Sarah Ferguson Emails Suggest Princess Beatrice Discussed Epstein Press Backtrack

The fallout from the Epstein files on the British royal family keeps coming in waves. Just when the headlines seem to quiet down, another batch of documents surfaces and pulls familiar names back into the spotlight. Some royals respond by bringing in professional crisis teams and tightening their messaging. Others appear to have tried to manage the narrative themselves — a choice that now looks far less effective as written records continue to resurface.

The focus no longer sits only on Sarah Ferguson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s past friendship with the convicted sex offender. The emails show Princess Beatrice taking part in conversations about how journalists should describe Epstein and whether his 2008 jail sentence meant he had “paid his dues.” This is not about accidental proximity or not knowing. It points to awareness, careful wording and image management at a time when Epstein’s crimes were already widely reported.

What the Emails Actually Show

The newly released emails do not rely on rumor or recollection. These are written exchanges from 2011, several years after Jeffrey Epstein’s conviction and release from a Florida jail. In the messages, Sarah Ferguson describes her phone calls with journalists and states that she and her daughter, Princess Beatrice, discussed how the media should characterize Epstein.

The wording is striking. Ferguson refers to Epstein as someone who had “done his penance” and indicates an intention to steer journalists away from labeling him a paedophile.

The correspondence also shows Beatrice present during at least one of these calls and involved in conversations about follow-up messaging. This does not read as teenage ignorance or second-hand exposure. At the time, Princess Beatrice was in her early twenties and old enough to understand the seriousness of charges that the media had already reported widely.

Separate emails attributed to Epstein add another layer. In one exchange years later, he claims Beatrice “likes” him and expresses little concern about her presence at social events. While his words reflect his own perspective rather than verified sentiment, their existence underscores how comfortable he appeared referencing royal familiarity even after his conviction.

Awareness Versus Accountability

The real issue here is not legal guilt. It is judgment. Saying “he served his time” might make sense for many crimes, but it hits very differently when the crime involved underage girls. The emails show this was not a random slip of the tongue. Sarah Ferguson wrote that she and Princess Beatrice discussed how journalists should describe Jeffrey Epstein and agreed it was important to emphasize that he had “done his penance” and was moving on with his life.

That detail changes the picture. It shows awareness, not confusion. Epstein’s 2008 conviction was already public knowledge by 2011. They focused on how they wanted people to talk about him. Framing him as someone who had paid looks like reputation management. It also clashes with later public statements that tried to distance the family from him, as if the seriousness only became clear much later.

Princess Beatrice’s name resurfaces because the emails show she was not just nearby but involved in the discussion and present during calls with journalists. That casts doubt on People magazine exclusive claiming both Beatrice and Eugenie “felt duped” by later Epstein revelations. At the very least, the emails show Beatrice had prior awareness and actively participated in shaping how Jeffrey Epstein was described publicly, rather than later claiming total surprise.

Public Image, Private Strategy and a Familiar Pattern

For years, the media and royal circles largely shielded Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie from criticism over their parents, Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson, and their continued association with Jeffrey Epstein. However, that should end. Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie do not receive Sovereign Grant funding for their charities and instead rely on private salaries, family wealth, and fundraising events. Even so, the latest document releases have led many to ask whether donations linked to Epstein or people in his wider network ever intersected with royal-adjacent causes. The concern is not only direct ties, but indirect ones through business partners and social circles.

One name that has resurfaced in this wider conversation is Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, the chairman and CEO of DP World. Unsealed U.S. Department of Justice records previously referenced an email from Jeffrey Epstein that mentioned a “torture video,” with later court acknowledgments identifying bin Sulayem as the sender of that material. Separately, DP World is also a founding partner and major donor to Prince William’s Earthshot Prize, pledging £1 million to the environmental initiative. That overlap illustrates how easily influential business figures can appear in both philanthropic and controversial document trails at the same time, turning otherwise routine partnerships into uncomfortable optics.

In the end, the spotlight falls back on Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie — not because anyone has charged them with crimes, but because the emails make claims of total ignorance harder to believe. The written records show conversations, witnesses and clear moments of awareness, leaving a simple question: how much did they actually understand at the time, and why was the public later encouraged to think they knew almost nothing?