The Times of London exclusively reported the news about Prince Andrew NOT paying rent on Royal Lodge for two decades – I discussed it here. While that news is astonishing, what’s even crazier is that the news is proof that King Charles and his courtiers have lied their asses off for nearly three years. It was in early 2023 that Charles came up with the big plan to evict the Sussexes from Frogmore Cottage and then force Andrew out of Royal Lodge and have him move into the now-empty Frogmore. We were told Charles simply could not find a way to remove Andrew from Royal Lodge though, and that the courtiers were trying to find some loophole to have Andrew evicted from his palatial mansion. Turns out, there was always a reason to evict him – his delinquency on the lease agreement – but Charles simply didn’t want to do it. Which probably explains the flurry of new leaks coming out of Buckingham Palace about Andrew’s sorry finances. Deflection from the acknowledgement that Charles always had the power to evict Andrew.
Sources have stressed to the Daily Mail that questions still remain over how the King’s brother can afford the vast 30-bedroom property, which comes with multi-million running costs.
The Daily Mail can exclusively reveal that Andrew is not believed to have received any significant inheritance from the Queen or Queen Mother, raising fresh questions about how he can afford to stay in the property – particularly when he now receives no personal allowance from the King, or public funding.
Charles, 76, has desperately tried to persuade his younger brother to downsize and move out of the grade II-listed mansion in recent years. He believes many of Andrew’s problems – particularly those that saw him drawn to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein and other shady characters – stem from chasing a lifestyle he simply cannot afford. But Andrew, 65, has stubbornly insisted that he has a cast-iron lease on the house. And as long as pays the rent, the King has no legal right to throw him out.
While details of the Queen’s will have never been made public, it is thought that Andrew was not left sufficient funds to sustain his apparently lavish lifestyle. Andrew had to carry out £7.5million of refurbishment work when he took the property on in 2003. He was given a 75-year lease in return for a one-off payment of £1million. His rent was believed to be upwards of £260,000 a year, with a legal requirement to keep the property in a good state of repair.
However, sources at Windsor say the house is a virtual ‘money pit’ and there have long been claims Andrew has been struggling with its upkeep.
Until now it had been widely assumed that without any public funding or private allowance from his brother, the prince had been dipping into personal investments and family bequests to bankroll the property.
The revelation over his inheritance will inevitably raise questions about how he can afford to live there. Andrew also has to fund his own security after losing his official police bodyguard.
[From The Daily Mail]
Say it louder: “And as long as pays the rent, the King has no legal right to throw him out.” He hasn’t paid rent in two decades. So why hasn’t Charles evicted Andrew? Do you mean to tell me that Charles spent all of this time lying and equivocating about how he just couldn’t force Andrew out? As for the lack of inheritance… yeah, I absolutely think QEII slid a lot of money to Andrew in her final years. I bet Prince Philip left him some money too.
ITV and BBC Newsnight did lengthy interviews with Virginia Giuffre’s coauthor Amy Wallace. I had a hard time getting through these, so I doubt I will be able to stomach Nobody’s Girl. One thing Wallace wants to emphasize is that Andrew was absolutely on Epstein’s island, in Epstein’s townhouse and in Epstein’s Florida mansion.
