Princess Eugenie’s Anti-Slavery Charity Faces Spending Scrutiny After Donations Slump

There is a certain kind of royal charity story that follows a familiar arc. A royal name lends prestige, and donors open their wallets. Gala photos appear in the tabloids. Everyone feels good. Then the accounts land and suddenly, people start asking where the money actually went.

Princess Eugenie’s Anti-Slavery Collective is now in the uncomfortable second act. The Charity Commission has opened a regulatory compliance case over concerns about charitable spending. This is not yet a statutory inquiry. No findings have been made. But the watchdog has escalated its engagement, and the numbers alone explain why.

The Watchdog Wants Answers About the Money

Let us start with what the Charity Commission actually said. A spokesperson told the BBC: “We have opened a regulatory compliance case into Anti-Slavery Collective to continue assessing concerns raised with us about charitable spending.”

A compliance case sits below a full statutory inquiry. It means the Commission is not yet declaring serious misconduct. But it also means the concerns have not gone away. Investigators will now engage further with the trustees. For a charity co‑founded by a princess and focused on modern slavery, one of the most serious human rights issues in the world, that is already a problem.

The Numbers Create the Optics Problem

Here is why this story will not quietly fade. The Anti‑Slavery Collective raised £1.5 million in donations, much of it from a major London gala fundraiser in 2023. Then it carried forward £1.3 million. That is a very large sum to hold rather than distribute. In its most recent accounts, covering the year to April 2025, donations cratered to just £48,000. Meanwhile, the charity spent £191,537 on salaries, more than double what it spent on charitable programmes.

So to recap, a charity set up to combat modern slavery, including sex trafficking, spent more on salaries than on charitable programmes. That does not automatically mean wrongdoing. Charities can legitimately carry forward funds. Salaries are not inherently bad. But the optics are dreadful. And when a watchdog escalates scrutiny, the public is entitled to wonder: what exactly is happening here?

The York Family Context Makes This More Sensitive

Princess Eugenie is not accused of wrongdoing. She co‑founded the charity in 2017 with Julia de Boinville. She has positioned anti‑slavery advocacy as one of her main public causes. But the wider family baggage is impossible to ignore. Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor’s long‑standing association with Jeffrey Epstein has placed the York family under a harsh spotlight. Eugenie, Beatrice and Sarah Ferguson have all been named in released Epstein‑related documents. Being named is not evidence of wrongdoing. But the association alone is radioactive.

Earlier in 2026, Eugenie stepped down as patron of Anti‑Slavery International, a separate charity. The organisation thanked her and gave no reason. The timing, combined with this new compliance case, does not look great. Andrew Lownie, who has written extensively about York financial controversies, put it bluntly on his Substack: “Even more inappropriate is how little actual good work it seems to have done since its founding.”

He also described the anti‑slavery cause as “preposterously inappropriate” for Eugenie, given her father’s history. That is a harsh line, but it captures the discomfort. When your father’s name is tied to the Epstein scandal, an anti-slavery charity cannot afford fuzzy finances or weak optics.

Royal Charity Work Should Not Be Above Scrutiny

Let us say the quiet part out loud. Where is that same urgency when the charity sits closer to Prince William? The Charity Commission is now looking further into Eugenie’s Anti-Slavery Collective. Yet the wider royal charity world has its own uncomfortable questions. William’s Earthshot Prize faced scrutiny after its founding partner, DP World, came under pressure when its former chairman and chief executive, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, was named in Epstein-related files. Reports said the documents included correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein and a disturbing reference by Epstein to a “torture video.” Earthshot declined to comment when questions were raised.

Then there is the Royal Marsden Cancer Charity, closely linked to William and Kate after the hospital treated Kate in 2024. The charity accepted the resignation of trustee Nicole Junkermann after her long friendship with Epstein came under scrutiny.

The Charity Commission has not concluded anything yet. This is not a finding of fraud or mismanagement. But it is an escalation. And for a princess who has worked to build a public identity to separate herself from her disgraced family around a serious cause, the damage is already visible.