Prince Andrew’s legal fees alone could cost him between $4 million to $6 million

I absolutely love it when a legitimate outlet like Forbes or Bloomberg tries to do some actual reporting on royal finances. With Prince Andrew specifically, there are so many unanswered questions about his finances, but in truth, the money of House Windsor is shrouded in mystery and secrecy. We know that Andrew cries poverty a lot, but we also know that he has been flush with cash at odd moments, like when he decided to buy a Swiss ski chalet, or when he purchased two new cars (a Range Rover and a Bentley) in 2020 and 2021. We know he’s selling off the ski chalet to pay for his own legal bills, but we also heard last year that the Queen was footing his legal bills. So… there’s a lot of confusion. Thankfully, Bloomberg tried to work some stuff out and the reporting is fascinating:

The timeline & legal fees: They have until late July to file summary judgment motions that might see a judge throw the case out, saving Andrew millions in trial costs although his legal fees up to that point could be between $200,000 to $300,000 per month, Epner estimates. If it goes all the way to trial, fighting the claims that he sexually assaulted Giuffre two decades ago at the London home of Jeffrey Epstein’s girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, will cost Andrew between $4 million and $6 million, Epner estimated. And it could go higher.

The reputational issues: This kind of litigation can take an extended period of time, and Andrew is looking at a “significant amount of fees, at least seven figures if not eight depending on how long the litigation goes,” said Jerome “Joe” Studer, the founder and director of Chicago-based Legal Fee Analytics LLC and an expert on attorneys’ fees. Lavely & Singer PC, which is representing Andrew, is an expensive firm that is “no stranger to this kind of news breaking litigation,” Studer said. The firm “has a reputation of being a bulldog and I would think that given the reputational issues at stake, they’re going to fight this really hard.”

Andrew’s Luxembourg bankers: His bankers at Luxembourg-based Banque Havilland in 2017 put his wealth at 5 million pounds, according to an internal document seen by Bloomberg News. But the royal was already using short-term loans from Banque Havilland, owned by the family of his friend and top U.K. Conservative Party donor David Rowland, to cover some of his living expenses. Even if the Banque Havilland net worth estimate is too low, there’s signs that Andrew’s finances are under strain from the legal fight.

His only known income & spending habits: Andrew’s only known income is a Royal Navy pension of 20,000 pounds and an annual stipend from his mother, Queen Elizabeth, of 250,000 pounds. It isn’t known whether the Queen would be willing to use her own fortune to pay for his legal costs. Still, Andrew’s been pictured in a brand new hybrid-electric Range Rover sporting personalized plates that was registered in December, U.K. filings show. Another luxury car, a Bentley, was registered in late 2020. Together the two cars have a combined list price of more than 200,000 pounds.

His curious unsecured loan: Back in 2017 Andrew took out a 1.5-million-pound personal unsecured loan from Banque Havilland, 1.25 million pounds of which was used to repay an existing debt facility with the firm that had been increased or extended 10 times in two years, Bloomberg reported in November. The additional 250,000 pounds borrowed by Andrew was earmarked for “general working capital and living expenses.” The loan was due in March 2018 but was repaid early using 1.5 million pounds transferred to the prince from a Guernsey-registered company controlled by the Rowland family, according to interviews with people familiar with the transactions and bank documents seen by Bloomberg.

Oh, Andrew might have to submit his financials in discovery: The New York ruling that the case should proceed to discovery means that Andrew will have to provide evidence demanded by Giuffre’s legal team, a process that is likely to take around six months, according to Epner. On top of that there will likely be as much as $500,000 in pre-trial costs, plus an estimated $2 million to $4 million if it reaches court, he said. And at this point it is far too late for Andrew to indemnify himself against such costs. “You can’t insure a house that’s already on fire,” Epner says.

[From Bloomberg]

We’ve heard about the curious unsecured loan last year, and I truly don’t even understand what’s happening there, nor do I understand why a high-ranking Tory Party person would – out of the goodness of his heart? – pay off millions of Andrew’s debt, or even extend him a line of credit in the first place. It’s clear that Andrew doesn’t know the first thing about budgeting and finance, but what’s crazy is… how has the Queen not cleaned up all of these messes? She’s clearly giving him money, so is he just blowing that money on new Bentleys and ski chalets rather than paying down his existing debts?? And how DID he pay the back-mortgage on the ski chalet and who bought the chalet from Andrew? Why is it that no one can answer any of these questions? Why is there no real reporting on it?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

41 Responses to “Prince Andrew’s legal fees alone could cost him between $4 million to $6 million”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Scorpion says:

    The Windsors and their fans wanted a trial and now they are getting one 😂😂😂😂

    Careful for what you wish for 😁

    • BothSidesNow says:


      Unfortunately for them it isn’t the defendant that they were hoping for!!! Banish the Monarchy and free the people!!

  2. equality says:

    So mommy still gives him an annual salary? I wonder which pocket that comes from. Even if she calls it her “own” money, how did she (or her ancestors) earn that money? Somebody needs to do a deep, deep dive into ALL of their finances.

  3. Noki says:

    I want to know how most of these non working royals live!? Now that would be a great report. I am talking about all the extended families that also get homes. Do they have an education,are they working and have actual professions/ careers!? Also aristocrats are said to not actually have any real liquidity but are more asset rich and just poor snobs in reality.

    • KW says:

      They sell access to sketch/criminal millionaires to the more important royals, although Andrew doesn’t seem to think anyone is more important than he is.

  4. SarahCS says:

    I mean call me a cynic but this chap isn’t doing all of this out of the goodness of his heart. He’s bankrolling influential people so what’s he getting in return? I’m assuming not the pleasure of their company.

    But I did turn up this gem in an old Guardian article about him: A multimillionaire property tycoon who persuaded Prince Andrew to unveil a bronze statue of him at his palatial home in Guernsey.


    • CC says:

      A statue of Andrew or a statue of the property owner?
      Now I’m imagining a Andrew shaped fountain, where the water pours out of his major sweat glands.

    • L4Frimaire says:

      Fun fact,The Queen has total sovereignty over the Channel Islands, like her word is law. They are not under UK jurisdiction, so that could be interesting.

  5. Woke says:

    Does British people realize how opaque their whole establishment is ? When you say the British press is trash and Brits reply to you that it’s just the tabloids it reeks of delusion. Why the times the telegraph or the financial time aren’t doing this type of reporting?

    • JT says:

      I’ll never understand it. I’m not British so it is absolutely insane to me why this isn’t covered more. Then the Brits say nobody cares about the royals but they should because it’s sounds like Andrew is laundering money for these people for a fee. A banking family is loaning him money from their bank and the paying it off with money from another company owned by the same family. Or is this the worlds most expensive MLM? Meanwhile, Harry paying for his own security is the real crime.

      • Mslove says:

        The rich always look out for each other. The fact that they leak stupid crap like the stuffed animals and berating staff is a joke when you know they are covering up more serious crimes.

    • Snuffles says:

      I’ve had the same conversation with a Brit on Twitter. She swears she’s not affected by tabloid rhetoric because she doesn’t read them. But I keep telling her that tabloid rhetoric seeps into everything and even into international news.

      News gets syndicated worldwide. And for niche topics like the royals, media outlets large and small pay for content on royals from the tabloids. They don’t review and fact check, they just copy and paste.

    • SarahCS says:

      It’s hard to see from the inside.

      It’s only by coming here regularly that I’ve realised how skewed reporting actually is these days, even from the likes of the BBC which is supposed (I mean, we all pay for it) to be unbiased. It’s shocking but easy not to see because it’s so insidious.

      • RoyalBlue says:

        Sarah, same for me. Reading this site made me more aware of media bias as well as how PR works.

    • L4Frimaire says:

      It’s just crazy how biased and clubby everything is in media and government circles. Like the whole party gate scandal. Every major press organization new the PM and his cronies were violating lockdowns and holding these parties, in fact a lot of tabloid and broadsheet reporters were at these events, but not a word until well over a year later and only because Boris’ disgruntled former brain, Cummings, started leaking stuff. These people know a lot of the shadiness of the royals but it isn’t in their interest to expose it. I bet it’s a thousand times worse than we know and the few nuggets that slip out is because gossips can’t always keep a lid on things.

  6. Zen says:

    There is a curious hands off reporting approach to Andrew. That he is a boorish lout has always been known but the bullying wasn’t known (publicly) until just recently and has only lightly been reported on. I think reporters don’t like reporting on him because they don’t like him period. It could also be influence from the Palace. Wasn’t the press warned off when he went to Balmoral for Xmas? I never saw the press ever warned off H&M.

  7. Amy Bee says:

    “Why is it that no one can answer any of these questions? Why is there no real reporting on it?”

    Harry told us why. Anyway, Mummy will be paying both his legal fees and damages, if he loses the case, and the press will have nothing to say but about it. If this matter could be resolved before the Platinum Jubilee the better, because the establishment wants it to be a happy event.

    • Debbie says:

      “If this matter could be resolved before the Platinum Jubilee the better, because the establishment wants it to be a happy event.”

      Wait just one minute, the BM is still bleating about the great Sussexit two years after the fact, but they would actually stop Andrew’s RAPE TRIAL reporting mere weeks after just because there was a jubilee on? Are you kidding me?

  8. Becks1 says:

    There’s no real reporting on it at this stage bc none of the RRs have the guts to actually report of on the BRF’s financials. It’s not just Andrew who has shady connections and hides his money and all that – so the family doesn’t want anyone looking too closely at Andrew and then seeing everything else that’s going on. any news in this area will come from a source like Bloomberg or Forbes or another financial publication that doesn’t have a vested interest in protecting the royals.

    It’s just one more reason the royals are so ticked at Andrew. This lawsuit is pulling the curtain back and that’s a bad thing for the royals.

  9. C-Shell says:

    Certainly, this Bloomberg piece raises more questions than it answers, but it clearly points to financial shenanigans by QEII, Havilland, and Rowland. As others have said, why on earth aren’t the few legit UK media outlets — like the Financial Times — digging around in this muck? Especially now that Charles has signaled that the gloves are off WRT Andrew. Is the invisible contract *that* pervasive?

    • BothSidesNow says:

      Apparently so. I think that they don’t report the shenanigans of the BRF for reasons that are criminal and suspect. The BRF don’t want people, the peasants, knowing how much money they have stashed away, far away, from prying eyes! The RR’s and any actual journalists have no intention of upsetting their access to the family so they turn a blind eye. All while TQ digs Pedrew out of the unlimited amount of disasters, of his own making, which would alert the British taxpayers as to how corrupt the entire family is.

      • windyriver says:

        Serious question – what is the value of access to this family, at this point? Don’t mean for RRs and the tabloids, but for serious publications and journalists? Especially non-UK? Philip is gone, TQ too, for all intents and purposes. H&M, gone. W&K, mostly pose for pictures. Stuff that C&C do – it’s they who need the press, because they already get little coverage. Whenever there is access, it’s controlled (e.g., Charles, etc. not answering shouted questions at events). They often just refuse to comment, and the truth of what little they say officially, or is said by “sources”, or leaked, is always questionable. Coverups and deflections are obvious. Plus, many publications, worldwide, manage fine just copying what’s put out by other media. Photos can be purchased. Judging by comments here, a large portion of the British population don’t care that Zara went to the horse trials, etc.

        So, instead of worrying about “access”, which now seems to have little advantage, to a family that so obviously has feet of clay, why not start tackling issues that will matter, especially in the current environment – like helicopter and other travel costs, Kate’s constant new clothes vs little work, vanished money for BP renovations, everything Andrew’s done financially for the last two decades, TQ’s finances, etc.

      • C-Shell says:

        @windyriver — that’s an excellent question! There was a hay day when access to the BRF had real value, possibly from the Wallis/abdication period, WWII, Margaret’s fun times, the Charles/Diana years, and you’re right, when QEII and Prince Philip were visible principals of the BRF, weddings, babies, H&M, but now it’s just dull, corrupt, criminal leftovers. Legit media sources really need to reevaluate their buy in to the Contract.

      • windyriver says:

        @C-Shell – The Guardian is pursuing a case regarding Philip’s will. Not that the will itself was sealed for 90 years, but that the HEARING to consider whether the will should be sealed was also essentially kept secret, and shouldn’t have been; other parties should have had the opportunity to submit comments. And, remember how many people here believe what (little) the palaces have said about TQ’s status is misleading, and she’s closer to death than reported. On the one hand, she does have a right to some medical privacy, but on the other, she’s the head of state, yet, her overnight hospital stay was kept secret from the press. So what access are they receiving/preserving?

      • BeanieBean says:

        windy river: I think it’s more a matter of maintaining the status quo, with the aristos/rich (new or old money, but mostly old) keeping hold of the country’s political power, money, land, education, etc. The RF symbolize that system.

    • Sofia says:

      I think it’s because royal finances are a deep and murky world that beginning to untangle it will take weeks if not months. Along with royals being a niche topic that not many are interested in as well as seen reporting on them as. “downgrade” for many legitimate journalists (don’t blame them), I’m not surprised outlets such as the Guardian, Financial Times etc etc want to report on it.

      • C-Shell says:

        Don’t disagree, with the exception of the BRF being a niche topic that generates little interest. But, considering the (at best) commingling of public and private funds, the vast growth of vast wealth with opaque basis in real assets, and known hiding of same in offshore accounts, it seems like this would be red meat for real business journalists to sink their teeth into.

    • The Recluse says:

      There is this Walter Bagehot quote that is trotted out all the time in regards to the RF:
      You mustn’t let daylight in on the magic.

      It’s past time for some sunshine on Royal finances and how they operate.

  10. Lili says:

    i remember years ago before the stat=rted hiding how wealthy the queen is she was the 5th richest person in the world with a fortune of 53 billion i’ve heard that its currently around 88 billion, though the papers are reporting her net worth to be around 340million, Andrew was her trade envoy, so im sure he must have had access to rich player who advised on ways to make money, after isnt that also what epstein was into. All these broke stories are a smoke screen so Virginia doesnt get a huge pay deal. prince philip was supposed to be broke when he married the queen yet he managed to amass a small fortune that he left some to his grand kids. i dont think andrew is broke

  11. eb says:

    The last I heard, Andrew was being sued by the friend that was selling him the chalet for defaulting (?) and that his mother stepped in last minute to pay off the chalet?

  12. Jais says:

    Why is there not real reporting around this? Idk, sycophancy, cowardice, and covering up the monarchy’s criminality. But I feel like they’ll just lie and cover up stuff from the NY courts during discovery. What are the chances the courts will get the truth about his finances? And will there be any consequences if they’re clearly lying or covering it up? I really wonder how it will go.

  13. atorontogal says:

    And now his ex Lady Hervey is saying the infamous pic of him and Virginia with Ghislaine in the background at Epstein’s house is all doctored. Is she being paid to say this? Why in the world would she insert herself into this mess?

  14. Concern Fae says:

    They can’t do a real investigation into TRF’s finances because the finances of most very wealthy people are deeply shady. How can you do a “Prince Andrew lives on an allowance from his mother!” story when half the people in your newsroom do as well.

    I have a deep dislike of “exposés” where what is revealed is the perfectly normal way things are done. You can write about it and complain that it is a scandal that this is normal, but too often that isn’t the case. There is no one with the wealth that the Queen has who doesn’t pay for their children’s homes and vacations and grandkids education. If they don’t it’s either an abusive situation or the kid has been set up with an overpaid job with the family firm or a friend’s. And the house is still paid for. Inheritance doesn’t just occur when a parent dies.

    Please go into the shady corruptness of this bunch, their is a lot there, but make clear what is just normal rich people life. (Get as mad as you like about that, but don’t pretend it’s something especially evil about the BRF.)

    • Robert Phillips says:

      But the British Royal Family made all of their money off the taxes of the commoners. That’s the difference. Most rich people at least somewhere in their family had a business or idea that made the family fortune. I agree with you that this is the way most wealthy familys live. Their children all live off of the parents from generation to generation. But if the Queen is really this wealthy can’t they invest it and not need to take any more money from the people and still live the way they do. They just choose not to do this. This is why the need to be investigated.

      • bisynaptic says:

        Most of the super-rich people in the UK had someone in the family, back-a-ways, who successfully killed off whoever owned the land, before, and took it over.

  15. RoyalBlue says:

    This family is the biggest grift. Untaxed and unaudited. Before they get one penny from the sovereign grant, they need to show me audited financial statements of their personal wealth.

  16. Justplainme says:

    What happened to all the money he made from taking a cut of every deal when he had pitch @ palace? That seemed like the shadiest operation.

  17. Truthiness says:

    If it goes to trial, the fees ought to be more, unless the royals get a discount or use a non-elite firm. That estimate seems conservative.

  18. Deering24 says:

    The _last_ thing Andrew should have wanted was to give Giuffre’s lawyers and the non-BM press a chance to forensic-account his finances. Ah, well—can’t fix stupid or entitled…

  19. AmyK says:

    I wonder if he got an inheritance from Phillip…