AMW continuing his effort to end the monarchy part 4

[simpsonthecat]

New thread. This is not ending

And all those cottages were for their staff as the tenants had to vacate - whether they wanted to or not

There were families living there and they had no eviction notices. They just had to go. For the 'forever home'.

How much rent are the Wales paying for the properties? It has not been made clear. It has been stated that they are paying £307,000 for Forest Lodge - which it then transpires includes the rent for 2 extra properties.

They clearly had some choice in when to leave, as the tenant of No 1 Stable Cottages only vacated on 21st January 2026 - some time after the Wales family moved in to Forest Lodge (November 2025).

I had previously read that Windsor Great Park leases included conditions regarding potential requests to relocate in other properties in the park. Happy to be corrected if you have seen something reliable to counter that.

Appendix 3 of the NAO report gives the description of the Forest Lodge property.

ETA They are paying £307 000 rent for the property.

CE funded work to royal property involves an indirect cost to the public purse in the form of reduced profits.

The Crown Estate is responsible for the upkeep of its own property.

Profits are normally calculated after business costs (for example, landlord repair expenses) are deducted from income such as rent. It is for the Crown Estate to charge the appropriate rent to ensure appropriate profit margins.

The Crown Estate profits go to the Treasury. The Treasury also receives income from taxpayers.
That does not mean that taxpayers pay the Crown Estate's landlord expenses.

It is for the Crown Estate to charge the appropriate rent to ensure appropriate profit margins.

I wish they would. There is an autumn review, but I don't expect much from it, except a spotlight will be shone on peppercorn rents and the fact Charles pays just 60% market value for properties for non-working Royals like Beatrice and Eugenie
Sacrilege

Those are Kensington Palace properties, owned and run by the Royal Household, not the Crown Estate.

There are 12 properties within the security cordon, which therefore have the rent reduction. Beatrice, Eugenie and the Michaels have 3 of them.
There is certainly an argument against B & E being there.
I could see an argument for Prince Michael having one, as a retired working royal (I know he did represent the Queen occasionally, but I don't think he was a full-time working royal in the same way as the Duke of Kent or Princess Alexandra).

So is £19,800 per annum a reasonable rent for a 2 bedroom property in Windsor? Is that the market rate? £1650 per month.

bluegreygreen... when you say owned and run by the household, what do you mean?
Everything I read says they are Crown Estate properties?

They are leased to B&E at below market rents and paid for from Charle's privy purse (i.e. funds from his Duchy) Why are non working Royals funded by the Duchy of Lancaster? When they have £3million family homes, careers and rich husbands..

All this is a system to confuse.. public funding, private wealth, legacy leases, no transparency.

It is for the Crown Estate to charge the appropriate rent to ensure appropriate profit margins.

W & K have had £400k of the nation's money (CE = National Estate ) spent on luxurious property they are renting for some £300k a year which has now come to include a couple of staff cottages.

Seems like a pretty good deal especially as the lease is twenty years which they apparently intend to extend. Just in time to tap the nation their landlord for another upgrade?

The Crown Estate seems to have been derelict in its duty so far...how many more properties has it rented out to RF members/hangers-on at well below market rates.

We also have the mystifying case of an alleged fraudster chum of MW's - a man who had just won a Pitch@Palace award - living in a CE Mayfair flat with no evidence of rent payments being found.

Whist I agree we need more transparency, there is a tendency from some posters to not acknowledge what I and other posters consider reasonable practices.

Properties, particularly old ones, require regular maintenance which can require specialist skills. If the CE own the properties, then like any landlord they are responsible for paying for this. How much does it cost to maintain all the government owned buildings including chequers, No 10, the Houses of Parliament etc? In many cases the costs maybe high because regular ongoing maintenance hasn’t been done over the decades.

Leasing out CE properties is a separate argument which includes contractual notice periods and reductions in rent for inconvenience of living inside the security cordon. It may also be complicated where properties are used for business purposes e.g. offices for staff, kitchens to cater for official entertaining etc. Transparency would help but comparisons need to be like for like.

I am not saying we can’t question what is being spent and why but if I was leasing a property for £300k a year I would want it freshly painted and maintained to a high standard. I would also expect security to be up to date.

Reasonable practices are absolutely fine and to be expected.
It's the complete opacity around the finances that is the problem.

I am not saying we can’t question what is being spent and why but if I was leasing a property for £300k a year I would want it freshly painted and maintained to a high standard. I would also expect security to be up to date.

What tendering process was in place for the CE works to Forest Lodge for example. Is the £400,000 good value for money?

Here you go @Decacaffeinatednow -
Suppliers | The Crown Estate this is part of the documentation around TCE supply chain. They advertise tenders on the gov.uk 'find a tender' service. They will either procure through framework agreements, which are then subdivided into Lots. Recently TCE procured Investment Advisory services across 8 different lots. Some organisations are now using dynamic purchasing systems which are akin to framework agreements but I think (am not a procurement expert) allow newcomers to join the DPS.

In addition to framework agreements/DPS, the TCE will tender for specific pieces of work - for example in recent months/last year they were out to tender for public realm work in partnership with Westminster City Council with regard to Future of Regent St, Haymarket and Piccadilly Circus, for full refurb of 1-12 Magdalen Street Oxford, an Active Travel path in Knutsford and many more.

Here is a c&p from last years accounts which details the NAO sign off regarding identified risks - this one relates to Investment valuations (not including offshore as this is a separate risk) This audit assessment will be considering the full portfolio of TCE

Investment Property Valuations Description of risk The value of investment properties held by The Crown Estate as at 31 March 2025 was £9.6 billion, excluding offshore wind assets which are considered separately. The Crown Estate’s properties are valued by independent, professional valuers using a number of unobservable inputs (classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy). These valuations involve a significant degree of judgement. Therefore, I consider that they present a significant risk of material misstatement. How the scope of my audit responded to the risk My audit procedures included: — Obtaining an understanding of the design and implementation of controls in place at The Crown Estate over the valuation of investment property process by conducting a walkthrough test; — Assessing the skills, experience and qualifications of the third-party valuers engaged by The Crown Estate (as management’s experts), and considering the appropriateness of the instructions to the valuers from The Crown Estate by inspecting information that was shared with valuers for a sample of assets; — Using the work of valuation expert, I formed an expectation of an acceptable range for valuation movements for London and Regional, and Residential portfolios with reference to relevant indices and independent databases. I confirmed that the valuation movements were within the acceptable range and challenged The Crown Estate’s valuers to provide sufficient and reasonable rationale and evidence where this was not the case for investment properties from the London and Regional and Residential portfolios. — Engaging an auditor’s valuation expert to analyse the residual Crown Estate portfolio of investment properties and challenge the basis of valuation for a sample of individual assets. This included considering any Material Valuation Uncertainties and sensitivity analysis performed by The Crown Estate’s valuers, considering other key events and developments that occurred throughout the year and agreeing underlying assumptions to supporting documentation; — Sample testing the completeness and accuracy of underlying data provided by The Crown Estate and used by the valuer as part of their valuations by reconciling the Investment Property register to the Trial Balance and to the accounts and inspecting information that was shared with the valuer; and — Agreeing the benchmarking disclosures included within The Crown Estate’s Annual Report to underlying source data. Key observations I found The Crown Estate’s key controls over the valuation process to be designed and implemented adequately and that asset valuations have been prepared using appropriate methodology and assumptions. I found that the valuation movements were within the acceptable range, or had sufficient and reasonable rationale and evidence where this was not the case to support the valuation. The disclosures within notes 3 and 15 of the financial statements provide further details of the key assumptions underpinning the valuations and the sensitivity of the valuations to a change in assumptions. The Crown Estate Integrated Annual Report and Accounts 2024/25

By the way it's been confirmed Prince George is going to Eton.

Andrew went to Gordonstoun like his older brother but seemed to have been more suited to it

@myrtleWilson thank you. This sounds similar to Government Procurement processes.

@Kirschcherries yes, TCR describe themselves as placed between the private and public (or words to that effect) and have decided to follow public sector procurement regulations

If their lips are moving - they are lying

The rest ( kings household / crown estate must do all renovations etc ) is just the usual obfuscation

They advertise tenders on the gov.uk 'find a tender' service.

Wonder if that's the route Edo took to get the Royal Lodge gig.

The rest ( kings household / crown estate must do all renovations etc ) is just the usual obfuscation

Quite.

It simply doesn't explain the multiple properties left in a dilapidated state until someone decides they're needed and the usual tax paying mugs are volunteered for pick-pocketing.

I don't suppose for instance Phil's spanking new Wood Farm kitchen renovations made much of a dent in the £360k 'annuity' paid by parliament entirely separately from the SG and in place until he turned his toes up.

And his will was protected and closed down from public gaze
Shock horror if the general public actually got to view it, unlike the rest of us whose wills are in the public domain!

One of my favourite pieces of Bastille Day pomp from the French Republic ever was the army military marching band, performing the Daft Punk medley with precision choreography for Macron and Trump.

They certainly made it their own.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2017/jul/14/french-army-band-medleys-daft-punk-bastille-day-parade-macron-trump-video

This is quite the fly in the ointment. I think there are a lot of people involved with the Crown Estate and the Royal Household playing everything by the book - and then there are members of the royal family like the York tribe, behaving as they do; and it can only be the monarch who has the means to enable that.

What comes out about any payment(s) to Edo for ‘interiors’ will be interesting. Who did pay? For what? Where did the money come from? How much?