👀 “A LOOK HIDING A SECRET…”: Princess Eugenie was seen sharing a warm embrace with Zara Tindall’s daughter Mia as she arrived alongside Princess Beatrice at Peter Phillips and Harriet Sperling’s intimate Cotswolds wedding — but it was Eugenie’s subtle, almost unreadable glance and quiet knowing smile in that fleeting moment that has left royal watchers wondering what she might have been concealing…

Princess Eugenie joyfully embraced Zara Tindall’s daughter Mia as she and Princess Beatrice arrived at Peter Phillips and Harriet Sperling’s ‘intimate wedding’ in the Cotswolds.

The daughters of disgraced ex-duke, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, were all smiles at the ceremony despite an ‘outrageous’ report revealing this week they have been secretly subsidised for years by their grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, and now by their uncle, King Charles.

The sisters have never personally paid a penny in rent, despite living in exclusive properties at Kensington Palace and St James’s Palace for nearly two decades.

Princess Eugenie, who was wearing an all-navy outfit with a matching hat, threw her arm around Mia outside All Saints Church in Gloucestershire where Peter and Harriet’s nuptials took place.

The 12-year-old daughter of Zara and Mike Tindall was Eugenie’s bridesmaid when she tied the knot with her husband Jack Brooksbank in 2018.

Princess Beatrice, who donned a green and white dress printed dress and an Alice band, was also in attendance with her husband Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi.

Earlier, she received a kiss on the cheek from Prince William who was at the ceremony alongside his wife Catherine, Princess of Wales.

However, despite the two sisters appearing to be firmly back in the fold at the wedding, their father Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was reportedly not invited amid the fallout over his friendship with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

During the ceremony, NHS nurse Harriet was walked down the aisle by her brother Nicholas in honour of their late father Mr Rupert Sanders.

She teamed her stunning wedding dress, featuring a square neckline and lace detailing, with Jimmy Choo shoes and Pragnell earrings.

Her hair was kept in an elegant bun to best showcase the shimmering tiara she wore.

The service was led by the Reverend Dr Steve Bullock of All Saints Parish Church, with the marriage blessing and address by the Reverend Nicky Gumbel.

Guests included the bride and grooms parents and siblings, such as Peter’s half-sister Stephanie Hosier with her husband William, and Peter and Stephanie’s father Captain Mark Phillips, the ex husband of Princess Anne.

However, one member of the Royal Family noticeably absent from the celebrations was the groom’s cousin, Prince Harry.

The Montecito-based Duke of Sussex, 41, is said to have ‘not spoken in years’ to Peter, and sources say the presence of his estranged brother, Prince William, at the event will also inevitably have played a part.

This week, the cosy deals from which both Beatrice and Eugenie benefited from in relation to their residences were laid bare by a National Audit Office report.

It revealed the two princesses, who perform no royal duties, have been secretly subsidised for years, not only by their grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, but now by their uncle King Charles III.

Sources said the arrangement for Beatrice and Eugenie was put in place during the late monarch’s reign, who was very fond of her granddaughters, and the King had agreed to honour it.

From 2008, both of the York sisters lived at St James’s Palace until Eugenie moved to Ivy Cottage on the grounds of Kensington Palace in 2018.

Eugenie, 38, now divides her time between her £3.6million Portuguese home and London, boasting a star-studded list of neighbours, including fashion designer Christian Louboutin as well as F1 racing drivers.

Meanwhile, her sister Beatrice, 37, stayed at her apartment, which she shares with her high-flying property developer husband Edo Mapelli Mozzi and their family, whilst also owning a multi-million pound home in the Cotswolds.

Both rents, the report reveals, are paid to the Royal Household entirely by Charles out of the Privy Purse, which is made up of his Duchy of Lancaster income and other private funds. No taxpayer money was involved.

However, the homes are situated in occupied royal palaces, which are maintained by public funding via the Sovereign Grant, which was effectively reimbursed by the monarch on their behalf.

And for a number of years, their adjusted rents – reduced because the Royal Household properties require tenants with security clearance – were based on out-of-date open market valuations, as were others.

Some of the properties were dramatically under market value, with the report finding that not even a self-imposed 60 per cent rule was always followed.

However, they were not the only royals to face scrutiny, with other revelations, such as their father being allowed to let three properties on his leased Windsor Estate to staff for a potential profit, being lambasted as ‘outrageous’.

Shamed Andrew may also be entitled to more than £300,000 in ‘compensation’ from the Crown Estate after he was booted out of the Royal Lodge after paying ‘peppercorn’ rent for over two decades before the end of his 75-year lease.

The 66-year-old was kicked out of the Grade-II listed mansion by his monarch brother after being stripped of his Prince title over his friendship with paedophile financier, Jeffrey Epstein, which emerged. Andrew has denied any wrongdoing.

But his daughters were not the only royals to benefit from subsidised rent, as Prince and Princess Michael of Kent have long enjoyed a sovereign-subsidised arrangement at a luxurious apartment in Kensington Palace.

The NAO report, which was sparked amid revelations that Andrew was paying ‘peppercorn rent’ at the Royal Lodge, is factual but does not seek to examine value for money.

However, a number of questions are likely to be raised over its contents by MPs in the next few months.

Former Liberal Democrat minister Norman Baker, who has long been a critic of royal finances, said: ‘The whole thing is outrageous. If you look at Andrew, this is adding insult to injury.

‘It shows an absolute total contempt for the taxpayer. The money should have gone to the Crown Estate, not into [his] pockets.’

He said of Beatrice and Eugenie: ‘There’s no way that non-working members of the Royal Family should be subsidised by the Duchy of Lancaster. The Royal Family is yet again taking the public for a complete ride.’

Amid the discovery, it was claimed the two sisters now ‘symbolise a rot at the heart’ of the Royal Family – alongside ‘their ‘greedy’ and ‘grifting’ parents.

Tina Brown, a friend of Princess Diana’s as well as a journalist, claimed Prince William had a dim perspective on his cousins, who she says ‘rejected’ his bid to have the activities of their firms audited.

This claim was also made by royal author Andrew Lownie.

Meanwhile, the former editor-in-chief of Tatler and Vanity Fair said the House of York has ‘come to symbolise a rot at the heart of the whole royal system, in which the monarchy’s “aura” allows its members absolute impunity’.

‘I am not in the camp that believes the two gushing York daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, should be welcome in the cleaned-up Royal ensemble,’ she said.

‘Floating around the UAE and Saudi Arabia as “cultural ambassadors” to the Middle East sounds horribly Fergie-like to me.

‘Most of the “convenings” they attend are hustle bazaars for nepo nightmares and crypto creeps hoovering around for the crumbs of sovereign wealth funds.’

In her Substack column Fresh Hell, before the NAO report dropped, she added: ”One wonders why they allegedly rejected Prince William’s request to audit their business activities to ensure there are no reputational risks.’

Taking aim at Fergie’s hunger for cash even after the Epstein scandal, she added: ‘Who in their right mind would hire a garrulous, freeloading shopaholic like Sarah Ferguson to be “brand ambassador” to grow their business.’

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: ‘We are grateful to the National Audit Office for this report, which is in line with The Royal Household’s commitment to transparency.

‘We hope that the findings will help correct, clarify or contextualise a number of points regarding royal properties.

‘As the report notes, arrangements for properties managed by the Royal Household vary based on a number of factors to ensure residences are filled appropriately, depending on their location, tenants and purpose.’

A spokesman for the Crown Estate said: ‘The Crown Estate welcomes the National Audit Office’s review which confirms its leases with members of the Royal Family were agreed in line with independent, professional advice and open market valuations.’