The Prince and Princess of Wales are determined to 'banish' Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson from Windsor's Royal Lodge where they have lived rent free for decades, according to royal biographer Tina Brown.
Ms Brown, a friend of Princess Diana who was editor-in-chief of Tatler and Vanity Fair, has claimed that Prince William and Kate 'can't abide' Andrew and want him to 'disappear'.
She claims having him in Windsor threatens to spoil life at their 'new forever home' Forest Lodge. The couple will move in next month with their three children George, Charlotte and Louis.
William's push to exile Andrew throws an intriguing new light on yesterday's claim that he is beginning to call the shots in the Royal Family because of his father King Charles' health.
Writing on her Fresh Hell Substack, Ms Brown, the highly respected author of The Palace Papers said: 'Unless Andrew can be persuaded to banish himself to a cottage on the Balmoral estate or a cushy villa on a Dubai golf course, his scowly, jowly visage will keep seeping back into the national consciousness'.
Calling Andrew the 'Duke of Dross', she said the future king and queen are pondering: 'How do you disappear a 6-foot-tall, 190-pound, 65-year-old man in robust good health who has an iron-clad contract to live in the Queen Mother’s former mansion, a short neigh from Windsor Castle and just four miles from the new “forever” home of Prince William and Kate, who can’t abide him?'
It came after yet another shocking twist in the royal-Epstein scandal when it emerged last night he hasn't paid rent on his palatial property for 22 years - said to be in the region of £260,000 a year.
Andrew should be kicked out of his Windsor Royal Lodge and disappear because the British public are ‘sick’ of him and he is an embarrassment to his family and the UK, according to Robert Jenrick.
And Andrew could become the first royal to be caught up in a criminal probe in more than 20 years. Scotland Yard has confirmed it is 'actively' probing claims he asked an officer to dig up dirt on Virginia Giuffre, whose posthumous autobiography is out today.
Brown repeated the claim that William will ban his errant uncle from his coronation - and could even consider keeping away from King Charles' funeral, when the tragedy occurs.
She wrote: 'The thornier question, perhaps approaching faster than anyone is indelicate enough to discuss, is whether, in the fullness of time, Andrew will be allowed to attend his brother, the king’s, funeral'.
Tina cited the toe-curling moment William was stuck next to Andrew outside the Duchess of Kent's funeral at Westminster Cathedral last month.
William looked deeply uncomfortable as his uncle appeared to be laughing as the left the service.
She said: 'The untenable hazard of banning him from public events but allowing him to still show up at family occasions was writ large at the September funeral of the Duchess of Kent, the late queen’s cousin.
'As the mourning royal party paused respectfully in the door of Westminster Cathedral when the duchess’s funeral cortege passed, Andrew loomed like a great white shark at the shoulder of a stone-faced Prince William.
'It was impossible for William, staring implacably in the other direction, to get his uncle’s baleful mug out of the shot. No chance of that happening again'.
Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick has said it is disgusting that taxpayers are subsiding him to live in a 30-room mansion with his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson when he should be paying £200,000 a year.
'I don’t see why the taxpayer frankly should continue to foot the bill. The public are sick of Prince Andrew', he said.
It came after yet another shocking twist in the royal-Epstein scandal when it emerged last night he hasn't paid rent on his palatial property for 22 years.
And Andrew could become the first royal to be caught up in a criminal probe in more than 20 years. Scotland Yard has confirmed it is 'actively' probing claims he asked an officer to dig up dirt on Virginia Giuffre, whose posthumous autobiography is out today.
Mr Jenrick said: ‘I don’t think the taxpayer should in any way be footing the bill for him to live in luxury homes ever again. He shouldn’t have any taxpayer subsidies going forward.
‘It’s about time Prince Andrew took himself off to live in private and make his own way in life. He has disgraced himself, he has embarrassed the Royal Family time and again.
'The King deserves great respect and admiration for the way he has handled this. He is trying to do his absolute best to ensure Prince Andrew goes off, leads a quiet life and doesn’t embarrass himself, the royal family or our country ever again'.
An unredacted copy of his lease emerged last night.
It shows that while he paid £1million to lease the property in 2003 and spent £7.5million on refurbishments, he has paid only 'one peppercorn (if demanded)' of rent a year since taking on the mansion 22 years ago.
This is because Andrew is deemed to have paid the rent – which was in the region of £260,000 a year – up front through the work he has funded to bring the palatial property up to scratch.
It also means the Crown Estate will have to pay him around half a million pounds if he were to quit his mansion before the lease on it runs out in 2078.
A copy of the agreement was obtained by The Times newspaper following pressure from MPs and campaigners. And it will no doubt add to public outrage over Andrew's perceived 'perks'.
Sources have stressed to the Daily Mail, however, 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 he pays the rent, the King has no legal right to throw him out.
The revelation comes as:
A devastating memoir by Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre is published today, in which she doubles down on allegations she was forced to have sex with Andrew on three occasions – a claim the prince strongly denies;
A growing chorus of MPs demanded legislation to legally strip Andrew of his royal titles, including that of the Duke of York, through an Act of Parliament after he only voluntarily gave them up last Friday;
Scotland Yard admitted an internal probe into allegations that the prince obtained Ms Giuffre's social security number and demanded that a police protection officer try to 'dig up dirt' on her could take weeks – if the records even still exist;
Buckingham Palace removed Andrew's former title, Duke of York, from its website, although his official biography remains;
Andrew's ex-wife Sarah Ferguson changed her social media profiles from 'Sarah the Duchess' to 'sarahMFergie15';
Princess Beatrice visited her father at Royal Lodge in a public show of support.
Beatrice and her sister Eugenie are said to have pulled out of a charity ball in London on Saturday amid the torrent of unedifying claims around their father.
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.
Royal Lodge, in the heart of Windsor Great Park, was the home of the Queen Mother, and was leased to Andrew after her death.
The Crown Estate approved the arrangement, saying its location and 'security concerns' made it difficult to rent out on the open market.
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.
The King had previously said that if his brother downsized and moved to a smaller property on the estate – potentially Frogmore Cottage, recently vacated by Harry – he would reinstate his personal allowance and help fund his security.
But after Andrew point-blank refused, it is not known whether the offer is still even on the table.
The headlines have been an unfortunate distraction for the King, who yesterday made a moving visit to Manchester to visit the Heaton Park synagogue that was targeted in a terror attack earlier this month.
The same old William is the bad guy, or in Tina Brown's case...William is calling all the shots. The media can't get it in it's head, as usual, that the Royal family was included in dealing with Andrew, including the King's other siblings plus William, as the Prince of Wales. The whole Royal Lodge situation has been discussed ad nauseum, Andrew has a long term lease and Charles has chosen not to fight that, however he may wish Andrew would vacate. Despite for some calls to strip Andrew of his title, Parliament doesn't seem all that ready to do so, it still wants to stay out of the whole thing. In addition, Parliament has enough problems right now to contend with.
Re: Is William leading the charge to dislodge Andrew?
It's the media leading the charge. Apparently, none of them have access to Wikipedia to read up on the terms of the lease.
And the media isn't as smart as the authors of the Wikipedia article, since it hasn't occurred to them to search the National Audit Office website for the information.
From Wikipedia:
In August 2003, Prince Andrew was granted a lease agreement by the Crown Estate for 75 years. The property lease included Royal Lodge, a Gardener's Cottage, the Chapel Lodge, six Lodge Cottages, and police security accommodation in addition to 40 hectares of land. The lease agreement required Prince Andrew to undertake refurbishments at his own expense, which was estimated at £7.5 million at September 2002 prices, excluding VAT. It also specified a premium payment of £1 million. The National Audit Office (NAO) report into the lease agreement stated that the Crown Estate's independent advisors had advised that the refurbishment work would cost at least £5 million and that the Prince should be given the option to buy out the notional annual rental payment (set at £260,000) for £2.5 million. Once the prince committed to spending £7.5 million on refurbishment, it was decided that no rental would be required as he would be treated as having effectively bought out the notional annual rental payment because he exceeded the minimum £5 million required for refurbishment. As a result, only the £1 million premium was paid to the Crown Estate.[3]
There is no provision for any further rent review over the life of the 75-year lease agreement (unlike the rent reviews provided in the case of Bagshot Park, the residence of Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh, also leased from the Crown Estate).[3] The lease agreement provides that the prince may not benefit financially from any increase in the value of the property, as the freehold belongs to the Crown Estate. The leasehold may be assigned only to his widow or his two daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, or a trust established solely for their benefit.[3] If the prince terminates the lease, the property reverts to the Crown Estate. He would be entitled to compensation for the refurbishment costs incurred, up to a maximum of just under £7 million, which is reduced annually over the first 25 years, after which no compensation is payable.[3] The NAO report states that having already taken advice from one independent advisor on the transaction, the Crown Estate appointed a second firm of independent advisors to assess the details of the lease deal, given its importance. The second independent advisor concluded that the deal was appropriate, considering the importance of retaining management control over the Royal Lodge and the security implications, especially concerning the Royal Family's access to the Royal Chapel. In the circumstances, the Crown Estate considered that the requirement to obtain value for money was satisfied, taking into account the non-financial considerations relating to the lease of the property. The alternative use, to lease it on the commercial market, was not viable.[3]
The media rereads its old articles and reposts them with new dates. Their idea of "reporting" is reacting, not delving deeper.
Andrew isn't leaving Royal Lodge until he's good and ready, or until a portion of the roof or a wall falls in due to deferred maintenance. Then he'd be in violation of the lease provision that requires him to keep the home in good repair. One thing strikes me, is that the lease can be inherited by either his wife or his children. Sarah isn't his wife, unless they remarried in secret. If Andrew precedes her in death, there will be a trebuchet waiting at the Lodge's main gate to help her move. I can't imagine either York princess wanting to live there.
The media is working itself into a frenzy over the possibility. With Eugenie and Jack living in Portugal now, and Beatrice and Edo spending time in Italy the argument that A & S want to live close to their daughters doesn't hold water. Charles must be livid (but not quite incandescent) that his trip to the Vatican is being overshadowed by this mess. But that's the fault of the media, not Andrew. I'm sure Andrew would be very happy if nobody was talking about him.
Prince Andrew is in negotiations with the King to leave his Royal Lodge home, it was claimed today after days of public outcry over his rent-free lease agreement.
The monarch's brother is facing increasing calls to vacate the 30-room mansion amid the continuing furore over his links to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and the publication of the posthumous memoirs by his sexual assault accuser Virginia Giuffre.
Yesterday, the palace seemed to be on the verge of an announcement and summoned broadcast media to Royal Lodge - before pulling back from the brink late in the evening.
The Daily Mail now understands that talks are ongoing between Andrew and the Palace.
Buckingham Palace is said to be piling pressure on the former Duke of York as the controversy surrounding him and his property in Windsor shows no sign of abating.
Key issues relating to Andrew leaving are said to be where he will live instead and the level of compensation he will receive for the millions he has spent on the home.
Royal sources claimed that the palace is strongly pushing to force Andrew out and reassure his daughters Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie that their own homes in St James's Palace and Kensington Palace respectively will be unaffected.
Andrew could potentially live in a property on one of the King's privately-owned residences such as Sandringham or Balmoral in Aberdeenshire.
But the prince is said to be keen to stay in London or Windsor near his daughters – and does not want to be sent to Norfolk or Scotland.
Claims emerged this week that the prince's 'peppercorn' rent on the Crown Estate property in Windsor Great Park was concealed in a redacted version of his lease submitted to the Land Registry more than 20 years ago.
The Times reported the 2003 redacted version, compared with the full lease released this week, read ''Rent' means' rather than ''Rent' means one peppercorn (if demanded)', and also 'To pay the Rent' rather than 'To pay the Rent if demanded'.
The newspaper said the decision not to reveal such details was legal.
But the move raises questions as to why how much Andrew was paying was seemingly hidden from the public.
The Public Accounts Committee has already confirmed it is writing to the Crown Estate and the Treasury asking for further information about the prince's lease.
Broadcast crews and photographers meanwhile gathered outside the gates of Royal Lodge yesterday evening amid speculation there could be further developments in the long-running controversy surrounding the late Queen's second son.
Friends of the prince reportedly told the Telegraph that Andrew believes the King is trying to force him out of the mansion because he wants it as a base for the Queen in Windsor should she outlive him. Buckingham Palace strongly denied this was the King's plan.
Andrew relinquished use of his Duke of York title and remaining honours last Friday in a bid to prevent distracting from the work of the monarch and the royal family, but he remains a prince, living in the grand Royal Lodge, and the scandal continues to dominate the headlines.
( ... )
The King has long been said to have tried to encourage his younger brother, who lives in the home with his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, to move out, but Andrew signed a watertight 75-year lease on the property in 2003.
His leasehold agreement revealed he paid £1million for the lease and that since then he paid 'one peppercorn' of rent 'if demanded' per year.
He was also required to pay a further £7.5million for refurbishments completed in 2005, according to a report by the National Audit Office.
The agreement also contains a clause that states the Crown Estate would have to pay Andrew around £558,000 if he gave up the lease.
I'll believe this story when I see photos of moving vans backed up to Royal Lodge and stuff being loaded into them and photos of the vans at a different residence with Andrew and Fergie standing in front. I would think Royal Lodge has the same reputation now as Frogmore Cottage and Fort Belvedere. They're reminders of the reminders of the former residents that resided in them, and not good reminders/memories. If I were Queen Camilla, I wouldn't want to step foot inside, even though it was the King's beloved grandmother's home. I know Ft. Belvedere doesn't have any Royals living there, but it's still a home that the Royals would like to avoid, I would imagine.
According to the Daily Fail, Andrew will move from Royal Lodge only if he and Fergie each get their own home. Oh, the entitlement and the chutzpah of this pair.
The Sun is slimy but it might be right. Ferguson was able to have her own space at Royal Lodge, but if they move into either Adelaide or Toad Hall there will be no privacy for either of them.
Beatrice and Eugenie might be getting itchy hoping they don’t have to host their mother “temporarily”. She has no money and nowhere to go if Charles dismisses this nonsense and Andrew decides he needs his space.
The two house solution that Andrew and Fergie want isn't going to fly. Charles should tell Andrew, "You're moving to Frogmore Cottage, period and if the ex-wife wants to join you? Fine. The trouble both have brought to the Royal Family puts them in no position to throw out conditions especially Fergie, she's back to being a commoner now. If they still raise a fuss, then the King should let them find their own place and Andrew pays for it, no extra help from the King. That went really well with Swiss chalet, didn't it?
I'd forgotten about the photo and the one with Maxwell and Kevin Spacey at Buck House. Andrew and Fergie may end up in North Korea, Kim Jong Un might end up being the only one who would take them.