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?
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?
(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.
-----------
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?
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
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)
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? :):)
Agree Nutty you received complaints about the last blog format, but the new one is much worse IMO.
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?
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.
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.
https://imgur.com/a/NENTIah?desktop=1
she lays out all these random lame stories but no pics? Lol why the heck not
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
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!
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.
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...
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.
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 :)
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.
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?!
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.
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 :)
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.
@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.
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.
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
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.
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.
sorry I wish I had an answer
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.
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. :)
I don't think blogger is the answer, selling yourself short. go for it. you are damn good enough for it
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 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.
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.
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*
I don't believe Hilary visited Meghan. But even if she did, the absence of photos in Toad Hall doesn't mean much.
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
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for letting us all know about the new HarryMarkle! :)
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
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!
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?
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
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???
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
>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.
@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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
I don't read anything that looks like a wall of words and skip over those posts.
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
You can do like I do, and substitute "feed on" Archie for "cuddle".
"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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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:)
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!
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.
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.
https://twitter.com/RoyalReporter/status/1195139969981001728?s=20
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
A tweet saying what and by whom?
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.
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.
"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.
And I'm glad to see more people using paragraphs.
Meghan has no clue.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B440bJhH-Hw/?utm_source=ig_embed
>>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.
https://blindgossip.com/the-enemy-diaries/
So no hope that you would know what's in the article?
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??
"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?
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
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.
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!
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?
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.
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?
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
Surely though they’d be spotted by some member of the public by now if they were living in a non royal residence ?
As he's such a great pal, perhaps he's letting them stay there?
God, who knows. They could be anywhere - so why not?
https://www.babingtonhouse.co.uk/
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
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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!
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/
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.
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?
I click on "newest" and work my way backwards, rather than searching all over the place for who might have responded to whom.
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?
Now she is protecting him?
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.
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 ...
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.
Plus, I thought SOME of the info about Frog Cott renovations came from planning documents submitted to authorities for approval (like the orangery)
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.
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.
The "exploited Thomas Markle is rich.
Now she is protecting him?
How do you figure that he's rich?
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s sad people call Archie artificial.
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!
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
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.
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.