About four years ago, Pippa Middleton and her terribly moderately wealthy husband James Matthews decamped from London and moved full-time to the country estate they purchased. The estate is called Barton Court, and it includes 145 acres and a 32-room mansion. Pippa and TMW James have not ingratiated themselves to their community/village whatsoever. Soon after moving in, they shut down a popular walking path which may or may not be part of their private property. They’ve also thrown loud parties which disturb their neighbors. But the footpath issue has become the biggest problem for the village, with Pippa and TMW James posting tons of “no trespassing” signs and even building huge, gauche gates across what had been a public-use path for decades. Next month, Pippa & James’s lawyers will argue that they have every right to keep people off their land. But the ramblers’ associations have lawyers too. This issue has become THE simmering issue of Kintbury, and even the Telegraph felt the need to interview Pippa and TMW James’s neighbors about it.
The object of dispute? A 400m track – private driveway or public footpath, depending on who’s speaking – and a firmly locked gate. Matthews and Middleton believe the track – which leads from their Grade II-listed manor to the busy main Station Road running from the village, en route interconnecting with a public footpath – is their driveway. They installed locked gates at its entrance in September 2022 after they moved in, which appalled ramblers and villagers. They argue that the path, used by the public for over two decades, is an official form of public right of way. In 2024, they even got West Berkshire District Council’s agreement that the path should be recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way, subject to any objection or representation – only for Matthews and Middleton to appeal.
The public versus private standoff will come to a head at a public local inquiry before the Planning Inspectorate next month, when residents will give evidence alongside the Matthewses’ heavyweight legal team.
Beneath the gentle lap of the River Kennet, which passes through these rolling fields, hostile currents lurk. “These two have come in and tried to shut the village out completely,” says financial consultant, Nick Edwards, 65, walking his dog, Bentley. He has lived here for 36 years. “It doesn’t look like they want to integrate at all with the village – they just want to keep everybody out of their property,” he adds. “I think arrogant is probably [the word]… they’re not that important, they’re not royalty. The fact that Pippa is Kate’s sister is neither here nor there…it all comes across as a bit nouveau riche.”
Marcy Preston, 55, a swimming instructor from Newbury, walks her dogs here weekly. She claims there were more prohibitive warning signs up last year, which appear to have come down, perhaps in recognition of rising tensions. “They used to have signs [like] ‘private property’, ‘prosecution’ and all that malarky. There were lots,” she says. “It’s a beautiful little village, it’s a shame that they ruffled a few feathers. Maybe [there has been] too much change too soon.”
She is sympathetic to the Matthewses’ security needs. While she sees how Mill Lane was useful for ramblers and parents with young children avoiding the main road, she empathises: “I just think these people are another level of celebrity and they have to protect themselves. You do have crazy people out there, especially if you have family who are members of the Royal family.” However, the fencing, she believes, is too much. “They didn’t need to close the river off here. They could have taken the bottom wire off so some of the dogs could get through to the water. We have had two major heatwaves two years in a row,” she says.
She also recounts meeting a birder along the path who claimed they had a nasty run-in with security last summer when a party was being held at Barton Court. “He really got followed and told off. ‘Give us your camera, let’s look at your photos,’” she claims.
But more voices are disgruntled. Rita and John Rackham, 69 and 71, say the lane closure seems unjust. “We have been here 45 years, and it’s always been there. To all of a sudden close it seems a bit cruel,” says Rita. “They’re not thinking of [residents’ needs]. They’re just shutting things up for their own gain.” They fear a David and Goliath battle at the inquiry. “With our villagers, you never know, they might do a protest!” they grin. But they predict a Matthews victory. “I think it’ll probably go their way.”
It is striking how few want their name attached to their comments. One business owner finds us later to nervously retract their words, while another anonymous resident sums up the feeling. “If you want to be coming into a village, live the way the villagers do,” he says, angrily. Then he shrugs. “But he’s a billionaire, he can do what he wants. I’m pretty sure he’s got enough money to see the ramblers off.”
Arrogant? Nouveau-riche? Cruel? LMAO. This reminds me of when Party Pieces went belly-up in 2023 and suddenly all of these local businesses in Berkshire were like “Carole Middleton f–king sucks, she never paid for this or that.” My guess is that Carole and Pippa’s neighbors despise them but few people say anything because they’re scared of the power the Middletons wield because of their royal connections. It’s also a reminder that the Middletons are wannabe aristocrats but their behavior reveals who they actually are every single time – tacky grifters who got lucky.
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.
-
- (9927740hf) James Matthews and Pippa Middleton The wedding of Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank, Pre-Ceremony, Windsor, Berkshire, UK – 12 Oct 2018,Image: 534317601, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: WORLD RIGHTS – Fee Payable Upon Reproduction – For queries contact Avalon.red – sales@avalon.red London: +44 (0) 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles: +1 (310) 822 0419 Berlin: +49 (0) 30 76 212 251 Madrid: +34 91 533 4289, Model Release: no, Credit line: – / Avalon
-
- Pippa Middleton leaves Westminster Abbey after the Coronation of King Charles III in London, United Kingdom, on 06 May 2023.,Image: 774201249, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: -, Model Release: no, Credit line: Unknown / Avalon
-
- Pippa Middleton at the Coronation of King Charles III at Westminster Abbey in London, United Kingdom, on 06 May 2023.,Image: 774228502, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: -, Model Release: no, Credit line: Dan Charity / Avalon
-
- Wimbledon Feature, Pippa Matthews und Princess Charlotte in der Royal Box,. *** Wimbledon Feature, Pippa Matthews and Princess Charlotte in the Royal Box, Copyright: xJuergenxHasenkopfx,Image: 890074821, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: imago is entitled to issue a simple usage license at the time of provision. Personality and trademark rights as well as copyright laws regarding art-works shown must be observed. Commercial use at your own risk., Model Release: no, Credit line: IMAGO/Juergen Hasenkopf / Avalon
-
- London, UNITED KINGDOM – Pippa Middleton attends the Heart Hero Awards 2023 in London. Pictured: Pippa Middleton BACKGRID USA 6 DECEMBER 2023 USA: +1 310 798 9111 / usasales@backgrid.com UK: +44 208 344 2007 / uksales@backgrid.com *UK Clients – Pictures Containing Children Please Pixelate Face Prior To Publication*
-
- London, UNITED KINGDOM – Members of The Royal Family attend The Together At Christmas Carol Service at Westminster Abbey, London, UK. Pictured: Pippa Middelton, Pippa Matthews, James Matthews BACKGRID USA 8 DECEMBER 2023 USA: +1 310 798 9111 / usasales@backgrid.com UK: +44 208 344 2007 / uksales@backgrid.com *UK Clients – Pictures Containing Children Please Pixelate Face Prior To Publication*
Appoint Marcy Preston as mediator.
i understand the villagers, however, it’s their property. unfortunately, these issues always come up when people are afforded the use of private property for years/decades. then they feel they have a right to that said property/area. apparently, the previous owner didn’t mind.
maybe pippa and james can move the fencing in such a way that people have access to walk,
It’s not clear it is their property, that’s the focus of the dispute. England has laws about roaming and private land used by the public for decades can be deemed public. Only Americans think you can cut off decades if not centuries long public access by claiming you just bought it and it’s private.
@Blujfly The UK is the exception here. Most of the world understands the difference between private and public property.
LoL megan, are you an expert in property law in 165+ countries?
The laws in the UK are specific to this case. If grifter pipper doesn’t like it, too bad. They chose to purchase a property in a country with rambler rights.
There is a fascinating history of the closing down of the commons and how it was a part of the rise of patriarchy and capitalism.
Therese Lee has a great series about it called Witches, Whores and Rebels, about the feminist history of uprisings and resistance. (It’s an inspiring listen for these times).
Megan – There are some cultures where the concept of owning the land, having private property you *personally* control and can exclude others from is not a thing. See some of the conflict between Native Americans and colonizers from Europe who ‘claimed’ land as personal property, walling/ fencing off access to waterways, lands that had be open for generations.
And even the colonizers recognized public, shared access to ways, common pastureland, waterways even when some tried to personally control them for wealth and power.
I may not know property laws in 165 countries, but I do know there are 195 countries in the world and I’ve been to 50 of them, including seven of the most populous. I also know Pippa’s issue on another continent has nothing to do with Native Americans.
As others have said, this issue isn’t so black and white in the UK. And the thing is, Pippa and her “billionaire” husband know about rambler rights in their country, they know how ingrained it is and how passionate people are about it, and they still persisted in doing their best to piss the locals off. That’s very arrogant and quite dumb.
If James is so gosh darned rich, I’m sure there are ways to protect the bulk of their property while still providing access to the path (especially given that the path is used because the main road is dangerous for pedestrians). But a Middleton is gonna Middleton I guess.
@Megan but the UK’s laws and customs etc are what are at issue here. It doesn’t matter what other countries do or how many you have been to. It matters what the law is in the UK, even if the UK is an outlier here.
If he was so rich he wouldn’t have needed a financial partner to purchase the property. Nor would they be running all these grifter businesses on said property
Even in the US, there’s the concept of a public easement, or right-of-way, on otherwise “private” land.
The UK does have very specific laws around public access. I recently sold a property because developing it would have been a pain given some public access issues, thankfully the purchasers didn’t do their research. I wonder if TMW James didn’t either or they simply thought “royal family ” and assumed. Much like the other two stealing public land.
@Becks1 in my initial comment I said the UK is the “exception” and it was in the context of rebutting the comment that only Americans don’t understand the nuance of the situation.
Only someone who has never written and passed a property law exam would speak with such blind confidence about the definition of private property.
(Laughs in fertile octogenarian)
Pretty sure there’s no ‘centuries of public access’ to private property in the US. Unless we go back just a wee bit to when the federal government started claiming land traditionally used by Native Americans and then put that land up for private ownership via homesteading laws.
It is no longer “their property” in terms of excluding others if the prior owners allowed public access for decades. I do not know the law of the UK, but since much of American law is based on English law, by guess is that there are several legal theories by which the public can claim the right to continue to use the land.
Why does this remind me a little of WanKs land grab in Windsor for Royal Lodge? I have new thought either of the Middleton women were nice people but more the ones who will crawl over you in a heartbeat if it makes them look better.. the people who view others as “stepping stones”
I kind of hope that they loose this lawsuit mainly because I love dogs 🐕 and am all for them having walks by a river on a hot day.
Because it’s almost exactly like it.
According to Buckingham Palace ans Boris Johnson’s government, the King’s second son requires no
manned security but Pippa Middleton must be able to shut down a public footpath that’s still hundreds of yards from their house.
The character of both sisters shows in the ugliness of their actions cutting the public off from nature and simple pleasures of a walk with one’s pets.
Their character showed in the willingness to sleep their way through the aristocracy to get noticed. The Percy mama was right about pip.
Apparently arrogance and uncaring ways are a main Middleton family trait, whether you are dealing with village people or Windsor Park folk or refusing to honor your debts to tradespeople.
“Nouveau riche”…. shots FIRED! 😂
Now this is the kind of British kerfuffle my Agatha Christie heart desires. Rich newcomers, disgruntled locals, the squire found dead in his locked library…
Snort! I mentioned this on another thread but this exact behavior, fencing off a beloved path, is how the reclusive wealthy family escalates its feud with the villagers in We Have Always Lived in the Castle. That’s an American novel but with distinctly British vibes and some truly odd deaths.
I haven’t thought about Shirley Jackson in years. A teacher assigned us “The Lottery” in middle school – it took decades for me to digest that creepiness.
You don’t mess with ramblers and twitchers… anyone who has seen Midsomer Murders can tell you that.
LOL!
My mind immediately went to a cozy mystery plot here as well 🙂
I guess it really boils down to who actually owns the land.
if they don’t own it, they deserve all the opprobrium being heaped on them.
but if it is their land, these entitled people don’t have a right to let their dogs run loose on it or hike through someone else’s property just because they always have.
This is where English law gets into the grey area – even if its their land, if the public have been using it for decades without issue then they could be made to let the villagers use it AND pay for its upkeep. This is how it is for a lot of farmers who have land like this.
Land ownership laws in England is a very grey area legally and it often causes court cases. Land grab disputes like this often happen regardless of who owns it.
The load parties with security makes me laugh so much – that is such a Middleton thing. Who cares about their parties!
The whole family really do think they are important.
And its just so weird and…..self-important….when people out for walks have run into other royals with no issues, including the late Queen.
If anyone wants to cause harm to Pippa and her family, they’ll do it even with a gate. (and I doubt anyone wants to.)
When is the last time Pippa was even papped? And let’s go even further back… was there ever a time she was papped without her calling Niraj Tanna?
Also a reminder that when kate was missing and Pippa was seen on the beach, it was on an island where permission is required.
No one cares about Pippa.
Ownership is only part of the answer, and even in the U.S., you can lose land you own through adverse possession. There are also ways to lose the right to restrict certain parts of your land from the use by others through a prescriptive easement or easement by necessity. Ownership is a bundle of rights, and those rights can be lost and limited.
As an American in England, I tend to delight in these stories as they pit two forms of entitlement against each other and the standoff gives me giggles of purest schadenfreude. The newcomers indeed sound like entitled nouveaux riches. But so do the locals!!! I mean. You are strolling up someone’s driveway, LOL. But I find this interesting, with respect, I have to reply to @Blujfly. So many of the sneering forms of derision and side-eye directed at Meghan strike me as not just racist, but fundamentally, more anti-American and sexist. If she were a black man, say, from Nigeria (more directly, not via generations), I doubt there would be so much bad energy just aimed at her. It’s the combination of being biracial — not black, which, I think, would elicit respect rather than suspicion, as if she’s seeking a grievance-based kind of special treatment by being of both races, as if she had an ulterior agenda — and being American. To wit: “Only Americans think you can cut off decades if not centuries long public access by claiming you just bought it and it’s private.” Let me correct his particular brand of crude anti-Americanism. First: we don’t *have* “decades if not centuries of long public access” ….unless it is public property, like Boston Common, in which case, it has remained intact since 1621, as inscribed on the sign I passed frequently when I was a wee child. Second: we don’t go around “claiming” we “just bought it and it’s private.” If you bought it, it *is* private. They’re not claiming to have bought it. They really did. LOL. We have two categories of property: public and private. We avoid the mishmash in the middle that gives you so many headaches. Bless. Take an Advil. LOL.
But we (Americans) also have public access rights on private land (we got our property laws from the UK after all). Sometimes it’s an explicit easement in a deed but other times it’s years of continued use creates the easement.
I’ve seen it most frequently with beach access. A new (billionaire) owner thinks he can cut off an easement to the beach that people have been using for decades; usually they can’t. Fiercely guarding public access to public goods (rivers, beaches, towns, etc.) is an important thing that’s existed for centuries. I’m rooting for the villagers on this one.
States have their own laws regarding beach ownership; e.g., no private beaches in Oregon or Hawaii. But that’s ownership, not access. There’s a difference.
@BeanieBean Respectfully, that’s not what I was saying. Obviously there’s a difference between ownership and access. I was talking about access. Public access – easements – on private land to access a public good. Public goods can be utilities, a beach, or a town and river in this particular case.
To follow your example, the public beach is the public good and public access must be maintained, even if that access (path) is on private property. That’s what I’ve seen millionaires try to ignore— the path/access/easement, not the beach itself (not in Hawaii or Oregon but I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried there as well).
Even in the US, there’s the concept of a public easement, or right-of-way, on otherwise “private” land.
We live in a regular old neighborhood (est 1950s) and we have an easement that runs alongside the right side of our house. So we can’t put a fence or gate etc there. But it’s mostly used for utility companies etc to be able to get in.
I am American and we do, in fact, have public access rights and easements, as other commentators described below.
I agree. I don’t understand why that first commenter even brought the US into the discussion on property rights. This has nothing to do with the US and just seemed a snobbish swipe for no good reason.
I think the whole point is in most places you can’t just buy something that has been public for years and then shrug and I say I own it, no trespassing. In a lot of places there is no concept of land ownership; you may own the structure that sits on the land but you don’t own the land itself.
“If you bought it it IS private” is not correct in the U.S. See adverse possession, prestrictive easement, easement by necessity and related theories. Property rights are just that – rights. Rights can be limited and taken and the law rewards the utlization of land over the abandonment or neglect of land and the neglect of asserting one’s right to exclude others from their land.
And boundary disputes in the U.S. are common – it’s quite an interesting area and very distressing for folks who think that ownerhip is absolute.
The middletons are an example of how england has fallen. They never do the right thing. Charles and elizabeth really let william flap in the wind.
I completely understand not wanting the townfolks around but the Matthew- middletons wont offer an alternative. They want to be seen as gentle(wo)men yet they dont fix problem.
There is a reason why the lords of old held feast. These new people want the respect but offer no backing. Rich Muscian Rod stewart patched potholes.
The lords of old also felt entitled to deflower village maidens, but I do think there’s a fundamental disconnect between seeing your position as a responsibility to the people versus hoarding private wealth.
This is a problem with billionaires in general. The new crop don’t feel the need to give money or anything else to others. The exception is McKenzie Scott. Everyone else is in a race to have more than the other billionaires. That’s pretty much their only concern. And they don’t see that they gained their wealth through the support of others. They used our publicly funded roads, schools, everything else to get where they are and they don’t give a dime back. I have no sympathy for them when these sort of disputes happen. It may be their property but they don’t need to be jerks about it. Besides, history shows that kind of behavior doesn’t end well for the wealthy.
Are you my husband? 😆 He was literally just saying almost this exact thing yesterday. Especially the use of publicly maintained roads, utilities etc while not wanting to contribute anything which is one of his pet beefs.
The villagers use the same language as racists when describing immigrants. Pippa andTMW James sounds like awful people. Let em all burn.
I wonder if the telegraph picked this up because everyone wants to say this about William and Kate’s forest lodge but can’t.
I’m honestly surprised the telegraph ran this.
I was also surprised that first the Times of London and now the Telegraph have ran with this. The Middletons and Jamea Matthews certainly fancy themselves Times and Telegraph readers.
My understanding is that the Middleton parents received special planing permissions and other special treatment under the argument it was needed for the security of the Wales when they came to visit. And people agreed that was necessara and duly put up with it. But now they are facing a second generation of naked entitlement – James Middleton has also been in disputes with his neighbors over his rusted, aging, loud, polluting “farm equipment” that he keeps as a hobby, Pippa has fought for planning permissions for both this estate and her business venture that are arguably ostentatious – and are putting a line in the sand where they can.
It also seems to confirm how little Kate visits her sister because if she was there often and with her kids, the issue of royal protection would be raised and much easier to use as a reason to block off the path.
But again it was used as a common path for decades and Pips knew this when she and her moderately rich husband purchased it.
Yes. On the previous property the middletons insisted they HAD to have permission to develop (and massively enlarge) an outbuilding to house RPOs and nannies.
Rare planning permissions were granted. They immediately sold the property for a much higher amount, because the rare development permissions made it more valuable.
The Middleton are grifters.
Have they never heard of noblesse oblige?
I dare say that none of the Middletons have ever taken this term to heart.
“right to roam” exists (mostly in Scotland), it is more limited in England, where private property rights are still strong.
“I just think these people are another level of celebrity and they have to protect themselves.”
LOL, most Americans couldn’t pick Pippa Middleton out of a lineup — or even recognize her butt, unless she was wearing the fake one she wore to her sister’s wedding.
It’s the fencing off the river that gets me. Why do such a thing? And how? It doesn’t sound environmentally wise. It’s not just fencing off dogs but other critters that roam the land.
I am disappointed in Pippa now. Somehow I thought “she made it” in a good way. Having all her kids and all other things out of the spotlight. Or did I miss all of that?