The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 7: Oct. 2022 -

[A Tudor]

Originally Posted by Athena41

Is it possible they did not renew the lease on Frogmore last year or that the King said no, and they had to move out. In their Netflix doc they showed Meghan and Harry packing up all their belongings also photos of them arriving back in the US after the Queens Jubilee with some of their belongings.

I hardly think they would let this "eviction" out of the Docuseries or the book. It would be yet another chance to cast themselves as never ending victims. They wouldn't miss the opportunity.

[Toledo]

I hope at some point one of their celebrity 'friends' steps in and tell them both 'please, you need to stop'.

Maybe this will help on a self-reflection to get their attention on why the bad press and finally use their celebrity status to positive causes. Complaining about your entitled life is not a cause, but using their charity for what it was meant for when created is a good cause.

As the saying goes, it takes a stranger to point out the obvious.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by JR76

According to a source quoted by Omid Scobie they haven't emptied the house - "This is not just some random rental they keep for convenience. Every drawer is full, every closet is packed… It’s a real family home.”

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/inside-sto...MC3VR6vO3cYMbN

I find that difficult to believe. Sounds more like a bid for sympathy…for a house they almost never use. We know they’ve moved things out.

[Queen Claude]

If the Sussexes are in good financial standing with Frogmore Cottage, I do not agree with Charles evicting them against their will. I can see Charles having issues with Harry's book and other Sussex actions but to me this is not the correct action to take.

I will be happy to hear that there is more to the story about this eviction, along with the reports that Andrew is also being relocated against his will and Edward not yet being named the Duke of Edinburgh, but thus far what these actions (or inactions) demonstrate to me is that the pettiness, spitefulness and score-settling aspects of Harry's personality that has come to light in recent times are traits Harry inherited from his father.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Toledo

I hope at some point one of their celebrity 'friends' steps in and tell them both 'please, you need to stop'.

Maybe this will help on a self-reflection to get their attention on why the bad press and finally use their celebrity status to positive causes. Complaining about your entitled life is not a cause, but using their charity for what it was meant for when created is a good cause.

As the saying goes, it takes a stranger to point out the obvious.

At the current rate, they soon won't have many "celebrity friends" left.


Celebrities depend on good PR. They won't like to be around a couple that is considered toxic (or, at least controversial) by many and generally attracts bad publicity.

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

If the Sussexes are in good financial standing with Frogmore Cottage, I do not agree with Charles evicting them against their will. I can see Charles having issues with Harry's book and other Sussex actions but to me this is not the correct action to take.

I will be happy to hear that there is more to the story about this eviction, along with the reports that Andrew is also being relocated against his will and Edward not yet being named the Duke of Edinburgh, but thus far what these actions (or inactions) demonstrate to me is that the pettiness, spitefulness and score-settling aspects of Harry's personality that has come to light in recent times are traits he inherited from his father.

We can say in the USA that instead of eviction King Charles went Eminent Domain on them. They have a house in California and not really using the historical Frogmore house. So free it up then. It was a mistake renewing that lease when there was no use for it in 2023.

If they visit the UK, they can stay at Dad's Buckingham Palace, it has enough guestrooms and security and maybe proximity will help soften up those bad relations. Or just stay at a hotel.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

If the Sussexes are in good financial standing with Frogmore Cottage, I do not agree with Charles evicting them against their will. I can see Charles having issues with Harry's book and other Sussex actions but to me this is not the correct action to take.

I will be happy to hear that there is more to the story about this eviction, along with the reports that Andrew is also being relocated against his will and Edward not yet being named the Duke of Edinburgh, but thus far what these actions (or inactions) demonstrate to me is that the pettiness, spitefulness and score-settling aspects of Harry's personality that has come to light in recent times are traits he inherited from his father.

I don’t think they were evicted. I think Charles opted not to renew the lease.

Whatever the reasoning- I doubt it’s all about 3 plus years of the Sussexes public complaints.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

If the Sussexes are in good financial standing with Frogmore Cottage, I do not agree with Charles evicting them against their will.

According to the statement issued by the Duke and Duchess's spokesperson, it was a "request". See soapstar's post on page 40:

Originally Posted by soapstar

A spokesperson for the Sussexes has confirmed the story.

Statement from an Archewell spokeswoman tonight: “We can confirm The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been requested to vacate their residence at Frogmore Cottage.”

Source

Originally Posted by HenRach Dominion

From an optics POV, I don't understand why the Palace or their insiders would decide to announce that TRH The Sussexes were losing Frogmore Cottage, especially to HRH The Duke of York, two months before TM The King and Queen's coronation. Now, instead of building up excitement for the moment, the attention is now on family members the BRF definitely would rather people ignore (unless, cynically, all press is good press for the BRF).

From to the Telegraph report posted by Alison H on page 40, it appears the original leaker was a "friend of the Sussex's":

A friend of the Sussex's suggested the decision to move them out of Frogmore has not been welcomed by the couple, noting that “they made that place their home”.

They are understood to view the cottage as “the only place left that's safe” for them and their children in the UK, not least given the ongoing row between Prince Harry and the Home Office over its decision to withdraw his security detail.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Ghost

The only advantage of having the lease of frogmore was that Harry could prove he had residence in UK and so continue to be counselor of state. For all the rest there are solutions.

The Regency Act of 1937 does not require that Counsellors of State be resident in the United Kingdom, only that they be domiciled there.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/16

In any case, the King has given Parliament a formal assurance that in the future, only working royals will be called upon to act as Counsellors of State.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post2514513

Originally Posted by Somebody

That to me is indeed the most interesting part to me. How will he claim (or will he no longer do so) to be domiciled in the UK? Of course, that will also depend on his visa in the USA: is he formally a resident there or just a temporary visitor.

There is a legal presumption that the Duke of Sussex maintains his domicile in the United Kingdom. The presumption can only be rebutted by proving - to a high degree of satisfaction - that he intends to reside in the United States indefinitely. If the Duke of Sussex simply states that it is not his intention to settle in the United States indefinitely, that could be sufficient to maintain his UK domicile.



https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...inance-divorce

To change domicile, you generally must sever all ties with the UK. So the Revenue might consider you still to be UK-domiciled if you had moved to Spain but returned to Britain to visit friends or family.

https://publications.parliament.uk/p...803066en04.htm

2 ‘Domiciled in some part of the United Kingdom’ refers to a concept of domicile derived from common law. Everyone receives a domicile at birth; this is known as a ‘domicile of origin’. Every independent person can at any time change their domicile of origin and acquire a ‘domicile of choice’ by the fact of residing in a country other than that of their domicile of origin with the intention of continuing to reside there indefinitely. There is a strong presumption against a change from a domicile of origin to a domicile of choice.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...dance-v1.0.pdf

Domicile of origin

At birth every person acquires a domicile of origin.

The domicile of a new-born child's depends on the domicile of their parent at the time of birth.

[...]

Domicile of choice

A person can acquire a domicile of choice instead of their domicile of origin. To do
this they must both:

• reside in a place
• form a clear and fixed intention of making their permanent home or indefinite residence in that one country

[...]

The degree of proof required to establish that a domicile of origin has been displaced in favour of a domicile of choice is high. The courts have said that "unless you are able to show with perfect clearness and satisfaction, that a new domicile has been acquired, the domicile of origin continues" (Bell -v- Kennedy LR 1 Se & W App 310). This can mean that, whilst a range of evidence will normally be needed to show that a change of domicile has occurred, a single piece of evidence may be enough to show that there has been no change of domicile (such as a statement by the person concerned that they had no intention of making the place in question their permanent home).

[Queen Claude]

Originally Posted by Toledo

We can say in the USA that instead of eviction King Charles went Eminent Domain on them. They have a house in California and not really using the historical Frogmore house. So free it up then. It was a mistake renewing that lease when there was no use for it in 2023.

If they visit the UK, they can stay at Dad's Buckingham Palace, it has enough guestrooms and security and maybe proximity will help soften up those bad relations. Or just stay at a hotel.

The point that I am making is that Charles may very well be exercising some form of eminent domain but if he is doing it as score settling against his younger son, Charles is demonstrating that certain unflattering aspects of Harry's personality are not due to PTSD over the loss of his mother, drug use or being influenced by other parties, rather it is showing that Harry is his father's son.

Originally Posted by Erin9

I don’t think they were evicted. I think Charles opted not to renew the lease.

Whatever the reasoning- I doubt it’s all about 3 plus years of the Sussexes public complaints.

Perhaps but the Sussexes reportedly paid £2.4 million to cover renovation costs funded by the sovereign grant, I would think that would have covered more than a few years lease. I am basing that on the amounts that Andrew and Edward reportedly paid to renovate their much bigger homes on much more land, and in their cases they got decades long leases.

[suztav]

If I'm not mistaken there is video in the Netflix series of them moving stuff out of Frogmore during their June visit for the Queen's Jubilee. WTH?!

[Moran]

I wonder what Charles can do without being accused of being mean to Harry. Even if the decision was his alone, he didn't just do it out of the blue, it came after Harry used and demeaned his family for money for years, after being ungrateful for the home he had been provided without having to lift a finger, just because he was born to Charles. Meghan did even less. All she did was marrying Harry. They literally spat on everything they had been given but when it's taken from them, it's the people doing the taking who are as mean as the Sussexes? Not in my book. For three years, the Sussexes have been regurgitating bile. One has to be a saint to tolerate them and let them keep everything they had been given because - why, in fact?

And yes, we have no idea who paid the mils for the renovation costs. Given the fact that Harry considered Charles' paying his way as his due and the tensions al around at the time, it might well have been the King and the late Queen who paid the bulk of it without making noise, so the noise would die.

[Ghost]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

The point that I am making is that Charles may very well be exercising some form of eminent domain but if he is doing it as score settling against his younger son, Charles is demonstrating that certain unflattering aspects of Harry's personality are not due to PTSD over the loss of his mother, drug use or being influenced by other parties, rather it is showing that Harry is his father's son.


Perhaps but the Sussexes reportedly paid £2.4 million to cover renovation costs funded by the sovereign grant, I would think that would have covered more than a few years lease. I am basing that on the amounts that Andrew and Edward reportedly paid to renovate their much bigger homes on much more land, and in their cases they got decades long leases.

The lease was separate from the repayment of the repairs, or so I understood. At the time of the repayment there were questions about who really paid, even suggestions that Charles paid in Harry’s name.
Re: Andrew, he paid one lump sum of one million pounds for the lease AND repaired and refurbished for another seven millions. The repairs were a condition of the lease. Maybe the repayment by Harry was a condition of continuation of the lease? Then they are not to be reimbursed. Who knows, the Crown Estate has a reputation of having a lot of complicated regulations.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

If the Sussexes are in good financial standing with Frogmore Cottage, I do not agree with Charles evicting them against their will. I can see Charles having issues with Harry's book and other Sussex actions but to me this is not the correct action to take.

I will be happy to hear that there is more to the story about this eviction, along with the reports that Andrew is also being relocated against his will and Edward not yet being named the Duke of Edinburgh, but thus far what these actions (or inactions) demonstrate to me is that the pettiness, spitefulness and score-settling aspects of Harry's personality that has come to light in recent times are traits Harry inherited from his father.

Could we take the royal out of this, if any of us owned a property that we leased out and as the lease was due to be renewed we decided for whatever reason we did not wish to continue with the arrangement , provided the tenants with sufficient notice to move would you have a different view on this.

If the tenants had decided not to renew , what could you say...nothing.

It is only reports about Andrew, and all the other stuff , are only rumours nothing is fact as yet.

There has been a great deal going on, lets wait and see what happens.

[wartenberg7]

Originally Posted by Alison H

I think we probably will see Andrew moving in there, and that it's part of a general move round. I certainly don't think it's been done just as a move against the Sussexes.

Perhaps, but obviously they (the Sussexes) seem to regard it as such.

[wartenberg7]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

If the Sussexes are in good financial standing with Frogmore Cottage, I do not agree with Charles evicting them against their will. I can see Charles having issues with Harry's book and other Sussex actions but to me this is not the correct action to take.

I will be happy to hear that there is more to the story about this eviction, along with the reports that Andrew is also being relocated against his will and Edward not yet being named the Duke of Edinburgh, but thus far what these actions (or inactions) demonstrate to me is that the pettiness, spitefulness and score-settling aspects of Harry's personality that has come to light in recent times are traits Harry inherited from his father.

Well, if I remeber correctly this house was refurbished for them for millions of pounds. The average couple has to buy a property on their own - they have been given it. Nothing wrong with that, IF they kept on using it on a regular basis while doing what they were meant to do, working for the Monarchy and by that for the country all their wealth and status was based upon! After quitting and stabbing large parts of the RF in the back the Sussexes hardly ever used it ever since. Absolutely hilarious Harry even had the sorry guts to do his british "Spare" interview there...
No, they have lost every right on this house for ever!

[Queen Claude]

If the Sussexes have the type of lease that is renewable annually or biennially, then I agree that the landlord has the right to not renew their lease. It seems strange to me that the Sussexes would themselves reimburse the Sovereign Grant £2.4 million to cover the costs associated with renovating Frogmore Cottage, but then put themselves in a position where they lose the home based on whims of the leaseholder. The only way that I can make sense of it is if some form of reimbursement scheme was built in and the Sussexes will get back what they paid in, adjusted accordingly.

[Granada]

Still think it is two reasons that the Sussex's are being asked to vacate Frogmore Cottage. One is an emotional response by The Firm, and actually smart. Three years of non stop complaining and allegations. The Family finally said enough. And made a move to sideline The Sussex's in The UK.

Removing the "toehold", the base that The Sussex's have to come back to and potentially cause mischief.

More " filming at a Crown Property " Frogmore, for say ANOTHER Netflix series. All the footage-photographs of Frogmore Cottage that showed up in the last series.

Don't forget, they also had footage in the Docuseries from the lovely Thatched Cottage that was a gift to the then Princess Elizabeth in 1932. It is on land at Royal Lodge, and allegedly Princes Beatrice gave permission for The Sussex's to film there. I'm sure that rankled the Family greatly.

Well, that will NOT be happening again. VERY smart move.
They won't have the access, with the Photographer following them that is a big part of their entourage.
They won't be allowed, if say they are visiting and staying at Windsor Castle. Which I don't see happening any time soon in any case.

Second reason, is purely Business I believe. Charles wanted to appear to be The Monarch, a leader and head of the Institution. That wasn't going to continue to allow The Sussex's to run roughshod over The Family and demean The Monarchy. So Charles and Co went on the offense and played hard ball.
Neutralizing Harry's ability to have his own Crown leased "home base". Just took it away.

The reports of Andrew now moving there ? I have no idea if true or if it will happen, but it certainly gave some *cover* for TELLING The Sussex's that their lease would not be renewed. To set Andrew up there. But The Sussex's are out.

Basically saying we won't put up with your attacks anymore. We might not respond in words, but we will in action.
Brilliant, Harry wrote and talked himself out of his house. Bet he didn't see that coming one bit either.
Checkmate. I think that if Harry and Meghan continue this ridiculous path they are on, this might be just the first of things to be lost.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

If the Sussexes are in good financial standing with Frogmore Cottage, I do not agree with Charles evicting them against their will. I can see Charles having issues with Harry's book and other Sussex actions but to me this is not the correct action to take.

I will be happy to hear that there is more to the story about this eviction, along with the reports that Andrew is also being relocated against his will and Edward not yet being named the Duke of Edinburgh, but thus far what these actions (or inactions) demonstrate to me is that the pettiness, spitefulness and score-settling aspects of Harry's personality that has come to light in recent times are traits Harry inherited from his father.

It has been interesting listening to the various show discuss this topic. Seems you not the only one with this view point. There is no love loss with the media and the Sussexes, we all know that. But it would seem they don't like that Charles have made himself look vindictive. Richard Palmer from the Express is very pro Charles and even he sounded disappointed.

Honestly I think most just have issue with the Andrew angle. It is a hard sell for a lot of people that Charles would put out his son and his young children in favor of his very disgraced brother. No matter your issues with Harry it is a bad look.

Though I will say it does bring up a point of Harry wanting to be able to fend for himself financially. Look how easy it was for Charles to deny them access to their home. Having to solely depend on someone else to provide for you who can take it away on a whim is a scary thing. That is the royal life.

[Hallo girl]

I am sorry this is beginning to sound like Harry and his family are being put out on the streets with no roof over their head, they live in a multi roomed house in the States. They have made it clear they do not feel safe in this country, they are very rarely in that house.
As far as Andrew goes that is not clear as yet just rumour, even if it is true, if Andrew can no longer afford the upkeep of the big house why shouldn't his brother allow him to live in a smaller house on the estate that is very rarely used. I am sure there will be plenty accommodation available in some of the palaces if the Sussex family should come over for visits, which would also include the security for the palaces.