Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Peacetrain

(22,875 posts)
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 02:24 PM Mar 2023

This has to be a joke??? Britain's Prince Harry loses home on royal estate: reports

Frogmore Cottage... the one they paid almost 3 million out of pocket to refurbish, that was a wedding gift to them from Queen Elizabeth... this is just one of those stories the tabloids make up and then report on as truth for three weeks?? .. I cannot believe that Charles is so small to do such a thing.

https://news.yahoo.com/britains-prince-harry-loses-home-110755983.html

Prince Harry and his wife Meghan are being evicted from their home on the British royal family's Windsor estate, leaving them without a UK base, reports said on Wednesday.

The use of Frogmore Cottage was a wedding present from the late Queen Elizabeth II in 2018, and they refurbished it at a reported cost of £2.4 million ($2.9 million).

It has now been offered to Prince Andrew, King Charles III's disgraced brother, reports in The Sun and Daily Telegraph sai

162 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
This has to be a joke??? Britain's Prince Harry loses home on royal estate: reports (Original Post) Peacetrain Mar 2023 OP
No way to guess if it's true or not. Demobrat Mar 2023 #1
Since they do not allow them security even if they pay for their own. I just can't see a grandparent Peacetrain Mar 2023 #5
Charles wants a fancy Coronation and Performers are turning him down. ProudMNDemocrat Mar 2023 #2
no kidding.. whew this is a mess if true.. so I am holding out not true Peacetrain Mar 2023 #7
I commented a year or more ago sdfernando Mar 2023 #20
Right, it was rumored that William had an affair. brush Mar 2023 #34
.... CatWoman Mar 2023 #114
Why should they keep it? pinkstarburst Mar 2023 #3
I agree with you. Raven123 Mar 2023 #6
So they cannot have security.. the one place that was secure for them was Frogmore Peacetrain Mar 2023 #9
I am no Andrew fan pinkstarburst Mar 2023 #30
It's a 5- bedroom house they've been paying rent on mainer Mar 2023 #37
The point is the Queen made a gift. How can Charles reneg on that? pnwmom Mar 2023 #88
Because highborn Englishmen enjoy a spot of cruelty now 'n then. Mopar151 Mar 2023 #118
True, if legally deeded to someone treestar Mar 2023 #154
From what I understand now, there probably wasn't a legal deed. But it was a very cheesy thing pnwmom Mar 2023 #156
Yes looks very bad treestar Mar 2023 #160
Well, he's the same guy who was messing around with Camilla from the first months of his marriage pnwmom Mar 2023 #161
Sleeping with one 17 year old does not make one a 'pedophile' Hugh_Lebowski Mar 2023 #55
He knew Epstein was a pimp of a girl whose age he didn't check. Is that better? nt pnwmom Mar 2023 #89
I'd probably accept that critique, based on what we know or could logically presume Hugh_Lebowski Mar 2023 #102
I wasn't the person who called him a pedophile. But he is a disgusting creep. nt pnwmom Mar 2023 #103
I'm fine with disgusting creep, but pedophile seems harsh based on what we know Hugh_Lebowski Mar 2023 #104
+1 pandr32 Mar 2023 #13
Because they own it obamanut2012 Mar 2023 #14
They don't own it pinkstarburst Mar 2023 #54
Then why was it described as a "gift" from the Queen? pnwmom Mar 2023 #90
Because people are dishonest...just like "they paid back the refurbishment" Baltimike Mar 2023 #123
Where is your evidence that they didn't pay it back? nt pnwmom Mar 2023 #124
Where is your evidence they did? Baltimike Mar 2023 #135
It was reported in 2020 by the BBC and the NYT, among others, and was not contradicted by The Firm, pnwmom Mar 2023 #138
That's according to HARRY'S spokesperson, and we have SEEN how the duo LIES Baltimike Mar 2023 #143
You missed the verb tense: "had pledged." pnwmom Mar 2023 #144
Harry would lie about that in the same vein that they said the place was a gift Baltimike Mar 2023 #158
The Palace announced the cottage was a gift from the Queen. That wasn't a lie on Harry's part. pnwmom Mar 2023 #159
Exactly. The palace announced a GIFT that WASN'T one. Baltimike Mar 2023 #162
So you seriously believe that pinkstarburst Mar 2023 #127
Well if Harry didn't own it, and the Crown Estate still did, pnwmom Mar 2023 #145
surely done with the understanding treestar Mar 2023 #155
Wasn't it a wedding gift from the Queen herself? brush Mar 2023 #157
They don't own it. It is on a year to year lease. Irish_Dem Mar 2023 #81
Correct pinkstarburst Mar 2023 #128
I see your point. If I were British, though, I'd be pissed it was going to the sex offender. Scrivener7 Mar 2023 #18
I do not believe H/M pinkstarburst Mar 2023 #32
It was granted to them by the Queen mainer Mar 2023 #21
Agreed. crickets Mar 2023 #50
I don't find either of those actions petty pinkstarburst Mar 2023 #53
Did you pay your mom 3 million dollars in reno, plus rent? mainer Mar 2023 #58
They haven't paid the refurbishment back...they were paying installments Baltimike Mar 2023 #62
You're repeating disinformation. They paid it back mainer Mar 2023 #72
True, but not many parents all over the world crickets Mar 2023 #71
She will also be known as Queen Camilla now, not Queen Consort. She's a nasty piece of work. gldstwmn Mar 2023 #96
But your mother is your mother. What Camilla did was a very thoughtless thing to do pnwmom Mar 2023 #120
Shouldn't Harry and Meghan be compensated for their.... brush Mar 2023 #36
Why? pinkstarburst Mar 2023 #51
So the racism Meghan was subjected to, and the reason for their... brush Mar 2023 #57
Prince Harry has stated unequivically that the RF is not racist. nt Baltimike Mar 2023 #65
Some of the Brit press certainly has been. You have to be aware of that. brush Mar 2023 #73
Princess Michael of Kent, who wore the racist broach, Baltimike Mar 2023 #77
Pls explain what you're talking about. Everyone hasn't read... brush Mar 2023 #85
Here's an article that came out at the time: crickets Mar 2023 #105
I knew about the brooch and the intent of the minor royal. brush Mar 2023 #106
Yikes! I'm so sorry. crickets Mar 2023 #109
Please explain why post #105 didn't suffice Baltimike Mar 2023 #121
See 106. brush Mar 2023 #125
I did...and even responded to it. Baltimike Mar 2023 #136
No, he hasn't. He said that certain named individuals were not racist. pnwmom Mar 2023 #97
Yes, he has. Period. Baltimike Mar 2023 #122
I don't dislike Harry and Meghan Dorian Gray Mar 2023 #151
+1 Irish_Dem Mar 2023 #80
If it was a gift to them, they owned it. If they invested over $2million into rehabbing it pnwmom Mar 2023 #87
yes Dorian Gray Mar 2023 #150
What of the several mansions the monarch has? treestar Mar 2023 #153
I don't doubt it. MontanaMama Mar 2023 #4
MontanaMama, I truly believe this has to be a tabloid hoax Peacetrain Mar 2023 #10
I hope that its a hoax but MontanaMama Mar 2023 #39
I guess it isn't.. Meghan is an American, her kids are Americans.. its time to put their Peacetrain Mar 2023 #41
The Palace has already made it clear that the safety of Prince Harry and his family is of no concern pnwmom Mar 2023 #139
Just reported in the Washington Post mainer Mar 2023 #59
I know mainer... I know.. I just wanted to believe in better angels.. Peacetrain Mar 2023 #61
How does this put them at risk? Dorian Gray Mar 2023 #152
Heehee. Charles and Camilla are getting it back in spades... brush Mar 2023 #40
Plus, Charles gave millions in trust to Camilla's kids mainer Mar 2023 #60
Not good. I hadn't heard about that. brush Mar 2023 #64
trust funds for camilla's kids mainer Mar 2023 #75
Who cares? This is gossip column stuff. tritsofme Mar 2023 #8
Amen to that. comradebillyboy Mar 2023 #11
I do, just don't read threads about it obamanut2012 Mar 2023 #15
Seems like Lounge material to me. tritsofme Mar 2023 #17
But at this point, isn't that the point of the royal family? Scrivener7 Mar 2023 #19
No, it's not just silly gossip mainer Mar 2023 #22
These people are little more than British versions of the Kardashians tritsofme Mar 2023 #23
Have you read SPARE? mainer Mar 2023 #24
I couldn't possibly waste my time on such drivel. tritsofme Mar 2023 #26
Well, there you go mainer Mar 2023 #29
No, like the Kardashians and other gossip column material tritsofme Mar 2023 #33
What reality show are they on? Go ahead. I'll wait. gldstwmn Mar 2023 #99
These are actual people. Sure they were born rich, (except for Megan) but that does not Maraya1969 Mar 2023 #35
And yet here you are right in the middle of it with the rest of us. gldstwmn Mar 2023 #98
And the Royal Family is the British version of Disneyland, pnwmom Mar 2023 #147
Huh? "Meghan Markle needed to be smeared.? brush Mar 2023 #42
Read SPARE. The palace leaks dirt whenever one of their own is vulnerable mainer Mar 2023 #63
Ok. I see. From the flat statement that Meghan needed to be... brush Mar 2023 #67
Spare was shocking to me. MontanaMama Mar 2023 #82
In effect, Harry was protecting his wife, as he should've. brush Mar 2023 #110
There is no hate more consuming than envy. Mopar151 Mar 2023 #119
The royal family is more dysfunctional than Charles Manson's family Ray Bruns Mar 2023 #12
Seriously? pandr32 Mar 2023 #16
Okaaaay Kaleva Mar 2023 #28
I'm no fan of the royals either but come on MustLoveBeagles Mar 2023 #38
That's a horrible thing to say. Cha Mar 2023 #52
No joke. greatauntoftriplets Mar 2023 #25
Ahh sweet Jesus... Peacetrain Mar 2023 #31
Wow MustLoveBeagles Mar 2023 #45
Andrew has his own home, Sunnyville or something Boomerproud Mar 2023 #70
If I had to guess, I would say they are trying to kick him out of that one and downsize him into gldstwmn Mar 2023 #100
Yes, I believe phylny Mar 2023 #107
The article said Andrew was being moved into pinkstarburst Mar 2023 #129
Are they still on their " We demand privacy!" tour? Kaleva Mar 2023 #27
how can we miss them if they won't go away.... nt msongs Mar 2023 #46
There never was one. crickets Mar 2023 #47
bravo bigtree Mar 2023 #68
Harry told Oprah that getting away from the media was a big part of their decision SYFROYH Mar 2023 #142
No, the video does not lie. crickets Mar 2023 #146
You mean their "we're setting the record straight after years of being smeared with pnwmom Mar 2023 #91
I'm not going to give a shit about upper class people Kaleva Mar 2023 #130
I admire Harry so much claudette Mar 2023 #43
I lean that way also Demobrat Mar 2023 #49
Exactly claudette Mar 2023 #69
I'm very impressed that he chose his wife over the Ilsa Mar 2023 #83
Or being specifically targeted by the Taliban. Demobrat Mar 2023 #101
He's got the internet nickname of #CharlestheCruel. irisblue Mar 2023 #44
They never owned the property. kskiska Mar 2023 #48
I agree pinkstarburst Mar 2023 #56
The Firm should pay Harry back the money he spent rehabbing the run down building. nt pnwmom Mar 2023 #92
For as much as Harry and Meghan hate the Royals... I doubt they'd ever return to it anyways. WarGamer Mar 2023 #66
Like it or not canetoad Mar 2023 #74
Andrew is not a working royal mainer Mar 2023 #76
That would exclude Andrew then. He's still in disgrace. nt pnwmom Mar 2023 #94
I think they will all be ok Meowmee Mar 2023 #78
Time for Harry to publish those 400 pages he left out of SPARE mainer Mar 2023 #79
Consequences Sympthsical Mar 2023 #84
I agree totally ripcord Mar 2023 #86
If your family, through your "Firm," spent years smearing you through the tabloids, pnwmom Mar 2023 #95
✔️ That was precisely their point. crickets Mar 2023 #108
I rehabbed my apartment when I lived in it Sympthsical Mar 2023 #131
I'll never understand the defense of the whole Royal Family's vast entitlement, pnwmom Mar 2023 #132
Thank you. kskiska Mar 2023 #134
I hope they are compensated for the money they put into it. gldstwmn Mar 2023 #93
It was refurbished at taxpayer expense. kskiska Mar 2023 #111
Yes, and now they should reimburse Harry for the money he spent on renovations, pnwmom Mar 2023 #112
Exactly. Why is this so hard for people to understand? gldstwmn Mar 2023 #116
That doesn't sound like taxpayer expense. Nt lostnfound Mar 2023 #126
Here's a very recent article from BBC.... Talitha Mar 2023 #113
heh. Andrew doesn't even WANT the cottage lol Takket Mar 2023 #115
The King sends a message. LudwigPastorius Mar 2023 #117
James O'Brien imagines right-wing headlines in an alternate reality Ptah Mar 2023 #133
Meanwhile look at Will and Kate's "Many, many houses" mainer Mar 2023 #137
Look on the bright side, they can make another documentary and write a book about it. SYFROYH Mar 2023 #140
What kind of wedding present takes $2.9 M to refurbish? milestogo Mar 2023 #141
A two hundred year old house in poor condition, with saggy floor joints, ceiling beams, pnwmom Mar 2023 #148
The cottage belongs to the crown Dorian Gray Mar 2023 #149

Demobrat

(8,976 posts)
1. No way to guess if it's true or not.
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 02:34 PM
Mar 2023

The British tabs say whatever they want and the palace refuses to refute the lies, which is why Harry and Meghan left in the first place.

I can totally see Charles (Camilla) doing this, especially since they don’t spend time there. That’s just me though.

Peacetrain

(22,875 posts)
5. Since they do not allow them security even if they pay for their own. I just can't see a grandparent
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 02:38 PM
Mar 2023

putting his grandchildren (even if he is mad at his son) in harms way like that.. I am hoping and praying that this is one of those made up things that the tabloids chase themselves around in circles with.. sheesh..

ProudMNDemocrat

(16,784 posts)
2. Charles wants a fancy Coronation and Performers are turning him down.
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 02:36 PM
Mar 2023

Acting like a dick to his son is not winning him many fans.

Charles III's reign will not be a happy one. William's either when it comes time being that the brothers are estranged. Rumor has it, all is not all that cheeky with him and Kate either.

Oh to be a Royal these days.

sdfernando

(4,935 posts)
20. I commented a year or more ago
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 03:22 PM
Mar 2023

that when Queen Elizabeth died, Charles would preside over an ever shrinking kingdom. I still believe that.

pinkstarburst

(1,327 posts)
3. Why should they keep it?
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 02:36 PM
Mar 2023

They no longer live in the UK. They have zero need for a mansion on the other side of the pond that stands unused 99% of the time. How wasteful and ridiculous.

They just released both a Netflix series and Harry's memoir, plus countless interviews, all trashing the royal family. Surely this could not have come as a surprise?

I absolutely loathe Andrew. Like H/M, he is not a working royal. However, he DOES actually live in the UK, so he would actually use the residence. Also according to the article, is likely being forced to vacate another mansion, which is also pricey to maintain. So I think Charles is slimming down costs for the crown/taxpayers, which I have to say is overall a good thing.


Peacetrain

(22,875 posts)
9. So they cannot have security.. the one place that was secure for them was Frogmore
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 02:44 PM
Mar 2023

so Charles puts his grandchildren at risk if they come over.. Harry and Meghan paid out of pocket for the refurbishment, wedding gift from the queen??.. and a pedophile sets up housekeeping .. no no no.. I cannot believe that for one second..

pinkstarburst

(1,327 posts)
30. I am no Andrew fan
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 03:41 PM
Mar 2023

I also think H/M should not possibly expect to keep a mansion that stands empty 99% of the year, particularly after they are releasing media project after media project trashing the royal family. I mean seriously, what was their expectation after doing that?

The gift from the queen was made when H/M were working royals and members in good standing of the family, not when they were releasing salacious memoirs and doing nasty Netflix series and interviews. I highly doubt if they had been doing the same before the wedding that she still would have given it to them.

mainer

(12,022 posts)
37. It's a 5- bedroom house they've been paying rent on
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 03:53 PM
Mar 2023

And the one secure place they can use while visiting. Plus they sank 3 million dollars of their own money into renovations.

Mopar151

(9,982 posts)
118. Because highborn Englishmen enjoy a spot of cruelty now 'n then.
Thu Mar 2, 2023, 01:15 AM
Mar 2023

And, in another fine tradition of the Monarchy, Because he fucking could, and you can SUCK IT!

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
156. From what I understand now, there probably wasn't a legal deed. But it was a very cheesy thing
Fri Mar 3, 2023, 01:37 PM
Mar 2023

for Charles to do, to accept repayment for the necessary renovation on a decrepit, 200 year old building (including building a new electrical substation), and then to order the couple to vacate a couple years later.

The Palace got Harry and Meghan to pay for the work on a house that was already slated for rehab, and then kicked them out!

treestar

(82,383 posts)
160. Yes looks very bad
Fri Mar 3, 2023, 09:46 PM
Mar 2023

if they visit, is he now going to have them at Buckingham Palace like a normal parent would do with out of town adult children and grandchildren visiting? He's got three palaces at least. So why not leave this one as a place to stay for the Sussexes? It's normal for this family.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
161. Well, he's the same guy who was messing around with Camilla from the first months of his marriage
Fri Mar 3, 2023, 09:56 PM
Mar 2023

to Diana.

They're used to taking advantage of people, when it suits them.

 

Hugh_Lebowski

(33,643 posts)
55. Sleeping with one 17 year old does not make one a 'pedophile'
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:28 PM
Mar 2023
"Age of consent. In each UK nation, the age at which people can legally consent to sexual activity (also known as the age of consent) is 16-years-old"


There are exceptions, such as if an adult has a position of authority over the person, like a parent or professor, or if the minor has mental disabilities.

Virginia Giuffre was 17 at the time she allegedly slept with Andrew.

And I believe her, because court records show she excitedly texted a friend "I got to sleep with a Prince!' shortly after.

Show me some proof he was aware of Epstein being a sex trafficker and I'll come down hard against him re: my opinion on this subject, but from one instance of sex with a 17yo that's not entirely substantiated, in a country where 16 is the Age of Consent? And nobody else has ever come forward claiming he abused them, esp not anyone who says it happened when they were under 16? Doesn't qualify for such a harsh and defamatory term. MHO.
 

Hugh_Lebowski

(33,643 posts)
102. I'd probably accept that critique, based on what we know or could logically presume
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 07:45 PM
Mar 2023

Not saying he's not worthy of some degree of denigration ... but I'm not sure it's worthy of branding him with paedophile status.

If for no other reason, its a simple matter of definition. Sleeping with young women well past the age of physical maturity simply does not meet ... the actual definition of that word.

True pedo's tend to leave a swath of destruction behind them, and once one person comes forward, there's a deluge. That didn't happen in this case, despite the obviously deep pockets of English royalty. It's one 17 year old, which is above legal age in the UK.

I think it's fair to say he did something wrong, and he's being punished in a LOT of ways, and I have no problem with that. But calling him pedo I think is over the top.

MHO.

 

Hugh_Lebowski

(33,643 posts)
104. I'm fine with disgusting creep, but pedophile seems harsh based on what we know
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 07:58 PM
Mar 2023

And you jumped into a convo where I was addressing someone else who called him pedo, so ... probably the cause of our disconnect, if we have one.

I love your avatar by the way. I climbed Half Dome when I was 20 (not the face, the cables on the backside) and Yosemite is like my home away from home



obamanut2012

(26,068 posts)
14. Because they own it
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 02:52 PM
Mar 2023

They can decide to do what they want with it, not someone who forgets why one of the previous Charles lost his head.

Baltimike

(4,143 posts)
135. Where is your evidence they did?
Thu Mar 2, 2023, 06:54 PM
Mar 2023

They did NOT pay it back...they were making installment payments that were added to their rent. Now KCIII will absorb the cost of both, allowing the duo to find their freedom

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
138. It was reported in 2020 by the BBC and the NYT, among others, and was not contradicted by The Firm,
Thu Mar 2, 2023, 07:23 PM
Mar 2023

Last edited Thu Mar 2, 2023, 08:20 PM - Edit history (1)

which has shown little reluctance to leak disparaging information about Harry and Meghan over the years.



https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/08/world/europe/harry-meghan-frogmore-cottage.html

James Holt, a spokesman for the couple, said Harry had repaid the money to the Sovereign Grant, the public fund that goes to the royal family. The contribution “fully covered the necessary renovation costs of Frogmore Cottage,” the spokesman said.

The couple’s announcement came less than a week after they signed a megadeal with Netflix to create documentaries, documentary series, feature films, scripted shows and children’s programming under a new production company. It was not immediately clear how much the couple would be paid.

SNIP

“It was something that kept looming, rearing its ugly head, and now that can be put to bed,” said Penny Junor, a royal biographer.

Baltimike

(4,143 posts)
143. That's according to HARRY'S spokesperson, and we have SEEN how the duo LIES
Thu Mar 2, 2023, 09:38 PM
Mar 2023

Also, for the record, the Queen did not GIVE them Frogmore Cottage as it is not hers to give...she permitted them to assume a rental of the property...so when they say "gift", it was just being lazy.

As with Amber Heard, a pledge is NOT a payout:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/08/world/europe/harry-meghan-frogmore-cottage.html

The couple had pledged to refund taxpayers for work on Frogmore Cottage after giving up royal duties in January.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
144. You missed the verb tense: "had pledged."
Thu Mar 2, 2023, 10:13 PM
Mar 2023

In January 2020, they "had pledged."

In Sept 2020, they REPAID the 2.4 million pounds.

Why would Harry lie about that, when a lie could be easily be disproven by the Palace?

No one from the Palace has ever contradicted Harry's spokesperson, despite all the stories that were written about this. And we have SEEN how the Firm has freely leaked disparaging stories in the past. If Harry had been lying, the Palace would have set the record straight.


Baltimike

(4,143 posts)
158. Harry would lie about that in the same vein that they said the place was a gift
Fri Mar 3, 2023, 02:59 PM
Mar 2023

from the Queen. I readily agree that was what was said far and wide...alas, the place belongs to the Crown, not the monarch, and isn't hers to give.

It is inaccurate to say it was a gift JUST as it is inaccurate to say they paid it back. They did not. They added installments to their rent as a means to eventually pay it all back.

They don't have to do that anymore.

Or, put it this way: they paid the entirety of that back like Amber Heard actually donated her divorce settlement.

Both used that FRAUD Christopher Bouzy, among other LIES...and there are a LOT of them.

There's a reason the Obama's have distanced themselves from them, and if we don't tell the truth, we are allowing the far right to hang their ish around our necks like an albatross, and we would have deserved it.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
159. The Palace announced the cottage was a gift from the Queen. That wasn't a lie on Harry's part.
Fri Mar 3, 2023, 03:47 PM
Mar 2023

Last edited Fri Mar 3, 2023, 04:41 PM - Edit history (1)


And Harry and Megan paid back the balance on the 2.4 million renovation costs in full when they made the Netflix deal in 2020.

But why should they have had to bear ANY cost of renovating a decrepit 200 year old building with sagging floors and ceiling joints, and an electrical and heating system that was so old they had to build a new electrical substation? A house that was on the Palace's list of properties in line to be rehabbed? What sort of gift giver requires the receiver to spend millions of their own money making the "gift" habitable? And then evicts the giftee without paying them back for the cost of the renovations?

It made some sense when the Prince was living there. But it was a cheap gift from The Firm, to be allowed to spend his own money fixing up a house that here would have been a teardown. But what a deal the Palace got -- someone else to fund the millions it cost to make their teardown livable.

Baltimike

(4,143 posts)
162. Exactly. The palace announced a GIFT that WASN'T one.
Sat Mar 4, 2023, 09:46 AM
Mar 2023

They called it a gift for expediency...we are a FOREIGN nation to Britain, and NO, Harry did NOT pay off the balance when Netflix happened. There was an additional fee tacked to their RENT (aside: they were paying RENT the ENTIRE time because THEY, the FOREIGN half of the couple at least) KNEW it wasn't a GIFT...

and that proves my point. It was called a GIFT in the same way the refurbishment money was said to be "paid off". It wasn't.

Also, it wasn't a gift. Not in the same way Americans consider gifts.

This is the first I have heard of anything being a tear down, but that is a moot point. They did NOT pay off the refurbishment money...even though they said they did...JUST like they called the place a gift when it in fact, was not.

Frogmore House is owned by the PEOPLE...the crown estate. The queen could not and cannot GIFT them something she did not own. THEY knew this even though we did not. THEY know this now, and still called it a gift.

The last time Harry and Meghan were in London, they stayed at the Goring Hotel, not Frogmore House.

It tells you all you need to know

pinkstarburst

(1,327 posts)
127. So you seriously believe that
Thu Mar 2, 2023, 09:20 AM
Mar 2023

Charles owns Buckingham Palace. Like he could sell it to the Saudis on e-bay? Or that Biden owns the White House? This was not a "gift" in that they own the property. They were "gifted" the right to stay there, and it was surely done with the understanding that Harry and Meghan were going to be living in the UK and continuing as working Royals. If H/M had been currently living full time in the US, and had renounced being working royals, and had written all this nasty media about the RF, I highly doubt she would have made the same gesture.

It's simply inappropriate for a huge mansion that the taxpayers support to stand empty 99% of the year just so H/M can use it on a whim when their life is mostly based in the US. Charles, though I do not agree with everything he had done, and certainly do not like Andrew, is correct to try to downsize the monarchy. He is also reportedly going to be opening up some of the family estates to tourism.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
145. Well if Harry didn't own it, and the Crown Estate still did,
Thu Mar 2, 2023, 10:23 PM
Mar 2023

then why didn't The Firm pay for the cost of rehabbing its own two hundred year old building, which was being used as a multi-family servants' quarters before it was "given" to Harry?

The Firm made quite a killing on that fake "gift." They got Harry and Meghan to pay millions for the cost of rehabbing it, and now The Firm has a totally updated building for free. Since Harry's been paying rent all along, bearing the rehab cost wasn't a substitute for rent.

So there is only one fair and ethical thing for the Crown Estate to do: it should immediately reimburse Harry and Meghan for the costs of upgrading its property.

Lucky Andrew. No one's asking Epstein's pal to pay for the rehab.

The Queen's former chef Darren McGrady has revealed that Frogmore Cottage – Prince Harry and Meghan's new country home – used to serve as accommodation for junior chefs. Staff quarters were basic and "a little bit run-down," he tells HELLO! exclusively. But once renovation work is complete, the royal cottage could be big enough to house 12 bedrooms.

Darren, who lived next door to the Cottage at Frogmore Stables from 1985 to 1993, revealed: "When I was there, Frogmore Cottage was split into five different homes. Staff accommodation was run by the Crown properties so it was paid for by the government and they never really overspend. It was a fantastic location – you're in the Queen's back garden – but a little bit run-down. If something wanted repairing it would just be repaired, it would never be replaced. The staff quarters were never the most luxurious so I can imagine there's a lot of work to be done to turn them into royal accommodation."


https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2018112865050/royal-chef-describes-prince-harry-meghan-markle-frogmore-cottage/

treestar

(82,383 posts)
155. surely done with the understanding
Fri Mar 3, 2023, 08:22 AM
Mar 2023

how sure? Is it written somewhere? We'd have to know the legalities of these things to decide if the King can take it back. The monarch doesn't just do whatever they want now.

For that matter Richard II found out that he couldn't just take a dukedom, or he'd get a fight. Then he lost.

Irish_Dem

(47,014 posts)
81. They don't own it. It is on a year to year lease.
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 05:42 PM
Mar 2023

Why should British taxpayers foot the bill for someone who hates the UK and the RF.
And is a national security risk.

pinkstarburst

(1,327 posts)
128. Correct
Thu Mar 2, 2023, 09:23 AM
Mar 2023

And why should a huge mansion like that be unused for most of the year when H/M have decided they want to live permanently in the US? It's simply ridiculous to me that anyone would think this is something they should be entitled to when they don't even live in the UK anymore.

Scrivener7

(50,949 posts)
18. I see your point. If I were British, though, I'd be pissed it was going to the sex offender.
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 03:02 PM
Mar 2023

Along with my tax dollars.

pinkstarburst

(1,327 posts)
32. I do not believe H/M
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 03:43 PM
Mar 2023

are particularly popular over there, either. Didn't the article say this got Andrew out of another mansion? I think this move may serve dual purposes to reduce the burden on the taxpayer, get rid of a mansion that was standing empty almost all of the year, and (yes) punish H/M for their decision to trash the RF in the media.

mainer

(12,022 posts)
21. It was granted to them by the Queen
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 03:22 PM
Mar 2023

They have been paying rent on it, and paid almost 3 million dollars to make it livable— out of their own pockets. Now Charles kicks them out without compensation and gives it to his pedo brother. Not a good look.

crickets

(25,969 posts)
50. Agreed.
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:17 PM
Mar 2023

Harry and Megan put a lot of money and work into a house that previously had been subdivided into five servants' quarters. They'd turned it into a nice home and were paying the lease on it out of their own pockets. It was incredibly petty to rescind a grandmother's wedding present, just as it was incredibly petty of Camilla to turn Harry's Clarence House bedroom into a personal dressing room.

Good for Harry for moving away and making a new family based on love and respect. The family he's left behind often treated him like dirt well before he left.

pinkstarburst

(1,327 posts)
53. I don't find either of those actions petty
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:22 PM
Mar 2023

When I moved out after college, my mother turned my old childhood bedroom into a room for her own personal use. It wasn't about not loving me. It was about the fact that I no longer lived there. The space no longer needed to be a shrine to my band posters and my little pony collection, lol.

Same deal with Harry. He was a grown man who had moved out and was living his adult life. He no longer lived in Clarence House and therefore it was perfectly correct of Camilla, who DID live there, to turn his childhood bedroom into something she could use on a daily basis. Parents all over the world do this and there's nothing odd about it.

mainer

(12,022 posts)
58. Did you pay your mom 3 million dollars in reno, plus rent?
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:33 PM
Mar 2023

I think you might be miffed if she then gave your bedroom to your pedo uncle, when you'd been paying rent for the place.

Baltimike

(4,143 posts)
62. They haven't paid the refurbishment back...they were paying installments
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:38 PM
Mar 2023

with the rent, so KCIII is actually helping them with money, since they won't have to pay most of it back now

mainer

(12,022 posts)
72. You're repeating disinformation. They paid it back
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:46 PM
Mar 2023

It was reported in the Sovereign Grant Report.

This year’s Sovereign Grant report revealed that the Sussexes paid 5 months’ rent for Frogmore Cottage before they came to an agreement to repay the redevelopment costs which had come from the public purse.

That rent, plus the returned £2.4 million, has settled their account with the Queen’s treasurers until March 2022.


https://www.itv.com/news/2021-06-23/roya-finances-hit-by-covid-19-by-helped-by-harry-and-meghan

crickets

(25,969 posts)
71. True, but not many parents all over the world
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:46 PM
Mar 2023

have multiple castles and large country estates with dozens of bedrooms to choose from when deciding which one to remodel. With all of the bedrooms available to her, Camilla took Harry's. Given it's no secret they didn't get along very well (with good reason on Harry's part) yes, it's very likely it was deliberate and petty and he had every right to be a bit hurt by that.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
120. But your mother is your mother. What Camilla did was a very thoughtless thing to do
Thu Mar 2, 2023, 01:58 AM
Mar 2023

to a stepson who had lost his mother in a tragic accident. As soon as he moved out as a young man, she decided to send him a message that her clothes were more important to her and to Charles than Diana's son was.

brush

(53,775 posts)
36. Shouldn't Harry and Meghan be compensated for their....
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 03:49 PM
Mar 2023

refurbishing costs if Charles turns the cottage over to his disgraced brother?

pinkstarburst

(1,327 posts)
51. Why?
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:18 PM
Mar 2023

The cottage was originally used as apartments for palace staff. They decided to completely remodel it, then decided to stop being working royals and move overseas, all within a few short years. Why should the UK taxpayers pick up a multi-million dollar remodeling tab because H/M change their minds every few years and up and move? They then bought a 15 million dollar mansion in Montecito, which they are now selling just a year or two later.

I do not feel this is an expense the taxpayers should have to pay for.

brush

(53,775 posts)
57. So the racism Meghan was subjected to, and the reason for their...
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:31 PM
Mar 2023

decision to step down as working royals and the move to California is of no consequence to you?

Why should they have to put up with that?

brush

(53,775 posts)
73. Some of the Brit press certainly has been. You have to be aware of that.
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:48 PM
Mar 2023

And what about the minor royal wearing the Blackamoor jewelry to an event with Harry and Meghan?

Racism is not to be tolerated. Don't you agree?

Baltimike

(4,143 posts)
77. Princess Michael of Kent, who wore the racist broach,
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 05:03 PM
Mar 2023

has to curtsy to Meghan. Really.

After that, they said on Oprah the RF was racist, and then turned around and LIED their ever loving asses off...about a LOT.

Racism isn't to be tolerated, and neither is LYING or race baiting to obfuscate for those lies. Don't you agree?

crickets

(25,969 posts)
105. Here's an article that came out at the time:
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 08:15 PM
Mar 2023
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a14481097/princess-michael-of-kent-racist-brooch/

When Meghan Markle attended the Queen's Christmas luncheon yesterday at Buckingham Palace, she joined about 50 members of the royal family at the gathering, from Prince William and Kate Middleton, to Prince Harry's cousins Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice. And while the former actress mingled with extended members of her fiancé's family, not all first impressions were pleasant.

Princess Michael of Kent—wife of Prince Michael of Kent, Queen Elizabeth II's first cousin—was spotted wearing a racially offensive brooch on her coat while arriving to the palace with her husband. The accessory is a piece of blackamoor jewelry, which fetishize images of slavery.


Apparently this wasn't the first time Princess Michael was caught being... herself.

She later apologized, sort of.

https://www.newsweek.com/royal-racist-brooch-meghan-markle-princess-michael-retire-duties-1716789

In the fallout of the event the royal apologized via a spokesperson who said that the princess was "very sorry and distressed" that the brooch "caused offense".

They then went on to add that: "The brooch was a gift and has been worn many times before."


brush

(53,775 posts)
106. I knew about the brooch and the intent of the minor royal.
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 08:24 PM
Mar 2023

I mentioned it in my response to Poster number 77, who I'm still waiting to hear from.

crickets

(25,969 posts)
109. Yikes! I'm so sorry.
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 08:40 PM
Mar 2023

This thread has gotten long and convoluted, and I lost track for a moment. Apologies.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
97. No, he hasn't. He said that certain named individuals were not racist.
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 07:31 PM
Mar 2023

That implied that others were.

ON EDIT: I see that recently he's been trying to walk his earlier comments back, saying they weren't "racist." They had "unconscious bias." Yeah, right. When they were feeding the racist stories to the tabloids, they were unconsciously biased.

Dorian Gray

(13,493 posts)
151. I don't dislike Harry and Meghan
Fri Mar 3, 2023, 07:08 AM
Mar 2023

I think they're totally fine.

But they're NOT living in Frogmore Cottage. I don't understand why people are upset about this.

They're asked to move their stuff so someone can live there and they can consolidate costs.

Maybe they'll be reimbursed for the $3 million they spent on updating the cottage. (Which was paid for by the trust until they decided to NOT be working royals.) I don't know. Let the Royal trust work out those details.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
87. If it was a gift to them, they owned it. If they invested over $2million into rehabbing it
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 07:19 PM
Mar 2023

they should at least be reimbursed.

Dorian Gray

(13,493 posts)
150. yes
Fri Mar 3, 2023, 06:25 AM
Mar 2023

i think the way this is being reported is sensationalizing it.

They aren't living there anyhow. Who cares?

MontanaMama

(23,313 posts)
4. I don't doubt it.
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 02:37 PM
Mar 2023

The royal family is having a big mad over Harry and Meghan going public with the sick and twisted way The Institution runs itself. In addition, the Institution can't find any A list musicians to perform at King Charles' upcoming coronation. Elton John, Adele, Harry Styles among others have declined the invitation...so, The Institution is probably blaming Harry and Meghan for that too. Circling their wagons, I guess.

https://americansongwriter.com/elton-john-adele-harry-styles-and-more-unable-to-perform-at-king-charles-iiis-coronation/

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/king-charles-coronation-big-stars-not-performing-adele-harry-styles-1234688981/

Peacetrain

(22,875 posts)
10. MontanaMama, I truly believe this has to be a tabloid hoax
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 02:46 PM
Mar 2023

chasing itself.. its mind boggling, that Charles would put his own children and grandchildren at risk..

MontanaMama

(23,313 posts)
39. I hope that its a hoax but
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 03:55 PM
Mar 2023

Charles has done it before and there's nothing stopping him from doing it again. I read Spare. It is shocking how senior royals treat each other.

Peacetrain

(22,875 posts)
41. I guess it isn't.. Meghan is an American, her kids are Americans.. its time to put their
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:01 PM
Mar 2023

welfare about some family history of destroying each other.. the only upside of this thing is Meghan's family is as out to lunch as Harrys even more so... and I would not trust them within a hundred miles of those kids.. It is still mind boggling to me.. and I so want it to be a hoax.. I just don't even begin to understand how they could put the grandchildren at risk.. and doing this is exactly what that does.. sad sad sad

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
139. The Palace has already made it clear that the safety of Prince Harry and his family is of no concern
Thu Mar 2, 2023, 07:30 PM
Mar 2023

Prince Harry has asked for Palace bodyguards, which he would pay for HIMSELF, because the private security he has lacks the access to intelligence that the official bodyguards have.

And the Palace has refused him, in effect saying that that would be opening the door to anyone who wanted special bodyguards.

But Harry and his family will always be at special risk, especially in Britain, because of his status in the Royal Family.

And, please, when you talk about Meghan's family, don't forget about her mother, who is the one who primarily raised her. She seems like a good person, whose mistake was in marrying the narcissist.

brush

(53,775 posts)
40. Heehee. Charles and Camilla are getting it back in spades...
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:01 PM
Mar 2023

on not just their treatment of Harry and Meghan, but of Princess Diana as well.

He's been king for a while now, why go through with the whole coronation business, especially since he's not that popular and no A-listers want to be bothered?

Will no one rid us of this bothersome king and his requests?

mainer

(12,022 posts)
60. Plus, Charles gave millions in trust to Camilla's kids
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:36 PM
Mar 2023

He's willing to support her kids, but not his own kid and grandkids.

mainer

(12,022 posts)
75. trust funds for camilla's kids
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:51 PM
Mar 2023

T

he Evening Standard has learned he has established substantial trust funds for Tom and Laura Parker Bowles to ensure their financial independence.

It is understood Charles is concerned at the focus switching to her children once he and Mrs Parker Bowles are married - exposing them to the same security concerns and media attention now focused on Princes William and Harry.

https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/prince-sets-up-trust-funds-for-camilla-s-son-and-daughter-7191685.html

obamanut2012

(26,068 posts)
15. I do, just don't read threads about it
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 02:54 PM
Mar 2023

And stop snarking about those of us interested in this.

Which is what this post of yours does.

mainer

(12,022 posts)
22. No, it's not just silly gossip
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 03:25 PM
Mar 2023

It’s an example of how tabloid media perverts attitudes and inspires hate. Meghan Markle needed to be smeared.

tritsofme

(17,377 posts)
23. These people are little more than British versions of the Kardashians
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 03:27 PM
Mar 2023

Just reality tv stars trying to make a buck.

mainer

(12,022 posts)
24. Have you read SPARE?
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 03:31 PM
Mar 2023

If not, you have no idea what the serious issues are.

This is a matter of serious consideration by media scholars.

https://open.substack.com/pub/asharangappa/p/what-harry-and-meghan-can-teach-us?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Column by : Asha Rangappa (born 1974) is an American lawyer, former FBI agent, senior lecturer at Yale University’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, and a commentator on MSNBC and CNN. She was previously an associate dean at Yale Law School.[1] She is serving as a senior lecturer at Yale Jackson Institute for Global Affairs.[2] Rangappa is also a member of the board of editors of Just Security.[3]

Maraya1969

(22,479 posts)
35. These are actual people. Sure they were born rich, (except for Megan) but that does not
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 03:47 PM
Mar 2023

mean they do not suffer just like everyone else.

You can buy really fancy China and love it and I guarantee after a few months of using it you will not even notice that it is any different than a McDonald's burger box. Same with most things rich people have.

Megan Markle has talked about how she was suicidal because of the way the British press treats her and Harry talks about how he suffered after his mom died. (After the funeral the boys were expected to go out and great the other mourners who offered them flowers. Harry remarked how it was so surreal that they had to put on a happy face right after they got back from his mother's funeral)

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
147. And the Royal Family is the British version of Disneyland,
Fri Mar 3, 2023, 04:42 AM
Mar 2023

except much more entitled than any Disney worker.

mainer

(12,022 posts)
63. Read SPARE. The palace leaks dirt whenever one of their own is vulnerable
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:38 PM
Mar 2023

We've already seen the side-by-side tabloid articles comparing Kate and Meghan.

Eating avocados:
Kate eats healthy!
Meghan eats a crop that could ruin the earth!

Touching their baby bump
Kate: how cute she's cradling her baby!
Meghan: Show-off!

etc, etc

brush

(53,775 posts)
67. Ok. I see. From the flat statement that Meghan needed to be...
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:42 PM
Mar 2023

smeared, and with no explanation, I thought you were in favor of that.

Thank God, that's not the case.

MontanaMama

(23,313 posts)
82. Spare was shocking to me.
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 05:57 PM
Mar 2023

I knew most of the royals were a sketchy bunch but I really did not understand how they would be willing to sacrifice one of their own to further their personal agendas. They would happily throw Meghan and Harry to the wolves and they did over and over.

The part that really got me was when Harry realized how good Meghan was at being a royal...he equated her success with that of his own mother and in that moment he knew she would be in danger from the tabloid media but also William, Kate, Charles and Camilla. He knew they would see her as a threat because she was so well liked by the public...just like Diana. They made sure the tabloids had all they needed/wanted to destroy her.

pandr32

(11,581 posts)
16. Seriously?
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 03:00 PM
Mar 2023

The Manson family terrorized and cut people to shreds and then used their blood to write chilling messages all over the walls. This is not what "dysfunctional" is used to describe, and show me a family, royal or otherwise, that is not somewhat dysfunctional.

Peacetrain

(22,875 posts)
31. Ahh sweet Jesus...
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 03:42 PM
Mar 2023

Well for the safety issues for Harry and Meghan.. I hope this puts the whole idea of them setting foot in England for the coronation to bed once and for all. It is not a safe place for them to be.. especially the babies..

Boomerproud

(7,952 posts)
70. Andrew has his own home, Sunnyville or something
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:46 PM
Mar 2023

I thought one of his daughters has lived at Frogmore since Harry and Meghan moved to the States.

gldstwmn

(4,575 posts)
100. If I had to guess, I would say they are trying to kick him out of that one and downsize him into
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 07:41 PM
Mar 2023

this one. He was the Queen's favorite and now that she is no longer around Chucky and Camilla probably don't want to pay for him any more.

phylny

(8,380 posts)
107. Yes, I believe
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 08:25 PM
Mar 2023

Eugenie and her husband lived there on invitation of Harry and Meghan but moved out.

I do believe that Charles and Camilla are exactly this cruel and uncaring. The royal family pulled Harry and Meghan‘s security, knowing that she was the target of very frightening and malicious death threats.

pinkstarburst

(1,327 posts)
129. The article said Andrew was being moved into
Thu Mar 2, 2023, 09:29 AM
Mar 2023

Frogmore, which would mean he's being moved out of the larger, more expensive place. I don't like everything Charles does, but I agree with him downsizing the monarchy and taking reasonable actions to not overburden the taxpayers. Putting Andrew in a smaller place is a good move. Harry and Meghan certainly do not need a mansion that stands empty 99% of the year when their life is based in the US either. They have made no secret of what they think of the UK and the royal family and that's their decision. But they can't be shocked when their smear campaign (Spare, the Netflix series, all the interviews) comes with the revoking of certain royal perks. And yes, I acknowledge smear campaigns happen on both sides. The RF is not innocent of this either. When you get down in the mud and have a fight with pigs, you get dirty, and both H/M and the royal family are coming away from this looking bad.

crickets

(25,969 posts)
47. There never was one.
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:08 PM
Mar 2023
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63922657

The Sussexes' global press secretary, Ashley Hansen, said in a written statement: "The Duke and Duchess have never cited privacy as the reason for stepping back. This distorted narrative was intended to trap the couple into silence.

"In fact, their statement announcing their decision to step back mentions nothing of privacy and reiterates their desire to continue their roles and public duties. Any suggestion otherwise speaks to a key point of this series.

"They are choosing to share their story, on their terms, and yet the tabloid media has created an entirely untrue narrative that permeates press coverage and public opinion. The facts are right in front of them."


Privacy wasn't the issue. Constant (often false or distorted) press leaks by courtiers and other members of the royal family were the problem. Notice that this story was not released or mentioned by either of them, and they have been silent on the matter.

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
68. bravo
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:43 PM
Mar 2023

...a good reminder of why this royal scandal exists in the first place.

Weird, as well, how many folks declaring their aversion to royalty can't seem to recognize any cause in this sibling's plight fighting to remain out from under their influence and manipulations.

SYFROYH

(34,169 posts)
142. Harry told Oprah that getting away from the media was a big part of their decision
Thu Mar 2, 2023, 09:07 PM
Mar 2023




Yes spokespersons and even Harry are now saying it’s about telling their own story, but video doesn’t lie.

crickets

(25,969 posts)
146. No, the video does not lie.
Thu Mar 2, 2023, 11:51 PM
Mar 2023

Harry is outlining the problems with the British press coverage exactly as I stated in my prior post. Constant (often false or distorted) press leaks by courtiers and other members of the royal family were the problem. The sad fact is that members of the royal family have a strategy for dealing with bad press: release something about another member to take the heat off and change the subject. This was covered extensively in the Netflix series as well as in Spare, and also has been covered in the press both before and after recent events. Harry was weary of having things that had been shared with a family member in confidence leaked to the press against his wishes or without his knowledge. His own father threw him under the bus more than once to make himself look better, and when Harry tried to talk to him about problems with the royal family and media coverage, his response was, "Darling boy, you can’t take on the media. The media will always be the media." Horrendous.

This is what he's talking about when he says his father and brother are trapped. He's sympathetic, but refuses to stay in the messy royal/tabloid relationship with them. He is unwilling to allow what happened to his mother happen to his wife, and I admire him for that.

https://archive.ph/ZxmEu (NYT)

It was all transactional. Sandy Henney, a former press secretary, said of Charles: “When I joined his office in ’93 he was going through some pretty virulent criticism — ‘Bad father, unloving husband.’ I think he was pretty hurt.” She said Bolland worked to change Charles’s image. Leaking to the media was reportedly one way to curry favor. “Brilliant manipulator,” Henney said of Bolland. “He got the result that he wanted.” (Bolland denied these accusations.)

Bolland was also accused of approving a News of the World article claiming a 16-year-old Harry had taken drugs, in exchange for praise for Charles for taking Harry to a rehab center, illustrated with what the tabloid said were photos of the visit. Harry writes that the seven-page tabloid spread left him sickened and horrified, and that the photos were from an earlier official visit he had made to the center. Bolland later admitted the sequence of events was distorted to make Charles look better. The coverage, after Diana’s death, spun the portrayal of Charles. “No more the unfaithful husband,” as Harry puts it in his memoir. “Pa would now be presented to the world as the harried single dad.”


Harry, as the spare, was not as important as "the principals" and therefore was a convenient punching bag when need arose. The above is just one example of the willingness for the Firm to deal in outright lies to get the desired results. One benefit of leaving was not just getting away from the British press, but getting away from the royal PR offices. It wasn't privacy (as in disappearing from public life) so much as wresting access and control of private information away from courtiers and other royal family members, and therefore also the British tabloids.

After their mother's death, Harry and William had promised one another they would never behave this way toward one another, would never kowtow to the press. When the Firm (in this case, William) was willing to put Harry's name to a press release he had never seen until it was published, that was the last straw.

https://archive.ph/48cL8 (Vogue)

According to Meghan and Harry, when the fraying thread between the Sussexes and the Firm was finally severed, it wasn’t just over the media, but his family’s inability to defend the couple from it. On the day of the so-called “Sandringham Summit,” the contentious January 2020 meeting in which Prince Harry convened with the queen, Prince Charles, and Prince William to hammer out an exit plan, The Times in London published a story saying that the princes “fell out” because Prince William was unfriendly to Meghan. The Palace swiftly released a joint statement from Prince William and Prince Harry—which Harry says he never actually signed off on—emphatically denying the story.

“I rang M and she burst into floods of tears,” Harry says somberly, “because within four hours, they were happy to lie to protect my brother, and yet for three years, they were never willing to tell the truth to protect us.” (The “lie” he’s referring to, one can presume, is the inclusion of Harry’s name on a statement he didn’t know about, and not Prince William’s reported bullying.)


"Never complain, never explain" was the mantra of Queen Elizabeth, but this was not always followed. There have been occasional exceptions to defend Kate, to defend William, to defend Charles. Even when Harry begged for it, when it had gotten so bad that Meghan was getting death threats, there was no defense for her.

Harry and Meghan left because there was no way to have a healthy relationship, to raise their children in a safe and healthy environment, and for Meghan herself to remain safe and healthy if they stayed. Nowhere did they ever say that they wanted privacy completely away from any involvement with the public or the media in general. They wanted to get away from the royal pipeline to British media and they wanted to stop being used as convenient conversation changers for the other royals.

As mentioned in the press statement in my above post, the "privacy" meme was all about shutting them up. It didn't work, nor should it. They are free to be themselves as privately or publicly as they choose. For those who are tired of hearing about them: ignore them.

Also, they've known about the eviction for weeks. They were informed 24 hours after Spare dropped. They didn't say a word about it. The timing is obvious - it was a punishment. It's one of the few punishments Charles has left and it didn't work. The timing for the public to find out about it is also obvious. How embarrassing for Charles that none of the invited musical guests want to perform at his coronation. Subject change! 🙄

After reading Spare, I'd stopped paying any attention myself. If it hadn't been for this story, I wouldn't have known about Charles and his coronation woes, boo hoo, so in my case that kinda backfired on him. Oops.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
91. You mean their "we're setting the record straight after years of being smeared with
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 07:24 PM
Mar 2023

leaks by The Firm to the tabloid press." That tour.

claudette

(3,550 posts)
43. I admire Harry so much
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:03 PM
Mar 2023

After what Charles the Turd did to Princess Diana, I don’t blame Harry for leaving that family especially now that they have given Piggy Camilla the title of Queen instead of consort. Royalty is a joke. Blood lines don’t make them special. Harry knows this.

Demobrat

(8,976 posts)
49. I lean that way also
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:14 PM
Mar 2023

after reading Spare. Of course it is only his POV but if even a fraction is true I don’t blame him a bit for choosing the family he created over the family he was born into. It’s what real men do.

claudette

(3,550 posts)
69. Exactly
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:44 PM
Mar 2023

All families have their ups and downs but the trauma of losing his mother that way had a different effect on him than Will. I truly empathize with Harry. If his happiness is here with his lovely wife and beautiful children then I applaud his decision. Here’s hoping he’ll become an American citizen!!🤤

Ilsa

(61,694 posts)
83. I'm very impressed that he chose his wife over the
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 06:16 PM
Mar 2023

family he was born into. Leaving GB took guts, and I'm glad they are in the US. I respect him for his military service, too. It couldn't have been a picnic living in the desert.

kskiska

(27,045 posts)
48. They never owned the property.
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:11 PM
Mar 2023

The gift from the queen was a lease or tenancy agreement allowing them to live there, and pay rent for it, but such leases always have clauses allowing either party to end them. H&M hardly use it and the taxpayers will be paying for security on it and maintenance so it's only right they give it up.

pinkstarburst

(1,327 posts)
56. I agree
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:28 PM
Mar 2023

I highly doubt the queen would have gifted the lease/tenancy allowing them to live there had circumstances been what they are in 2023--them living in the US full time, and only coming the UK on rare occasion. People are saying it's not a good look for the monarchy, but it's also not a good look for the monarchy to have the taxpayers responsible for security and maintenance on a property that is being used only a few days per year, especially a huge mansion. Charles has been trying to slim down the monarchy and cut costs, and I think that is a reasonable goal.

WarGamer

(12,440 posts)
66. For as much as Harry and Meghan hate the Royals... I doubt they'd ever return to it anyways.
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:39 PM
Mar 2023

Their estate down the street from Oprah will just have to do...

canetoad

(17,153 posts)
74. Like it or not
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 04:50 PM
Mar 2023

The key phrase here is "Working Royals".

It looks like Charles intends to make family members who draw from the public purse earn their keep. H & M decided to leave. End of story.

Meowmee

(5,164 posts)
78. I think they will all be ok
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 05:07 PM
Mar 2023

They all have tons of money, personal wealth included, above any estates that are not officially owned and belong to the public.

mainer

(12,022 posts)
79. Time for Harry to publish those 400 pages he left out of SPARE
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 05:33 PM
Mar 2023

He didn't include them because he said they would be "damaging" to the royal family.
Well, mate, the gloves are off. Go for it.

Sympthsical

(9,073 posts)
84. Consequences
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 06:37 PM
Mar 2023

Actions have them.

I'm also curious where this universe exists where I can slam my family full-time as an actual job and then expect to live at home. Like the "How dare they do this!" sentiment is worlds apart from what my parents raised me to have as far as functioning adult expectations in my relationships with other people.

"I'm making millions shitting all over you. You owe me a rental agreement!" Who thinks this way? What kind of entitlement psychology is happening here? They're barely there to begin with. They don't work for the family and they don't live there anymore. Should they have left it a shrine for their general awesomeness?

That $3 million was initially footed by the taxpayers but reimbursed when they decided to leave the country, because that would have been a look and a half PR-wise. It was probably part of their exit agreement. Until then, they were completely content letting everyone else pay for it.

Anyway, this is hilarious. Any time the real world infringes on them is entertaining. The whining will be epic and imminent. Right after he *checks* goes to therapy and televises it.

What a well-adjusted celebrity who is not completely in need of any adult who's not drawing money out of him to intervene at this point.

ripcord

(5,372 posts)
86. I agree totally
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 07:12 PM
Mar 2023

I heard someone bemoaning the fact the the RF won't talk to Harry and Meghan anymore, if everything you told someone something they didn't like and it ended up in the gossip columns would you talk to them?

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
95. If your family, through your "Firm," spent years smearing you through the tabloids,
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 07:31 PM
Mar 2023

you should be able to tell your side of the story.

And no one has said Harry is disputing the Firm's right to seize the gift back. However, many of us think the Firm should repay Harry and Megan for the millions they spent rehabbing the cottage, built in 1801.

crickets

(25,969 posts)
108. ✔️ That was precisely their point.
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 08:36 PM
Mar 2023

They just wanted to tell their story - they did, and now they've moved on to other things. Far from just soaking up money for themselves, their ventures include many activities centered around charities. Whether they care about getting any of the Frogmore reno money back or not, it's doubtful they'd say so in public.

Sympthsical

(9,073 posts)
131. I rehabbed my apartment when I lived in it
Thu Mar 2, 2023, 11:52 AM
Mar 2023

Paid for all sorts of things, because I wanted it to be more comfortable, functional, better looking, etc. They weren't really the province of the landlord's obligation. Probably thousands and thousands of dollars of touch ups and improvements.

On the day I left, I didn't present an itemized list of all the money I spent improving the place. Because I knew it was something I was doing for myself that no one else was obligated to do for me.

Unlike these two who cheerfully allowed taxpayers to pay for it and only agreed to settle up once they declared they weren't going to live there anyway. Because that would have been a pretty big PR hit, and I'm sure the royal family didn't want the look of that either.

I'll never understand the emotional investment in them or the defense of their vast entitlement. How does anyone look at these enormously privileged people, their entitlement, and their money grabs and think, "The world is so unfair to them. They deserve a bit more."

Tch. People should spend that energy at a food bank or something. Those people need the emotional investment a hell of a lot more.

At least I know I'm engaging because it's completely hilarious trashy entertainment. It's like going to the zoo. It's so rare to see humans move through life so delusional and oblivious to how the rest of the world views them. It's fascinating. And the televised therapy is just *chef's kiss* Such a perfect microcosm of that man's entire damaged psychology. Desire the money, fame, and a royal lifestyle and do it by making coin off of what a mess you are.

I thought I was tired of them. Now I'm just here for the laughs. Every situation gets more preposterous. "They deserve the house they don't live in!" Common people actually complaining about a home of rich people who don't even live there.

Like, it's so goofy! Why are people like this? What is the investment?

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
132. I'll never understand the defense of the whole Royal Family's vast entitlement,
Thu Mar 2, 2023, 04:08 PM
Mar 2023

along with the vast entitlements of all the Lords and Ladies and other members of the Peerage.

And I'll never understand the defense of the racism Meghan was subject to in the British tabloids, aided and abetted by some members of The Firm.

When Harry married Meghan, many Black British subjects were heartened, thinking their world was about to change. A Black woman, or at least the daughter of a Black mother, had been welcomed into the Royal Family. But those Black British "subjects" have been sorely let down, in a similar way to the letdown experienced by those Americans who thought Barack Obama's election meant positive change.

kskiska

(27,045 posts)
111. It was refurbished at taxpayer expense.
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 09:24 PM
Mar 2023

Harry and Meghan also spent £2.4million on renovations for Frogmore Cottage when they moved in, a cost initially covered by the taxpayer before Harry repaid the amount in full.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
112. Yes, and now they should reimburse Harry for the money he spent on renovations,
Wed Mar 1, 2023, 09:42 PM
Mar 2023

which were obviously needed for a house built in 1801.

mainer

(12,022 posts)
137. Meanwhile look at Will and Kate's "Many, many houses"
Thu Mar 2, 2023, 07:15 PM
Mar 2023

Charles takes away Harry’s lone 5-bedroom cottage while Will and Kate have a surplus of castles that just sit there:

“Prince William Kate Middleton have more properties than they know what to do with. Like, literally, they don’t even want their latest one. On top of a mansion masquerading as an apartment in London, a country home, another country home, and a “cottage” that I suspect is more like a giant house, the Prince and Princess of Wales now have themselves a castle. “

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a41196424/kate-middleton-prince-william-houses-homes-castles/

SYFROYH

(34,169 posts)
140. Look on the bright side, they can make another documentary and write a book about it.
Thu Mar 2, 2023, 08:49 PM
Mar 2023

They wanted out.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
148. A two hundred year old house in poor condition, with saggy floor joints, ceiling beams,
Fri Mar 3, 2023, 04:50 AM
Mar 2023

and a electrical and heating system that needed to be replaced (complete with a new electrical substation) -- among other things.

The dumpy house probably would have been a tear-down in any US city, but it was on the Palace grounds, so it had to be rehabbed.

But it all worked out very well for The Firm. Before the Queen "gave" it to Harry, it was on the list for a long overdue rehab, but she gave it to Harry and Meghan instead. The Firm initially funded the work, as a "grant" which turned into a "loan" which Harry and Meghan had to pay back after they left the UK.

And now The Firm has the beautifully remodeled property, paid for at Harry and Meghan's expense -- and they've ordered the two of them to vacate.

No one ever said the Palace doesn't know how to run a good scam.

This was what The Firm said at the outset:

https://www.eonline.com/news/1051939/here-s-how-much-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-s-home-renovations-really-cost

According to The Sovereign Grant and Sovereign Grant Reserve's annual report, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's upgrades to Frogmore Cottage cost £2.4 million (over $3 million) in taxpayer funds.

"The property had not been the subject of work for some years and had already been earmarked for renovation in line with our responsibility to maintain the condition of the occupied royal palaces estate," Sir Michael Stevens, who is the Keeper of the Privy Purse and responsible for the monarchy's accounts, said. "The Sovereign Grant covered the work undertaken to turn the building into the official residence and home of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their new family. The building was returned to a single residence and outdated infrastructure was replaced to guarantee the long-term future of the property."

Per the report, the funds were used to reconfigure and fully refurbish five residential units in "poor condition"—turning them into one official home. A royal source said the work included replacing defective wooden ceiling beams and floor joists, updating outdated and inefficient heating systems, doing electrical rewiring and installing new gas and water mains.


Before The Firm "gave" Frogmore to Harry and Meghan, it was used for servants quarters.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2018112865050/royal-chef-describes-prince-harry-meghan-markle-frogmore-cottage/

Darren, who lived next door to the Cottage at Frogmore Stables from 1985 to 1993, revealed: "When I was there, Frogmore Cottage was split into five different homes. Staff accommodation was run by the Crown properties so it was paid for by the government and they never really overspend. It was a fantastic location – you're in the Queen's back garden – but a little bit run-down. If something wanted repairing it would just be repaired, it would never be replaced. The staff quarters were never the most luxurious so I can imagine there's a lot of work to be done to turn them into royal accommodation."


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54062799

Even though Harry and Meghan had repaid The Firm for the renovations, because they wanted the cottage as a secure place to stay when they visited his family, they were required to vacate -- and before the Coronation. So apparently The Firm wants Harry and Meghan to stay away -- and they're too cheap to pay them back for the renovations on the home they've seized.

It was Harry and Meghan who announced that they would repay the cost of renovating Frogmore Cottage. In such way a line is drawn, and the couple may perceive themselves to be free of any of the obligations they once laboured under.

The duke's spokesman said of the repayment: "This contribution as originally offered by Prince Harry has fully covered the necessary renovation costs of Frogmore Cottage, a property of Her Majesty The Queen, and will remain the UK residence of the duke and his family."

Last year's royal accounts showed the cost of the renovations was £2.4 million and was covered by the grant.

Dorian Gray

(13,493 posts)
149. The cottage belongs to the crown
Fri Mar 3, 2023, 06:22 AM
Mar 2023

not them. It's a royal estate.

They moved to another country. I don't think they stayed there last time they were in the UK. So moving their remaining stuff makes sense.

"Evicted" is a funny word. In essence they were asked to remove their remaining belongings from a place they were no longer using.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»This has to be a joke??? ...