “shagging weekend” is mortified.

I can’t but feel sorry for them. They don’t seem to have done anything wrong.

CollieModdle · 06/02/2026 03:02

canuckup · 03/02/2026 01:59

I have zero time for those two. Zero.

They are both utter sycophants and parasites on the UK tax payer.

Beatrice is it? (I confuse them) with her fake slavery charity??? Give me strength.

Nearly as bad as Harry, spouting about saving animals then he shot a RHINO a few years before in Africa???!

No, Harry did not shoot a rhino.

There was extensive press coverage of him engaged in rhino conservation projects and assisting with a sedated rhino when they were being de-horned to save them from poachers. And another rhino that had been mutilated by poachers.

The facts of this whole Epstein case are so serious wrt sexually coerced and abused women, and corruption wrt Mandelson. I wish we could focus on facts that have led to harm rather than so much conjecture, based on what a pp has identified as original conjecture (SF ‘celebrating’) and also misinformation.

Mumtobabyhavoc · 06/02/2026 05:28

CrystalMighty · 05/02/2026 19:51

I don't know- is it just me whose first thought was that E&B "showing him around" was a euphemism?? And that it was payment for whatever favour 'ferg' had asked him??

💡🤯😵‍💫😳🤢

Letskeepcalm · 06/02/2026 07:58

Daytimetellyqueen · 02/02/2026 23:30

I agree with this.

Me too

CathyorClaire · 06/02/2026 08:57

No, Harry did not shoot a rhino.

He didn't, no.

It was a water buffalo which makes it so much better.

CollieModdle · 06/02/2026 10:19

CathyorClaire · 06/02/2026 08:57

No, Harry did not shoot a rhino.

He didn't, no.

It was a water buffalo which makes it so much better.

Different people may or may not think it better (given that water buffalo is a common source of meat and are eaten, and not rare or endangered, like rhino).

I am not particularly interested in defending or attacking Harry. I am interested in information being accurate.

CathyorClaire · 06/02/2026 10:30

You seemed quite interested in presenting a case for H's work on behalf of rhinos however in the interests of accuracy water buffalo are deemed an endangered species in various locations although not in Argentina where H bagged his big kill.

Fair to say though it's heavily at odds with his carefully curated image as an enthusiastic conservationist.

diddl · 06/02/2026 11:29

I can’t but feel sorry for them. They don’t seem to have done anything wrong.

I think the jury is out on how much they might have known about any money that was paid to them or gifts accepted by them.

I understand what you mean about it being hard to cut off parents.

I think that their "belief" in them was shown when Beatrice was on board with AMW doing the infamous interview.

I'm thinking he must have a different persona because it's hard to imagine anyone thinking such arrogance, pomposity & "honourableness" would endear him to anyone!

Fergie's grovelling & fawning-hard to imagine that adults can behave like that!

simpsonthecat · 06/02/2026 11:38

I try to imagine what it would be like to have Andrew & Sarah as parents. They always overdo it as far as being such a strong family unit, on and on. You don't see Edward/Sophie saying this sort of crap, or Anne.

Sarah was not the mother she liked to portray herself to be. She dumped the kids at every opportunity, and their schools said neither of them ever turned up for anything.
My DCs are in the same age range as B&E and would be very verbal and call bullshit!

I just wonder if the daughters are really quite shallow and bear in mind, they were given injections of cash and a diamond necklace and all sorts , maybe to shut them up.
"Look darling what Daddy's friend the gun runner (this is true) have given you for your birthday! A beautiful diamond necklace!"

diddl · 06/02/2026 12:09

I just wonder if the daughters are really quite shallow and bear in mind, they were given injections of cash and a diamond necklace and all sorts , maybe to shut them up.

I mean that was their normal, but they don't seem to have queried it?

Swipe left for the next trending thread