Prince William’s main environmental charity, the Earthshot Prize, is under fresh scrutiny after being officially reported to the UK Charity Commission following new Jeffrey Epstein document releases. The complaint focuses on donations tied to an Emirati billionaire named in the files and has sparked concern about how donors are checked and why similar controversies keep appearing around charities linked to the Prince of Wales.
Critics say this is not a one-time mistake. They point to past charity partnerships and paid-access fundraising incidents as signs of a repeating pattern, not an isolated slip.
Earthshot Donation Triggers Watchdog Complaint
The current controversy stems from reporting that Earthshot received at least £1 million from DP World, a founding partner of the initiative chaired by Emirati businessman Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem. Newly disclosed Epstein emails placed Sulayem in correspondence with the convicted sex offender, prompting anti-monarchy campaign group Republic to file a formal complaint with the Charity Commission.
Recently surfaced correspondence also shows that after William met with Sulayem during a visit to DP World’s London Gateway on March 14, 2016, Sulayem emailed Jeffrey Epstein the following day, stating he had attended a function at Buckingham Palace with the Prince. Epstein replied on March 16 with a brief message reading “Fun.” The exchange has drawn attention because it places the Buckingham Palace event in direct proximity to previously undisclosed communications between Sulayem and Epstein.
Republic chief executive Graham Smith said the seriousness of the revelations demands a full investigation into what background checks officials carried out and whether advisers warned about reputational risks. The Charity Commission has since confirmed it is assessing the information to determine next steps.
The complaint also raises questions about the use of government-funded overseas visits to promote Earthshot. Critics draw comparisons with past accusations that Prince Andrew mixed official travel with private interests, arguing that promoting a personal charity during state-linked trips blurs lines that should remain clear.
WildAid Emails Show Earlier Warning Signs
The Earthshot situation looks more serious when you put it next to what happened with the wildlife charity WildAid. Records show Jeffrey Epstein donated 50,000 dollars to WildAid in late 2013 through his foundation, years after his conviction. The timing stands out because that was the same year WildAid named Prince William as an ambassador and pushed big celebrity campaigns that leaned on royal attention.
Emails show WildAid staff thanking Epstein for his “generous support,” tying his money to campaign success, and even inviting him to meetings and a private dinner with senior figures. The charity later said those meetings never happened and that his donation did not pay for William’s videos. That clears up one detail, but it does not fix the main problem. WildAid still accepted money from a convicted sex offender and treated him like a valued donor while promoting campaigns linked to royal involvement.
Kensington Palace responded at the time by saying donor checks were the charity’s responsibility. That answer created distance from the decision, but many people expect stronger safeguards when a senior royal’s name and image help promote a charity’s work.
Related Stories
Repeated Access And Vetting Questions
Worries about judgement around charities came up again in 2025 when a sponsor connected to the Royal Charity Polo Cup was accused of offering rich clients private access to Prince William for a price. Kensington Palace cut ties fast and said William did not support paid access. The quick response helped stop the fallout, but it also showed how loose controls can let questionable deals happen until the media exposes them.
When you line these stories up, a pattern becomes hard to ignore. Different charities, different moments, but the same problems keep showing up. Donations arrive with baggage. Partnerships later need public distancing. Palace reactions often come after criticism, not before it.
The Earthshot complaint now puts that pattern under official review. The Charity Commission has not decided its next step yet, but the bigger issue remains clear. When powerful public figures attach their names to global causes, proper donor checks are not optional. They are the basic guardrail that stops good intentions from turning into avoidable scandals.
Earthshot or Cheap Shot? Fat-cat, richling billionaire prince Willy Nilly nobly announces he is to focus his thoughts on the victims of sexual violence yet accepts donations from the very man he knows was responsible for bringing lifelong misery, distress, anguish and even death to those young lives Epstein and his Uncle Andrew sexually abused for their own evil and perverted gratification.. Eye-watering hypocrisy!
Bill Gates however has changed his view deciding people come before Earthshot’s environmental issues.
Oh well, karma is like that! He handpicked an idiot Black stooge, Sophie Chanduka, to go undertake a hostile takeover of Sentebale, which is not surprising after the 2023 festival of Remembrance saw him and Charles sat there watching an Invictus Games tribute without one mention or photo of Prince Harry included. They are not fit to spit at. He and his Earthshot jizz is just an excuse to run off and have a Gay old time, as in Rio with the little Ozzie dancing queen, as if the discriminating can’t see through his utter nonsense.
Smells like money Laundering to me