The decision comes amid growing scrutiny over their past associations with Jeffrey Epstein and follows the recent arrest of their father on suspicion of misconduct in public office.
Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie were reportedly left stunned after being told they would not be permitted to appear with the Royal Family at Royal Ascot this year.
This comes amid intensifying concern inside the Palace over the widening scandal surrounding the House of York and historic links to convicted sex offender and American financier Jeffrey Epstein.
According to reports, Princess Beatrice, 37, and Princess Eugenie, 35, have been informed they cannot take their places in the Royal Box during the June meeting and will not be allowed to join senior royals in the Royal Procession.
The decision, described as an unexpected blow, is said to reflect a broader judgment that the sisters’ presence at major televised events now poses a reputational risk the institution is unwilling to absorb while questions continue to swirl. An insider revealed:
“I’ve spoken to my friend who works at Ascot and they said the girls have been told they can’t be there this year. Beatrice has taken it the hardest. She’s been completely blindsided by all of this.”
The timing has compounded the shock. The sisters were already dealing with the fallout from their father Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest last month, on suspicion of misconduct in public office. If convicted, he could face a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Against this backdrop, it is said that the Ascot decision was not an isolated snub but part of a wider plan to keep the Princesses away from public-facing engagements for the foreseeable future.
Behind the scenes, senior figures have been grappling with how the pair should be handled given that their names appear several times in the Epstein files and there remain unresolved questions about the depth of their association with him, including potential financial ties.
Royal Ascot, however, is not simply another diary date. It was a staple of the late Queen Elizabeth II’s calendar, and the carriage procession has formed part of the spectacle since 1825.
As discussion spread online, some voiced sympathy for the Princesses and argued they were paying the price for others’ actions.
Those who take part traditionally stay at Windsor Castle the night before and dine with the Royal Family, and one source suggested that custom has effectively shut the door on any arrangement that might allow the sisters to attend in an official capacity.
Even away from Ascot, the episode has underlined reported strains within the wider family.
There have been claims of a growing gulf between the Princesses and the Prince and Princess of Wales, with suggestions they wish to keep them at arm’s length until greater clarity emerges about any links to the American sex offender.
Prince William has also reportedly urged other royals to avoid being photographed alongside the sisters. Another source said, “Ascot would be out of the question because the royals have been told they can’t have pictures with the girls for the rest of the year.”
That distancing was noticeable even at Christmas, when the Prince and Princess of Wales were said to have avoided being photographed walking alongside Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie during the Royal Family’s church outing at Sandringham.
Still, the reaction has not been uniformly hostile. As discussion spread online, some voiced sympathy for the Princesses and argued they were paying the price for others’ actions.
One person commented, “That seems very harsh! Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugene have been nothing but loyal and supportive to the Crown. Why are they punished due to parents indiscretions! They are beautiful [sic]!”
Recent reports have also sharpened the focus on longstanding questions about money and influence.
Another wrote, “They are still the Queens grandchildren. Judge them for themselves, pity them their parents [sic].” A third added, “No child should pay for their parents’ sins.” A fourth described it as, “The real life version of ‘sins of the father.'”
However, others read the move as protective rather than punitive amid the prospect of public scrutiny at one of the most photographed dates in the royal calendar. One person said, “Maybe it’s to protect them. Can you imagine the looks and whispers?”
Another shared, “Probably a good thing for the moment as the dust settles.” A final netizen took a sharper view of the Palace stance, adding, “Uncle King is NOT playing.”
As the Palace shuts down opportunities for public visibility, the sisters have, according to reports, found support from an unexpected quarter — the Sussexes in California.
Well-placed rumours suggest Prince Harry has offered Princess Beatrice the use of his £11 million Montecito home as a refuge, with one source claiming:
“Harry has communicated with the girls, saying something along the lines of he knows what it’s like to be at the wrong end of the institution. He’s said there’s an open invite, especially for Beatrice, if she ever wants one.”
Recent reports have also sharpened the focus on longstanding questions about money and influence.
Concerns about potential financial connections to the American financier have risen in recent months, and the sisters were known to have visited him in Florida shortly after his release from jail in 2009 for prostituting minors.
Separately, it has been reported that the Prince of Wales previously suggested Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie submit their personal investments to an “ethics check” — a proposal they did not take up.
Sources have claimed the Palace is aware that the former Duke of York and his associates acted as the sisters’ financial advisers, with uncertainty lingering over whether everything linked to that arrangement would withstand scrutiny.
Regulatory attention has also been drawn to Princess Eugenie’s charity, The Anti-Slavery Collective, as the Charity Commission confirmed it is assessing concerns raised in the media.
The concerns related to the organisation’s spending after figures showed income of £92,311 last year — including more than £48,000 in donations — alongside total expenditure of £301,024. A Charity Commission spokesman said:
“We are assessing concerns raised in the media about charitable spending at The Anti-Slavery Collective to determine what role there is, if any, for the Commission.”
Princess Beatrice, meanwhile, has faced renewed questions about past lifestyle costs. A report dating back to 2015 said she took 15 holidays in a year, including trips to Verbier, St Tropez, and Ibiza, despite earning £19,000 as a junior employee at Sony Music.
Against that backdrop, scrutiny has widened to the sisters’ mother, Sarah Ferguson, who has been reported to be in Switzerland. According to outlets, the 66-year-old checked into the Paracelsus Recovery Clinic in Zurich.
British legal sources shared that Sarah — who divorced Andrew in 1996 and was stripped of her Duchess of York title amid the Epstein scandal in October 2025 — could face questioning by Thames Valley Police if she returns to the UK, despite there being no evidence she has committed a criminal offence.
A top barrister revealed, “The police may have a basis for questioning Sarah Ferguson [as] she may be a relevant witness in this case.”
Taken together, recent developments mark a significant moment for Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, whose public roles now hang in the balance as investigations continue and scrutiny intensifies.
