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 wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of it was closed off, and only attended to in an emergency (water ingress etc.).

So, like Royal Lodge, it would need extensive renovations should they depart (which they won't, but with a continued lease they can kick any problems down the road).

I think they shot themselves in the foot when, because of their hate campaign against Meghan and Harry, they allowed a lot of vitriol to take hold over them living in Frogmore Cottage. Meghan and Harry even paid for the repairs. At the time there was so much outrage and now we find out that some (maybe most) have being abusing the state and taking us for fools.

Over the years, more of this nonsense will come to light and the doors for abuse they have opened up with Meghan and Harry will be the doors people walk through to hold them to account.

Same with stripping Andrew of his birth right. I am glad it was done but it also shows that this birth right thing is ludicrous and we should be able to get rid of the monarchy. There is no divine rights just a hereditary privilege that can be easily revoked. This is 2025.

The DM article does totally ignore the £670,000 payment that Alexandra and her husband paid for renewing the lease in 1994.

These things definitely need to be debated, but the figures being thrown about should be accurate otherwise there's no getting to the bottom of things.

It is a rather ludicrous business model to leave valuable properties until they are in need to very expensive repairs and then negotiate for the new tenants to foot the bills of the repairs in exchange for lower rent payments.

There's got to have been occasions where that has result in permanent damage, or complete loss, of properties. Which given how historically important many of the buildings are really isn't on.

I dont think anyone needs to live in a 120 room mansion, it’s well beyond what they need. How in earth do they afford the bills alone on a property that size without help.

What do you mean "F all"?

Thing is - if they were sold off they would not end up in the hands of the people as they would be snapped up by property developers, wealthy second home owners and multi-national agricultural conglomerates.

But they are not rental properties are they?

And the reason they are not rental properties usually is that the upkeep of these huge homes and estates are so large that as a landlord the Crown Estates wouldn’t make any kind of profit.

I think it’s important for transparency and fairness to make sure that any leases offered are offered on the same basis to all. So no discounts for royals or friends of royals etc.

But finding rich private individuals who want these huge mansions or suitable viable businesses, or strongly supported non profits is hard.

So many large pieces of property in the UK get snapped up by offshore trusts controlled by Russian or Chinese ‘businessmen’ who leave gen parked empty.

I think on the initial lease it's just ground rent. If you later extend the lease using the statutory lease extension procedure, ground rent is reduced to peppercorn ground rent. Either way, it's not actual rent, it's ground rent on a leasehold property.

But they are not rental properties are they?

They are in that the Crown Estates rents them out.

Bagshot was rented as accommodation and offices to Army Chaplains before Edward and Sophie moved there.

The problem with the repairs issue is similar to Buckingham Palace in a way - it's been talked about for years about the wiring and the repairs needed - in that they're left and left and left and then you need someone incredibly rich to take on the property otherwise they can't afford to rent it and repair it. In a normal rental model the landlord would do the repairs then rent them out.

I seem to remember that during Anne's divorce it became public that it was actually the Queen that owned Gatcombe which she presumably passed on to Anne on her death.

I think if QEII still owned it she'd have actually left it to Charles - if she left it to Anne there would have been IHT to pay.

Leaving it to Charles would be tax free as part of their sovereign to sovereign transfer.

I remember there was debate about if Mark Phillips would be able to take any of it in the divorce.

I think if QEII still owned it she'd have actually left it to Charles - if she left it to Anne there would have been IHT to pay.

Yes and we wouldn't want her to have to contribute any extra tax to the UK would we.... perish the thought!

Anne definitely owns her estate. And it was the perfect way to go for a sensible person like her because she has both her children living in houses on her estate but as it’s private property no one has any business how much if any rent they pay her.

No need to be snippy at me because I think they'd have avoided paying IHT.

I didn't say she "should" have left it to Charles. I said with the IHT agreement they have she would have.

She won't have legally left anything (other than pre set up trust funds not subject to IHt) to anyone other than Charles because of that agreement. Just as Phillip and QEQM will have left everything to QEII, and Charles will leave everything to William.

They'll use that agreement to the max I believe.

A bit late to the party- sorry! - but it's not unusual for people to live in seemingly enormous properties which are owned by their 'employer' and they pay a peppercorn rent. It happens a lot on large country estates or farms. Whilst it appears completely unfair that these people pay next to nothing for a house we lesser mortals would give our eye teeth for, these properties can be a double edged sword if they are listed, or there are restrictions on what can be done to them. Often they can be old and draughty, although very beautiful and grand. So Edward and Sophie are by no means unique in gheir housing situation.

I'm not being snippy, I'm making a post that is amusing to me. Obviously not to you! Nothing I say on these threads is a personal dig.

I agree... you didn't say she 'should' have left it to Charles, I agree she would not do that.
I also agree that Monarch to Heir will be the go-to inheritance.

Yes Anne definitely owns Gatcombe and the estate is run as a going concern. Much of the land is rented out as either farm land and also the stable yards to professional equestrian riders helping them get a start in the industry. Zara also runs her yard out of Gatcombe.
Up until recent years large equestrian events such as Gatcombe Horse trials have been run on the estate also. It has been a huge asset to the equestrian world.

I think it’s worth pointing out that these large houses are from a different age. None of them are young buildings. 150 years ago these estates where up and down the country owned by various families. They provided jobs and housing and where of their age.
Times have moved on. But they are part of the history of this country.
So do Sophie and Edward need such a large home - no they probably don’t. But these houses exist and far better to be livid in and maintained than fall to wreck and ruin. And don’t say that wouldn’t happen because it has. Time and time again. You only need to look around the countryside and the number of properties in ruin or pulled back from the brink by English heritage or the national trust.
The costs of maintaining these buildings is staggering. Large houses have changed hands in the not too distant past for next to nothing because they cost so much to run there has at times been little to no market for them.

I agree.

It was given to A as a wedding gift and E2 lived way beyond any possible IHT liability which might have applied.

Having been a bit intrigued about why Mark Phillips didn't get a wedge when they divorced a little bit of research shows he got an estimated $3m settlement and lived on the estate helping to run events for over 20 years afterwards finally moving out so the Tindalls could have the property.

Seems Fergie isn't the only ex to have stayed close to the trough.

I think that this is v harsh on Mark Philips. He and Anne continued to co parent and he was Zara's main trainer and so needed to live nearby. He moved out of the main house and into the farm house to be on hand for the DC and in particular for Zara. Given how busy their mother has always been as the hardest working royal it was no doubt good for the children to have their father around.

Captain Mark Phillips did/does still have a base at Gatcombe. He and Anne still have a good relationship they is certainly no big quarrel these days. Mark is one of the top trainers and course designers in the Eventing sphere. He is currently mainly based in the US as he is Chef d’Equipe for the American team. He has significant wealth himself. He didn’t come out of the divorce badly.

Yes, Mark Phillips actually fathered another child whilst still married to Anne and as I understand it had to be forced to take a paternity test to prove it. Anne must be very patient and forgiving !

DM is currently on fire over this rent thing.

Another article showing Mr MW saved himself some £3.1m on the daughters' apartment at St James Palace:

https://archive.ph/wnKPQ

There appears to be no end to this property manipulation.

Unbelievable.

So Princess Alexandria pays £225 a month for a property in Richmond, and an apartment that should yield £20,000 a month in st James's Palace costs one of the York daughters tiddly squat, and it was refurbished for £250,000 of taxpayers money. You really couldn't make it up

The world has gone mad and the sooner the public accounts committee tackles this, the better

Norman Baker hits the nail on the head time and time again. Royalty are very adept at hiding what they do financially all aided by the sycophantic staff they employ