Jeffrey Epstein donated $50K to Prince William’s patronage in 2013-14

In mid-January, we learned that Prince William had hired a crisis manager, the improbably-named Liza Ravenscroft, to work in Kensington Palace’s communications office. The whole thing was curious – while there is an abundance of crisis in and around William, sources made it sound like King Charles was the one to order William to hire a crisis manager, and that Buckingham Palace was tired of KP’s childish and clownish antics. Many asked “why now?” and “which crisis is being dealt with at the moment?” Sources insisted Ravenscroft was there to deal with A) the Princess of Wales’s f–kups (up to and including sending out a manipulated photo which ended up getting a global kill order from the press), B) William’s screeching hatred of his brother Prince Harry and C) the ongoing debacle that is the Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor situation. Well, weeks after Ravenscroft’s hire, we seem to be getting a better idea of what William and Charles were preparing for. They knew that even more Jeffrey Epstein revelations were coming out, and that their names would be mentioned.

Jeffrey Epstein donated tens of thousands of pounds to a wildlife charity linked to Prince William, several years after the disgraced financier was convicted of sex offences. Documents released by the US Department of Justice show that Epstein donated $50,000 to WildAid in November 2013, the same year that William was named as an ambassador for the charity. Newly released emails show the organisation – which is also supported by King Charles – then courted the sex offender to meet its senior executives the following year.

There is no suggestion that the King and the Prince of Wales would have been aware of Epstein’s donation at the time. However, the files give an insight into how Epstein seemingly tried to use philanthropy to resurrect his reputation. The specific emails, sent in 2014, also raise questions about whether Kensington Palace and WildAid should have done more due diligence to ensure that the then-Duke of Cambridge and his father were not at risk of being embarrassed by Epstein’s donations.

Epstein’s donation and the charity’s subsequent engagement with him took place five years after his conviction in Florida for soliciting sex from a minor, and after extensive media coverage of his friendship with Prince Andrew. Epstein was released from prison on 22 July 2009 after serving 13 months of an 18-month sentence.

In January 2014, John Baker, WildAid’s managing director, wrote to Epstein’s office in an attempt to arrange a meeting in New York between Epstein and the charity’s co-founder and executive director, Peter Knights. “Thanks again for the generous donation from Jeffrey Epstein in 2013,” the email began.

A month later, in February 2014, following the launch of new public awareness campaigns in London aimed at ending the illegal trade in wildlife products such as rhino horn and ivory, Baker emailed again. “With thanks for the generous support from Jeffrey Epstein and Enhanced Education, we launched our two newest rhino horn PSAs [public service announcements] in London yesterday,” he wrote.

The correspondence shows that after Epstein’s donation had been received, WildAid officials credited his support in connection with campaign activity and publicity involving senior royals and other high-profile figures. It referred to media coverage of campaign events attended by William and other WildAid ambassadors, including film star Jackie Chan. Epstein and his team were encouraged to share the coverage, which also included an extract from a speech by Charles, then Prince of Wales, praising the charity’s work.

Prince William, now 43, worked with WildAid on efforts to combat the illegal wildlife trade during this period. He appeared in filmed public service announcements alongside David Beckham and the Chinese basketball star Yao Ming in 2013, and carried out related engagements in 2014 and 2015.

WildAid said the donation from Epstein was unsolicited and publicly disclosed in its annual accounts. “No member of WildAid’s staff or leadership ever met with Enhanced Education, Mr Epstein or any of Mr Epstein’s representatives,” a spokesperson said.

Kensington Palace said the correspondence was “a matter for WildAid and isn’t something we’d comment on”. The palace declined to comment on whether any checks were carried out on WildAid’s donors or financial background.

Joe Little, managing editor of Majesty magazine, said he would have expected rigorous checks to have been carried out before William became an ambassador, but expressed surprise that the charity accepted Epstein’s donation and then sought to engage him further. “That’s where the failure in due diligence has occurred, I’d have thought,” he said. “Lessons should definitely be learned from all of this.”

[From The i Paper]

I started out thinking “well, so Epstein donated, maybe they had no idea.” But then I got to the “Thanks again for the generous donation from Jeffrey Epstein in 2013” email!!! This was all happening in 2013-2015, and no one at WildAid said “hey, wait, this donor’s name sounds familiar, let me double-check something?” Keep in mind, by 2014, even Norway’s Crown Princess Mette-Marit had apparently stopped sending friendly emails to Epstein because by then, EVERYONE KNEW WHO HE WAS. Now, is this William’s fault? Eh. Yes, he was the patron. But his laziness is his excuse – why would he look into a patronage’s donor list? Although one could argue that this is bad staff work from William’s team. Still, this looks much worse for WildAid and their team, although it would certainly be interesting to see who knew what and when across the board.

Also: William hasn’t been seen all week. He either took the week off in preparation for his big-boy trip to Saudi Arabia next week, or he’s undercover because of all of the Epstein stuff.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

31 Responses to “Jeffrey Epstein donated $50K to Prince William’s patronage in 2013-14”

  1. StillDouchesOfCambridge says:

    Ok, so this is possibly the beginning of the end. The crisis manager is in place, he has his new house. Let’s wait and see what’s really in the files.

  2. sunniside up says:

    Oh dear! What was Epstein after. He couldn’t have be silly enough to expect a knighthood after prison.

  3. Magdalena says:

    Yeh. This isn’t even the TIP of the iceberg. Epstein wasn’t just a “financier”, he and Maxwell collected vast amounts of photographic evidence and e-mail chains to hold over the heads of all of his network if he needed to call in favours in the future. And we now hear that he also “investigated” many with whom he came into contact and banked that evidence as well. I suspect that there is more to come out about William in this drip-drip-drip of articles about the current dump, or future dumps of articles. And *that’s* really why he needed a crisis manager (there’s no suggestion that they knew… my FOOT). They all knew, and jumped onto the gravy train, and aided and abetted Epstein.

    Notice how only certain photographs are being reported on? Pretty sure that many other photographs were released. But we know that UK media have vested interests in protecting certain members of the royal family AND in holding back explosive material until it suits them – and even then, they are the ones who decide which narrative to run with when the material gets released.

    What did that journalist tweet years ago? “My God, I can’t wait until we can talk about William freely…” Hm.

    That crisis manager must be working overtime at the moment… and KP is definitely looking into how to use the ones thriving overseas as scapegoats for whatever else remains to come out.

    • JT says:

      Was that the same journalist who said that knowing the truth about William would make your eyes bleed?

      • Magdalena says:

        I think so, but I’m not sure (I’m trying to picture the header photo in my head). These were two separate tweets, but I think it may indeed have been the same journalist.

      • Neeve says:

        I am trying to think what would be a shocker st this point for any of them. Has to be something pretty severe and on video.

      • Nick G says:

        The first was journalist Jonathan Dean, not sure about the second.

      • Becks1 says:

        no, it was two different journalists. the one who made the comment about reporting freely on William was, IIRC, a Financial Times reporter based in China. Something along those lines? So that was why that tweet carried so much weight, it seemed so random.

        The eyes bleeding one was from someone more connected to the rota I think.

      • Lady Esther says:

        IIRC one of the journalists was Scottish and he specifically referenced the superinjunction in place in England (but apparently not Scotland) protecting William

  4. ThatGirlThere says:

    Perverts of a feather and all that. Anyone connected to that deviant after his 2008 sex trafficking charge really has no excuse. They were rapping CHILDREN. If he is found to have had more involvement with that man then he should be moved from the line of succession.

  5. Shiela Kerr says:

    Based on how that family aided and abetted Andrew for so many years, for me this is not surprising. As mentioned, there is probably more to come

    • Hypocrisy says:

      I truthfully figured both he and his father would be in those documents not necessarily for the trafficking but for something, they like that blood money far to much and if someone is handing out cash 💰 they don’t care where it comes from until they are exposed.

  6. Wow the network of men around the world are in this in one way or another. They either used the victims or were taking donations or were taking loans from the human trafficker! No wonder a crisis manager was hired. The Windsors knew what Epstein was and they did “business” with him anyway by excepting donations!

  7. Amy Bee says:

    Given that he’s such a lightweight I think William’s preparing for his visit to Saudi. The Waleses usually take the week off before an overseas trip. As for this donation, William was in a figurehead role and wouldn’t have been involved in the day to day running of the organization so I don’t blame him for this. But Wildaid should have done their due diligence and not accepted the money. However getting a rich American to donate was probably seen as a feather on their cap. The British may hate Americans but they love their money.

  8. lady digby says:

    Last week Wilbur only did one event and the official Royal diary only has him visiting Saudi starting 9-11 February so once again FK is hardly working.I am sure Wilbur’s people have prepared a statement for him if asked about his uncle? Something along the lines of, “We are very much NOT a paedo loving family!” Too awkward if he’s then presented with a photo of him in a Coldplay tight embrace with either Mandleson or Epstein!

  9. Brassy Rebel says:

    I have said and will keep saying that one reason Charles has treated Andrew so gingerly is because the whole family is compromised. If not with Epstein, then with other creeps.

    • Me at home says:

      What’s interesting to me is that this iPaper isn’t afraid to throw mud at Willy, including Epstein mud. Agree with a few others here that Willy had a fairly superficial relationship with WildAid, although his staff should have checked out their donors—that’s part of their job description. But I’m here for the mud-slinging at Willy and hope it will continue.

  10. Jais says:

    Drip drip.

  11. Tessa says:

    321 the keens will have another happy family shampoo commercial to deflect plus the announcement of George’s school plans

  12. Talie says:

    Yeah on this, I don’t think William is personally combing through donors and writing any letters – he’s just told where to sign or someone stamps his name. I still wonder about the crisis manager – maybe a bigger shoe will drop with this Epstein mess? Or maybe it is about Harry being in Britain more. I guess we’ll know soon enough.

  13. YankeeDoodles says:

    A few years ago Royal Foibles’ blog reported that his nickname amongst other students on his gap year programme was, “Princess.” Make of that what you will.

  14. Lyra says:

    I hope they release the rest soon. Not surprising, that’s why they wanted to deflect so much

  15. lady digby says:

    Are the RF subject to any formal code of conduct or obliged to declare a register of interests? Or is it just “help yourself, you are SO special, you are entitled to only the best?” Who has Wilbur and wife, ahem, accepted freebie holidays off for example?

  16. Al says:

    Drip…drip…drip – slowly. Karma is working…slowly.

    At first, I thought the crisis manager was related to the leaked video of the co-parenting. Now, I think it’s about what’s in those E files and the further damage it may pose to the royal institution. I am here for it and I hope it is damages them beyond repair.

  17. Becks1 says:

    So on its face, of course the donation isn’t William’s fault. He was an ambassador, it wasnt like this was the Royal Foundation or something. But given what we know of the royals, do we think he would have turned down an Epstein donation to the Royal Foundation even in 2013 or 2014? of course not.

    And the timing is what stands out to me as so problematic – this was years after it was known what he was doing, there was no longer any plausible deniability here. Maybe WildAid doesnt have the resources to vet all of its donations or something, but those emails asking to set up meetings with Epstein and the charity heads are still……well, someone should have known better.

    But of course, the big elephant in the room here is…..just imagine if this was Meghan or Harry (but especially Meghan.)

  18. Mightymolly says:

    We know Epstein doesn’t just donate out the goodness of his heart, so it was calculated to put Willy in a comprising position? IDK I guess I don’t believe that large donations aren’t vetted for this exact reason.

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment