The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 7: Oct. 2022 - - Page 48

Somebody · #**941** 03-02-2023, 08:00 PM

So, the annual lease ends on March 31?!

Anna1519 · #**942** 03-02-2023, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

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.

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

I was not referring to the original story - he wrote a subsequent commentary piece where he alludes very strongly to this representing an exile of sorts for Harry and Meghan. He's not the only reporter who has taken that view - Rebecca English's original piece specifically says there is little doubt it was an act of retribution (she uses the word specifically).

Somebody · #**943** 03-02-2023, 08:16 PM

If it is true that it was discussed with the king when Spare was released and the were given their notice the day after publication, it sounds as if there might be some causal relation (or they were already considering not renewing and the book was the confirmation that that would be the best course of action).

Alisa · #**944** 03-02-2023, 08:41 PM

There were reports long ago that if Harry portrayed Camilla negatively in Spare that Charles would be furious and retaliate.

This definitely seems like retaliation and retribution.

The Crown Estates "belongs to the reigning Monarch..." So please believe that King Charles had a say in this decision.

Moonmaiden23 · #**945** 03-02-2023, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

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.

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

Wow. Koenig doesn't pull her punches does she? She is obviously not a fan of the Montecito Royals but I am stunned by her assessment of their extreme detractors...particularly her blunt comments about their demographics.

But I also happen to agree with her based on personal experience.

caethi · #**946** 03-02-2023, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

Wow. Koenig doesn't pull her punches does she? She is obviously not a fan of the Montecito Royals but I am stunned at her assessment of their extreme detractors...particularly her blunt comments about their demographics.

The article did a good job of presenting the facts as she knows them, but ageism and sexism should have no place in the discussion.

The optics are poor for the King--it does look like retribution. Harry and Meghan aren't living in the UK and don't intend to return. They were "asked to vacate." If Harry and Meghan are truly "shocked" then they really are living in an alternate universe. Harry and Meghan need to appreciate the consequences of their actions. It's been well known that the King wants a "slimmed down" monarchy. As privileged as he is, he does have a sense of social justice. He wants to be fiscally wise. And maybe, just maybe, he has had enough of his younger son's behaviour and wants to make it clear that Harry is not, and never will be, a working royal with all the perks that accompany that role.

If Harry and Meghan want to visit the UK in the future, surely there are plenty of royal residences that could accommodate them on a temporary basis, and there are many hotels. It's not like Harry is being deprived of citizenship or prevented from entering the country.

I don't like it when press and pundits engage in savage criticism and ridicule, and no doubt Harry and Meghan have been the victims of this. The thing is, they have made themselves easy targets.

**iceflower** · #**947** 03-02-2023, 11:41 PM

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex were photographed enjoying an evening out in LA this week:

** dm article: Meghan's (very expensive) date night look.. **

Ghost · #**948** 03-02-2023, 11:47 PM

I found this photo of the back of the cottage, it gives a better idea of the size of the house and its surroundings.

https://twitter.com/christinacann17/...969349/photo/1

Moonmaiden23 · #**949** 03-02-2023, 11:52 PM

It's not Buckingham Palace, but it's a lot larger than what I had previously imagined!

Curryong · #**950** 03-02-2023, 11:56 PM

It was four or five separate staff dwellings at one stage. There is a nursery but only four bedrooms, so it is restricted as a permanent home by RF standards.

Ghost · #**951** 03-03-2023, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong

It was four or five separate staff dwellings at one stage. There is a nursery but only four bedrooms, so it is restricted as a permanent home by RF standards.

Originally it was a royal adjacent residence. It’s said that it’s over 5000 sf.
From wikipedia: “ The cottage was originally known as Double Garden Cottage and was listed in Queen Charlotte's 1801 accounts for her garden as having been built for £450 by a Mr Bowen.[7] Queen Victoria had breakfast at the cottage on 28 June 1875 and noted an "immense number of little frogs" which she found "quite disgusting".[8] The cottage has been listed Grade II on the National Heritage List for England since October 1975. The listing provides little of the history: "Early C19 plain 2 storey house with parapet. Centre break with porch. Glazing bar sashes. Stucco faced".[9]

19th and 20th century tenants

The cottage was a retreat for Charlotte, the queen consort of George III, and her unmarried daughters.[10] The theologian Henry James Sr. and his family lived at the cottage in the 1840s.[11] A personal secretary of Queen Victoria's, Abdul Karim, moved to Frogmore Cottage in 1897 with his wife and father.[12][13] Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna in exile from her native Russia after the Russian Revolution stayed there in the 1920s.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frogmore_Cottage

Curryong · #**952** 03-03-2023, 12:22 AM

Yes, I know all about the history of Frogmore Cottage. What I wrote was that it had (internally) been made into four or five staff dwellings at one stage. Junior chefs and others lived there. And that stage was for several years before it was decided it would do for Harry and Meghan in 2018. It was described at the time as ‘a bit run-down’ by a few of those who had lived there. It was hardly Anmer in other words, but was considered good enough for the Sussexes.

Ghost · #**953** 03-03-2023, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong

Yes, I know all about the history of Frogmore Cottage. What I wrote was that it had (internally) been made into four or five staff dwellings at one stage. Junior chefs and others lived there. And that stage was for several years before it was decided it would do for Harry and Meghan in 2018. It was described at the time as ‘a bit run-down’ by a few of those who had lived there. It was hardly Anmer in other words, but was considered good enough for the Sussexes.

Oh, I see.

Asteria12 · #**954** 03-03-2023, 12:47 AM

And then a lot of money was spent sprucing it up for the Sussexes and even today it would suit a couple with two young children. However the couple decamped to a palatial 10 bedroom mansion on the other side of the pond and now no longer need it. Makes perfect sense to not extend their annual lease and let it be used by others!

TLLK · #**955** 03-03-2023, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

It's not Buckingham Palace, but it's a lot larger than what I had previously imagined!

Yes. I always consider anything named "cottage " to be quite cozy and small. It's a good sized family home.

Curryong · #**956** 03-03-2023, 01:01 AM

Money which they repaid. And the couple and their children are indeed happy in Montecito.

Meghan as an American, was I suspect, used to larger rooms than FC provided […] And my opinion of it was that it was a rather ugly house that the Windsor people thought would do for the Sussexes, who actually preferred Oxfordshire.

Sionevar · #**957** 03-03-2023, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLLK

Yes. I always consider anything named "cottage " to be quite cozy and small. It's a good sized family home.

I feel the same way about the word 'lodge' - I imagine a cozy thing made out of wood nestled in deep woods, maybe a bit larger than a cabin.

Then I look at photos of The Royal Lodge and

Asteria12 · #**958** 03-03-2023, 01:57 AM

[…]Apart from that, it is quite possible that the money they repaid was actually from Charles in the first place. Harry's "Dadbank" subsidised most of things he did before he nipped off over the pond, and only time will tell when the finances are inspected to see if this repayment was also the case.

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't call Frogmore Cottage ugly, when you consider the history attached to it, the lovely location and the recent and expensive refurbishments. I'd accept it as I'm sure many would. Too bad it wasn't good enough for Meghan.

FigTree · #**959** 03-03-2023, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asteria12

[…]Apart from that, it is quite possible that the money they repaid was actually from Charles in the first place. Harry's "Dadbank" subsidised most of things he did before he nipped off over the pond, and only time will tell when the finances are inspected to see if this repayment was also the case.

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't call Frogmore Cottage ugly, when you consider the history attached to it, the lovely location and the recent and expensive refurbishments. I'd accept it as I'm sure many would. Too bad it wasn't good enough for Meghan.

The house is huge and lovely. I have stood outside it peering in the hedge. It is absolutely stunning. And in the real world, a large house for wealthy people.

Massive for a family of four…and actually on that estate you can have live in staff live somewhere else. As William and Kate do.

FigTree · #**960** 03-03-2023, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong

Money which they repaid. And the couple and their children are indeed happy in Montecito.

Meghan as an American, was I suspect, used to larger rooms than FC provided […] And my opinion of it was that it was a rather ugly house that the Windsor people thought would do for the Sussexes, who actually preferred Oxfordshire.

They were free to buy themselves a home in Oxfordshire if they wished. Apart from the part of Oxfordshire which is in the Cotswolds…Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire have very similar countryside. She wanted to be near Soho House.