The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 7: Oct. 2022 - Apr. 2023

[Toledo]

When I read today 'Evicted' in the news, and in El Pais they wrote 'desaloja which means to vacate,' I thought this was just press being dramatic. I'm sure they knew in advance, and everything was set and ready prior to the press release.

I can't possibly imagine KCIII sending a court Marshall (like they do in the USA) to tape a sign at Frogmore's door saying you have 30 days to vacate your apartment. It it helps, El Pais stated today the talks started in January after certain publication came to be:

El Pais - Madrid - 01 MAR 2023 - 06:28 EST
Title in Spanish: El rey Carlos III desaloja a Enrique y a Meghan de Frogmore Cottage para que se mude su hermano Andrés

King Charles III evicts Harry and Meghan from Frogmore Cottage to move his brother Andrew

 

[ACO]

[…]My guess the funeral was the last time we will ever see these people together. Many will be thrilled.

Harry has some speaking engagements coming up. I wonder if this will be mentioned. Would be interesting to hear how it all went down.

 

[soapstar]

Comments discussing how Charles (and other members of the BRF) feel about Archie and Lili have been deleted. This type of speculation is unnecessary and adds nothing to the discussion, so please don’t go there.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Comments discussing how Charles (and other members of the BRF) feel about Archie and Lili have been deleted. This type of speculation is unnecessary and adds nothing to the discussion, so please don’t go there.

Thank you for that because I actually said to the poster that we shouldn’t speculate on that.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I truly hope you're correct that it's only tabloid speculation about Andrew moving in. I initially dismissed because that part of it seemed way too far fetched, but it seems to be gaining consensus among the other reporters who have written about this. We'll see. I see the merit in Harry and Meghan letting go of Frogmore if they're not going to use it but my view is that it's distasteful to strip them of the home and then give it to Andrew of all people. It's why I feel stripping Harry of Frogmore and/or theoretically his titles and everything else is excessively punitive - yes, Andrew lost the ability to represent the family in an official capacity and has to downsize but he is still allowed (reportedly) to live on a Crown Estate property and has access to the family. The reporter who broke today's story is framing this decision as not just a financial one but also a post-Spare act of retribution and de facto exile for Harry. I don't think it's fair to lump him in with Andrew, regardless of whether or not I have disagreements with some of what Harry has said and done (I do, for the record). But I don't want to veer too off topic so my apologies if I have.

The thing with Andrew on Royal Lodge vs the Sussexes on Frogmore is that Andrew has been in Royal Lodge for much longer than the Sussexes at Frogmore, and he lives in the U.K full time on the property whereas the Sussexes hardly come to the U.K. plus Andrew has paid more on his lease than the Sussexes and lives in the home even after all the refurbishments.

The point of Harry not having (he’s hasn’t been stripped of his titles or removed from the succession) his titles was stop him and Meghan from commercially abusing their titles because it is incompatible with the BRF way of doing things. Plus to stop him claiming he represents the family on certain things because if he was doing something questionable, it would reflect on the BRF and no one wants to respond to media or reports about their activities because they don’t work for the BRF. Plus Harry lives in America, a country that doesn’t recognise titles so why should he be using them? If not for his silly ventures. This was discussed at the Sandringham summit when the Queen was alive.

Harry doesn’t have access to the family because he’s disparaging the family for his book deals and docuseries that involve him saying nasty things about them which he’s being paid millions for? You can’t trust someone’s character when they are being paid to say silly things for money (it says a lot about a persons character), a number of his allegations are baseless and vague. Plus he has leaked conversations to Gayle King and Omid, two people who are obviously not family members and in the case of Omid, engaging in silly PR tactics in stirring up mess on twitter for team Sussex. He and Andrew aren’t in the same boat, but Andrew at least keeps his mouth shut and doesn’t disparage the BRF for money or out of conceived slights.

 

[Ghost]

What if the RF pulls a blind and William and Andrew swap homes? It would be funny!

A lot of times the RF’s moves are unexpected. The only confirmed fact is that the Sussexes have been asked to vacate. The rest is speculation.

Charles has proved many times that he’s a true Scorpio, he can sting in a precise and … well, stingy manner.

 

[Ista]

A number of posts about Prince Andrew and his family have been deleted: this is the Sussex thread, so if you wish to discuss the housing situation as it concerns the York family, please do it on Prince Andrew's thread.

In addition, some posts about the stripping of titles have been removed since rehashing of that is explicitly against the thread rules. If there is concrete news about that from a reliable source the British moderating team will reconsider, but until then, a review of the rules governing discussion on this thread might avoid having your posts deleted.

 

[Athena41]

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

 

[Denville]

well what do they want the house for? They have not lived there for over 3 years and lent it to Eugenie for a time. They are not likely to live in the UK again.

 

[JR76]

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

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

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/inside-st...VpzpV0Rhn697te8dwJNBOBohHZ-D4sGMC3VR6vO3cYMbN

 

[Alison H]

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

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/inside-st...VpzpV0Rhn697te8dwJNBOBohHZ-D4sGMC3VR6vO3cYMbN

I'm sure that the stuff they keep at Frogmore can be fitted into a few closets in their mansion in Montecito. How many clothes can they need?

 

[Athena41]

Sorry I take whatever Scobie say's with a large grain of salt.

Just to add Emily Andrews posted a tweet hinting at that Harry and Meghan packed up last year and it was filmed for their Netflix doc.

 

[Claire]

I'm sure that the stuff they keep at Frogmore can be fitted into a few closets in their mansion in Montecito. How many clothes can they need?

I would think if anything was important to them - it would have been taken to Montecito. It makes it sound like Frogmore is a storage unit.

 

[Athena41]

This from Emily Andrews
https://64.media.tumblr.com/91e1c9e.../88943e8828fa9d67c14a7fee078a5ab0d3aa2618.png
It seems they moved out a while ago.

 

[Asteria12]

I don't think many people would leave "family things" in their 2nd house for 3 years! As you said Claire, anything truly important, sentimental or useful would have been fetched and sent already!

 

[wartenberg7]

I think that´s it for good when it comes to their attendance at the coronation....
Yes, Asteria12, I fully agree with you. And there really is no need to keep this lavish and luxurious (from a "normal mortal" point of view) cottage when you are staying in the UK may be once a year for only a couple of days, when the average person can hardly find an affordable place to live.

 

[Alison H]

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

 

[Lilyflo]

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

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/inside-st...VpzpV0Rhn697te8dwJNBOBohHZ-D4sGMC3VR6vO3cYMbN

I don't believe that for a minute. It's fully furnished of course as any second home would be but if every drawer and cupboard were full, Eugenie wouldn't have been able to live there.

How many days has Archie spent in this "real family home" since leaving the UK in October 2019?

 

[Mirabel]

well what do they want the house for? They have not lived there for over 3 years and lent it to Eugenie for a time. They are not likely to live in the UK again.

True, why should the house be left standing empty for years?

As for reimbursing the Sussexes for the money spent on renovations, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the funds came from Charles in the first place.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Sorry I take whatever Scobie say's with a large grain of salt.

Just to add Emily Andrews posted a tweet hinting at that Harry and Meghan packed up last year and it was filmed for their Netflix doc.

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

https://twitter.com/x/status/1631013095228297222

Some of the media is reporting that they didn’t reimburse the renovations as promised and Charles paid it. I don’t know how truthfully is this.

Which media?

 

[A Tudor]

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

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

 

[Toledo]

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

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

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

 

[Erin9]

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

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

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/inside-st...VpzpV0Rhn697te8dwJNBOBohHZ-D4sGMC3VR6vO3cYMbN

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

 

[Queen Claude]

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

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

 

[Mbruno]

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

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

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

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


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

 

[Toledo]

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

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

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

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

 

[Erin9]

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

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

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

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

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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

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

A spokesperson for the Sussexes has confirmed the story.

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

Source

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

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

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

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

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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

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

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

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

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/counsellors-of-state-7928-21.html#post2514513

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

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



https://www.theguardian.com/money/2009/sep/19/expat-finance-divorce

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

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/58-03/066/5803066en04.htm

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

https://assets.publishing.service.g...t_data/file/632058/domicile-guidance-v1.0.pdf

Domicile of origin

At birth every person acquires a domicile of origin.

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

[...]

Domicile of choice

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

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

[...]

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

 

[Queen Claude]

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

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

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

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

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

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