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

[Royalist.in.NC]

Originally Posted by Lilyflo

I'm slightly inclined to agree with you but I also wonder if this would have happened without the Oprah interview and the shots fired in Spare. I'm not sure there's a great deal of cost to be saved by asking the Sussexes to vacate, as they're probably entitled to some compensation for what they spent on it but I don't know enough about the financial details to be sure.

In the court of public opinion, this could feel like retribution but given the low popularity of the Sussexes in UK polls, I don't think that will do Charles any harm and could even gain him more support.

I would agree- my sense is that citizens in the UK will be pleased.

[Royalist.in.NC]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Athena41 is referring to this tweet by correspondent Emily Andrews sharing Netflix documentary screencaps:

https://twitter.com/byEmilyAndrews/s...13095228297222



Which media?

The “moving” pictures look staged. I can see them packing very personal belongings but I sure can’t see them packing books, clothes, and kitchen stuff. Come on…..

[stunking]

Originally Posted by Kaye1850

Just to play devil’s advocate, what if what we’re being told has it backwards?
What if H&M wanted to give up the residence and chose not to renew the lease?
If reports about their ‘money stream’ drying up are true, it would make sense for them to do so. There may have been cash incentive payments to them as well.
An official notice to vacate said property may just be standard legalese.
And I think it very possible the Sussexes could choose to twist these facts to make it appear they are being kicked out of a beloved home.

Yes I agree we do not know the whole story. H&M might not have renewed the lease. It seems H&M would have cried abuse if they were kicked out. The Andrew part has not been confirmed. I think Moonmaiden suggest the Wales move into RL which I agree with. They have a family of five and the money to pay for because he is the Duke of Cornwall now and can afford it. I feel they need better security. That or they move into Windsor Castle.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by 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.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the Sussexes never considered the possibility of the lease not being renewed- if that is the case. Thinking ahead doesn’t seem to be their thing.

[Alison H]

I think they want some sort of normal home for the children. OK, Royal Lodge is hardly a suburban semi, but it isn't a medieval castle. If Andrew moves into Frogmore Cottage and the Waleses move into Royal Lodge, I think that will make sense and the public will see that. The Sussexes do not need a home in the UK for the few days a year that they might be there.

[Ista]

This is the Sussex thread. Let's stick to discussion about them. Posts that drag in other members of the family, unless it directly pertains to the topic under discussion here, will be removed.

[soapstar]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

But were the Sussexes so attached to Frogmore in the first place? Other than its sentimental value as their first marital home?

That’s a good question. This is how Harry described Frogmore in his book, “once upon a time, this was going to be my forever home. Instead it had proved to be just another brief stop.” So it seems Harry has long reckoned with the fact that Frogmore was no longer his home.

The uproar over a lease not being renewed is a little perplexing. The Sussexes aren’t being left homeless. They have a beautiful home in California. They packed up Frogmore and have long since moved on. Harry has even stated that his life is now in the US, so it’s not like they were planning on living in the UK anytime soon. In the last 3 years, they have only stayed at Frogmore a few times. The place basically sits empty, so it makes no sense to continue leasing a place they barely use. Especially since there is no shortage of secure properties they can stay at when they make the occasional visit to the UK. And if they don’t feel comfortable staying with family, or at any of the crown estate properties, they can stay at a luxury hotel.

[Toledo]

I'm confused. When I search for pictures I get a small cottage and a palatial estate?

Here's Frogmore back in 1872 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frogmo...re_Cottage.jpg


From 2018 USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/...me/2114477002/

The second one, the white building, seems bigger. Which one is the actual location they stayed in?

[soapstar]

The first link is Frogmore Cottage, where the Sussexes lived. The second link is Frogmore House. They are two different buildings.

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by soapstar

The first link is Frogmore Cottage, where the Sussexes lived. The second link is Frogmore House. They are two different buildings.

Thanks and Wow! All this time I thought the white manor was the house they were referring to. I have to say I'm with Meghan on this one. That cottage is just too small for the egos, or for a family of four compared with the palatial Montecito.

[Royalist.in.NC]

Originally Posted by soapstar

The first link is Frogmore Cottage, where the Sussexes lived. The second link is Frogmore House. They are two different buildings.

What is Frogmore House used for? Thanks in advance if you know!

[Mirabel]

I never had the impression that Harry and Meghan much liked Frogmore Cottage anyway.

I find it hard to believe they'd be upset at not having their lease renewed.

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC

What is Frogmore House used for? Thanks in advance if you know!

Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frogmore_House

I'm still recovering for USA today and other media using pictures of one Frogmore for another Frogmore.

[Royalist.in.NC]

Originally Posted by Toledo

Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frogmore_House

I'm still recovering for USA today and other media using pictures of one Frogmore for another Frogmore.

Thanks so much!

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC

What is Frogmore House used for? Thanks in advance if you know!

Frogmore house is open to the public, a very old royal residence, although nobody actually resides now, I believe it is also used for events. Harry and Meghans wedding reception was there as other royal family weddings.

People do become confused with the cottage and the House but two different places

[soapstar]

Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC

What is Frogmore House used for? Thanks in advance if you know!

Frogmore House is mainly used for events now. Harry and Meghan held their evening wedding reception there.

Originally Posted by Toledo

Thanks and Wow! All this time I thought the white manor was the house they were referring to. I have to say I'm with Meghan on this one. That cottage is just too small for the egos, or for a family of four compared with the palatial Montecito.

Yeah, it’s definitely not as big as their current home. Though it does have plenty of space. I believe it has 5 bedrooms (it used to have 10 bedrooms), which I think is more than enough room for a family of 4. This article has a better photo of FC. It’s a lovely home and it would be a shame if they hadn’t been happy with it.

https://www.the-sun.com/lifestyle/62...dsor-frogmore/

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Toledo

Thanks and Wow! All this time I thought the white manor was the house they were referring to. I have to say I'm with Meghan on this one. That cottage is just too small for the egos, or for a family of four compared with the palatial Montecito.

I would agree too small for the egos but a great deal of families of four would jump at it. It is not small by the average persons standard. It is probably bigger than Meghan had ever lived in, but would appear not big enough.

[yukari]

Originally Posted by yukari

Do we know the lease term of Frogmore Cottage? Is it annually or long term one like Andrew's Royal Lodge?

What I mean to say is, what if this is not the case of the Sussexes being "kicked out" of the property, but they decide not to extend the lease. Considering they only stay there for couple of days a year, what if they think it's better to use the money for, say, their foundation instead of paying lease for an empty house they barely ever live.

I know several people with multiple houses. Normally they live in the rented house (in the city where they work) while leave their personally owned house empty. They don't need to pay rent for their own house so no money spent other than basic maintenance, while renting house and leave it empty is just wasting money.

I'm answering my own question.
Here's from the Sovereign Grant Report 2021-2022 (page 86)

Sovereign Grant Report 2021-2022.pdf

Frogmore Cottage was the official residence of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex until 31 March 2020, when they stepped back from performing official duties. From 1 April 2020 Frogmore Cottage became the private UK residence of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, subject to an annual licence to occupy. In addition to commercial rent paid in the first five months of 2020-21, a lump sum of £2.4m was received from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in September 2020 to re-imburse the Sovereign Grant for expenditure incurred on the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage. However, not all of the payment received in 2020-21 was recognised as income within that accounting year, as it has been offset against the rental payments due for 2021-22.

Of the cash payments received in 2020-21, the equivalent of 12 months of rental income was recognised in the Income and Expenditure Account for 2020-21, in accordance with the related performance obligation to provide accommodation. This was included within Property rental income.

The licence was renewed for a further year to 31 March 2022. At 31 March 2021, the equivalent of the rent due under the licence for the year to 31 March 2022 was treated as deferred income under current liabilities in the Statement of Financial Position and has been released to the Income and Expenditure Account in the year to 31 March 2022 as it has been earned and the related performance obligation to provide accommodation is met.

The balance of the cash payments received during 2020-21 was recognised as income in 2020-21, on the basis that a licence to occupy did not at that time extend beyond 31 March 2022 and therefore there were no enforceable obligations at 31 March 2021. This sum was included within Recharges for functions and other income in 2020-21.

There is no deferred income at 31 March 2022.

So it's annual lease, not long term one like Andrew's RL. And come to think of it, the Sussexes' statement only mentions that they are asked to vacate the property, nothing about who ends the lease. So let's say if they don't intend to extend the lease, wouldn't it normal if the Crown Estate (as the property owner) send them a notice to quit stating that they need to vacate the property by a certain date? I guess we'll see if it will be mentioned in this year financial report.

As for where the 2,4m money came from, IIRC it was discussed in this forum last year (wasn't it?). The press speculated that it was Harry's money he got from Netflix deal, but personally I doubt it because the financial report states it's paid in September 2021 while Netflix deal was also (reportedly) signed in September 2021 and I can't imagine any company would hand over that much money right after contract signing (in my experience working in oil and gas sector, the soonest is within 30 days, but it could be different in the intertainment industry so I could be wrong). So if it's not from Netflix deal, there's possibility that it's from Charles considering during that period of time the Sussexes were spending a lot of money with their moving to Montecito and buying their current house (yes, they are not penniless, but then again few months before he moaned about being cut off financially by his father to Oprah)

[Hallo girl]

That is really interesting yukari, I didn't want to copy the whole page as it is quite detailed, so is that inferring that it became lease hold once they no longer were working members of the royal family.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Anna1519

The reporter who broke today's story is framing this decision as not just a financial one but also a post-Spare act of retribution and de facto exile for Harry.

Here is what appears to be the original story, written by Matt Wilkinson for The Sun:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21...-king-charles/

While the article points out that the so-called eviction "comes after Harry launched a string of accusations" (and "the eviction comes as Harry is suing the Government"), it does not say the decision is an act of retribution.

Note that the references to eviction and timing are caveated with "are believed", "are thought", etc., and that Buckingham Palace declined to comment. So, although the couple's spokeswoman subsequently confirmed they were "requested to vacate" (which is not necessarily the same as eviction), it seems the other statements in the story are not fully confirmed.

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

Btw, it’s not actually Charles who told them to vacate but rather the Crown Estates from Marlene Eilers Koenig’s blog. Please check it and read it.

Here is the blog post, but unfortunately Mrs. Koenig does not name a source for her suggestion that the King was not involved in the decision.

https://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blog...ew-tenant.html