In a shocking audit, the National Audit Office (NAO) revealed that Prince Andrew lived rent‑free in a government‑owned home and sub‑let three properties tied to the mansion, pocketing the payments. The report also flags that Andrew could receive up to £500,000 in compensation for vacating Royal Lodge early, while his daughters Beatrice and Eugenie have never paid rent for nearly two decades. the findings have reignited calls for greater transparency in the royal family’s finances.

NAO Exposes Andrew’s £500,000 Compensation Claim

The NAO report states that Prince Andrew, now forced out of Royal Lodge, could be entitled to as much as £500,000 in compensation for leaving the property early. The audit does not detail how the money would be used, leaving questions about the purpose of the payout. This figure underscores the scale of the financial arrangements that have gone largely unexamined by the public.

Beatrice and Eugenie’s Rent‑Free Palace Tenure

According to the NAO, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie have never paid rent for their residence in royal palaces, a situation that has persisted for almost twenty years. The report highlights the broader pattern of the Windsors enjoying “cosy deals” that benefit from taxpayer money while avoiding ordinary costs. This arrangement has fueled public criticism over the monarchy’s perceived privilege.

Prince Edward’s ‘Peppercorn’ Deal and Bagshot Park

The audit also points out that Prince Edward, the Duke of Edinburgh, has a “peppercorn” arrangement from the Crown Estate for his 120‑room Bagshot Park mansion. Additionally, Edward let out a stable block for £130,000 a year. These details illustrate the extent to which royal family members benefit from government‑owned properties at minimal cost.

Public Support Drops to 45% Amid Rising Scrutiny

The Savanta opinion poll cited in the report shows support for the Royal Family falling to 45%,a three‑point drop in just four months.. Almost a third of respondents now prefer an elected head of state. The poll reflects growing public discomfort with the monarchy’s financial secrecy and the perception that the family is “on the make” at taxpayers’ expense.

Secrecy and the Freedom of Information Act: A Historical Context

The NAO report notes that the monarchy is the only institution receiving public money and performing a public function that is virtually exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. The report traces this exemption back to a 2015 FOI battle involving Prince Charles, who lobbied for changes to keep future correspondence private . the resulting blanket ban on information about Charles or William has limited parliamentary scrutiny and kept the public in the dark about royal finances.

Who Is the Unnamed Buyer of Andrew’s Sub‑Leased Properties?

The audit reveals that Andrew sub‑let three properties tied to the palace but does not identify the buyers. The lack of transparency about who paid for these properties raises questions about potential conflicts of interest and the use of public assets for private gain . The NAO report does not provide details on the identities of the tenants or the terms of the sub‑letting agreements .