Dr Craig Prescott, a specialist in UK constitutional law at Royal Holloway, University of London, said from a property law perspective it was perfectly normal to get a lease on an estate and then sublet different parts of it. However, when it came to royalty, perception was key.
“The perception is of people living in massive palaces or properties, and the concern is that they’re getting a very good deal or, worse, making money from it,” Prescott said. The fact it was a crown estate property led to “more scrutiny” because its profits go to the Treasury, he said, adding that Mountbatten-Windsor had paid £7.5m upfront at the start of his lease.
The royal household manages and maintains the land and buildings in the occupied royal palaces estate through the sovereign grant. The occupied palaces are not owned by the monarch, but held “in the right of the crown” in trust for the nation, and include official residences such as Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, St James’s Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace.
The royal household generates rental income to help support the monarch in official duties by charging for residential properties within the occupied royal palaces estate, which amounted to £3.6m in 2024-25. As of May 2026, the royal household had 255 properties available for use within the occupied palaces. Before 2011, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was accountable to parliament for their upkeep, and delegated responsibility to the royal household in return for an annual grant.
Under David Cameron, the Sovereign Grant Act removed the responsibility of the secretary of state so that in future the properties would be maintained by the monarch out of the grant.
Prescott said: “The problem is essentially of perception here. That all this is so complicated and difficult to explain and understand; what is public and what is private is really quite a complex question at times. The reality is hidden behind all this complexity and that doesn’t help for public understanding.”
