So how come Prince Edward is paying a peppercorn rent as well?

[Ragsandwhathaveyou972]

Can someone help me properly understand this please?

For years I have wondered aloud on here, under various nns, how Prince Edward can afford to live in a £30 million mansion when by all accounts his income is roughly £150,000 per year? Just because it didn’t seem fair!

Full disclosure: I have nothing against the Royals themselves but I would prefer a much slimmed down monarchy and eventually after many years, an elected Head of State.

And the official explanation seemed to be that as he is privately wealthy, he is putting funds in to renovate the property in exchange for a much reduced rent.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/870243/prince-edwards-peppercorn-rent-revealed/?viewas=amp

So initially, Edward seemed to pay a market rate rent of £5,000, which increased to £90,000 after he paid £1.36 million for renovations.

However, he later secured a 150-year lease extension in 2007 by paying £5 million upfront, and since then, he has been paying a "peppercorn" (a very nominal amount) rent presumably in exchange for keeping it in good nick?

Fair enough you might think. He is privately wealthy and the cost of renovating somewhere that size has to be enormous.

However, what I am really confused about now is the Crown Estate, the body with which these rents are negotiated.

Is it a public or royal organisation?

I initially thought it qualified as a royal organisation because it is owned by the monarch, but its profits go back to the Treasury, which surely then makes it a public body?

So if it is the latter, and its profits go in to the public purse, why are Edward and Sophie and their two dc living in a house with 120 rooms and paying a relatively small rent, when the Crown Estate should be extracting as large a rent for the public purse as possible?

Is this right? Happy to stand corrected.

And my other question is why is this arrangement so complex and the lines between public and private funding
so blurred?

In any other charity or organisation in this day and age, surely you have to have a clear, transparent division between the two?

I worked for a government agency, and our building was crown estates. They found asbestos because of the age of the building and there was a notice thst went out about upcoming work, which was along the lines of, as we're crown estates, we are not obliged to do anything about this as normal employers would have to, but as we're caring employers, we are going to anyway.

Likewise, when (then) Prince Charles/Duke of Cornwall built Poundbury, he didn't need to get planning permission like normal developers would. I think he did work with the council, but didn't have to.

At the time, Bagshot Park was described as a wedding gift to Prince Edward and his wife from the Queen. You don't normally pay market rent on a gift.

Sorry I have just realised that this thread is in AIBU when I thought it was on the RF board. My mistake.

I will ask Mumsnet HQ to move it!

According to Wikipedia, the reason Edward pays a peppercorn rent rather than market value is because he paid £5 million in 2007 to extend the lease.

I've wondered why they can't just buy a house to live in, like normal very wealthy people. Charles appears to own HiHighgrove. Why are they all renting?

A better question would be why didn't HMTLQ give him a fancy house with extensive grounds like she did for Ann and Andrew? I know Andrew wasted his, but Edward is a different character and would presumably have acted more wisely.

Because they are all parasitic grifters?

Yes that is a good question!

Yes, presumably it’s because traditionally they were allowed grace and favour accommodation because they are carrying out a public role?

And to be fair, at least Sophie does seem to travel and do some work for the country! Edward might for all I know but he is not in the news as much.

But I think in this day and age, shouldn’t the arrangements be very clear?

You live in a private home that you pay for privately because you are privately wealthy individual. And you then receive a governmental stipend to carry out your work for the country, that covers your clothes, some other expenses, and the government pays for your security?

Why is it all so complicated?

Yes, if it’s a gift, why do you need to pay rent on it at all?

If it was a gift, surely you would own it outright?

Opacity is the name of the game when it comes to the RF and their finances.
Ingrid Seward put it so elegantly when she described how they are raging at AMW because now the politicians ‘are going to be sticking their big noses into everything’.
Not before time.

OK so you are saying that we have to trust them to do the right thing?

The problem with that is that they could very well be doing the right thing in one area, and not in another.

In 2025, would it not be reasonable for them to have to follow an accountable, clear set of rules, where there is no complicated blurring of lines?

@Ragsandwhathaveyou972

"at least Sophie does seem to travel and do some work for the country! Edward might for all I know but he is not in the news as much"

He certainly has in the past.

Yes! Absolutely this!

In all honesty though, I think they have brought it upon themselves by being so reluctant to change over the years.

Every modernisation seems to have to be dragged out of them. It’s not a good look.

Because you can gift a house but the land it sits on may be owned by someone else - the Crown Estates trust in this case. Similarly, I could bequeath my London flat to my children, but they would still be obliged to pay the leasehold/management fee because I cannot leave the ownership of the entire building and the land it sits on to them, just the flat contained therein.

If a private individual bought a leasehold on a property why would they be expected to pay rent as well??
A long lease was bought on this and £5million also went into Crown Estates coffers. Edward also pays for repairs and upkeep on the property, saving the Crown Estates that outlay.
I suspect Edward and Sophie were not bought a place (like Anne and Andrew were) because of the fallout of ‘Another’ royal property.
The Queen wanted them close to her and as she spent every weekend at Windsor this house was ideal. We could all see that Sophie was very close to them - this can only have been through spending so much time with them.
I agree the house is huge - but it used to be bigger. A large wing was demolished to make the property more manageable.
If they have
a) paid for the lease
b) keep it maintained
C) are safe there
d)are working royals
then I can’t see what the issue with anyone is.
Personally I would prefer to see them living in it rather than a wealthy Russian/Chinese oligarch.

Thank you. That does make sense,

And to be strictly fair to them, presumably they have to live somewhere that is secure eg not a terraced house! And somewhere that is close to Windsor and London.

But overall, it does still seem like quite a good deal and quite extravagant accommodation given their position in the RF.

Those are all good points.

But why have they extended the lease for 150 years?

That would cover their children’s residence there as well and aren’t they going to be private individuals? Or so it is being said?

(Edited sorry)

Highgrove is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall so now William and not Charles. I assume Charles leases it

"Because you can gift a house but the land it sits on may be owned by someone else - the Crown Estates trust in this case"

Leasehold houses are rare (unlike flats) but much more common in certain parts of the country eg Isle of Wight for historical reasons. So they might have been given the fabric of the house as a wedding gift but the freehold of the land remains with the Crown Estates which presumably is why they paid for the rennovations themselves and paid a fee to extend the lease. Many leaseholds are on peppercorn rent - my mum's lease was £50 a year so it's not a royal prerogative! impossible to know without knowing the details of the lease.

Incidentally it used to the the Army Chaplaincy centre and my friends got married there in the late 80's (she was daughter of an army chaplain).

The Crown Estate sold large amount of land in Somerset to one of the major building companies to land bank, with no uplift in value clause in the event of planning permission being granted, which it will be eventually, that's not looking after the public purse,

Isn’t it all a bit cosy whereby you rent property back and forth to an organisation that you ultimately own, even if the profits are meant to be for the public purse?

"But why have they extended the lease for 150 years?"

Maybe they couldn't get a mortgage on it if the lease was too short?

My mum extended her leasefor 150 years, it's very common - I'm pretty sure she didn't think she (or we) would still be living there into the 2160's

It always makes me laugh when people say the Royals are independently wealthy. How?

No matter what way you look at it, they got the money from the public one way or another.

This is interesting thank you!

impossible to know without knowing the details of the lease

For me, this is the nub of it really.

The RF should be serving the British people and as they represent the RF, it’s fair that they present a good image to visiting dignitaries etc. But all of the figures should be available to the public and independently assessed for accuracy.

The role should not be serving them at the same time and I think there has been far too much obfuscation, far too much feathering of their own nests and far too much taking advantage of a good thing and not having to face probing questions about finance.