By all accounts, The Anti-Slavery Collective's inaugural 'Force For Freedom' gala in November 2023 was a glittering and hugely successful affair.
After a gourmet dinner, well-heeled guests were serenaded by pop star Ed Sheeran and took part in an auction hosted by Sotheby's chair Lord Dalmeny, the Earl of Rosebery.
In a keynote speech to the assembled, which included her mother, Sarah Ferguson, older sister Princess Beatrice, cousin Zara Tindall, singer James Blunt and former PM Theresa May, charity trustee Princess Eugenie declared that 'tonight is about raising funds and awareness and elevating the noise level on modern slavery'.
By the end of the evening, The Anti-Slavery Collective (TASC), which was co-founded by Eugenie in 2017 to raise awareness of modern slavery and sex trafficking, had raised a hefty £1 million for its highly-commendable cause.
Two-and-a-half years on, however, and with the bulk of that money - £650,000 - still sitting in a fixed-term deposit account, there are concerns over the charity's 'disproportionate' spending on administrative costs versus its impact, with nearly £200,000 paid to staff to manage less than £100,000 in charitable programmes last year.
Despite claims that the gala had enabled it to 'scale up our operations', TASC spent only £11,436 on its charitable programmes in 2024 and, in 2025, just £97,206. This week, the Charity Commission confirmed it was 'assessing concerns' about 'charitable spending' at Eugenie's charity.
But that news came hot on the heels of a shock announcement from another charity, Anti-Slavery International, that Eugenie's seven-year role as its patron 'has come to an end'.
No reason was given but a royal source has told the Daily Mail that the 35-year-old mother of two was 'allowed to look as if she was stepping down, although she was given no choice'.
The end of her patronage comes amid mounting pressure on both the York princesses to speak up about their disgraced parents' dealings with the late US financier Jeffrey Epstein and, now, their links to David Rowland, a controversial billionaire friend of their father, who was once described in Parliament as a 'shady financier' - as revealed by The Mail on Sunday last weekend.
There are signs, too, that the princesses are being frozen out by the rest of the Royal Family - and barred from its illustrious calendar of public events.
Once regular guests in the Royal Box at Ascot, the sisters have reportedly been 'banned' from this year's event in June and will not appear with the King and his inner royal circle in the traditional carriage procession.
This week, they were also notably absent from the Cheltenham Festival. The Daily Mail understands that they are unlikely to be seen, either, at this summer's Trooping the Colour, Chelsea Flower Show or Wimbledon Championships.
The King, having hoped to protect his nieces from the fall-out from their parents' disgrace, is now apparently distancing himself from them.
His loss of patience comes, it is understood, after the princesses declined his offer of help from one of his senior advisers to ensure that their reputations were not tainted by the sins of their avaricious parents.
The Prince of Wales, as I revealed last November, called for his cousins, neither of whom receive money from the Sovereign Grant, to allow an 'ethics' check on their finances.
This request was rebuffed, the Daily Mail was told, a move which is said to have deeply frustrated him at the time.
'Beatrice and Eugenie are particularly vulnerable at the moment,' says the Daily Mail's royal source. 'As they are dragged further into the Epstein web, the King is shifting his stance on the girls' future. Although they aren't implicated in any of Epstein's wrongdoings, their own association with him threatens to tarnish the reputation of the throne.'
Now, with growing calls among MPs for public scrutiny of the York family's wealth, the pressure on the princesses is only set to intensify.
Last week, The Mail on Sunday revealed how the ex-Prince Andrew pushed for his daughters to receive £100,000 - £50,000 each - in secret payments from David Rowland, whose business interests he allegedly helped promote while working as the UK's trade envoy.
Sources close to the princesses said they had no recollection of the alleged payments from Rowland. The princesses were said last week to have requested their historic banking records.
A week on, they have not yet confirmed or denied if they were paid, but it would not be the first time that Beatrice and Eugenie have received gifts from their parents' friends.
'With MPs set to start looking into royal finances, soon things could get worse,' says the royal source. 'Having acted quite brutally against Andrew, courtiers will have no compunction in moving against Beatrice and Eugenie if the King authorises it.'
If the princesses hoped to weather the storm which saw their parents stripped of their titles last October, then the cold winds of fortune are now blowing their way.
'Both girls are very highly strung and emotional,' says the royal source.
'Beatrice is trying to come to terms with it matter-of-factly although can't help bursting into tears regularly—not for her father but for the implosion of her own world and especially the family's cold shoulder. Her royal status means more to her than Eugenie.'
Meanwhile, adds the source,Eugenie 'has apparently gone into denial—fingers in the ears, head in the sand,hoping it will all go away'.
But being linked to David Rowland has only dragged the princesses' names further into the foray.
Royal author Andrew Lownie, who spent years investigating the Yorks for his biography Entitled , says this latest revelation raised 'serious questions' for both princesses. He added: 'It's time for the princesses and their father to come clean.'
As their father's close friend, David Rowland was certainly well known to the princesses. He had a front-row seat at Princess Eugenie's 2018 wedding to Jack Brooksbank. He was previously brought as a guest by Andrew to Balmoral where he had tea with the late Queen and Charles.
'For some time, courting Andrew usually meant you had to charm the daughters too,' says the royal source.
As teenagers,the Daily Mail can now reveal,the sisters also met him at a grand party held by their father in 2005 to show off his recently completed £7.5 million refurbishments at Royal Lodge to a select group of friends. ‘Beatrice and Eugenie acted as hosts,’ says the royal source.
While the princesses cannot be blamed for how they were raised, they are now adults. Their decision to remain silent on the misdemeanours of their parents is becoming increasingly problematic particularly for Eugenie who appears to be struggling to reconcile her charity work with her father's scandal.
For while calling others 'to action' on issues such as modern slavery and sex trafficking,she has so far declined to comment about her father's involvement with Virginia Giuffre who claimed she was trafficked by Epstein to London to have sex with Andrew.
Her silence is in stark contrast to the stance taken by the Queen who has become increasingly outspoken on matters of women's welfare. This week,Camilla marked International Women's Day with a speech supporting survivors of sexual violence.
Ingrid Seward,royal biographer and editor in chief of Majesty Magazine,says that Beatrice and Eugenie are in a 'no-win' position. 'Speaking out could make things worse for them.I've no doubt they've been advised to lie low and keep out of the way,'she says.
'The King was always very fond of his nieces but at the moment it won't look good for the monarchy to be supporting them in public.'
What the future holds for them both remains to be seen but the weeks ahead will be crucial.The Daily Mail understands that there are discussions between No 10 and the Palace as to whether Andrew should be removed from the line of succession.
According to the royal source，there is a 'growing feeling that it should be a block expulsion' and 'there will inevitably be calls for the princesses to lose their HRH titles'.Signs that the sisters are being airbrushed from royal life，says the source，'suggest that things aren't going their way'.