Skip to main content

Frogmore Cottage, Archie, and the Absence of Images

Most of us have never met Barack Obama, Queen Elizabeth, Donald Trump, or Meghan Markle in person.

These people play roles in our lives and in our consciousnesses, for good and for bad, but we know them only through still photo and video images.

Images are something we have in common, whether they are joyful or horrifying. They're the building blocks of our shared culture.

So for two people so obsessed with building cultural influence and fame, why are the Duke and Duchess Sussexes so stingy with personal photos?

In particular, why are they so unwilling to share photos of their official home at Frogmore Cottage or their son, Archificial?

You can't see us

Yesterday we were informed that former US first lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had visited the Sussexes at Frogmore Cottage. No photos were released of the event.

Ellen DeGeneres also supposedly visited the couple at Frogmore Cottage and fed their son, Archificial. No photos were released of the event - even on Ellen's very active Instagram.

Earlier in the week, we were told that the Queen herself had been visiting Frogmore Cottage regularly while at her home at Windsor.

There have been no photos of that, either, including candids of the Queen's car that might be taken by someone strolling through the public park around Windsor Castle.

It's not like the Sussexes are opposed to photos of Archificial with celebrities: they did a whole photo shoot of Archie with South Africa's Archbishop Desmond Tutu. That, however, was linked to an H&M ad campaign.

Is Archie only shown when there's an opportunity to get paid?  Or is there another reason we see so little of him?

The Royal Reporter's Tweet

Yesterday The Daily Express' Royal Reporter Richard Palmer responded to the suggestion that neighbors say no one lives at Frogmore Cottage with this Tweet:

I know you lot won’t accept anything that conflicts with your world view but I’ve actually seen the car in the drive, windows open, the lawn being watered, the couple driving out. Oh and the castle mews has electric car charging points. I wrote a planning story about them.

(I'm sure it's completely a coincidence that Palmer and the Express got an exclusive about Archificial's baby playgroup today. No photos, of course.)

That said, the Tweet is a little lame.

OK, the windows were open, and the lawn was being watered, and there's an electric car charging point. Same for my local public library, and I doubt the Sussexes live there.

Driving out in full view of the press doesn't sound like any kind of solid proof that they live there either. It sounds like a pretty elementary form of media manipulation.

You know what really shows that people live someplace? Trash. Lots of trash. Groceries going in and (particularly with a baby) lots of trash coming out, every single day.

If the Sussexes really live at Frogmore Cottage, show me the rubbish.

The fabulous magazine spread

And show me the magazine spread of the Sussexes' beautiful, newly-designed home with a variety of merched Soho House products. 

Meghan loves attention - an Architectural Digest spread about one's fabulous home is a standard marker of celebrity - and the interior designer and companies that provided items for the interiors would love the publicity. 

No one needs to see the Sussexes toilet or even their marital bedroom, but a glimpse of the reception rooms (like the Cambridge's at Kensington Apartment 1A) wouldn't seem to be too intrusive. 

And, of course, the taxpayers of Britain would love to see the $3 million in renovations they have paid for, plus the copper bathtub the Sussexes supposedly financed out of their own pockets. 

Celebrities except for this

The Sussexes love fame, and they love sharing photos on their @SussexRoyal Instagram. 

Yet there are never any photos of their home, not even exteriors. Perhaps the interiors are not finished, but that would seem to be a perfect opportunity for fun "work in progress" images of the Sussexes chatting with the builders or offering them tea, as the Queen once did

Meanwhile, the Sussexes are so short of photos the baby they supposedly live with that they released an awkward image from last summer to celebrate Prince Charles' November 14 birthday.

Why?




-----------

Some housekeeping:

We've had some complaints that the 600-comment posts are unwieldy.

However, back when I was cutting off posts at 200 and putting in an "open post"  if I didn't have time to write, we got complaints about that, too.

How do you feel, Nutties?


Comments

lucy said…
I like the old format ,but I don't post, aside from stealing one of the first comments on this fresh one :-)
neener! neener!

since I am here I will say no pics because (a) some sort of agreement with Archie's real mom (b) could be money grab but going so long without any? (c) they definitely do not live at Frogmore

thanks for new post ,that was me whining back there and it worked! (grin)
bootsy said…
Hi Nutty, I don't mind the old format at all. It seems the only problem is when a few people get a bee in their bonnet and go off on a private battle which takes up a lot of posts. As long as they're not being overly rude or completely off topic then I say just leave it, we can always skip them if we want to, we're all adults who can read.

And thanks for this new post, I've been a bit confused regarding the Frogmore cottage thing as no one has mentioned anything about it for a while.

To play devil's advocate, is it possible that they really are living there and people are just keeping it quiet? The locals are apparently quite respectful of the RF so would keep quiet (supposedly) and people would just let them get on with it.
Considering what has been said about the Press then they would be crazy to start reporting about their living situation as it would mean that the Markles might have a point about harassment. ALthough the argument could easily be made that they have talked about harassment in order to head off these kinds of stories that show that they are lying once again!

In terms of not seeing any of the interiors I think there could be a simple argument for that one too. The Markles have been tone deaf with their PR so far, but it doesn't mean they will be wrong 100% of the time. Publishing glossy pictures of their new home would make them look even more hypocritical about wanting their privacy, let alone showing people how beautiful their new home is because it is tax payers who would have paid for it! It would be a risky move if they are still trying to court public opinion.

And having said all that, we are living in a world with 24 hour rolling news meaning that we expect things to happen quickly. They could do all that you say (a glossy magazine spread etc) at any time, just not right now.
If they really are going away to the US for 6 weeks then would you want to place a bet that they would do it while they're out of the UK to make sure their names are still in the papers? :):)
I’m not surprised by the lack of photos to be honest, how many photos do we see of visitors to Catherine and William’s apartment at KDF? Only ones during official visits are ever shown...Obama and Michelle was one that I remember. Brad and Angelina were also to have said visited them..no photos because it was a private visit. The same would be for any senior royal. I know the Sussex’s love social media and showing photos, but I’d still never expect to see photos of a private visit nor the revamped interior of Frogmore.

Agree Nutty you received complaints about the last blog format, but the new one is much worse IMO.
lucy said…
I will say with regard to your comment about complaints on the open posts. once the comments reach 200+ comments, kinda becomes open post, no?

maybe my biggest beef is lack of enter key, paragraph breaks our our friends folks

Meghan is a fame whore, has no problem tossing up myriad of throwback pics just because. so where are the fresh pics? why no Archie? where is the money shot? curious question indeed. why show the restraint/control in this area? girl wants to be everywhere. what is preventing this?
Liver Bird said…
Richard Palmer should be ashamed of himself with that 'playgroup' story. And I say story because that's just what it is - a story. Completely made up. Children Archie's age don't interact with other babies or recognise their hair colour- they have no interest in them at all. And were all the other parents at the 'playgroup' ordered to give their phones to the RPOs and made to sign NDAs? That would be very insulting if true, but then, it isn't true.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sandie said…
The blog shows about 200 posts and then you choose 'newest' to load the next lot of posts. It is easy enough to scroll through the posts and skip the ones you have already read.

They are living at Frogmore Cottage. Unless paparazzi (or anyone else) stakes it out to get photos of them through a window (and those are easy enough to tint for privacy) or coming and going, we are not going to get photos of them at home (and RPOs would move along anyone trying to do so).

How close can the public get to the house and are there any new photos of the house? I suspect that the photos we see in the media are old photos. And, just because someone says they live in the area and see nothing does not mean that person is telling the truth. If you do live at Windsor take a date and time stamped photo of yourself with the cottage in the background, then I will believe that you were there and got close to the property.

As for photos of the house (exterior or interior) by the couple, I suspect that Harry has forbade it and Meghan plays along with the narrative of privacy to feed his paranoia and control him. Besides, it is rare for anyone in the BRF to release photos of their private spaces. Megsy needs Harry and the BRF for her access to wealth and a global platform and is a long way from being able to have her lifestyle independently (just the 24-hour RPOs would cost her a fortune), and maybe she is embarrassed that she does not live in a palace or and large country estate. Frogmore Cottage may be larger than the average house but it is not impressive when compared with other royal residences (Kensington Palace, Clarence House, Amner Hall and Highgrove House with their extensive grounds, the Royal Lodge or Bagshot Park).

The whole BRF and all their staff are going along with the fiction that they are not living there? I doubt it. Publicly released accounts show that millions was spent on refurbishment. Why if there is no-one living there?

It is possible to remain under the radar. The Cambridges live in busy London. Three times Kate was taken to hospital for childbirth (and I think twice for treatment of HG) yet no-one got a photo of them leaving KP. All the Queen's children and grandchildren (except Charles and William) use offices at BP and thus often go to BP for work, but there are very few photos of them coming and going despite tourists always being in the vicinity.
lucy said…
it just makes zero sense for her not to squeak out a pic here and there. I am not even saying anything monumental like Archie and Queen or the inside of the fake home but like Archie in the rugby jersey? pics or it didn't happen

go back to the old format Nutty, your site took a dive when you switched. if people really want to post they can/will figure it out. this format is horrid.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nutty Flavor said…
The Tweet is still live.
lucy said…
I am not on Twitter but took me but 40 seconds to find it
https://imgur.com/a/NENTIah?desktop=1
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
lucy said…
again, why have we seen NOTHING of Frogmore. where is that rogue photographer with telephoto lense? even in this group aren't there some within reasonable proximity? get us some fake adopted dog crap on the lawn lol *anything*
lucy said…
I am sorry I am being chatty but even to strip it all down. why aren't we seeing Meghan gliding down the aisles of a grocery store , Archie in cart? you can't tell me she wouldn't LOVE to see that plastered everywhere.

she lays out all these random lame stories but no pics? Lol why the heck not
Liver Bird said…
@Sandie

On balance I agree that they probably are living in Toad Hall, though I'd not bet my life's savings on it. I don't think the absence of photos is strange either, for the reasons you give. I also agree that living in what by royal standards is a very modest establishment - on a graveyard and in the Heathrow flightpath - might embarrass Meghan, who thought she'd be living in a palace.

I still don't think HM regularly 'pops in', nor do I believe Clinton visited her yesterday. I think the latter was jealousy over her meeting with William. These two are SO predictable.
Ava C said…
I actually like the current format as it's so quick to just tap 'newest' rather than needing to scroll through previous posts to find new entries on a thread. I stopped reading altogether for a while as it was taking too much time. That said, I'm happy to go with the majority opinion.

About Frogmore, I agree that it's actually standard royal practice to keep everything private. Public annoyance about this is because the rest of their behaviour is so unacceptable, Archie's arrival being a great example. If they had just done a minute or so on the hospital steps before going home for weeks of seclusion the public would have been fine. Instead it became a saga that is still damaging their reputation.

I also agree there may be an element of embarrassment as the place is significantly more modest than any other royal house I can think of excluding guest cottages at Balmoral. Have you seen Edward and Sophie's place? My jaw literally dropped when I saw it. Reminded me of the hugely sprawling house George Harrison used to have, but he was a Beatle for goodness sake. I do wonder how Edward and Sophie will cope with the expenses when Charles becomes king. They could end up like Prince and Princess Michael of Kent with the press speculating how they manage financially.

One final thing off-topic. Just read in the Guardian that Prince Andrew is to do a 'no holds barred' interview on a Newsnight Special (BBC) to be shown 9pm this Saturday. Questions not vetted in advance.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/15/prince-andrew-to-be-quizzed-on-epstein-in-newsnight-special






PaisleyGirl said…
As previous posters have mentioned, the lack of pictures of interiors/exteriors at Frogmore are not that surprising. Perhaps the interiors are not quite finished yet. And perhaps Harry is still busy building the expensive BBQ pit and doesn’t want anyone to see it until it’s completed.
Re the lack of pictures of Archie, I think there are only three possible explanations:
1.The Harkles do not have (full-time) custody of Archificial, for whatever reason (surrogate got cold feet, substance abuse issues, mental health issues etc.)
2.The Harkles do have custody, but Archie is approximately ten months old instead of the six months he is supposed to be. Every new picture increases the risk of scrutiny about his size and abilities. Or perhaps he is just a wonder baby, who is incredibly large and quick in his development. Must be all that breastfeeding from Meghan in recent months.
3.Harry has put his foot down in this one instance and ordered Meghan not to post ANY baby pics on social media. I think Harry truly believes his mum was killed by the paparazzi and may therefore be super protective of his son.
Nutty Flavor said…
I can see that I am in the minority on Frogmore Cottage, but I still think photos of the reception room/drawing room there would be appropriate, particularly given the large taxpayer expense for the renovation.

We see the reception rooms at other Royal homes on a regular basis.
Liver Bird said…
"We see the reception rooms at other Royal homes on a regular basis."

When do we see them except when they are the venue for official visits?
I don't mind this new format. I click on newer/newest link & it's fine, but not fussed if others prefer the old.

Archie the invisible or visible only in SA. Why?
Elton John, Ellen, Hillary, all have supposedly met with Archie with tufts of red hair .......But no photos? And the Queen popping round for tea all the time & MM didn't get one photo? I'm surprised MM didn't add that the Queen was ever so helpful with changing Archie 's nappies, lol.

It does make me wonder if there is any truth in the rumours that there is no Archie.
And the b&w christening photo yesterday with Prince Charles? Why not a newer photo of Archie? Why not indeed.
Liver Bird said…
As for Archie, I don't think we've actually seen him LESS than other royal babies. We only had about 4 or 5 official pics of Louis in his first year. It's just that there's so much nonsense and silly talk about 'privacy' regarding him. With the Cambridge kids, we see them on a few carefully monitored official events a few times a year and... that's it. We don't hear about 'celebrities' feeding them or about their 'tufts of hair'. All of that just encourages speculation about him, rather than protecting his privacy, as his parents claim they want.
lucy said…
I am an outsider. I know nothing of the royal family. I knew the major players and just so happened to catch the breaking news of Princess Diana's death in the middle of the night upon returning from an amusement park. broke my heart, I knew not much but I knew Diana and I am human

I read CDAN and found this blog through there (suck it Rosie )

I knew nothing of Meghan, who really did? but I did tune into wedding because it is a royal wedding and seamstress at work was so excited I felt I must, if only for the dress

still no real opinion. I found the preacher kinda out there and lack of dad peculiar

skip to The Baby. I was excited to hear he was born and perhaps I was in the minority but I thought the name Archie was freaking adorable. seamstress at work was all meh so I found myself kinda curious what others views may be

still not interested enough to search the web etc but it was around then that nutty began the blog. this has literally been my window. dare I say I didn't even know William's children would take the throne prior to Harry. I am telling you honestly how it is and that's why I have never commented, I don't know sh.t

but oh my gosh what a total shit show. I honestly have so much empathy for the people of England, the Queen and all those devoted to all things royal. I am a libra, believe.

holy hell Meghan is total shit show. not to mention shell of human. it's all been said before so I won't but WOW. she faked a pregnancy for nine months on a global stage, no one can make me believe otherwise

now I am in. I know nothing else but to say I am invested and now frequent the usual haunts, not sure if it's fair to plug others tumblers but I peek there too

but one thing I am sure of is Meghan is typical wannabe Hollywood starlet and any and all publicity for her is ,pardon me, total orgasm

so again it circles back to why no pics!!?
seriously take a moment , dumb it all down and answer the amazing question of why no pics!

Nutty, honestly what do you believe? disregarding the supposed residence and I know you poised the question to stir discussion and it will be discussed, ad nauseum. but why do you personally feel we don't see Archie? please don't say it's Harry keeping the lid on because he could barely keep handle on her so that he could perform proper salute without slugging her in the face

of course I like to read everyone's well spaced opinion. but I really want to know what's spinning behind the eyes of our humbe leader. nutty what say you?
Madge said…
Heads up folks. There are two new articles on the Harry Markle blog which are interesting.
lucy said…
* humble

and also too why I am here at the bottom of page there is an option for "simplified view" but it's like technical error as nothing happens, maybe that may be of some benefit to look into what the "simplified view" switch is

as for those commenting and comparing how much they've seen of Will & Katherine's kids/house that's rather a mute point because they don't have Instagram hustler/ camera seeking extraordinaire as parent
Piroska said…
They did not even have to stand on the steps of the hospital - a birth announcement in the normal format signed by the attending doctors would have stopped all of the speculation. As for the Queem frequently driving herself to Toad Hall - HM has problems with her knees and from personal experience I can say that the pain encountered in extracting yourself from a car after even a short drive is excruciating
lucy said…
I just saw the Queen on a horse! she could gallop to Frogmore if she wanted. lmao the Queen is not popping over to Frogmore and if she did there damn well would be a pic!

but hey maybe I am wrong and maybe months from now we will all be privy to bodacious scrapbook but still begs the question why not now!
lizzie said…
The authorized photos taken of William and Harry with Charles and/or Diana when they were children often gave a peek of the homes they lived in. (For example, the pic at the piano with Diana.) The 1st birthday pics Kate took of Charlotte showed parts of Anmer Hall as did the photos with George when Charlotte was a newborn. Charles has authorized pics of his digs over the years. The black and white "Gothic" photos from the GQ article showed the Cambridges in the garden at KP...

I'm kind of surprised all we've seen of the FC exterior is its old dilapidated self. We didn't see interior pics of Nott Cott either so I think it's Harry's privacy-obsessed doing...instead we have M's friends reporting how "warm" and "welcoming" M makes their homes giving us instead verbal pictures in People magazine. (Never had THAT with other royals!) And remember the odd video filmed in Eugenie's home as if Harry lived there?

I think photos of Archie are in short supply because he is older than his stated age. When he's a bit older that won't be apparent. The main difference IMO is we got lots of photos of the Cambridge kids before and after their christenings. What we saw of Archie's christening (then and now) looked pretty photoshopped for many many reasons. Plus we got the dumb photo of feet... can't imagine any other British royal doing that.

I agree with @Liver Bird about the playgroup story being BS. A 6-month old doesn't "play with" or show interest in other babies especially based on hair color. Plus supposedly Meghan claimed that happened for the first time before Archie was even supposed to be 6 months old.

I like the current format best but will read the blog no matter what.
Lillian said…
One thing I’ve learned in this saga is to always trust Meghan. And she never disappoints.

Get her the ‘best’ PR company in the US and she’ll sabotage their efforts. Organise a trip with depth of potential material and give her a very good supporting team - how could that not work? Trust Meghan...

To support her numerous PR creations, she needs photos. So many of them she’s resorted to forgeries on many an occasion - much to our merriment. Is Meghan staying at Frogmore? The day she does that, or even has access to the keys, I trust Meghan to innundate us with photos...views of the landscape outside all windows, having a cuppa as the sun sets/rises, family time, friends visiting etc

I trust Meghan to publicly document her time at Frogmore - her many photos will tell us. Not PR stories...
@Nutty, ‘We see the reception rooms at other Royal homes on a regular basis.’

We don’t. We saw the Cambridge’s once when the Obama’s visited, the others are royal palaces so they tend to get shown more, again, it’s usually official visits when we do. Clarence House and The Cambridge’s KDF apartment was renovated using tax payers cash...you aren’t going to get a photo spread of the work done, it never happens. The Sussex’s aren’t any different here.
lucy said…
I hope so too that I am not coming off as obnoxious . everyone of you has entertained and given me food for thought for months now and I sincerely thank you and Nutty for fun read. I just didn't read for a day and was greeted with 500 comments and got disgruntled because I was missing so much but you can't easily scroll through new comments with hundred to a page and then multiple posters submitting same links wish showed they too didn't/ couldnt even read before posting

I work alot I don't have much time to contribute so who am I to whine of a place I do not contribute to but the universe aligned as such that I couldn't sleep nor could I cohesively read what I missed and here I am

but thanks to all of you for the laughs and the learning. you are fun to watch when I can see it :)
Jenx said…
Either format is fine. I read what I want, skip the rest. And yes, the enter key.

I do not believe they live at Toad Hall and I don't believe they live together either. Since when does MM follow Royal practice or protocol and when does she defer to Harry? I think a solo Soho bolthole is likely.

It must kill her not to have photos of herself as the chatelaine of a grand estate. Why the story plants of pubs and playgroups without receipts? Perhaps the RF bdoes hold some sway over her regarding photos. The threat of treason? Fake heirs and all that.

But I would think that if there is indeed a child and a bonafide domestic partnership, it would be to everyone's advantage to have some photographic evidence. The black hole gives me pause. Something is not right.
lucy said…
grrr some seem to be missing the point. Meghan doesn't follow royal protocol whatsoever and as self proclaimed trailblazer she doesn't care who shows what of their home and child she'd LOVE to show it all!

she would totally participate in some sordid waking up with Meghan complete with messy bed (wig) hair on YouTube even if she could

something prevents her from even releasing a single photo quarterly. what is it?!
Portcitygirl said…
Hillary meets Meghan. Watch out America!
lucy said…
yes @jenx you are correct! it is killing her to not show some sort of quaint Frogmore nook, sunlight just right as she reads story to Archie with steam emminating from tea cup that Harry just carried in on a tray
Longview said…
A few random thoughts....

Frogmore Cottage. I believe they are 'officially' residing there, but both have such drug-affected, whacky, indulgent lifestyles that are lived separately, that they don't actually often or ever stay there. She would spend a lot of nights drinking, taking illegal substances and crashing at Soho, and he would do the same but crashing at Nott Cott or elsewhere at KP. They come together for functions, but that is about it. They are both mentally damaged and extremely egotistical beings, who cannot function selflessly as one of a pair but must live alone. There has probably not been the vast amounts of money required to decorate it to Meghan's standard (the RF only paying for the infrastructure renovations) and it actually looks like a bit of a shit-pit inside. Beause it's not 'on-brand' she would not want people to see photographs of how ordinary or unkempt it is inside.

Archie. The baby in the Christening photos in my opinion is different to the baby in the South African photos. The Christening photos also show Catherine, one of the Spencer Aunts, and Doria all in pink. Traditionally royal women wear either pink or blue depending on the gender of the child being Christened. Why were they in pink when the baby was a boy? Ultimately I believe there is a child, but more mature heads have taken over the duty of care for the baby because both Harry and Meghan are incapable of looking after a vulnerable third party, and have no interest in or capacity for the drudgery of looking after a baby day in, day out. HM will ensure the child is well cared for and provided for at least until its majority.

Photographs. We know that Meghan is an incessant photographer. Perhaps her continued funding is tied to her not releasing and exploiting photos of the baby or their 'home'. I remember Fergie being the subject of a documentary about 20 years ago, and the filmmaker panned the camera to somewhere in the girls' bedroom. Fergie was recorded as saying, "Oh no, please don't show that, I will get in SO much trouble". So the RF does try to control what is photographed/released when it relates to children/premises.

Control. The RF still clearly has some control over Meghan. The fact she appeared on Remembrance Sunday on the balcony (I was there in the crowd) wearing really suitable clothing (someone else obviously chose her clothing) and behaved appropriately, means they still have some control over her, for what the RF deems are the important events.

Drugs
I find it really interesting that Meghan just recently has started to call Harry 'H', both in the South African documentary and in Sussex Royal postings. 'H' is a street term for Heroin. I wonder if she has threatened to expose someone's drug use, and the use of 'H' in public is a repeated threat to the RF to acquiesce to her demands, or she will release (anonymously) the fact that someone she is close to uses Heroin.

Nutty, love the fact that you donate so much time to putting out regular blogs. We can work around whatever format is best or you, just please keep posting. It is such a civil and engaging blog.
lucy said…
it really is a great blog! I am going to shut up now and many thanks for allowing me to crash the party and I really appreciate the paragraph breaks , noticed and extremely appreciate!!

I also too just reread the Richard Palmer tweet and feels it lacks "..and then I woke up" lol

you folks are fun, keep at it and kudos to you Nutty for dedication to blog and all those who allow it to thrive

of course I will revisit later and there will then be 200 long snaking comments but even now I struggle with the 30, just a mess to me, but I am on a phone so maybe it is different view for others

really is fun space, keyword space hehe

thanks again :)
Nutty Flavor said…
@Liver Bird:

Inside Clarence House

(One of many results from Googling "Inside Clarence House)

Inside Buckingham Palace

Similar results for Balmoral, St. James, etc.

Again, mostly reception rooms.

If you Google "Inside Frogmore Cottage", you get this nice Express piece with photos of Soho Farmhouse. Supposedly the same designer.
Nutty Flavor said…
Thank you, @Longview!

@Lucy, like most journalists I am better at asking questions than coming up with answers.

I lean towards the surrogacy theorey, since Meg's changing bump sizes seem to suggest she was never pregnant. It seems unlikely to me that Meg and Harry have custody of the baby called Archificial, however, since neither one seems to have an connection to the baby, who seems otherwise emotionally healthy and loved.
Liver Bird said…
@Nutty

Clarence House and the other places you mention have been in use for decades as venues for official royal events. Froggy Hall was vacant until the Harkles moved there less than a year ago, and is not and will not be used for official events. It's entirely unremarkable that there have been no pictures of the interior. Do we get lots of photos from inisde Edward's or Ann's homes? Because they are the relevant comparison, not the official residences of the monarch and the Prince of Wales.
lucy said…
Archificial is brilliant by the way . as tantalizing this tale all is, it is very sad state of affairs for the Queen and family ,country to endure. deserve so much more, maybe even Harry too but he has been warped

I suppose the saving grace is Archi does appear to be happy well fed bouncy boy

maybe the lack of photos is testament that they no longer have access to this particular fella and so they wait it out for enough time to lapse so when new stand in emerges they can blame significant change in appearance on how "babies change so much.."

but I do believe this whole fiasco creates surge in M to produce baby of her own and roll 'it' out in her own flashy unrestrained way. I pray her age or other surrounding factors prevent that (such a morbid thought to have but well she is who she is)

what a mess. I only hope decades from now our grandchildren aren't reading the horrors of how the lives of Archificial 1,2 3 infinitum played out in a series of salacious cdan blinds. let the babies be
Nutty Flavor said…
@LiverBird, neither Edward nor Anne have homes that have been newly renovated for several million pounds at taxpayer expense.

Nor do they have Instagram accounts where they share photos of their lives on a nearly daily basis.

I maintain that the comparison to Charles/Clarence House and the Cambridges is more apt, and that the British taxpayers should have the opportunity to see what they paid for at Frogmore Cottage, within reasonable limits of privacy.

I do not think an image of Hilary Clinton sitting on the Sussex sofa is too invasive.
lucy said…
@liver bird I understand that royal residences are sacred. but you seem to be forgetting that this is MEGHAN'S house and if she could do "mornings with Meg" from the royal bed she would
Miggy said…
@Nutty,

I commented on your previous blog post this morning about Palmer's 'Frogmore' tweet without realising you had started a new one. Duh!

Might I be cheeky and suggest that when you write a new blog entry you let us know on the previous one? :)

As for the format - I'm quite happy with the one you are now using.
lucy said…
see proof right there this format sucks if you are requested by participants to announce new post

sorry I wish I had an answer
Liver Bird said…
"either Edward nor Anne have homes that have been newly renovated for several million pounds at taxpayer expense."

Well no, but you said we see inside royal residences regularly, and we really don't. In fact, even with the official residences of the monarch and her heir, we hardly ever see inside them unless they are being used for official events. In the case of the royals of similar senoirity to the Harkles, we rarely if ever see inside them at all. So the fact that we haven't seen inside Frog Cottage during the less than a year it's been the Harkles' residence, isn't evidence that they are not living there.

"I maintain that the comparison to Charles/Clarence House and the Cambridges is more apt, and that the British taxpayers should have the opportunity to see what they paid for at Frogmore Cottage, within reasonable limits of privacy."

It's not really about 'should' though, is it? If you ask me, British taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for the renovations at all, but we do. The Cambridge duo spent £15 million on renovating Amner Hall, and the taxpayer didn't get to see where their money went either.

"I do not think an image of Hilary Clinton sitting on the Sussex sofa is too invasive."

That's if she was there at all. We didn't see her meeting with William either.

Miggy said…
@Lucy,

I admit I was unfamiliar with the old format as I was a lurker at the time, rather than a contributor - but I find this one really easy to use.
It doesn't suck at all. :)
lucy said…
what about your own domain with WordPress. probably run you $10 a month. bigger stage, better format . morph everything to that

I don't think blogger is the answer, selling yourself short. go for it. you are damn good enough for it
Miggy said…
I'd love if this was a forum, so that we could post photos etc. :)
lizzie said…
"We didn't see her [HRC] meeting with William either."

No, we didn't see HRC meeting with Will. But are we now considering People mag and the Court Circular as equivalent in terms of reliability? Doubtful! :)
@Liver Bird, ‘Clarence House and the other places you mention have been in use for decades as venues for official royal events.’

I totally agree and was going to comment something similar. Also, The Queen Mother used to entertain a lot of well known people, and I think there may have been a short time when some rooms in Clarence House were open to the public (after her death in 2002).

Frogmore like Amner Hall are private residences. Frogmore as you say was never used for official events, unlike Clarence House, BP, KP, Windsor Castle etc.

**************
I’m seeing a lot more comments which have little or no baring on the reality on what goes on or could occur within the royal family. Most are coming from foreign commentators who haven’t grown up with constant media coverage of the British Royal Family, unlike the Brits (which includes me).

Yes, we all know the Sussex’s are constantly breaking new ground and protocol, but some old rules still apply even to them. So yes, a photo of either Hilary, Ellen etc., would be seen as too invasive.

If Meghan and Harry ever divorce, then and probably only then may we see what most Brits would consider unauthorised photos of the royals in private.
I think the fact that we don't see inside Frogmore or see more pictures of them in private is because of the so called press-BRF pinky promise. It's also in keeping with the BRF guidelines (unofficial) to the royals not to release their personal life details, pictures etc through their social media or press. After all, it's not unusual if you consider the rest of the royals.

We have seen inside Clarence house, KP, BP etc but those palaces have been around for ever so inside pictures have been in the public domain for a number of years. Mind you, we haven't really seen much or any of , say, Bagshot park (esseses live there), Gatcombe (Anne, Zara, Phil), the Sandringham cottage where HM and PP supposedly live or even Anmer Hall. The few pics available have been from authorized publications. So, while the interest in Frogmore is very very high, the BRF wouldn't allow photos to be released in any capacity just to appease the public. And PH and MM wouldn't dare to do something so in-your-face.

I do think they live there, but I'm if the opinion they spend a lot of time in London (or someplace else). Groceries etc can be ordered online or left to the staff, I do think believe for a second MM would be walk down to the local Tesco metro to get milk and bananas while walking her dogs. Remember, she said she is lonely and no one in the family has reached out to her. One of the reasons is that she has isolated herself completely. Her constant need to be on Instagram and show how awesome her former life used to be is also somewhat rooted in her loneliness. I think she stays in all the time. And thinks she can't or people would hound her.

As for Archie, I think that's because he is older than they say he is. And their need to keep him to themselves. I do think she gave birth to him, just earlier than may.

The blog format - I liked the earlier one. Much easier to follow the threads. And most of us here indulge in conversations and discussions, the comments arnt usually one-off. So that's my two cents worth.
lucy said…
Lol @miggy I thought once I expanded screen to see who wrote that I was gonna read TATTY lil shit stirrer lol

I am sorry "sucks" is harsh because I have so much respect for Nutty and posters. it is just really bad on my end and then when I go to post I am met with crazy ever reducing tiny box. it is very weird for me . but I am being selfish because I don't want to miss stuff and I just can't with this view

and I didn't mean to invoke or otherwise provoke tatty. it does offer perspective to read opposing view(s) she really does have way of antagonizing crowd. surely she doesn't _really_ feel that way

just playing tatty. I read you and respect you too *ducks*
Liver Bird said…
"No, we didn't see HRC meeting with Will. But are we now considering People mag and the Court Circular as equivalent in terms of reliability? Doubtful! :"

I don't believe Hilary visited Meghan. But even if she did, the absence of photos in Toad Hall doesn't mean much.
lucy said…
****************

this is precisely why I don't contribute. I already stated I didn't grow up with monarchy but that is precisely my point neither did Meghan so all the protocol and the courtesy ,pomp and circumstance is entirely over my head but unlike Meghan I fully respect it
Nutty Flavor said…
I’m seeing a lot more comments which have little or no baring on the reality on what goes on or could occur within the royal family. Most are coming from foreign commentators who haven’t grown up with constant media coverage of the British Royal Family, unlike the Brits (which includes me).

Yes, we all know the Sussex’s are constantly breaking new ground and protocol, but some old rules still apply even to them. So yes, a photo of either Hilary, Ellen etc., would be seen as too invasive.

If Meghan and Harry ever divorce, then and probably only then may we see what most Brits would consider unauthorised photos of the royals in private.


As a 'foreigner' myself, I have to say - it's a whole new world now from the world you grew up with.

"Constant media coverage" of the Royals now includes social media and click-based corporate media, both 24/7 monsters with a ravenous appetite for content.

I do understand that the British as a whole, and the Royal Family in particular, are private people.

But I also know, from a media viewpoint, that there is a constant hunger for new photos and information, and the 37th release of a Smartworks photo from August or 67th rerun of an Archie photo from September isn't really satisfactory either to online media outlets or online media audiences.

If Meg and her minions are going to drop hints that Hillary or Ellen or Priyanka or Serena came to tea at her lovely newly-furnished home, people are going to want photos, or wonder why they didn't get them.
Miggy said…
@Lucy, *breathes sigh of relief* lol

I'm using a laptop, so I have no idea if the format appears different with other appliances but from what you say, apparently it does. Must be frustrating for you.

Agree about this blog and its posters. Much respect from me too.




Sandie said…
Liver Bird: 'It's not really about 'should' though, is it? If you ask me, British taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for the renovations at all, but we do. The Cambridge duo spent £15 million on renovating Amner Hall, and the taxpayer didn't get to see where their money went either.'

The Cambridges paid for work on Amner Hall, which is on the Sandringham Estate (not part of the Crown Estate but personal property of the monarch).

Kensington Palace, Clarence House, Buckingham Palace and the Windsor Estate are all part of the Crown Estate and the rights and administration of these residences are complicated. Other than the Queen it is only Prince Charles (Highgrove House), the Cambridges (Amner Hall) and Princess Anne (Gatcombe Park) who have residences that are not part of the Crown Estate (I am not sure about other minor royals).

The Sovereign Grant is used for the upkeep and renovations of all Crown Estate properties (but I think it was Prince Andrew who personally paid for renovations to The Lodge and thus got a reduced lease for the property; the Wessexes also lease property on the Windsor Estate; the arrangements for the Sussexes has never been revealed).

The Sovereign Grant is a percentage of the income from the profits of the Crown Estate (which consists of more than residences that the BRF use) and it is this money that is used for renovations and upkeep of all properties that are part of the Crown Estate.
Miggy said…
@Madge,

Thanks for letting us all know about the new HarryMarkle! :)
d.c. said…
Hey, all. I seem to be in the minority, but I prefer the (admittedly difficult to navigate) new format because I can post from Safari on the iPad. It’s very difficult to engage if I have to go hunt down another browser, log in, and hope it works there. This format has consistently posted my thoughts, o. first try. No lost posts, for me.

I agree with the majority about MM, the pics, & Archie. Namely,
1) MM was not pregnant with Archie, and am #TeamPillow
2) Archie photos are very restricted due to his age being far greater than stated (hence the photoshop lies with his Christening pics, incredibly large size at various points, overly advanced physical abilities inconsistent with his purported age)
3) Archie doesn’t have an attachment to either his purported parents. (note lack of seeking eye contact with MM & PH: note how he doesn’t snuggle into them - he does not seek rapprochement safety in their presence. MM & PH have to pull the child’s head towards them, to try and create a pic that resembles closeness.). I do not believe they are sugnificantly involved in raising him, and she for sure did not breatfeed him. He never once reached for her, rooting for food, or seeking comfort, in all the pics / vids. It’s just something that would have for sure been captured, within seconds.
4) MM & PH don’t likely live at Frogmore, given absence of promised magazine glossies of her “editing.”.
5) None of the visits with celebrities happened. I think her PR (or she herself) keeps tabs on any celebrities that do business or publicize being in the area, and then just make up some seemingly harmless lie. Pics or they didn’t happen .

#TeamKeepThisFormat
@Nutty, I think this is where the perspective is getting a cross-over. A lot of Brits see the royals as royals and only royals, but millennials and foreign nations see them as celebrities too, which they aren’t. This is why we a lot of Brits don’t ‘expect’ to see certain coverage or photos, not even with the internet age etc.
Typo: It should have been foreign nationals and not foreign nations.
DesignDoctor said…
Nutty, I like this format just fine. I just go to "Newest" and read from where I left off. It is easier than trying to find new replies buried in threaded discussion IMO.

Not sure why we have not seen more pics of Archie. I think he is older than "advertised" and that he does not live with them given his behavior/affect with H&M in SA.

I agree with the posters who say that Megs would post pics of Toad Hall if she could. As a narc, she just would not be able to control herself
and keep from showing off her royal digs if she actually lives there. Look at how great I am!!!!!

She has the emotional maturity of a teen IMO as evidenced by the silly SmartWorks pic posted yesterday on Insta.

I do not believe HRC visited her yesterday.

Thanks for a great blog, Nutty!
I thought it was extremely strange the Ed Sheehan/Prince Harry video was shot at Princess Eugenie’s home. Why was her privacy invaded for a Prince Harry project? Why not film at Frogmore? If privacy is a concern, film at one of the many other royal residences.
d.c. said…
Oh, also, if MM & PH are pic-averse, why the advertising-funded photo spread with Desmond Tutu?
That was a celebrity photo-shoot (and video) for merch-assoc $$, and surely if they were willing to do that, Ellen/HRC would warrant an instagram pic?
lucy said…
@miggy it's a real drag. look! this is how it looks before I post. can't even read bottom of what I type and then when I hit "preview" it's a 2x2 box to scroll about = mess
https://imgur.com/a/gU7AIPP

I have to be in minority though, no one else would endure this. reading is difficult enough. I couldn't imagine posting regularly

but oh my gosh I was just reminded all residents must fund this debacle. I feel for you all I really do. here it's rather a blatant "the government"waste blast but there it is literally a couple, That Couple
IEschew said…
@Nutty, I am with you, the FrogCott absence of photos is remarkable, if only because of its contrast with the volume of other PR bologna from its resident victims. Same re: Archieficial. I feel it’s like apples and oranges trying to compare the behavior of these two with that of other royals (or any stable individual for that matter). I for one do not believe Meghan is competent enough to be puppeteering all of it. What I cannot decide is whether the Queen’s laissez-faire approach to her grands is the reason for such a nil reaction from the RF and press, or if the RF actually is being victimized.

What we do either way, beyond what you are doing by questioning things the media for some reason refuse to?

Perhaps with the all-access BBC interview, the timing of which I find interesting, PA is trying to tidy a path forward. I don't have high hopes. He needs to be granting interviews to authorities. Why the BBC instead, and why this of all weeks???
Ava C said…
I posted earlier that Frogmore Cottage being off limits is standard royal practice and still think so, unless there is an event of some kind. KP etc. have official reception rooms whereas Frogmore doesn't. No comparison re: scale and degree of formality.

However, I do think that the zero coverage is strange in this case, as others have said, because it is Meghan. Even the vital area of security is ignored by her. She repeatedly ignores instructions from her security. Bolts off unpredictably. Closes her car door. Switches sides in walkabouts. All absolute no-nos. If she can repeatedly ignore the one area where there is the equivalent of a three-line whip in place for all BRF members, then she can ignore rules about publicising where she lives.

There's probably a combination of factors for the publicity black hole. I agree they cannot be Archie's main carers. I keep thinking of the photo from the Tutu session that is repeatedly used by the press, where she has just one finger awkwardly pressed against his arm. So unnatural. No reason possible other than stopping him from reaching out to the person or people he really knows.

I also agree the interiors may not be up to Architectural Digest standards. Tax-payers funded essential renovation but would not fund the kind of things Meghan would want unless some financial irregularity went on. And seeing how crummy Frogmore Cottage is compared to other royal houses, I can't imagine the Queen sanctioning public payment for luxuries.

Finally, this is probably the one area where Harry stands up for himself in their marriage due to his obsessive belief that the press killed his mother. (Has anyone literally sat him down and forced him to consider the drunk-driving and failure to wear a seat-belt? Surely William has tried. So frustrating to see Harry refusing, for years, to listen to reason.) I think Meghan walks all over him apart from the area of privacy, but I'm still struggling to believe he can control her in any way at all.

Incidentally, what did they do to control her on Remembrance Sunday? Whatever it was it worked, by Meghan's standards. So they need to keep doing it. She obviously needs two senior minders like Sophie and Tim last Sunday, standing literally either side of her. Maybe the secret is to make them do separate engagements. She's more constrained when he's not there to enable her bad behaviour. And we'd get a break from the ridiculous PDAs.
@Sandie, ‘If you ask me, British taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for the renovations at all, but we do.’

So totally agree. A lot of senior royals do have their own private income. Just because they live mostly in tax funded housing, shouldn’t mean tax payers should have to pay for costly renovations. It goes on and on. We shouldn’t have to pay for their security when they engage in a private visit..but we do.
Jen said…
Nutty, I liked the ability to respond right to the OP that the previous format allowed, that being said, I do like this format in that you don't have to read through everything again to see responses...so I am open to whatever the majority wants to do.

As for photos, I agree with Liver Bird, we don't typically see the living spaces of other royals, even after they've spent the citizens money to upgrade. I think that it would have gone a long way towards more positive PR had they provided some photos of the interior, as well as more photos of Archie. The people of the UK are interested in their royal family, there's nothing wrong with providing a sneak peek. That's all that's being asked for!
abbyh said…

I have not read everything (yet). Comment later on that.

Nutty - what if at about 200, you cut it off and said, part 2?

And I agree with Lucy about the lack of paragraphs (wall of text makes me want something other than coffee).

Personally, I liked the old format. It made it easier for me to go to the sub conversation and comment there.

... what about an open question one which runs in addition to your current post where people could throw up a question and others comment? For example, I cannot understand why M would be allowed to walk in front of Camilla at the placing of the crosses? Under what protocol would M ever outrank her? She was sick and didn't but I don't get it.

Many thanks for this. You point out nuances in things I generally have a question about or hadn't thought of.
Trooper said…
The photo of Archie with Prince Charles looks totally fake and photoshopped to me. Narcissists love to think they are tricking and manipulating people. When she looks at the camera, that is the equivalent of the narcissistic stare except she is doing it on a global scale.
Liver Bird said…
@Raspberry Ruffle

Totally agree. The general attitude in Britain seems to be 'Do your little charity events, do the pomp and ceremony a few times a year, give us a few opportunities to gossip about you. But other than that, we don't much want to see you. And we certainly do not want to hear from you. We're not paying you in order to hear your inane opinions.'

I really don't think many Brits would expect, much less demand, pics from inside Toad Hall. Nor do they much care to see Archie - it's just that all the subterfuge and secrecy seemed disrespectful to the public who will fund his privileged lifestyle. It's Meghan who has encouraged this 'royal as celebrity' thing, but your average Brit really doesn't care.
DesignDoctor said…
@MidwesternantiMeg

I think Eugenie's home was used because H& M do not live at Frogmore or even together. The truth of their living situation would be revealed if the video was shot at Frogmore.
CatEyes said…
@bootsy

>It seems the only problem is when a few people get a bee in their bonnet and go off on a private battle which takes up a lot of posts. As long as they're not being overly rude or completely off topic then I say just leave it, we can always skip them if we want to, we're all adults who can read<

I got sucked in on a situation by defending myself (last topic) and I apologized to the group I wish we should be cognizant of the length of our 'interpersonal' posts in such a case and not demand info on a person's personal life or make wild accusations. I think Nutters gave been a great group of people

Anyway most of us post 'opinions' and it is usually just that, not hard solid facts.
Glow W said…
I swear its not a phantom tweet and I didn’t make it up. It’s under tweets and replies, maybe you have to make an account and follow him. I follow him. again, it isn’t under tweets, it’s under tweets and replies. That’s all I can do. I don’t know what else to tell you. 🤷🏼‍♀️
Glow W said…
Ok I seee you all figured it out. I agree they should take a dang photo in the living room in color of the three of them sitting on the sofa.
Madge said…
>>Liver Bird said…
@Raspberry Ruffle

Totally agree. The general attitude in Britain seems to be 'Do your little charity events, do the pomp and ceremony a few times a year, give us a few opportunities to gossip about you. But other than that, we don't much want to see you. And we certainly do not want to hear from you. We're not paying you in order to hear your inane opinions.'

I really don't think many Brits would expect, much less demand, pics from inside Toad Hall. Nor do they much care to see Archie - it's just that all the subterfuge and secrecy seemed disrespectful to the public who will fund his privileged lifestyle. It's Meghan who has encouraged this 'royal as celebrity' thing, but your average Brit really doesn't care.
November 15, 2019 at 5:44 AM<<

Absolutely! Well said Liver Bird! It's the disrespectful behaviour which is the reason for increasing dislike and negative press. The Harkles should look at Sophie and Edward as an example of how to behave.
SwampWoman said…
How odd that some of you see walls of text and not paragraph breaks. My browser is Chrome.
Ava C said…
@ Liver Bird - totally agree - The general attitude in Britain seems to be 'Do your little charity events, do the pomp and ceremony a few times a year, give us a few opportunities to gossip about you. But other than that, we don't much want to see you. And we certainly do not want to hear from you. We're not paying you in order to hear your inane opinions.'

Back in the old Kate Middleton Review days I was annoyed with Kate's low number of engagements but now I think it's at the right level even though she hasn't really raised her numbers. That's because she's raised her game, appearing more confident and engaged now (thanks to Catherine Quinn) but also because after being fed up to the back teeth with Meghan, I'm perfectly happy with Kate just popping up now and then, perfectly groomed as always, meeting people who are happy to meet her. That's how it's supposed to be after all. Add to that William's fine form now and we have a completely satisfactory royal couple. Imagine if we were unhappy with them too!
Louise said…
Richar Palmer seems to be privy to a lot of information this week:

Besides running the story about the baby play group for Archie and other gingers ONTHE SAME PAGE as the story about Charles' birthday celebrations (it couldn't have been on another page? Do they have to hog all the space?), he now tweets:

"Buckingham Palace’s statement about the Sussexes spending Christmas with Meghan’s mother instead of at Sandringham did not specify whether they would be in the UK or abroad. I’m now confident to report they will be abroad."


Is he being given info in exchange for favorable press?
About the Archie photo with Charles - I think, once again, the Sussexes are being a but of a tease and showing us old photos. Their paranoia about privacy wiuldnt be so odd if they would just stick to their own policy of keeping their baby under wraps for ever, no compromises for anyone, celebrity or bit. But obviously they dont/won't do that. Archie is their ultimate trump card, so they will bring him out when they need sympathy, when they need to change the narrative and when they ever they need to score some brownie points. Of course the chances of seeing Archie in UK is next to nil. I don't see them releasing any birthday pictures because they'll want to build k trandtion so to say and take a dig at the Cambridge's. The baby alsways looks different because the photos are so heavily edited. Black and White is not realistic info wise anyway, but their idea is to curate a montage of their ideal life and not to provide information to the public.

We didn't see the Cambridge's kids all that often either. Nor do we see many other royal kids out and about. It's unfortunate that Archie's parents totally screwed up with his birth and first year so far, and all because they were thinking from marketing point of view, and not as a pair of hugely adored public servants who should show their fan's some goodwill. I also think that discretion is in keeping with the BRF wishes and Harry's personal anger/slash paranoia. I think mm is fame hungry enough and street smart enough to know how to handle Archie's public outings and photos so as to tip the scales in her favour but she is forced to be discreet.
Ava C said…
@Swampwoman yes I get paragraphs too, not walls of text. Chrome.

BTW I was one of the ones who had trouble with CAPTCHA and selecting 'I'm not a robot' made no difference. However I've now realised you can just ignore it altogether and it will publish anyway. I was just being too 'rule-bound' as my psychologist father would say.
Louise said…
I use Chrome and can see paragraphs, except for certain posters who don't use paragraphs when they write.

I don't read anything that looks like a wall of words and skip over those posts.
Ava C said…
I like the point on ladygreyhound93 that whenever a celebrity publicises that they've spent time with Archie the word is always 'cuddle' but this isn't really the word we think they would use themselves. I can't imagine HRC saying that even in grandmother mode. Or Ellen. Not a natural fit.
SwampWoman said…
Ava C said: Back in the old Kate Middleton Review days I was annoyed with Kate's low number of engagements but now I think it's at the right level even though she hasn't really raised her numbers. That's because she's raised her game, appearing more confident and engaged now (thanks to Catherine Quinn) but also because after being fed up to the back teeth with Meghan, I'm perfectly happy with Kate just popping up now and then, perfectly groomed as always, meeting people who are happy to meet her. That's how it's supposed to be after all. Add to that William's fine form now and we have a completely satisfactory royal couple. Imagine if we were unhappy with them too!

I've been thinking about that for awhile. Whenever they (D&DoC) separately or apart do events, they appear to have a great depth of knowledge about it and ask the right questions to elicit information from the people actually running the programs. I would say that they have done a great deal of background work acquiring the knowledge of the various causes and charities that they have been assigned or undertaken and very likely get overviews although I doubt that they could keep up with the day-to-day operations.
IEschew said…
@Louise, I wonder about Richard Palmer too. A couple weeks ago, his Tweets had a fed-up tone and I thought he might start to ask the questions that journalists ought to ask. I was surprised and hoped it meant BRF gloves were coming off and the British press might be freed to investigate this fraud. Now he’s brown-nosing. Shameful.
@Liver Bird, ‘ it's just that all the subterfuge and secrecy seemed disrespectful to the public who will fund his privileged lifestyle. It's Meghan who has encouraged this 'royal as celebrity' thing, but your average Brit really doesn't care.

Totally agree. Meghan has changed the dynamics here, and from some now, we are seeing this ‘expectation’, of celebrity-dom because this is what she’s done, how she’s behaved throughout. She wants to be an A-list celebrity, she wants the adoration etc., and Harry is complicit. She’s not changed anything for the better, it’s, I agree all the lies and subterfuge that we are witnessing that is causing things to go massively awry.

Never before did anybody really see the royal family, in the way some do now. It’s almost entirely why so many cannot see or tell the difference between expected royal behaviour and being a celebrity. The expectations for some has altered, but as I said in my previous comment, it doesn’t make it a reality or the correct supposition.
Miggy said…
@Ava C,

"Back in the old Kate Middleton Review days I was annoyed with Kate's low number of engagements but now I think it's at the right level even though she hasn't really raised her numbers."

I once read an article, (can't recall when or where) that stated that the RF had 'learned lessons' and were allowing William and Catherine plenty of time to adjust to family life so that they could spend as much time with their children as possible without the pressure of too many engagements.
Liver Bird said…
@Ava C

"Back in the old Kate Middleton Review days I was annoyed with Kate's low number of engagements but now I think it's at the right level even though she hasn't really raised her numbers. That's because she's raised her game, appearing more confident and engaged now (thanks to Catherine Quinn) but also because after being fed up to the back teeth with Meghan, I'm perfectly happy with Kate just popping up now and then, perfectly groomed as always, meeting people who are happy to meet her. That's how it's supposed to be after all."

Yup. Plus, outside of royal watchers like ourselves (!) how many people in Britain really keep tabs of the number of engagements Kate does? Very few I should think. People just see a pretty lady with great hair and cute kids, who seems pleasant and professional, and who doesn't shove herself in our faces. And that's enough for the vast majority of Brits. That's why it always makes me laugh when I see those fools on Celebitchy whine about how Kate doesn't 'work' enough. None of them really work. Not in any real sense of the word. And Brits KNOW that and for the most part, so long as the royals conduct themselves with a bit of decorum and dignity when in public, they don't really care.
SwampWoman said…
Ava C said:I like the point on ladygreyhound93 that whenever a celebrity publicises that they've spent time with Archie the word is always 'cuddle' but this isn't really the word we think they would use themselves. I can't imagine HRC saying that even in grandmother mode. Or Ellen. Not a natural fit.

You can do like I do, and substitute "feed on" Archie for "cuddle".
Liver Bird said…
@Miggy

"I once read an article, (can't recall when or where) that stated that the RF had 'learned lessons' and were allowing William and Catherine plenty of time to adjust to family life so that they could spend as much time with their children as possible without the pressure of too many engagements."

Plus, royal life is a marathon, not a sprint. The Cambridges could still be playing an active role in royal affairs 50 years from now! They'll have plenty of time to get busy. Also, it might not look good for William to overshadow his father. And as I've said above, you don't hear the average Brit complaining about how little 'work' they do. Most people don't have a clue. It's how they carry themselves when they 'work' that counts, and the Cambridges are behaving pretty impeccably these days.
CookieShark said…
I get US Weekly magazine at home. The cover story is about the nasty feud between Kate & MM, and there are at least 2 other MM features in this week's edition. She is pictured alongside other celebrities in the Lion King Jason Wu dress, and there is another picture of her featuring a skin product (although the caption is careful to say her "skin guru" favors it, but the implication is that MM uses it).

This is the type of fame she wants, in addition to being able to preach at us when she likes. It seems she does not want to attend ceremonies or lunch with military families because the focus isn't on her! I think she wants to merch and appear in the trashy magazines you read at the nail parlor while you watch Food Network. She should have been David Foster's 5th wife then. I don't believe for a second HRC met Archie. That story was flung out as a desperate response to the negative PR yesterday.
Bafosderoliude said…
If they are not living there, where are they living? They would be recognized for the neighbors, that would be so difficult to hide...
Miggy said…
@Liver Bird,

Exactly!

Also, I don't think some people appreciate how much work goes on behind the scenes. The recent documentary about Charles, showed us how much William has been learning about the workings of the Duchy that he will inherit from his father and that's on top of all the other things he has to master as his future role as King!
Nutty thank you for hosting this blog. Again, I am happy with this format but whatever works for everyone is fine. I just imagine you must be busy so do what you think is best.

I've been thinking about Archie the Invisible again and why they don't show him. Yesterday there was get another Christening photo on Charles' birthday and the same was done for Harry's birthday too I think. I imagine for their Christmas card there will be a b&w photo in silhouette or something along those lines.


Yet all the while they give out little bits of information about Archie.
Archie in an England Rugby kit. Crawling. New teeth. Archie might be a big brother soon. Drumming up interest and all the while complaining about their privacy.

How do you create interest? By limiting and hyping up interest in drips and drabs.

When will the Sussex Foundation be up and running? Another six months or so? I think H&M are biding their time. They are constrained for the time being but once the foundation is up and running he will be the Trump card. Whenever there is any leverage needed poor Archie will be brought out. Kristy Young is the new head of the Foundation right? Yes, she is definitely media savy and by coincidence connected to Soho House. Yes, I think that is when we will see more of Archie. I hope I am wrong.




Eowyn said…
"Nutty Flavor said… I can see that I am in the minority on Frogmore Cottage"

I doubt it. I'm with you, one of the skeptics. You're only going by readers who chose to write a comment; you also seem to pay more attention to the more vehement commenters. I respectfully suggest a poll would be a more accurate assessment of what your readers think, especially when it comes to changing the format of the commentary section.
bootsy said…
@ Liverbird
Great comments as usual. You're right, it's very rare to see the inside of a house belonging to the RF. Because of all the shenanigans with the birth certificate etc I think people are overly suspicious about what's going on and this is another one on the list. But thinking about it, the press would never be hanging around their house taking photos or peeking in.

@CatsEye I wasn't specifically referencing you and whatever arguments you've had. I think I've been sucked into a few myself so I know how maddening it can be when someone isn't listening/twisting your words and I wasn't having a go at you:)
Liver Bird said…
@Miggy

Plus, remember how Charles' interest in organic farming and sustainable architecture was seen as wacky and eye-rolly back in the day? Now, it's mainstream and quite uncontroversial. That's what I mean when I say royalty is a marathon, not a sprint. It's not about hooking up with the latest trendy cause or dominating today's twitter trends. The royals have been around for centuries and intend to be around for many more. By contrast, Meghan is typical of today's substance-free 'celeb' types who can't see beyond their next Instagram post.

@Bootsy

Thanks for your kind words - I enjoy your posts too!
Lurking said…
>>why are they so unwilling to share photos of their official home at Frogmore Cottage or their son, Archificial?<<

It may be one of the smart things they've done. After reports of the $5000 copper tub, not one, but two orangery, outside bbq/grilling area, photos of Frogmore Cottage may loom in too many minds when they are out doing photo ops with children living in abject poverty. Additionally, by not allowing photos of their home, they keep the space private. The Queen has a room at BK where she greets dignitaries, however I'm not aware of any of her private spaces being photographed for publication.
@Eowyn, ‘"Nutty Flavor said… I can see that I am in the minority on Frogmore Cottage"

I doubt it. I'm with you, one of the skeptics’

I think it’s little is to do with being solely skeptical. It’s just knowing we won’t see inside private royal residences (and see photos of private visits), that don’t hold or have a history of hosting royal events. It doesn’t mean individuals who believe the latter aren’t skeptical and wonder too . It’s the basic understanding of a fact. If you were to ask the average Brit, we just don’t care that much about what goes on, until someone like Meghan comes a long and rubs us up the wrong way, then we take notice etc.
Happy said…
Here is the Palmer tweet about PH and Baby Archie at the playgroup.

https://twitter.com/RoyalReporter/status/1195139969981001728?s=20
Glow W said…
@ieschew maybe Palmer started questioning about their living arrangements and went and hung out by Frogmore Cottage and that is when he actually saw them.

But, yes, it now seems he has information which to be honest I am thankful for since many parts of this story line ARE weird.

I do think it’s possible they go to playgroup. I never did but my kids are in their 20s now. I do think the concept is popular now.
All I need to know about Richard Palmer: his use of "you lot" in that tweet. It says quite a bit, I think, yes? Must be getting his marching orders from MM and as someone above mentioned, brown-nosing. The use of "you lot" or "you people" by anyone illustrates whose side they are on and who they are looking down on, and what they really think of them. From then on with me, they lose all credibility and it is so much easier to read between the lines/figure out what's really going on. They are essentially showing their hand.

Nutty, I'm with you-I don't think they have ever lived at FrogCott. It's been awful quiet. Something's off.
Have a nice weekend, everyone!
Ava C said…
I usually avoid the Express but there's an article resurrecting Meghan's advice on how to break Christmas traditions, from an old edition of Grazia in her pre-royal days:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1204542/meghan-markle-news-prince-harry-christmas-queen-elizabeth-ii-archie-us-philip-spt

>>>>>> [She] recommended those spending the occasion with friends host a buffet instead of the traditional Christmas dinner.

The wife of Prince Harry noted: “Holidays with your friends allows you to break the family traditions and avoid Aunt Julie's fruit cake! >>>>>

I guess given her fondness for sowing the maximum amount of discord, Christmas is a bonanza time for her, as people's feelings can be hurt even more than usual. Quite apart from the selfishness involved.
Mimi said…
If it was so easy for Richard Palmer to go there and see them then it should be just as easy for other people to go there and see them but we haven’t heard of any sightings from there besides Richard’s so I do not believe him.
Liver Bird said…
@Ava

That Grazia piece is telling, isn't it? Maybe some people actually like 'family traditions' and Aunt Julia's fruit cake? But I guess that would be for those of us who haven't alienated all but one member of our families. Plus, when you willingly marry into a family where tradition is everything, then you have to play along. Or deal with the consequences.
Ava C said…
I've remembered an exception to my point about publicity only applying to grander royal residences. We did see something of Nottingham Cottage in the engagement interview Harry and Meghan did didn't we? Only the background to where they were sitting but it was something. I remember criticisms of Kate's choice of decor as it was how it had been when William and Kate were there. I liked it myself. No individuality but it looked cosy and restful. Like an upmarket holiday cottage.
Lurking said…
@Ava...

I think that's all code for, "I can't stand my family, they are SO beneath me, and they can't stand me, so I spend Christmas with my current friends."

How DARE she dis Aunt Julie's fruit cake! Now I really hate her.
Liver Bird said…
@Ava

Yes, but that was an official interview, and all we got to see was a sofa and a wall. Harry and Meghan haven't had any official events at Toad Hall, so there really is no reason we should see inside their home.
Mimi said…
nUtty, I use an ipad and when you changed the format it became soooo much easier to use. This way, everything is listed in order and the page goes to the next page after every 200. You can pick “newest” and read from that one and on up to where you last left off. you can “collapse comments” and scroll very quickly threw all commenters. It is just so much faster and easier for me to read this way. It seems that this is not the case for everyone though.
Ava C said…
@ Liver Bird - yes, very telling, Meghan's take on family Christmas traditions. In most cultures I know of it is very important to have family around the table at special times. I treasure the memories of my extended family at Christmas when I was little. My grandmother would put all the tables in the house in a giant 'L' - even at different heights - and all the little kids sat at the bottom of the 'L' and had a great time. Including the labrador! I wouldn't have missed it for the world. I do hope Archie gets some proper family time eventually, if he doesn't have another family already.
Lurking said…
New Harry Markle article...

Translation of Dutch magazine headline: "Meghan is a hypocrite!"

Further into the article:

"The paparazzi only care in order to take photos to sell, but now, most tabloids won’t buy them so they don’t bother either."

Anyone know if this is true? Are tabloids really unwilling to purchase photos of them?

Liver Bird said…
@Lurking I'm not sure where or when the paparazzi would be able to take photos of the Harkles. They are guarded by RPOs whereever they go. Also, British tabloids would be very reluctant to publish unofficial pap photos of any of the royals, though foreign publications might not be so concerned - providing of course there was a market for these photos. And unless they managed to get a picture of one of the Harkles coming out of a hotel early in the morning with their secret lover, I doubt there's a lot of money to be made from pap photos of either o them.

Glow W said…
@constantgardner he uses you lot because he gets trolled all the time by tin foil hat people. He is referring to them. He also blocks people when they get irrational.
PaulaMP said…
I believe most of the "rumors". I don't think she was pregnant, I don't think they live at Frog Cott, and I don't even believe they are a couple any more. I think at this time they put on a good show while behind the scene machinations are going on. I hope the truth comes out eventually. It's probably true that she has some really good dirt on them and they are terrified of it coming out so at this time they are letting her run free with all of her bs stories. No doubt something to do with Andy. Didn't Priyanka say she was never at the house; wasn't it proved via timeline (and I think her wife commented) that Ellen was never there cuddling anybody?
Glow W said…
@mimi I agree it would be nice if other objective people would say if they have seen them or not there.
Glow W said…
@liver Bird yes I agree photos are out of the question. But a tweet saying it would be nice. However, maybe they all know they live there so no need to comment on it? I mean, really I think the people who don’t believe are a very small minority (but seems majority on tumblr and blogger) so no one sees the need to say what is actually true.
Liver Bird said…
"But a tweet saying it would be nice."

A tweet saying what and by whom?
Lurking said…
@LiverBird...

Thoughts...

No photos being taken because they are laying low or because no one is interested?

There have been photos in the past of them out and about, however it's likely those photos were the result of a telephone call giving the paps a head's up. Maybe they (she) isn't making those calls or the paps aren't taking the calls. Right before Halloween Kate was spotted purchasing Halloween costumes. I'm really wondering why Smeg hasn't arranged something similar... out doing the grocery shop for all of Harry's favorite foods and blah blah blah about Smeg cooking. Blah blah blah Archie is starting to eat real food. And then the inevitable demand for privacy and claims of victimization at the hands of the press.

PaisleyGirl said…
@Lurking, which Dutch magazine do you mean? The magazine photo in the Harry Markle article is definitely not Dutch. Perhaps Swedish?
@Mimi, ‘I use an ipad and when you changed the format it became soooo much easier to use. This way, everything is listed in order and the page goes to the next page after every 200. You can pick “newest” and read from that one and on up to where you last left off. you can “collapse comments” and scroll very quickly threw all commenters. It is just so much faster and easier for me to read this way. It seems that this is not the case for everyone though,’

I use Safari on my iPhone, whilst it’s easier for me to comment now, I no longer have the option to delete my comments, especially wanted if there’s a duplication of a link etc. I used to like to see a comments thread with all its relevant replies, now comments just run after each other which is even harder to follow if you’re playing catch-up with comments. Whichever way, there’s going to likes and dislikes of both versions.
Liver Bird said…
@Lurking

"There have been photos in the past of them out and about, however it's likely those photos were the result of a telephone call giving the paps a head's up"

I've seen very few if any 'pap' photos of them since they were married. Any that do appear can be assumed to be with their approval.

"Right before Halloween Kate was spotted purchasing Halloween costumes."

No photos though. The British press wouldn't touch them, despite what the Harkles tell us about how evil they are.

I expect we'll get daily pap walks and photos of poor private Meghan being 'hounded' by the press during the LA exile.
Jdubya said…
I prefer this format and being able to hit newer comments vs having to read thru all looking for follow up comments.

And I'm glad to see more people using paragraphs.

Lurking said…
@PaisleyGirl... I ran the headline through google translation and it said Dutch. I'd love to see what the article has to say.

Jdubya said…
And please, do not allow photos. I feel some would bog this board down with a deluge office them.
Scratch the unable to delete a comment bit, I’ve just seen a tiny bin next to the date and time. :o)) I read/view the blog in the other format, and not where you actually write your comment.
Liver Bird said…
Kate travelled to her event today in Norfolk by.... train! And rewearing an outfit from 2017 too. Now, not that I'm saying travelling by train (no doubt with an entire carriage reserved for her) or rewearing a designer outfit from 2 years ago makes you a wonderful person or anything but... THIS is how you do royal PR! Make yourself look 'relatable' while still cultivating an air of ever so slightly detached decorum.

Meghan has no clue.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B440bJhH-Hw/?utm_source=ig_embed
PaisleyGirl said…
@Lurker, I'm Dutch and I definitely couldn't read it! Ran it through Google Translate an it turns out to be Danish.
Lurking said…
@LiverBird

>>I've seen very few if any 'pap' photos of them since they were married. Any that do appear can be assumed to be with their approval.<<

That's the point. They don't get papped unless the paps are tipped of before hand. Remember the trip to the herbal 'wellness' boutique prior to Archie's birth? It was a nighttime visit and the paps wouldn't have known they were there unless someone tipped them off. So now the question is, has Smeg stopped tipping off the paps or are the paps no longer interested? The Harry Markle blog suggests the photos would not be valuable to the paps because, the tabloids are no longer purchasing them.

d.c. said…
there’s a new blind gossip item, saying/implying that Mm is taking very detailed notes of all the Royal Family's secrets, and that everyone is deathly afraid of what she’ll do with that info. Idk how reliable that is, or how salacious/earth-shattering anything she could say would be, but it seems a little weird of a reason for their behavior, which to me, just reads as straight dislike and wariness overall.

https://blindgossip.com/the-enemy-diaries/
HappyDays said…
I like the current format and the multitude of comments. Not at all in favor of cutting them off at a certain number. I like this blog and the comments and discussions that take place via the numerous comments from everyone. With the exception of just a few people, this is a group of nice people who would be fun to have lunch or dinner with. Goodness knows we’d have lots to talk about!
Lurking said…
@PaisleyGirl...

So no hope that you would know what's in the article?

Humor Me said…
Good morning all (what is left of it...)!!
I say pIctures or it did not happen. Like the birthday party at Balmoral that never happened.
I do not wish to intrude on their privacy, nor do I care for an Architectural Digest spread. But a tasteful pix like W&K did with the Obamas is okay. Comings and goings are normal pictures and staples of the gossip trade - where are they? I am surprised not one site has a 24/7 camera on the Cottage for pictures, even to prove the Sussexes do not live there. Perhaps the press has given the couple what the crave - no press. It is biting them in the rear with what counts - pictures. No one cares about these one-offs of Christmas plans with the Queens' full support - remember the Balmoral birthday party!! Those are no working and Sunshine Sachs is just earning their fees - they don't care as long as the money comes in.

As to the blog - I prefer the earlier format with a 200 post max. This open blog concept is too long - 500+ posts?? Seriously??
Mimi said…
Why in heaven’s name would Harry want to film himself and that redheaded singer Ed something or other, at Eugenie’s place?????????.
Mimi said…
In my opinion, the Harkles were wanting Frogmore HOUSE, not the servants quarters out in the back with the little cemetery. renovations or no renovations, they are not going to live there!
Lurking said…
ANDREW SPEAKS Prince Andrew to break silence on Jeffrey Epstein scandal in ‘no holds barred’ BBC interview... https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10331071/prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-interview-bbc/

d.c. said…
@Eowyn said...
"Nutty Flavor said… I can see that I am in the minority on Frogmore Cottage"

I doubt it. I'm with you, one of the skeptics. You're only going by readers who chose to write a comment; you also seem to pay more attention to the more vehement commenters. I respectfully suggest a poll would be a more accurate assessment of what your readers think, especially when it comes to changing the format of the commentary section.


I agree completely, @Eowyn.

- I think it’s tricky to give proper weight to the more-carefully-worded responses, in the face of seemingly stronger opinions.

- Also, those who likely stay silent (yes, including me), after seeing my opinion already stated quite eloquently by others.

- Yes, a poll would be lovely, and more accurate picture of the sea of thoughts. I din’t know how much work it takes to incorporate one into the blog, though, and so don’t want to ask more of Nutty... does anyone out there want to make one for her, or know how to put it into the comments?
Ava C said…
With this format I don't think it matters how many posts there are as you can just hit 'newest'. When you start splitting things up just by volume it breaks the momentum.
Ava C said…
Oh and I agree no pictures. This blog has more substance than others and the format is a big part of that. We have blogs like ladygreyhound93 for photos. I love the one from Kate's visit today where she looks euphoric, giving a big thumbs-up. 'When you find out the Harkles won't be at Christmas.'
Lurking said…
Smeg must have pissed someone off...

EXCLUSIVE - Revealed: Stella McCartney's £1,545 coat worn by Duchess of Sussex at Remembrance Day service is made by impoverished Hungarian factory workers earning just £2.60 PER HOUR


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7688779/Duchess-Sussexs-Stella-McCartney-coat-Hungarian-factory-workers-earning-2-60-HOUR.html
Liver Bird said…
Speaking of Kate and her masterful PR at today's Norfolk event... does Meghan have anything in the pipeline? We've only seen her at 1 solo event since her return from Afria. I wonder if she will be with Harry at the Royal Albert Hall on the 17th?
Lurking said…
Why? Does she really think this will improve her images? Also not that it was "secret!"

Hillary Clinton enjoyed a cuddle with baby Archie after 'fan girl' Meghan Markle invited the former First Lady over for 'very warm, sweet' meeting at her Frogmore Cottage home earlier this week
* Meghan secretly invited the former First Lady to her Windsor home on Tuesday

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7687095/Hilary-Clinton-visited-Meghan-Markle-Frogmore-Cottage-Tuesday.html

Worst secret keeper EVER.
Sandie said…
mimi: 'In my opinion, the Harkles were wanting Frogmore HOUSE, not the servants quarters out in the back with the little cemetery. renovations or no renovations, they are not going to live there!'

Rumour has it that Megsy wanted to live in Windsor Castle. She must still be holding a grudge (narcs will hold onto a perceived slight or grudge forever) for being given Frogmore Cottage and not the grand Frogmore House!

The arrangements in terms of rent are being kept a secret (unlike with other royals) but I doubt they would pay rent and upkeep on another property if they can have Frogmore House for free, plus I think there are perks thrown in for living on the Windsor Estate. Megsy loves to spend, but Harry's money is not limitless.

Frogmore Cottage is a step up for Megsy (about 5 times the size of what she had in Toronto) and the position on the Windsor Estate is handy. Megsy has a habit of not paying for her own accommodation so if Frogmore Cottage is all she could get for free, she would take it!

Mimi said…
Sandie, the supposed renovations to the cottage sounded wonderful and would have or should have resulted in a nice, beautiful, decent place to live. Many of us would consider it a luxurious mansion, frogs or no frogs. I can live with the croaking if I have good sound proofing. You would think they would be grateful to be offered such a nice place wouldn’t you. From what I have read though, it does not seem to be very private as there is a footpath behind it or somewhere in close proximity. A flight path directly above has been described as well as a cemetery and a noisy frog pond. Any of these would be a deal breaker for Meghan.

The Harkles need absolute privacy because of the ongoing shenanigans with Archie and perhaps their not actually living together anymore.Something that could be so easily verified as per Richard Palmer.

I do not believe they live there but where they all are is the question. Where in the hell are these people that nobody spots them?
Liver Bird said…
" Any of these would be a deal breaker for Meghan."

She doesn't get to dictate terms though.

As HM allegedly said with regard to tiaragate, "She'll take whatever I give her." And what she gave her was Toad Hall.
Mimi said…
Liver Bird, she may have been given Toad Hall but she can refuse to live there.
Liver Bird said…
She can. But where else is she going to get a luxury home rent free? So discreet that she and her security entourage can go entirely unnoticed? And why were millions spent on renovations if nobody is living in Toad Hall?
Mimi said…
How discreet can it be if Richard Palmer trotted on up there and saw them. If he could then so could so many other people.
Liver Bird said…
He didn't say he saw them in the house. He said he saw them leaving it.

But again: If they are not living in Toad Hall, where are they living? Who is paying for it? Why were renovations done if nobody is living there?
Liver Bird said…
And in my above post, 'discreet' referred to the hypothetical non-Frogmore home the Harkles are supposedly living in. Since nobody has ever seen them or their extensive enourage there, it must be pretty discreet.
Mimi said…
I wonder what happened to the poster who lived near there and used to walk her dog close by and who reported to us that there was no activity, no lights on at night, no signs of life? She was supposed to get back to us but I have not seen her post anything since then.
Mimi said…
Liverbird, as to your questions about where they are living, who is paying, why all the money spent on the cottage if no one is living there. Those are the same questions I have (and many more). but I will let others respond to that as I have NO CLUE WHATSOEVER!
@Mimi, ‘I wonder what happened to the poster who lived near there and used to walk her dog close by and who reported to us that there was no activity, no lights on at night, no signs of life? She was supposed to get back to us but I have not seen her post anything since then.’

I was thinking the same thing yesterday, though it was her friend who was the dog walker and not actually her. Agree, she hasn’t been back since, where are peeps when you need ‘em! Lol
Mimi said…
Raspberry Ruffle, you are right, and I think she mentioned maybe a couple of other people she knew who walked by the place. She got us all excited and then just left us hanging. I wonder what happened?
If they aren’t living at Froggy Cottage, where are they living? Still at Nottingham Cottage where the Ed and Harry video etc was filmed more recently? Holed up in a few rooms at BP?
Liver Bird said…
I highly doubt they would be allowed to live at another royal property while spending taxpayer money on their 'official' residence.
@Liver Bird, ‘I highly doubt they would be allowed to live at another royal property while spending taxpayer money on their 'official' residence.’

Surely though they’d be spotted by some member of the public by now if they were living in a non royal residence ?
Miggy said…
I mentioned once before that Elton John has a huge estate in Windsor.
As he's such a great pal, perhaps he's letting them stay there?
God, who knows. They could be anywhere - so why not?
Jenx said…
SOHO House is a likely hidey hole!
https://www.babingtonhouse.co.uk/
@Mimi,’She got us all excited and then just left us hanging. I wonder what happened?’

If we only knew. ;o) I don’t live anywhere near Windsor being in the deep and dark Norfolk countryside, otherwise I’d take a stroll with my cat! Lol
Mimi said…
Raspberry Ruffle, What’s it like living in Norfolk. It sounds lovely. I live in So. Calif. the temps in my city hovered at 90 degrees for the last 2-3 weeks!!!!!
Liver Bird said…
"Surely though they’d be spotted by some member of the public by now if they were living in a non royal residence ?"

Well, exactly. They would not be allowed to live in an 'alternative' royal property, and it's hard to see how they could keep it secret in a non-royal residence. Which is why I believe they are in fact, living at Toad Hall.
Mimi said…
Some have said she is holed up in SoHo house and he is in Nott cottage.
Liver Bird said…
"SOHO House is a likely hidey hole!
https://www.babingtonhouse.co.uk/"

A hotel open to the public in Somerset, which is miles from anywhere the royals would be likely to go? Hardly.
@Liver Bird, ‘Which is why I believe they are in fact, living at Toad Hall.’

Arh!! I thought I was alone with that notion, glad I’m not. I think the idea that security could be arranged on a non crown owned estate would be enough reason for it not to be permitted.
Liver Bird said…
"Arh!! I thought I was alone with that notion, glad I’m not. I think the idea that security could be arranged on a non crown owned estate would be enough reason for it not to be permitted."

I agree. The Met Police - from which the RPOs are taken - have strict rules about how they operate. I doubt they would agree to provide round the clock security at anywhere other than royal residences, or at least at residences approved by the queen.
Unknown said…
Hi Nutty

In the previous blog, I tried to name myself but my comments disappeared! Not because of your blog but because I am not social media savy. So then I stopped trying to name myself and my comments went through. The previous blog was laid out fine,but I like the 'newest'in this one. Either way I can still read. Am using an old tablet,typing one finger. Wouldn't even consider using my phone.

Anyway,with all the stories around the Markles, I forget sometimes that I too am married, went on an actual honeymoon,paid rent,bought property, bought cars, went on holidays,had babies etc etc....their lifestyle minus the money,is so out of this world,that I am thankful I have my actual ordinary experiences and memories.

I read about drones flying over properties etc, is it possible there is a ban on drones around Froggcott?
Also since some funding for the renovations were taxpayers money, what about the Freedom to Information Act? Or was it Access to Information Act? Can citizens not use that?

As far as the lack of photos.....well mothers now use so much digital technology, it boggles me. Having seen younger relatives, snap away and transmit,whatever, most of those I know don't print out the actual photo. Talking from a person who has photo negatives, point of view, younger mom's now store photo images on flashdrives and whatever. The only fear they have is if their phones are lost or stolen. But leaving aside official photos, I snapped away day by day in the beginning, then milestones then whenever an opportunity arose and I suspect the Markles are snapping away but storing and saving the images. But, with so much attention being given to PR and appearances, they could very easily fall into the trap of not talking casual photos.

Besides saved photos online, majority of parents want to see an actual photo of their baby in their home and on their work desks. If the Markles have them, surely staff would have photographed these photographs!!
KCM1212 said…
@Mimi
I do agree! With Megs lack of detail, she probably thought she was getting Frogmore House, not cottage.

Although nobody thinks Harry will be bringing the spinach dip to the next Mensa meeting, he is particularly dim in one way: Charles has done such a great job with the environmentally advanced properties in the Duchy of Cornwall. Once PC is King, if Harry was behaving himself and getting along with William, perhaps they would let Harry oversee those programs. I know they will be Williams purview, but at one time, that would have been an easy joint venture between the brothers and such a natural fit for Harry.

It would also have the added benefit of keeping the Harry busy and out of London where he has a lot of opportunity to shoot off his mouth. I can just see Megs turning the compost pile! She will love it!
Liver Bird said…
"Also since some funding for the renovations were taxpayers money, what about the Freedom to Information Act? Or was it Access to Information Act? Can citizens not use that?"

No need. A full report on the costs of the Frogmore renovations was published earlier this year. Those who maintain that the Harkles aren't living there need to explain why millions of £ of taxpayer money was spent renovating a home nobody planned to live in.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/06/24/public-paid-24m-renovate-duke-duchess-sussexs-frogmore-cottage/
@Mimi, ‘Raspberry Ruffle, What’s it like living in Norfolk. It sounds lovely. I live in So. Calif. the temps in my city hovered at 90 degrees for the last 2-3 weeks!!!!!’

Off topic......Well I melt in those temps and I do if it gets anywhere near that hot here. Lol I live in a very rural area, no traffic lights, hardly any lamp posts let alone pavements, and narrow country lanes with villages and small towns. Fields all around where I am, and I’m near to a medieval market town. It’s getting colder and wetter here, around 5 to 6 Celsius during the day, which is mild compared to some countries at this time.
Mimi said…
raspberry Ruffle, sounds heavenly!!!!!!!! 😚
KCM1212 said…
Okay, am swiped this from Lady Greyhound blog. Easier than trying to use links.

MEGHAN MARKLE HAS MADE DAMAGING NEW COURT CLAIMS ABOUT THE DAILY MAIL AND MAIL ON SUNDAY - SHE SAYS THEY:

· LIED TO READERS ABOUT PUBLISHING THE “FULL” CONTENT OF A LETTER SHE WROTE TO THOMAS MARKLE

· OMITTED KEY PASSAGES BECAUSE IT WOULD “UNDERMINE” ITS “NEGATIVE” PORTRAYAL OF THE DUCHESS OF SUSSEX

· EXPLOITED THOMAS MARKLE - WITH QUESTIONS OVER METHODS TO TRACK HIM DOWN IN MEXICO

· MADE UP A SERIES OF CLAIMS ABOUT HER BABY SHOWER, AND RELATIONSHIP WITH MOTHER DORIA RAGLAND

· INVENTED STORIES ABOUT THE RENOVATION OF HER MARITAL HOME WITH PRINCE HARRY

· CLAIMED FALSELY THE COUPLE BOUGHT A £5,000 COPPER BATH, A £500,000 SOUNDPROOFING SYSTEM, AN ORANGERY, A YOGA STUDIO, A TENNIS COURT, AND AN ENTIRE NEW WING OF THEIR HOME INSISTED ERRONEOUSLY THE “NON-EXISTENT” ITEMS WERE PAID FOR WITH “TAXPAYERS’” MONEY - IN A BID TO POISON READERS AGAINST THE ROYAL COUPLE

https://www.bylineinvestigates.com/mail/2019/11/15/noen2cgslou82nzpgi0g3mpjebpd6i

So do they now have to let someone in to verify no copper tub, etc?
Mom said…
I prefer this format.
I click on "newest" and work my way backwards, rather than searching all over the place for who might have responded to whom.
Liver Bird said…
Interesting. The 'Byline Investigates' site is... odd. I had never heard of it until it broke the Harkle lawsuit story last month. It appears to be associated with the single issue 'Hacked Off' group.

And the whole thing puzzles me. Isn't Meghan's case one of breach of copyright connected with the publication of the letter? So how is all that other stuff about copper bathtubs and yoga floors relevant? She hasn't sued them for libel, has she? And how could the claims be verified without having court officials come in and inspect Frog Hall?
KCM1212 said…
The "exploited Thomas Markle is rich.

Now she is protecting him?
SirStinxAlot said…
Charles & Diana Sequel. Harry wants marry Girlx. Queen says No. Harry marries Meghan, hoping she will outshine Kate and rest of RF. But her acting is terrible. Fakes pregnancy, but real Girlx has baby. Meghan is boosting her image for the great escape. Harry marries Girlx. Is great " stepdad" to kid(actually his). Lives Happily ever after with Girlx and Archie.
CookieShark said…
@ KC Martin, thanks for the highlights.

Honestly...her lawsuit is nuts. Where does she think the "stories" come from in trashy mags like Us Weekly and In Touch? (I happen to read these with gusto). Often the celebs are described as splitting up, getting back together, dating aliens (ok not really but you get the picture).

She is drawing more attention to these claims by suing about them! And the stories in the Mail are not poisoning the readers. Any number of other things probably have left a bad taste in readers' mouths regarding MM. For me it was the videos of her obvious coat-flicking, the direct quotes from her own family regarding how she treats them, and the way she has appeared to create nothing but chaos and ill will since joining the RF. Just my opinion.
Ilona said…
I agree with PaulaMP - " It's probably true that she has some really good dirt on them and they are terrified of it coming out so at this time they are letting her run free with all of her bs stories. No doubt something to do with Andy."

I, too, alluded to that idea in this blog a while ago. There is something even fishier than the charade with baby Archie, Frogmore Cottage etc. etc. The Lady is a Tramp ...
Liver Bird said…
"She is drawing more attention to these claims by suing about them!"

Plus, in making such a long list of 'false' stories about often trivial things (avocados?) this allows one to assume that all other stories printed about her must be true! This is precisely why the royals don't get involved in spats with the media. Never complain,never explain.
lizzie said…
If those legal papers are real (big if), how bizarre. Doesn't sound like copyright violation to me.

Plus, I thought SOME of the info about Frog Cott renovations came from planning documents submitted to authorities for approval (like the orangery)
SwampWoman said…
Raspberry Ruffle says: @Mimi, ‘I wonder what happened to the poster who lived near there and used to walk her dog close by and who reported to us that there was no activity, no lights on at night, no signs of life? She was supposed to get back to us but I have not seen her post anything since then.’

I was thinking the same thing yesterday, though it was her friend who was the dog walker and not actually her. Agree, she hasn’t been back since, where are peeps when you need ‘em! Lol


I thought about that a few days ago and hope that they are okay. She mentioned that they were both retired. I hope they're spending the winter in a warmer environment rather than they had something medically-related pop up.
Ava C said…
I missed this article when it came out, in the Sun, about likelihood of Meghan having to hand over private texts and messages as part of the legal case as it would be necessary background to how that letter appeared and what had been done with it up to that point:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10215142/meghan-markle-hand-over-text-messages-court-battle-dads-letter/

Of course it's standard practice and she and Harry are as ill-advised bringing this case as they are with everything else they do. Reminds me of Oscar Wilde who brought about the case that led to his own downfall. Everyone who cared for him pleaded with him not to sue the Marquess of Queensberry for libel, but he went ahead anyway. Although that was tragedy, given his brilliance. This is farce.

No one will care either way about H&M, although I think there's growing sympathy for Thomas Markle. They should be wary of that, but of course they will be tone-deaf as usual.
SwampWoman said…
KC Martin said...
The "exploited Thomas Markle is rich.

Now she is protecting him?


How do you figure that he's rich?
Ava C said…
@SwampWoman, if I can speak for KC Martin ... 'rich' in this context means "She has a nerve!" basically. Or 'that's a fine thing to say!" British phrase perhaps. Don't know if you ever use it that way in the US.
SwampWoman said…
Oh, thanks for the explanation, Ava C. Yes, in that context, it certainly is rich considering that she set the whole thing up.
@Ava C, ‘if I can speak for KC Martin ... 'rich' in this context means "She has a nerve!" basically. Or 'that's a fine thing to say!" British phrase perhaps. Don't know if you ever use it that way in the US’.

Yes, we use that turn of phase in the UK, but written down it lacks nuance and you can’t be sure of its intended meaning. It can therefore be read/understood both ways.
Jdubya said…
@Liver Bird - just went to your link and read the article. Clearly states the Harkles paid for some stuff themselves.

When i read various articles, i always wonder about the sources. The same on this blog sometimes. Saying you know someone who walks by FC all the time and never see's lights on etc is easy to lie about (not calling anyone a liar, just saying easy to say vs prove).

I have always thought they were living in FC, otherwise they would be seen elsewhere and outed. I would think the neighbors are respectful of their privacy.

I personally don't like Archie being called Archificial. I just feel it's disrespectful to the child. But others find it amusing so i ignore it.

instead of suing, i wish they'd just say it on an interview. Address all the rumors and state the "truth". Of course, i'm sure there are some rumors that are in fact true and they wouldn't want to address those.
NeutralObserver said…
https://scenetherapy.com/inside-clarence-house-prince-charles-home/

Hope this will open up for everyone. Googled 'inside Clarence House,' & came up with this website. It seems authentic. The interiors are quite handsome & plausibly royal. Prince George's christening photo was apparently taken in the morning room at Clarence House.

Photos of a few of the interiors of Amner Hall are on Pinterest, but difficult to link to. I vaguely recall some of the lifestyle mags in the US, like Town & Country. publishing a few photos (interior & exterior) of the both the little cottage that Kate & William lived in just after they got married, & some of the reception room updates done for Amner Hall. All very tasteful, correct & forgettable, but they might be still on the web somewhere. So, Nutty, I think you're correct in saying that the RF lets us plebs see a bit of their housing now & then.

I think posters who speculate that Megs is embarrassed that her quarters aren't more palatial might be on to something. In fact, shame about various aspects of her life & upbringing might be at the root of some of her more bizarre behavior, but that's just speculation, of course. I think a clever decorator could make Frog Cott into a charming family home, but whatever.
Liver Bird said…
"just went to your link and read the article. Clearly states the Harkles paid for some stuff themselves."

They paid for some furnishings etc themselves. However, all of the structural renovations, coming to over £2 million, were paid for by the Soverign Grant, ultimately the taxpayer.

"I have always thought they were living in FC, otherwise they would be seen elsewhere and outed. I would think the neighbors are respectful of their privacy."

Plus, remember one of the papers got into a bit of trouble over aerial photos of a house Harry was living in in the Cotswolds. I suspect they want to be ultra-careful not to be accused of 'harassing' or 'invading the privacy' of the Harkles.

As with the surrogacy thing, I think it's up to those who claim a conspiracy theory here to provide evidence for their beliefs.
OCGal said…
Nutty, I prefer this newer format, where I can just tap “newer” or “newest” to get to the most recent comments. I read your fantastic blog on an iPad, and the only time I see a huge block of print is when the poster gets rather riled up, just keeps typing typing typing, and doesn’t break up their thoughts into more digestible paragraphs.
Glow W said…
The problem is they refuse to believe the birth certificate is real. There is no way to convince that person that the entire government and royalty of the U.K. along with the Church of England are in on this giant fraud.

It’s sad people call Archie artificial.
Glow W said…
*arent in on this giant fraud
NeutralObserver said…
@Nutty, Didn't see your links to CH & BP interiors! Apologies for posting redundant link!
KCM1212 said…
@swampwoman @ava @raspberry ruffle

re: Thomas Markle is rich

If I had closed my quotes as I ought to have done, it would have made more sense. Sorry for the confusion!
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
lucy said…
@tatty my belief that Meghan was not pregnant isn't due to lack of supporting documents, BC or even no one signing off on the easel

it is based solely on pictures and videos of her mannerisms + flexibility at 8+ months pregnant

I think biggest tell was the video of her in that black and white dress where her beach ball 'baby' bounces back and forth

prove that a fake and I won't claim "Archificial" isn't one of the most cleverest puns ever spun

sure it is unfortunate because he is baby but that's what makes this debacle such a messs, the innocent
Ava C said…
The thing I wonder about Frog Cott is they turned five staff dwellings into one, and justified the £2.4M spend on renovations and repair that had to be done anyway. I don't see that as justification at all, as who else in the BRF would they plan to put there at any time later on? Surely it made sense to keep them as five discrete dwellings for staff (in their minds) as no other royal person would want (or deserve?) the dank frogginess and constant planes flying overhead.

I think Frog Cott was originally built for Queen Charlotte, or her unmarried daughters or something. But those were the days when the royal family supported by the monarch was vast, especially for George III. They had to give them something. But it's never made sense as a place for a royal couple now. Like living in a terrace all to yourself. You'd be forever walking long distances. So many other more sensibly planned options, surely.

I think it's the Queen's mordant sense of humour. They wanted Frogmore House and they got Frogmore Cottage. Meghan will get what she's given. But it annoys me as a taxpayer because the money's been wasted. Essential renovations should have been done as a matter of course, for staff who actually earn their livings and need to live nearby. Not forgetting other staff who now have to park further away from their work.
Unknown said…
Why avoid being associated with people in certain towns? Are these towns uninstagrammable?
NeutralObserver said…
@Nutty, I have to agree with you that surrogacy is the most plausible alternative in the competing Archie scenarios. After seeing photos of cute little Archie with his strabismus afflicted eye, which he likely inherited from Megs, I also think it likely that at least her DNA material was involved. Whether Harry contributed DNA is something we will probably never know.

I find a lot of Skippy's theories too far out there for me, but she's always said there was a real baby, & that a real baby was even baptized at some point. That I find plausible as well. As to who actually attended the ceremony, the waters have been too muddied by both Megsters & anti-Megsters to tell what really happened.

I think it likely that a surrogate secretly gave birth to baby Archie at some point earlier than the alleged date. As some have pointed out on this blog, the surrogate may not have even known whose child she was carrying. I think there were delays in obtaining access to the baby, & that's why the announcement was such a fiasco, unlike the clockwork announcements of other royal births.

As I've said in earlier posts, I only became interested in the whole Harkles debacle when my daily perusal of The Telegraph kept showing pics of Megs & her oddly shrinking one day, growing the next, one day high, one day low , uterus. I've had two pregnancies over the same chronological arc that Megs claimed for Archie, July-April for one, August -May for the other. Megs looked as though she was expecting triplets in some photos purporting to show her in her fourth month. I didn't even look truly pregnant until I was almost six months along. I remember being so pleased, because the casual observer wouldn't just think I'd just gained a little weight! I was a few years younger than Megs, but that wouldn't be a factor. I also have a handwritten birth certificate issued by the Borough of Westminster for one of my kids. It was issued many years earlier, but it looks much like Prince George's birth certificate which is posted on the BBC website. It doesn't look anything like the apparently typewritten Harkle one. Obviously, I have no proof that any of my theories are true, but the mystery of Archie's genesis has not been satisfactorily resolved, & the RF's penchant for secrecy will probably never allow it.
Ann Christensen said…
Nutty my preference is the longest comments by YOU possible! Your insights and questions are what we come here for. The rest is often interesting, but your ideas are the bonfire we love to sit around.😊
1 – 200 of 395 Newer Newest

Popular posts from this blog

Is This the REAL THING THIS TIME? or is this just stringing people along?

Recently there was (yet another) post somewhere out in the world about how they will soon divorce.  And my first thought was: Haven't I heard this before?  which moved quickly to: how many times have I heard this (through the years)? There were a number of questions raised which ... I don't know.  I'm not a lawyer.  One of the points which has been raised is that KC would somehow be shelling out beaucoup money to get her to go "away".  That he has all this money stashed away and can pull it out at a moment's notice.  But does he? He inherited a lot of "stuff" from his mother but ... isn't it a lot of tangible stuff like properties? and with that staff to maintain it and insurance.  Inside said properties is art, antique furniture and other "old stuff" which may be valuable" but ... that kind of thing is subject to the whims and bank accounts of the rarified people who may be interested in it (which is not most of us in terms of bei

A Quiet Interlude

 Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event?   Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th?  Oscar's - March 10th?   In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US.  The IRS just never goes away.  Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on).  There's always another one.  Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California.   That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales.   Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere.  But.  The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.  

Christmas is Coming

 The recent post which does mention that the information is speculative and the response got me thinking. It was the one about having them be present at Christmas but must produce the kids. Interesting thought, isn't it? Would they show?  What would we see?  Would there now be photos from the rota?   We often hear of just some rando meeting of rando strangers.  It's odd, isn't it that random strangers just happen to recognize her/them and they have a whole conversation.  Most recently it was from some stranger who raved in some video (link not supplied in the article) that they met and talked and listened to HW talk about her daughter.  There was the requisite comment about HW of how she is/was so kind).  If people are kind, does the world need strangers to tell us (are we that kind of stupid?) or can we come to that conclusion by seeing their kindness in action?  Service. They seem to always be talking about their kids, parenthood and yet, they never seem to have the kids