The Royal family's headache: luxurious homes costing £56 a week

Prince Andrew, the younger sibling of the King, seems to attract trouble wherever he goes. Each revelation about his actions, finances, or social circle risks pulling apart the fabric of the Royal familys public image. Recently, attention has shifted to the properties the family occupies.

Earlier this year, it came to light that Andrew was paying a nominal rent for his grand Windsor Estate residence. He has since given up his lease at Royal Lodge and is expected to relocate to Sandringham next year. The incident exposed to the public that certain royals benefit from extremely low rents on properties owned by the Crown Estatea property portfolio under the monarch's ownership but independently managed. Profits from the Crown Estate go to the Treasury in exchange for funding the Royal familys public work, and its holdings number in the hundreds.

The Crown Estate holds a vast number of properties, most of which the public has been unaware of, explains Ingrid Seward, a royal biographer. Andrews situation has highlighted potential complications for the way the family occupies these homes.

Parliaments public accounts committee plans to investigate Crown Estate leasing arrangements early next year. Attention has already turned to residences like Bagshot Park, the Duke and Duchess of Edinburghs 120-room Surrey estate with 50 acres. The couple moved there in 1999, paying 5,000 annually, and renewed their lease in 2007 with a 5 million payment. Their agreement allows residence for 150 years. The effective annual cost decreases over time, far below market value, representing a notable loss in potential revenue for the public.

Norman Baker, a former MP, has criticized the system as effectively subsidizing wealthy royals. Yet others defend diligent royals like Edward and Sophie, who perform significant duties without a salary. Seward notes, The issue with Royal Lodge was Andrews inactivity, but Edward and Sophie contribute a great deal and deserve recognition.

Princess Alexandras residence, Thatched House Lodge in Richmond Park, is rented for 225 a monthroughly 56 per week. While this seems extraordinarily low, Alexandra, aged 88, has spent much of her life supporting charity and royal engagements. Royal correspondent Robert Jobson comments, She has worked tirelessly and is now elderly; increasing her rent would be unreasonable. Market rates should apply only when a property changes occupants.

Other members pay closer to market rates. King Charles pays Prince William a substantial annual sum for Highgrove, while William himself pays market rent for Forest Lodge, though not for his expansive Kensington Palace apartment. Several other royals, including Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice, and members of the Kent family, occupy sizeable apartments within palace grounds.

The intricacy of managing these estates makes them unsuitable for general rental. Seward observes, Leaving these properties empty could burden taxpayers due to the necessary security presence. Nonetheless, transparency and potential reform are increasingly discussed. Jobson notes that the public has a right to know the costs, particularly for non-working royals.

Major changes may occur under King Williams reign. Charles initially sought to reassess the allocation of Crown Estate properties, but circumstances prevented significant reform. Questions remain about whether the Estate should prioritize royal housing, public access, or maximum profitability. Certain properties, such as Royal Lodge, Frogmore Cottage, and Adelaide Cottage, could potentially be placed on the market, with careful tenant selection.

Historic precedents exist: Fort Belvedere has been privately leased since the 1980s. Still, much of the monarchys appeal stems from the grandeur of their residences, reinforcing ceremonial significance. Seward adds, Criticism often comes during times of economic strain, but many royals work hard and live disciplined lives. The least we can do is allow them beautiful homes.

Author: Sophia Brooks