King Charles is 'evicting Harry and Meghan from Frogmore Cottage leaving them without a UK home - and offering the property to Prince Andrew'

• The Palace purportedly chose to evict the couple after the release of 'Spare'
• Charles is said to want Andrew to move into the five-bedroom property
• Duke of York currently lives at massive Royal Lodge, paying a very low rent

 

King Charles has decided to evict Prince Harry and Meghan Markle from Frogmore Cottage, their only UK home, it was claimed today.

Buckingham Palace issued an eviction notice to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex days after Harry's memoir Spare - in which he made a series of sensational claims against the Royal Family - hit UK shelves in January, according to The Sun. 

The newspaper claims that the Palace wants to replace the pair with the disgraced Duke of York, who currently lives at much larger Royal Lodge.

 

Story

 

Troll post has been removed

Good stuff, go Charlie boy. 

Kick a lot more ponces out and give money to the UK treasurey like you have already done with wind fields.  ????

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/public-support-for-the-monarchy-is-lowest-among-young-britons-but-thats-nothing-new

 

To quote the great Neil Young, "shoulda been done long ago"...

21 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The UK has a Prime minister , and if the monarchy was dissolved, we wouldn't have a President . 

So if the Monarchy was dissolved you are suggesting it would not be replaced with anything, is that your wish and how would it work?

12 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I really think that you know what means and that you are just intentionally being difficult 

Ah the irony of that statement…

6 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

So if the Monarchy was dissolved you are suggesting it would not be replaced with anything, is that your wish and how would it work?

I haven't given it much thought , TBH

12 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

So if the Monarchy was dissolved you are suggesting it would not be replaced with anything, is that your wish and how would it work?

Why would there need to be a replacement for it? Dissolve the monarchy, make a few adjustments, tweak a few laws and carry on much as before. 

10 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I haven't given it much thought , TBH

So why raise it?

1 minute ago, scottiejohn said:

So why raise it?

I didn't, I replied to another poster who raised it .

Didn't you read all the thread ?

5 minutes ago, asf6 said:

Why would there need to be a replacement for it? Dissolve the monarchy, make a few adjustments, tweak a few laws and carry on much as before. 

Which adjustments would you like?

Here are some options;

Countries without a president or king (jetpunk.com)

Off-topic, troll posts and replies removed.

 

8 minutes ago, asf6 said:

Why would there need to be a replacement for it? Dissolve the monarchy, make a few adjustments, tweak a few laws and carry on much as before. 

So no replacement for the monarchy just a US style "President" .

i.e. the President of the United States is both the head of state and head of government at the same time. 

Does any country want another Trump? (apart from the US?)  Not the UK I assume.

3 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

So no replacement for the monarchy just a US style "President" .

i.e. the President of the United States is both the head of state and head of government at the same time. 

Does any country want another Trump? (apart from the US?)  Not the UK I assume.

As you haven't been reading the thread, its quite possible that you didn't read the thread title either :

   Harry is getting evicted from his UK property 

Just now, scottiejohn said:

So no replacement for the monarchy just a US style "President" .

 

No "President" would be my choice. Keep the Prime Minister. But perhaps the head of state role could be given a random title and chosen by lottery every 4 or 5 years. 

I like Prince Harry and very much enjoyed his book.  It provides some amazing insight into his personal struggles and how his family operates both as a family and as an institution.  Nothing in the book made me dislike either Charles or William.  Much of it are things that happen in most families.   

 

As far as Frogmore goes, I wonder if they are going to reimburse him for the million in renovations he put into it and paid for?   I thought Andrew and Fergie were sharing the same place?

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, asf6 said:

No "President" would be my choice. Keep the Prime Minister. But perhaps the head of state role could be given a random title and chosen by lottery every 4 or 5 years. 

So, only the title would change? What would be the point? Just because you don't like the title "president"?

It will be interesting to see how this "eviction" plays out. According to the BBC, Frogmore Cottage was a gift to Harry and Meghan from Queen Elizabeth II. Perhaps they omitted to change the title deeds over to the Sussexes and the property has now been legally passed on to Charles! 

 

Edit: The property is owned by the Crown Estate.

Just now, asf6 said:

It will be interesting to see how this "eviction" plays out. According to the BBC, Frogmore Cottage was a gift to Harry and Meghan from Queen Elizabeth II. Perhaps they omitted to change the title deeds over to the Sussexes and the property has now been legally passed on to Charles! 

Interesting point.

I just edited my post above, Ozimoron, to add that the property is owned by the Crown Estate.

1 minute ago, asf6 said:

I just edited my post above, Ozimoron, to add that the property is owned by the Crown Estate.

Nevertheless, your post implies that the Queen's intent was that H&M should be free to live in that property without impediment. Would that be your interpretation?

This is a response to Harrys book and his  fake allegations against the Royal Family

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

So, only the title would change? What would be the point? Just because you don't like the title "president"?

The "random title" idea was just a suggestion, not one I expected anyone to take seriously. ???? The Prime Minister being head of state would be fine by me. 

3 minutes ago, asf6 said:

The "random title" idea was just a suggestion, not one I expected anyone to take seriously. ???? The Prime Minister being head of state would be fine by me. 

Are you aware of any western democracies without either a monarchy or president, whatever they are called?

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Nevertheless, your post implies that the Queen's intent was that H&M should be free to live in that property without impediment. Would that be your interpretation?

I didn't imply that, no. I just read on the BBC that Frogmore Cottage was a gift to Harry and Meghan from the late Queen and I initially read into that they might have owned the property, but it appears not. I suppose all those in the royal family involved in past and present discussions about the property actually know what the intricacies of the legalities and technicalities of ownership and residence of the property are. 

1 minute ago, asf6 said:

I didn't imply that, no. I just read on the BBC that Frogmore Cottage was a gift to Harry and Meghan from the late Queen and I initially read into that they might have owned the property, but it appears not. I suppose all those in the royal family involved in past and present discussions about the property actually know what the intricacies of the legalities and technicalities of ownership and residence of the property are. 

So, it looks like King Charles has reversed the late Queen's intention. That's some kind of nasty right there if I understand that right.

^ There may have been conditions to their residency, agreed by the late monarch. I'm sure the press will find out in the fullness of time. 

24 minutes ago, asf6 said:

I didn't imply that, no. I just read on the BBC that Frogmore Cottage was a gift to Harry and Meghan from the late Queen and I initially read into that they might have owned the property, but it appears not. I suppose all those in the royal family involved in past and present discussions about the property actually know what the intricacies of the legalities and technicalities of ownership and residence of the property are. 

The property remained Crown property and was just given to Harry for him to live in, but now he has emigrated to USA and he doesn't need a UK home 

Time they were all kicked out, inheriting power and influence on the basis of who your parents are was never a good idea.