Sussex Residences

[tommy100]

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.

 

[Fem]

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.

 

[Jacknch]

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.

 

[Dman]

The Duke of Sussex powerful move on his family’s privacy-
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royal...uk&utm_medium=social_media&utm_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.

 

[Marlo]

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.

 

[Lyonnaise]

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!

 

[MARG]

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.

 

[Fijiro]

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.

 

[ACO]

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.

 

[Jacknch]

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

 

[jacqui24]

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.

 

[Lilyflo]

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.

 

[Tarlita]

I just hope the punishment was substantial. At the time of the photos being taken they knew they were breaking privacy rules.

 

[jacqui24]

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?

 

[Tarlita]

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.

 

[Lilyflo]

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.

 

[jacqui24]

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?

 

[MARG]

Well, I do believe they are going to be assailed by drones and finding who is operating them is problematic at the least.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Yes there is - its called 'Cottage orné'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottage_orné

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/whats-in-the-gardens/kew-palace-and-queen-charlottes-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.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

The Duke of Sussex powerful move on his family’s privacy-
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royal...uk&utm_medium=social_media&utm_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.

 

[muriel]

Complaints about noise on the Windsor estate from planes coming in to land at Heathrow

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-Frogmore-House-throws-open-doors-public.html

 

[Curryong]

Yes, it must be extremely noisy. However the Queen, Prince Philip, and several other royals that exercise in and enjoy Windsor Great Park must have come to terms with the racket over the decades. And probably practically every window in the Cottage and the Castle and buildings nearby would be soundproofed I would think.

 

[Pranter]

IIRC I read that they spent quite a bit of money to add noise barriers, triple glazed windows etc.



LaRae

 

[jacqui24]

It always boggled my mind on putting Heathrow so close to Windsor castle. Not only as a noise issue for the residents, but it’s actually a tourist attraction as well. I guess there is never a perfect spot for an airport. But as someone who visited since he was a child, I’m sure Harry was well aware of this issue and thinks it can be properly dealt with. And based on what’s been said since their engagement announcement, it seems that’s Meghan has spent a decent amount of time in Windsor as well and surely knew this when they decided on Frogmore.

 

[SLV]

Well, I don't know how old Heathrow is, but looking at our own airport Schiphol here, so near the capitol. Nobody 100 years ago, could have imagined flight taking such a ..... flight. And what noise that would produce.

 

[muriel]

It always boggled my mind on putting Heathrow so close to Windsor castle. Not only as a noise issue for the residents, but it’s actually a tourist attraction as well.

The answer lies in the history of HEathrow, and how, almost by surprise, it grew to become one of the world's busiest airports after the war.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

With the luxury renovations and soundproofing, the Sussex family and their guests surely don't hear nary an overhead plane inside their comfy bubble. It must be so relaxing and fun for Harry & Meghan living in their new home with their new baby.

I'm sure the kitchen is decked out with all the conveniences and well-stocked for Meghan to create her specialties. She's been a foodie since she was a pre-teen, and having previously dated a chef, and written about food with a bevy of guest chefs on her former blog, she's surely learned a lot of handy tips and developed an arsenal of recipes.

And from descriptions of the yoga studio addition, Meghan is surely getting in all the exercise and meditation she needs to stay fit and maintain her high energy levels, which she'll need with little Archie, joining dogs and hubby.

A slightly dated article from March, but with some interesting discussion surrounding possible interior decoration for Frogmore Cottage:
Inside Frogmore Cottage, Prince Harry and Meghan’s new Windsor home - Dianalegacy Latest Update News Images Videos of British Royal Family

A cash-in home products speculative article by House Beautiful
https://www.housebeautiful.com/uk/d...n-markle-royal-baby-nursery-frogmore-cottage/

And this one written earlier, before the move to Frogmore was announced, is interesting and well-researched:
https://www.housebeautiful.com/uk/d...han-markle-effect-trend-home-interior-design/

 

[ACO]

Harry and Meghan are applying for permission to do exterior renovations.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markle-harry-want-revamp-16229233

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Yep, I just saw that reported in another publication:

http://carmonreport.com/world-news/harry-and-meghan-to-do-more-renovations-on-frogmore-cottage/

"Harry and Meghan have been granted permission to redecorate the outside of Frogmore Cottage and re-landscape the gardens.

Windsor and Maidenhead Council have also said they can renovate the outbuilding and add several new windows and doors to their Grade II-listed Windsor home.

Royal sources claim they want to make the house perfect for family life after baby Archie was born earlier this month."

This article goes on to provide additional historic references to Frogmore Cottage, and it also discusses the early decoration of and former names of some of the rooms in the house. I wonder whether any historic touches were preserved in the recent renovation? Such room decorations described in the article, may have been already obliterated when the house was reconstructed for use as staff apartments.

 

[Tarlita]

A nice glass and timber conservatory would be handy on cold windy days.