Sussex Residences

[Osipi]

Yes, but these expenses are paid by the Duchy and/or Prince's Trust. Itemized, of course.

When Charles gets on his po'boy horse and publicly declares he only owns one car, an Aston Martin sports car, you have to wonder about his respect for the British people and how he doesn't realize they see him in vintage Rolls Royce autos constantly and do not believe him.

No. Duchy of Cornwall is its own entity as is the Prince's Trust. Many people believe that Charles owns Highgrove. He doesn't. The Duchy of Cornwall holds the title which means it'll pass to the next Duke of Cornwall (William).

The British Royals actually *own* very little property in their own right. The Queen owns Balmoral and Sandringham and Anne owns Gatcombe Park. That's about it.

Charles' private income is based on profits made by the Duchy of Cornwall which has been in place since 1337 and is one of two remaining royal duchies (the other being the Duchy of Lancaster which provides the Queen's personal income known as the Privy Purse). Charles pays income tax on this income from the Duchy of Cornwall. The Prince's Trust is the same way and is maintained and run solely for the endeavors of that organization. Charles does not receive any funds from it at all. In fact, its through his work that the Prince's Trust has grown and been more successful. He started it all with his pension when he left the Navy back in the 70s if I remember correctly. ?

Think of it as being a senior citizen in the United States and receiving Social Security. Its our private income provided by the Department of the Treasury. We don't expect the Department of the Treasury to fund and pay for anything outside of our social security checks. ?

OH... forgot to add that I believe its true that Charles only *owns* one car. The fleet of cars that the royal family has for transportation along with the train and the helicopter are all paid for through the Sovereign Grant and is itemized therein. The thread Royal Wealth and Finances is a really good read and an eye opener about this stuff.

 

[Countessmeout]

Yes his funding comes from the Duchy. But that’s what it’s intended for. The duchy was created and grown as an income for the heir.

And just like any other income, Charles has the right to decide how he spends it. The percent of income he pockets and doesn’t go back into the duchy. If he chooses to use the money to support Harry and Meghan that is his right. Just as we choose how to use our own income.

Charles could have bought High Grove with his income. Instead he had the Duchy but it. Meaning it and the income it generates will continue to support future heirs to the throne. Also protects it from estate taxes.

 

[Lilyflo]

If they're not living in the house regularly it will go downhill unless they make sure it is kept up..and as its an old building that will taek a lot of money.. So I suppose Charles will have to be the one who pays.

I'm not sure how much time the Queen Mother spent at the Castle of Mey or at Birkhall. Presumably they were maintained to an acceptable standard & somebody paid for that.

Princess Margaret had a property on Mustique to maintain (& staff). She was only there for part of the year.

Prince Andrew has a huge chalet in the Alps & that must require staffing & maintenance.

 

[Osipi]

Margaret was property owner of the estate in Mustique. The Queen Mother bought the Castle of Mey outright and Birkhall is on the Queen's privately owned estate of Balmoral. The difference with Frogmore Cottage is that whether Harry and Meghan live there full time, part time or even as an occasional weekend retreat, maintenance of the property falls to the Crown Estates that holds title to the property "in right of the Crown".

Just using logic.

 

[Lilyflo]

Margaret was property owner of the estate in Mustique. The Queen Mother bought the Castle of Mey outright and Birkhall is on the Queen's privately owned estate of Balmoral. The difference with Frogmore Cottage is that whether Harry and Meghan live there full time, part time or even as an occasional weekend retreat, maintenance of the property falls to the Crown Estates that holds title to the property "in right of the Crown".

Just using logic.

Good point. So if the maintenance of the property is the responsibility of the Crown Estates, presumable that happens whether H&M are in residence or not eg checking roof tiles, guttering, drains, paintwork etc. Providing someone keeps it aired when they're away, how could it fall into disrepair?

 

[Osipi]

Yeps. Its the same thing with Windsor Castle during the times that the Queen isn't in residence. ?

 

[Durham]

Leaving a perfectly habitable house empty on the off chance that its one time occupants might return on occasion for an indeterminate period of time seems wholly unsatisfactory.

This situation could continue for the next sixty years or so.

I do understand that not any old tom dick or harry can live on the Windsor estate but Fort Belvedere has been let commercially although I do realise that the fort is much further away from the castle.

Homeless people can't obviously live in Frogmore cottage but we have a major housing crises in this country. The optics of an immensely rich couple living in a (no doubt) sizeable house in North America whilst retaining a not insubstantial occasional residence in this country are not good.

 

[Pranter]

Leaving a perfectly habitable house empty on the off chance that its one time occupants might return on occasion for an indeterminate period of time seems wholly unsatisfactory.

This situation could continue for the next sixty years or so.

I do understand that not any old tom dick or harry can live on the Windsor estate but Fort Belvedere has been let commercially although I do realise that the fort is much further away from the castle.

Homeless people can't obviously live in Frogmore cottage but we have a major housing crises in this country. The optics of an immensely rich couple living in a (no doubt) sizeable house in North America whilst retaining a not insubstantial occasional residence in this country are not good.

Better start with the Queen...the same optics apply to her estates that she only uses a few weeks a year.



LaRae

 

[Durham]

Better start with the Queen...the same optics apply to her estates that she only uses a few weeks a year.



LaRae

Both of which are in the United Kingdom.

In addition both Balmoral & Sandringham are at the heart of historic estates that bring great economic benefits to their respective localities. Moreover, there is political sense in living in Scotland for a good two months of the year.

I don't think any of that rationale applies to Frogmore cottage.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Leaving a perfectly habitable house empty on the off chance that its one time occupants might return on occasion for an indeterminate period of time seems wholly unsatisfactory.

They’re paying commercial rent on the property, it is there’s to do with as they wish. Effectively a holiday home, the same as millions of other people worldwide have.

 

[Pranter]

Both of which are in the United Kingdom.

In addition both Balmoral & Sandringham are at the heart of historic estates that bring great economic benefits to their respective localities. Moreover, there is political sense in living in Scotland for a good two months of the year.

I don't think any of that rationale applies to Frogmore cottage.

It's either an optics issue for any of them that own multiple homes (Charles, The Queen etc etc) or it's not.




LaRae

 

[Durham]

They’re paying commercial rent on the property, it is there’s to do with as they wish. Effectively a holiday home, the same as millions of other people worldwide have.

Well yes they are & yes they can.

Indeed it is.

None of that is not true but the fact remains that this property is only theirs because of the official position they once had.

The honest thing to do would be to give it up. Why do they need such a large holiday home anyway?

 

[Durham]

It's either an optics issue for any of them that own multiple homes (Charles, The Queen etc etc) or it's not.




LaRae

Ok then let's say I accept your premise.

It is an optics issue for The Queen & Charles.

Now that said, why should Frogmore cottage be retained on the off chance that it might be used someday for some time? It's not a home for anyone anymore is it?

 

[Pranter]

Ok then let's say I accept your premise.

It is an optics issue for The Queen & Charles.

Now that said, why should Frogmore cottage be retained on the off chance that it might be used someday for some time? It's not a home for anyone anymore is it?

The same reason the others might be used. They say they intend to use it. I see no issue with any of them having multiple homes.



LaRae

 

[Countessmeout]

Well yes they are & yes they can.

Indeed it is.

None of that is not true but the fact remains that this property is only theirs because of the official position they once had.

The honest thing to do would be to give it up. Why do they need such a large holiday home anyway?

Its not a holiday home as in something for vacation a week or two a year. They plan to continue to support their patronages back home. It will be their work base when back in the UK. Both work and when visiting family and friends. Could they use a smaller home? Yes. Do they have to? No. If they can afford to keep it that's their choice.

Plenty of people have second homes in other countries.

It's not like them giving up the home would solve housing issues.

 

[gerry]

As noted previously, Frogmore cottage is the UK pied à terre for the Sussex family. No doubt the Duke is staying there this week as he waits to return to his family in Canada.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Well yes they are & yes they can.



Indeed it is.



None of that is not true but the fact remains that this property is only theirs because of the official position they once had.



The honest thing to do would be to give it up. Why do they need such a large holiday home anyway?

What does it matter why they need it when they are paying for it? Who would you like to use it exactly?

 

[Durham]

The same reason the others might be used. They say they intend to use it. I see no issue with any of them having multiple homes.



LaRae

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one I guess. I'm not convinced it will be used by the whole family on a regular basis & I think it has the potential to become an issue for a lot people in Britain in a way that the other regularly used residences aren't (unless you're a republican of course!).

There again my guess is as good as yours I suppose!

 

[Ista]

They’re paying commercial rent on the property, it is there’s to do with as they wish. Effectively a holiday home, the same as millions of other people worldwide have.

I read in the Telegraph (so take with a grain of salt) that apparently this evening someone at BP was walking that back a bit, and were indicating that they would only pay for the times they were there, so much less than the commercial yearly rate.

Let me see if I can find the link...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...e-rows-back-insistence-harry-meghan-will-pay/

 

[Durham]

Its not a holiday home as in something for vacation a week or two a year. They plan to continue to support their patronages back home. It will be their work base when back in the UK. Both work and when visiting family and friends. Could they use a smaller home? Yes. Do they have to? No. If they can afford to keep it that's their choice.

Plenty of people have second homes in other countries.

It's not like them giving up the home would solve housing issues.

Guess we just see things differently. I wouldn't be surprised if it became an issue in Britain for all sorts of reasons. Then again I might be wrong!

What does it matter why they need it when they are paying for it? Who would you like to use it exactly?

Because it's a perfectly habitable house that could be a home.

I've no idea!

 

[Pranter]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one I guess. I'm not convinced it will be used by the whole family on a regular basis & I think it has the potential to become an issue for a lot people in Britain in a way that the other regularly used residences aren't (unless you're a republican of course!).

There again my guess is as good as yours I suppose!

American here...to me it matters not a whit how often ppl use the homes they rent/own.

Not sure where you plan to draw the line...if it is or becomes an issue in the U.K. Do you all expect them too all move back into BP and give up everything else?




LaRae

 

[Fem]

Better start with the Queen...the same optics apply to her estates that she only uses a few weeks a year.



LaRae

I think people are allowed to start with whatever property they have in mind. Besides, when HMQ is not using her estate, it's usually (to some extent) open to the public, for everyone to see, since they're historic and important and stuff. So no, it's completely not like a private house of non-working royals.

That said, it's the lifestyle of rich&famous. As long as Prince Charles will be paying rent for the Frogmore Cottage, Harry and Meghan are allowed to use it - or not use it - as they please.

 

[Countessmeout]

Because it's a perfectly habitable house that could be a home.

I've no idea!

And it's being perfectly habited by Harry, Meghan and Archie when they are in the UK. It's been made clear in every statement that the family plans to spend part of the year in the UK.

 

[tommy100]

TBF as a British taxpayer I don't care if they have a "holiday home" at Frogmore so long as they pay for it, which it appears they are going to do.

Interestingly if they re-pay the refurbishment costs and pay rent it would seem, based on precedence, they are paying more than they might have had to. Prince Andrew paid the refurbishment costs of Royal Lodge (some £7million) and in return got to live their rent free.

That deal was not made by the Queen btw but the Crown Estate, likewise the Wessex's pay £90,000 a year in rent for Bagshot. So it will be interesting to see what rent the Sussexes pay.

 

[Ista]

As I noted upthread, it is apparently far from clear how much rent they are actually going to pay.

Or how much Charles is going to be paying for them.

 

[Durham]

American here...to me it matters not a whit how often ppl use the homes they rent/own.

Not sure where you plan to draw the line...if it is or becomes an issue in the U.K. Do you all expect them too all move back into BP and give up everything else?




LaRae

No I don't expect that to happen. That would be silly. I just don't see the rationale for the recent occupants of Frogmore cottage to retain such a substantial home in a country that they will not be habitually resident in.

 

[Pranter]

No I don't expect that to happen. That would be silly. I just don't see the rationale for the recent occupants of Frogmore cottage to retain such a substantial home in a country that they will not be habitually resident in.

The Sussexes haven't stated yet how much time they will be spending in each country probably because that's going to depend on what happens with their change of lifestyle.

Wealthy ppl typically have more than one home. There's lots of reasons for that.



LaRae

 

[Durham]

TBF as a British taxpayer I don't care if they have a "holiday home" at Frogmore so long as they pay for it, which it appears they are going to do.

Fair enough. Interesting that we both have a different take on this.

 

[tommy100]

The joy of free speech and a forum like this I guess. If they are paying the costs I don't see the issue, or certainly don't see an issue thats specific to them.

 

[Durham]

The Sussexes haven't stated yet how much time they will be spending in each country probably because that's going to depend on what happens with their change of lifestyle.

Wealthy ppl typically have more than one home. There's lots of reasons for that.



LaRae

Yes I do understand the uncertainty over their plans.

Indeed they do but they don't usually get to live somewhere like Windsor Home Park . Not for all the money in the world.

Hopefully everything will become clear sooner rather than later.

Thanks for the chat. It's good to hear differing viewpoints.