The Times of London exclusively reported the news about Prince Andrew NOT paying rent on Royal Lodge for two decades – I discussed it here. While that news is astonishing, what’s even crazier is that the news is proof that King Charles and his courtiers have lied their asses off for nearly three years. It was in early 2023 that Charles came up with the big plan to evict the Sussexes from Frogmore Cottage and then force Andrew out of Royal Lodge and have him move into the now-empty Frogmore. We were told Charles simply could not find a way to remove Andrew from Royal Lodge though, and that the courtiers were trying to find some loophole to have Andrew evicted from his palatial mansion. Turns out, there was always a reason to evict him – his delinquency on the lease agreement – but Charles simply didn’t want to do it. Which probably explains the flurry of new leaks coming out of Buckingham Palace about Andrew’s sorry finances. Deflection from the acknowledgement that Charles always had the power to evict Andrew.
Sources have stressed to the Daily Mail that questions still remain over how the King’s brother can afford the vast 30-bedroom property, which comes with multi-million running costs.
The Daily Mail can exclusively reveal that Andrew is not believed to have received any significant inheritance from the Queen or Queen Mother, raising fresh questions about how he can afford to stay in the property – particularly when he now receives no personal allowance from the King, or public funding.
Charles, 76, has desperately tried to persuade his younger brother to downsize and move out of the grade II-listed mansion in recent years. He believes many of Andrew’s problems – particularly those that saw him drawn to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein and other shady characters – stem from chasing a lifestyle he simply cannot afford. But Andrew, 65, has stubbornly insisted that he has a cast-iron lease on the house. And as long as pays the rent, the King has no legal right to throw him out.
While details of the Queen’s will have never been made public, it is thought that Andrew was not left sufficient funds to sustain his apparently lavish lifestyle. Andrew had to carry out £7.5million of refurbishment work when he took the property on in 2003. He was given a 75-year lease in return for a one-off payment of £1million. His rent was believed to be upwards of £260,000 a year, with a legal requirement to keep the property in a good state of repair.
However, sources at Windsor say the house is a virtual ‘money pit’ and there have long been claims Andrew has been struggling with its upkeep.
Until now it had been widely assumed that without any public funding or private allowance from his brother, the prince had been dipping into personal investments and family bequests to bankroll the property.
The revelation over his inheritance will inevitably raise questions about how he can afford to live there. Andrew also has to fund his own security after losing his official police bodyguard.
Say it louder: “And as long as pays the rent, the King has no legal right to throw him out.” He hasn’t paid rent in two decades. So why hasn’t Charles evicted Andrew? Do you mean to tell me that Charles spent all of this time lying and equivocating about how he just couldn’t force Andrew out? As for the lack of inheritance… yeah, I absolutely think QEII slid a lot of money to Andrew in her final years. I bet Prince Philip left him some money too.
ITV and BBC Newsnight did lengthy interviews with Virginia Giuffre’s coauthor Amy Wallace. I had a hard time getting through these, so I doubt I will be able to stomach Nobody’s Girl. One thing Wallace wants to emphasize is that Andrew was absolutely on Epstein’s island, in Epstein’s townhouse and in Epstein’s Florida mansion.
Photos courtesy of Cover Images, Backgrid.
-
- Sandringham, UNITED KINGDOM – Members of the Royal Family attend Christmas Day service at St Mary Magdalene Church in Sandringham, Norfolk. Pictured: Prince Andrew, Duke of York BACKGRID USA 25 DECEMBER 2023 USA: +1 310 798 9111 / usasales@backgrid.com UK: +44 208 344 2007 / uksales@backgrid.com *UK Clients – Pictures Containing Children Please Pixelate Face Prior To Publication*
-
- Windsor, UNITED KINGDOM – The British Royal Prince Andrew spotted driving his car out in Windsor, England. Pictured: Prince Andrew BACKGRID USA 29 APRIL 2024 USA: +1 310 798 9111 / usasales@backgrid.com UK: +44 208 344 2007 / uksales@backgrid.com *UK Clients – Pictures Containing Children Please Pixelate Face Prior To Publication*
-
- Death Of HM Queen Elizabeth II: Procession Of Queen Elizabeth’s Coffin To St Giles Cathedral King Charles III, the Princess Royal and the Duke of York walk behind Queen Elizabeth II’s coffin during the procession from the Palace of Holyroodhouse to St Giles’ Cathedral, Edinburgh. Featuring: King Charles III, Princess Anne, Prince Andrew Where: Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom When: 12 Sep 2022 Credit: Phil Noble/PA Images/INSTARimages.com/Cover Images **North America Rights Only**
-
- Royals Attend Christmas Day Service At St Mary Magdalene Church In Sandringham Featuring: Prince Andrew Where: Norfolk, England, United Kingdom When: 25 Dec 2022 Credit: PA Images/INSTARimages.com/Cover Images **North America Rights Only**
-
- The Duke of York departs Westminster Abbey, London, following the Coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla. Featuring: Prince Andrew, The Duke of York Where: London, United Kingdom When: 06 May 2023 Credit: PA Images/INSTARimages **NORTH AMERICA RIGHTS ONLY**
-
- Royals and celebs head to Oswald’s. Featuring: Prince Andrew, Duke of York Where: London, United Kingdom When: 05 May 2023 Credit: Blitz Pictures/INSTARimages **USA AND AUSTRALIA RIGHTS ONLY**
-
- Easter Mattins Service at St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle in Berkshire. Featuring: Prince Andrew Where: Windsor, United Kingdom When: 31 Mar 2024 Credit: Cover Images
-
- Day Four of Royal Ascot Meeting 2025 Ascot Featuring: King Charles III and Princess Eugenie and Sarah Duchess of York Where: Ascot, United Kingdom When: 20 Jun 2025 Credit: Cover Images
-
- The congregation and Members of the Royal Family depart for the Requiem Mass for The Duchess of Kent at Westminster Cathedral, London Featuring: Prince Andrew Where: London, United Kingdom When: 16 Sep 2025 Credit: Cover Images **NOT AVAILABLE FOR HELLO MAGAZINE**
Bollocks. Like The Fail is a credible source? Please.
I’m sure she didn’t “leave” anything *in a will*, but in a VERY substantial trust, set up decades ago, that he can draw from.
That, and shady off shore accounts, as well. “Panama Papers” anyone?
Last we heard about Betty’s will it was going to be hidden from public view for 90yrs so how did all these details get out? Also the aristo like to avoid “death taxes” so they give their stuff away before they die so I’m sure Betty did the same for her little monster.
Thats exactly right. Both the Queen and her mother set up trusts for their children and grandchildren.
And Andrew got money from his business contacts. His pitch at palace deal gave him a percentage of the start ups who got funded.
Andrew is not poor
The inheritance only remains untaxed if it goes from monarch to heir — hence why they can’t abdicate like in the Netherlands or Denmark.
But who’s to say that QEII didn’t set up substantial trust funds, especially for Paedrew and family?
And for Sofiesta and Forgeddie too, who are also living well beyond their means.
Yes, the tabloids love now to go through celebrity wills and claim people were left nothing and disinherited and it is technically true but in actuality they were left trusts.
OMG!! Forgeddie!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I almost spit out my Cheerios!
I don’t believe that QEII would leave her favorite son out of her will and I don’t believe that Chuckles isn’t sending money his brothers way. Chuckles will do whatever it takes to keep his brother quiet.
He didn’t receive any inheritance through the normal channels is what they mean. This was QEIIs favorite kid. No way was she going to leave him penniless. She and her lawyers just set him up in a way that there wouldn’t be any inheritance tax and it wouldn’t be easily discovered.
Agree. Read the Panama Papers – a lot of the BRF’s massive assets are held offshore and there are probably all kinds of wizardry ensuring all of her children including Her Precious Favorite Child Andrew are well taken care of. She wasn’t dumb enough to rely on Charles to take care of them out of duty or sibling sentiment.
I also believe that QEII followed the “monarch to monarch” rule for perhaps the bulk of her inheritance, which is why Andrew complained to the press shortly after she died that he was shocked, shocked that Charles would have all her money and demanded his cut. I don’t think that was a fake-out, I think he knew well all along and wanted to signal to Charles “I’d like a death bonus, please and thank you.”
Yes, it’s true that the British monarch leaves all their wealth and assets to the heir when they die, purely to avoid inheritance taxes, but that doesn’t mean that QEII didn’t set up trust funds for her children and grandchildren in the years before she passed. These are most likely held offshore where the taxman can’t get at them.
Watching the truth finally roll out like this is popcorn worthy! While schadenfreude is not necessarily something one should relish, watching Prince Pedo finally fall from grace is delightful.
May he and Sarah Fergie continue to reap the dark karma they’ve sowed in this very privileged life…
Somehow i don’t believe Andrew has no money. His father was said to be poor with out a penny to his name when he married his cousin but when he died he had 30million to share amongst his kids and grand kids, so i think these people cry poverty whilst hiding money in offshore places, at one point the Queen was the 5th richest person after the King on Brunei but due to public outrage she got all the information scrubbed and claimed only 500million which Chuckles in herited. I also think They got a heads up thats why they sold the Mayfair house just in case.
I think one of the reasons that Phil’s will is sealed is that he didn’t leave Pedandrew anything because he’s not his son.
Thank you for saying this! Bc he sure doesn’t look anything like phil
Of course he was on the island, and I not buying the argument that disgusting people always try to bring up that she was 17. They love the age of consent whataboutism. He clearly didn’t care about the age, if he was playing guess how old I am games with Virginia. If she would have said 15 or 14, would there have been any difference?
This issue with the rent though, and the inheritance, just illustrates a larger point. There’s plenty that they could report on other than Meghan and Harry that are obvious scandals, that the courtiers and the media sit on for years. There is no way you didn’t know this man hasn’t paid rent in 22 years. Which also highlights just how coddled this family is. I don’t know how it is in the UK, but in the US you wouldn’t make it past 2 months without them trying to evict you let alone two decades.
Virginia was trafficked, regardless of her age.
If the peasants don’t pay their rent, they get evicted. That’s the difference.
Virginia’s book says that Andrew had sex with her and 8 other underage girls (who couldn’t speak English) on Epstein’s island. She said the other girls all looked underage. Plus they were trafficked.
He doesn’t owe the yearly rent because he made the initial required payments and the yearly rent was only triggered if he didn’t.
Seriously, thank you. The math wasn’t mathing. I have been wracking my brain trying to figure out why he had to pay 7 million and still pay rent. It just wasn’t making sense.
But how did he cough up the original 7.5 mill? Most people do that kind of thing with a bank loan, right? Something that might take 20 years to pay back. It’s all so fishy.
I wonder if Forest Lodge or whatever it’s called is really for Andrew. The public wouldn’t stomach the Reno costs and land grab if it were for Andrew so they say it’s for the lazies… but really that’s where Andy will go and the lazies will get their royal lodge!!!
This was my initial thought also. It seems fishy that the Lazies would choose Forrest Lodge (or whatever it’s called) when Prince Pedo and Fergie Flagrant’s Royal Lodge makes a lot more sense for them.
Can’t we just launch these two clowns into the sun? Seems a lot more cost effective.
I think the Queen Mother leaving money to her grandchildren and great grandchildren was always a myth. She would have left everything to the Queen who is exempt from paying inheritance tax. So I believe he wasn’t left anything. As Harry said in his book, members of the royal family who are not allowed to earn a living are made to depend on the monarch for funding. The Queen made sure that she gave each of children a house when they got married but when she died everything went to Charles.
I’m not so sure about that. It was King George VI who would have left all his assets to his daughter QEII in order to avoid inheritance tax (as is the norm in the BRF – monarch to monarch transfer of assets), not the Queen Mother. She is reported to have set up trust funds for her children and grandchildren, although it’s also reported she had little money of her own when she died. Didn’t Prince Harry inherit something from his grandmother, the Queen Mother, when he turned 40?
That’s part of the myth. We simply don’t know. It is all based on a 20 year old article in the Guardian. It doesn’t make sense. Queen Mum adored Charles and made time for William, as the heir. She was the biggest snob in the family.
Why would she leave a trust fund for Harry, but not for her other great grandchildren? And nothing for her grandchildren, Andrew, Edward, Anne?
We do know she left nothing but debts, where did the money for the alleged trust fund come from?
We do know she put every penny she had into Castle May. Buying it and restoration and maintenance were quite costly, she wasn’t that rich. And used to the lifestyle of a Queen, no expenses spared on her person. IMO the “trust fund for Harry” is a myth.
Deborah, Harry himself said he didn’t get money from. Queen Mum. The sources for the trust fund with 40 is the British press. Well I know I trust Harry. And Harry grandmother was the queen, queen mum was his great grandmother.
Right, like she didn’t do anything to make sure her favorite was well cared for. For the remainder of his life.
The woman conceded to Charles to publicly announce Camilla will be called Queen Camilla on her passing one day. So Charlie would open up the wallet to settle Virginia’s case against him.
Assume, he inherits from a trust that’s structured that he can’t blow it or needs permission for funds by financial minders. So he doesn’t fall into another Epstein trap along with Fergie needing her Amex bills constantly paid for by someone shady.
This is all for optics to make the people feel like he is somehow still being punished. He never has and he never will.
That would make a lot more sense than what we’re being fed.
Im still confused though. I thought the lease agreement says that he doesn’t have to pay more than a peppercorn in rent so how is he in dereliction of the lease agreement?
he isn’t that I can tell – at least by the reporting. Though he should be tossed out on his ear, it seems QEII made sure that wouldn’t happen.
He isn’t in delinquency of the lease agreement at all. It’s even a peppercorn rent *if demanded* so chances are he didn’t even have to pay a few quids a month. He literally didn’t have to pay any rent. My guess is she just reads the headlines (“Andrew hasn’t paid rent in two decades”) and then skims the article without reading or trying to understand it.
I find Andy to be a revolting character but the gaslighting by the press here, including in this publication, is stunning. It is clear that Andy paid 8.5 million up front to renovate the property. Since he does not own the building, it is obvious that the lease considers the 8.5 million as an advance payment of rent. If the crown had paid the 8.5 million for the renovation, then Andy would have had to pay the 6 figure rent each year but the crown did not. I suspect 20 years later, they are just close to that advance payment having been amortized. The question really is what happens when it does? Does he then start making cash payments?
Maybe that’s why we’re getting so many articles about Andrew & his vacating Royal Lodge or William & Kate wanting Royal Lodge. He’s finally met the initial terms of the lease & now the time to start paying rent kicks in? Start paying or move out?
Although I do recall the DM saying that the place needs massive work again & Andrew can’t afford it. Maybe if he were able to pay for the new reno needed it would continue the non-payment of rent clause? 🤷♀️. It’s all rather confusing.
Didn’t the Fail have a big story about Andrew’s “inheritance” a year or two ago? And how he was going to use the money to reopen his settlement with Virginia if she published her book? I remember this because Virginia’s lawyer told him he could sit for a deposition anytime he was ready and that was the end of that, lol. So now the Fail has an “exclusive “ reveal that there was no inheritance? These folks change their stories so often it’s a wonder they have any credibility on anything. You would be a fool to believe anything written in the Fail.
Dodgey things happen when all the money goes to or dictated by only the Monarch and Heir. Would it kill them to give their immediate family members decent money so they dont have to do such embarrassing things?
I think some of the outrage over his free ride is synthetic, or, just opportunistic. Dollars to donuts, the financials were well understood in Fleet St for decades. But they — and by this I mean the nebulous group known as The Establishment, which includes editors, publishers, politicians, senior civil servants, and grey men — don’t trust the general population to grasp the intricacies of the sweetheart deals and well-oiled wheels that keep these people spinning through their carnivalesque latitudes. The “rent” was only payable as a formality, as someone noted, once the down payment of £8.5m was amortised, likely over 20+ years, or, the property needed improvements, which would be funded by the occupant and counted in lieu of “rent.” It’s not like he was strictly in violation of his lease, as you would be, as a normie. He’s had a sweetheart deal all along. Just explaining it would have generated as much outrage as these revelations. They were saving it for when it was needed as extra ammunition. Andrew has been a walking dead man for years. This really does impact my view of Elizabeth II. That he was her favourite? Yikes.
I want her estate to get the money and I want the book to do well. But I don’t think I can read it. So I’m planning on buying it and donating it.
The answer is simple – Elizabeth gave Andrew his “inheritance” while she was still alive.
She certainly coughed up the money for the settlement with VG.
Exactly, plus the bailout with the Swiss chalet – and I imagine she gave him the money for Royal Lodge and probably paid off other debts of his over the years. A man I know sponged off his mother for years to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars. When it came time to read her will, he was furious to find that she had left him nothing because he got his share during her lifetime.
Between all the trafficked girls, shady Pitch@Palace situations, selling royal antiques and bringing in a Chinese spy, Andrew should’ve used all of his 9 lives by now. We know Virginia wasn’t the only one. Toss him out.
I think the key point being missed here is that he hasn’t avoided paying rent if it wasn’t asked for. The wording is very specific – he has paid “one peppercorn (if demanded)”. The ‘if demanded’ is doing all the heavy lifting here. He’s in the clear if they didn’t request rent.
A peppercorn is a nominal amount. Apparently he worked it into the lease that he paid the 7.5 million up front, which went toward renovations, and his rent is basically deducted from that amount each year until it runs out.
If they kick him out, they have to pay him the balance of the 7.5 million he hasn’t used on rent yet.
It’s the equivalent of $1.00 in the US; that’s always the nominal amount used when something requires an exchange of money for a sale or a judgment or whatever.
Apparently Andrew paid 7.5 million up front to renovate the property, and that was considered his rent up front for however many years.
Who gives a flying F about Forest Lodge or whether Andrew can afford it? That and the kerfuffle about putting Andrew’s titles in abeyance are meaningless guff.
Charles and William desperately need to avoid, at all costs, a serious Met Police or parliamentary investigation into Andrew—because that would shed light on how the palaces have protected Andrew for years. The results of such an inquiry could be seriously damaging to the monarchy. Thus, we had Charles’ initial announcement that Andrew would “stop using” his titles, followed by William grandstanding about stripping the rest of Andrew’s titles when he’s king. All of this is happy talk to forestall any parliamentary action to formally strip Andrew’s titles, because a parliamentary inquiry and public debate could be very damaging to the monarchy.
Instead, Charles and William are asking us to feel sorry for Kate if she bumps into Andrew on horseback near Forest Lodge.
He has to fund his own security??? A private one (unarmed guys for a member of the BRF)? Or armed royal protection officers someone cannot pay for even if he wants to???
Under the lease terms, Andrew doesn’t have to pay any rent.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/21/does-prince-andrew-live-rent-free-at-royal-lodge-and-can-he-be-evicted
As with many of you I think the queen did provide for Andrew somehow outside of her will. If she set up something for him more than 7 years before her death, I don’t think it is taxed. Or, at least a good portion of it is not taxed under UK law.
Another way that monarchs distribute things to loved ones after their death is by way of a memorandum or other indicia of how they want certain items distributed. That way, it is gifted by the next monarch to those persons or entities and if that monarch lives more than 7 years there are no taxes.
Not long after the Queen’s death there was a bit of reporting about complaints from royal family members about Charles not distributing items to people per the Queen’s wishes. This only made the news for a short period of time so perhaps Charles complied with her wishes, so Andrew could have already received some things through Charles from the Queen after her death.. I don’t think Charles is going to last the 7 years though.
Boo-Hoo they took Baby Prince Andrew and his wife’s titles away. Cry me a f-ing river. I understand that this is a big deal in the UK, but it seems like a polite slap on the wrist to me, given he and his ex-wife are still able to basically live rent free at the Royal Lodge.
I wish I were a stronger person, but I can’t stomach reading Ms. Guiffre’s memoir, especially knowing how her life ended. I am in awe of her strength, bravery, and resilience. The power her words have had to posthumously affect change is incredible. I wish she were here to see the changes she helped make and I hope she is at peace.
My question is where did he get the initial 8.5 million to secure the lease? Thats a lot to come up with and he was known to have money problems even before he moved there.
The money came from grifting in the middle east and shady AF side deals with Epstein. Read Lownies book. Bet Andrew doesn’t sue either.
That’s because she gave it to him earlier so he could pay off VG.
Who wrote this crap article. Apparently Andrew got a dispensation for rent owed becuase he agreed to pay for the hefty refurbishment. The place hadnt been touched in 50 years. You seriously think andrew has been allowed to not pay his rent for 20 years and chuck doesn’t know he could kick him out for it? Nah sex addict andrew will legally be there. No dice. Stupid article.