There never would have been an ideal time for Prince Harry to publicly bitch about his royal status, but he really did choose an inopportune moment, didn’t he? The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge haven’t been seen in a week, so they’re not going to save him from this newscycle. Harry also hasn’t been seen, because he was undercover in Toronto with Meghan Markle, allegedly, and then he was off to Malawi with his taxpayer-funded security. And now this news: the Princeling Who Dreams of Being Ordinary will likely be getting an enormous Kensington Palace apartment (“apartment” = mansion within a palace) which will be completely renovated with taxpayer money.
A 21-ROOM apartment at Kensington Palace often mentioned as a possible future home for Prince Harry is to undergo a major refurbishment. Royal aides have refused to say how much the work at Apartment 1, currently the home of the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, will cost but accounts published today reveal it will get a new roof and have its windows repaired or replaced this year.
There has been speculation that Harry, 32, could eventually move into Apartment 1, which stands next to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s similarly-sized Apartment 1A, the late Princess Margaret’s former home. The Prince, who is tipped to get engaged to his American actress girlfriend Meghan Markle later this year, will eventually need a bigger home than his current small cottage at Kensington Palace.
In 2014, another member of the family, Princess Michael suggested in an interview with Tatler magazine that Apartment 1 would fit the bill. She said Wiliam and Kate have a “lovely big apartment, next to the Gloucesters, who I think will leave their enormous apartment because their children have gone. They’re rattling around this huge space and I think Prince Harry might go there. Then they’d be next door to each other – very good move.”
This comes in the same week where we learned about the increase to the Sovereign Grant by the government, where the government is giving the Queen a lot of money for renovations to Buckingham Palace and other royal properties. My guess is that this KP Apartment 1 renovation will come out of the Sovereign Grant as well. KP and Buckingham Palace are historical palaces which would be maintained by the British people in any case, whether or not there was a monarchy, because they are tourist attractions and connections to British history. Still, Harry chose a terrible moment to complain about his lot in life.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Of course Princess Michael would be first in line to say he should live in the Gloucesters – and not take the space she lives in!
Of course!
Maybe Princess Michael could offer her pad for the two-bedroom Nottingham cottage, presently occupied by Prince Harry.
Isn’t the Duke of Gloucester ahead of the Kents in terms of precedence? Prince Henry of Gloucester was older than Prince George of Kent.
By the way, anyone know where the Duke of Kent lives? Dude got the most unfortunate of the Windsor genes, poor guy…
Kent lives in Wren cottage next door to Ivy cottage (rumoured for Eugenie) and Nottingham Cottage (currently occupied by Harry).
He lives at Kensington Palace as well, in a building called Wren House. It is in the cluster of buildings near staff quarters and the Orangery. It is not part of the big main structure where W&K, Gloucesters, and P&P Michael of Kent live. Wren is next to Ivy Cottage, where Princess Eugenie will be moving in and next to NottCott where Harry lives now. I have no idea how big or small Wren might be. From pictures it doesn’t look big, although most sites I find use the same description of “lavish”.
Nota,
Does the Duchess of Kent live there as well?I read that she was living in Oxford.
I really don’t know, since they are so quiet about her. She withdrew from public life so long ago, stopped using HRH and her title, worked as a music teacher in Yorkshire for 15 years.
The Gloucesters live in this apartment so maybe direct your anger at them as they are having maintenance done not Harry. Not everything has to do with Harry, good god. It could be years until Harry gets a new apartment.
Especially given that the Gloucesters have been “rattling around” in there for three years since Princess Michael made that comment! Slating it for a new roof and new windows hardly seems a major overhaul. PITA expensive standard maintenance, yes, but I don’t think the new roof we put on our house was a massive renovation–it was something that needed done because otherwise, roofs start to leak. Maybe we should hold off on the bitching til he starts ripping out a brand new kitchen?
If the Gloucesters are rattling around in that apt.,how is it that Harry who is only one won’t be?
You are darn right Kaiser, he chose a bad moment to complain about his life.
Hahahaa at Princess of Michael of Kent giving that quote about downgrading the Gloucester’s in apartment and by extention superficial aristocratic status. I think we just got a glimpse of the petty rivalry between members of that family. I’m sure I have read about the Gloucesters feuding with Princess Michael who all feuded with Fergie and one of them used to spy on Diana from her apartment window and Diana retaliated by getting binocolars to openly spy back et cetera. Shady.
I think the Gloucesters keep to themselves mostly. Princess Michael, and by extension her children are forever doing spreads for Hello Mag. Especially her daughter Gabriella.
Why were they spying on diana?
They all spied on each other. Not for malicious reasons. Given the comments they all made about each others’ habits, it’s a case of nosy neighbours – Kensington Palace edition.
Those are people with too much time on their hands. Yeesh!
These people sound horrible. What a twisted family. No wonder the new generation is all about mental health. Good grief.
I think Princess Michael has delusions of grandeur. The Kents’ mother was Princess Marina of Greece and King George VI was married to daughter of an Earl; Duke of Gloucester was married to the daughter of a Duke. So the Kents are more “royal” and Princess Michael in particular has always put on airs. Though her father was a baron and her mother a countess, she told a magazine early on that she had more royal blood in her than any others who married into Royal family since Prince Philip. I believe Princess Margaret commented once that Princess Michael was “too grand for us”. LOL….petty squabbles.
The current Gloucesters have always seemed quite down to earth for royals. The Duke was a second son who studied to become an architect and was a partner in an architect company when his older brother died and he became the Duke’s heir. His wife is a Danish commoner who seems to be well regarded.
I can definitely see Princess Michael snooping and gossiping on those she considers “beneath her”. She probably sore too as I don’t think she or her husband have ever received public money though they had a very sweet deal on their “apartment”.
Wasn’t there also a rumor, a couple decades ago, of Princess Michael raiding some other royal’s home when they passed away and making off with the Fabergé? I remember something on Charles being furious about it.
Duchess Doolittle has also been tagged as “awfully grand” in some anonymous reveals by royal courtiers.
I really wish Princess Marge had been around when Kate was introduced – would have loved to have seen that little catfight.
If Princess Margaret were around though, Kate probably would never have made it into the family.
Well Conservation Group which The POW is Patron, is Objecting to lazy entitled waity and willnot needing underground apartments/offices at KP.
Hope the whole lot is cancelled- the lambridge -middletons have had more than their share or earn value for money with KP two renovations in millions – AH Forest hiding renovations, willnot-middleton Courtly manor, etc. to allocate millions more renovations for this useless waste of space.
GB could used all those millions on renovations for NHS Schools and other more important reasons.
These seem like routine and needed repairs. Better to replace a leaky roof before it causes more costly damage inside of the home.
Princess Michael is awful. How large is the apartment that she lives in?
From what I can find? 21 rooms including 5 bedrooms and 5 drawing rooms. You can find some photos online which show you how large those drawing rooms are. It is mislabeled on some maps, but it is next door to Apartment 8&9, which were Diana’s space. Apartment 10 is more cohesive and attractive than the Gloucesters space to me, which looks like two buildings randomly stuck together.
I don’t think Princess Michael has to worry that Harry would want to live in Apartment 10. It is the royal residence closest to the Orangery, which can be hired out for events. It is about 100 yards from NottCott where he lives now, but NottCott is hidden behind other buildings and trees.
ohh so Princess Michael is a woman, I read that several times and thought -Are they mocking him by calling him a princess?
Her husband Prince Michael is the younger brother of the Duke of Kent. Because Prince Michael only has the title of Prince and no additional titles as a duke or earl, she is known as Princess Michael.
I see, thanks. As you can tell I have no idea how titles work, I just thought “Princess Michael” sounded funny.
@D –
BTW, Kate is actually “Princess William”, too. 😉
If you are interested in titles: only BORN princesses (like Anne, the Queen’s daughter) are called Princess What’s-Her-Name, i.e. with the title BEFORE her name. Women married to princes must use the title AFTER their name (like “Diana, Princess of Wales”), and those whose husbands have no additional titles are – like Merritt said – called simply by their husband’s name. (It works the same way as the ridiculous not-so-ancient Anglo-Saxon habit of calling a married woman “Mrs Charles Windsor”, for example – not even by her own own first name. It confused me no end when I was a young teenager. 🙂
As I understand it, the tradition of referring to a married woman by her husband’s style and titles stems from the Normans, not Anglo-Saxons. In Anglo-Saxon times, women had property rights and far more equality under the law than after the Norman invasion. The Norman doctrine of coverture dictated that married women had no separate identity from their husbands. They were legally part of their husbands, and the lesser part at that. Thus they took the feminine form of their husband’s name, hence Mrs Charles Windsor, Princess Michael, etc. The Married Women’s Property Acts and other legislation ended all that though.
@MArgaret – you may well be right, and thank you for that piece of information. I didn’t know that.
(I was referring, of course, to the more recent times.)
Remember when after the wedding prince William became Duke of Cambridge and by extension Kate became Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge?
IIRC Queen never liked princess Michael much so she refused to give her husband another title and the poor thing has to go by as Princess My Husband’s First Name.
Also she never gave her any family orders.
The Queen said that she was “too grand for the likes of us.”Too funny.
Kate is still currently Princess William too despite what People magazine says.
In fairness, HM said that in response to Prince Michael. He was doing a hard-sell about how his divorced Catholic bride-to-be was a Baroness and from terribly important lineage from ever so many kings, popes, and noble families.
She proudly claims to be a descendant of Charlemagne. Seeing as he had at least four wives, many mistresses, and by conservative estimates 18 kids? It isn’t a small club, but don’t tell Baroness Marie-Christine.
@nosugarhere: Well, I’m also a decendent of Charlemagne from the right side of the blanket. Which pretty much means that 25% of Europe are relatives in some form or another. And also pretty much gives you an idea of how non-exclusive that club actually is.
I just read something yesterday I think it was that said pretty much all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. We’re royalty, people!!!
@Bluhare –
yes, we are (and that goes for Americans of European descent, too, of course).
In fact, it would be mathematically impossible NOT to be his descendant.
(That’s why it is so funny to hear people boast about their “royal” ancestors. 🙂
We ALL have them – usually far more than one. Just as we all have paupers, criminals and other assorted characters in our family trees.)
aka Princess Pushy
Same goes if Meghan marries potential King Henry -she is/become Princess Henry … from her husband. The Duchess title may be redirected by HM/ the Monarchy …
I would think that if/when Harry marries he will have a dukedom conferred on him. So any wife would become a duchess.
She’d still be Princess Henry, in addition to any other marriage-associated titles she’d have related to those conferred on him. Likely Duke and Duchess, could be Earl and Countess.
Can a brit explain the grant better? From what I understand the BRF pay taxes or some fee or something from the revenue they make on their land and properties and they get a percentage of that back in the form of the sovereign grant. This past year they paid something like 200million pounds more than previous years because of higher profits so they get a higher grant back….or am I worng?
No.
The Crown Estates belong to the British state/people, not the royal family and have done since George III. That was the point at which Parliament began to fully govern the nation and the monarch no longer did. In return, the government agreed to pay for the upkeep of the monarch and his/her family. This was originally done via a fixed payment called the Civil List but was changed in 2011 to be a percentage of the revenues from the Crown Estates instead. They got more this year both because profits were higher AND because the percentage was raised because they had spent all of the previous years’ money on themselves instead of upkeep of the heritage properties they live in, most specifically Buck House.
“The Crown” as referred to in Crown Estates and many other constitutional processes of the UK (eg court cases are Crown v XYZ while in the US it’s People v XYZ) – is the legal embodiment of the nation state of the UK. “The Crown” in this sense has nothing to do with the BRF.
Can i just point out that irrespective of the estates being handed back to parliament by George 3, he and his predecessors were only ever caretaker managers. In the same way that the duchy of Cornwall is managed by Charles and doesn’t nor has it ever belonged to him or his family.
The crown estates were created by an act of parliament back in norman times to pay for the instrument of govt. Govt as defined then included parliament, judiciary, army and the royal household.
Govt as defined now includes public services as well as things like NHS and the police as well as the previously defined branches.
It’s ergregious of the BBC and other trusted outlets to describe this estate as being previous owned by the Queen or her family because she is then positioned to be magnanomously taking only a tiny portion of her own surrendered money back.
Doesn’t say anything about the other money she received directly or indirectly from other govt depts which is cumulatively and conservatively estimated to be £335M by those who can pick apart the murky, slippery language designed to hide these expenditures.
Ditto the slush funds that we only hear about when the Queen has depleted them and the headlines blare out that she is down to her last million. This happens quite often.
I wager this week’s headline was to turn off the public anger at £360M for Buck house renovation vs £5M for victims of Glenfell. Gaslight the public into thinking that £360M is part of her own money, magnanimously surrendered, rather than the fact that it’s money being taken out of available funding for govt.
Yes. We kind of forget that public services didn’t exist and taxation was a completely different matter in pre-capitalism days. So royal estates had a completely different function back in the day.
I’m still fuming about that BBC graphic, LAK. It’s EXACTLY the impression they’re trying to create and, hence, to keep a lid on public outrage.
Thanks for explaining it sixer and LAK! so in theory if all the land and estates belong to the people if the monarchy is overthrown can’t the BRF be kicked out and made to live on their own money and buy their own properties? I find this soooo fascinating, I would love if either of you had a good book or some links that provided detailed information!
Yes, Lucy, that is the idea. The Windsor family privately owns Balmoral, Sandringham, and rumored other properties like a race horse breeding farm in Kentucky. Anne owns Gatcomb, Andrew has his Swiss chalet. When and if they are removed from their government position and housing, they have those private properties.
Lucy, good news and bad news. The good news is that it’s all available in history books. The bad news is that it’s not one history book. And historians tend to gloss over it in favour of the fiobles of the individual rulers and their ability to govern.
The estates are mentioned from time to time, but only in the context of the King having ran out of money and headed to parliament to ask for special one off taxation to pay their debts.
It also doesn’t help that the estates have been renamed every time they are restructured either because some of the land has been put to a different use or the revenues have been extended to pay for some new govt service and or the estate is accorded powers as though it were a person eg if a person dies without a will, or heirs can’t be found, their estate reverts to the duchy of cornwall or the crown estates. Recently there was a snaffu about mining rights of the land of these estates especially where people own the land freehold.
All the documents that pertain to these estates are at Elizabeth tower, but you have to be a scholar to be granted access. As it stands, the crown estate website, the BRF website and the DoC websites touches upon their history briefly, but not much depth.
https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/who-we-are/our-history/
You have to use that as the springboard to find the information you need to trace the line between current estates and the original estates.
So what’s a Balmoral or a Sandringham going for these days? Any idea what the queen paid for those 2 palaces? These would be the queen’s private finances so are we allowed to know?
Lady D: Balmoral and surrounding properties eg Birkhall was purchased by Prince Albert and has been passed down the line ever since.
Sandrigham was purchased by his son Albert and has been passed down the line.
The QM purchased the Castle of Mey in the 50s, on her death it has been turned over to the public via the QM Cadtle of Mey trusts.
No specific mention about monies for the various purchases, but an assumption is that they are private monies. I’m sure Elizabeth tower will hold copies of the documents if not the originals.
What needs to be made public is the taxpayer funds used to secure these properties annually and or whether taxpayer funds are used in their refurbishments of which there have been several.
HM continues to work when she visits these residences therefore it’s a given that her staff are taxpayer funded.
At current market rates, given their provenance, i’d put a minimal, conservative estimate of £250M. Each.
“What needs to be made public is the taxpayer funds used to secure these properties annually and or whether taxpayer funds are used in their refurbishments of which there have been several. HM continues to work when she visits these residences therefore it’s a given that her staff are taxpayer funded.”
This is my main problem with those properties. The BRF are given government housing. If they choose to live elsewhere, they should have to pay all costs including security staff, physical security upgrades, and any staff at those residences.
Don’t know if this contributes, but I just stumbled over an old article about their finances from Fortune. Came up in a regular search when I was looking for info about possibly looted Faberge.
WINDSOR INC. What Britain’s Queen and the royal family are worth — and are they worth it?
(FORTUNE Magazine)
By Christopher Knowlton REPORTER ASSOCIATE Andrew Erdman
March 25, 1991
Holy crap and wow LAK. I was thinking in the $25-50 mill range. I was short a zero.
The way I understand it is that the Crown Estate is pretty much a Trust, the benificiary being “The Crown”. As in whoever is wearing it and invested with the title. Neither the government, nor the Royal family can sell any portion of the Crown Estate and it is managed by what are essentially trustees. The revenues generated from the Crown Estates, by an agreement which needs to be ratified by each new incoming King or Queen, is reverted to the government and the Queen is then granted a % back to her. Calling it “taxpayer money” is not correct. Theoretically, when Chatles takes the Crown, he would be within his legal rights to NOT ratify what is currently in place and from a legal point of view, 100% of the revenues from the Crown Estates would revert directly to the King to do with as he wished.
No. This is often misreported. There is no agreement that has to be ratified by each subsequent monarch. The arrangement is decided upon by the government and codified in statute. Prior to 2011, this was in the form of the Civil List Acts, but now the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 (as amended) governs. The monarch has to sign it, but only in the sense that she has to sign all statutes. She has no ability to refuse or change the arrangement, and doing so would cause a constitutional crisis. The Crown Estates belong to the Crown, NOT the monarch. Charles will become King, but he will not “take the Crown.” Nor should there be a new statute; the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 will still govern as it sets out a percentage rather than a pound amount. The Crown is a corporation sole which is best thought of as the equivalent to the state.
“the benificiary being “The Crown”.
Yes, as in the beneficiary is The Crown.
“As in whoever is wearing it and invested with the title”
No, as in the nation of the UK. The Crown is the UK, not the BRF.
Here is how Wikipedia defines it, and it’s as good a definition as any:
“The Crown is the state in all its aspects within the jurisprudence of the Commonwealth realms and their sub-divisions (such as Crown dependencies, provinces or states), although the term is not only a metonym for the State.[1] The Crown is a corporation sole that represents the legal embodiment of executive, legislative, and judicial governance in the monarchy of each country.”
The Crown IS NOT the royal family.
(Sorry, Tina, typing as you were. It is our fate to simultaneously define the concept of the Crown on here at least once a month!)
@Sixer, it is truly our fate. Rather dispiritingly, I was doing so on the Guardian yesterday, while people who purported to be British told me that the royals really owned the Crown Estate. I got no work done and nearly had an aneurysm.
Tina and Sixer: Amen and soothing words to both of you.
It’s so ergregious that this needs explaining repeatedly through no fault of the other commentors.
The BRF has done such a good job of gaslighting the public that people really do believe this.
Someone else, a few threads ago, also trying to explain how we got here and how to disentangle the lies especially because the word ‘crown’ is the lynchpin of said lie, had this to say(paraphrasing):
Royal Mail : The Queen isn’t down at the post office sorting your post out.
The Crown Prosecution: the Queen is not your solicitor or barrister, please don’t think about hiring her for your legal woes.
The Queen’s counsel: as above. The Queen is not your solicitor or barrister
Any pub (or business) with the word ‘Crown’ in the name: the Queen is not your publican
Her Majesty’s secret service: the Queen is not hiring spies
Her Majesty’s prisons: the queen is not your prison warden or guard or jailor.
Etc etc and so forth.
Tina: i’m disappointed with your experience with guardian readers. You’d think they were more informed than the average DM reader if only because they are republican and would refuse to accept this as a matter of principle.
It must be said that I rather like the idea of HM in the post office sorting my letters. 😀
This is all truly fascinating, I appreciate the thorough details, as a non-brit I am simply fascinated by the BRF and the extreme privilege they still hold. I don’t think there is a single other royal family in the world that has the same rights and privileges they do (I could be wrong of course). There really needs to be a netflix series dedicated to the Crown Estate and it’s history, I would watch the crap out of that!
Tina – as I was saying to LAK only yesterday, even the bloody BBC had an infographic in an online news report saying that Her Maj owns the Crown Estates. It fries my brain.
Lucy – the easiest way to look at the concept is to see that “the Crown” in the UK is a synonym of “we, the people” in the US. Both are symbols of the nation state.
@LAK, Sixer and Tina – you are truly doing God’s work.
@bluhare – I like the idea of HM pulling pints while listening to people grumble about how awful their jobs, lives, etc. are
Wait, let’s go back to the Royal Mail idea. I’d like to see one of the Windsors running the mini Royal Mail train. Did anyone else see that bit on BBC? The miniature train that runs under parts of London, that used to carry the Royal Mail? The Postal Museum is turning it into a tourist attraction/ride. Shall we put Andrew underground permanently as the train conductor?
@LAK lol! (WINK)
This lie/ disinformation campaign about who owns the Crown estates (Spoiler alert: NOT the Queen) is both destructive and frightening.
Learn a book people! Jeesh! 😉
Its like saying Donald Trump owns the White House. Nope.
Donald Trump does not own the White house.
Or that President Trump owns the Second Amendment and is only leasing it to the good people of America out of the kindness of his heart. Also no.
The Queen DOES NOT OWN the Crown Estates.
Pass it on.
Sixer and LAK and other British CBers, does this mean you are the Queen’s landlords?
I’d like to make clear here what I meant by a “Trust”. I’m fully aware that the Queen doesn’t “own” the Crown Estates. However, the government doesn’t “own” the Crown Estates either. Neither the Queen nor the government can decide to sell off assets belonging to the Crown Estates.
A Trust in the sense I meant it would be the equivalent of my husband and I putting all of our assets into a perpetual Trust and designating our children and their descendents (or in this case, one child per generation who will be the heir to the title) who will be the beneficiary of the revenues generated by the assets contained in the Trust. The assets in the Trust do not and never will become the personal assets of our children or their descendents because the “owner” of the assets is the Trust. They will very simply be the recipients of the “fruit” (rents, dividends etc) of those assets.
The Crown Estate is pretty much the same thing. It does not belong to the government, it does not belong to the Queen. Neither of those two parties can sell the assets as neither of these two parties are the owner of the assets.
Felicia, not getting it. Using your same analogy, the Queen and her predecessors are trustees who are granted a salary for their expenses for due diligence of the trust. The trust was created to benefit everyone NOT the trustees. They have never been the beneficiary of the trust. There is a clear legal line (and paperwork) between what they own and what this trust is. This has always been the way, right from the beginning.
The confusion lay in the fact that initially the royal family were the govt, but even then, a very clear line was drawn between them and this property. There are several acts of parliament stretching back to William the Conqueror that reinforce this line even if the royals keep using PR to blurr the line and to misinform the public about it.
As we keep saying……The Crown prosecution doesn’t mean the Queen is your lawyer. Ditto every body in the UK with royal invoked name.
Btw, Seeing as this was created by an act of parliament and is reinforced by succeeding acts of parliament, if parliament decides to turn this over to the people instead of keeping it as a govt asset, that can happen and nought the Queen can do about it.
@Felicia, a “trust” has a particular meaning in legal terms. As LAK says, a trust has a trustee and beneficiaries. If the Crown Estate was a trust as you say, the government couldn’t sell or otherwise control its assets. As it is, however, the UK government decides how the Crown Estate is run. The UK government promulgated the Crown Estate Acts of 1956 and 1961, which set out how the Crown Estate is run (along with the Sovereign Grant Act 2011). The Crown Estate is managed by a board, but only because the government provided in statute that is how it would be governed. The Crown Estate is owned by the Crown (executive, legislative and judiciary) but in practice, it is the legislative body that dictates what happens to it.
@Sixer, I despair. I know the Beeb has lawyers, but you could be forgiven for thinking that it didn’t. I remember once watching The Hour, a delightful programme set in the 1950s, and despairing when it claimed that money laundering was a crime (that didn’t happen until the 1980s).
@LAK, to be fair, it was only two people, but they were just sane enough to keep me arguing for a while. I wouldn’t bother arguing with DM commenters, but I have some vague forlorn hope that sanity will prevail on the Grauniad.
Well, here it is explained like this:
https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/who-we-are/
Tina: that is the worst. When they are sensible enough to suck you in. I like reading guardian comments, but as soon as i saw that headline, i had to step away from my computer because i knew i would be sucked in.
Mathilde: nevermind the unreliable outlets, it’s the trusted ones like the BBC and the guardian that propagate the lie even though the crown estates, the BRF and the duchies’ own websites state very clearly that they do not belong nor have they ever belonged to the royals.
It’s has to be explained repeatedly and those links posted.
Aww, more rooms for Harry living his ordinary life. With more rooms to clean (arghhhhh), more toilets to scrub, more windows to polish. Don’t forget the grocery shopping. Hard life innit, dear Harry?
I hope that Meghan will not be involved any potential refurbishment or decorating. In case she does move to the UK. She will live with Harry on taxpayers’ expense, won’t she?
I don’t understand why Harry would need a bigger place than the cottage if he gets married unless all of Meghan’s family is moving in with them? I am sure it isnt a teeny little 800 sq ft cottage! Until we had kids, my husband and I happily lived in 3 rooms! BUt Harry is SO normal!!
And, yes, Meghan will be added to those living off of the British taxpayers, as would any wife of Harry’s. But I agree that if she is smart and does still somehow end up with him, she would be hands-off any renovation. She will be painted as the tacky, grasping American who has no taste all, spending British monies, redoing british treasures if she in involved.
Princess Michael is so petty as well as being racist AF even for that family, which is really saying something.
I don’t think she’s racist though perhaps unfortunate turn of phrase. And if she was, she has since demonstrated a change of heart because her daughter dated an Asian man for 4-5yrs who was welcomed into the family home and into the family. When it did not end in marriage, she was very vocal about her disappointment and told a newspaper how sad the family was to lose him.
Having a friend of color doesn’t inoculate you against deeply ingrained racism, though. I mean this is a woman that insisted that she couldn’t possibly be racist because she pretended to be “half caste” one time and because she finds Africans “adorable.”
In exchange (gracious as Harry is) he’ll work 3 days more this year and do his own grocery shopping.
Longtime lurker here: As boneheaded as his “normal” comments were, I think Hazza deserves a bit of a break. If Chuckles “my valet puts the toothpaste on for me” was your dad, wouldn’t stepping out to the grocery seem like the height of commoner cool? I’m still honking for Harry and American Girl Princess!!
Yes, Charles lives like an Edwardian gentleman. The toothpaste issue, however, was when he had a broken collarbone and his arm was strapped to his chest.
+100
Princess in waiting Meghan is set up to be in London or would be with her partner anyway. Means potential King Henry is in London – not on/ or is returning from safari trip!?
I wonder if Harry has a valet. IIRC William does.
@nota, “he had a broken collarbone.” Here I was all set to enjoy feeling smug, and you ruined it for me:)
I can’t dislike him. Sigh. His comments were interpreted differently by some people in America but then we aren’t paying for them or are we experiencing directly what the British are at the moment so I get the irritation. When a pattern is set I will dump ginger and rag on him like I do Workshy Willy but not quite yet.
William just got caught up in the FIFA bribery scandal, so hard as it is to imagine Harry might end up being the one having a better week lol.
I read the FIFA story with interest yesterday. In case the alleged situations are true, Bill will benefit from some sort of immunity, won’t he? Other people (commoners) would suffer the consequences. The RF would receive another blow but would keep standing strong like they always do *sarcasm*. But the image of England would suffer. I hope for the best for England though.
William will be granted immunity and everyone will pretend he was used by others and he was too thick to understand what was going on.
@LAK – ugghhhh in this case god save the king, pun intended. He should know better than that. And the RF have all sorts of advisers. Maybe he was indeed to thick to understand what was going on or refused to accept advise.
On the heels of that news, we learn that W&K&H will be at Althorp on Diana’s birthday, July 1. Rededicating Diana’s grave along with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Would we have learned info about that private event if they weren’t having such a bad PR week?
… and entitled lazy whiny seem to think he is above TQ-BP-POW/CH. He is his middleton own Court – dont you know! See common/wanna be pipa james middleton PR announcement on the RF KP site.
Which will be unfair – regular just like the rest of us that entitled willnot is, he should be charged.
This is the same as he used his RF status – to write the French Courts demanding millions from French businesses, for his global Flasher waity middleton case.
i think you will find that most bidding countries were tangled up in that scandal!!
You may think that I have a very low opinion of the governing bodies of football, but I couldn’t possible comment!!
Sorry ignorant American here. Some dumb questions- who is Duke of GLouchester? Who is Michael? I only know the really famous royals.
What is the FIFA scandal?
Why does Harry need an apartment with 20 rooms?
P.S. Trump is not my fault. I feel like I always have to say that now when I say I am an American.
Duke of Gloucester is grandson of Henry Duke of Gloucester, the third son of George Vth.
Prince Michael is the grandson of George Duke of Kent, the fourth son of King George 5th.
Prince Michael is the younger brother of the current Duke of Kent.
The Duke of Gloucester was a second son but his brother died in a plane accident aged 30 before he inherited the title, so on the death of their father Richard became Duke.
Nothing to do with Richard Duke of Gloucester, later the infamous Richard III !
The Queen’s father was one of 5 children. 4 men and one female. They were:
1. Edward – better known as David. Abdicated with Mrs Simpson and became later the duke of Windsor
2. Albert – better known as George 6 and the Queen’s father George
3. Henry – later known as the Duke of Gloucester. Father of the current Duke
4. George – later known as the Duke of Kent. Father of the current Duke and his brother Michael.
5. Mary – later Princess Royal, Countess of Harewood
By law, all children and Grandchildren of the monarch in the male line are hrh princes. That means all the children of the 4 brothers are hrh princes.
However, dukedom is inherited by eldest son only. Kent having 2 sons, could only pass his title to his eldest son. His other son, Michael, is known as hrh Prince Michael of Kent. Wife takes courtesy title of husband so Prince Michael’s wife is known as Princess Michael.
The cousins were co-opted into royal duties when young adults and despite an average age of 80yrs old, they continue to carry out duties. They tend to cover the unglamourous, bread and butter engagements that the top 6 do not usually cover. And between them carry out more engagements than William, Harry and Kate combined with no fanfare. Like Anne.
@Wren, check out here one source of info on the FIFA scandal: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/27/prince-william-david-cameron-caught-fifa-corruption-scandal/
Also, FIFA’s been engulfed in terrible corruption stories in the past.
Don’t know why Harry would need a 20-room apartment/house or whatever. Maybe he will get engaged and need more space.
Can I just say that I am absolutely amazed at how much some of you seem to know about KP. Do you have the plans, with each separate apartment having names tags attached? 🙂
I know you meant it as snark, but the serious answer is yes.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/08/19/21/3768212800000578-0-image-m-31_1471639013152.jpg
You can also see history, interior decor, refurbishment of KP by various residents through the ages on interior design blogs, on fan blogs and on official plans of the place. Everything from the original lodge that once stood on the site to original architectural plans drawn up for Queen Mary II back in the 18th century, through to William and Kate’s refurbishment of one room.
This is a good one, but it has a couple of mislabeled things. It is nice because it has a different angle than we usually see, so we can see where NottCott, Ivy, and Wren are.
It has W&K having both Apartment 1A and a building across the courtyard behind them.
It mis-labels Diana’s space and Prince and Princess Michael of Kent’s space and combines the two. That whole space on one side is Apartment 8&9, Diana’s old space. Directly opposite NottCott.
The large quarters next to that is Apartment 10, where P&P Michael of Kent live. Across from the big bunch of trees and kitty corner to the Orangery. Those trees are the private walled garden that was Diana’s, even though it wasn’t directly across from her apartment. Housesofstate and CotedeTexas have slightly more accurate maps on their sites, but I cannot get links to go through.
Nota: i didn’t check accuracy, so thank you for the corrections.
I find the cotedetexas links rarely come through for me too. Easier if you copy individual pictures and link those.
https://lh4.ggpht.com/-D7SoHYBprRw/UgDbKpglimI/AAAAAAAB8fY/9mMi6zf4FH4/s1600-h/image477%25255B1%25255D.png
https://lh3.ggpht.com/-7904tCEBQV0/UgDbRVp1kqI/AAAAAAAB8fk/IrQfZrTbomw/s1600-h/image496.png
That said, i enjoy cotedetexas as a whole. I look forward to her updates.
I enjoy her hateon for Ellen’s questionable decorating ideas that don’t take into consideration the architecture of the rooms.
Thanks for posting those! I enjoy her too. Her map has a bit of confusion to it, but I like having the different views of KP. The number “1” on her image needs to be higher up to indicate where the Gloucesters really live. Right now it is on W&K’s Apartment 1A. It erroneously gives the impression that W&K don’t have that massive front block (12-14 windows wide) to themselves.
I hadn’t read her opinions on Ellen. Off to do more frivolous reading!
Much of it is public knowledge. It is owned by the British people, after all.
But enjoy your snark.
To those complaining snark – did you not notice the smiley at the end? But apologies if it caused unintended offence.
I got f***ing thrown and me last week and MY response got modded – go figure?
I am not entirely sure what you are saying here, but since you weren’t being snarky, I apologize for saying you were.
Sometimes it’s hard to tell on here, particularly on these overheated royal posts.
I’m sure no harm done be either side
@ Suze Thanks for that.I try to put smilies in when I am joking, because, as you say, it can be difficult on t’Internet sometimes.
OK, I want creds for breaking this before CB did.
A big reward for not embarrassing the folks by ditching his title (but keeping his money and freedom).
And – of course this ups the likelihood he’ll be marrying in the next year.
Well all this and FIFA royal scandal – now we have Diana Memorial at Althrop, Saturday with Prince Harry – all 4-Lambridge middleton kiddies attending for diversion. No doubt will be counted as work for lazy willnot cannot – and KP release close to each other for PR cover.