As calls mount for an ethics review of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie’s finances, their extensive catalogue of designer pieces has come under fresh scrutiny.
Throughout their lives in the spotlight, both women have remained loyal to a handful of high-end brands, with Beatrice, 37, favouring British designer Emilia Wickstead, while Eugenie, 35, has frequently shown a liking for Peter Pilotto.
While the girls have often faced ridicule over their fashion choices, particularly Beatrice’s unconventional ‘pretzel hat’ at William and Kate’s wedding, it doesn’t mean these outfits came cheap.
According to stylist Lisa Talbot, some of their most garish ensembles would have cost as much as £8,000, begging the question of how they were paid for or if they accepted freebies – which is not the done thing in the Royal Family.
For instance, the King pays for The Princess of Wales‘s wardrobe so that there can be no question of bribery or favouritism.
However, Beatrice and Eugenie are not working royals and their uncle will certainly not have paid for their bulging designer wardrobes.
It comes after The Mail on Sunday discovered that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor pushed for his daughters to receive £100,000 in secret payments from a controversial billionaire.
Meanwhile, Prince William is said to have desperately urged his cousins to allow an ‘ethics’ check on their finances and investments – a plea which the two girls allegedly ignored.
When Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie attended the wedding of the now Prince and Princess of Wales in 2011, their fashion choices, particularly Beatrice’s unconventional ‘pretzel hat’, faced public ridicule
When Beatrice and Eugenie attended the wedding of the now Prince and Princess of Wales in 2011, their fashion choices, particularly Beatrice’s unconventional ‘pretzel hat’, faced public ridicule.
Analysing their questionable yet costly looks, Ms Talbot told The Daily Mail: ‘Princess Beatrice’s pale blush coat dress by Valentino paired with her dramatic fascinator by Philip Treacy quickly became one of the most talked-about looks of the day.
‘A couture Valentino coat dress alone could easily sit in the region of £3,000 to £5,000, and a bespoke Philip Treacy hat would likely start at around £2,000 and go up depending on the craftsmanship involved.
‘Once you add designer shoes and accessories, the overall value of the outfit would likely be in the region of £6,000 to £8,000.’
Eugenie, meanwhile, also opted for a designer-led tailored look by Vivienne Westwood, fit with ‘luxury accessories’.
‘When you add in a couture style dress or jacket, statement millinery and designer shoes, an outfit like that could comfortably reach somewhere between £4,000 and £7,000,’ she explained.
However, while expensive, their outfit choices attracted global attention for rather the wrong reasons – with Beatrice’s ‘pretzel hat’ mocked relentlessly on a mass scale.
A Facebook page titled ‘Beatrice’s ridiculous Royal Wedding hat’ attracted nearly 142,000 likes, while several cartoons and viral mock-ups were created in response – comparing the princess to a pretzel or a Turkey Twizzler.
Beatrice arrived festooned with colourful butterflies at the wedding of Peter Phillips to Autumn Kelly in 2008
Yet while their royal wedding looks may not have been publicly well received, the princesses’ ‘formula’ of lavish spending did not waver as they continually opted for high-end pieces, like when at the Investec Derby Festival on June 1, 2013.
Eugenie opted for a designer Vivienne Westwood silk dress teamed with a Sarah Cant couture hat. Her sister wore a statement burgundy hat with a black and white polka dot dress.
Ms Talbot estimates that the ‘polished race day look by either princess could easily total between £3,000 and £6,000’.
She explained: ‘Royal event dressing often involves beautiful tailoring, luxury fabrics and specialist millinery, which naturally pushes the cost of an outfit into the thousands.
‘When you add hats, shoes and accessories, it’s easy to see how a single appearance at a high-profile event can represent several thousand pounds’ worth of fashion.’
Elsewhere, Beatrice turned heads at Peter Phillips’s wedding to Autumn Kelly in 2008 when she turned up with a flight of colourful butterflies adorning her head.
Ms Talbot said: ‘The butterfly headpiece Princess Beatrice wore to Peter Phillips’ wedding was another dramatic design by Philip Treacy.
‘Pieces like this are essentially couture millinery handcrafted and highly detailed, so a hat like this would likely be valued in the region of £1,500 to £3,000, depending on the level of craftsmanship.’
However, she noted that, in some cases, the princesses’ ‘clothes, accessories and outfits may not have been purchased but lent in return for PR’.
Andrew, Eugenie and Beatrice attend Derby Day of the Investec Derby Festival at Epsom Racecourse on June 1, 2013
Speculation about how the two princesses funded their extravagant wardrobes came as royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams questioned how Beatrice in particular funded her ‘ridiculously expensive’ lifestyle given her financial situation at the time.
In 2015, the princess was said to have enjoyed 17 holidays in 2015 while earning a salary of £19,500 as an ‘international production analyst’ at Sony Pictures.
Sources close to the princesses said they had no recollection of the alleged payments. They are said to have requested their historic banking records.
While her endless holidaying drew scrutiny at the time, questions of how Beatrice could afford these trips were largely left unanswered.
Speaking to The Daily Mail, Mr Fitzwilliams noted that her salary ‘would not go far, while her lifestyle was obviously ridiculously excessive’.
‘It now seems clear that their father’s dodgy business deals when Special Trade Envoy, and their mother’s alleged financial dependence on Jeffrey Epstein, could have been pivotal to her life of luxury,’ he added.
‘Beatrice was able to live it up,’ Mr Fitzwilliams said, ‘but now we wonder at whose expense?’
Those closest to the princess, however, insisted most of the funding came from her parents – but the release of the Epstein Files has now raised separate concerns about Andrew and Fergie’s finances.
Epstein complained to friends about the disgraced ex-duchess’s scrounging ways in messages that suggest he bankrolled Fergie for 15 years.
But now, new messages detail how Andrew discussed with Jonathan Rowland, then chief executive of Banque Havilland, the apparent transfer of money to him and his two daughters in June 2011.
They suggest that Andrew was expecting to receive a payment of £300,000 from David Rowland, of which Beatrice and Eugenie would each receive £50,000.
MPs are now demanding to know whether the payments were made in return for Andrew’s help in pushing the Rowlands’ commercial ventures.
They would then apparently each invest half of their sum in Jellybook, an investment firm Jonathan Rowland had just launched, which was focused on bankrolling social media companies.
The leaked messages suggest Andrew was first due to receive £50,000, which he would apparently invest in Jellybook.
He was then expecting to be paid the remaining £150,000, plus an additional £100,000, to an account with the private bank Drummonds, the messages suggest.
The revelations also throw a spotlight on the degree to which the two princesses have also been tarnished by their father’s alleged improprieties.
In response to the ensuing revelations, Labour MP Karl Turner said: ‘This latest revelation is worrying. It is known that Mountbatten-Windsor had an association with the Rowlands and this friendship existed at the time when he was a trade envoy for the UK.
‘Questions are bound to be asked if that association helped to further enrich his kids. We must surely see an inquiry into whether the payments for the princesses were made in return for the disgraced former prince’s help in pushing the Rowlands’ commercial interests.’
Shadow business minister Harriett Baldwin added: ‘We must get to the bottom of these allegations at once. If true, this would be a clear example of him being unable to distinguish between private affairs and his public role.’
Royal author Andrew Lownie said: ‘This raises serious questions for the two princesses. Did they receive this money and was the source David Rowland?
‘If so, was it because their father had pushed Rowland’s business interests and therefore abused his position as trade envoy? It is time for the princesses and their father to come clean.’
