Epstein, so sick of it everywhere.

Sarah Ferguson was photographed by paps on holiday with a lover having her toes sucked six years after her marriage , I think her daughter was watching

I don’t think SF has claimed victim status? eazybee Nothing like the £12 million paid by the late queen to Victoria Giuffre. It just seems a bit disproportionate and it’s also highly unlikely that SF was ever going to be financially self sufficient. The royal family did make a serious error of judgment?

I think the press releases are to keep the heat off the wealthy and influential American financiers, which may or may not include Trump.

This is the latest I can find on Trump’s involvement. Bear in mind it is full of disclaimers because of the risk of litigation from him against any media outlet.
edition.cnn.com/2026/01/31/politics/new-documents-trump-epstein

ronib is right though. Sarah Ferguson was a grifter, but as far as we know, had no involvement at all in the abuse of women and girls.

Sarah Ferguson claimed to have received only £15,000 a year divorce settlement. However it was revealed later that she also received £350,000 cash, £500.000 from the Queen to purchase a house plus a monthly allowance which by 2010 totalled £500,000. She spent much of her divorced life living with Andrew in Royal Lodge. She bought and sold various properties, including a Swiss Chalet with Andrew which had to be sold because they had not maintained the payments. She did work and earn money, including for Weight-Watchers and writing children's books.
So not quite such a victim as she claimed.

Fregie was a financial disaster, sponging off others for decade, including Epstein who she had a 10 yr association.
It wasnt just Andrew she was part of the royal hospitality Epstein got.

I think all these releases are to take the heat off Trump. There must be a lot of dirt on him that he'll be anxious to keep hidden.

I don’t think for one minute that Sarah Ferguson out shamed Prince Andrew! That’s impossible? Iam64
Yes of course SF lived beyond her means …. Her settlement was inadequate for her status.

Ditto Trump, Beckhams and Kardashians…

Sarah Ferguson behaved in a way that shamed her husband and his family. She remains a profligate spender, living beyond her means. For whatever reason, she’s lived rent free in a royal property with AMW. She’s ruined what was already a poor reputation, needed no help in so doing.

I don’t expect her repeated suggestions that Epstein marry her were anything more than a (very poor) joke.

The royal family has vast resources and as an ex member of the royal family, Sarah Ferguson will find it very difficult to get a job, especially now that she has ruined her own reputation. Or the media has!
In fact I find it remarkable that the late queen had not shown more compassion and insight over Sarah. Did Prince Philip dislike Sarah that much?

Sarah Ferguson and a lack of financial support?

Don't make me laugh. Many people are cold and hungry, most of them get off their backsides and get a job.

Here is the definitive answer MaizieD.
lordslibrary.parliament.uk/peerages-can-they-be-removed/
Mandelson’s is a life peerage, covered in Section 3.

ronib

Does Sarah Ferguson count as a victim? Her divorce settlement seems to have been at the thrifty end given the huge wealth of the royal family. A lack of financial support seems to have made Sarah Ferguson vulnerable to the extent of wanting to marry Epstein. What was she thinking? A very broken person indeed and inadequately supported by her ex husband I would suggest. In fact, a proper settlement would have saved the royal family some embarrassment.

I hadnt heard of her wanting to marry Epstein - she dodged a bullet there.
Nor had I heard anyone else wanting to marry her, not surprising her gross spending, jet set lifestyle was legendary

Casdon

It is not in Starmer’s gift to revoke a life peerage, as currently there is no direct legal mechanism to do so, even if the holder is convicted of a crime. The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 does allow peers to resign or be removed from the House of Lords, though they retain their title.

Perhaps the King could do it, though, on the PM's advice?

After all, he managed to strip his brother of his titles quite rapidly...

So Andrew was stripped of his titles, but Mandelson can keep his?

We don't know yet if Mandelson will keep his peerage. Liberal leader, Ed Davey, has already called for him to be stropped of it and no doubt many others will follow.

I'm not pinning any hopes on Starmer being proactive on this, but I do hope that he will be, at the very least, reactive, But we do have his evil genius, McSweeny, a fervent Mandelson supporter, with, I think, very poor political antennae, to contend with.

I understand that, like Mone, Mandelson has taken leave of absence from the Lords. Whether he ever returns remains to be seen.

It is not in Starmer’s gift to revoke a life peerage, as currently there is no direct legal mechanism to do so, even if the holder is convicted of a crime. The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 does allow peers to resign or be removed from the House of Lords, though they retain their title.

Does Sarah Ferguson count as a victim? Her divorce settlement seems to have been at the thrifty end given the huge wealth of the royal family. A lack of financial support seems to have made Sarah Ferguson vulnerable to the extent of wanting to marry Epstein. What was she thinking? A very broken person indeed and inadequately supported by her ex husband I would suggest. In fact, a proper settlement would have saved the royal family some embarrassment.

eazybee

Mandelson should be stripped of his peerage immediately and removed from the House of Lords. Starmer has called for Andrew to appear before American authorities; why not Mandelson? He was responsible for his appointment as Ambassador, despite his colleagues voicing grave concerns.

So Andrew was stripped of his titles, but Mandelson can keep his?
Not a good reflection on Starmer and if KS is supported by his ministers, not a good reflection on the labour party either.

funding for children’s services, focus on organised child sexual exploitation might be supported by people learning more about the way it crosses classes.
One shouldn’t exclude the other. We’ve had comments on here confirming some people still blame the victims.

Agree winterwhite

Agree that we also need to “keep talking”, about the abused teenagers in Rochdale and other towns. And in this country we should be talking about them more loudly than we talk about the Epstein victims. What this country needs first is more funding for children’s social care not endless hectoring about Mandaelson and Andrew MW.

Yes, the Epstein issues can seem tedious but corruption, exploitation, lies and deception at the heart of power shouldn’t be ignored . Surely it’s possible to be concerned about the cost of living at the same time as wanting people who see others as disposable sex objects to be identified.

I’ve commented on previous Epstein/Mandelson threads that I’m disgusted by Mandelson’s claim that being gay meant he didn’t notice all the young girls. The more that emerges the harder it is to accept McSweeney hid the facts from Starmer. I’ve been a Starmer supporter but I’m beginning to feel this Mandelson issue might hasten a leadership challenge

While there is no logical reason why those with money should be more 'moral' than those without, neither is there any logical reason why they should be less moral than them either. The same standards apply to all, and having far more money than the average does not give a free pass to treat others badly with impunity.