Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor Sublet Royal Cottages While Paying Peppercorn Rent, Audit Finds

The UK’s public spending watchdog has exposed a previously opaque corner of royal finances, detailing how Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the disgraced former Prince Andrew, privately sublet three cottages on the Windsor estate for more than two decades while paying only a symbolic “peppercorn rent” for the mansion he occupied. The National Audit Office (NAO) report, released on Friday, estimated that the rental income from the properties at Royal Lodge could have reached up to £180,000 per year, based on their “unique setting, security and prestige.” The findings, prompted by a parliamentary inquiry into royal property arrangements, mark the most detailed public review of the family’s residential deals in twenty years.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, stripped of his royal titles in 2025 following the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, had held a lease on the 30-room Royal Lodge since 2003. Under the agreement with the Crown Estate, he paid a nominal fee—effectively rent-free—after making an initial payment of £1 million and committing to £7.5 million in renovations. The lease explicitly permitted subletting of the estate’s eight cottages, three of which he subsequently rented out. While the NAO did not disclose the exact income, palace sources suggested the sums were modest, merely covering running costs. British legislators were unimpressed. Labour MP Rachael Maskell and former Liberal Democrat minister Norman Baker condemned the arrangement as “exploitative” and “outrageous,” arguing any proceeds should have flowed to the Crown Estate.

The audit also turned a spotlight on broader royal housing subsidies. It revealed that King Charles III personally funds the accommodation of Andrew’s daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, who live in rent-controlled palace properties despite not being working members of the royal family. The revelation has stoked fresh criticism in the UK, where scrutiny of the monarchy’s opaque finances has intensified. From the continent, Italian and German commentaries framed the report as further evidence of a family long accustomed to minimal public accountability; one German daily noted that Andrew’s subletting scheme came to light “amid a public debate about the royal household’s property arrangements, which appear opaque from the outside.”

International observers connected the findings to Andrew’s wider fall from grace. Gulf and Asian media highlighted how the Epstein scandal had originally triggered the inquiry that led to the NAO’s investigation. The report’s release, ahead of a parliamentary hearing, “raises fresh questions about royal finances and housing arrangements,” a Middle Eastern outlet observed. In Australia, the coverage underlined that the review offered “one of the most detailed looks in decades at how members of the royal family benefit from Crown Estate and palace properties.” This rare transparency has been welcomed but also seen as insufficient by critics who demand structural reform.

As the UK’s Public Accounts Committee prepares to examine the findings, the spotlight on royal property arrangements is unlikely to fade. The episode illustrates the tension between the monarchy’s traditional discretion and the public’s demand for financial accountability. Whether it will prompt a revision of the Crown Estate’s leasing practices or a wider overhaul of royal subsidies remains open. For now, the image of a former prince pocketing sublet income while paying a peppercorn rent has reinforced perceptions of a tiered system—and sharpened calls for change from London to Sydney.