A British parliamentary committee questioned on Wednesday whether Prince Andrew should still be living in a mansion on the Windsor Estate, west of London, in a rare political intervention sparked by the royal's ties to U.S. sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Andrew, 65, the younger brother of King Charles and second son of the late Queen Elizabeth, has come under mounting pressure over his behaviour and ties to Epstein and earlier this month he was forced to stop using his title of Duke of York.
In recent weeks British newspapers have questioned his finances after the Times reported that the prince had not paid rent on his 30-room mansion, called Royal Lodge, for two decades, but had funded at least 7.5 million pounds ($10 million) of renovations completed in 2005.
The Times cited a copy of the leasehold agreement which it said stated the rent per year as "one peppercorn (if demanded)".
The Public Accounts Committee of legislators raised concerns with the Crown Estate - which manages the monarch's public property - and the government's finance ministry in a letter published on Wednesday.
The intervention marks a significant turn as convention dictates that lawmakers do not criticise the royal family in parliament, and the move could increase pressure on Andrew to move to a smaller property.
The cross-party parliamentary committee, which scrutinises financial accounts as well as the value for money of public spending, said it expects a response "at the earliest possible date" and set a November 28 deadline.
"It is reasonable ... at this point that the Committee seek assurance that the rationale for the lease justifies the minimal rent charged," the committee's letter said.
"There is considerable and understandable public interest in the spending of public money in relation to Prince Andrew."
Andrew, who remains a prince and whose position in the line of succession is unaltered, has a lease to live at Royal Lodge until 2078.