Prince William & Kate branded ‘selfish’ for their Forest Lodge 150-acre security zone

The Prince and Princess of Wales still plan to move into Forest Lodge later this year. The property – located on the Windsor Castle estate – is still undergoing extensive renovations. William and Kate claimed that they’re paying for the renovations themselves, probably from the Duchy of Cornwall slumlord income. The move to their fifth “forever home” was bad enough, but it’s been bad PR ever since the announcement. Will and Kate had residents evicted from their cottages close to Forest Lodge. Then, even worse, taxpayers are now shelling out for a 150-acre “security zone” in the middle of Windsor Great Park. This land grab has shut down a really popular part of the park, accessible to people who pay for access. The British press is mostly trying to soften the criticism, but Will and Kate still come across as tone-deaf, arrogant and immature. Instead of choosing to live in an established royal property which already has security in place, they’re making taxpayers foot the bill just because they want their own manor estate. Well, the Guardian also published some pointed criticism over the move:

For almost two decades Tina has enjoyed early morning walks through Windsor Great Park’s ancient-oak studded open fields with the freedom to let her dog off the lead. In recent weeks, however, she has noticed disturbing changes: fencing appearing around her regular route near Cranbourne Gate, trenches being dug, hedges planted and CCTV cameras erected. Last week she saw three men carrying a “no public entry” sign. “So, I walked up to them and said: ‘Oh, are you going to close this area?’ And one guy sticks the sign behind his back, and said: ‘We’re just checking the size of the sign for somewhere else.’ Then they all clammed up.”

The next day she had her answer. Windsor Great Park announced an exclusion zone of about 60 hectares (150 acres) of previously publicly accessible land to accommodate the latest home of the Prince and Princess of Wales and their three children. Forest Lodge, an eight-bedroomed Grade II-listed Georgian mansion, has been chosen by the couple as their “forever home”. Not all locals are happy, especially those who regularly use the area now closed off by a 2.3-mile perimeter no-go zone.

“To the people who lose it, it’s a big loss. There are so many houses they could have chosen, why choose one where the public has to lose such a big chunk of the park for their private benefit,” said Tina, who declined to give her surname. “I am very upset. I do think it’s outrageous, the way it was done. I think it’s a selfish act.”

There is a lot of deference to the royal family in these parts. Some, indeed, believed the royal family owned the Great Park, Tina said. Today about half of the land is private and half publicly accessible. Royal links stretch back to approximately 1070 to William the Conqueror, who used the area as a hunting ground and built a residence here. While parts were briefly privatised by Oliver Cromwell to help pay for the English civil war, the area was enhanced in the 17th century during the Restoration. It remained the personal fiefdom of the monarch until George III in 1760 surrendered revenues from crown lands to parliament in exchange for the fixed annual civil list payment. The park, and Forest Lodge, is now owned by the crown estate, a public body whose revenues go to the Treasury. “Which means it belongs to you and me,” said Tina.

The Waleses are relocating from four-bedroomed Adelaide Cottage four miles away. They also have 10-bedroomed Anmer Hall on the Sandringham estate, 21-roomed Apartment IA in Kensington Palace, London, and Tam-Na-Ghar cottage at Balmoral which was given to the prince by the Queen Mother.

[From The Guardian]

The Guardian is the first outlet to note that part about who really owns the land. “The park, and Forest Lodge, is now owned by the crown estate, a public body whose revenues go to the Treasury. ‘Which means it belongs to you and me,’ said Tina.” So, the park is operated by the Crown Estate, for profit, and Will and Kate just grabbed 150 acres of what amounts to a quasi-public park. I just keep coming back to what an extraordinarily bad call this was by Will and Kate. Sure, a lot of royals have “country estates,” but Will and Kate are the only ones to “rent” a property and then force the crown estate to give them a 2.3 mile perimeter out of what was considered public land. And again… they could have lived IN Windsor Castle. Or their apartment in Kensington Palace. Or they could have just bought their own private estate with extensive grounds!!

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

35 Responses to “Prince William & Kate branded ‘selfish’ for their Forest Lodge 150-acre security zone”

  1. It seems to be their goal in life to 1 Hate Harry and all he stands for and 2 piss the taxpayers off with their laziness and selfishness. Thats it and that’s all.

  2. the robinsons says:

    That’s how they are. They don’t consider others in their decision making.

  3. Hypocrisy says:

    The backlash is deserved I hope they get more, this is truly a selfish move, but exactly what I would expect from WanK who are the pinnacle of selfishness.

  4. jais says:

    Well, bless Tina, for saying how it really is. Stealing public park space to keep as their own. WTF, really. Aside from this piece though, the BM is really softening the criticism of this selfish act, as Tina so rightly puts it. Remember how they freaked out with relentless articles slamming the Sussexes for made-up lies, a special yoga floor and being rude to the neighbors, none of which even happened. But this is real. The Wales are really taking away public park space while lecturing the masses about being one with nature. Unbelievable. You can’t make this stuff up.

  5. Dee(2) says:

    Them buying their own house is a very fair point. If they did that they wouldn’t even have to pretend to be considerate to others. William has earned an income of what 60 million pounds since he’s been the Duke of Cornwall? There’s no property in the UK that they could have bought they gave them the perimeters that they wanted, and all the amenities that they need?

    I know that they keep sycophants around them to tell them that they’re making the right decisions, but they have also let slip that they pay attention to media and social media that isn’t flattering. So they know how people feel about them having their fifth mansion in 15 years. They just don’t care. It’s very, “L’État, c’est moi”.

  6. Noor says:

    The public can expect these types of changes made by a King William

  7. Me at home says:

    The Guardian article mentions trenches. I read somewhere (it might be right?) that these are so the security fences can be hidden in some sort of moat-like arrangement, so the Waleses can enjoy long views from their windows without having to see the ugly fences that keep out the plebs. Wonder how much all that cost the public in “security upgrades”?

    • BeanieBean says:

      If they’re digging trenches I’d like to know if they’ve done the appropriate environmental review.

      • HeatherC says:

        William molested a tree who then told Kate the trenches were a good idea. Naycha you know.

  8. Ciotog says:

    If Charles really has incurable cancer, this whole thing makes no sense. They are about to inherit eleventy-billion properties! Including Windsor Castle itself. This only makes sense as Kate’s separation home.

    • I wholeheartedly agree. Its Cant’s separation home.

      • Jferber says:

        But how many separation homes does Kate need? She had four previous ones. But “need” is not a word that applies to them, only “want” or “whim.” And their appetites are insatiable, yet they have so little to give. On the royal grift.

    • Becks1 says:

      It either tells me his life expectancy is better than what’s been hinted at, or this is Kate’s separation home and they think it will be less obvious if she moves there now. /But we also said that about AC soooo……

  9. Nic919 says:

    It has been pointed out that there is a smaller secure area around buckingham palace, located in the middle of London.

    There is no need to remove so much of the park from public access. It is selfish of course.

    The people who paid for access could easily be security screened and then most of their concerns would be addressed.

    The worst part is that they won’t even be in residence there most of the time, especially in the summer.

  10. Kittenmom says:

    Love this bad pr for them. May it continue.

  11. Jensa says:

    That part about ownership of the land is very commonly misunderstood, even in the UK. They’re quite right, it belongs to the nation – not the Royal family, although many people wrongly think that it does. And you can see how people get that impression, as the royals treat the Crown Estate properties as their own personal property portfolio, to be parcelled out among themselves at minimal rent.
    And that’s why W+K won’t buy a private property. Why bother, when you can get someone else (taxpayers) to subsidise you.

  12. Mslove says:

    It’s what I’ve come to expect from the people who won’t share umbrellas with children. 🤷‍♂️

  13. Over it says:

    These two are so f-ing entitled and selfish and self centered, lazy , incompetent and complete assssssss-hls . They think of themselves time and time again and f the peasants.

  14. Becks1 says:

    I just don’t understand how this happened – if this is Crown Estate property, and the house is part of the Crown Estates, how do they get to block off 150 acres?I know they’re saying its for “security” but logic tells you that’s BS, when you consider how close you can get to BP and Windsor. I pointed out the other day that you can literally stay on the Sandringham estate. Granted not during the winter when Charles is likely to be there, but even so. The Highgrove gardens are open to visitors. And so on.

    This really is just about W&K trying to keep the public as far from them as possible. they want a big country estate, and they’re getting one, and they’re using “security” as an excuse to not have to pay for it.

    (I know they’re paying the rent on FL, supposedly, but I doubt that rent takes into account the huge increase in property now attached to the lodge. so they’re getting a lot for free.)

  15. BearcatLawyer says:

    Weird how almost every new home they move into is supposed to be “forever” but turns out to be “temporary.” If I were a British taxpayer, I would be furious that my taxes are paying for security upgrades to yet another royal residence for the Lazies, not to mention for the seizure of public land for private benefit. I would be even more outraged whenever Slick Willy pontificates about ending homelessness.

    But there are enough people in the UK who tolerate their nonsense, wastefulness, and bone idleness, I guess.

  16. Lauren says:

    It’s not an exact match but the Crown Estate is basically equivalent to Federally owned land. So the future head of state was just allowed, by the government, to turn 150 acres of previously public use land into his own personal estate.

    • BeanieBean says:

      Yep, like they just took a chunk of National Forest or a National Park or Wildlife Refuge and said MINE!

      • Ciotog says:

        Maybe that’s what they talked about with Trump—how to turn public land into your own estate.

  17. Amy Bee says:

    What’s not being asked is are William and Kate leasing the land that has been taken away from the public?

  18. Lady Digby says:

    Okay this is tone deaf, selfish and an unnecessary and expensive upheaval for the local community. A bad decision from PoWs and their advisors . Do they really think they can do anything they like despite the IMPACT on others. The irony of PoWs actions finally being IMPACTFUL on the community but not in a good way?! But then Will keeps briefing that being King will have a minimal impact on his life but let everybody else look out!

    • Unblinkered says:

      When, when for God’s sake, is someone going to take KM and the Middletons in hand and cease this endless changing of homes? Because, let’s face it, the endless house moves have been and are solely for her as W&K haven’t lived together for years.
      The move out of London from Kensington Palace should have been challenged, along with the hauling of the three (unhappy?) children out of their London schools and away from their friends just to suit their mother’s whim. How long before she wants to move again? The betting shops should open a tab on it.
      Crazy.

      • Miss Scarlett says:

        All of their set has moved out of London into the Home Counties to raise children and send them to school.

        However, William and Kate should have made the choice to buy a house if they wanted outside the security zone, not make a land grab to keep up with Pippa.

  19. kelleybelle says:

    William looks to be in his 60s, he really does.

  20. Miss Scarlett says:

    Not to stick up for them because I do think this petulant land grab is incredibly obnoxious –

    BUT the land that is the Crown Estate belongs to King Charles as monarch.

    The government gets the income from the Crown Estate in return for the Civil List and whatever else.

    The land doesn’t belong to the people; it belongs to Charles, which is why I’m sure William and Kate feel entitled to take whatever they want, peasants be darned.

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment