Thoughts on Beatrice & Eugenie re the Epstein scandal?

[TheRealGossipGirl]

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?

If you read Tina Brown's books, the husbands apparently weren't offered titles, that was a line the royal family fed to the press to allow them to save face.

My first thought after seeing that email (about visiting Epstein after his release).was the same disgust as OP feels.

My next thought was that they were still. young and under parental influence.

But as adults they saw the criticism their father faced for spending time with Epstein after his release, and they certainly knew plenty about Epstein's crimes by then. Yet they didn't own up and issue a public apology to Epstein's victims.

I didn't have a high opinion of the two princesses to begin with. But now I fear that they inherited their parents' characters and morals just as much as their appearances.

There’s something unspeakably grim about any mother describing her child as being on a ‘shagging weekend’. I would NEVER speak about my child like that. Makes you wonder about the sense of appropriateness and boundaries from SF, definitely.

It was 22 years ago.
It was a 170,00acre stocked game farm.
He came from a family - and culture - of hunters.
He no longer does it.
Why derail the thread?

Wasn't me who brought the subject up but while we're on it you might like to check out the enduring enigma over the culprit responsible for the shooting of protected birds of prey at Sandringham and his own mother's nickname for both her bloodthirsty sons as children.

Is that the ‘Killer Wales’ nickname?

Interesting BBC article about B and E from earlier this morning.

Their parents are in disgrace, what now for Beatrice and Eugenie?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8r5pjlgv7o

It's a joke. This article stresses they are not working royals but then goes on to talk about being patron of Outward Bound and the Salvation Army (the latter sounding dubious about their link with Eugenie)
Then there is Eugenie talking at the United Nations with the sign HRH Princess Eugenie in front of her. Why? She's not a working royal and what the heck does she have to say at the UN? She works for an art gallery in Mayfair FFS.
As for both of their connections to the Middle East, it's bizarre. As the article said, their parents have connections over there so they are quite obviously carrying on where their parents left off. They are regularly making trips to Saudi, Abu Dhabi, Qatar.
I honestly think Charles should cut them adrift and let them go off and live their own lives with no visible connection to the Royal family. They are both visibly milking their royal connections

I’ve never understood how B and E lead such obviously monied lifestyles, in contrast to the other grandchildren. Chauffeur driven Range Rovers, an endless display of mind bogglingly expensive (and never repeated) designer outfits and constant socialising around the world. A journalist complimented Beatrice once in her £2.5k leather jacket and she replied that she had it in two other colours.

Meanwhile Zara is a brand ambassador for various equestrian products and flies to Australia as the face of a racing event - it’s obvious to see where her earnings comes from. Not so the other two.

Then there is Eugenie talking at the United Nations with the sign HRH Princess Eugenie in front of her. Why?

Presumably that was due to the anti slavery charity.

I’ve never understood how B and E lead such obviously monied lifestyles,

As for both of their connections to the Middle East, it's bizarre. As the article said, their parents have connections over there so they are quite obviously carrying on where their parents left off.

I would think some correlation there!

Thanks for the article.

Another confirmation of Euge's continued contact with her father despite the desperate puff about her being NC.

I can't actually see how distancing themselves in public while surreptitiously maintaining private contact with everyone knowing it is going to work in practice.
Like their Daddy they obviously take us for mugs.

I think they've been complicit in the York grift for years. They must be pretty uncomfortable at the prospect of Andrew Lownie's updated paperback.

I’m not quite sure what your point is here. Many people, including non-royals, are patrons of charities.

Meghan gave a speech at the UN before she even met Harry, so by that logic, what does a B-list actress have to say to the UN? You don’t have to be a head of state or official representative to speak there.

HRH Princess is Eugenie’s title, and she is entitled to use it, just as Harry and Meghan still use Duke and Duchess of Sussex/Prince even though they are not working royals. Even Meghan has used her HRH when she technically shouldn’t, but Eugenie is perfectly entitled to be referred to as HRH Princess.

They’ve certainly benefited from their parents’ dodgy connections in the Middle East, but there’s been no evidence of wrongdoing on their part so far. Having parents who have done awful things doesn’t make them guilty of the same; just as making trips to Qatar, Dubai, or Saudi Arabia doesn’t automatically imply wrongdoing.

I do agree that Charles should cut them off and remove their titles so they can live as private citizens, but I suspect keeping their title safe was part of the negotiations for Andrew to step back quietly. Hopefully, William will be as “ruthless” as the press suggests and remove titles from anyone who isn’t a working royal when his time comes.

Article on this subject on the bbc website today

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8r5pjlgv7o

I still think that it’s worth remembering that Beatrice and Eugenie were young adults at the time, young adults who grew up in a very strange, sheltered royal bubble where adults around them controlled most of what was going on.

It’s not realistic to expect them to have fully understood who their parents mixed with or what that really meant. Young adults don’t always act independently of their families.

We also have no idea what their home environment was like behind closed doors, how much agency they had generally or how much pressure or control they were under.

It makes far more sense to me to hold the older, powerful people to account, rather than blaming two young women who were largely caught up in the decisions made by their grifter parents.

I say this because my own kids generally want to please, I thought about the sisters the other day when an elderly neighbour invited me and my 19 year old in for a cup of tea.

I knew that this was the last thing on my 19 year old's list of things to do and said I'd love to but I am not sure if DC has got time. I actually did not 'love to', but know that my neighbour struggles with loneliness so thought it was the kind thing to do. DC, bless them, said 'yes, I have got time' and came in for a cup of tea with me. Not the same at all, but still an example of a 19 year old feeling obliged in some way.

@AmbitionExceedsSkillSet

Agree. I cannot understand why you would focus on these two over all of the many many men who were much more heavily involved with Epstein.

I also think the focus on their wealth and privilege is a bit odd too - yes, they grew up with a lot of wealth and have cushy lives. But they seem to receive a lot more criticism for it than William and Kate who are allegedly "working" royals but seem to be constantly on holiday (sometimes as their recent yacht holiday also taking freebies from the middle east), and Zara who has the ultimate "posh girl" existence of riding horses.

I also think the focus on their wealth and privilege is a bit odd too - yes, they grew up with a lot of wealth and have cften in debt/beggingushy lives. But they seem to receive a lot more criticism for it than William and Kate who are allegedly "working" royals but seem to be constantly on holiday (sometimes as their recent yacht holiday also taking freebies from the middle east), and Zara who has the ultimate "posh girl" existence of riding horses.

I think people wonder how they seem to be so well off as they must surely have relied on A&F.

F who seems to be often in debt/scrounging & A whose money has come from where?

W&K were for a long time (along with H & for a while M) funded by Charles via the Duchy of Cornwall I think.

Zara of course can self fund from sponsorships due to no title but royal connections.

Of course they relied on their parents financially just like most kids do, especially the upper classes where family money keeps offspring in the manner they have become accustomed to for generations in some cases.

Andrew was the son of the Queen, I don't suppose the York sisters had ever had to give the slightest consideration as to where the money that funded their lifestyle came from.

I think they all have very low expenses.

Beatrice and Eugenie have very low rent - I think apartments in Kensington Palace

Zara lives on a royal estate too - doubtless also not paying much if any rent.

I am surprised that William and Kate took a free holiday from middle Eastern royalty rather than paying for their own holidays from the duchy of Cornwall income.

Suspect they all get a lot more in the way of freebies than is immediately apparent

I saw an interview with JJ Anisoibi with Vanessa Feltz where he was saying how B&E have always been extremely entitled - he gave examples of them shopping in Selfridges and not paying, being out in bars and not paying - he contrasted their behaviour with William and Harry who didn't behave like that.

Interesting if true - would stack up with what Lownie was intimating.

That is exactly what their parents used to do, particularly Sarah. It's so depressing to think B&E might be the same 🤮

Sarah never paid the little people, like hairdressers, personal trainers etc. I hate hate that type of entitlement.

They weren't home educated, they grew up in the world. They may have been insulated from everyday money problems but they lived their lives outside castles. If they were 15/16 then maybe that argument holds true but they were adults. Even assuming that at that age they didn't know what was going on later events show that they really seem not to care who their parents were associating with or how they obtained money.

It is very difficult to cut parents off and I understand why they are reluctant to believe such awful things about their parents but at the moment they are trying to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds. That isn't going to work long term. At the moment they are behaving as if appearance is all that matters and it isn't.

he gave examples of them shopping in Selfridges and not paying,

Ooh, how does that work?