Frogmore HOUSE

Why did you put HOUSE in all caps like that?

Well, first of all, she ain't Princess Anybody.

Not that I know this for certain, but as I understand it, Frogmore HOUSE is used as a location/venue for events. It’s like asking why someone doesn’t live in the Javits Center. Or the church basement.

She has access to it but for appearance's sake they say she lives in the cottage.

Fergie got a huge house built for her that they let rot and sold to a shady foreigner. Her kids are also Princesses. But Meghan gets a “terribly small” cottage and no titles for her children. It’s like Princess Michael is calling the shots.

She's Princess Henry of the UK.

As if we actually need another thread about Meghan....damn.

[quote]Fergie got a huge house built for her that they let rot and sold to a shady foreigner. Her kids are also Princesses. But Meghan gets a “terribly small” cottage and no titles for her children. It’s like Princess Michael is calling the shots.

Please contemplate the distinction between being Her Majesty’s daughter-in-law and Her Majesty’s grandson’s wife. Thank you.

For the most part, few of these people are GIVEN anything- particularly any property that has long been part of the royal holdings. They are allowed to USE, or rent, a place but usually ownership stays with either the Sovereign (e.g. personally) or the Crown (e.g. with the institution) --- that's how you keep wealth with the King/Queen over many, many generations. Also, if you were the grandmother of a 30-something who married an untested young American woman whose long-term suitability for a life as a member of the royal family remains to be proven, wouldn't it make sense to say "here, dears, I'll lend you this" rather than "here I'll transfer a valuable asset over into your names"? Particularly so after the divorces of your own children ended up costing you quite a bit of cash.

Sarah, Duchess of York, is far and away head and shoulders above Miss Markle.

[quote] Fergie got a huge house built for her that they let rot and sold to a shady foreigner. Her kids are also Princesses. But Meghan gets a “terribly small” cottage and no titles for her children. It’s like Princess Michael is calling the shots.

You idiots never get it, do you?

Grace and favor houses, like everything else having to do with British royalty, are all about rank.

The higher up you are in the rankings, the more you get.

When she married Andrew, Fergie was married to the #3 person in line to the throne (William had been born but not yet Harry), who also happened to be the queen's favorite child. As such, she shared his rank, as the wive always does. Thus they got a giant house from the queen as a grace-and-favor house.

You have this stupid idea that inequality has to do with color in the royal family. It does not; it has solely to do with how far removed you are from inheriting the crown.

Meghan only married the #6 in line to the throne, and he is only the queen's grandson.

[quote] She's Princess Henry of the UK.

And as such, she gets far more than the Princess Michael of Kent, or Princess Alexandra of Kent. But not as much as the Princess William of Cambridge, and not as much as once did the former Princess Andrew of York.

The Queen gave them Frogmore House because Harry is her favorite grandson and she and Meghan really hit it off.

R13 no she didn’t give them the HOUSE

Apart from once being floated as a ‘retirement’ home for Phillip, and got a bit of a restoration, it hasn’t been used in like centuries. It is pretty much a museum and event venue now. Not really something to live in. Even if offered it (and maybe they were, who knows) I don’t think harry would have wanted it at all. It doesn’t seem like his cup of tea. Plus there would have been the extra security issues. It’s in a popular place of the park that is often open to people and isn’t secure. Sure with enough money you can do anything, but I bet it would have cost as much to get Frogmore House to a basic level security wise as all the money set aside for the refurb and security of their cottage.

R15, good comment. Makes perfect sense. I still don’t believe they’re living there. Would Meghan be able to go outside for walks with the baby? As much as I can’t stand her, I can’t imagine it’s good for her or the baby to be cooped up inside when there’s beautiful May weather.

The house is there and no one lives in it. The Sussexes are free to use it for entertaining whenever they want.

They were given the use of Frogmore Cottage.

Not Frogmore House.

Again..

Not Frogmore House.

R18 but they can use the house anytime they like, I’m sure

Preach r18, they have no claim on the HOUSE. Only the “it’s terribly small” cottage. QEII has made it clear that Meghan will always live in cottages while everyone else gets grand apartments, houses and lodges.

Meghan and Harry are the Queen's favorites. Of course she lets them use the House. She wanted to give it to them but Charles said no.

R21 WRONG. QEII has the final say, not Charles. Not until she dies.

I think we’ve only seen inside pictures of the House. Anyone got pic links for the Cottage.

Deluded^

R6, I stand corrected; somehow I thought the wives of the sovereign's children or granchildren didn't receive the style of "Princess First Name of Husband," but I was wrong. It seems to be more a case of "doesn't use" than "doesn't have."

Pray forgive me.

The Queen gave both Princess Anne and Prince Andrew country estates as wedding gifts. Charles as Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall had his own private income, with which he purchased Highgrove, so HM did not make him a similar gift. I have no idea why HM didn’t gift Prince Edward a country estate when he married. Perhaps instead, HM gave Edward the money to refurbish Bagshot Park and pay the lease on it (currently leased until 2198)?

I don’t believe that HM has gifted a house to any grandchild on the occasion of their wedding. I do know she has provided “Grace & Favor” residences across the family at various palaces and estates. Some she subsided the rent, others she has paid out right.

The Sussexes would not be given Frogmore House as since its last renovation, the House has been used for both private and official functions/receptions. Giving it to the Sussexes would have required more expense to restore it to a private residence than what was required to update Frogmore Cottage. Plus, there’s the loss of the space for private and official events. HM is a pragmatic and frugal gal - so Frogmore Cottage is what the Sussexes got. I’m sure HM also took into consideration the privacy of the Cottage vs the House, as well as what the Sussexes could afford long term.

As it is, Frogmore Cottage has 10 bedrooms plus I believe 6 reception rooms, so I’m not feeling too bad for the Sussexes at all.

[quote]It seems to be more a case of "doesn't use" than "doesn't have."

Exactly. Harry and Meghan have chosen not to title Archie as the Earl of Dumbarton - but he is entitled to it and will still become the Duke of Sussex when Harry passes. Just as if he had been born when Charles was the king he would be a Prince whether or not Harry & Meghan chose to use the title. Edward and Sophie did something similar when they chose to style their kids as children of an Earl rather than grandchildren of the Queen.

R27 so could either one of his children choose to style themselves as prince or princess when they are adults legally speaking? Is it just that Edward has said to refer to them as lady and viscount, but they are technically prince and princess or is it a legal change that HM has done? Anyone know? Say in 10 years time when the queen is dead (and maybe Edward has also unexpectedly) could his now adult children take the HRH title if they wanted?

R28 - since George V issued Letters Patent in 1917, all male line grandchildren of a monarch get the HRH and princely status. However, HM did announce after Prince Edward’s wedding that his children would only be styled as the children of an Earl. HM never issued Letters Patent of her own regarding the Wessex children, so while styled as Lady Louise Windsor and Viscount Severn, both are technically HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and HRH Prince James of Wessex, Viscount Severn. Though I doubt either would ever ask to be styled as such.

For the Wales boys, HM did issue Letters Patent extending HRH and princely status to the Cambridge children, as children of a direct heir to the Crown. I doubt HM would have done the same for the Sussexes, even if they wanted it. As it Is, all Archie is entitled to now is to be styled as “Archie, Earl of Dumbarton” or less formally, “Lord Dumbarton”. Any other children they may have, would only be styled as “Lord/Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor”. Personally, if they don’t want their children styled other than Mr/Miss, then I think Harry and Megs should give up their own status - which is not without precedent in the Royal Family.

As far as any Sussex children being raised to HRH and princely status once Charles ascends the throne, as they would then be male line grandchildren of a monarch, I don’t think that’s ever been addressed since George V issued the Letters Patent. Having said that, if the Sussexes don’t want their children styled as an Earl or Lord or Lady now, can’t see them wanting their sprogs styled HRH and Prince/princess down the road.

Thank you [R29]! I really appreciate knowledgeable answers to these complicated issues., rather than baseless fantasies implying personal motives to the BRF.

R5 The house wasn't sold to just any shady foreigner. It was bought by one of Prince Andrew's slimy middle- eastern business buddies, who paid Andrew 3 times the value of the rotted house.

To be fair, the person who said that Frogmroe Cottage was "terribly small" was the Queen, who lives in Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Sandringham, and Balmoral. To HER, it's "terribly small," but to us it's more like a McMansion. Just imagine Harry and Meghan standing inside at ONE of those windows admiring the view and you can comprehend that it's actually a big house. Fuck man, I mean I wouldn't want to clean it!

R26 - Wrong. The Queen gave the Cambridges a Georgian house called Anmer Hall on the Sandringham estate in Norfolk. She also paid for the renovations since Sandringham is owned by her personally (Balmoral is the other privately owned property).

QEII is taking a look and see approach with this one. It’s uncharted territory and she’s been burned badly before by her children’s poor choices. Kate was around for a decade before she married William so the Queen had plenty time to suss her out. She hasn’t had the same luxury with Harry’s whirlwind romance and marriage. Meghan won’t get a thing until she proves herself worthy and things aren’t looking good in that regard. She better watch out, the BRF know how to play hardball with grifters being the ultimate grifters themselves.

Why doesn’t Archie have a title?

R35 because it’s a silly name that doesn’t befit a title.

The Queen never 'gives away' any property that she personally owns as the recipient would be liable for several different taxes, she just allows them to live in them.

This is all mainly because there aren't any death taxes from Monarch to Monarch and it keeps the estates intact.

R37 maybe not her own property but her sons’ divorces cost her a pretty penny.

Maybe I’m just an American peon, but I don’t see what’s wrong with Frogmore Cottage. I’ve said this before, but if I were Meghan, I’d take it and make the very most of it. I’d make it a fun and cozy place and host people all the time.

R39 it’s not a tiny house but compared to the stately piles in England, it’s terribly small hence the name “cottage”. Even Fergie lives in a huge Lodge.

It's beautiful. Love the grounds.

R41 yes the HOUSE is lovely. The cottage... not so much.

The Cottage was servants quarters. Enough said.

The outside of it is just so ordinary. No curb appeal whatsoever!

Because his parents chose not to use the one they could have r35. That was their decision. They could have chosen to call him Archie, Earl of Dumbarton (which he actually entitled to as the oldest son of the Duke of Sussex), but they didn't. We'll see what happens if and when Charles becomes king, because unless letters of patent are issued he would then technically become HRH Prince Archie of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton whether or not the Sussexes chose to use the title. It's actually new territory for the monarchy because the queen has lived so long. Charles is by far the oldest and longest serving Prince of Wales. If he were already king, all of his sons' offspring would be entitled to be HRH prince this or princess that. If for some reason William succeeds Liz directly then nothing changes, because Archie would never have been a grandchild of the sovereign in the male line.

Frogmore house was built for Queen Charlotte in her later years after her husband had gone insane and her son was king.

If it were a house, it would be a house for a queen. Meghan is no queen, nor will she EVER be one.

Unless r46, there is some tragic accident that wipes out the Cambridge clan. You would have no say in the matter.

The entire Cambridge clan? William, as well as all THREE of his children?

Are you planning something special, honey?

The only way I can imagine the Cambridge family being all killed together would be if they were on an airplane and it somehow exploded. But George will soon be old enough to travel separately from his parents, which is what protocol demands for the very reason of keeping the heirs separate; Diana broke the protocol when William and Harry were very small, and so has Kate for her children (because they did not want very small children separated from their mother). But George will soon be old enough to travel separately with a nanny--he is now six. And they do not travel by air very often as a family.

[quote]If for some reason William succeeds Liz directly

Isn't this about as likely all the Cambridges all being wiped out at once, though? Can't really see Chuckles giving up at this point; he's held out this long.

Frogmore cottage is fine. Markle has no idea how to run a large house. Frogmore House or a similarly sized property is beyond her current capabilities.

Her Majesty is wise. A mcmansion for the American until she proves herself and the relationship proves itself. Ten bedrooms and six receiving rooms in Windsor Park is quite enough for now.

Planes roaring overhead is perfect for Miss Markle.

R48 I don't like how the Cambridges all travel together on the same plane. They could all be wiped out.

r53, see my response at r49.

R54 Poland.

It's not small. It was described as a fixer-upper that had been used lately for office space.

It's clear Meghan wanted to get away from the rest of them ASAP.

Kate and William weren't given their house in Norfolk (Anmer Hall) either. They were given a long lease. The same goes for Andrew (Royal Lodge) and Edward (Bagshot Park). They were all given long term leases on those homes

R56, they don't live there. That's Frogmore House. They live in Frogmore Cottage. It's not small (it's got 10 bedrooms), but it's not as large as the home at your link

I'm staying at Frogmore Chicken Coop. It's not so bad; I just have to tidy-up now and then. Free eggs.

Frogmore House is Queen Charlotte's dower house. It's pretty large and used for receptions and events. Harry and Meg don't live there.

Frogmore cottage is smaller and more private.

Froggie Cottage does not have 10 bedrooms; the 5 servants' apartments have been reconfigured into one residence. The site is known for the massive amounts of frogs in the marshy area, and Wallis Simpson's grave, among others, nearby, as well as proximity to Heathrow Airport.

R61 so QEII is putting the American divorcees close by...how charming!

I was thinking more along the lines of the queen outliving Charles r50. She could live at least another 10 years and Charles would be in his early 80's if she does. That's right around the average life expectancy for men in Great Britain (81 per Wiki).

Victoria and Albert are buried at Frogmore too.

This whole tawdry affair is so similar to Edward and Wallis. A mentally stunted Prince and a gold digging American divorcee. I know he was never in line to be King but it’s just so similar.

Significant difference: Megan has a functional crumpet. ^

[quote] She could live at least another 10 years and Charles would be in his early 80's if she does. That's right around the average life expectancy for men in Great Britain (81 per Wiki).

if she would go so far beyond the regular life expectancy for women, then why wouldn't Charles? Both of his parents are extraordinarily long-lived, so why wouldn't he be too?

"why wouldn't he be too?"

Have you SEEN him lately?

R67 - I actually wouldn’t be surprised in Charles went tits up before HM. While there is longevity in his father’s side, his mother’s side, the men, don’t have such long lives in general, historically.

[quote] While there is longevity in his father’s side, his mother’s side, the men, don’t have such long lives in general, historically.

But most of them were smokers, which is why they died under 90.

Also, even without the smoking, why would he necessarily inherit their longevity genes rather than his maternal grandmother's or his paternal grandmother's? They both lived to ripe old ages.

You’re correct R70 - I forgot about the smoking! But even the women who smoked (other than Princess Margaret), like Princess Louise or Queen Mary, lived long lives.

I do know longevity is hereditary - but not sure if it carries on the maternal or paternal lines, so I just offered that Charles’ male ancestors don’t have the longevity of his female ancestors.

Let’s face it, other than maybe the Pope, the BRF probably have the best medical care in Europe, if not the world. No NHS for them! But Charles is into all that holistic stuff, plus the swollen cracked fingers and hands may indicate as other DLrs have theorized, an underlying ailment.

....

What do you want, r72? If you have a comment about Frogmore House, make it.

R65, Wallis also stayed with Edward. Meghan won’t be staying.