For decades, people were aware of the fact that Queen Elizabeth II handed out “grace-and-favour” homes like candy to favored staffers and relatives. Those homes and apartments were often given away under extremely generous terms with very little scrutiny. All of that has come to a head in recent months, mostly because of the outrage over Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s peppercorn rent for Royal Lodge, which is a huge mansion on the Windsor estate. As we’ve seen, the British government is using Andrew to examine a lot of royal leases. It turns out that Prince Edward’s lease for Bagshot Park is extremely generous too. But what about all of the minor royals or royal-adjacents littering Kensington Palace and St. James’s Palace? What about… a 88-year-old princess who lives in a Richmond lodge and only pays £2,200 a year for the property??
A minor royal has been paying just £2,200 a year to rent a luxurious property in southwest London from the Crown Estate, raising questions about taxpayer value for money. Princess Alexandra, 88, the late queen’s cousin, holds the lease of Thatched House Lodge, a grade II listed property in Richmond Park.
The details of her lease were disclosed in response to questions from the public accounts committee (PAC) on the property deals the Crown Estate has made with members of the royal family.
Alexandra, who is 58th in line to the throne, is the daughter of Prince George, Duke of Kent, who died in a non-combat air crash during the Second World War. Though less active in her older age, Alexandra has been a working royal supporting various charities and causes, including the Alzheimer’s Society, as a royal patron since 1990. Unlike Andrew, whose association with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein has brought him into disgrace, Alexandra is not a controversial royal, but questions have been raised about why she is paying so little for the property, given her relatively low public profile.
Alexandra and her family have lived in the house since 1963. According to the letter to the PAC, Thatched House Lodge is owned under a two-part lease, one signed in 1971 and one in 1995. For the first part, Alexandra paid £3,000 in 1971 for a 70-year lease, with £410 a year rent from the first 35 years of the lease until 2006, and £700 thereafter. For the second part, she paid a £670,000 premium in 1995 for a 150-year lease, then £1,010 a year rent for the first 25 years. It rose to £1,500 a year for the following 25 years, and will eventually go up to £6,000 by the last 25-year period.
It suggests an annual rent of £2,200, just £183 in monthly terms, a rent for which one would struggle to find a room as a lodger in a shared house.
While significant funds were paid up front under the deals, questions have been raised about whether the premium and rent reflect the maximum that could have been obtained for the lease. Unlike Andrew’s deal, the leases also have no assignment clauses, which means she is free to sell them on, subject to Crown Estate approval.
I’m totally fine with parliamentary committees and the press examining the rotten royal finances. I also agree that a thorough examination of royal properties and the Crown Estates is a good thing. But I kind of hate that they’re trying to drag an 88-year-old minor royal just because QEII always made sure that her cousin always had a nice home. Alexandra isn’t falling out of nightclubs, nor did she abuse girls on Epstein’s island. Let her live in her Richmond lodge for £2,200 a year in what amounts to her retirement! Is her lease agreement insane? For sure. But don’t make this 88-year-old lady the “face” of this royal real estate fiasco. It’s just another reminder, as well, that QEII actually tried to take care of her extended family. King Charles does not feel the same way, and Scooter King would rather set fire to all of these castles than allow one of his cousins to live there.
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.
-
- HRH PRINCESS ALEXANDRA attend the charity performance of the English National Opera production in aid of The Prince's Trust 'Madam Butterfly' held at the Coliseum London, England – 16.12.05,Image: 341633188, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Credit line: Daniel Deme/Wenn/Avalon
-
- HRH PRINCESS ALEXANDRA Attending a banquet at Guildhall in London, in honour of the Hungarian President Mr Arpad Goncz.,Image: 502737648, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: World Rights – Fee Payable Upon Reproduction – For queries call Photoshot Global HQ – London + 44 (0)20 7421 6000 , also New York Office Tel : + 1 646-429-8731 and Hamburg Office Tel +49 (0)40 530 240 5959, Model Release: no, Credit line: Photoshot/Avalon
-
- Sir Angus Ogilvy and Princess Alexandra,Image: 535840252, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: WORLD RIGHTS – Fee Payable Upon Reproduction – For queries contact Avalon.red – sales@photoshot.com London: +44 (0) 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles: +1 (310) 822 0419 Berlin: +49 (0) 30 76 212 251, Model Release: no, Credit line: John Shelley Collection/Avalon
-
- Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy attends the Autumn RHS Chelsea Flower Show at Royal Hospital Chelsea, London, England, UK on Monday 20 September, 2021.,Image: 633068651, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: Please credit photographer and agency when publishing as Justin Ng/UPPA/Avalon., Model Release: no, Credit line: Justin Ng/Avalon
-
- Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy arrives at The Commonwealth Day Service at Westminster Abbey, London, England, UK on Monday 14 March, 2022.,Image: 669738252, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: Please credit photographer and agency when publishing as Justin Ng/UPPA/Avalon., Model Release: no, Credit line: Justin Ng/Avalon
I agree. Leave this woman in peace but make sure the lease ends when she passes away.
I agree, this isn’t the problem with the Royal Family. The press needs to focus on the mess of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster.
They should leave the old lady out of it, that’s a horrible thing to do just to make W&K look good (I assume that’s the goal). Elderly folks who have been in place for 50+years? How many huge renovations has the crown paid for her, probably zero. She’s from the Queen’s generation, where there was definitely no expectation of an outside job or support, and didn’t run up huge debts or sell access. She’s also the exact age that would take this kind of public scrutiny extremely personally. I want to hear about young and able scroungers, I’m positive there’s a lot.
She’s been a working royal since she was a teenager! Let her keep her lovely house at a low rent, and after she passes, they can rent it out at market rate.
WanK threw an elderly cardiologist out of his cottage so they could frolic in their newest “forever home.” I wouldn’t put it past them to make an 88yo relative the face of their “reforms.”
The average British citizen isn’t getting these sorts of terms, certainly not in semi retirement. And the lease was made when she was in her 50’s. So to me it’s not about picking on the elderly but more about how the British upper class look out for each other. It’s the unfairness for me, because if it were a random 88-year living on one of the Duchy’s moldy, drafty rentals, they would still be demanding full rent.
That’s the thing. Any other 88 year old would have a higher rent in a Duchy rental and what happens when they can’t pay? I’m not saying kick this person out at this point, jeez, but the inequity is excruciating.
She isn’t any other 88 year old. She is a member of the BRF who have housed their relatives for centuries. If parliament finds this problematic they should pass new laws to ensure the current and next generations don’t get huge handouts. The lease holder isn’t at fault. She signed a legal and binding document.
I did not say she is at fault as the lease-holder and I don’t think she should be kicked out. Regardless of what Parliament does or does not do, I’m just observing the fact that it’s crazy that a chance of birth means one 88 year old is housed while another might be evicted by the Duchy for failing to pay a much higher rent. A person who may have worked many more hours in their life than a member of the RF. It is what it is and there’s many of example of this all over but it still sucks to see it. But no I agree, she worked for the RF on the understanding that she would be housed and they also probably paid her less of a yearly stipend from their own pockets bc of it.
These folks would have been better off to just pay a lump sum for a 150-year lease rather than have these small payments linger on & be challenged
At 88, she’s earned peace in her retirement. Leave any legal challenges until after she’s passed.
While I’m sorry that an 88 year old’s lease structure is also getting headlines, I believe it’s important to look at all of the “grace and favor” arrangements and determine if the taxpayer is getting fair compensation. While it might be decided to let the elderly keep going as is, these arrangements shouldn’t be allowed to carry forward after their passing. Also, why are they allowing these people to “sell” their leases, thereby making even more money off of a “gift”?
Meredith Constant on Substack has a very interesting article about the trusts set up by the crown that enables them to sell “crown estate” properties for a profit, ie Sunninghill Park.
This is an inherent problem if the ecosystem Royal Family. In a hereditary monarchy the queen or king is the absolut boss, the rich and powerful. Before a son is born to him/her, little brother is the spare, who does not have a job if his own, why would he? As soon as a new heir is born the spare (and his family) is sliding down the succession line, still no job, dependent on the generosity of big brother/sister/cousin. That’s how Lizzie’s extended family lived for the last 70 years. How should princess Alexandra generate income? It’s not her fault her father didn’t become king. She lives inside a deeply flawed and long outdated system. Abolish it!
This is it. The only way out of this debacle is to abolish the monarchy.
Really focus on Forrest Lodge and how much that extra land and security is costing and inconveniencing the public. Will is only 43 and needs to start earning his keep and not taking everybody for granted.
It’s too late to deal with the senior royals, but these people have been paying these “peppercorn rents” for decades. I do feel for the next generation because they’re really going to have to hustle like Beatrice to survive. Rent in London is pricey.
See, I’m just waiting bc I’m pretty sure Bea and Eugenie both have cottages and rooms in London within palace walls. The question is what they pay in rent and when is their spot gonna be blown up. It’s just a matter of time.
You know this is coming out next. LOL. They’ll throw everyone under the bus before they get to William, Kate, Anne, and her children. But the rents are only a piece of the puzzle. How much is spent on security? Gardening? Staff?
I can’t say how British people should feel because it is their taxpayer money that is going to subsidize this family, so whether it’s 2200 a year or 200,000 a year, it does deserve scrutiny.
But the thing is, the scrutiny deserves to be on the people at the top, not someone that’s lived in the home since 1963. If I remember correctly this is the one that Edward and Sophie were literally holding up because she’s so old in the coronation photos. Making her the face of it when the heir and his wife are currently decorating their fifth mansion is pretty gross. And when their work this year even though they have made millions of pounds, has included tennis matches, football and rugby matches, horse races, fancy dinners, and occasionally hanging out at the pub, and with the peasants VERY occasionally.
Well said.
The press must shift their attention PDQ from this frail 88 year old, to the youngest ‘working’ royals half her age who, as you observe, are busy decorating their fifth house their latest forever home. Shocking!
Is this a holdover from the civil list or whatever it was when the monarch was supporting scores of relatives who don’t earn paychecks? I bet the Sussexes never had these peppercorn deals. Where I live the average rent for a 2 Bd is $4000/mth and it’s usually much much higher.
Part of the problem is that they cut the budget on salaries and supporting minor royals by housing them cheaply in these grace and favor houses, offering a comfortable retirement to people who had lived and worked in the various royal residences. If they don’t have that, they’ll have to start paying market rate salaries. This “shadiness” is probably actually saving taxpayer money.
Britain wants a fancy ass royal family with all the trimmings. But they also want to be able to complain bitterly about the money being spent. It’s just ridiculousness, meant to sell papers whether the royals are popular or in the doghouse this week.
The royal family made a huge mistake starting this whole “value for money” thing all those years ago. There’s always someone saying “I don’t think they’re good value.” It’s a trap. But those fools set it for themselves. William’s going to have big trouble. As is the government.
I don’t understand the whole two lease thing. If you have a valid 70-year lease, why on earth are you even thinking about paying more for a 150-year lease? What kind of accounting do these royals do? And this whole ‘she was once a working royal’ stuff is ridiculous. There is no such designation, that’s just a recent made-up term meant to punish Harry & Meghan,
Hopefully her son won’t inherit the lease when she passes away.
I assume this lease will transfer down to their kids to live in or sublease? That’s how the Ogilvys got it in 1963. They paid £150k for a sublease from Clare, Duchess of Sutherland.
I think the market rate aspect is a little different for these properties. I believe the lease holder is responsible for all the repairs and maintenance? I’m a renter in the US and my landlord paid for my new roof, windows, painting the building exterior, plumbing, etc. I’m not sure what kind of discount I’d get on my monthly rent if I had to pay for all that.