Kents sit tight at Kensington Palace six months after peppercorn rent outcry
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Prince and Princess Michael of Kent are still paying a peppercorn rent for their sumptuous apartment in Kensington Palace almost six months after the arrangement was heavily criticised by MPs.
In a parliamentary written reply, Kim Howells, the Culture Minister, confirmed that the couple were paying £69 a week for the property.
Angry MPs accused the Kents of ignoring calls for them to increase their rent or move out by the end of this year. One backbencher described the sum paid for the grace and favour apartment, in one of London's finest addresses, as a rip-off.
Sir Michael Peat, the Prince of Wales's Private Secretary, who lives in a neighbouring apartment pays £48,000 a year compared with the £3,500 a year rent paid by the Kents.
MPs on the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee first raised the issue of the Prince and Princess Michael's cut price accommodation after visiting Kensington Palace in June.
Edward Leigh, the Tory chairman, said he wouldn't be surprised if "a hint was dropped" that the royal couple should either move out or pay a more commercial rent.
The Kents own a £3.5m listed 16th-century house in Gloucestershire.
Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West, said they were unfairly benefiting from a form of taxpayers' subsidy.
"It's a form of royal housing benefit for millionaires," he said. "It's very dangerous to have a dependency society whether it's among working- class estates or the recipients of regal housing benefit."
Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat MP whose question prompted the disclosure, accused the Palace of presiding over a "royal rip off." He said: "Why should poor taxpayers subsidise this pampered pair living in the lap of luxury?
"We are now at the date when they were going to vacate the premises or pay a sensible rent back dated to their date of occupancy. This shows total contempt for public accountability and public finances. It's disgraceful that they are continuing to get away with this."
The Prince and Princess, who do not receive the same financial support to defray the cost of their duties as the Queen, the Prince of Wales or the Duke of York, were given the royal apartment in 1978 by the Queen after they married.
The Queen is said to be reluctant to renege on an agreement she made with them to allow them to live in the accommodation, although her senior advisers are said to want them to move out or subsidise their work.
A Buckingham Palace spokesman said last night: "From the Queen's point of view the couple have been living in Kensington Palace since their marriage and it was agreed at the time that they would remain there.
"That is the agreement that she came to at that time and as far as the Queen is concerned that won't change."
The private office of the Prince and Princess at Kensington Palace said yesterday that they could not add to Buckingham Palace's comments and the matter was "entirely a matter for the Queen to decide".
A spokesman said: "The Prince and Princess carry out close on 200 charitable and other engagements per year on average over the last five years in the same way as is undertaken by their cousins." He said the Kents' duties were not official, and they paid their own costs.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments