Sir Keir Starmer has thrown his weight behind a Prince Andrew inquiry, calling for “proper scrutiny” after explosive revelations over the Duke of York’s Windsor mansion lease.
Mounting criticism has engulfed the disgraced royal, whose “peppercorn rent” deal sparked outrage. Many see it as another example of privilege shielding him from accountability and consequence.
During Prime Minister’s Questions, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey demanded transparency. “Does the prime minister agree that this House must scrutinise the crown estate to protect taxpayers?” he asked pointedly.
In a measured reply, Starmer confirmed his position on the Prince Andrew inquiry, stating, “It’s important that all crown properties are subject to proper scrutiny — I certainly support that.”
The exchange came as political pressure built on the government to investigate whether Andrew’s long-term lease on Royal Lodge, Windsor, has deprived the public of potential financial returns.
For over two decades, Andrew has occupied the 30-room mansion on a 75-year lease reportedly costing him only a symbolic “peppercorn rent.” Documents confirm he paid just £1 million upfront in 2003.
Critics argue this sweetheart arrangement, which runs until 2078, symbolizes outdated royal privilege and deepens mistrust in an institution already marred by scandal and secrecy.
“It’s indefensible,” said Graham Smith, CEO of Republic. “The public should not subsidise luxury lifestyles. A full Prince Andrew inquiry is long overdue and must be unrelenting.”
Economists have also raised concerns that the crown estate, whose profits flow to the Treasury, may have lost millions in potential income through the arrangement’s favorable terms.
A clause even obliges the estate to pay Andrew around £558,000 should he surrender the lease — a detail MPs described as “astonishing” given his history of public disgrace.
Robert Jenrick, a senior Conservative MP, was scathing. “It’s about time Prince Andrew took himself off to live in private,” he said. “The public are sick of him.”
The backlash intensified after Andrew’s announcement that he would give up using his royal titles. Yet critics dismissed the gesture as superficial without legal or parliamentary confirmation.
Removing the dukedom formally requires new legislation, something Labour supports in principle but which ministers have been hesitant to back without clear royal approval.
MP Rachael Maskell, sponsoring a bill to allow the monarch to revoke titles, said, “This goes beyond Andrew. Parliament must have the power to hold the powerful to account.”
Her bill would enable the King to strip royal titles either by his initiative, on Parliament’s recommendation, or at the holder’s request — a proposal gaining traction amid the Prince Andrew inquiry uproar.
Polling underscores public anger. A recent YouGov survey found 63 percent of Britons “strongly” support removing Andrew’s titles, while only 6 percent oppose the move outright.
“It’s not about personal vendettas,” said pollster Joseph Haynes. “People simply expect equality before the law — and they see none in this case.”
The timing of the revelations has compounded embarrassment for the royal family, still recovering from the damaging Epstein scandal and the Duke’s disastrous 2019 BBC interview.
Virginia Giuffre’s newly released memoir Nobody’s Girl reignited attention on allegations Andrew has always denied — that she was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and forced to have sex with him.
Though Andrew vehemently denies all claims, his reputation never recovered. “You can’t talk about redemption when there’s been no accountability,” commented royal biographer Catherine Mayer.
Mayer described the public mood as “hardening fast.” “There’s no sympathy left,” she said. “People view this as arrogance — the sense he can simply wait out the outrage.”
Republican campaigners argue that the monarchy’s silence only deepens resentment. “They circle the wagons instead of confronting reality,” Smith added. “It’s the same pattern every time.”
For Starmer, supporting the Prince Andrew inquiry serves both principle and politics. Labour has long pledged stronger oversight of the crown estate’s management and transparency in royal finances.
“Accountability shouldn’t stop at privilege,” said Labour MP Jess Phillips. “The British public deserve to know how their money is being managed — or mismanaged — at the highest levels.”
Government ministers, however, have resisted direct involvement, arguing that “these matters are for the King.” The statement drew immediate backlash from opposition MPs and anti-monarchy activists alike.
Starmer’s allies privately believe the Prince Andrew inquiry could highlight broader constitutional imbalances — a debate Labour may seek to exploit as the next election approaches.
Meanwhile, royal watchers note the issue’s potential to further damage the family’s image. “This isn’t just about one prince,” said historian Dr. Anna Whitelaw. “It’s about an outdated system losing moral authority.”
She added, “When senior royals appear untouchable while ordinary citizens face financial pressure, anger naturally follows. It’s unsustainable in a modern democracy.”
With public confidence waning, polls show rising support for reform of royal privileges. Nearly 70 percent of young Britons believe the monarchy should lose access to public funding altogether.
As the Prince Andrew inquiry gathers political and public momentum, pressure mounts on both the crown estate and Downing Street to demonstrate fairness — or risk further erosion of trust.
For now, the royal household has declined to comment. But critics insist silence only fuels suspicion. “Transparency is the bare minimum,” said activist Naomi Bennett. “They can’t hide forever.”
Starmer’s statement, though brief, marked a notable shift — signalling that even establishment figures now recognise the monarchy’s immunity from scrutiny can no longer continue unchecked.
About The Author
