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

[Royalist.in.NC]

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

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

 

[Mirabel]

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

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

 

[Toledo]

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

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

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

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

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

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

Thanks so much!

 

[Hallo girl]

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

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

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

 

[soapstar]

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

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

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

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

https://www.the-sun.com/lifestyle/6299514/prince-harry-meghan-markle-windsor-frogmore/

 

[Hallo girl]

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

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

 

[yukari]

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

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

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

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

Sovereign Grant Report 2021-2022.pdf

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

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

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

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

There is no deferred income at 31 March 2022.

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

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

 

[Hallo girl]

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

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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

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

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21548936/harry-meghan-evicted-frogmore-cottage-king-charles/

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

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

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

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

https://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/2023/03/frogmore-cottage-to-have-new-tenant.html

 

[Somebody]

So, the annual lease ends on March 31?!

 

[Anna1519]

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

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21548936/harry-meghan-evicted-frogmore-cottage-king-charles/

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

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



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

https://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/2023/03/frogmore-cottage-to-have-new-tenant.html

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

 

[Somebody]

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

 

[Alisa]

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

This definitely seems like retaliation and retribution.

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

 

[Moonmaiden23]

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

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21548936/harry-meghan-evicted-frogmore-cottage-king-charles/

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

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



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

https://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/2023/03/frogmore-cottage-to-have-new-tenant.html

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

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

 

[caethi]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[iceflower]

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


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

 

[Ghost]

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

https://twitter.com/x/status/1074486156966969349

 

[Moonmaiden23]

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

 

[Curryong]

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

 

[Ghost]

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

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

19th and 20th century tenants

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

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

 

[Curryong]

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

 

[Ghost]

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

Oh, I see.

 

[Asteria12]

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

 

[TLLK]

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

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

 

[Curryong]

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

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

 

[Sionevar]

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

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

Then I look at photos of The Royal Lodge and

 

[Asteria12]

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

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

 

[FigTree]

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

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

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

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

 

[FigTree]

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

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

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