Fact check: Who pays for the maintenance and upkeep of Royal Lodge?

1. What the lease papers say — who is contractually on the hook for upkeep?

Contemporaneous accounts of the lease signed in 2003 show Prince Andrew paid a substantial upfront sum and accepted a long lease, and multiple reports state the lease makes him responsible for maintenance and annual running costs, including rectifying any repairs to avoid eviction under lease terms ^{[1] [2] [9]}. The Crown Estate, as landlord, retains ownership and management duties but the contractual wording as reported assigns day-to-day and major repair obligations to the tenant, meaning legally the onus for routine maintenance, refurbishment and certain capital works falls to Prince Andrew unless the lease contains specific landlord obligations or indemnities not publicly disclosed ^{[10] [11]}. This allocation aligns with standard long-lease “private occupier pays” practice, but reporting notes that precise boundaries between tenant and landlord obligations have become a focal point for auditors and MPs ^[8].

2. Money matters — how much upkeep costs and who pays operational bills?

Estimates of operating costs vary: some property experts put annual maintenance and running costs as high as £4–5 million if including staffing and unexpected works, while other reporting suggests annual running costs around £250,000 and staffing estimated between £350,000–£500,000, reflecting different scopes of what “maintenance” covers ^{[6] [2]}. The lease and public reporting indicate Prince Andrew accepted responsibility for day-to-day running costs and at least some major refurbishments, implying he or his private funds should meet those bills; however, public scrutiny centres on whether public bodies — through security arrangements, the Crown Estate, or state-funded protection — are meeting costs related to his royal connections rather than tenancy obligations ^{[1] [5]}. The divergence in figures reveals disputed accounting practices and ambiguity about whether security and heritage-related works are treated separately from tenant maintenance ^{[6] [5]}.

3. The peppercorn rent and the Crown Estate’s role — why MPs are asking questions

Reporting confirms Royal Lodge has been charged a nominal “peppercorn” rent since the lease, with Prince Andrew not paying market rent for decades after an upfront payment and refurbishment investment ^{[4] [10]}. The Crown Estate, as the landlord and steward of the Windsor Estate, manages the lease and is being pressed by the Public Accounts Committee to justify whether the favourable terms remain value for money given Prince Andrew’s changed public role and reputational issues, and to show that lease terms — including maintenance obligations — are being enforced ^{[5] [7]}. MPs frame the issue as both a financial and symbolic question about public asset stewardship; critics argue insistence on enforcement is about accountability, while some commentators describe the dispute as largely symbolic given the sums involved compared with wider public spending ^[12].

4. Security, eviction risk and the practical limits of enforcement

Coverage highlights that while the lease contains protections for the landlord, practical eviction or enforcement is complicated: the tenancy is described as “cast-iron”, and the lease allegedly shields occupants against straightforward eviction, even where maintenance standards slip, though it also obliges the tenant to carry out repairs or face potential breach ^{[13] [9]}. The Public Accounts Committee’s inquiries seek to clarify where responsibility for security — an expensive, sometimes state-funded element tied to royal status — sits versus the tenant’s repair obligations; reports point to unclarity over whether the Crown Estate, taxpayer-funded security, or Prince Andrew’s private funds cover those costs ^{[5] [8]}. This creates a gap between contractual language and political feasibility, constraining easy solutions such as termination or compelled capital expenditure.

5. Bottom line — what is established, and what remains unsettled?

Established facts: the lease places maintenance responsibility with Prince Andrew, the Crown Estate is landlord, and a peppercorn rent has been charged, prompting parliamentary scrutiny over value for money and enforcement ^{[1] [4] [5]}. Unsettled matters: precise annual cost allocations (estimates range widely), whether security and heritage conservation costs are being borne publicly or privately, and how strictly the Crown Estate can or will enforce repair covenants without protracted legal or political fallout ^{[6] [8] [3]}. MPs and commentators present competing agendas — fiscal accountability versus limited financial stakes and reputational symbolism — and the ongoing PAC probe aims to produce documentary clarity on the lease terms, payments and who ultimately pays for what ^{[5] [11]}.