At last, we know why Fergie, Mandelson, Prince Andrew and others fell for Epstein’s ‘Hannibal Lecter’ charm

Poor old Fergie. Having lost so much of her reputation, been involved in so many scandals, been divorced, banned, cancelled, sacked, fooled, defrauded, made fortunes, squandered fortunes, loved, lost, sued and been sued probably more times than any human being alive – I bet you can’t name one – she’s now lost most of her remaining charity gigs.

As is made perfectly clear by Andrew Lownie in Entitled, the unremittingly harsh new biography of her and Prince Andrew, her former husband, she has mostly been the architect of her own misfortunes. But the latest story, about Jeffrey Epstein, feels especially poignant.

That’s because her historical association with him, yet another unwise friendship, has led to her being summarily rejected from doing something unequivocally positive – using her celebrity to do some good, by sponsoring charities. These are surprisingly large in number, for those of us who’d assumed she was pretty idle these days: The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, Prevent Breast Cancer, the Teenage Cancer Trust, the British Heart Foundation, The Children’s Literacy Charity and National Foundation for Retired Service Animals. Given that charity work is one of the few useful functions for a former member of the royal family, the Duchess of York was at least doing something right.

Even Sarah Ferguson’s most vociferous critics, Lownie included, give her credit for her big heart and quixotically generous ways with those in need, to the extent of causing her personal financial damage, which she could ill afford. She may be vain, foolish, greedy, even avaricious – but unlike Epstein, and so many who hung around with him, it is hard to categorise her as outright evil.

So why, as we now learn, did she describe him back in 2011, with lavish, camp abandon, as a “steadfast, generous and supreme friend” to her and her family? Why did she “humbly apologise” for what she had recently said about him, regretting she’d ever met him, and telling Epstein that she was so sorry he would "feel hellaciously let down by me"?

Because she was terrified that he’d sue her for associating him with paedophilia, and “destroy” her and her family, according to her spokesperson’s account of events given today. Epstein rang her up, in “Hannibal Lecter” mode: “It was a chilling call, and I’m surprised anybody was ever friends with him, given the way he talked to me. He said he would destroy the York family, and he was quite clear on that. He said he would destroy me. He wasn’t shouting. He had a Hannibal Lecter-type voice. It was very cold and calm and really menacing and nasty.”

Now, you might say that the Duchess should at that point have told Epstein to buzz off, given he’d already pleaded guilty to, and been convicted of, two counts of violating state laws against soliciting prostitution and soliciting a minor for prostitution. He had served 13 months in prison. There were plenty of accusations. A competent lawyer would have advised her that he didn’t have a case and was probably bluffing. She could have fought the lawsuit.

But it is also true that, faced with an attack from a man who could afford the best lawyers, she might have lost the case on the basis of some quirk of the law. It’s at least possible that, skint as ever, she judged that it would be best to send a private grovelling message she never meant, just to stop him prosecuting – and persecuting – her, in a court case that, even if she were confident of ultimate victory, could drag on for years and would bankrupt her, yet again.

I don’t know what was going through the Duchess of York’s head some 14 years ago, but she’d just emerged from the “fake sheikh” sting in which she had been entrapped by a News of the World reporter pretending to be a rich Arab potentate, to whom she had promised an introduction to Prince Andrew for some £500,000. Epstein had, reportedly, given her £15,000 to pay off a former employee and stave off bankruptcy.

So she was probably stressed. At any rate, she’s just hit a new low, and one can’t help feeling a bit sorry for her. As I say, she’s messed up so many times, some of it has to be her own fault – the world is just not that malign. She was hardly alone in falling for Epstein’s insidious charms, but her personal links seem to have been principally via Prince Andrew and rather more tenuous than most, basically just the money stuff.

That she, a woman who didn’t spend much time with Epstein, should now be bracketed forevermore with Andrew, Peter Mandelson and others with closer relationships – and that she should now be suffering equal ignominy – feels very unfair. Tragic, really. But who’s ever going to give Fergie a break?