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?

Sound like they are both entitled from learnt behaviour from both parents

vile people Andrew and fergie who have enabled a lot of dreadful behaviour

I think it's interesting that some people here seem to be excusing, or making light on the daughter's possible involvement, and judgement, based on their age.
In my book, an adult is an adult.
You can go down the slippery slope of excusing anything, based on poor upbringing, environment, etc, until no one's accountable for their poor decisions. They were both adults. I'd like to think at even half their age, I'd have had enough sense to question my parents judgement if they were hanging around with a convicted sex predator.

They were very young adults. We know so much more about the whole thing now- there was more room for speculation then.
Them being dragged to party for mummy’s personal banker doesn’t mean they were complicit

Even as a child/young teen I could sense who was dodgy. Every Sunday morning my parents would go for a drink at a neighbours house before lunch. They used to drag us kids along. The neighbours had a friend who was always there. His hands would be everywhere and he was always saying give us a cuddle.
I KNEW to avoid him. And once I got to 14 or so I would flatly refuse to go.

You cannot tell me that a 19 and 21 year old would not know that Epstein was dodgy. If anyone knows anything about his NY mansion, it had moulds of breasts all up the walls of the stairs. In the hall there was a chess board with life size nude females as chess pieces.
Beatrice & Eugenie went along with it all, probably bribed somewhere along the line.

The reason why people are focusing on Beatrice and Eugenie is that, in the light of revelations relating to their parents, posters are wondering:

-how much they were aware, or not, about their parents’ nefarious activities? Both dodgy financial deals and the inappropriate sexual behaviour (to put it mildly).

-these are legitimate questions when B and E have been called upon to stand in to help at BP garden parties and are doing charitable work despite not officially working for the royal family. And there are reports that they have apartments in Crown Estare property in London. And press reports circulated as recently as 2024 speculating about B & E becominv unofficial cultural ambassadors especially in the ME.

Anyway, it emerged in a high court case that £750,000 had been paid in to AMW’s personal Coutts account by Selman Turk which was said to be a present for Beatrice’s wedding. However, the accusation that emerged in court was that this money has been used to obtain a UK passport. And it was paid after Turk had won an award at Pitch@Palace. The accusations were disputed.

*Beatrice may or may not have any idea where that money came from.

Another example is that Fergie took her daughters to Miami to see Epstein five days after he had been released from prison. He paid for the flights. The daughters were nineteen and twenty-one at the time.

Just to be clear, Epstein had gone to prison first time around because Palm Beach police detective Joe Recarey testified that the investigation began when a woman reported in March 2005 that her fourteen year old stepdaughter who was in high school at the time said she received $300 in exchange for “sexual activity with a man in Palm Beach

The trial transcripts showed that the grand jury heard testimony that Epstein, who was then in his 40s, had raped teenage girls as young as 14 at his Palm Beach mansion, often paying them so he could commit statutory rape or assault. The teenagers testified and told detectives they were also paid cash or rented cars if they found him more girls. Epstein was charged and a deal was done to lessen his prison sentence.

*now I think if my mother had flown me, a young adult, to Miami to meet someone who had just emerged from prison, I might ask what they had done? But others are saying that B and E may have been ignorant of the details.

I think we will learn more when the paperback of Entitled is published in late May, as Lownie says it contains more information on B and E that he couldn’t put in the hb.

Zara doesn’t live on a Royal estate - she and her brother are both housed on Anne’s estate which is privately owned - wedding present from the Queen.

It’s a working estate which generates income. What rent Zara and Peter pay is a family matter.

Was a good working model which the Queen tried to replicate for Andrew - private property for him to manage - unlike Anne though he just managed to screw it up with his (and Sarah’s) spending and financial mismanagement.

I think that, in defence of B & E, having grown up in the public eye were sheltered from media and likely told a lot of lies are printed. That would definitely explain them not knowing about Epstein, his crimes, prison stint etc, or if known, doubting what was reported.

It's significant to keep in mind:
Epstein's ties to Russia
That he collected the rich and powerful
That his goal was to get dirt on everyone

He hit gold with AMW:
a deviant narcissist.
He likely leveraged him a lot,
roped Fergie in;
Fergie and AMW, both desperate for money, power and connections, looked the other way.
(And likely have had to as trapped)

B&E need to massively reassess their upbringing and step away from hand outs (and payments in jewellry) as everything comes with strings. At this point they are complicit if they do not change course.

Yep.

Lownie has one of the pair bleating about not wanting to meet the kind of people who didn't shop at John Lewis.

Although TBF it also wouldn't ultimately have been W & H paying but us albeit indirectly via C3's 'private' income distributions.

IIRC Ferg had accounts here there and everywhere which were regularly repaid by E2 until they weren't.

Zara doesn’t live on a Royal estate - she and her brother are both housed on Anne’s estate which is privately owned - wedding present from the Queen.

I think given what we know about lucrative royal tax exemptions diverting potential public income to the private royal purse and the historic diverting of Civil List income enabling the purchase of Sandringham, Balmoral and Osbourne House all 'private' royal housing purchases should be open to examination.

What does Peter Phillips do for a living now?

I cant remember where I read it, but someone said that Fergie taking her teenage DD's to Epsteins parties and talking about their sex lives was a way of tittilating him because she knew she was too old to be of interest, therefore knowing her Dds, were safe was using his prediliction for very young girls to curry favour. Youd gave to wonder about her behaviour, in which case, yes, maybe 2 none too bright vain airheads may have a wake up call when they had their own children.

Gatcombe House was bought by the late Queen using private funds and gifted to Princess Anne. The property became financially self-funding after private funds were used to initially improve the property.

Sandringham was bought for the then Prince of Wales in 1862 using income from the Duchy of Cornwall, nothing to do with the Civil List or 'public purse'.

Osborne House was built using Queen Victoria's private funds. The initial purchase of the land on which to build also came from private funds.

Balmoral was purchased by Prince Albert (from his own private funds). It was gifted to Queen Victoria so the civil list or 'public' funds were ever involved.

Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was very financially astute and was responsible for turning around the royal family's fortunes. It was through his own endeavours that he was able to earn sufficient funds to help enable these three 19th century purchases.

Also, I will add a reminder that each monarch in turn has given up their right to the income of the Crown Estate (representing assets legally owned by the Sovereign, not the Government) in return for a modest percentage of the income in the form of the Civil List. It is clear that you view the the Crown Estate as 'public funds' but in order for that to be legally the case in perpetuity, we would need to become a Republic, but please don't let facts get in the way of yourr attempts to defame the royal family.

@FalseSpring
I think the RF are doing an excellent job of self defamation.

Albert wasn't wealthy when he married but was granted an allowance from public funds. Any property purchases were not based on his own resources. All the Victorian era purchases took place after Albert had lobbied for and had granted an increase in the Civil List. Any surplus funds went to the royals rather than being returned to the public purse and Victoria was able to build up significant sums which went on to fund the purchase of the properties.

E2 with all her tax exemptions including freedom from IHT diverting funds from the public purse built up such enormous wealth she went to great lengths to make sure the public didn't find out about it.

The royals haven't received the fixed figure Civil list since 2011.
It was replaced by the Sovereign Grant and the sums involved have rocketed ever since.

This is totally what I assume. Beatrice and Eugenie were trafficked really. That’s how any other 19 and 21 year old being whisked off to Epstein’s homes are considered. Why is it different? Beatrice and Eugenie have abusive, neglectful parents. Like many of Epstein’s other victims

I very much doubt Beatrice or Eugenie slept with older men who were hanging around on his properties, or were coerced by Ghislaine Maxwell to give Epstein a massage.

This is totally what I assume. Beatrice and Eugenie were trafficked really. That’s how any other 19 and 21 year old being whisked off to Epstein’s homes are considered. Why is it different? Beatrice and Eugenie have abusive, neglectful parents. Like many of Epstein’s other victims

I don't think that you can liken what happened to victims like VG to what happened to B&E.

I think they might have been used to an extent by their parents.

But I doubt that they were coerced into giving sexual favours of any kind.

I think their parents also cared in their own way & gave a loving & stable upbringing.

Not at all comparable to women like VG who seemed to know nothing but abuse & being used.

@CathyorClaire

Your interpretation of the history of the royal finances in the Victorian era is very different to mine! You may find this article provides more context:

"Queen Victoria made important financial concessions to parliament over the course of her reign. She accepted a smaller civil list and a smaller annuity for her consort than had been paid to any of her predecessors. She disclosed the accounts of the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, both of which had formerly been considered private property. She also reduced her income by subjecting it to the newly re-instituted income tax. Despite these concessions, she managed to acquire a considerable private fortune. The principal sources of this fortune were improving incomes from the two duchies and better management of the civil list. Both sources benefited from reforms imposed by the prince consort. The queen used her private fortune to pay for items formerly paid for from public funds. She built houses and erected monuments. She paid partly for the golden jubilee and wholly for the debts that accumulated when the civil list became inadequate from the 1880s. Parliament in turn used evidence of her private fortune to decrease the size and number of public grants to her offspring. Thus, increased parliamentary supervision and better regulation of the civil list improved the queen's private financial position, but also reduced the public burdens." https://www.jstor.org/stable/2639782

So in publishing Duchy accounts she recognised their public nature yet continued to pocket the income while further boosting her net worth with income derived from the Civil List (as I said).

Can you point to the houses and monuments she financed?

I can't see any issue with her paying for her own party, servicing her debts or supporting her own numerous children especially when her fortune was built on the accrual of public funds from two sources.

I agree that the ‘traffiking’ is not comparable with what VG and others went through. At many levels B&E experienced a set of loving, caring parents and so the dodgy bits that they experienced would have felt normal to them.

I’ve just watched a France 24 You Tube podcast recommended on another thread featuring Lownie and Gavin someone called “Monarchy at Crossroads”
Sub-title, Entitled, UK Royalty: national security at risk amidst Andrew’s ties to sex trafficking and shady deals.

I can’t seem to link it but Lownie is saying that there’s been a huge palace PR campaign to present B & E as innocent victims but sadly they are implicated.

He doesn’t go in to details but he describes B & E as having “various skeletons in their cupboards”

I’ve no idea what all of that means but he is obviously party to information he can’t publish yet. He was saying this not to attack the daughters specifically but to explain why it was unwise for King Charles to bring them back under the RF fold.

Incidentally he also mentions that he thinks a deal has been done and AMW has been paid to leave Windsor and that he probably won’t live in Sandringham but in the ME somewhere.

Also, there are some pretty astonishing points about issues of national security in the latter half of the interview hinting at the involvement of a former PM,

Can you point to the houses and monuments she financed?

Osborne House on the Isle of Wight is the obvious example of a house she financed. It was designed by Prince Albert and used by the family. Victoria actually died there.It was then gifted to the national by her oldest son Edward VII, and is now looked after by English Heritage.

Victoria also commissioned the building of the new front facade at Buckingham Palace - where balcony is now for public appearances.

Back on topic, this email that Sarah sent beck in 2011 when Epstein was clearly very unhappy with the comments she had made in an interview with the Mail is illustrative. Sarah had said her involvement with Epstein had been a “gigantic error of judgement” and promised she would never have anything to do with Epstein again, saying “I abhor paedophilia and any sexual abuse of children.”. She obviously then tried desperately to row back from that - to repair her relationship with the golden goose no doubt - after Epstein was unhappy with her comments.

Anyway, I think it’s it’s clear from this email the narrative that was being told to her daughters - that Epstein had presumably made mistakes and this was a one-off, but he had learned his lesson and served his time. Oh, and while the girl may have been underage he wasn’t a “P”(eadophile), no way….just sent to prison for “sexual offending’ but now “done his penance”.

Was Sarah really that craven and cynical or just galactically stupid? Or is she a mix a mix of both? It’s clear despite what she said to the Mail she was desperate to keep Epstein onside.

If Ferguson had said that in front of a Social Worker whilst living in a Council flat, I think we can guess what would have happened next. The woman's a shambles - that said, everyone who's met her daughters comment on their wonderful manners and kind natures.