Royal Lodge, Windsor


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
ladongas said:
What a fine image that would be: elderly brother kicks not-so-elderly brother out of family home he’s lived in for decades.
Click to expand...

The Duke of York has a 75 year (!) lease on the Royal Lodge. That lease contract was agreed with the owner, The Crown Estate. As long as the lessee, Prince Andrew, honours his contractual obligations, the lessor will have virtually no possibility to get him "out". The Duke may have the fair expectation of using the property for 75 years at least.

It also works the other way: the 75 year lease means that the lessor may be "ensured" of 75 years of rendement on the property. This means that the lessee can not, spontaneously, end the lease.
 
Last edited:
Denville said:
we dont know what money Andrew has, its up to him and Charles to sort out wehre he lives, and if he would be better to take a smaller house.
Click to expand...

I agree, its a private matter between Andrew and his brother.
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
The Duke of York has a 75 year (!) lease on the Royal Lodge. That lease contract was agreed with the owner, The Crown Estate. As long as the lessee, Prince Andrew, honours his contractual obligations, the lessor will have virtually no possibility to get him "out". The Duke may have the fair expectation of using the property for 75 years at least.

It also works the other way: the 75 year lease means that the lessor may be "ensured" of 75 years of rendement on the property. This means that the lessee can not, spontaneously, end the lease.
Click to expand...

Security of the Prince will be the issue, not the lease.
 
I think it would make perfect sense for Andrew to swap homes with the Wales family. Best solution all round. However it doesn't look for Andrew to be forced into moving against his will, nor does it look good for the Wales family to take on a third huge mansion. AC is probably too small for them long term, but it can't be good for the children to keep moving house so often.
 
royal-blue said:
I think it would make perfect sense for Andrew to swap homes with the Wales family. Best solution all round. However it doesn't look for Andrew to be forced into moving against his will, nor does it look good for the Wales family to take on a third huge mansion. AC is probably too small for them long term, but it can't be good for the children to keep moving house so often.
Click to expand...

I don’t think it’s too small for them. They have no live in Staff anymore. It’s quite a large house despite being relatively normal sized with four bedrooms. They have a mansion in Norfolk and a very very snazzy pied de terra.

I think they are fine.

I think long term they are looking to a Norfolk to be the family home. I am sure they would be living there now if it wasn’t for the kids schooling.
 
FigTree said:
I don’t think it’s too small for them. They have no live in Staff anymore. It’s quite a large house despite being relatively normal sized with four bedrooms. They have a mansion in Norfolk and a very very snazzy pied de terra.

I think they are fine.

I think long term they are looking to a Norfolk to be the family home. I am sure they would be living there now if it wasn’t for the kids schooling.
Click to expand...

Its difficult to see how the housing situation for the Wales family evolves for the next decade or so.

> Lovely as it is, Anmer is, and will remain a holiday home. It is not where they live in term time.

> KP will remain the London home, used when in London for engagements etc. Perhaps, longer term, as King & Queen, KP will be used as their London home, and BP as the "office".

> There principal home, IMO, for the next decade or so will be on the Windsor estate. Difficult to tell if it will be AC, Royal Lodge, or if they just move into a part of Windsor Castle itself. I see now reason why they can't just use the castle as their main home now.
 
It would make a lot of sense for Andrew to take the opportunity to downsize, particularly if he could cone to a financial agreement with Charles. Andrews financial, working and social lives have all evaporated so there is no need for such a large residence any more.
 
:previous: Andrew has children with growing young families. That could also be the reason he wants to keep RL as his home....his family.
 
Last edited:
royal-blue said:
It would make a lot of sense for Andrew to take the opportunity to downsize, particularly if he could cone to a financial agreement with Charles. Andrews financial, working and social lives have all evaporated so there is no need for such a large residence any more.
Click to expand...

The logic of downsizing is impeccable. And if he were to move to a property within the Windsor secure perimeter, the cost of securing his home would also fall substantially.
 
It undeniably makes sense but Andrew is stubborn and is obviously thinking with his heart and his pride not his head and his wallet!
 
The lease on the Royal Lodge was intended to outlive Andrew. While downsizing certainly makes sense, I think a key variable is if one or both of his daughters are interested in the property and are willing and able to meet the terms of the lease.

While the bulk of her estate went to Charles, I am willing to bet that HLM left hefty bequests to her three other children where, even after taxes, they have enough to maintain their lifestyles for the rest of their lives.

What I am trying to figure out is was Andrew's income as a working royal all that substantial, and can that income be replaced? My understanding / recollection is that the monarch and Prince of Wales get funding from their respective duchies, the remaining working royals get funding for their royal work and a personal allowance from their respective patron. Andrew reportedly received an allowance of £249,000 from his mother. While that is not chump change, I suspect that there are discreet endeavors that Andrew can engage in to replace his allowance. One thought that crossed my mind is that the Royal Lodge, in and of itself, can be a source of income. My understanding is that Prince Edward is allowed to generate income from Bagshot Park, I wonder if the same is true with The Royal Lodge? Could Andrew aand his family, for example, host shooting parties or other events at the Royal Lodge?

Again, as noted above, if Andrew wants to downsize, that is understandable, especially if his daughters have no interest in the Royal Lodge, but if the Yorks want to keep the Royal Lodge for the remainder of the lease, I don't see that as unworkable, assuming that they have the competency to do so.
 
Royal Lodge is situated in Windsor Great Park. The public are able to enter every day. Entrance is free. Shoots in England are almost always held on country estates of hundreds of acres.
Below is some info on Windsor Great Park showing some of its attractions. While, obviously, the public is not allowed to roam about Prince Andrew’s property and gardens, I don’t think his land would be suitable for holding shoots somehow.

https://www.windsorgreatpark.co.uk/... is open,sessions at the Environmental Centre.

And some information about possible maintenance costs.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1780583/prince-andrew-royal-lodge-queen-s-will
 
Last edited:
tommy100 said:
It undeniably makes sense but Andrew is stubborn and is obviously thinking with his heart and his pride not his head and his wallet!
Click to expand...

He spent a great deal of his personal capital over the years refurbishing the property, possibly several million pounds, in the expectation that he and his family would be living there for the duration of the lease. He paid for a 75-year lease. He IS thinking with his wallet to some extent as he is out that money if he moves.
 
Not sure of this is a silly question, but if Andrew moved into Frogmore Cottage, could he keep the lease on RL and sublet the place?
 
Last edited:
royal-blue said:
Not sure of this is a silly question, but if Andrew moved into Frogmore Cottage, could he keep the lease on RL and sublet the place?
Click to expand...
Its not unusual for long leases of the type that Andrew has entered into to allow for subletting. E&S sublet part of Bagshot Park to cover part of the costs for the maintenance of the property.

That said, given the location of RL, there may be security considerations and restrictions on who the property could well be let to.
 
I was at Snow Hill a few days ago and walked behind the statue of George lll/the Copper Horse, and took some photographs of Royal Lodge from there.

Zooming in showed a good bit of that side of Andrew and Sarah's house.

I'm sure it is private and secure closer up ... but it seemed quite open from here.

I don't know why William and Catherine would want the exposure of this property.

Here are a few of my photos ... at normal range and zoomed in.

And a photo showing how close I was to the statue which is open to everyone.

If you notice the wear and tear on the steps in one of the shots, I think that is actually an outbuilding that looks as if it is part of the main building from this angle, but is a separate structure.


1000041144.jpg1000041155.jpg1000041145.jpg1000041153.jpg
 
Last edited:
Fantastic Photographs Sun Lion. I hope you enjoyed your holiday.
 
What will happen to the lease when Andrew dies? What if his daughters don't want it? Would there be any financial refund involved in eventually surrendering/transferring the lease? Could his daughters sublet the property for the remainder of the lease maybe?

Or, as I've asked before on here, could Andrew himself sublet the property to someone else, which could provide an income for him to live elsewhere, although obviously he doesn't want to move?
 
royal-blue said:
What will happen to the lease when Andrew dies? What if his daughters don't want it? Would there be any financial refund involved in eventually surrendering/transferring the lease? Could his daughters sublet the property for the remainder of the lease maybe?

Or, as I've asked before on here, could Andrew himself sublet the property to someone else, which could provide an income for him to live elsewhere, although obviously he doesn't want to move?
Click to expand...
The sub let is quite an interesting point, possibly something in the lease that there would need to be prior approval of any sub tenant for security etc. If possible , then it would give him an income, the point is he does not require a home that size, it is his arrogance that is keeping him there, the white knuckles are showing as he grips on.
 
Hallo girl said:
The sub let is quite an interesting point, possibly something in the lease that there would need to be prior approval of any sub tenant for security etc. If possible , then it would give him an income, the point is he does not require a home that size, it is his arrogance that is keeping him there, the white knuckles are showing as he grips on.
Click to expand...
What's arrogant about wanting to stay in his home?
 
“The Crown Estate disclosed an unredacted version of the lease [on Royal Lodge] to The Times, after demands from MPs and campaigners.”

Prince Andrew has not paid rent on Royal Lodge for two decades

archived 20 Oct 2025 22:15:54 UTC
archive.ph archive.ph


A summary of the leasehold agreement details reported in the Times article:

  • Prince Andrew and his family have the right to live at Royal Lodge until 2078.

  • Prince Andrew has already paid £1 million for the lease itself, “plus at least £7.5 million for refurbishments completed in 2005”.

  • If Prince Andrew did not fund £7.5 million worth of refurbishment, he would need to pay a “notional rent” of £260,000 per year.

    However, because he did fund the £7.5 million worth of refurbishment, he is not required to pay any rent, except for “one peppercorn (if demanded)” annually. (For the non-native English speakers, a peppercorn refers to a tiny symbolic amount of money.)

  • Prince Andrew must continue to pay for the upkeep of Royal Lodge.

  • If Prince Andrew gives up the lease before 2028, the Crown Estate must pay him a “compensatory sum” of £185,865 every year until 2028.

  • If Prince Andrew gives up the lease after 2028, he will not be paid any compensation.

  • The lease runs to 25 pages and contains what the Times calls “several standard clauses”, such as that “no part of the premises shall be used for any illegal or immoral purpose”, or “any act or thing whatsoever which may be or become a nuisance, annoyance or disturbance to the landlord or the owner”.
 
It would be interesting to know what constitutes the upkeep part of 'pay for the upkeep', and what happens if the work is not done. And I'm surprised it would only cost Charles 185k per year for the next three years, which doesn't amount to a massive sum. I expected the buyout clause to be much more expensive.
 
Though it was posted earlier, it may be appropriate to bump the National Audit Office's 2005 report on royal property leases, which also published details of the Duke of York's lease.


Main points from the report:

  • Royal Lodge was a “grace and favour” residence for Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. After her death in 2002, the Crown Estate decided Royal Lodge should remain in Royal Family occupancy, not offered up to renters from the general public, due to “the sensitive location of the property in the centre of the Windsor Great Park” and “security concerns surrounding the Royal Family’s access to the Royal Chapel”.

  • One considered option was for Royal Lodge to become a “grace and favour” residence for the Duke of York as well. However, the Royal Family decided he should lease it commercially. This would provide income to the Crown Estate and remove the burden of necessary refurbishments from the Crown Estate.

  • The lease agreement required the Duke of York to complete specified refurbishment work within two years, for an estimated cost of £7.5 million.

  • The Duke of York secured the lease for a one-off premium payment of £1 million to The Crown Estate and a commitment to spend £7.5 million on refurbishment. (Ultimately, he spent more than £7.5 million on the refurbishment work.)

  • If the Duke of York were to terminate the lease within the first 25 years (before August 2028), the Crown Estate must pay him compensation based on the number of years left, up to a maximum of just under £7 million.

  • “The terms of the August 2003 lease agreement between The Crown Estate and HRH the Duke of
    York prevent him from gaining financially from any increase in the value of the property, as the
    freehold rests with The Crown Estate and the leasehold cannot be assigned to anyone else except
    to his widow or his two daughters (or a trust established solely for their benefit).”
 
Last edited:
"However, because he did fund the £7.5 million worth of refurbishment, he is not required to pay any rent, except for “one peppercorn (if demanded)” annually. (For the non-native English speakers, a peppercorn refers to a tiny symbolic amount of money.)" (quote by Tatiana Maria)

Papers are full of complaints about Andrew not having paid rent. However according to the lease agreements he doesn't have to. I wonder why those politicians among others haven't known this.
 
I mean, if we do the calculation he paid £8.5 millions for the lease, which, if we consider the £260.000 annunal rent he otherwise had to pay, is about 33 years of rent. As he also has to keep paying for the upkeep, something normally a landlord has to pay for, so he will still pay "rent" on it in the shape of upkeep.

It not feels necessarily like a "cheap" lease.

Edit: If properly invested, the 7.5 mio would probably earn more than 0.26 per year (that "just" 3.5% gain).
 
Good points. I find the headlines and comments about Prince Andrew "living rent-free" to be misleading indeed, even though they are strictly accurate. Those who only read the headlines and comments will take away the impression that he was given a home at Royal Lodge for free in a "grace and favor" arrangement, whereas the fact is that he does not pay annual rent because he already paid a much larger sum upfront in lieu of annual rental payments.

Regarding subletting: The published reports do not directly address the issue, but the NAO report mentions that Prince Edward’s lease agreement for Bagshot Park “permits subletting of the stable block.” There is no such mention for Prince Andrew’s lease agreement, so my guess is that subletting is not permitted there.

I wonder if Queen Elizabeth II’s decisions in 1998 and 2003 to have her younger sons acquire commercial leases instead of granting them “grace and favor” occupancy, as she did with her own mother, was precisely to protect them from being turned out by a future monarch. Or perhaps it had to do with increased criticism of royal spending and privileges.

It is interesting that, per the National Audit Office report, Prince Edward’s Crown Estate lease was to last 50 years and may be reassigned to anyone, whereas the Duke of York’s Crown Estate lease was to last 75 years and may only be reassigned to his daughters (Princess Eugenie will be 88 years old when the lease expires) or potential widow.
 
Perhaps the proximity of Royal Lodge to Windsor Castle was taken into account, as for security reasons they wanted to prevent non-royal members from renting the property. Bagshot Park is, I believe, in a different area of Windsor Park.

I saw headlines in a British paper that The Crown Prince couple want that Andrew moves out of Royal Lodge before they move into Forrest Lodge.
But that might just be a rumour, which can be true or not.
 
The NAO report points out that at the time the Royal Chapel of All Saints, which is in the grounds and indeed almost opposite the front door of Royal Lodge, was used almost weekly by the late Queen so there were security concerns about allowing Royal Lodge to be put on the open market for just anyone to take on the lease. Bagshot is far enough away from Windsor and the Castle that it could have been leased to anyone. Also remember, Royal Lodge had been the late Queen Mother's home for ages so was very much seen as a royal residence, whereas Bagshot has been used by the Army for years.

In terms of the Crown Estate, whilst it might not seem like it now, at the time it was almost certainly felt to be a good deal. Here was a property that had been used by the late Queen Mother for decades rent free, was in need or lots of work and could easily have been granted again as "Grace and Favour" i.e at no cost to Andrew but with the upkeep being met by the Crown Estate who would have had to spend the millions Andrew funded to do the work themselves. Instead the deal they did with Andrew took it off their hands, yes it didn't bring in rent for them but it took the renovation costs and ongoing maintenance costs off their hands. In that sense it certainly didn't seem a bad deal back then and IMO isn't a bad deal now. One of the reasons leases are often cheaper annually than renting is because the occupier is expected to look after and maintain the property whereas when renting that falls on the owner.

I wonder if all the focus on Andrew's lease with the Crown Estate might also reult is similar questions being asked about Edward, and in turn the Wales', deals with the Crown Estate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Muhler
Danish Royal and National Flags
2
Replies
30
Views
11K
Tatiana Maria
Tatiana Maria
R
"A True Mulatto Face" by Kimba Hudson (2014) [Queen Charlotte, consort of George III]
2
Replies
33
Views
17K
Muhler
Muhler
D
Royal Functions: Garden Parties, Court Presentations
Replies
15
Views
42K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
F
  • Locked
Grand Duke Henri & Grand Duchess Maria Teresa, Current Events 2: Sep 2003 - Aug 2005
6 7 8
Replies
221
Views
114K
Gabriella
Gabriella

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom