The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #721  
Old 05-12-2019, 04:49 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,188
My understanding is that Andrew and Sophie & Edward all have private rooms to live in at BP while Anne has always have private rooms as St James' to live in.

All three have an office (in what ever way royals have an office) to work from and some of their staff are based at BP. We have seen pictures of Andrew at his desk in BP and Anne has, I believe, a set of rooms/room to work from and meet people in as I guess they don't want people going in and out of her private rooms at St James'. I have read in a few biographies/articles etc that Andrew and the Wessex's staff also sometimes work from Royal Lodge/Bagshot but have never really heard this said about Anne's senior staff, I assume at Gatcombe is further away from London that Windsor is.

As such, I don't doubt that M&H's staff will have office space at BP and probably a room or two for the Duke & Duchess to work out of /meet people from. But I wonder if there is room for them to have a set of rooms to live in there or if living wise St James' may still be used.

I suspect the DM is half right (there will be some rooms for M&H staff at BP and maybe officially and office for them) but I question the rooms for staying over in etc being at BP unless Andrew Sophie or Anne are moving out of BP fully.
__________________

  #722  
Old 05-12-2019, 05:09 AM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is offline
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
I suspect the DM is half right (there will be some rooms for M&H staff at BP and maybe officially and office for them) but I question the rooms for staying over in etc being at BP unless Andrew Sophie or Anne are moving out of BP fully.
Honestly, I think that there are plans to get them office spaces in BP - they'll need them somewhere. But I doubt it's something that will happen in the next few weeks or even months with the renovations being ongoing in BP. Maybe when it's all done and ready there will be place for all of them? BP is huge, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.
__________________

  #723  
Old 05-12-2019, 05:44 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,386
Please note that posts concerning what the British Taxpayer may or may not think have been removed. Discussions on that matter may take place in the appropriate thread relating to Royal Finances.
__________________
JACK
  #724  
Old 05-16-2019, 08:12 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,832
The Duke of Sussex powerful move on his family’s privacy-
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalt...source=twitter

I guess we should’ve expected this, but I had no idea the Sussexes had their lawyer step in on those pictures of their Cotswolds home they once lived in.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
  #725  
Old 05-16-2019, 08:53 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 311
A few months ago, Emily Andrews or Rebecca said the Sussexes gave up their Cotswolds home because they could not afford it. Lol I knew it was not true.
  #726  
Old 05-16-2019, 09:37 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlo View Post
A few months ago, Emily Andrews or Rebecca said the Sussexes gave up their Cotswolds home because they could not afford it. Lol I knew it was not true.
It would be funny if it were Emily, as she was one of the reporters who wrote an article about the house and shared the [illegally taken] photos! For her to then turn around and say it was because of finances, and not because some creepy was taking pictures of their bedroom!
  #727  
Old 05-16-2019, 09:38 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,516
When you think about it, they would have known full well about the photos but made a concious decision to tell an outright lie because it created a new spin.

H & M were not as wealthy as everybody thought, second son and all that, exacerbated by Meghan's alleged spendthrift habits. Who knows what mileage they could get.

But I an on a "no BS" tolerance binge. I am sick of all the namby pamby euphemisms we use just to avoid saying that someone is telling lies, damned lies, and we allow them to continue. Once they have shown they don't have one iota of integrity why should we make excuses.

H & M had their security destroyed and in this climate I can say regrettably, with total loss of innocence, it only takes one man on a mission. If it can happen here it can happen there.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #728  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:39 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 642
This just goes to show that there are many stories out there, mostly by so called "sources" and by RRs, that are not true at all.

The RR and their "sources" know that the BRF is not going to respond to each and every story, so they just make up stories for clicks and financial gains.

But when the press and their sources are forced to apologize for their lies and fake stories, it doesn't make headline news.
  #729  
Old 05-16-2019, 11:53 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,172
Good for Harry. It was Emily Andrews who posted the original story and pictures. I remember when it was first released that many posters agreed she crossed the line especially since the address was visible in some of the shots. Just no need for that.

So Splash was forced to apologize and pay a large sum of money for causing distress. And these reporters actually tried to say people aren't disrespecting their privacy? Clearly the courts disagree. I am actually surprised they didn't take The Fail to court too.

Anyways clearly the Sussexes will do what is needed to protect themselves and I agree with their recent decisions in regard to their son.
  #730  
Old 05-16-2019, 01:26 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,386
I think it's very sad that they had to move out of the Cotswolds property - it's a very beautiful and secluded part of the country and I have no doubt they must have enjoyed spending time there. I do hope that Frogmore Cottage is now a place of relative sanctuary for them as we all deserve for our home life.

ETA: Here is the BBC news article on the matter: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48296202
__________________
JACK
  #731  
Old 05-16-2019, 03:30 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
I hadn't thought about it this way before, but one of the commentators posted on Twitter that this story gets uncomfortably close to the days where paparazzi stick cameras into backyards. And I agree. There is privacy violations, but photos actually looking into someone's home. That's just...beyond what I can describe.
  #732  
Old 05-16-2019, 04:13 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,147
When people know how incredibly intrusive some of the press are, I hope it's easier for them to understand why royals guard their privacy. If they could have obtained shots of Meghan in labour, they would have & somebody would have bought them.
  #733  
Old 05-16-2019, 04:24 PM
Tarlita's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Near Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 2,064
I just hope the punishment was substantial. At the time of the photos being taken they knew they were breaking privacy rules.
  #734  
Old 05-16-2019, 04:24 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
So now my question is, what happens to those that chose to publish it? I mean, they know the law. By making the choice to purchase those photos and putting it in their papers, they are also violating privacy. And willfully so. And this isn't just the tabloids, papers like The Times published it as well. What were they all thinking?
  #735  
Old 05-16-2019, 04:33 PM
Tarlita's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Near Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 2,064
That's just it! They weren't thinking, when they were so desperate to make money from the photos. Looks like the rule book was thrown out of the window, so to speak.
You bring up a good point Jacqui, - about the other publications. I believe every publication should be fined heavily to remind them There Are Rules.
  #736  
Old 05-16-2019, 04:46 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
So now my question is, what happens to those that chose to publish it? I mean, they know the law. By making the choice to purchase those photos and putting it in their papers, they are also violating privacy. And willfully so. And this isn't just the tabloids, papers like The Times published it as well. What were they all thinking?
They were all thinking they could get away with it & push the privacy boundaries even further.
  #737  
Old 05-16-2019, 04:51 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
They were all thinking they could get away with it & push the privacy boundaries even further.
I guess I'm a bit baffled by them thinking they can get away with it? This isn't the same case as the Mail Online publishing photos of Meghan and Harry on a Jamaica beach (public generally, but declared private for the days they were there for Skippy's wedding, so that's the debate). And even in that case, IPSO ruled in favor of Harry. This is a blatant violation and there is no way they wouldn't have known it when they published those photos. Is anyone familiar with the law in UK? Is it just on Splash for taking them or do others have exposure for publishing them as well?
  #738  
Old 05-17-2019, 02:03 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,516
Well, I do believe they are going to be assailed by drones and finding who is operating them is problematic at the least.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #739  
Old 05-18-2019, 09:27 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
Yes there is - its called 'Cottage orné'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottage_orn%C3%A9
Quote:
Originally Posted by sndral View Post
Thank you! I see from the linked Wiki page that Prince Andrew’s Royal Lodge is also considered Cottage orne’.
So, thanks to @wyevale, I borrowed from the library a copy of the book she cited, entitled Cottages Orne: The charms of the simple life, by Roger White. It was published in 2017.

Surprisingly, Frogmore Cottage is never once mentioned that I can see, in this book. It is a fascinating book though, with a lot of wonderful pictures and descriptions of this 'cottage orne' architectural residence style and its origins.

Because there are so many cottages of this type in Great Britain, and in a few other countries that are pictured and discussed in the book, I have a hard time figuring out why Frogmore Cottage was left out. Perhaps it was felt to be more of an anomaly as an example of this architectural style, even though the FC chimneys and other architectural features are very illustrative of cottage orne characteristics. Maybe it was felt that the Frogmore Cottage structure had changed a lot from when it was first built in 1801. The original construction was overseen by Queen Charlotte, after King George III had purchased Frogmore House for her some years earlier.

Queen Charlotte, her daughter, Princess Elizabeth, and her son, the Prince Regent George IV are discussed in a whole section in connection with the cottages orne that they built. The Prince Regent was responsible for overseeing demolition and reconstruction of Royal Lodge, which is a much larger structure than I realized:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Lodge

The book mentions Frogmore House twice, and also refers to Queen Charlotte building a retreat on the property for her gardens, which of course is Frogmore Cottage, but again it's not even identified and named as Frogmore Cottage! What a shame! Could it be because when the book was published, Frogmore Cottage had been cut up into various apartments for royal staff? Or maybe it's simply that Frogmore Cottage was always in the shadow of Frogmore House and thus was rarely seen to exist on its own as a historically significant royal residence? If so, that view will certainly change going forward due to the renovation and occupancy by the Sussexes.

It's good that the book at least includes a section discussing Royal Lodge and Adelaide Cottage at Windsor Great Park. I remember Adelaide Cottage being widely speculated in the media as a possible country retreat for Meghan and Harry, but not as a primary residence. The drawings that are in the book and that I've seen elsewhere of Adelaide Cottage indicate that it's fairly small.

Also interesting is the author's observation that although 'orne' is a French word, the cottages orne phenomenon likely began in Great Britain around 1761. And that it was further popularized by Queen Charlotte's cottage at Kew (now Kew Gardens), which still stands:
https://www.kew.org/kew-gardens/what...lottes-cottage scroll forward on the pictures; the last picture is a side glimpse of Queen Charlotte's cottage orne at Kew.

There is a drawing of Kew cottage structure in the book on page 180. Also included is a modern day photo of an interior view of the Queen's print room with a small fireplace, and the picnic room, said to have been decorated by her daughter, Princess Elizabeth.

The section on Royal Lodge starts on page 186 with a floor plan diagram for the renovation, and several illustrations.
  #740  
Old 05-25-2019, 01:08 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
The Duke of Sussex powerful move on his family’s privacy-
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalt...source=twitter

I guess we should’ve expected this, but I had no idea the Sussexes had their lawyer step in on those pictures of their Cotswolds home they once lived in.
The suit was previously reported. And as well, there was recent news that a settlement had been reached which would be publicly presented in court. This is the result. When the suit was first launched, it was likely done quietly without a lot of fanfare. But I remember reading about how the Sussexes were upset and felt their privacy had been violated, and that they could obviously no longer live in that Cotswold rental.

It was entirely expected, and I believe it was reported M&H were giving up the Cotswold rental soon after the pictures appeared. I'm not certain of the timeline regarding when the pictures came out. It was probably around the same time it was reported that Frogmore Cottage was being renovated for the Sussexes.
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
abu dhabi althorp american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry bangladesh british chittagong cht danish history diana princess of wales dutch history dutch royal family dutch royals family tree games haakon vii heraldry hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hill house of orange-nassau imperial household intro italian royal family jacobite japan jewellery jumma kids movie king willem-alexander list of rulers mailing maxima monaco history nepalese royal jewels nobel 2019 norway norway history palestine popularity prince charles of luxembourg prince daniel princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess elizabeth princess laurentien princess ribha pronunciation random facts royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding saudi arabia serbian royal family snowdon spain spencer family swedish royal family thailand tracts unsubscribe videos visit from sweden wedding gown wittelsbach working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:38 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×