|
Post by FannyMare on Mar 1, 2023 22:36:17 GMT
From what Ive read online, it was the country's government that ended their security when they left the monarchy. They chose to leave that royal life, and be commoners. IMO, they gave up the security when they made this decision. I think( as I said before) they live off the drama, and gossip. There is only one truth, and all those concerned know what that is. The rest is us guessing, they aren't worth it( jmho). They were out a posh LA nightclub, I didnt see much **security* around them..maybe they have finally moved on.
|
|
|
Post by nennie on Mar 1, 2023 22:48:18 GMT
There's always options. Tell me how you know all this to be fact Cuddles? Do you have an inside source? Please don't take this as an attack because it isn't. I fully realize you are on the M/H train. You can't believe half of what is posted on any media platform as far as I am concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Mar 1, 2023 23:58:57 GMT
There's always options. Tell me how you know all this to be fact Cuddles? Do you have an inside source? Please don't take this as an attack because it isn't. I fully realize you are on the M/H train. You can't believe half of what is posted on any media platform as far as I am concerned. I am not on any train. I am not an absolutist. I don't believe every single word that comes out of Meghan and Harry's mouth because I don't believe every word that comes out of my own mouth. We all screw up and get ahead of our skis from time to time, but no one should be there to pounce in an "I gotcha moment" for kicks. These are good kind people who are in love and raising a beautiful family. I don't know what part of what I said you are disputing.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Mar 2, 2023 23:28:59 GMT
Frogmore is owned by the Crown, so they didn’t own it and their right to inhabit it can be taken away. Renovations mean nothing (same as if you renovate an apartment you’re living in - you don’t get to stay because you renovated it. The landlord can evict you for various reasons including wanting it for their own use). They’ve trashed the family with their books and interviews, including complaining about their living arrangements compared to others. If they want to visit the UK they can do what others do - stay with family (if they will grant them temporary accommodation at one of the royal residences) or stay in a hotel. The Queen gifted the home to Harry and Meghan. "A Buckingham Palace statement confirmed, the Duke and Duchess had accepted the gift of Frogmore Cottage from Her Majesty the Queen." "The five-bedroom house had previously been divided up into offices, meaning extensive work was needed to turn it into a family home..." The Duke and Duchess of Sussex repayed every bit of those expenses. I have to disagree with the bolded above. Renovations do mean something. If done right, they increase the family of a home. Frogmore Cottage was not a livable home when it was gifted to the Sussexes. The money they put into it increased its value. You cannot renovate an apartment, unless of course maybe it's an apartment in a home and the landlord is a relative... there are exceptions. The vast majority of renovations done in apartments are done at the expense of the landlord. Those renovations normally occur between tenants. Now that I am seeing this story in several publications, I am beginning to believe it is true. What a terrible thing Charles has done not only as a father and father-in-law but also as a grandfather.
|
|
amber
FORT Addict
Posts: 1,197
|
Post by amber on Mar 3, 2023 0:31:06 GMT
Are you inserting your spin to landlord-tenant law, Cuddles? LOL. The bottom line is if King Charles can't legally do what he is doing, he wouldn't. Given Harry and Meghan are so enormously unpopular and unappreciated, I doubt more than a fringe few will agree that what King Charles is doing is a 'terrible thing.'
Has everyone seen yesterday's photos of the idiot pothead Harry looking stoned while entering and exiting a private club in LA? Why must those two narcissists live in my home state? Ugh!
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Mar 3, 2023 1:39:54 GMT
It's not a spin but if you don't believe me try renting an apartment and take out a wall or two and see what happens.
Charles wouldn't have done this if it wasn't legal, that goes without saying. Doesn't make it right.
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Mar 3, 2023 3:08:38 GMT
Are you inserting your spin to landlord-tenant law, Cuddles? LOL. The bottom line is if King Charles can't legally do what he is doing, he wouldn't. Given Harry and Meghan are so enormously unpopular and unappreciated, I doubt more than a fringe few will agree that what King Charles is doing is a 'terrible thing.' Has everyone seen yesterday's photos of the idiot pothead Harry looking stoned while entering and exiting a private club in LA? Why must those two narcissists live in my home state? Ugh! Meghan didn't even like the place, and it stands empty most of the time. It's smaller than where Andrew is living, that's why he gets moved into there. Perhaps Charles thinks the book said enough, that they are finished with the RF, and he's moving on, even if they aren't. I saw the photos, I mentioned lack of security.
|
|
amber
FORT Addict
Posts: 1,197
|
Post by amber on Mar 3, 2023 4:12:24 GMT
It's not a spin but if you don't believe me try renting an apartment and take out a wall or two and see what happens. Charles wouldn't have done this if it wasn't legal, that goes without saying. Doesn't make it right. I have answers for you. You're right! I shouldn't have been so cocky. The reason King Charles was able to evict Harry and Meghan from Frogmore Cottage is because the cottage was gifted to them for being Working Royals. Well, we know how that turned out. Also, although Harry and Meghan were praised for reimbursing taxpayers for the cost of Harry and Meghan's specified modifications, it wasn't Harry and Meghan that reimbursed the taxpayers, it was King Charles. And there it is. Makes total sense now, doesn't it? To continue. The reason King Charles had no choice but to kick out the two ungrateful narcissists (poetic license) is because they violated the santacy of the palace homes, meaning they broke security and privacy rules by inviting Netflix’s photographers and videographers onto palace grounds as we know from watching Harry and Meghan's Netflix reality TV show.
|
|
|
Post by angelic_one2002 on Mar 3, 2023 12:47:42 GMT
Read this in yahoo.news.com :
"Meghan and Harry have joked in a new episode of their behind-the-scenes Netflix documentary series that their first royal home was too small – and not what anyone would expect from a property in palace grounds.
The couple lived in Nottingham Cottage, a grace and favour home in the grounds of Kensington Palace, prior to getting married in May 2018. Then later moved to Frogmore Cottage in Home Park, Windsor.
In episode four, the couple lament the reality of living at Kensington Palace, which "sounds like a palace" but, for them, wasn't." "As far as people were concerned, we were living in a palace," Harry says. "And we were, in a cottage..."
It shows the picture in this article of Frogmore Cottage. I'd think anyone would be grateful to live there. Very nice roof over their heads. That's a lot more than some very unfortunate people get.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Mar 3, 2023 14:40:30 GMT
King Charles has offered Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Frogmore Cottage to Prince Andrew. But could it create more problems?
It's the kind of rental agreement most people could only dream of: A gorgeous 30-room mansion available on a 75-year lease that costs the tenant the equivalent of $440 a week.
For King Charles's younger brother Prince Andrew, this was the sweetheart deal he cut with his late mother, Queen Elizabeth, for the Royal Lodge.
The lavish property, first built in 1662, is a 15-minute drive from Windsor Castle, which was considered to be the late Queen's favourite home.
Prince Andrew was often seen riding horses with his mother around the grounds of the Royal Lodge before her death last year.
But while he still has 56 years on his lease, the Duke of York's allies have told British tabloids he fears he will soon be forced to vacate the property.
King Charles has reportedly informed several family members, including his brother, that he will be cutting their annual allowances from April. Prince Andrew says the upkeep of the sprawling estate costs him far more than anyone realises, and he cannot afford to live there without his brother's financial support.
As the brewing dispute over finances played out in the tabloid press, a possible solution was soon spruiked.
Prince Andrew could downsize and move into Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex's vacant and recently renovated UK home of Frogmore Cottage.
With Charles's brother weighing up the offer, the idea has reportedly shocked the Sussexes, who would no longer have access to the one secure location left for them in Britain.
"It all feels very final and like a cruel punishment," a friend of the couple was quoted as saying by royal reporter Omid Scobie.
With the family drama playing out in public, the issue has once again exposed one of King Charles's most challenging tasks as monarch.
As he tries to ensure the monarchy's survival in a modern world, he is left with a quandary: How does he transition the British royal family to a 'slimmed down', low-cost model, when so many members are economically dependent on him?
A sweet deal with a hefty reno job
The Royal Lodge is part of the Crown Estate, a collection of lands and other assets worth $27 billion that belongs neither to the government nor the monarch.
Unlike Balmoral Castle in Scotland, which is the royal family's private property, assets that are part of the Crown Estate are overseen by an independent body.
The Queen Mother lived in the Royal Lodge rent free, under a so-called "grace and favour" arrangement with her daughter for five decades.
When she died in 2002, Prince Andrew approached the Crown Estate and said he had always loved the house and would like to move in.
With seven bedrooms, a "gothic saloon", and a gardener's cottage, it has long been a favourite among the royal family's collection of 30 homes.
Prince Andrew agreed to sign a 75-year lease for a one-off lump sum rental payment of $1.79 million, which works out to be $440 a week.
The arrangement also states that if he dies before the lease is up, his daughters Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie would have the option of taking it over.
But there was a catch.
The mansion was more than three centuries old and in desperate need of repairs. If Prince Andrew moved in, he had to pay for the refurbishments himself.
It was estimated that the property needed $13 million in renovations, but Prince Andrew told the Crown Estate he needed to spend more than this to get the house up to scratch.
He has lived at the Royal Lodge with his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, and occasionally their adult daughters, ever since.
Then came reports last week that he may soon be turfed out.
The royal family's financial shake up
As the Prince of Wales, Charles made no secret of his desire for a slimmed-down monarchy with lower costs and less pomp and ceremony.
In a shake up to Queen Elizabeth II's expansive family model, her son envisioned a modern, streamlined House of Windsor with fewer working family members.
As for those who aren't delivering speeches, cutting ribbons or serving the family, Charles appears to be sending a message they can use their own money to pay for things.
Ahead of his coronation, the Telegraph has reported Charles is planning to reduce the annual allowance provided by the Duchy of Lancaster.
Buckingham Palace has not publicly commented but the BBC reported it understands any discussions would be a private family matter.
It's not clear how much has been cut, but Charles has reportedly told his brother Andrew he won't be left "homeless and penniless".
As a working royal, Prince Andrew was paid a yearly allowance of $445,000 from his mother's Duchy of Lancaster, a portfolio of land, property and assets held in trust for the sovereign.
He also receives an annual Royal Navy pension of just $36,000.
But everything changed for him in 2019.
After a disastrous interview with the BBC to explain his connection with late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the prince was forced to step back from royal duties.
He has not held a full-time job since then and is unable to sell the Royal Lodge given it's on a 75-year lease.
The Queen, who was long-rumoured to have a soft spot for her third-born, continued to help her son financially.
She was reported to have helped pay for his settlement with alleged Epstein trafficking victim Virginia Giuffre.
But when Charles ascended the throne last year, he immediately set about diluting Prince Andrew's responsibilities and tightening the royal purse strings.
In some cases, the King has offered compromises.
When Prince Andrew's taxpayer-funded protection was stripped, King Charles reportedly offered to continue to pay for his brother's private security guards out of the Lancaster funds.
And when it became clear Prince Andrew could not continue the upkeep of his home on a reduced allowance, King Charles provided an alternative residence: Frogmore Cottage.
A brother is saved, while a son is exiled
The decision to strip Harry and Meghan of their UK residence has gone down like a lead balloon.
The couple's decision to leave the royal family came with grave consequences, including the loss of publicly-funded security.
Prince Harry has since taken the British government to court over his security arrangements in the UK, given the legitimate fears he holds for his family's lives.
With the judgement still looming, the couple were said to be stunned by the eviction notice.
The couple spent 2.4 million pounds ($4.2 million) of taxpayers' money on renovating the house following their marriage in 2018, but were forced to pay it all back after stepping back from their duties.
The repayment was made with the understanding the cottage would remain their UK residence, leaving an open question over whether they will be reimbursed for some of the costs if Prince Andrew were to move in.
Unnamed sources told Yahoo that Meghan and Harry have been told they would need to vacate by early summer, which would fall after the coronation.
There is still no confirmation on whether the couple will be invited to attend.
Meanwhile, The Sun newspaper reported that Prince Andrew wanted to stay in his current home nearby rather than move to Frogmore Cottage.
The optics are not good for King Charles, who in assisting his disgraced brother, has denied his son and daughter-in-law access to a safe refuge in the UK.
A low-cost, modern monarchy may seem like a safe way for a new King to win over a skeptical public.
But it has also exposed deep divisions in the House of Windsor that may need to be resolved before his ambitious vision can be realised.
|
|
|
Post by nennie on Mar 3, 2023 15:19:08 GMT
I have come to the conclusion that opinionating or debating this subject is a total waste of my time. I have better things to do with my time. I'll leave this thread to all of you that it interests.
|
|
ccl
FORT Regular
Posts: 441
|
Post by ccl on Mar 3, 2023 15:37:58 GMT
If we post an article (and I don’t know that copyright allows us to post a full article?) can we also post the source please and thanks?
With regards to Frogmore, there is certainly a discussion that Meghan and Harry should be repaid for at least part of the renovation costs that they paid towards it (I don’t know that the figure bandied about includes things like furnishings that they can take with them (if they haven’t already) that they don’t need or be reimbursed for but certainly things like construction costs).
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Mar 3, 2023 15:52:36 GMT
If we post an article (and I don’t know that copyright allows us to post a full article?) can we also post the source please and thanks? With regards to Frogmore, there is certainly a discussion that Meghan and Harry should be repaid for at least part of the renovation costs that they paid towards it (I don’t know that the figure bandied about includes things like furnishings that they can take with them (if they haven’t already) that they don’t need or be reimbursed for but certainly things like construction costs). I apologize. I meant to put mine in. It came out of Australia, and appeared to be well written as well as well researched, so that's why I included it. www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-03/stoush-over-prince-andrews-cheap-mansion-rental/102033000 Several articles I have read seem to suggest that some of the money the Sussexes paid went toward advanced rent - very similar to what Andrew did at one time - and so maybe that would get reimbursed too? I would think it would seem fair if that's the case. But no matter the agreement, the downside of them not having UK protection will remain as such unless Harry wins his suit.
|
|
ccl
FORT Regular
Posts: 441
|
Post by ccl on Mar 3, 2023 16:06:54 GMT
Thanks Cuddles. Yes, if they paid advanced rent I agree it should be returned.
|
|
amber
FORT Addict
Posts: 1,197
|
Post by amber on Mar 3, 2023 16:23:25 GMT
If we post an article (and I don’t know that copyright allows us to post a full article?) can we also post the source please and thanks? With regards to Frogmore, there is certainly a discussion that Meghan and Harry should be repaid for at least part of the renovation costs that they paid towards it (I don’t know that the figure bandied about includes things like furnishings that they can take with them (if they haven’t already) that they don’t need or be reimbursed for but certainly things like construction costs). I apologize. I meant to put mine in. It came out of Australia, and appeared to be well written as well as well researched, so that's why I included it. www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-03/stoush-over-prince-andrews-cheap-mansion-rental/102033000 Several articles I have read seem to suggest that some of the money the Sussexes paid went toward advanced rent - very similar to what Andrew did at one time - and so maybe that would get reimbursed too? I would think it would seem fair if that's the case. But no matter the agreement, the downside of them not having UK protection will remain as such unless Harry wins his suit. What several articles? I don't think so. What I read, including the piece you posted, states the money spent on renovation to the couple's liking was reimburused to the taxpayers but never have I read that Harry and Meghan personally reimbursed. That part is always danced around, isn't it? But IF, and that is a big IF, they paid advance rent, it must be returned.
|
|
amber
FORT Addict
Posts: 1,197
|
Post by amber on Mar 3, 2023 16:33:24 GMT
I have come to the conclusion that opinionating or debating this subject is a total waste of my time. I have better things to do with my time. I'll leave this thread to all of you that it interests. nennie, I enjoy your posts. Please don't consider it a waste of your time commenting with us on this thread. In fact your posts are very much appreciated by all of us.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Mar 3, 2023 16:46:12 GMT
I apologize. I meant to put mine in. It came out of Australia, and appeared to be well written as well as well researched, so that's why I included it. www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-03/stoush-over-prince-andrews-cheap-mansion-rental/102033000 Several articles I have read seem to suggest that some of the money the Sussexes paid went toward advanced rent - very similar to what Andrew did at one time - and so maybe that would get reimbursed too? I would think it would seem fair if that's the case. But no matter the agreement, the downside of them not having UK protection will remain as such unless Harry wins his suit. What several articles? I don't think so. What I read, including the piece you posted, states the money spent on renovation to the couple's liking was reimburused to the taxpayers but never have I read that Harry and Meghan personally reimbursed. That part is always danced around, isn't it? But IF, and that is a big IF, they paid advance rent, it must be returned. www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/prince-harry-meghan-markle-pay-230100913.html
|
|
|
Post by AZChristian on Mar 3, 2023 17:03:08 GMT
amber I think the link from that article confirms that H&M did pay back the grant. I could understand if there was going to be a negotiation regarding at least a partial reimbursement of what they spent since they are losing their lease. It's hard to find exact details, but it appears that the money they spent to upgrade the cottage was put towards their "rent." Can't find details on how much their "rent" was, but Andrew was paying 440 pounds per week for the much larger Royal Lodge. At this point, the Royal Family is looking much more like a "Firm" (which it is often referred to as). Those who are no longer working members of "The Firm" no longer have all of the benefits that working members have. Like cheap rent on a large home. I think Andrew is lucky that he doesn't have to pay more rent on a smaller non-Firm-owned place out of his own pocket. He's lucky to have been simply downsized to Frogmore.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Mar 3, 2023 19:41:18 GMT
Read this in yahoo.news.com : "Meghan and Harry have joked in a new episode of their behind-the-scenes Netflix documentary series that their first royal home was too small – and not what anyone would expect from a property in palace grounds. The couple lived in Nottingham Cottage, a grace and favour home in the grounds of Kensington Palace, prior to getting married in May 2018. Then later moved to Frogmore Cottage in Home Park, Windsor. In episode four, the couple lament the reality of living at Kensington Palace, which "sounds like a palace" but, for them, wasn't." "As far as people were concerned, we were living in a palace," Harry says. "And we were, in a cottage..." It shows the picture in this article of Frogmore Cottage. I'd think anyone would be grateful to live there. Very nice roof over their heads. That's a lot more than some very unfortunate people get. Their first home, Nottingham College was small for a growing family (indeed far smaller than any of the other royal properties) and it was estimated that it would cost 4 mill to do the required asbestos abatement. Renovations to turn Frogmore (which had been segmented into small office/living quarters for staff) back into a residence were actually cheaper. I'm sorry I don't have a source for that, but I remember reading it. I also remember reading that Frogmore was in a 'dilapidated' condition when they acquired it, as it dated back to the early 1800s, and photos from that time showed overgrown gardens, etc. I'm guessing it was loaded with lead and asbestos, too. Not ideal for children.
|
|
tilden
FORT Regular
Posts: 254
|
Post by tilden on Mar 3, 2023 20:04:19 GMT
Yikes. Regardless of who was living or working in either place, asbestos and/or lead should have been removed before anyone lived or worked there, just as a matter of course.
|
|
|
Post by FireWoman on Mar 3, 2023 21:55:55 GMT
Frogmore is owned by the Crown, so they didn’t own it and their right to inhabit it can be taken away. Renovations mean nothing (same as if you renovate an apartment you’re living in - you don’t get to stay because you renovated it. The landlord can evict you for various reasons including wanting it for their own use). They’ve trashed the family with their books and interviews, including complaining about their living arrangements compared to others. If they want to visit the UK they can do what others do - stay with family (if they will grant them temporary accommodation at one of the royal residences) or stay in a hotel. The Queen gifted the home to Harry and Meghan. "A Buckingham Palace statement confirmed, the Duke and Duchess had accepted the gift of Frogmore Cottage from Her Majesty the Queen." "The five-bedroom house had previously been divided up into offices, meaning extensive work was needed to turn it into a family home..." The Duke and Duchess of Sussex repayed every bit of those expenses. I have to disagree with the bolded above. Renovations do mean something. If done right, they increase the family of a home. Frogmore Cottage was not a livable home when it was gifted to the Sussexes. The money they put into it increased its value. You cannot renovate an apartment, unless of course maybe it's an apartment in a home and the landlord is a relative... there are exceptions. The vast majority of renovations done in apartments are done at the expense of the landlord. Those renovations normally occur between tenants. Now that I am seeing this story in several publications, I am beginning to believe it is true. What a terrible thing Charles has done not only as a father and father-in-law but also as a grandfather. Considering that the initial renovations were done at the expense of the Brit Tax Payer, and only came out of their pockets when they decided to step down as working royals and then move out of the country, thus why you need to say repaid, rather than paid. Frogmore is part of the crown estate, they are no longer members of the crown. It is also an historical site. I also think that when we see the word "gift" or "gifted" with respect to how the Queen allowed the 2 to live there.. it was not GIVEN TO THEM, it was at her pleasure they were allowed to dwell there, it was considered their home by her decree... if I remember correctly, not even the monarch can give away historical home sites for their family to shack up in. No one who lives in any of the crown properties owns them. Harry and Meggy were leasing it, per se. IMO, you don't want to be a royal anymore you get none of the perks. I am shocked they are still allowed use of Duke and Duchess to be honest. I think it was only due to the affection of The Queen that they still had them.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Mar 4, 2023 4:22:58 GMT
No one here said anything about Frogmore Cottage being given to anyone. It is very clear from the articles posted that the Queen's gift to her newlywed grandson was that he could live in Frogmore Cottage. And when Harry decided to take Meghan to the United States, the Queen and Harry came to an agreement that even though he was stepping away, he would be allowed to use Frogmore Cottage. He entered a lease agreement and paid for the renovations that had been done to make the house livable.
If you look at it objectively, and if all of this is true, Harry is getting a really rotten deal. Here he was paying for a home he wasn't even living in in order to secure it for future visits, and now that entire investment is gone. Not only that, all of the money he paid to increase the value of that home has gone to the Crown.
|
|
ccl
FORT Regular
Posts: 441
|
Post by ccl on Mar 4, 2023 5:30:41 GMT
But it was never an investment. A “normal” home can increase in value (with various factors considered - renovations, location, etc.) and the owner can realize that value by selling it, putting a mortgage on it or using it as collateral. Frogmore, on the other hand, is not a normal home - it is a property owned by the Crown Estate, a property on royal grounds that is unlikely ever to be put into private hands (unless there is a future wherein the royal family is no more and all their property is up for grabs). And it was never owned by Harry - he could not sell it, or mortgage it, or use it as collateral because it was never truly his property to do so.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxgirl on Mar 4, 2023 5:37:43 GMT
There’s reports that after the coronation she will be known as Queen Camilla rather than Queen Consort. This is in keeping with historical precedence such as Prince Phillip being called Prince instead of Prince Consort and the Queen Mother being known as Queen Elizabeth when her husband was king etc. he Queen. right before her death wrote Camilla would be known as Queen Consort
|
|
|
Post by redsoxgirl on Mar 4, 2023 5:46:37 GMT
I want to address the comment that people can't let go of the past and other potshots taken by various members at those they disagree with. My father called these velvet volleys. It's important to remember the past, to write about it and to rally around the memories of those persons who changed it in a thousand different ways.You bet Diana manipulated the press. She mastered at it. She took the fuzzy lollipop thrust at her as a teenager and learned to play their game. but, that in no way makes what the media put her through somehow okay.They used to play a game with her unaware ...they would call her, to her face, in public"crazy Diana" hopingto get her to cry. And she did at times, trsapped in the scrum and echos of"crazy Dians."
|
|
amber
FORT Addict
Posts: 1,197
|
Post by amber on Mar 4, 2023 6:02:26 GMT
No one here said anything about Frogmore Cottage being given to anyone. It is very clear from the articles posted that the Queen's gift to her newlywed grandson was that he could live in Frogmore Cottage. And when Harry decided to take Meghan to the United States, the Queen and Harry came to an agreement that even though he was stepping away, he would be allowed to use Frogmore Cottage. He entered a lease agreement and paid for the renovations that had been done to make the house livable. If you look at it objectively, and if all of this is true, Harry is getting a really rotten deal. Here he was paying for a home he wasn't even living in in order to secure it for future visits, and now that entire investment is gone. Not only that, all of the money he paid to increase the value of that home has gone to the Crown. Yes, but it's not true. What we're learning is new, but not Harry and Meghan. It's impossible Harry would pay two plus million dollars to renovate and walk away. Doesn't matter what you or I think. The truth will shake out soon enough.
|
|
amber
FORT Addict
Posts: 1,197
|
Post by amber on Mar 4, 2023 6:12:05 GMT
I want to address the comment that people can't let go of the past and other potshots taken by various members at those they disagree with. My father called these velvet volleys. It's important to remember the past, to write about it and to rally around the memories of those persons who changed it in a thousand different ways.You bet Diana manipulated the press. She mastered at it. She took the fuzzy lollipop thrust at her as a teenager and learned to play their game. but, that in no way makes what the media put her through somehow okay.They used to play a game with her unaware ...they would call her, to her face, in public"crazy Diana" hopingto get her to cry. And she did at times, trsapped in the scrum and echos of"crazy Dians." redsoxgirl, velvet volleys? That's wild. I've never heard that phrase. Diana got caught up in all of what she could never change. But she was a good mother.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Mar 4, 2023 15:22:36 GMT
But it was never an investment. A “normal” home can increase in value (with various factors considered - renovations, location, etc.) and the owner can realize that value by selling it, putting a mortgage on it or using it as collateral. Frogmore, on the other hand, is not a normal home - it is a property owned by the Crown Estate, a property on royal grounds that is unlikely ever to be put into private hands (unless there is a future wherein the royal family is no more and all their property is up for grabs). And it was never owned by Harry - he could not sell it, or mortgage it, or use it as collateral because it was never truly his property to do so. If I put money toward something in order to secure it for future use, I've invested my money into that securement. Let's say Harry's lump sum payment was 3 million, and of that 3 million, 2.5 million went toward making Frogmore (which was said to be dilapidated office space) livable. Now let's say the other .5 million went toward leasing the cottage at a cost of $25,000 every 3 months ($100,000/yr). So he basically paid upfront for 5 years ($500,000) but it's only been 3 years and 3 months ($325,000). So some would say it would be fair to give them $175,000 back of that prepaid rent, and again these are all arbitrary figures, but you have to admit he's no longer allowed to stay at Frogmore so anything he paid after his last visit was all for not.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Mar 4, 2023 15:35:37 GMT
Apparently all of this happened the day after Harry's book was released. #1 Spiteful much? #2 Why are we hearing about it now? Is this another product of Camilla's handiwork to the press? PURE speculation on my part, but I do find it interesting that we were talking about how no one famous was 'able' to play at Charles' coronation and suddenly the focus went back on Harry... and with using a trigger word like eviction, no less.
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Mar 4, 2023 18:58:03 GMT
If Harry didn't expect any backlash from his tell all, he's thicker than I thought. Blood is thicker than water, it's just messier to clean up.
|
|