Transcription
The Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh are the sort of hardworking couple, very popular, but it's the optics again. I think that's the issue because while it may have been deemed all right 20 odd years ago, the problem is now on the back of the Andrew Mountbatten Windsor issues around the Royal Lodge, it's just not a good look for the Royal Family and they need now to make sure that they, with all the sort of straightened times we live in, um, to be doing the right thing and that's part of the problem. Playing a peppercorn rent to lots of people will seem how he's getting away with it and that's part of the problem with this.
The Times has revealed that, revealed, excuse me, that Prince Edward pays only a peppercorn rent on his mansion in Surrey, which has 120 rooms and is part of the Crown Estate. There are no conditions on the sale of the lease, which means that theoretically he could make a profit if he moved. The revelation, of course, is sparking new calls for openness and transparency around the finances of the Royal Family in light of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor having a similar cushy deal at his home until not all that long ago. Let's speak to Rupert Bell, a royal commentator. Morning, Robert.
Good morning, Tom. Once again, we've got the details of this thanks to a Freedom of Information pursuit by The Times. Just explain to us what the, um, arrangement is for Prince Edward.
Well, the arrangement is that he bought this house in the early, uh, naughties and he paid £5 million. It was deemed with the Crown Estate. They did a deal and he's got a 150-year-old lease on this 120-year-old mansion, which used to be a Ministry of Defence property. He's actually, I think, been living there since, um, the late '90s where there was a, he paid an annual rent, but then where the formal arrangement was arranged, which would basically mean he put money up front and then had this lease. And then this is the problem. It was deemed and it was stress-tested. So the Crown Estate say at the time as something that seemed commercially, uh, right rather than just sort of donating it. But I think the problem is though with this, it's part of the optics of the Royal Family. Now, the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh are the sort of hardworking couple, very popular, but it's the optics again. I think that's the issue because while it may have been deemed all right 20 odd years ago, the problem is now on the back of the Andrew Mountbatten Windsor issues around the Royal Lodge, it's just not a good look for the Royal Family and they need now to make sure that they, with all the sort of straightened times we live in, um, to be doing the right thing and that's part of the problem. Playing a peppercorn rent to lots of people will seem how's he getting away with it and that's part of the problem with this. It may have been done all above board, but at the other hand is if he's playing a peppercorn rent, no idea what that would be, um, but obviously it's not what you would expect if the property was being rented out on a commercial basis.
Yeah, I think, you know, there's two, there's two parts to this. I think as you say, Rupert. So, you know, there's the initial outlay of £5 million. There's the £1.36 million that Edward paid to help renovate the property. He did pay £90,000 a year, which was described by the National Audit Office as market value, um, by way of kind of rent as part of the agreement as well. I do wonder if actually the, the other part to this is, is how he ended up living there in the first place and moreover, what the situation would be if he chose not to live there. Theoretically, this place could be sold, um, and I'm just trying to work out where the money would end up, given that it is a kind of Crown Estate property, i.e. it belongs to us.
Well, this is the issue. It seems like there's a grey area there that it might, you know, if he sells it, he gets the profits from it. And that might be something that wouldn't be deemed, in the eyes of the public, as you say, it's a Crown Estate. Correct. Now, there's no suggestion at the moment that he's planning to move on. And I don't think for a second that he lives in all 120 rooms, 'cause he certainly would be rattling around if he was, um, but I do know that that his office and staff all work there as well. So it is, but what's happening to the rest of it? Um, and that would be the issue. Now, um, we, and particularly from the Duchess of Edinburgh, who has a PR background, um, she might, she will probably understand that this is again, not a good look for the Royal Family and that's been part of the problem over the last year. They've got lots of these external issues impacting on what they try and do as working royals, that these questioning the royal finances. People looking maybe into what goes on with the Duchess of Cornwall and their finances around that. So it is an issue for the Royal Family because they, as we know, their financial situation is not disclosed. It's kept secret. So no one fully understands how it operates and maybe in a modern Royal Family, that's not the way that they should be operating, particularly as the whole economic issue around this, kind of people worrying about their finances. If they are, it's perceived that the Royal Family seem to be operating into a different rule to the rest of us, then that's not good for the Royal Family and that's part of the issue when these things are revealed. What do the Royal Family do to make it seem like it's operating on the kind of basis that everybody else runs their businesses? And that's part of the problem for the Royal Family to try and sort out going forward because perception is everything.
Yeah. Uh, Rupert, thank you very much. Thanks for your analysis this morning. That is Rupert Bell, the royal commentator. Um, The Times does make note of the sort of lack of transparency around the Royal Family. Royal wills and details of the private trusts used to fund their activities have been kept from the public. Correspondence with Royal Family members is also subject to special exemption from the Freedom of Information Act. Any correspondence between the King and the Prince of Wales and public authorities is completely barred from disclosure and there is no right of appeal, and that's a rule that's been brought in by the government in recent years. At the Crown Estate and Buckingham Palace declined to comment on the story in The Times today. You can get the details at thetimes.com and my last observation on this is that 120-room mansion, great for hide-and-seek.
Jillian Keegan, former Conservative Education Secretary, is with us, as is Sonia Soda, the columnist and broadcaster. Uh, The Times has revealed this morning that Prince Edward, the King's brother, pays only a peppercorn rent on the 120-room Surrey mansion in which he lives, Bagshot Park. Uh, Prince Edward has leased the 51-acre house with his wife, the Duchess of Edinburgh, from the Crown Estate for the last 25 years. Now, these kind of financial records about the royals aren't publicly available. So, The Times had to go through a Freedom of Information request and they found out, according to the terms of Prince Edward's lease extension signed in 2007 with his, uh, with his company, he paid £5 million upfront for a lease of 150 years, but now doesn't pay very much rent. It's worth saying as well, on top of that, um, he used to pay £5,000 a year in rent up until March 1998. The sum later went up to £90,000 a year. The National Audit Office said that was market value. He also paid £1.36 million to help renovate the property. Crown Estate covered the other £3 million. Jillian, I wonder if in this day and age, are we just at a stage where the Royal Family maybe shouldn't just be in a 120-room mansion, particularly as the Crown Estate had other options? It could make, turn it into a hotel or a conference centre, which would have brought money in for the taxpayer. Is that kind of what we should be doing in 2025?
I'm a huge supporter of the Royal Family and of Edward and Sophie, Prince Edward and Sophie in particular. I mean, I think between them, they did more than 500 royal appointments last year. They're extremely hardworking royals. Um, now you could on one hand argue, you know, nobody needs 120 bedrooms and you wouldn't want to clean them. But the reality is they've been living in this home for 25 years. They, the role comes with huge privileges, but it also comes with, you know, huge responsibilities. And every time I'm asked about the Royal Family, I always think about things like, uh, how much of a, a draw they are for this country. What a huge differentiator they are for this country. I'm very proud of our Royal Family. You know, they have, just look at the Coronation. Two billion people across the world tuned in to watch our country on display at its very best. 20 million people in the country sat down and watched it live on the day. And I was so privileged to be able to go. That was one of the highlights of my political career. And every time I look at the Royal Family, I think they're worth their weight in gold in terms of the differentiation. No other country does pomp and ceremony like it. It's hugely a big tourist draw. And I think we should appreciate all the hard work, particularly 500, more than 500 appointments. I mean, that's, that's a lot of appointments. I mean, I think Prince Edward did over 300 of those. You know, that's nearly one a day. That's a lot of work, even by the standards of a politician.
Sonia, where are you on this? I mean, is this more about a problem of a lack of transparency around the royals?
Yeah, I think there are issues with transparency. I mean, obviously, um, an, uh, Prince Edward is paying more, uh, than he was at one point for this property, but I also think, you know, Prince, uh, Prince Charles, now King Charles, when he was the Prince of Wales, he talked a lot about how he wanted to slim down the monarchy. And, um, I think that that is broadly the right thrust. And you can already see, you know, as King, I think he's sort of enacting some of that. But I do think there are questions about, um, very big properties. No one needs to live in a property that size. Um, you know, no one's questioning whether Prince Edward is doing his public duties. Uh, uh, he clearly is, but I just think it's probably not the best of look, uh, looks for the Royal Family. Um, I'm sure it does amount to a subsidy by the taxpayer. I think there does need to be more transparency about it when a subsidy exists. And I think King, the King is right to be thinking in the medium term about how to slim down the monarchy further.