It’s not every day that the inner workings of Britain’s royal finances are thrust into the limelight, but the past weeks have seen just that. On October 29, 2025, Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) formally raised the alarm over Prince Andrew’s long-standing lease of Royal Lodge, a sprawling 30-room mansion on the Windsor Estate. The PAC’s move is more than a rare political intervention; it’s a public airing of deepening concerns about whether the lease agreement for the embattled royal’s residence is truly delivering value for money, especially now that the prince has stepped away from his royal duties and surrendered his titles.
The PAC, Parliament’s financial watchdog, delivered a pointed letter to both the Treasury and the Crown Estate, the independent body that manages royal properties on behalf of the monarch. The committee, chaired by Conservative MP Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, demanded detailed explanations about the rationale behind Prince Andrew’s lease and the terms that have allowed him to live in such grandeur for what many see as a nominal fee. The committee gave both the Treasury and the Crown Estate until November 28 to respond—a deadline that has only added to the sense of urgency and scrutiny surrounding the matter.
At the heart of the issue is the lease Prince Andrew signed in 2003, which granted him 75 years at Royal Lodge. According to the National Audit Office and Crown Estate figures reported by BBC News, the prince paid approximately £5 million for renovations, £2.5 million in advance rent, a £1 million premium, and an additional £2.5 million for further renovations. These upfront payments, totaling over £8 million, were effectively intended to buy out future rent obligations for the duration of the lease, based on a notional annual rent of £260,000. Yet, in practice, Prince Andrew has paid only a so-called “peppercorn rent”—an almost symbolic amount, and in some years, perhaps not even that.
As GB News and other British outlets have noted, this arrangement means the prince has enjoyed the comforts of Royal Lodge—complete with a gardener’s cottage, a Chapel Lodge, a six-bedroom cottage, and security accommodations—while shouldering very little in ongoing rental costs. The property itself, a Grade II-listed mansion, was previously home to the Queen Mother until her death in 2002. Prince Andrew moved in the following year and has remained there ever since, even as his public role and reputation have undergone seismic shifts.
But what has really prompted this latest round of scrutiny? According to BBC News, public interest has surged not only because Prince Andrew is no longer a working royal, but also due to “serious and disturbing allegations made against him.” His associations with the late Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted U.S. sex offender, have cast a long shadow. In a particularly damaging revelation, it emerged that Prince Andrew hosted Epstein at Royal Lodge in 2006 as part of his daughter Beatrice’s birthday celebrations—a full two months after a U.S. arrest warrant had been issued for Epstein for the sexual assault of a minor. The prince has always denied any wrongdoing, but the optics are, to say the least, troubling.
In his letter, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown was blunt: “There is considerable and understandable public interest in the spending of public money in relation to Prince Andrew, which in part stems from the fact that he is no longer a working royal and from serious and disturbing allegations made against him.” He continued, “We are therefore concerned as to whether the lease arrangements for Royal Lodge are, in light of recent developments and changes in the responsibilities of Prince Andrew, achieving the best value for money.” The PAC’s questions didn’t stop at rent: they also asked whether any works on the property had been funded by the taxpayer and what steps the Crown Estate intends to take to ensure value for money in any future agreements with Prince Andrew.
Traditionally, Parliament has steered clear of direct criticism of the royal family, but as Reuters and BBC News point out, this intervention marks a significant departure from that norm. The PAC’s actions have emboldened calls from political leaders, including Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey, who has urged the committee to launch a formal inquiry and even ask Prince Andrew to give evidence about his lease. While nothing prevents a House of Commons committee from inviting a royal to testify, such an appearance would be unprecedented and fraught with constitutional and political implications.
Adding fuel to the fire, reports have surfaced—cited by GB News—that King Charles offered Prince Andrew the smaller Frogmore Cottage earlier this year, apparently in response to concerns about the cost of maintaining Royal Lodge. Prince Andrew, for his part, is said to be in discussions with royal representatives about the possibility of leaving the property voluntarily, though there is uncertainty about where he and his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, might go next. Buckingham Palace has declined to comment on these reports, and Prince Andrew himself has not responded to recent requests for comment.
The Crown Estate, for its part, has so far remained silent on the PAC’s letter. A Treasury spokesperson told BBC News, “The Crown Estate is an organisation independent of both the government and the monarch. We will respond to Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown in due course.” The committee’s inquiry is likely to put pressure on both the Crown Estate and the Treasury to justify arrangements that, in the eyes of many, seem increasingly out of step with public expectations—especially when it comes to the stewardship of assets that are, in a sense, held in trust for the nation.
The scrutiny comes at a time when the royal family is under broader examination regarding its finances and public role. The PAC’s intervention may well mark a turning point in how Parliament approaches the question of royal entitlements and accountability. As Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown noted, the Crown Estate must manage its holdings “according to the best consideration of money or money’s worth which in their opinion can be reasonably obtained.” Whether the current arrangement with Prince Andrew meets that standard is now firmly in the spotlight.
As the November 28 deadline approaches, all eyes will be on the responses from the Treasury and the Crown Estate. The outcome could have significant implications for Prince Andrew—and, perhaps, for the future of royal property management in the United Kingdom.
