Prince Edward & Sophie are only paying ‘peppercorn rent’ for Bagshot Park

In October, there were weeks of royal scandal due to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (formerly Prince Andrew) and his multiple fiascoes involving Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Virginia Giuffre, Royal Lodge and, as always, money. The situation around Andrew’s lease on Royal Lodge got so heated that the British papers began to investigate other royal leases. In late October, the Times of London looked into the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh’s longterm lease on Bagshot Park, the 30-room mansion with extensive grounds. Edward was “given” Bagshot by QEII, but it remained part of the Crown Estates, and that means Edward and Sophie have some kind of makeshift lease agreement with the Crown Estates (as opposed to owning Bagshot outright). While Edward first leased Bagshot in the 1990s, Edward renegotiated in 2007 and ended up signing a 150-year lease for £5 million. We were told, in October, that Edward and Sophie were paying market rate. That turned out to be a giant lie.

The King’s brother, Prince Edward, enjoys his Surrey mansion at a peppercorn rent, it can be revealed, after The Times forced the disclosure of documents held by the Crown Estate. The Duke of Edinburgh, Queen Elizabeth’s youngest child, has leased the 51-acre Bagshot Park near Bracknell with his wife, the Duchess of Edinburgh, from the Crown Estate for the last 25 years.

According to the terms of Edward’s lease extension, signed in 2007 with his company, Eclipse Nominees Limited, he paid £5 million upfront for a lease of 150 years, but pays only a peppercorn rent. There are no conditions on the further sale of Edward’s lease, beyond that the new tenant could afford the property’s maintenance, leaving open the possibility that Edward could profit from its sale.

It is understood that the premium paid for the 2007 lease extension and as a down payment on future rent was “market tested” by the Crown Estate before the price was agreed, and there are restrictions on the way the property can be used in line with the historical nature of the park and property.

As a working member of the royal family who is often seen representing the Windsors at official engagements both in the UK and overseas, Edward has several charitable patronages, including the Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme, which promotes outdoor activities for young people. Campaigners have questioned whether Edward, 15th in line to the throne, can justify his occupation of a property that could otherwise be leased by the Crown Estate for taxpayer benefit.

Edward, who was granted the title Duke of Edinburgh by the King after the death of his father, Prince Philip, initially leased the property for 50 years for £5,000 a year in March 1998. The sum later went up to £90,000 a year — described by the National Audit Office as “market value” — after Edward paid £1.36 million to help renovate the property, with the Crown Estate covering the rest of the ­£3 million refurbishment costs.

Unlike Royal Lodge, the Crown Estate received two alternative offers for Bagshot Park, one for the establishment of a conference centre and another to convert the property into a hotel, after the Ministry of Defence handed back its lease on the site in 1996.

This lease was extended under the 2007 deal. While some of the details about that deal were reported through briefings, the full lease itself was not published. The heavily redacted version on the Land Registry made it impossible to establish whether he continued to pay a market rent. Despite releasing an unredacted copy of Andrew’s lease to reporters, the Crown ­Estate had initially declined to disclose a copy of Edward’s Bagshot Park lease, forcing The Times to request the full lease under freedom of information laws.

[From The Times]

Part of me wishes that British people would all just collectively agree that home ownership should be prioritized by the royal family, and that these various “crown-owned” properties should simply be put up for sale and sold at genuine market rates. Because this half-assed property-management style is really pissing me off. How in the world did Edward score this kind of generous deal? Even crazier is that I’m sure Edward wasn’t paying out of pocket for anything at any time, because where would he even get £5 million to pay upfront? Please, this whole thing was always subsidized by his mother. Which explains why Sophie has been sucking up to William, Charles and Camilla so much in recent years too – Sophie and Edward, more than anyone else in that family, really have their entire lifestyles funded by the monarch alone (even Princess Anne owns her home outright, after it was gifted to her by her mother).

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

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

48 Responses to “Prince Edward & Sophie are only paying ‘peppercorn rent’ for Bagshot Park”

  1. Tessa says:

    I remember king Charles made them wait for the Edinburgh title.

  2. Blujfly says:

    Hilariously, the Times already reported this in 2000, along with the fact that the ministry of defense, the former occupiers of the building, paid 1.5 million pounds for Edward’s renovations. They reported it again after the lease renegotiation. 20 years of pure access journalism has weakened them.

    I have no doubt anyone related to the royals is not paying market rent, or any rent at all.

    • Mary says:

      That time was a little harder to monarchy, Diana’s death, then came abolition referendum of Australia in 1999, that time was rise of republicans. But double majority didn’t achieved. And UK republicans also wrote to expose monarchy. But the majority imfavoured monarchy.
      But now again the republicanism is rising. That’s,why we see more of these articles.

  3. JjP says:

    How would they be paying anything other than a peppercorn rent? They aren’t permitted to work, their income is through Charles. The Royal family should be paying market rent for all of these homes through the Duchys. People should demand more from them.

    • Blujfly says:

      That’s very true. They have no income, basically aren’t allowed to generate income, the monarch should just pay.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Blujfly

        I agree with you. Edward and Sophie are full time working Royals. They CANNOT earn any income. If they are forced to pay market rents they will be forced (insert clutching pearls) to start giving paid speeches and writing tell-all books. IMAO, as long as the Duke & Duchess of Edinburgh are working Royals, the Monarch should pay for their housing just as QEII did

      • jais says:

        Or if they were forced to pay market rate and they are full time working royals then can’t the monarch dip into their own pockets and pay the market rent for them. These peppercorn leases seem to be about saving the monarch from paying market rate for any working royals. Why can’t a monarch pay market-rate rent?

    • Happy Peregrine says:

      It is my understanding that Edward does not have a duchy. E & S are genuinely and completely beholden to the monarch for their children’s education and for their food, clothes, home etc.

      Sophie seems to genuinely work ‘hard’ – she’s constantly being sent all over the globe by the British government.

      • Mac says:

        According to the Guardian, Edward has been paid $8.5 million over 43 years. That averages to about $200K per year.

    • Dee(2) says:

      Yep. I always say that this system is set up to encourage shady behavior. While they don’t need a hundred room mansion for four people, they have to live somewhere, and their job should provide for them the ability to have somewhere to live, either by salary or either by providing it.

      All of this talk about market rents though, and how it ties into their roles as working royals has made me think about when Harry was one and living at Nott Cott. They were sending him all over the world with barely a break in between. As a VP at an organization traveling that much he would be making well into the six figures. Is the market rent for Nott Cott even with its very desirable location, commiserate to what he would have made in the private sector for something that size in that area, or were they taking advantage of him there too?

    • Smart&Messy says:

      Why are they not permitted to work? And I don’t consider being a working royal real work because I don’t think they provide any value at all. Like why did Sophie visit Ukrain? Who did that benefit? No one but the head of state should get a salary. Everyone else should have learned a trade and worked. With their connections and nepotism, all could have landed some cushy jobs.

      • Blujfly says:

        The Queen prevented them from working. The media crawls all over any business involvement of the “working royals” and sometimes the non-working royals and immediately accuses them of using their access for profit. Even those the jobs of most posh people are exactly that – selling and using their own connections.

    • jais says:

      S then what is his company about, apparently called Eclipse Nominees Limited? It says he signed the lease extension in 2007 with his company. How does he have a company if he’s a working royal only? I was like wait, hold up, Edward has a company???

      • AprilUnderwater says:

        I assume for asset protection/obfuscation purposes. It likely wouldn’t be a trading company, just another legal structure through which to arrange his assets.

        (I’m an Australian lawyer, and company/trust structuring is my practice area – our law is derived from the UK law and has a lot of similarities.)

  4. JENNIFER says:

    But why did thw queen buy properties for Anne and Andrew, and none for Edward?

    • Blujfly says:

      I have no idea the “real” reason but the home for Anne was purchased in the mid 70s and Andrew’s in the late 80s. Edward wasn’t until the late 90s. By then the Windsor castle fire had occurred and the public and government was far more aware of the excesses of the family. And buying the property for Andrew had totally backfired.

    • Happy Peregrine says:

      I think the point of these rentals was that they are basically owned outright by the inhabitants. The peppercorn rent was meant to be a loophole wink nudge allowing them own the property without owning the property.

      Honestly – Edward was super neglected in so many more ways than the heir, spare or daughter. None of whom received parental love. A & A received parental attention and shown favoritism. Charles is the heir. Edward was just forgotten. There weren’t any scraps left for him.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      @Jennifer

      QEII paid privately for Andrew and Anne’s estates. Gatcombe Park and Sunninghill Park were never owned by the Crown Estate as they were in private ownership before QEII purchased and gifted them to Anne and Andrew. By the time Edward married and needed a home, the press was beginning to ask “where is the private money coming from?”.

      Also security was an issue. The Security Bill for Bagshot Park is much less than the Security Bill for Anne’s estate Gatcombe Park as Bagshot Park is in Windsor Great Park (just like Frogmore Cottage) which has 24-7 royal security to protect all the properties .

    • Kry-baby says:

      This is what puzzles me as well. Surely Edward and Sophie would have preferred a smaller property, gifted outright? Something with land to provide income?

      Didn’t George V set his kids up more amply – why did QE2 not follow that model? Of course back then they were still raking in funds fromcolonies…

    • Ray says:

      Edward wanted Bagshot Park. He was not neglected at all. He was spoiled. Prince Philip’s favorite son and the Queen’s second favorite child. He asked for the Earl of Wessex title wasn’t a working royal got a huge house and rented out the stables for six figures. No one else had such a deal. Edward worked in theater and in television production until he started that company. He didn’t step down from that production company until Sophie’s sting in the early 2000’s. It closed years later. He could have gotten a more modest house he chose not to. No one forced him into Bagshot Park. He was crowing about having a job and working with Sophie and being normal while moving into a huge mansion. It was very much mocked at the time. His moving into Bagshot in Surrey wasn’t helping security costs ridiculous.

  5. Smart&Messy says:

    “these various “crown-owned” properties should simply be put up for sale and sold at genuine market rates. Because this half-assed property-management style is really pissing me off. ”
    Right??? Why do they get o keep vast amount of property and wealth to manage and profit from? The head of state should get a generous salary, one state owned and funded residence and state funded security for his immediate family. That’s it!!! Instead they practically own two duchies without any oversight, use the duchies to grift millions from taxpayers (nhs, military, ports, prisons tec) and then put a fraction of the same money into crown estate (taxpayer) coffers to get these shady real estate deals. And THEN they get a percentage of that money back through the sovereign grant, because that’s taken from crown estate profits … that apparently no one audits. Don’t get me started on BP renovations which is used to justify the exponential increase in SG, and let me guess that no one has ever audited that either.

    • Happy Peregrine says:

      Is there any accountability on what renovations are being done at BP and when they will be concluded?

      Or on what is being spent? The castles are musty and dank and the offices seem to have been furnished in the 1960’s with nothing new added since. I mean – both William and Harry lived at Nott Cot. For William it was the one time he lived in something that hadn’t been renovated and remodeled to the nth degree.

      For Harry – that was just a portent of his life inside the institution. Punished by William and Charles because he existed.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “Is there any accountability on what renovations are being done at BP and when they will be concluded?”

        90% of repairs to BP are structural. Part of the structural deterioration was due to proper and normal maintenance not being carried out on a schedule in a timely manner. Part of the deterioration was due to the building not being “up to current building code”. Not being “up to current building code” was not a major liability until BP was open to public in 1992 following the Windsor Castle Fire. Opening BP to the public was done to fund the restorations of Windsor Castle needed after the 1992 fire.

        BP cosmetics renovations will commence after the structural repairs have been concluded and will probably be minimal to non-public areas of the palace.

      • Blujfly says:

        When William and Kate “lived” in Nott Cott they also had a 4 bedroom farmhouse on the coast in Wales. if Kate wanted to be in London she stayed with her parents or her sister. If they slept more than 30 nights in NottCott I’ll eat my hat.

      • Ray says:

        No there is no real accountability or oversight.

  6. Sharon says:

    Why does he need such a huge estate when it’s just him & his wife & 2 kids? Can you imagine the cost of heating these properties in the winter? Do they close off entire wings? I just don’t understand what people do with all these extra rooms.

    • Smart&Messy says:

      Very good question. They can’t completely close off wings, i believe, because some basic heating is necessary to avoid mold and other deterioration.

      • Happy Peregrine says:

        I can’t imagine. We have a house with an extra room. We are super fortunate. But there are some days we don’t go in there. Mostly in the summer because it’s super super hot but still.

        Our first home was 900 sq ft and when we moved across country for work into our rental it felt like we were marbles rolling around in the rental home. It was just so big. Just comically big compared to what we had had. I was worried we wouldn’t spend as much time together because we had two hang out areas. Luckily – we tended to always look for the each other so we could hang out by each other.

        I can’t imagine such a massive home. It would be awful.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “I can’t imagine such a massive home. It would be awful”

        Many people throughout the world live in overly big houses. Does it really matter how big the house is (Bagshot Park) or isn’t (Ivy Cottage) as long as proper rents are being paid? The problem is with the leasing management company that is setting the rates and leasing terms not the tenants.

      • Ray says:

        Of course it matters. That house could be rented out for a large sum that could benefit taxpayers.

    • Sure says:

      I’m guessing that while Andrew didn’t have to pay his water bill on a regular basis like us plebs, E probably doesn’t have to pay for his utilities on a regular basis either. The Windsors are scamming the public with their peppercorn rents and once in a blue moon utility charges.

  7. Tis True, Tis True says:

    The UK has to ask itself if it wants a Royal Family that lives in à style comparable to the country’s titled aristocracy. If they do, having them live in big houses on the Crown Estates for peppercorn rent is probably a smart way to do it. If not, they are going to have to figure out what to do with these people.

    Right now, it’s the worst of both worlds. Expecting them to live like princes, without being willing to fund it, and yelling at them about it.

    My answer would be to get rid of them all, including all the Lords and Ladies. But if this country wants to keep them around, they need to stop being such petty shits about it. I guess I’m fascinated by this simultaneous adoration and tearing down of the monarchy.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “The UK has to ask itself if it wants a Royal Family that lives in à style comparable to the country’s titled aristocracy. If they do, having them live in big houses on the Crown Estates for peppercorn rent is probably a smart way to do it. If not, they are going to have to figure out what to do with these people.”

      Exactly! You hit the nail on the head. If “these people” earning no income cannot afford to have a home then they will be forced to “earn income” that allows to live as such by writing tell-all books, giving paid speeches, making paid appearances and cameo roles in film/ TV productions..

    • JanetDR says:

      Yep! Either give them a place to live, an allowance and something to do to support the monarchy or cut them all off completely and let them earn a living.

  8. Chrissie T says:

    This is what they wanted for Harry, live in a mansion which you don’t own and cannot afford to maintain and take the jobs you are given. Do they even have a choice of retirement. Edward made a brief attempt to escape and was never allowed to work independently after that and now he is completely dependent on the whims of the Monarch. So I wouldn’t begrudge him any money he might earn from the lease. I also think it’s a way of life that is coming to an end. Harry must look at the debacle in the royals and thank his lucky stars he left when he did.

    • jais says:

      And Harry was given a nice home. FC is very nice but is not like any of these mansions. And Andrew was allowed to pay a peppercorn rent even after he stopped being a non-working royal whereas the Harry and Meghan were paying a market-rate rent for FC. Think about that. They were prob paying thousands of pounds a month for FC while Andrew was paying nothing a month for his huge mansion. Before they were evicted anyways.

      • Sms says:

        The palace claimed all of them were paying market rents. It wasn’t true of Andrew or Edward and we have no way of knowing if it was true of Harry. It’s not like he was earning an income.

  9. Tina says:

    I cannot even imagine the maintenance costs. The gardeners, cleaners, energy bills. What does a new roof cost? If he has a 150 year lease is the taxpayer paying all this for his grandkids and great grandchildren when they live there long after he is dead? Or does he sell the lease in 20 years for a staggering sum? Absolute grifters. Mind blowing.

  10. QuiteContrary says:

    Sophie’s and Edward’s lives are sad. Edward was never allowed to be his true self. And I cannot understand why Sophie signed up for a life so dependent on sucking up to the monarch. It seems like such a bleak existence.

    • L4Frimaire says:

      She has shown herself to be a real jerk in public, and incredibly entitled. Same for her limp rag of a husband. This guy is an empty suit. They have nothing positive to offer.

  11. GMHQ says:

    I bet Princess Ann’s house also is a peppercorn deal and she does not own the property outright. By now we should all understand that the late queen was telling a bunch of whoppers when it came to gifting property to her kids and grandkids. The palace hacks said she gave Frogmore Cottage to Harry and Meghan as a wedding gift, when in fact t was a lease. Same for Andrew, although he poured millions into Royal Lodge from the proceeds he received when he sold Southfork at an inflated price to a shady Kazak oligarch. The Crown estate is supposed to be an instrument for transparency but it really has been used to coverup royal shadiness.

  12. Amy Bee says:

    Didn’t we know this already? Considering Edward has no income coming besides what his mother gave him it’s clear that the Queen gave him the money to pay for the house. I think the Crown Estate should be dismantled and all the property that are not in use should be sold on the open market.

  13. Lady Digby says:

    The Times headline states Prince Edward pays peppercorn rent for 120 room Surrey mansion.
    It’s Wikipedia entry also states that a new building with 120 rooms was completed in 1879. The 1881 census records an equerry and 26 servants living in the main house: an under butler, a housekeeper, four valets, two lady’s maids, two dressers, a cook, three kitchen maids, three housemaids, three footmen, a page, a porter, a scullery maid, two other junior posts and a soldier. A coachman and seven grooms lived in the stables. Two other domestic staff lived in one of the lodges, three agricultural workers lived in another, and one gardener is recorded as living on the estate. The Times article includes mansion and extensive grounds.
    Kate only got a 24 seater dining table for Forrest Lodge, how many dining tables did Edward get to fill up some of the 120 rooms??

  14. L4Frimaire says:

    They deserve this scrutiny. That is a ridiculous amount of house for these people that they basically pay nothing for.

  15. Is that so? says:

    I’m curious about the deal Beatrice and Eugenie have on their royal rentals, because when I compare how the Sussex were treated in comparison to the queen’s children it is infuriating . Therefore I’m very curious how her other adult grandchildren were treated, with the understanding that Beatrice and Eugenie were not in Harry’s position when he was a part of the stripped down monarchy.

    If B&E have better deals I’ll assume that Andrew was better at advocating for his children.

  16. Debdowner says:

    I just can’t believe that the queen didn’t/wouldnt/couldnt leave any money to her other children (aside from Charles). Or clear instructions to Charles to fund their homes, lifestyles, etc. How does this lifestyle otherwise make any sense??

    • That is so. says:

      pri·mo·gen·i·ture. /ˌprīmōˈjenəˌCHo͝or/
      noun
      the state of being the firstborn child.

      the right of succession belonging to the firstborn child, especially the feudal rule by which the whole real estate of an intestate passed to the eldest son.

      noun: right of primogeniture; plural noun: rights of primogeniture

      If the sovereign’s wealth were divided every time a monarch dies, then the wealth would dissipate over time. If each member of the sovereign’s family was independently wealthy the sovereign would have no way to control them.

      He controls where they live, how they live, and how they are able to eat. When the monarch is benevolent, it bearable, otherwise . . .

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment