A Netflix Documentary Would be a Cruel Riposte to Epstein’s Victims and the Final Nail in the Coffin of Sarah Ferguson’s Reputation
With reports in today’s Daily Express that Sarah Ferguson is preparing a blockbuster documentary and is in talks with streamers including Netflix, it’s my pleasure to share this timely conversation with Paula Froelich: Uncensored.
A multi-million-pound deal would allow Ferguson to set the terms of reference, therefore we are unlikely to see a repeat of Andrew’s catastrophic Newsnight interview.
However, a self-serving and self-pitying performance, set against the backdrop of the damning revelations of the last year, is still likely to be the final nail in the coffin of her reputation and will only make the demands louder for her to answer real questions before the US Congress and the UK authorities about her long and very close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. A man who multiple sources told me she was in love with.
Will she address whether she was the ‘Duchess from England’ who wrote the household manual that instructed staff that they should ‘Remember that you see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing, except to answer a question directed at you’? Or indeed, will she address the fact that she visited Epstein both while he was serving his prison sentence and immediately afterwards, the latter visit being with her then-teenage daughters?
Sarah Ferguson pictured at one of Epstein’s properties in a photograph from the Epstein Files.
Fergie’s representatives have previously claimed that she was frightened of Epstein and wrote under duress. Yet her private apology assured him that she had “absolutely not” called him a paedophile, acknowledged that he felt “hellaciously let down” by her and described him as a “steadfast, generous and supreme friend” to her and her family. That she twice ‘joked’ about marrying him further dents any narrative that she was terrified of him.
Nor should it be forgotten that when Virginia Giuffre made her allegations against Andrew, Ferguson publicly denounced them as ‘salacious lies’, ‘shockingly accusatory lies’ and a ‘defamation of character’, while describing Andrew as ‘one of the greatest men’ she had ever met.
Should she go down the route of essentially suggesting that she lacked agency in her friendship with the convicted sex offender, it would be a cruel and cynical riposte to the countless women who really did have their agency taken away by Epstein through a combination of financial, psychological and physical coercion.
Paula and I discussed too Fergie’s extraordinary ability to charm money out of rich men and how the combination of sexual guile and her royal status proved highly effective.
We also looked at the closure of yet another of Ferguson’s charities, Sarah’s Trust, ironically established with a mission to ‘empower vulnerable women and girls’. It was the latest in a long line of charities that acted more as piggy banks and excuses for lavish fundraisers than as organisations actually doing the good work they were supposedly set up to do.
Royal finances are, to all intents and purposes, invisible to the authorities, and this is why Andrew and Fergie were able to get away with so much for so long. Were their accounts subject to the same scrutiny as the rest of ours, it is not inconceivable that we would find breaches of both company and charity law.
