The Crown Estate thread

[wordler]

Thought it might be useful to have one thread to discuss the Crown Estate, leases, grace and favour rents, future potential transparency and ownership.

I live in a coop in NYC built in c. 1929. Most of the records are not available because the NYC DOB has been hit with fires and floods over the years. Records are fragile.

lol - it's like an Easter miracle!

I also did not understand.

Probably AI!

Same comment to you! 🤣

Perhaps AI could ‘make it simpler’ which is a command I use a lot with it!

You mean like the Government lovingly destroyed the Windrush Papers rather than sending them to the national archives.

All the clues are that this Royal Forum thread's about the Crown Estate.

If you feel there's a discussion to be had about Windrush you're free to start one either here (although the risk is it might be deemed irrelevant) or elsewhere.

You missed my point - the government doesn’t treat any historical papers with respect, including those associated with the RF.

Well, that's not what you said originally so I didn't miss anything but thanks anyway for clarifying.

Here’s the current report from the National Audit Office - I haven’t read any of it yet.

www.nao.org.uk/reports/residential-property-arrangements-with-members-of-the-royal-family/

That is really interesting to me. IIRC in On The Beach (Nevil Shute) they had people transcribing history and other things into glass and I think sandwiching them together just in case anyone came along in the future. (My memory may be imperfect but I think I have the gist. )

Anyway - an aside - apologies.

Thanks @wordler - I'd linked it on the AMW thread but had forgotten about this one.

@CathyorClaire

Bringing your question over here from the other thread so as not to keep derailing that one:

Forever home.5 is on a short term 20 year lease (makes you wonder whether a £400k spend on it represents particularly good value but that's another debate) and W&K apparently intend to extend the lease later. Why not tailor it to the length of time they want anyway?

Sections 2.6 to 2.12 of the report goes through the differences legally between the short and long-term leases (figure 8 is a good summary). Short-term is max 21 yrs, long-term 21-150 yrs. Most CE leases in London are long-term, in Windsor are short-term.

I haven't yet reached where they are going through each property in detail, so don't know if they say why they went with a short-term lease for FL.

Thanks 🙂

I had wondered if it was a pragmatic decision in line with the very high likelihood of W becoming monarch within that timeframe and inheriting multiple forevers but if he really does intend to live there permanently as I believe is reported it won't surprise me to see another massive taxpayer spend on 'upgrades to a twenty year old scheme' touted as necessary.

Seems no one knows where the money goes and why people are living for free

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/05/margaret-hodge-shocked-andrew-property-income-watchdog

I think both 'private income' and advantageous rent reductions on lux props to hugely unlikely succession randoms are doing a lot of heavy lifting these days.

Hmm.

Margaret Hodge: It’s shocking that the National Audit Office was not able to establish how much money Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor secured from the properties he let.

NAO report: The lease for Royal Lodge also allows for the subletting of three cottages within the estate but not the main property. All three cottages were rented to tenants directly by Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor. These have been vacant since April 2026. We do not know what rent was charged.
(2.14, under Permitted Uses).

Does she understand anything about contracts, privacy or data protection?

@bluegreygreen There’s a view that some of the tenants were staff. However the truth is, we maintain too many properties for the RF.

It's possible - though staff homes were also rented directly from the CE.

That wasn't really my point.

NAO report again

3.13 We reviewed the three current lease agreements and valuations for all three non-working members of the Royal family. ... Prior to 2026, the property leased to Princess Eugenie last had a valuation undertaken in 2018, and for the property leased to Princess Beatrice, the last valuation was completed in 2020. ... There was no documented open market valuation for the lease with The Prince and Princess Michael of Kent prior to 2026.

3.14 Between March and April 2026, the Household commissioned updated
valuations for all three properties, which found that the open market rental value had barely changed on these properties over seven years. During our examination of the leases, we found that not all rental values were set at 60% against the valuations they had available and it is not clear on what basis the rental costs increased during these periods, as the basis of the valuation did not change.

All a bit woolly.
Rents are currently 68% (B), 63% (E) and 63% (M) of market value.
The one thing that is clear is that KC3 has been paying the rents, out of the Privy Purse.

From Figure 14 re Forest Lodge

Works were carried out by TCE in accordance with the standard
repairing obligations:
• Forest Lodge and surrounding property grounds £213,353**
• No 2 Stable Cottages £48,575
• No 3 Stable Cottages £90,626
• The Barn £44,439
Please note that no landlord works have been carried out to
No 1 Stable Cottages as the previous tenant only vacated on
21 January 2026.
** Works included heating and plumbing, structural repairs to
ceilings, floor, stairs, fire alarms, brickwork, boilers, stabilising
external walls for safety, and similar works to ensure safety
and compliance.

I suspect most of us would be unimpressed by a landlord who didn't carry out necessary work like this.

@bluegreygreen "I suspect most of us would be unimpressed by a landlord who didn't carry out necessary work like this." - exactly so. There's a difference between installing expensive copper baths and making sure the building meets building regs and safety guidelines and complies to all rules for a let property.

I suspect most of us would be unimpressed by a landlord who didn't carry out necessary work like this.

It looks like these dilapidated properties were being brought back into use.

Maybe a more pertinent question might be why the royals allow such properties (the recently upgraded for the benefit of disgraced scion MW Marsh Farm appears to be another example) to fall into such disrepair in the first place.

I haven’t read the report in full but I have read an interesting summary of points by the Guardian - it was very factual in tone so I am assuming hasn’t been twisted for anti monarchy bias.

What I’s be interested to know is if the findings in respect to how royal family members are being treated is applied equally to non royal family members.

So the report apparently shows that Beatrice and Eugenie’s rent (paid by Charles from Duchy of Lancaster) is around 65% of going market rent because of the security cordon and vetting. Does that apply to everyone. Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas rent one of the apartments in St. James where Beatrice has an apartment. Does Catherine Zeta Jones and all the other private renters also get the discount?

And does the Crown Estate management do similar external upkeep work every time a new lease is signed for all non royals?

@CathyorClaire I assume that the people who have the lease are responsible for alerting the CE landlords when work needs doing? I’d hope that would be written into their contracts. I can’t remember who had Forest Lodge before off hand.

Thanks @BasiliskStare.

I think I need to step back from the other thread for a bit - there's only so many times I can point out what the report actually says.