Did King Charles secretly give money to Prince Andrew to keep Royal Lodge?

This has been one of the dumbest, low-stakes royal soap opera in a while. The whole thing started last year, when King Charles evicted the Sussexes from Frogmore Cottage, and simultaneously began a pressure campaign to force Prince Andrew to leave Royal Lodge and move into the now-vacant Frogmore Cottage. Whenever Charles wanted a non-Sussex headline, he would leak sh-t about how much he hates Andrew and how Andrew will be forced out of RL eventually. Things came to a head in recent months when Charles reportedly cut off Andrew’s privately-funded security AND cut off Andrew’s general “allowance.” And yet, Andrew told the Crown Estates people that he had plenty of money to keep his lease on RL, and the news was said to be “comprehensively humiliating” for Charles, who looked petty, stupid and too ineffectual to finagle Andrew out of a huge mansion. So obviously, someone had to spread a rumor about how Charles was behind Andrew’s sudden windfall. Face-saving measure, my old friend.

As parlour games go, the subject of who has stepped in to fund Prince Andrew’s future in the white-stuccoed grandeur of Royal Lodge, Windsor, has been the only one in play for weeks. Since the revelation that the Duke of York had secured a cash lifeline for the 30-room mansion, the hunt for his mysterious benefactor has consumed London society. Who, everyone wants to know, has the resources to go up against King Charles, following his demands that his brother downsize to the more modest Frogmore Cottage, once the home of the Sussexes?

Wealthy names from the Middle East to the Russian steppes have been in the frame, but now I can reveal there are some in aristocratic circles who believe the Prince’s secret patron is someone far closer to home. In fact, he may own a rather grand property right next door. They suspect the ‘eviction’ threat is an elaborate double bluff by the King. I have heard from multiple sources that, far from cutting Andrew off, Charles has personally cleared his errant brother’s bills for his upkeep and promised his Royal Lodge woes are taken care of, enabling him to stay there for the foreseeable future.

The question isn’t how he’s done it, but why. Why would the monarch cut through the chaos of Andrew’s finances and social life to salvage his brother’s position in the wake of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal? The first person to suggest the King has opened his private purse on behalf of his brother was someone once close to Andrew.

‘He [Andrew] just doesn’t have that many friends any more. He barely goes out, he’s not that welcome anywhere,’ says the source. ‘So it’s got to be family, and the obvious person is the King. I mean, why would anybody who’s not family want to give him money when they’re not going to get anything out of it except a lot of flack?’

I would barely have believed it had the same story not been shared at another glamorous – and usually ultra-discreet – dinner table just a few days later. ‘Charles has paid for it all,’ revealed someone who’s been a guest at Royal Lodge in years gone by. ‘The King has cleared it. It’s all done.’

For clarity, my companion was adamant the funds were not from the public purse but from the monarch’s personal pocket. ‘Private funding,’ they confided. Were this correct, there’s probably a trail leading to the Duchy of Lancaster. That’s the property empire that provides the monarch with their personal wealth. While the Sovereign Grant, the official mechanism for supporting the King, is transparent, the Duchy is a more private matter between him and his accountants. The net surplus of the Lancaster estate was £27.4 million in 2023/24, according to accounts published last July. That would be ample to cover Andrew’s costs.

[From The Daily Mail]

So one of the Mail’s gossip columnists has heard gossip from well-connected people that Charles secretly funnelled millions to Andrew… after Charles wouldn’t shut up about how he cut off Andrew’s security and his allowance, and after Charles spent the better part of two years on a very public campaign to force Andrew to leave RL? No. What happened is that Andrew had money stocked away for a rainy day and Charles is still really mad about it, but he also wants to take credit for “Andrew is staying at RL.” In any case, the Daily Beast’s “palace sources” were “quick to pour cold water on the claims that Charles had pulled off a ‘double bluff’ and was secretly funding Andrew. Palace sources were quick to rubbish the faintly-sourced story, pointing out curtly that it seemed to be based on ‘dinner party speculation’ and ‘gossip.’” Charles had to take a massive L on this whole fiasco, and not only that, he can’t take credit for being generous or smart enough to help his brother.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

21 Responses to “Did King Charles secretly give money to Prince Andrew to keep Royal Lodge?”

  1. Maxine Branch says:

    I certainly do not care if Andrew keeps or vacates that place. He should be in jail

  2. SpankFD says:

    I’m wondering how A managed to strong-arm C into being smart instead of petty? They’re family; could they each know each other’s skeletons?

  3. somebody says:

    Andrew likely has the goods on Charles to get a payday out of him, but if there are others out there willing to fund him neither one objects to spending other people’s money in preference to their own. It also wouldn’t be surprising if Liz or Phil set him up some sort of trust that he receives the income from.

    • Anonymous says:

      More likely Andy had given his brother a very bold choice – his memoir or financial support for the rest of his life and a big chunk to leave to the York sisters too. Chuckles seemed to have chosen the less perilous for him and the monarchy.

  4. Whatever says:

    There’s some logic there. We know that privately Charles is not terribly bothered by anything his brother’s done, but publicly he needs to appear horrified and distance himself from Andrew. Raising a big public stink, while secretly ensuring that Andrew is fine, follows that. And Charles is too dumb to see how bad this would make him look. I’m not saying this is definitely what happened, but it does make some sense.

  5. Amy Bee says:

    I could believe this. I think Charles just used Andrew as the scapegoat because he can no longer use Harry and Meghan for stories to give to the press.

  6. Hypocrisy says:

    I believe Chuck would do exactly that.. he is still protecting his brother from the authorities for his crimes against trafficked children with Epstein. There is no low any of them fail to meet especially Chuck and Pedo.

  7. ML says:

    Duchy of Lancaster where Charles was collecting money from dead people without wills and has been an active slumlord keeping people in uninhabitable housing??! The Duchy of Lancaster, which pays Charles lots of money by charging taxpayers, is now funding his brother privately? That should be a huge story.

    • sunnyside up says:

      Ah but they can trace their ancestry back to Alfred the Great so that everything they do is OK. Unlike Meghan where everything she does is wrong. Harry, of course, is guilty by association.

  8. Mads says:

    Everything is smoke and mirrors with that family so Chuck briefing against Andrew but really supporting him financially wouldn’t be a surprise.
    Although, as others have pointed out, the timing of Beatrice and Eugenie travelling to a couple of the Arab states is very coincidental.

  9. Eurydice says:

    I suppose the double bluff makes sense if Andrew was still in the news, but he really hasn’t been for a long time now. The only people who cared about Andrew living at Royal Lodge were Will and Kate and that hasn’t been much of an issue anymore since it looks like Charles isn’t long for this earth. So, why not let the issue die down? And if William’s got a problem with Andrew he can worry about it when he’s king.

  10. Silver Birch says:

    I love the term they use – “faintly sourced” – everything the rota ever writes is faintly sourced!

  11. Jais says:

    So who’s going to live in frogmore now? Or will it gasp, sit empty? Which was one of the reasons they gave for why the Sussexes couldn’t possibly keep it. Bc how dare it sit empty for parts of the year. Whereas now, it sits empty for all of the year.

  12. VilleRose says:

    None of this is true. This seems like a story put out by Andrew and/or Sarah to try to make it look like Andrew has one upped Charles again. Andrew probably got such a wind in his sails when he was able to stick it to Charles he had money to stay at Royal Lodge so in his giddiness, he put this false story out. But the question is for how long does he have money for? Andrew has always been terrible with money and it will not last his whole lease if it’s his own money and I don’t think it is. And whoever the mysterious benefactor is didn’t give Andrew money out of the good of their hearts. They either expect to be paid back or asked for something in return. It will eventually come out, especially if it’s some Russian/Middle Eastern person with shady business dealings. I don’t know why Charles put out this story about himself, it just makes him look wimpy and indecisive as usual.

  13. Convict says:

    This was my thinking all along. I may have even posted as such.

  14. Yvette says:

    I believe this. Why? Because Andrew and Fergie have been openly invited to Sandringham for Christmas, not ‘secreted’ there like in past years. I believe the whole ruse from beginning to end had two purposes: First, Charles had to justify evicting the Sussexes from Windsor in a way that would placate those Brits who might not be overly fond of Meghan but would abhor a father treating his child and grandchildren in such a manner. To suppress these voices on Salty Island, Palace Aides issued a statement saying that ‘short-term accommodation’ would be provided to Prince Harry–depending on availability–when he visits (and of course, when he requested to stay at Windsor Castle so he could pay private respects to QEII on the 1st year of her passing, he was told ‘sorry, no rooms are available’).

    And second, there would be some hisses and boos if the King continued to be seen as freely, gleefully, and willingly providing money and lodging to a man who had behaved one hundred times worse than anything leveled at the King’s youngest son. The argument that Frogmore Cottage stays empty most of the year doesn’t fly because the King and the Heir have several properties that stay empty for most of the year, yet they still retain them.

    What better way to solve the problem than to pretend to be vexed by an embarrassing younger brother who is a financial drain and is living in a large mansion he can’t afford to maintain? Charles is the King of England. If he wanted his brother out of Royal Lodge all he had to do is issue the order. Doesn’t matter if the property is leased under the Crown Estate or if it was gifted by late Queen Elizabeth II. Certainly didn’t matter for Frogmore Cottage and the Sussexes. If Charles ‘really’ wanted Andrew out of Royal Lodge, he would be out.

    So, here’s my slow clap. Charles played it beautifully.

  15. martha says:

    Oh, man – these people.I still can’t get my head around the Frogmore eviction and what an absolutely cruel and stupid move that was. It just does not make sense any way you look at it.

    Charles really shot himself in the foot here.

  16. bisynaptic says:

    “It’s good to be king.”

  17. Convict says:

    It could also mean that William is no longer demanding Royal Lodge for whatever reason, including that he will be a single man …

  18. Anonymous says:

    WTH are these ads that hijack the entire page and won’t let you “x” out of them to continue the story? You can’t read anything. The mobile version sucks with all these ads.

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment