Fergie & Prince Andrew only paid half of what they owed to chalet owner

The Curious Case of Fergie’s £5 Million Mayfair Home: Part II. Last week, we learned that Sarah Ferguson could somehow afford to purchase a £5 million home in the posh Mayfair district of London. It was a bizarre story for many reasons, especially given that Fergie and Prince Andrew are constantly crying poverty, and they are both in perpetual states of brokeass. In 2014, Andrew and Fergie “bought” a ski chalet in Verbier. The sale was organized without a bank – they just made an arrangement with the owner, Isabelle de Rouvre, for huge payments over the course of five years. Shortly after Jeffrey Epstein’s mysterious death in jail in 2019, Andrew and Fergie’s money seemingly ran out. They were in arrears with Isabelle de Rouvre for millions in back payments. De Rouvre sued them and they eventually worked it out, and Andrew made a big show of selling the Verbier chalet earlier this year so he could pay off his various debts and avoid a seizure of his assets. You get the point: Fergie and Andrew are broke as hell. So how could Fergie afford the Mayfair home? That’s what Isabelle de Rouvre would like to know.

A French socialite to whom the Duke and Duchess of York owed millions of pounds after a dispute about a Swiss chalet is outraged that Sarah, Duchess of York, has bought a house in Mayfair. Isabelle de Rouvre, 74, described the news that Prince Andrew’s former wife had bought the London property for £5 million as “incredible and unbelievable” as she believed she “didn’t have a penny”.

The Yorks bought de Rouvre’s chalet in Verbier in 2014 for about £18 million. They agreed to pay her £5 million of that in cash instalments, with interest accruing. When the Yorks failed to settle the bill, de Rouvre took them to court. Today she reveals that she was in fact owed a total of about £6.8 million, which included interest, but agreed to a lower payment of about £3.4 million, partly because she was under the impression that the Yorks, both 62, were short of money. “I was forced to get lawyers involved and I settled for about half the amount,” she said.

De Rouvre said one reason she had not pursued the full payment was because of Prince Andrew’s American legal case brought by Virginia Guiffre, who alleged that he had sex with her when she was 17. Andrew has always denied the allegations. “I understood they didn’t have the money and believed he would be going to prison in America so I thought it best to get what I could,” she said. “I am outraged that I am now told she has spent millions on another property. It is just incredible and the whole story unbelievable. It is a dirty story as far as I am concerned.”

Sarah purchased the mews house from Grosvenor Estates, and it is thought to be a long-term investment for her daughters Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. It will be rented out and details of the new ownership are yet to be published by the Land Registry. De Rouvre said: “I thought she didn’t have a penny.” She reached a settlement with the Yorks in November after a protracted legal battle. “The war is finished,” de Rouvre said at the time.

The Yorks took out a mortgage of £13.25 million and agreed to pay the remaining £5 million in instalments. When the couple failed to pay the outstanding amounts, “the whole thing became a mess”, de Rouvre said. “I couldn’t sleep, I just couldn’t carry on so I settled for £3.4 million to get away from it all and away from them.”

The Yorks, who divorced in 1996, still live together in the Royal Lodge, Windsor. Asked about the Mayfair house, a spokesman for the duke told The Sun that he had not been involved in the purchase. Sarah’s representatives confirmed the purchase of the Mayfair property to The Sun. When approached yesterday they declined to comment on the details of the purchase or the settlement reached with de Rouvre.

[From The Times]

It really is shocking. We get too “into the weeds” of royal gossip sometimes, but there are truly shenanigans afoot with Fergie and Andrew’s financial situation. To cry poverty selectively when it comes to paying off a luxury ski chalet, then turn around months later and purchase a $6 million home in Mayfair? It’s insane. What’s even more shocking is that there’s zero appetite for the British media to dig deeper. Where did Fergie’s money come from? How did Andrew pay off de Rouvre? How did Andrew pay the settlement to Virginia Giuffre? How much money did Fergie and Andrew really “borrow” from Jeffrey Epstein? How much money do they owe their creditors?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

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

44 Responses to “Fergie & Prince Andrew only paid half of what they owed to chalet owner”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Wiglet Watcher says:

    Once the queen passes they might get that appetite. The press are sitting on Charles scandals, William scandals, Andrew scandals. The Sussex aren’t leaking so they’re less desirable to print about. Andrew might be the next target. I doubt it because he could burn the whole place down too, but who knows.

  2. PaperclipNumber99 says:

    They truly are shameless.

    • MeganC says:

      And how is this an investment for her daughters? She’s leaving them a house with a massive mortgage?

    • Not a Subject says:

      Andrew apparently borrowed 7million pounds from Charles to pay off Giuffre. It is all exceedingly shady as hell.

  3. ThatsNotOkay says:

    If I found out the had lied about their financials in the settlement, I’d go to a judge to undo it and get the full amount I was owed…plus interest!

  4. anna says:

    like can they just get audited by the equivalent of the UK or Swiss IRS or be sued for not paying for the chalet?

    • Eurydice says:

      I imagine the authorities would consider this a settlement of a bad debt. Maybe the chalet owner could sue Andrew and Fergie for misrepresenting their financial status, but she’d need a paper trail to back that up, and she’d have to be willing to spend the time and money to pursue them.

  5. Harper says:

    She thought Andrew was going to prison in America? No doubt someone from the Firm told her that to get her to settle for way less than she was owed.

    • Laura says:

      Seriously. She got grifted and should have pressed for the full amount. They are so shady, the lot of them!

  6. C-Shell says:

    The scale of grift and deception these deadbeats have repeatedly perpetrated on victims off all kinds over the years is just mind boggling. Paedrew and Fergie really are perfect for each other. I love how De Rouvre just keeps spilling the tea on these two — sad she settled so low, but I get how she thought she’d better get what she could before they were wiped out financially. Interesting that we all just assumed the Queen, and maybe Charles, we’re bailing Andrew out of this and the Guiffre litigation, but not so much. Skinflints.

  7. A says:

    There’s always money in the banana stand.

    I’ll believe that Fergie and Andrew are terrible with money. I’ll believe they often don’t have enough on hand to pay whatever bills they rack up. I’ll believe they have no problem having shady ‘businessmen’ pay for them in exchange for nebulous favors. I will not believe they are by any reasonable person’s definition broke or penniless.

    • Wiglet Watcher says:

      I can’t wait for the day one of them writes a tell all.

    • Green girl says:

      Many years ago I had a friend who would cry poor bit then turn around and spend serious dough on nonessentials. So irritating and I lost respect for her. I realize my example is on a much smaller scale but it’s still frustrating to read about these two grifters.

  8. Pumpkin (was Sofia) says:

    I think Andrew and Fergie have money. Maybe more than any of us will see and not as much as the Queen/Charles but enough that if they used it wisely and invested well, it could easily last them a last time. The issue is just that however – they don’t use it well and I don’t know about their investments. I think they keep living beyond their means therefore they rack up with bills they can’t afford to pay off because they don’t have *enough* money for it.

  9. Scorpion says:

    Grosvenor Estates is owned by none other than the Duke of Westminster who happens to be Billy the Pegged’s friend and George’s godfather.

    I highly doubt that Fergie paid the market price for that property.

    How much you wanna bet that Betty did this for Fergie to ensure her silence?

    • Carty says:

      Maybe this is William behind the scenes getting them out of Royal Lodge so he can have it, or Kate can live there with kids. No way I see any of them living at Adelaide Cottage.

    • candy says:

      They’re all inbred going back centuries and they probably see it as one pool of money to be shared among the few.

    • Mary says:

      MI@scorpion, I am not sure that the Duke of Westminster owns this property outright. I am a bit confused by the situation and how properties are held in the UK but it is my understanding that she purchased this property from someone else who moved to Norfolk but I believe that the land is held by the Duke of Westminster. So, I believe that she bought the structure from someone else but pays fees for the land to the Duke of Westminster (so she owns the structure outright but has a lease on the land). If anyone else knows more about the types of properties that the Duke of Westminster holds in London please speak up but I think he just owns the land rights on a lot of properties.

      I believe that is the same thing for a lot of the properties that Charles holds under the duchy. In that the homeowners own the actual structure but the duchy owns the land on which the property sits. This is why they had the big buyback scheme a few decades ago. Where people were allowed to buy the land as well.

      • Katie says:

        As Kaiser says, it would be way less confusing if the British media would do proper reporting on it.

  10. Julia K says:

    Grifters, swindlers, con artists, liars. The list goes on. Beg, borrow, steal. They will never change until their children get a financial conservator for them.

  11. Kiera says:

    Yeah this is just a thing they do.

    My mom had business with her stepfather in the 80’s and it was so shady. He had taken a loan out for an abused amount of money from the bank my mom was with. She did high networth lending. Another of her clients, Peter Brandt, co-signed it. The stepdad made the first payment and then stopped. They couldn’t find him any where.

    My mom finally tracked him down to his polo stable in Argentina and informed him he had 48 hrs to make payments or else they were informing Peter. He tried to convince my mom to fly down to Argentina, on his plane, so he could wine and dine her into ignoring the payments a little longer. She said no and after 48 hrs informed Peter, who was pissed. Things went down and people were angry.

    But this is how they do business. They take money and then use their connections to get it for free. Grifters all of them.

    • Tarte au Citron says:

      Wow! Good on your mom. Give these people an inch…

      • Kiera says:

        She has some crazy stories! She had people forging furniture, killing racehorse, hiding art, fleeing the country, she did work for the mob. And what’s funny if is that all her stories are 100% legal.

        Her and my dad were deep in Wall Street and omg.

  12. Cj says:

    How nice, they finally figured out a way to launder some of their Epstein money. Not like he’s going to ask for any of it back.

  13. ee says:

    there are so many weird things about these two, but one of the weirdest is definitely how un-divorced they are for a couple who got divorced decades ago! why are they even buying property together??

    • Tessa says:

      They were not true to each other since the divorce she had money troubles for years so she moved in with Andrew

  14. Murphy says:

    Obviously the Queen bought the Mayfair house. Or provided the down payment.

    • PrincessK says:

      Yes, this is one way of spreading the money around. I suspect that it is Andrew’s share of money from Philip and so to hide it they are buying property in Beatrice and Eugenie’s name so that the people they owe can’t claim it.

  15. Beverley says:

    The Yorks figured Chuck will kick them out of Royal Lodge after TQ passes. This is their safety net from Mummy.

  16. Chaine says:

    I’m just guessing Phillip left Andrew money and that it’s in some sort of trust that creditors cannot reach.

  17. candy says:

    Philip’s will, that’s how.

  18. jferber says:

    Typical. Surprised they paid that much. It’s totally in their wheelhouse to stiff creditors till the end of time, like our orange clown recently raided by the FBI.

  19. Katie says:

    Any mention of their daughters is a shameless ploy for sympathy. They are doing just fine.

  20. Julaine says:

    Sarah and Andrew are not married. Therefore, Andrew’s debts such as his settlement with Ms. Guiffre are not Sarah’s responsibility to repay. The chalet in Verbier was bought jointly by the two of them so Sarah is legally entitled to half of the proceeds from the sale. If the original mortgage was previously repaid then Sarah’s half of the proceeds should be enough to cover the cost of the Mayfair property. I’m not sure how it works in the UK but in the US you have a limited amount of time to reinvest money from real estate proceeds without paying capital gains taxes. Sarah may have preferred to buy another property rather than owing money to the taxman. Particularly if she is faced with no longer being able to live at Royal Lodge in the future.

    • Mary says:

      Agree @Julaine but there was a recent Daily Mail article saying that the Swiss chalet has not been sold yet because another couple has, essentially, a lien on the property. The article stated that the York’s owe an undisclosed couple over a million GBP and that their claim was holding up the sale of the property. Now, a proper lien would not stop the sale of a property but perhaps their claim is enough to do so. Of course, if true!

  21. Noor says:

    So where is the much vaunted media mantra to hold the rich and the powerful to account ??. The double standards and hypocrisy on full display is astounding!!

  22. Robin Samuels says:

    I don’t believe the Windsors are cash-rich; they have land, jewels, artifacts, merchandise, and multiple grifting events annually. They live rent-free with the best security money can buy, and the staff is paid poorly, with a few exceptions. Most of the castles and properties need repair. They screamed because it cost the Sussexes over 2 million dollars to convert a servant’s quarter into a decent living space. Look at the money allocated to refurbish Buckingham Palace. God Save the Queen, everyone else is on their own.
    When Fergie and Andrew were in the process of selling the chalet, the media reported that the Queen had paid off the debt. Now we learn the owner suffered a loss, and there are no proceeds from selling the chalet. So which suitcase delivered the 12 million pounds to pay Virginia? Lies and deception surround that family and particularly Andrew and Fergie.
    The media can’t wait to tell the true stories because Sussex vitriol isn’t paying as much. The invisible contract is now visible. Rotas are dying to open those closets and let the skeletons out. They may give the Queen a few months of grace, but not much more. Stay tuned.