Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been told that the allowance from King Charles should not be used to fund his legal action against Thames Valley Police and the Central Criminal Court. The challenge centers on search warrants used ahead of his February arrest, with a court hearing on Thursday afternoon part of his bid to quash them in Windsor.
The money at issue comes from King Charles's private funds, not the Sovereign Grant. The allowance was part of the arrangement when Mountbatten-Windsor moved from Royal Lodge in Windsor, and the amount has not been disclosed.
Thames Valley Police and the Central Criminal Court
Mountbatten-Windsor's lawyers are understood to be challenging the lawfulness of warrants used for searches of Sandringham and Royal Lodge. Thames Valley Police said it is engaged in legal proceedings in relation to warrants previously obtained from the Central Criminal Court, and added: "As these legal proceedings are currently ongoing, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further."
The former Prince Andrew was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office after information emerged from the Epstein files in the United States. He has consistently denied any wrongdoing linked to his association with Jeffrey Epstein, and he is not a working royal.
Buckingham Palace and The Palace
Buckingham Palace no longer speaks on his behalf and is not involved in his legal battle. The Palace is distancing itself from the legal pushback even as King Charles privately supports his brother and accommodates him on his estate in Sandringham.
That split leaves the legal challenge separate from the royal funding arrangement. The King's support is private money drawn from his income from the Duchy of Lancaster, private estates and his own investments and inheritances, while the public monarchy budget comes from the Sovereign Grant, which is £138m.
The court hearing on Thursday afternoon will sit within Mountbatten-Windsor's bid to quash the warrants. At the time of his arrest, King Charles said the "law must take its course," and the case now tests how far private royal support can go when the challenge is aimed at police warrants rather than palace business.
For readers tracking the dispute, the immediate point is simple: the legal fight is moving ahead, but the King's allowance is not meant to pay for it. The open issue is the scale of that private support, which remains undisclosed.
