There is only one main historian who argues that Fishbourne was not Togidubnus’ Palace, and that is Dr Miles Russell, Russell implies that it was built for no other purpose than to introduce Roman infrastructure to Sussex, and that it was owned by a rich person. Although, this view is very limited, indeed, Russel, does not explicitly remark that Fishbourne is not Togidubnus’, which means that even he is aware of the significant flaws within his argument. Also, if the Palace were owned by a citizen of Togidubnus it would have diminished his status within society as his power and facilities would’ve been less than that of one of his subjects, thus making this an unlikely interpretation.
Therefore, most evidence and popular theory suggests that Togidubnus was the owner of Fishbourne Palace, it does seem to be the most logical solution; the wealthiest and most powerful member of Sussex society lived in the most elaborate and ornate villa in the county.
As to why Togidubnus owned the Palace, the most obvious answer is that it was due to his position as Client King to the Romans, it may have been a form of propaganda encouraging Roman life because it was comfortable and luxurious (never describe it as decadent, Romans thoroughly detested decadence), which would have made Roman rule more attractive to the people of Sussex. There is some evidence to suggest that Togidubnus was given Fishbourne Palace as a reward for his loyalty during the Boudiccan uprising, however this seems unlikely as overall Sussex was an “area largely unaffected by the uprising” (Dr. Russell); thus meaning that I reach the conclusion that Togidubnus owned Fishbourne Palace due to his status as Client King and that it was NOT a reward for his loyalty.