Pippa Middleton & James Matthews cannot cite ‘privacy’ in their footpath drama

For several years now, Pippa Middleton and her terribly moderately wealthy husband James Matthews have been at war with their local village and community. In 2022, they moved out of London and into a grand estate in Berkshire, close to Pippa’s parents. Soon after moving into Barton Court, Pippa and TMW James tried to shut down a common-use footpath on the edge of their 145-acre property. They put up locked gates and “private property” signs and the village has been fed up with Pippa and TMW James’ “arrogant, cruel and nouveau-riche” antics. And that was before Pippa had to sell her debt-ridden “investment property,” Bucklebury Farm, after trying and failing to make it into a revenue-generating local attraction. Anyway, the ramblers associations got involved, and the whole situation is now before the local Berkshire council. Well, there’s been some movement – the council will not base their decision on any “privacy concerns.” The council is solely looking into whether the footpath was common-use before the gauche Middletons got involved.

Pippa Middleton and her husband, James Matthews, have been told they cannot rely on privacy and security concerns to justify closing a footpath through their 145-acre estate. The couple, who bought Barton Court near Kintbury, Berkshire, for £15.5m in 2022, blocked access to a track known locally as Mill Lane shortly after moving in. Signs reading “Private: No Public Access” and “No Trespassing” were erected around the property, preventing walkers and dog owners from using the route.

More than 30 residents, supported by the Ramblers, applied to have the lane formally recognised as a public right of way, arguing it had been used uninterrupted for decades. West Berkshire Council ruled in favour of the application, prompting Mr Matthews to challenge the decision. The matter is now being heard at a six-day public inquiry.

On Wednesday, Ken Taylor, the government-appointed planning inspector overseeing the hearing, said questions of privacy and security were outside the scope of the inquiry. Instead, the case would turn on whether the public had used the route frequently enough over a 20-year period, from 2002 to 2022, to establish legal rights of access.

Paul Wilmshurst, a barrister representing Mr Matthews, argued that the route had not been used by a sufficient number of people to qualify as a public footpath. He told the inquiry: “It’s not a question of whether it’s a good or a bad thing. It works based on the history of the land, based on how people have used it. It has certainly not been used by a significant number of people from the village of Kintbury. It doesn’t lead anywhere particularly useful.”

Several residents spoke in support of maintaining access to the lane, describing it as a safe walking route into the village and an important recreational path. Samuel Robins, who has lived in Kintbury since childhood, said he had used the footpath for years without challenge. He told the inquiry: “It’s a calm and attractive walk. I’ve never been stopped or asked to turn around.”

Others argued that the route offered a safer alternative to a main road nearby, which does not have pavements.

Sophie Redmond, the programme manager for paths at the Ramblers, previously known as the Ramblers’ Association, said the lane had “been walked by the community for more than 20 years without interruption”, which she argued created a legal right of way. She added that blocked paths across Britain were limiting public access to nature and green spaces.

A spokesman for Mr Matthews and Ms Middleton, whose sister is the Princess of Wales, maintained that there had never been a public footpath on the land. They said: “For as long as records exist, there has never been a footpath/public right of way on the land currently under discussion. There are other clearly marked footpaths nearby. Contrary to media reports, the previous owners of the property from as far back as the 1970s did not allow public access to the land under discussion. It has always been private property.” Barton Court, on the banks of the River Kennet, was previously owned by Sir Terence Conran, the Habitat founder, who died in 2020.

[From The Telegraph]

I’ve been following this situation for years now, because of course I have, and it really feels like Pippa and TMW James’ spokesperson and lawyer are outright lying to the council? Like, the ramblers have been saying for years that this is a common-use and well-traveled footpath, and that in Sir Terence’s day, he was fine with people using the footpath whenever they wanted. There were even signs alongside the footpath to aid ramblers, and Pippa and James literally papered over those signs with their legal notices threatening people about “private property.” I hope the council hears from all of the, like, ramblers-historians who know the history and the laws around common-use paths.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

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

14 Responses to “Pippa Middleton & James Matthews cannot cite ‘privacy’ in their footpath drama”

  1. FloridaWoman says:

    Oh no, how ever will they stop the Poors from treading their sacred dirt?

  2. Becks1 says:

    Its interesting how their defense went from “privacy and security” to “well its never actually been used by the public.” If it wasnt used by the public then its likely it wouldn’t have attracted attention when access was closed off.

    This is like a handbook for what NOT to do when you move into a more rural area like that. I’ve seen enough Midsomer Murders to know….things can get ugly very quickly when you mess with a walking path.

  3. seraphina says:

    Who is the couple in the last pic walking in front of Maw and Paw middleton in the last pic???

  4. KC says:

    I am not British but I have watched Tony Robinson walking shows and read/watched Poldark enough to know that blocking walking paths is a BFD. British Celebitches: is this true or is it a niche issue only the local villagers care about?

    Edit: Haha, just saw the Midsomer Murder comment and yes! This could be a cozy murder in the making.

  5. fwiw says:

    James Matthews always looks a bit strange to me. Just realized that his head is small for his tall body. Not his fault, but maybe a long beard would help.

  6. jferber says:

    fwiw, in the spirit of the lying Matthews, it IS James’ fault that his head is too small for his body. And I hope they lose their case.

  7. Nic919 says:

    I believe the rambling association has evidence that this path has been used for decades. With privacy off the table, the terribly moderately wealthy Matthews will have to show there is a security issue as doubtful. Especially because they have Barton Court open to the public for bookings.

    They knew about this path when they purchased the property. The arrogance of the rich to try and overturn the easement is going to make them enemies in the town.

  8. Dee says:

    These two entitled wankers have got to be some of the most plain, uncharismatic pieces of crap ever. Just sayin’.

  9. jferber says:

    Dee, the same can be said of Pippa’s sister and brother-in-law.

  10. Jay says:

    Lol at the lawyer trying to say that the path “doesn’t lead anywhere particularly useful”. That’s, like, the whole point of rambling, isn’t it? You are walking just to enjoy the outdoors and get some exercise.

    I wonder if there is some sort of taxpayer-funded public figure the local litigants could cite that maybe had a whole video series about how British people should go outside and enjoy “Nay-cha”?

  11. KC2 says:

    This is a Midsummer Murder waiting to happen.

  12. Louisa says:

    So I guess getting out into to nature for your health and well being as her sister keeps encouraging is just for the posh twats and not for the poors.

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