Prince Andrew, Duke of York News and Events 8: Sep 2022 -

Tatiana Maria said:

I wonder why the King is so determined to force his brother to renounce his 75-year lease to leave Royal Lodge. What difference does it make which royal residence he lives in?

Click to expand...

Andrew is not extremely wealthy in his own right and cannot afford the upkeep on Royal Lodge without financial assistance from Charles (who has been paying for his security). Charles can lease out the Lodge to wealthier people and make money and have Andrew in a home that Andrew's finances allow him to afford without making demands on Charles' finances.

Curryong said:

One of the headlines above state that if Andrew leaves Royal Lodge the Crown Estate can ask for a million pounds a year in rent or lease arrangements for the property. That’s not small change. If it could be considered worthwhile to deeply upset a sibling in order to get it is debatable though.

Click to expand...

Charles and Andrew aren't close so I don't think Charles cares much about whether Andrew is upset. He's made it clear for a while now that he intends to force Andrew to move. This is just the latest effort.

So the King has a poor-to-nonexistent relationship with two of his closest family members? That’s not good.

ladongas said:

So the King has a poor-to-nonexistent relationship with two of his closest family members? That’s not good.

Click to expand...

He is in a no win situation. his son reveals private conversations and makes accusations. His brother through his own actions is out of the loop, he cannot afford the security or the upkeep of the house, he no longer provides support for the King or the RF. Surely it would be better for him to be in a more affordable home where security is already in place.
The King has been criticised for allowing to attend certain things in the past, I am thinking about the memorial service in particular, so he cannot win.

Somebody said:

That's exactly what he was doing the last time: being a hands-on worker. However, a picture got out and people didn't respond positively. So I'm afraid he is in a loose-loose situation.

Click to expand...

It is possible to work quietly in the background without having your photograph in the paper, he was too early trying to rehabilitate himself the last time and the public saw through it.

I think Charles is closer to Andrew than Harry IMO - for starters Andrew attends big family events often - Easter, Christmas, summer at Balmoral. Certainly he has probably spoken to his brother more than his son in the last two years or so. I think Charles is canny when it comes to public perception so is keen to ensure he is distanced publicly from Andrew. It has always been said that whilst Andrew's public role is well and truly over in private he is still part of the RF. I don't think Charles probably thinks highly of Andrew but ultimately he is his brother and there will always be a bond there - just as there will be Harry.

I think the whole Royal Lodge saga comes down to money - the late Queen was probably funding a lot of the upkeep during her lifetime (it was her childhood home and her beloved mothers main home after all) and Charles doesn't want to be spending £££££ on it now - it may well be that similar amounts aren't spent on Bagshot or Gatcombe for Ed and Anne so Charles doesn't see why it should be spent on Andrew's home, especially now he isn't a working royal. At the end of the day, if Andrew can't pay his own way why should Charles pick up the bill, especially when there is perfectly decent, not long ago refurbished house sitting vacant a few miles down the road - that also offers security within the main Windsor Castle cordon. One of the main reasons Royal Lodge was let to Andrew rather than on the public market was because the late Queen use to go to church at the Chapel of All Saints which is opposite the Royal Lodge, within its grounds. Charles doesn't seem to do use that chapel himself - if so rarely and there is a private family chapel in the main Castle - so that requirement for it to go to somebody within the family for security and privacy reasons is gone. It could be let commercially and make mega bucks in rent / lease payments for the Crown Estate. Given that Frogmore Cottage is within the security cordon of Windsor Castle it would probably be harder to lease out commercially vs Royal Lodge.

The King is right. The Duke of York as non working royal for ever does not deserve all these privileges.

Royal Lodge is simply too large for one person. The RF will find it hard to justify the expense. Even if Andrew doesn't like Frogmore Cottage (no one seems to) he could remove to KP or some other royal residence with security already in place.

Good for King Charles! One way or another he'll eventually get Andrew out of Royal Lodge. King Charles, unlike, let's say, the NRF, isn't afraid be firm when called for.

I wonder what provision The Queen made prior to her death. I find it hard to believe that if she did not leave her younger children a substantial sum, and it appears she did not, then she did not extract an agreement that Charles will cover their living expenses for the remainder of their lives . In the case of Andrew, it was known while HLM was compos mentis that Andrew would not be doing royal work and that he had a lease on the Royal Lodge that will outlive him.

I have brought this up before that Andrew himself should explore how the Royal Lodge property can generate income to cover the costs of maintaining it, and if Andrew's living expenses including security exceed whatever provision HLM made for him (my assumption), covering those costs as well.

I doubt that Andrew's on the breadline. He could probably manage the upkeep of a smaller property perfectly well, but it's not fair to keep expecting the King to pay for one person to live in a large residence.

I don't know Andrew personally, as we all do. But following his life and watching that interview a few years ago I got the impression that he is a snob, resisting advice, feeling very privileged. All stories I read about him are going in that same direction. And, because he is feeling so entitled he is resisting to move even if Royal Lodge is going to shambles( as we could see in the pics that the DM published about the many repairs that are necessary) , he still would insist to live there, alone in a 30 room residence, because he is important and wants to keep his status.

Alison H said:

I doubt that Andrew's on the breadline. He could probably manage the upkeep of a smaller property perfectly well, but it's not fair to keep expecting the King to pay for one person to live in a large residence.

Click to expand...

Andrew lives there with his ex Sarah, and his daughters. their husbands and grandchildren are frequent visitors and are apparently very attached to the property.

Of course my commoner sensibilities thinks that is too much house and property for two people, but the same can be said for the properties (plural) that Charles, William, Anne and the Edinburghs have access to. In one breath it gets represented that how younger children do not get significant bequests due to tax reasons when it comes to royals / monarchs, or wanting to keep as much property and assets intact when it comes to the aristocracy.

If HLM did not address this prior to her death then Charles and the Crown Estate can deal with the property as they see fit if Andrew violates the lease terms, but if Charles agreed to certain things prior to his mother's death, then he should honor them.

Deleted post.

Hallo girl said:

It is possible to work quietly in the background without having your photograph in the paper, he was too early trying to rehabilitate himself the last time and the public saw through it.

Click to expand...

He was not trying to rehabilitate himself. He just joined his family in delivering food. And given that he is photographed almost anytime he seems to leave his property, I don't think it is feasible that nobody takes a picture when 'working in the background'. And which charitable organisation is willing to assovciate with him knowing that his volunteering will come out?!

I am aware of the fact that his exwife Sarah is living there, but still, do they need a 30 room residence? And even as their children are visiting there, that is no reason IMO. Eugenie and Beatrice have homes of their own. Even the heir, William is not living in such a large house, and he has a wife and three children and they don't want to move into Royal Lodge. If you compare the different houses the children of the late Queen are living in, there are enormous differences. Anne's Gatcombe Park was given to her by the Queen (correct me if I am wrong). As far as I know both of her children are living on the compound with their families. You never hear of necessary repairs of the buildings. Edward and Sophie are living in Bagshot, which is huge, but parts of the mansion are rented out for offices, and there are only three of them residing there.
Want I wanted to say, is that Andrew's privilege of living at Royal Lodge with his exwife and nobody else seems to be huge in comparison to his siblings. Maybe that is the reason why Charles is so keen about getting him out and moving into a smaller place like Frogmore Cottage, which after the restauration probably is in much better condition.
The question is, does King Charles have to save money? They are so very rich, maybe there are other reasons for Charles' decisions, there might antagonisms going far back into their childhood, Andrew alsways being the one who was pampered by their mother and even their father, who knows?

Royal Lodge has several additional properties, including 6 at the entrance. In theory, Andrew could rent them out to bring in extra income (certainly they will no longer be needed by security guarding the estate it seems). But it depends if the terms of his lease allow it. It always surprised me that neither Beatrice or Eugenie (or indeed Sarah) use any of the other properties on the estate - I am sure they are not massive but I can’t believe neither of the girls would have quite enjoyed using it when they were younger.

I would actually say that Bagshot is as big as Royal Lodge, even with parts of it used as offices. However, Edward and Sophie are working royals and don’t seem to rely on help to maintain and upkeep it. For starters they were said to be receiving hundreds of thousands of pounds in rent for the Stable Block which is used commercially as offices. This obviously allowed them to maintain the residence.
Anne seems to largely be left to run Gatcombe herself, it is personal property not Crown property so even if it was crumbling that would be Anne’s issue no-one else’s.

tommy100 said:

Royal Lodge has several additional properties, including 6 at the entrance. In theory, Andrew could rent them out to bring in extra income (certainly they will no longer be needed by security guarding the estate it seems). But it depends if the terms of his lease allow it. It always surprised me that neither Beatrice or Eugenie (or indeed Sarah) use any of the other properties on the estate - I am sure they are not massive but I can’t believe neither of the girls would have quite enjoyed using it when they were younger.

I would actually say that Bagshot is as big as Royal Lodge, even with parts of it used as offices. However, Edward and Sophie are working royals and don’t seem to rely on help to maintain and upkeep it. For starters they were said to be receiving hundreds of thousands of pounds in rent for the Stable Block which is used commercially as offices. This obviously allowed them to maintain the residence.
Anne seems to largely be left to run Gatcombe herself, it is personal property not Crown property so even if it was crumbling that would be Anne’s issue no-one else’s.

Click to expand...

I believe Anne’s is a working estate, Mike Tindall made a comment during Covid when somebody asked him how he filled his time and he said it was a working farm so there was always something to be done. I think she also specialises in rare breeds.

Yes, it is. It is farmed and the events hosted helped it pay its way. Here is a small part of a Countryfile episode featuring Anne and Gatcombe. She points out - "Being able to take on a place like this—for me, I've got to make it work. This is not something that comes free, this has got to pay its way, otherwise I can't stay here."

Dailymotion

www.dailymotion.com

I'm always slightly intrigued why Anne is the only one of HLMs children to end up with her own property purchased for her - Edward took on a Crown Estate lease and Andrew sold his gifted house and took on a Crown Estate. I'd think if you had the same sort of money HLM had access to then buying rather than leasing would be preferable.

tommy100 said:

Yes, it is. It is farmed and the events hosted helped it pay its way. Here is a small part of a Countryfile episode featuring Anne and Gatcombe. She points out - "Being able to take on a place like this—for me, I've got to make it work. This is not something that comes free, this has got to pay its way, otherwise I can't stay here."

Dailymotion

www.dailymotion.com

I'm always slightly intrigued why Anne is the only one of HLMs children to end up with her own property purchased for her - Edward took on a Crown Estate lease and Andrew sold his gifted house and took on a Crown Estate. I'd think if you had the same sort of money HLM had access to then buying rather than leasing would be preferable.

Click to expand...

Anne and Andrew got their houses before EIIR had experienced her children possibly losing their assets in divorces, so having learned from the breakdown of three of her children's marriage, she started putting them in homes that couldn't be taken in the dissolution of a marriage. Edward got a house on the Crown Estate when he married, and William and Harry got homes at Sandringham/Windsor that wouldn't be included in case of a divorce.

ladongas said:

So the King has a poor-to-nonexistent relationship with two of his closest family members? That’s not good.

Click to expand...

I think the age gap between the brothers has something to do with the fact that they are not close.
And most people avoid spending time with family members they can't trust.
It's unfortunate, but understandable.

blooms_rulers said:

Anne and Andrew got their houses before EIIR had experienced her children possibly losing their assets in divorces, so having learned from the breakdown of three of her children's marriage, she started putting them in homes that couldn't be taken in the dissolution of a marriage. Edward got a house on the Crown Estate when he married, and William and Harry got homes at Sandringham/Windsor that wouldn't be included in case of a divorce.

Click to expand...

That's a good point I hadn't thought of. Though I've heard Anne's estate was put in a Trust in the name of her children to remove it from the divorce. And of course, Andrew's Crown Estate house only came after his divorce but yes, its a wise choice to prevent the property becoming part of a divorce proceeding. I'm just surprised HLM didn't give some sort of capital (i.e. property) to her children to give them some financial independence.

I also wonder if all of this with Andrew isn't linked to his payment to Virgina Guiffre - if HLM paid it on his behalf there will have to be payback somewhere. It seems HLM didn't leave any money to her children because it was instead tied up in the sovereign to sovereign bequest. I can understand Charles wanting to "debit" Andrew's share with whatever the settlement cost.

I am sure the royals are all well provided for by trust funds of some description. Some more than others dependant on what the future potentially holds for them.

Quiet a humours article listing some of the potential other properties Andrew may move to if he does leave Royal Lodge....

tommy100 said:

That's a good point I hadn't thought of. Though I've heard Anne's estate was put in a Trust in the name of her children to remove it from the divorce. And of course, Andrew's Crown Estate house only came after his divorce but yes, its a wise choice to prevent the property becoming part of a divorce proceeding. I'm just surprised HLM didn't give some sort of capital (i.e. property) to her children to give them some financial independence.

I also wonder if all of this with Andrew isn't linked to his payment to Virgina Guiffre - if HLM paid it on his behalf there will have to be payback somewhere. It seems HLM didn't leave any money to her children because it was instead tied up in the sovereign to sovereign bequest. I can understand Charles wanting to "debit" Andrew's share with whatever the settlement cost.

Click to expand...

This is logical but the opposite has also been argued, and that is that Andrew was convinced / pressured into settling the Giuffre case in order to not have the case distract from The Queen's Platinum Jubilee, and there may have been enticements / incentives to get him to settle.

I had heard that Anne, Andrew, Edward, and the Queen's grandchildren (w/the exception of Wiliam and Harry) had benefitted from the Queen Mother's trust funds upon her death. None of them are poor and destitute.

Anne was said to have even benefitted from a bequest by her grandfather George VI - how true or not that is I don't know. Indeed, none of them are poor. Which begs the question - why is Charles supporting Andrew living at Royal Lodge at all?

tommy100 said:

Anne was said to have even benefitted from a bequest by her grandfather George VI - how true or not that is I don't know. Indeed, none of them are poor. Which begs the question - why is Charles supporting Andrew living at Royal Lodge at all?

Click to expand...

That's a good question! There isn't a problem with housing with the other siblings. Could the reason be that he left the big house that was gifted to him at his wedding go to ruins more or less and then sold it to some rich Middle East guy? None of the others did something like that with a property/gift that they received from the Queen. If I as a parent would give a big house as a wedding gift and my son and DIL didn't even live there but let it rotten and sold it, I wouldn't be too happy. We don't know if that ever was a question in the family but who knows?

Edward and Sophie may have paid less upfront in renovation costs (£1.38million vs £7.5million) at Bagshot Park but they also pay rent - £90,000 a year in 2005 which was set to be reviewed in 2020 (every 15 years). In 2021 they apparently paid around £5million to extend the lease for 150 years. All without any fuss.

hereditarytitles said:

That's a good question! There isn't a problem with housing with the other siblings. Could the reason be that he left the big house that was gifted to him at his wedding go to ruins more or less and then sold it to some rich Middle East guy? None of the others did something like that with a property/gift that they received from the Queen. If I as a parent would give a big house as a wedding gift and my son and DIL didn't even live there but let it rotten and sold it, I wouldn't be too happy. We don't know if that ever was a question in the family but who knows?

Click to expand...

I never understood the problem with that house.
The architecture was widely criticized, but surely Andrew and Fergie approved those plans before the building began? So why the disdain afterwards?

As for a new residence, what does Andrew do besides riding? Plays golf, and I assume still has his clubs, so really, just about any (other) royal residence would do.