Who Is Funding the York Sisters? The Royal Money Trail Is Getting Harder to Ignore

Let’s start with the obvious: Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie are not working royals. They do not carry out official duties on behalf of the Crown. They do not receive money from the Sovereign Grant. By the palace’s own logic, they are private citizens trying to build independent lives.

So why do both sisters still have homes inside royal palaces? Why did Beatrice reportedly take seventeen holidays in a single year while earning a modest salary? Why are their husbands suddenly being scrutinised for their wealth, or lack thereof? And why does the same press that obsesses over every penny Prince Harry and Meghan Sussex spend seem to have only recently noticed that the York family’s finances make absolutely no sense?

The answer is not simple greed or individual fault. It is the monarchy’s opaque money culture, a system where titles open doors, proximity to the Crown attracts wealthy benefactors, and the public is told to look away. The York sisters may be the latest names under the microscope, but the real scandal is a royal machine that lets access function like currency while demanding zero transparency.

Palace homes for non‑working royals

Starting with the most concrete detail, The Times recently reported that both Beatrice and Eugenie still have homes inside royal palaces. Beatrice is said to have an apartment at St James’s Palace. Eugenie has Ivy Cottage at Kensington Palace, the same property she moved into after her marriage. The arrangement reportedly came through a long‑standing deal involving their father, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and requires rent, though the amount is not public.

And who is paying the rent now? The Times reported that Andrew previously covered his daughters’ accommodation costs, including a reported £1,600‑a‑month rent for a four‑bedroom apartment at St James’s Palace. But with Andrew’s own finances under a cloud, the Epstein scandal, the out‑of‑court settlement to Virginia Giuffre, the loss of his royal patronages and military affiliations, it is now unclear whether he still funds their homes. The Times notes that it is an open question whether Beatrice and Eugenie have become responsible for their own costs.

If the sisters are paying themselves, where is that money coming from? Beatrice has held senior private‑sector roles, including at Afiniti, and has launched business ventures, but her exact salary and total income are not public. Eugenie has worked in the art world, including at Hauser & Wirth, and reports describe her as having a regular job, though her earnings are also undisclosed. Neither woman’s disclosed career path obviously screams “able to afford a central London palace apartment” without additional support or subsidy, but without full transparency, it is impossible to say for certain. The real issue is not that they are definitely living beyond their means; it is that the palace refuses to give the public a clear answer.

Readers should not forget the obvious contrast. The palace asked Harry and Meghan to vacate Frogmore Cottage, even though the late Queen had given them the home after their wedding, and the 2020 Sandringham statement declared it would remain their UK family home. They also repaid the £2.4 million renovation cost. So the question becomes sharper: why do Beatrice and Eugenie, neither of whom are working royals, still retain homes on royal property while the palace stripped Harry of his UK base?

The husband question: suddenly not rich enough?

The Daily Mail recently flipped its narrative on Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi and Jack Brooksbank. For years, the British press presented Beatrice’s husband as a wealthy property developer and Eugenie’s husband as a successful brand ambassador. Now, citing claims from Charlotte Griffiths, the Mail reports that Edo was “quite broke” when he met Beatrice and that Jack “is not wealthy at all.”

Let us pause and appreciate the whiplash. When Beatrice and Edo married, the coverage was full of flattering details about his background, his family’s connections, and his “proven track record” in property. Eugenie and Jack were portrayed as a glamorous young couple with links to the fashion and drinks industries. Now, with the York family’s finances under renewed pressure, the same outlets are suddenly questioning whether these men can support the princesses at all.

The implication is clear: the sisters’ lifestyles, from the holidays and designer clothes to the palace homes, have long raised questions about outside support, most likely from Andrew, Sarah, or the wealthy circles around them. That leads to the darker question. With Epstein gone, Andrew disgraced, and his legal bills and settlement costs hardly cheap, where is the York money coming from now?

This is not about blaming Edo or Jack. They may be perfectly decent men. But the sudden media scepticism reveals a deeper discomfort. The royal‑adjacent ecosystem has a habit of presenting wealthy partners as “ideal matches” until those partners’ finances become inconvenient, at which point the press starts whispering about hidden arrangements.

Beatrice’s jet‑set past: seventeen holidays on nineteen thousand pounds?

Let us go back a few years. The Daily Mail has resurfaced, reporting that Beatrice took seventeen holidays in 2015 while earning a salary estimated at around £19,500. Even with the most generous interpretation, that many of those trips involved staying free at family-owned properties or friends’ villas, the sheer number of flights, the implied costs, and the elite destinations raise obvious questions.

The standard defence is that Beatrice was young, single, and moving in wealthy social circles. Royal-adjacent figures are often invited on yachts, ski trips, and private island getaways because their presence is a status symbol for billionaires. But it does not answer the money question. It merely shifts it. Why do billionaires want to host princesses? Because royal titles still carry cachet. And that cachet is not regulated, taxed, or disclosed.

The wedding money trail: gifts from controversial figures

This is where the story gets darker. Andrew Lownie’s book Entitled and subsequent Daily Mail reporting have alleged that a £750,000 payment from Nebahat Isbilen and Selman Turk, figures connected to a Turkish fraud case, ended up in Andrew’s Coutts account. Andrew’s office reportedly described it as a gift for Princess Beatrice’s wedding and later repaid the money. The claim does not suggest that Beatrice knew the source; rather, it asserts that Andrew and Sarah Ferguson participated in arrangements that directed funds toward the wedding.

Similarly, Eugenie’s wedding guest list reportedly included controversial names such as Tarek Kaituni and Johnny Hon, both of whom have faced questions about their business dealings. The presence of such figures at a royal wedding is not, in itself, evidence of wrongdoing. But it is evidence of a network. The Yorks moved in circles where wealth, access, and lack of transparency overlapped. Notably, Andrew was reportedly arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, amid allegations linked to his time as trade envoy, including claims that he may have shared sensitive or confidential information. He denies any wrongdoing.

The palace has not provided a clear public accounting of who paid for the York sisters’ weddings, their security, their homes, or their travel, and rental arrangements for their palace homes remain undisclosed. For a family that constantly lectures the public about royal propriety, the silence is deafening.

The real villain is the system

It would be easy to write an article that simply calls Beatrice and Eugenie spoiled, entitled freeloaders. They have benefited from royal privilege their entire lives. They have not demanded full transparency. And they have not publicly rejected the murky funding arrangements that surrounded their parents. But here is the thing: I do not have a problem with any of them earning money as long as it is legitimate, legal, and ethical. The choice should be simple: either the monarchy funds its members through the taxpayer, or they go out and earn their own incomes. The latter is much preferred by many.

The bigger issue is that a billionaire sex offender like Jeffrey Epstein was financially involved with the Yorks. Sarah Ferguson herself admitted that Epstein paid £15,000 toward her debts, and later emails revived scrutiny after she called him a “supreme friend.” There are also reports that Epstein-funded travel may have involved Beatrice and Eugenie, with newly released DOJ emails allegedly showing Sarah Ferguson requested Epstein cover and upgrade flights for herself and her daughters after his prison release. So the real question is not whether the York sisters worked or freeloaded. It is whether they also benefited from the same dirty money that surrounded their parents. Did they accept holidays, gifts, or housing funded by Epstein and his network? That is what needs answering.

The York women are products of a monarchy that has spent decades cultivating an aura of untouchability while quietly allowing its members to monetise access, sometimes from deeply unsavoury sources. Andrew was the trade envoy. Sarah seemed to be close with Epstein for monetary gain. The girls grew up watching their parents turn royal status into cash. But if that cash came from Epstein, that is not a legitimate income. That is a scandal.

An i Paper poll cited by multiple outlets found that a majority of voters want royal finances opened to greater public scrutiny. That is not because people hate the monarchy. It is because the Andrew scandal, the Epstein links, and the steady drip of revelations about the Yorks have made one thing clear: the system is broken.

A convenient distraction?

We have to be honest. The current wave of “who pays for Beatrice and Eugenie?” stories comes at a convenient time for the palace. Andrew is trying to rehabilitate his image. Charles and William want to show the monarchy is lean and efficient. Focusing on the York sisters’ lifestyle allows the press to generate outrage without touching the bigger fish, namely, the King’s private income, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Duchy of Cornwall, and the palaces owned by the Crown that benefit working royals in ways that would make most accountants raise an eyebrow.

That does not mean the York sisters are above scrutiny. They are not. Palace homes, expensive holidays, wedding gifts from controversial figures, all of those are legitimate questions. But if the press is going to demand transparency from Beatrice and Eugenie, it should demand the same from every royal who benefits from the system. That includes the Prince of Wales, whose Duchy of Cornwall income is similarly opaque. That includes the King. And let’s not forget that it includes the entire network of royal patronages, foundations, and private office expenses.

The Daily Mail can itemise Meghan Sussex’s wardrobe down to the last stitch. It can calculate how many holidays Beatrice took a decade ago. But it rarely asks why the monarchy as an institution is allowed to keep its books half‑closed.