Andrew’s unspeakable greed shames the monarchy

So now we have it. Not only was the former prince Andrew paying a peppercorn rent – in other words no rent at all – for his 30-room mansion in Windsor, but for more than two decades he was also presumably pocketing any surplus income from subletting three properties on the estate. Even more astonishing, perhaps, is the fact that he wasn’t breaking any rules.

It was allowed under the terms of his lease. No wonder he had to be almost dragged kicking and screaming out of his cushy accommodation at Royal Lodge.

The National Audit Office (NAO) report into the rental arrangements of properties owned by the Crown Estate or managed by the Royal Household is revealing – and alarming. What an unholy mess it all is.

Some aspects seem unfathomable. Having accepted the need for independent assessment of the market value of the properties, the household decided that the royal occupants should pay only around 60 per cent of that rent because of the security restraints of the location. But surely most who want to live there are people of notable wealth, who could afford the market rent?

Granted, some tenants – including the disgraced former duke, and the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh at Bagshot Park – had paid an upfront premium for their homes. But what a handsome return they got: a virtually rent-free life with the bonus of income from subletting parts of these vast estates. It’s understood that the properties at Royal Lodge were sublet to active or retired staff at a rate to cover their running costs and maintenance. The details, however, remain sketchy. So if this is truly the case, let’s see the figures.

And for some reason, as yet unexplained, any profits Andrew acquired did not have to be returned to the Crown Estate – which is meant to be an independent commercial operation, with its profits being given directly to the Treasury. In other words, it is taxpayers’ money for public spending. The arrangements were privately made between Andrew and his tenants. So was there a profit or not? We should be told.

The fact is that taxpayers already foot a substantial bill to fund the monarchy. The annual Sovereign Grant currently sits at almost £138m, enough surely to pay the small band of working royals quite handsomely for their time and cover their official expenses. Trousering rents from surplus accommodation smacks of greed.

The NAO report also confirms that the King pays the rent for his nieces, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, who have the use of accommodation at Kensington Palace and St James’s Palace. For this he uses his private Duchy of Lancaster funds. But former prince Andrew’s daughters are not working royals: they have no official duties. And you have to wonder why they feel the need to sponge off their uncle when they are both married to successful businessmen and have their own careers. Whether this arrangement will continue is very much up for debate.

The King also pays the rent for the Kensington Palace apartment of two other non-working royals: Prince and Princess Michael of Kent. In doing so, he is honouring a commitment made by his late mother. The Prince runs his own consultancy business, amongst other commercial activities. So why can’t he fund his own life?

It also reignites the whole question of whether the Duchy of Lancaster, and indeed Prince William’s Duchy of Cornwall, should in this day and age be used to generate millions of pounds each year for the private use of the monarch and Prince of Wales.

The royals must have been dreading this review of their properties and rental arrangements, and it seems they were right to do so. It has opened a can of worms.

The whole system needs a drastic overhaul. It’s clear to me that the Royal Family simply have far too many properties. They don’t seem to know what to do with half of them and this excess of housing reflects badly on them, especially when Prince William is actively campaigning to end homelessness.

They need to streamline their property portfolio, sort out the finances and publish the results. Because this row isn’t going away. The NAO report is just the first step. It will now form the basis of the Public Accounts Committee’s inquiry into royal properties – and that’s bound to raise a whole lot more questions, and spawn a new wave of potentially damaging headlines.