Prince Andrew has been facing renewed calls to move out of his palatial Windsor home, Royal Lodge, after new details about his association with Jeffrey Epstein were revealed in recent weeks. And multiple British lawmakers have expressed outrage over his living situation when the Times obtained Andrew's lease, which stated he's not paid rent since moving into Royal Lodge two decades ago—and is entitled to stay there until 2078. As the Telegraph reported on October 22, a former member of parliament (MP) is now claiming that the Crown Estate and royal household "stonewalled" efforts by parliament's public accounts committee to dig into Prince Andrew's finances.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he supported an inquiry into Prince Andrew's living situation on October 22, stating, "It’s important in relation to all properties, Crown properties, that there is proper scrutiny so I certainly support that." Per the Telegraph, the public accounts committee wants to launch an investigation into how Andrew is staying at Royal Lodge, "raising the prospect of the King’s brother being forced to give evidence to parliament."
According to the outlet, Ian Davidson, who served as a Labour Party MP and former member of the public accounts committee, said he "had raised questions" about Prince Andrew's deal at Royal Lodge in 2005. An official investigation was then launched by the National Audit Office. However, Davidson said, “We found it very difficult to get any straight answers at all about the financial arrangements surrounding Prince Andrew’s accommodation."
"We kept being misdirected and were simply flat refused details," he continued, per the Telegraph. "It wasn’t clear at that time that the Prince was in receipt of such a substantial public subsidy for his accommodation."
The committee's inquiry "concluded that the Lodge could have achieved a minimum rent of £260,000 a year—equivalent to almost half a million pounds in today’s money—but that on security grounds only a member of the Royal family could live there." At the time, Davidson claims it wasn't clear that Prince Andrew's lease only required a rent of "one peppercorn (if demanded)," a legal term meaning a symbolic rent only if it's asked for—essentially, nothing.
Davidson said that the committee "would have pressed further" if they had more information about the lease. "But in the face of stonewalling by the authorities—and by that I mean the royal household, the Crown Estate and the government—we couldn’t make any progress."
In response, Buckingham Palace released a statement reading, "In 2005, a National Audit Office report confirmed that the Royal household 'co-operated with its inquiries' on the Royal Lodge lease, answering 'the questions raised.' This included sharing that the rent paid would be an annual peppercorn rent. The report also disclosed that an independent evaluation concluded that the transaction was appropriate."
Per the Telegraph, a public accounts committee statement said that its "programme of inquiries is currently full up until the new year" and that "any decisions on the lease are a policy matter for the royal household." However, the National Audit Office "will be, as part of its normal programme of work, looking at the Crown Estate’s annual report and accounts in the next financial year."
