Future Home for Prince Harry

[tommy100]

Well, given that Meghan is at least three months pregnant, probably four, and the Sussexes will need an at least decent sized London residence of some sort in future years, a decision will have to be made by somebody soon.

Meghan has no convenient Bucklebury to take her baby to, Nott Cott is miles too small for the couple, plus nanny and baby, and so...? Do they go off to a rented property in the Cotswolds for several months, then?

Considering every one of the Queen's children has one property not bought by themselves, plus William has too, are Harry and Meghan just going to be left to their own devices, with the dismissive tone in that article 'Oh they have their own money, they can buy elsewhere in London' prevailing? Apparently Harry is to be treated differently to everyone else.

Plus, the report at the term of William and Kate's wedding that the Gloucesters were oh so willing to move out of their apartment in favour of the Cambridges was a bunch of lies apparently. Either that or the Press has decided to push 'The Sussexes want to throw a hardworking couple out of their old home' line!

Well actually if he were left to pay for his own residence he would be being treated the same as all the Queen's other grandchildren (Zara, Peter, Eugenie) It may well be William is the one being treated but he is a direct heir.

I don't believe for one minute the Gloucester's would refuse to move out, it would not surprise me at all if the whole story came from Princess Michael's blatant attempts to push it for her own agenda and having run with it the press are clinging to anything that explains why H&M aren't moving into Apartment 1.

 

[muriel]

Oh, I don't think the media have any more idea than anyone else whether the Sussexes actually have a rented home in the Cotswolds, are moving to another apartment in KP, are planning a move to St. James Palace, or Windsor, or anywhere else. They are just trailing a bunch of stuff out there and hoping something sticks so that at some point in the future they can say "Aha! We told you so! And please ignore the 28 other theories we also floated that were wrong. Just pretend you never read those."

I agree, I just don't get the sense the media has any clue of what is being planned for H&M wrt housing.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Well actually if he were left to pay for his own residence he would be being treated the same as all the Queen's other grandchildren (Zara, Peter, Eugenie) It may well be William is the one being treated but he is a direct heir.

I don't believe for one minute the Gloucester's would refuse to move out, it would not surprise me at all if the whole story came from Princess Michael's blatant attempts to push it for her own agenda and having run with it the press are clinging to anything that explains why H&M aren't moving into Apartment 1.

How is this known about Princess Michael? Where has it been confirmed or discussed that Princess Michael has made such 'blatant attempts,' and in what way does the Gloucester 'story' play in to Princess Michael 'pushing her own agenda'?

 

[tommy100]

Princess Michael Prattles About Her Royal Neighbours | TMR

This reports on the original interview that Princess Michael made to Tatler where she talked about how she thought the Gloucesters would move out. It was widely reported on at the time. The fact she refers to them moving out of "their enormous apartment" because "their children have gone and their mother is dead" says it all to me personally.
Princess Michael is a clever lady and knows by saying something it distracts from her own apartment and the fuss around it. No one talked about the Gloucester's moving out until Princess Michael "mentioned" it.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Ah, okay thanks. It's impossible to keep up with all the patter and gossip and royal snippets in this highly technological 24/7 social media age.

I suppose Princess Michael does have her agenda then for keeping the attention away from her residence at KP. Still, with the fact that Richard, Duke of Gloucester's parents lived in Apt. 1 for many years and he grew up there with his family, and then raised his own offspring there, it seems more like a family home they'd like to keep in the family (that is of course if his son would ever be interested in residing there upon his parents' passing). The Gloucesters' son, Alexander Earl of Ulster, will inherit the Gloucester title. It will be interesting if Alexander might also inherit the family home at KP, or if it will indeed be taken over by Charles' offspring in the future.

Isn't there a case where someone previously had to move out of their home at KP? I believe it was Princess Alexandra and her husband who gave up digs at KP and moved to St. James' Palace or some other location. Apparently, Prnce and Princess Michael of Kent live in Apt. 10 at KP, which is not far from Nott Cott.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As Alexander won't be a working royal - or a royal at all - he won't be living in KP. He will need his own home and income as he will simply be an extended family member - like the Earl Harewood today (who is the same degree of relationship to the monarch - son of one of HM's first cousins).

Princess Alexandra lived at Thatched Lodge at Richmond Park and an office at St James' Palace.

Prince and Princess Michael of Kent were promised an apartment rent-free at KP by The Queen when they married. Then in 1992 when the public demanded the Queen pay tax and other financial arrangements around the BRF were questioned it came out that they weren't paying anything and so they started to pay a peppercorn rent while the Queen paid the rest of the commercial rent but now they pay that as well. They aren't working royals and so have to pay the commercial rate of rent.

That is the case for everyone living in a royal residence - if not a working member of The Firm they have to pay a commercial rate of rent, which in central London is astronomical.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Well actually if he were left to pay for his own residence he would be being treated the same as all the Queen's other grandchildren (Zara, Peter, Eugenie) It may well be William is the one being treated but he is a direct heir.

I don't believe for one minute the Gloucester's would refuse to move out, it would not surprise me at all if the whole story came from Princess Michael's blatant attempts to push it for her own agenda and having run with it the press are clinging to anything that explains why H&M aren't moving into Apartment 1.

Princess Eugenie lives at KP in Ivy Cottage. Rent is probably involved, but she does live at KP.

And Harry is in a different position than the Phillips or Yorks- their parent will not be King, their sibling will not be King. Harry’s position is more comparable to that of the Queen’s younger children.

I do not believe that the Queen would ask the Gloucesters to move just to give Harry their apartment. She would never treat her cousin, who gave up his career as an architect to support her, so shabbily.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

There's also the question of whether or not H&M even want to move into Apt.1 in the first place.

As Alexander won't be a working royal - or a royal at all - he won't be living in KP. He will need his own home and income as he will simply be an extended family member - like the Earl Harewood today (who is the same degree of relationship to the monarch - son of one of HM's first cousins).

Princess Alexandra lived at Thatched Lodge at Richmond Park and an office at St James' Palace.

Prince and Princess Michael of Kent were promised an apartment rent-free at KP by The Queen when they married. Then in 1992 when the public demanded the Queen pay tax and other financial arrangements around the BRF were questioned it came out that they weren't paying anything and so they started to pay a peppercorn rent while the Queen paid the rest of the commercial rent but now they pay that as well. They aren't working royals and so have to pay the commercial rate of rent.

That is the case for everyone living in a royal residence - if not a working member of The Firm they have to pay a commercial rate of rent, which in central London is astronomical.

Thanks for the info. So as not a working royal, it would make sense that Alexander Earl of Ulster would not move into his family's London home when his parents pass on. That's a shame in terms of the nostalgia factor. But indeed, it's also normal for families not to hold onto an old family home when their parents pass away.

In Alexander's case, he's had an interesting and distinguished military career, which I was not aware of. He even served in Iraq, in addition to Kosovo, and Northern Ireland. He's retired from the military and serves as a 'transitional crisis' advisor to nongovernmental organizations. So he did not follow in his father's 'architect' footsteps.

 

[tommy100]

Princess Eugenie lives at KP in Ivy Cottage. Rent is probably involved, but she does live at KP.

And Harry is in a different position than the Phillips or Yorks- their parent will not be King, their sibling will not be King. Harry’s position is more comparable to that of the Queen’s younger children.

I do not believe that the Queen would ask the Gloucesters to move just to give Harry their apartment. She would never treat her cousin, who gave up his career as an architect to support her, so shabbily.

Eugenie pays "commercial rent" to stay at Ivy Cottage, in fact its said Andrew pays it for her. So the Queen has not provided her with her a home for free. Charities and other "well vetted" people can likewise rent space at KP and so a whilst yes Eugenie may have gone to top of the list as a member of the Queen's family she is paying rent which actually reduced the burden of upkeep of KP on the taxpayer.

To me the "rules" seem clear.

The Queen provides working HRH's with a city residence - at St James, BP or KP (though Alexandra seems to have dipped out here as she doesn't have an official residence but traditionally she wouldn't have had an official role in the RF anyway)

The Queen and Philip have chosen to provided their children with a country property - though in fairness only Anne was given a property outright - Ed and Andrew's homes are owned by the Crown Estates and they have the leasehold on them.

The Queen chose to provide William, a direct heir to the throne and future owner of Sandringham, with a property on the Estate for him to use.

The other grandchildren have been left to sort out their own houses, no-doubt with access to generous trust funds from the Queen and their parents.


Whilst the Gloucester's still carry out public duties for the crown I can't see the Queen kicking them out- she didn't do that for Prince & Princess Michael of Kent and they don't carry out official duties on her behalf - it was said the Queen was conscious of the commitment made to them when she promised them use of the KP apartment when they married so I suspect she would feel the same of the Gloucester's, who do after all have a longer family tie to their apartment now than Prince and Princess Michael have to theirs. The Queen is said to be well-mannered and always do the proper thing, I can't see her kicking her cousins who've served her for decades out for her grandson to have their house.

 

[jacqui24]

Well actually if he were left to pay for his own residence he would be being treated the same as all the Queen's other grandchildren (Zara, Peter, Eugenie) It may well be William is the one being treated but he is a direct heir.

I don't believe for one minute the Gloucester's would refuse to move out, it would not surprise me at all if the whole story came from Princess Michael's blatant attempts to push it for her own agenda and having run with it the press are clinging to anything that explains why H&M aren't moving into Apartment 1.

But Harry isn’t in the same situation as the rest of the Queen’s grandchildren. They are able to, and expected, to carry on a private and for profit career. He cannot as a working royal. So why should he be treated any different than and be given lesser than other working royals that are not direct heirs?

 

[Denville]

But Harry isn’t in the same situation as the rest of the Queen’s grandchildren. They are able to, and expected, to carry on a private and for profit career. He cannot as a working royal. So why should he be treated any different than and be given lesser than other working royals that are not direct heirs?

But if the "queen treats all her grandchildren the same", then if Eugenie and others pay commercial rent, so should Harry

 

[Curryong]

And Charles, when monarch, will be fine with one son, the heir, having two large homes due to his position, and his other son crammed in in a two bedroom cottage at KP with his family, and/or buying his own property somewhere with his own money? Somehow, I can't see Charles not assisting his younger son with accommodation, somehow!

 

[Denville]

And Charles, when monarch, will be fine with one son, the heir, having two large homes due to his position, and his other son crammed in in a two bedroom cottage at KP with his family, and/or buying his own property somewhere with his own money? Somehow, I can't see Charles not assisting his younger son with accommodation, somehow!

Who knows. Charles may feel that as William is the future King he is going ot have a bigger slice of the cake..

 

[jacqui24]

But if the "queen treats all her grandchildren the same", then if Eugenie and others pay commercial rent, so should Harry

According to Andrew who is in competition with Harry for his own daughter’s wedding. Look, I do think the Queen treats her grandchildren the same in that they are all her grandchildren and she loves them. But she is also the monarch when it comes to working royals. And that’s not the same. If she does indeed treat ALL of her grandchildren the same, then William should pay rent too. Or is it only Harry that should get the short end of the stick?

 

[Terri Terri]

Everything we have learnt about Charles recently tells us that there is no way that he will not assist Harry and his grandchildren by Harry and Meghan in any way he can. I for one can't believe that some planning wasn't in the works for what will happen to Harry's family in terms of accommodations.

 

[jacqui24]

Who knows. Charles may feel that as William is the future King he is going ot have a bigger slice of the cake..

Obviously William is going to have a bigger slice. However, I highly doubt Charles is ok to just leave his younger son without proper accommodation while expect his and his wife to work hard to support the monarchy.

 

[Denville]

Obviously William is going to have a bigger slice. However, I highly doubt Charles is ok to just leave his younger son without proper accommodation while expect his and his wife to work hard to support the monarchy.

He may well feel that that's just the way things are... just as he had the Duchy of Cornwall, while Andrew had little more than his Naval salary as a young man...

 

[Curryong]

Yes, but Harry is Charles's son, one of just two, not a very much younger brother who was helped with accommodation by the Queen anyway.

 

[Pranter]

Charles is not the Queen and he only has 2 children not 4....he will do things his own way. I've seen nothing indicating he won't (and he's likely already got things in place) make sure Harry and his family have whatever they need.



LaRae

 

[Denville]

Yes, but Harry is Charles's son, one of just two, not a very much younger brother who was helped with accommodation by the Queen anyway.

I don't know what he'll do.. but he may feel that Harry has his own money and he can find himself a house...Andrew had nothing much when he married and neither had Sarh. But I understood that Meghan is quite well off in her own right....

 

[jacqui24]

He may well feel that that's just the way things are... just as he had the Duchy of Cornwall, while Andrew had little more than his Naval salary as a young man...

Uh, Andrew was given Sunninghill. I’m not sure how that was built with his naval salary.

I don't know what he'll do.. but he may feel that Harry has his own money and he can find himself a house...Andrew had nothing much when he married and neither had Sarh. But I understood that Meghan is quite well off in her own right....

Then he should’ve told both of them that they won’t be working royals and are expected to find careers to support themselves. As it stands, not only did Harry give up his military career, but Meghan had to give up her well paid career as well.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

But Harry isn’t in the same situation as the rest of the Queen’s grandchildren. They are able to, and expected, to carry on a private and for profit career. He cannot as a working royal. So why should he be treated any different than and be given lesser than other working royals that are not direct heirs?

Exactly. And as I pointed out, Harry is in the same position as Anne, Andrew and Edward. Their mother and brother is/will be the monarch. Harry’s father and brother will be King. They got homes supplied, I think Harry will as well. I am sure various places have been/are being discussed as a suitable home.

And even though Harry has inherited wealth, spending a lot of his principle on the purchase and upkeep of an estate might not be prudent. As you say, he can’t earn money in a career to replace it.

 

[Pranter]

The longer they go without buying something ....the more I wonder if they are waiting for something to come open or be constructed/remodeled on one of the existing properties owned by the Queen/Crown. I don't see them renting something in the Cotswolds for a long time.



LaRae

 

[Somebody]

William and Catherine started in Nott Cott as well, so I don't understand the whole discussion about Harry and Meghan being shortchanged. I fully expect them to be provided with a place to live thoughout their life times . If they want any additional housing either in the UK or abroad they can take care of that themselves.

So, Harry will not be treated like his cousins (who are only grandchildren of a monarch, not a child and brother of future monarchs) nor like his brother - he is in a unique position as the only sibling of a future monarch and the way his housing situation will be treated will reflect that.

 

[jacqui24]

William and Catherine started in Nott Cott as well, so I don't understand the whole discussion about Harry and Meghan being shortchanged. I fully expect them to be provided with a place to live thoughout their life times . If they want any additional housing either in the UK or abroad they can take care of that themselves.

So, Harry will not be treated like his cousins (who are only grandchildren of a monarch, not a child and brother of future monarchs) nor like his brother - he is in a unique position as the only sibling of a future monarch and the way his housing situation will be treated will reflect that.

The shortchanged conversation comes from someone suggesting that the Queen treats her grandchildren the same, as this Harry ought to be treated the same as his non working royal cousins, which is not be provided with a proper residence.

 

[Denville]

Then he should’ve told both of them that they won’t be working royals and are expected to find careers to support themselves. As it stands, not only did Harry give up his military career, but Meghan had to give up her well paid career as well.

I daresay Charles knows what he's doing.....

Uh, Andrew was given Sunninghill. I’m not sure how that was built with his naval salary.

I am sure the queen wishes she hadnt' been so generous...she could have given them a property on one of the royal estates...and Andrew HAD nothing back then.. Harry is better off.

 

[Somebody]

The shortchanged conversation comes from someone suggesting that the Queen treats her grandchildren the same, as this Harry ought to be treated the same as his non working royal cousins, which is not be provided with a proper residence.

Ok, so that is about how he should be treated in the future because currently he is provided with a small residence at KP that the couple seems to enjoy - just like William early in his marriage.

I thought this specific discussion started by the following quote by Curryong:

Considering every one of the Queen's children has one property not bought by themselves, plus William has too, are Harry and Meghan just going to be left to their own devices, with the dismissive tone in that article 'Oh they have their own money, they can buy elsewhere in London' prevailing? Apparently Harry is to be treated differently to everyone else.*

So, yes, it seems that some argue that Harry should be treated like his cousins imo the queen and Charles are treating him as is appropriate for the second son of the heir, ie by providing a home for him.

 

[Ista]

Uh, Andrew was given Sunninghill. I’m not sure how that was built with his naval salary.

And what a fiasco that was. I have no doubt the Queen and Prince Charles would never do anything like that ever again.

 

[jacqui24]

I am sure the queen wishes she hadnt' been so generous...she could have given them a property on one of the royal estates...and Andrew HAD nothing back then.. Harry is better off.

Because Harry’s mother tragically died young, an event that I’m sure Andrew is glad he doesn’t have to live through. And why is he being better off prevent him from receiving what all other working royals are given? No one is saying it’ll necessarily be something bought. In fact, it likely won’t be if their main home is in the city.

As for if it’s a good decision to buy a property or not, it really depend on the person, doesn’t it? It was a fiasco with Sunninghill because Andrew is the way he is. Not necessarily applicable to the rest of royals. Anne was also gifted a home that HMQ bought, along with an adjacent property, Zara now lives in, after her divorce so Mark can live there. That has been an example of handling yourself right.

I daresay Charles knows what he's doing.....

So I guess you are saying he knows what he’s doing by having them work for the monarchy? If that’s the case, they should get a suitable home like all the other working royals.

 

[Somebody]

And what a fiasco that was. I have no doubt the Queen and Prince Charles would never do anything like that ever again.

So, that would plead for offering them a house on a royal or crown estate and in any case by lease... Just like the queen did for her very responsible youngest son.