Sarah Ferguson And Prince Andrew Could Bring Down The Monarchy, According To Royal Experts

In October 2025, it was revealed that the former Duke and Duchess of York's ties to Jeffrey Epstein ran deeper than originally claimed. Although Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein had already been established, new documents indicated that both considered the convicted sex trafficker a close personal friend. According to emails obtained by the Daily Mail, Andrew wrote Epstein in February 2011 following the publication of a photo featuring the prince embracing Virginia Giuffre — who had accused the prince of sexual assault. "It would seem we are in this together," Andrew told Epstein. Separate emails from Epstein to his lawyer, Paul Tweed, provided insight into the sex offender's relationship with Ferguson, as well. "She was the first to celebrate my [prison] release with her two daughters in tow," wrote Epstein (via The Telegraph).

These revelations have led to something beyond your typical royal family public relations disaster. They have come to represent, perhaps, a reckoning with the actual services that titled individuals like Andrew and formerly Ferguson provide to Great Britain. As the public has come to question the importance of these largely symbolic governmental figures, questions have emerged about the value of the throne itself. Now, some royal experts are telling British publications that Andrew and Sarah's actions have put the monarchy at risk. English historian A.N. Wilson has even told the Daily Mail that the monarchy is entering a "major crisis ... perhaps the gravest since the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936."

If Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson were close friends with Jeffrey Epstein, it's possible that Buckingham Palace was aware of those ties before the scandal even broke. Some royal commentators have even wondered whether the palace knew that Prince Andrew had lied in his disastrous "Newsnight" appearance. In the interview, Andrew claimed that he severed communication with Epstein in December 2010. However, his emails about being "in this together" were sent in February 2011. Writing for the BBC, royal correspondent, Sean Coughlan, noted, "[I]t raises questions about what royal officials and government departments might have known at the time and what information might still be held. Did the palace ever challenge the prince over his account of events in that 'Newsnight' interview?"

Coughlan's final question here is key, and there is no easy answer. If the palace had not been aware of Andrew's untruths, it would be a grave oversight — one that has perhaps prevented courtiers from sufficiently banishing him from public view. Since his "Newsnight" interview, Andrew has continued to appear at royal events, including the September 2025 funeral of Katharine, Duchess of Kent. The prince's presence at these affairs has served as a reminder that, despite having relinquished his royal duties, he remains a royal. But had the palace known that Andrew lied, the consequences for the monarchy could be even more intense because hiding these untruths would amount to a cover-up.

Buckingham Palace officials are not the only ones who may have made a grave error in judgment when it came to Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson. Queen Elizabeth II was also hugely supportive of both figures. Rumors surrounding Prince Andrew place him as Elizabeth's favorite son, and the queen was not afraid to demonstrate this publicly. On the day of Prince Philip's memorial service, she invited Andrew to walk beside her — a move that reportedly defied the will of her most devoted advisors. But Ferguson is arguably the one whom the queen supported the most. In 2011, after it emerged that Ferguson had accepted loans from Jeffrey Epstein, Elizabeth allowed the then-Duchess of York to move into the Royal Lodge with Andrew. There, Sarah was able to enjoy the perks of royalty — including extensive gardens, luxurious bedrooms, and a full-time staff — without any of the hard work.

Unfortunately, Elizabeth's soft spot for Andrew and Ferguson could come back to haunt her. When the queen died, she was celebrated for having saved the monarchy from the tumultuous 20th century. But as the damaging accounts of Andrew and Ferguson's behavior continue to emerge, royal commentators have wondered whether the couple will posthumously harm Elizabeth's public image. Writing for the Independent, royal historian and author Alexander Larman noted, "[I]t is a desperate spot for the late queen's legacy to be dragged into."

In 2015, Virginia Giuffre accused Prince Andrew of soliciting sex from her when she was still a minor. Six years later, she sued him for sexual assault in a civil case that was only settled via a £12 million payout that came directly from Queen Elizabeth II's coffers. In January 2024, American court files revealed that a woman called Johanna Sjoberg had sworn under oath that Andrew had groped her breasts. By most standards, these accusations appear credible enough to warrant, at the very least, a police investigation. However, the British police failed to look into the witness statements concerning Andrew.

These dynamics have called into question issues of privilege in Britain, and many royal watchers have recoiled at the fact that Andrew has appeared to exist above the law. British Labour MP Clive Lewis has called on Parliament to support an investigation into Andrew's connection with Epstein. He says Andrew and Epstein's relationship gets straight to the heart of the centuries-old question of whether the monarchy is a useful political tool or a place of protection for the rich: "It's very clear the sense of entitlement that Prince Andrew has comes with being a prince and being part of the monarchy. The bigger story here is the monarchy itself. ... It poses some very difficult questions about how power operates in this country" (via The Guardian).

Intensifying questions surrounding the value of the monarchy even further, it has emerged that Prince Andrew may have used a police connection to look into Virginia Giuffre. As revealed by leaked emails, Andrew appears to have asked his bodyguard from the Metropolitan Police to use Giuffre's date of birth and social security number to obtain information about her. Then, in an email to Queen Elizabeth II's deputy press secretary, Ed Perkins, Andrew wrote, "I have given her DoB [date of birth] and social security number for investigation with XXX, the on duty ppo [personal protection officer]" (via Daily Mail). This would mean that Andrew used his taxpayer-funded security officer to investigate the person who drew the most attention to the Jeffrey Epstein ties.

This scandal has demonstrated that some members of the royal family are not afraid to use taxpayer money to hide their misdeeds. If Andrew did ask a police officer for information that would be subsequently passed onto a press secretary, it seems that the British public funded his attempted cover-up. Royal correspondent Stephen Bates told The Guardian that this does not bode well for the royal family's future: "The most important thing as far as the royals are concerned ... is to maintain the succession, to maintain the status quo of one to succeed the next, as the royals have been doing for generations. And all this adds uncertainty."

Prince Andrew's potentially inappropriate use of his police connection is not the only factor that has called into question the royal family's exorbitant spending. Andrew and Sarah Ferguson's continued residence at the Royal Lodge has also driven public outrage. Despite the fact that Andrew stepped down as a working royal in 2019 and Ferguson did the same in 1996, the couple has continued to live in this splendid 30-room mansion in Windsor. They are even said to keep a staff that helps them maintain their lavish lifestyle.

As more information about Andrew and Ferguson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein has emerged, British taxpayers have grown furious with the couple's living situation. The understanding between the British people and the royal family has long been based on the principle that the public will help fund the monarchy. In exchange, the royal family provides diplomatic services to the nation — services that are largely predicated on their positive reputation. 

By engaging with Epstein, Andrew and Ferguson have failed to comply with their end of the deal. But as taxpayers question the couple's housing situation, the funding that supports the entire monarchy is put at risk. As royal expert Stephen Bates told The Guardian, the question — "What about money?" — is almost naturally followed by two additional points — "What about extravagances? Do we need the royals?" He then noted, "It couldn't be contained just to Prince Andrew."  

If the British monarchy is at risk, Prince William certainly knows it. The future king was trained by Queen Elizabeth II to put the crown above all else, and reports indicate that William is prepared to exile Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson in order to secure the monarchy's future. Commenting on this dynamic in an interview with Fox News Digital, royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams noted that William has perhaps taken a particularly strong stance against Fergie and Andrew. "The king does have empathy as Andrew is his brother, but William sees the couple as a threat to the monarchy," Fitzwilliams explained.

This opinion fits with separate reports indicating that William disliked the way that the former Duke and Duchess of York tarnished the monarchy's image. As a friend of the prince's reportedly told the Daily Beast, "William always said, 'Just cut Andrew off completely. It's not appropriate to have an alleged sex offender breaking bread with the royal family.'" Pushing Andrew and Fergie out of royal circles would also fit with William's rumored preference for a slimmed down monarchy. Even the prince himself has said that he's eager to change the institution. As William revealed on an episode of "The Reluctant Traveller," "Change for good, and I embrace that, I enjoy that change. I don't fear it, that's the bit that excites me, the idea of being able to bring some change" (via BBC).

While Prince William may be keen on changing the monarchy, some things are easier said than done. Removing Sarah Ferguson's royal titles — and effectively making her a commoner — was a simple process because she was only a royal by marriage. However, doing the same for Prince Andrew would come with heavier implications. Because of a 1917 rule known as the Letters Patent, Andrew has the right to maintain his Duke of York titles as well as his title as prince. Formally removing these honors would only be possible if the British parliament voted to amend the Letters Patent — an act that would come with serious constitutional implications.

Such a move would be to effectively make royal roles dependent on public approval. Although this may sound like a good idea to some, it's a dynamic that reflects modern democratic ideals — in which officials are determined through elections rather than by birthright. Monarchy, meanwhile, is a system 100% determined by bloodline. In that sense, to question Andrew's inherited role within the royal system would be to question the concept of monarchy itself. As University of Manchester political science professor, Robert Ford, told The New York Times, "[A]ny government would be worried about the precedent [stripping Andrew of his princedom] would set in terms of politicizing the monarchy." Even so, Ford admitted that the proposal was "a temptation."

Beyond the constitutional issues surrounding Prince Andrew's birthright, there are concerns regarding the damage he and his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, could do to the monarchy in the future. One of King Charles III's biggest fears is said to be the potential of a royal tell-all. Ferguson has published memoirs in the past, and while she has always been careful not to speak ill of the royal family, this could ostensibly change. A television executive even told RadarOnline, "There's industry chatter about her sitting down for a gentle U.S. interview — something far more controlled than Andrew's 'Newsnight' debacle. But for it to land well, she'd need to clearly separate herself from him." Of course, the possibility of this is just one of the many rumors surrounding Sarah Ferguson.

Interestingly, there have been worries that Andrew may consider following in the footsteps of his nephew, Prince Harry, and write a royal tell-all of his own. In 2023, it was reported that the prince would never do such a thing. At the time, a source told the Daily Mail, "There are no plans for a book and never have been. The duke has had a nonexistent profile since 'Newsnight' precisely so as not to damage the institution ... he would never do anything to deliberately damage the family." Since then, however, Andrew has lost whatever prestige still remained, testing his dedication to the monarchy.