The revelations about Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York, have reignited global fascination with royal extravagance.
Once a celebrated figure, Ferguson now faces allegations of hosting nightly medieval-style banquets, prepared exclusively for herself and her daughters, with most of the food reportedly being wasted. Royal historian Andrew Lownie’s Entitled exposes a pattern of entitlement, excess, and financial chaos.
The scandal has rocked the royal household and triggered public outrage. Let’s unpack how this unfolded—and why it still matters today.
So, What’s Going On?
Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York, has long been criticized for extravagant spending and mounting debts. Former staff members reveal that she demanded nightly medieval-style feasts—beef, lamb, and chicken—for herself and her daughters, Beatrice and Eugenie. The scale of waste and cost is staggering.
But why would a post-divorce royal maintain such excess for decades? The answer is more shocking than it seems.
A Feast Fit For Henry VIII
“Every night she demands a whole side of beef, a leg of lamb, and a chicken… It’s a feast that would make Henry VIII proud,” a former staff member said.
The household of three consumed 40–60 lbs of meat nightly. Most of it was discarded, showing a disconnect between public debt admissions and private indulgence.
Who Lived This Lifestyle?
Sarah Ferguson (65) continued residing at Royal Lodge after divorcing Prince Andrew in 1996, spending £587,000 annually on an income of £225,000. Daughters Beatrice and Eugenie joined her, enjoying these nightly feasts. Prince Andrew remained financially involved, despite relinquishing his title. Staff bore the brunt of this extravagance.
Could the Queen or outsiders have stopped it? That comes next.
Queen Elizabeth’s Role
The late Queen Elizabeth II reportedly paid off Ferguson’s debts over the years, including a £3 million divorce settlement in 1996. These interventions prevented financial collapse but also enabled continued waste. Royal oversight was inconsistent, allowing the Duchess to live extravagantly without official duties or income.
But what about external supporters who contributed to this lifestyle?
Epstein’s Financial Support
Jeffrey Epstein reportedly provided Ferguson with financial backing for about 15 years, totaling an estimated $2 million. In April 2011, Ferguson sent him a “grovelling apology” after his prison release, despite publicly disavowing him. This secretive support sustained her excessive spending habits.
Did her behavior end there? Not even close.
The Scale of Waste
Nightly feasts for three included 30–40 pounds of beef, 5–8 pounds of lamb, and 4–6 pounds of chicken—totaling 40–60 pounds of meat. Staff confirm, “Most of it is wasted. There is no attempt to keep it cold the next day.” Annualized, this equates to 34–51 cows.
This is only one facet of her excess. Other costs were just as staggering.
Staff Burdened By Excess
Butlers arrived at 4:30 AM to chill watercress. Trainers and hairdressers were paid hundreds of pounds per hour, sometimes waiting until late afternoon. High staff turnover reflected exhausting conditions. Employees had little authority to curb waste, creating a workforce trapped in a cycle of compliance.
Next, we examine the finances fueling these feasts.
Financial Desperation Behind The Glamour
By 1996, Ferguson spent 261% of her income, creating annual deficits of £362,000. Debt continued to mount: £4.2 million in the late 1990s, £630,000 in 2009, and £6.8 million on a Swiss chalet in 2019. Oprah Winfrey interview, 2010: “I was substantially in debt” and “spiraling out of control.”
Could debt alone explain this persistent extravagance?
Travel Mishaps and Extra Costs
Ferguson reportedly missed non-refundable premium flights (£5,000–10,000 each) and paid £10,000–20,000 annually in avoidable baggage fees. Up to 25 suitcases traveled per trip, compounding financial waste. Even daily operations, like preparing large feasts, were cost-intensive.
How did the public learn about this lifestyle? The reveal is next.
How The Scandal Emerged
Royal historian Andrew Lownie conducted extensive research for Entitled (published 25 August 2025). Interviews with former staff, cross-checked with financial records, confirmed the nightly feasts, staff burdens, and massive waste. Media coverage intensified the story from August to September, culminating this month with the resignation of the title.
What were Ferguson’s motivations for sustaining this behavior? Let’s explore.
Why Ferguson Maintained Excess
Ferguson’s identity and sense of entitlement drove her to behave as a working royal despite losing her official status. Staff quote: “It’s a feast that would make Henry VIII proud.” Combined with financial desperation and enabling from the Queen and Epstein, this created a moral hazard where consequences were muted.
Could accountability ever have intervened? That answer follows.
How The Routine Worked
Each day began at 4:30 AM with butler prep, massive amounts of meat being sourced and cooked, and staff waiting for hours.
Nightly ritual: display 30–40 lbs of beef, 5–8 lbs of lamb, 4–6 lbs of chicken. Three people consumed only a fraction. Waste was disposed of nightly, repeated for months or years.
The scale becomes even clearer when quantified.
The 29-Year Pattern
From 1996 to 2025, Ferguson maintained this royal-style lifestyle for 29 years without official income or duties. Meat waste alone equates to 34–51 cows annually. Combined with debts, excess staff costs, and travel mishaps, it paints a portrait of unsustainable extravagance.
The consequences and legacy come next.
Royal Response: Titles Relinquished
In the past week, Prince Andrew gave up the Duke of York title, followed by Sarah Ferguson relinquishing the title of Duchess of York. Both quietly surrendered two other royal titles. This marked the first formal institutional consequence of the medieval feast scandal and financial revelations that had captivated the media and the public alike.
Their departures signaled royal intolerance for sustained excess, but questions remain about accountability within the family.
Royal Distance and Public Messaging
The Royal Family maintains a “no comment” stance on specific allegations. The BBC described Ferguson as “ex-wife of a non-working royal,” emphasizing distance. According to biographer Andrew Lownie, most royals “will have nothing to do with her,” while her daughters, Beatrice and Eugenie, are reportedly “utterly mortified” yet still supportive privately.
This mix of distancing and discreet loyalty creates a complex public narrative for the family.
Ferguson’s Non-Verbal Protest
On 6 August 2025, Ferguson attended a London book signing wearing custom loafers emblazoned with Queen Elizabeth II’s motto: “Never complain, never explain.” She made no verbal comment on the allegations of the feast, instead deflecting attention with a visual statement.
This early response demonstrated Ferguson’s penchant for symbolic gestures rather than direct engagement with scandalous claims.
What’s Next for Ferguson?
Sarah Ferguson is at a breaking point. After relinquishing her title as Duchess of York, losing multiple charities, and facing intense media scrutiny, she is described as being “on the edge of a nervous breakdown.” Her public identity, finances, and reputation are under severe pressure.
Experts foresee three paths: quiet retreat, explosive tell-all, or repeating crisis cycles. The coming 6–12 months will define her future—and her legacy.
Lessons from a Royal Scandal
The saga highlights unchecked privilege, enabling bailouts, and decades-long excess despite massive debt. Ferguson’s 29-year pattern of extravagant lifestyle choices, coupled with institutional inaction, demonstrates the consequences of moral hazard within elite households.
October 2025 title losses serve as an institutional reckoning and reinforce the enduring tension between public accountability and private entitlement.
The Final Word
Sarah Ferguson’s decades-long pattern of extravagance, debt, and royal entanglements has reached a pivotal moment. Title loss, media scrutiny, and financial pressures leave her with no easy path.
Whether she retreats quietly, publishes a tell-all, or faces yet another crisis, the next 6–12 months will decide not only her public future but how history remembers the Duchess of York.