Just when you & your lovely ghost thought that the Monarchy & British Royal Family were having a quiet week, up pops an audit that has given validation & proof of what many have suspected & alleged of the mismanagement of HM QEII's & KCIII's Crown Estate has been conducted in the past couple of decades. The National Audit Office in their report released on June 5, 2026 has revealed deep flaws in the way that royal "grace & favour" homes for royal family members are managed. While nothing illegal or illicit has been revealed, the optics of this management are terrible -- to the public, to the MPs who will receive the full report. The detailed report titled "Investigation into residential property arrangements with members of the Royal Family" exposes major inconsistencies, highly favorable lease terms, & opaque financial practices across properties managed by The Crown Estate & The Royal Household. This is evident despite the Palace's statement welcoming the NAO's factual review of royal property arrangements, stating it aligns with the Royal Household's commitment to transparency. It's quite obvious that this statement is a band-aid on a broken leg.
The key findings of this report include -- undisclosed Private Income: AMW collected private rental income by subletting 3 cottages on his RL estate for over 2 decades while only paying a symbolic "peppercorn rent" to the Crown Estate. Subsidized Rents for Non-Working Royals: Beatrice & Eugenie lived in a KP apartment & a KP cottage under discounted "grace & favour" terms. Queen Elizabeth & King Charles III funded these costs through the private Privy Purse income. Outdated Property Valuations: The Royal Household calculated adjusted rental rates for several palace properties using historic, outdated market valuations rather than modern, fair-market appraisals. Unequal Rental Terms: While working royals occupy residences free of charge in exchange for official duties (which seems very fair), other senior royals like the Edinburghs also held leases allowing them to benefit from property subletting.
While all these are relatively small in comparison to the recent debacles & unhappiness of the public with the way the King is managing some of his relatives in other situations, it seems like the time of this report & its key findings are coming at a very vulnerable time for the British Monarchy. It remains to be seen what improvement results will result in a sure-to-happen dialog between the Crown Estate, Monarch & Parliament.
It is yet another example of a very solvable problem that is allowed to endlessly fester. William must be losing his mind watching the goodwill toward the BRF needlessly ebb away while he stands by with his own family.
Jeanie this is indeed a rather large mess. Would it be more appropriate for those residents to pay themselves at a true market value? Should the sovereign not pay anything towards this? I know it’s likely complicated and don’t mean to make my questions so narrow. But I’m genuinely curious if there is a better arrangement that could be made.
I think the Royal Household (with the Monarch's approval) & a committee from HM's Treasury -- which are the 2 responsible parties for drafting a new grace & favour homes agreement - should sit down & write a new agreement. I don't even know if an old agreement exists but somewhere along the line the 60% of current retail market rent values has come into play (it's mentioned in the actual report a few times). They should negotiate on WHO should get grace & favour homes & what the rate should be & how often rental rate assessments will be performed either by the Royal Household or by the CE mgmt team. It should answer questions like you ask & cover all the key findings of that official NAO report. It should answer when deviations from that agreement take place why they took place. Then that negotiated agreement should be published on the House Committee website or appropriate place for true transparency to the public & would be the litmus test for future NAO/Public Accounts Committee audits.
Good solution....it appears that the older royal family members might be "grandfathered" into the grace and favor residences? Might be a bit harsh to require an increase on rent for them due to age.....just a thought....
It kind of sounds like it - for now the Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra & i'm not sure about Prince/Princess Michael of Kent's status as 'retired working royals" like the Duke & Alexandra...they did serve for quite a few years many years ago i think but not near as long as Michael's brother & sister, in fact i think a short length of time comparatively. And then later Princess Anne (altho who knows if she'll ever retire? LOL), the Gloucesters, Edinburghs...
I do think giving Lilibet that name was definitely a provocation and claim being staked - by Meghan, not the child. Did Meghan have a copyright or something on the name?
How can you doubt the obvious - Meghan attaching herself as many ways as possible to her only important achievement - marrying Prince Harry?
The daughter's name was also a huge presumption & overstepping of the bounds by Harry, he is as much to blame here as Meghan. It just proves how little he knew his Grandmother & how very little he regarded her beyond what she could do for him.
But i agree with you 100% Meghan is squeezing the Monarchy & perks until the virtual pennies cry for mercy, she's strip-mining that 18 mo stint as a royal. That was her very peak -- May 19, 2018 & she's been skidding downhill on greased runners ever since.
I sincerely hope that this Lilibet will continue to make herself known to you. She had such wisdom in life (with some notable exceptions) and it is interesting to see her after-life wisdom. These late-night experiences, that you are fortunate to have, bring tears to my eyes. However I do think that she still feels sadness that “the little girl” was given her special name.
Yes! Wasn't it reported at the time that she said as Queen, she directly owns so little... and so the appropriation of this meaningful and personal nickname was very hurtful.
Just when you & your lovely ghost thought that the Monarchy & British Royal Family were having a quiet week, up pops an audit that has given validation & proof of what many have suspected & alleged of the mismanagement of HM QEII's & KCIII's Crown Estate has been conducted in the past couple of decades. The National Audit Office in their report released on June 5, 2026 has revealed deep flaws in the way that royal "grace & favour" homes for royal family members are managed. While nothing illegal or illicit has been revealed, the optics of this management are terrible -- to the public, to the MPs who will receive the full report. The detailed report titled "Investigation into residential property arrangements with members of the Royal Family" exposes major inconsistencies, highly favorable lease terms, & opaque financial practices across properties managed by The Crown Estate & The Royal Household. This is evident despite the Palace's statement welcoming the NAO's factual review of royal property arrangements, stating it aligns with the Royal Household's commitment to transparency. It's quite obvious that this statement is a band-aid on a broken leg.
The key findings of this report include -- undisclosed Private Income: AMW collected private rental income by subletting 3 cottages on his RL estate for over 2 decades while only paying a symbolic "peppercorn rent" to the Crown Estate. Subsidized Rents for Non-Working Royals: Beatrice & Eugenie lived in a KP apartment & a KP cottage under discounted "grace & favour" terms. Queen Elizabeth & King Charles III funded these costs through the private Privy Purse income. Outdated Property Valuations: The Royal Household calculated adjusted rental rates for several palace properties using historic, outdated market valuations rather than modern, fair-market appraisals. Unequal Rental Terms: While working royals occupy residences free of charge in exchange for official duties (which seems very fair), other senior royals like the Edinburghs also held leases allowing them to benefit from property subletting.
While all these are relatively small in comparison to the recent debacles & unhappiness of the public with the way the King is managing some of his relatives in other situations, it seems like the time of this report & its key findings are coming at a very vulnerable time for the British Monarchy. It remains to be seen what improvement results will result in a sure-to-happen dialog between the Crown Estate, Monarch & Parliament.
It is yet another example of a very solvable problem that is allowed to endlessly fester. William must be losing his mind watching the goodwill toward the BRF needlessly ebb away while he stands by with his own family.
Jeanie this is indeed a rather large mess. Would it be more appropriate for those residents to pay themselves at a true market value? Should the sovereign not pay anything towards this? I know it’s likely complicated and don’t mean to make my questions so narrow. But I’m genuinely curious if there is a better arrangement that could be made.
I think the Royal Household (with the Monarch's approval) & a committee from HM's Treasury -- which are the 2 responsible parties for drafting a new grace & favour homes agreement - should sit down & write a new agreement. I don't even know if an old agreement exists but somewhere along the line the 60% of current retail market rent values has come into play (it's mentioned in the actual report a few times). They should negotiate on WHO should get grace & favour homes & what the rate should be & how often rental rate assessments will be performed either by the Royal Household or by the CE mgmt team. It should answer questions like you ask & cover all the key findings of that official NAO report. It should answer when deviations from that agreement take place why they took place. Then that negotiated agreement should be published on the House Committee website or appropriate place for true transparency to the public & would be the litmus test for future NAO/Public Accounts Committee audits.
Good solution....it appears that the older royal family members might be "grandfathered" into the grace and favor residences? Might be a bit harsh to require an increase on rent for them due to age.....just a thought....
It kind of sounds like it - for now the Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra & i'm not sure about Prince/Princess Michael of Kent's status as 'retired working royals" like the Duke & Alexandra...they did serve for quite a few years many years ago i think but not near as long as Michael's brother & sister, in fact i think a short length of time comparatively. And then later Princess Anne (altho who knows if she'll ever retire? LOL), the Gloucesters, Edinburghs...
Thank you. I do think that seems reasonable and appropriate. Hopefully they move towards that direction and soon.
Me too!
I do think giving Lilibet that name was definitely a provocation and claim being staked - by Meghan, not the child. Did Meghan have a copyright or something on the name?
How can you doubt the obvious - Meghan attaching herself as many ways as possible to her only important achievement - marrying Prince Harry?
The daughter's name was also a huge presumption & overstepping of the bounds by Harry, he is as much to blame here as Meghan. It just proves how little he knew his Grandmother & how very little he regarded her beyond what she could do for him.
But i agree with you 100% Meghan is squeezing the Monarchy & perks until the virtual pennies cry for mercy, she's strip-mining that 18 mo stint as a royal. That was her very peak -- May 19, 2018 & she's been skidding downhill on greased runners ever since.
Yet again, another of these columns has me truly worried that the King and those around him are clueless.
Me too - i don't know if it's willful (which is worse actually) or clueless... 🤔
I sincerely hope that this Lilibet will continue to make herself known to you. She had such wisdom in life (with some notable exceptions) and it is interesting to see her after-life wisdom. These late-night experiences, that you are fortunate to have, bring tears to my eyes. However I do think that she still feels sadness that “the little girl” was given her special name.
Yes! Wasn't it reported at the time that she said as Queen, she directly owns so little... and so the appropriation of this meaningful and personal nickname was very hurtful.
I enjoy "conversations" in the stillness of night....