Prince Edward's peppercorn rent deal on Bagshot Park branded 'obscene' just weeks after Andrew reveal

The revelation has sparked criticism that the property represents a taxpayer-funded subsidy for King Charles's younger brother, as the Crown Estate's revenues ordinarily flow to the public purse.

Campaigners argue the Bagshot Park estate could generate substantial income if leased commercially, questioning why the 15th-in-line to the throne receives such favourable terms for the property he has occupied for a quarter-century.

Prince Edward's 2007 agreement, executed through his company, Eclipse Nominees Limited, secured a 150-year lease of the Grade II listed property.

The arrangement permits the Duke to potentially profit from selling the lease, with the sole requirement being that any future occupant must demonstrate financial capacity for the mansion's upkeep.

This contrasts specifically with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s lease, which restricts who can inherit Royal Lodge to just Sarah Ferguson and their daughters, Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice.

Prince Edward's lease contains no such familial limitations for his wife, the Duchess of Edinburgh and their children, Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and James, Earl of Wessex.

Despite the criticism, the Duke of Edinburgh regularly undertakes domestic and overseas engagements as a senior working royal.

The Crown Estate maintains the £5million premium underwent market testing before approval, with usage restrictions aligned to the estate's historical character.

Supporters of the Duke argue that long leases are standard practice for the Crown Estate and that upfront premiums can offset future rental value.

However, Edward continues to pay only peppercorn rent, a purely nominal sum, effectively meaning negligible ongoing payments for the Victorian-era residence.

Edward initially secured Bagshot Park in March 1998 with a 50-year lease costing £5,000 annually.

This increased to £90,000 yearly after he contributed £1.36million towards renovations, with the Crown Estate funding the remaining portion of the £3million refurbishment. The National Audit Office deemed this revised amount market value.

Similar arrangements have emerged elsewhere, with reports in October revealing that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor paid £8.5million upfront for Royal Lodge whilst also enjoying peppercorn rent.

The Ministry of Defence returned the site to the Crown Estate in 1996, attracting two commercial proposals - one for a conference facility and another for hotel conversion - both rejected before the Estate opted to lease the property to Edward.

Following his 1999 wedding to Sophie, now Duchess of Edinburgh, the couple moved into Bagshot Park, despite the two previous commercial offers. These disclosures have intensified examination of royal property deals.

Norman Baker, a royal author and former Liberal Democrat minister, condemned the arrangement as "obscene" to The Times, which first reported the peppercorn rent revelations.

Mr Baker said: "It is obscene not just that Edward and Sophie have been given a 120-room mansion to live in, but even more so that they have to pay a mere peppercorn rent, less than a struggling couple would pay to rent a pokey flat in Romford."

Republic, the anti-monarchy campaign group, echoed these sentiments through a spokesman who said: "There is absolutely no reason why Edward should be supplied with subsidised housing. These properties are state-owned. They should not be in the gift of the monarch for their family."

The spokesman added: "Most people have no idea who Edward is or what he does. Why is he getting any state subsidy?"

The Crown Estate's reluctance to disclose Edward's lease terms contrasts with their release of Andrew's Royal Lodge documentation, having initially refused to provide Edward's lease to The Times and prompting a formal FOI request.

The Land Registry's heavily redacted version prevented public scrutiny of whether market rates applied. Royal financial arrangements remain largely opaque, with wills and private trust details withheld despite the monarchy's significant public role and influence.

Correspondence involving Royal Family members enjoys special Freedom of Information Act exemptions, complicating investigations into their activities.

Communications between the King and Prince William with public bodies face a complete disclosure prohibition without appeal rights, a recent Governmental introduction.

These revelations coincide with mounting pressure for transparency regarding Crown Estate expenditures that appear to benefit Royal Family members rather than taxpayers.

The Crown Estate declined to comment when approached by GB News. The People's Channel has also contacted Buckingham Palace for comment.