In the year before Prince Harry’s Spare came out, royal sources were often crying to the British tabloids about how then-Prince Charles was very, very worried that Harry would write horrible things about his stepmother Camilla. I remember thinking and writing “Harry’s not going to write some screed about that horrid woman.” Well, I was wrong. I admit that. Spare went harder on Camilla than I expected. Spare also went easier on Charles than I expected. Harry’s empathy and love for his father was palpable throughout the book, even though it was perfectly clear that Charles was always a profoundly neglectful father. On the other hand, Harry wrote that Camilla had “left bodies in the street” in her path to the crown, and Harry said outright that Camilla has always leaked sh-t about the Windsors in general, and that she’s cozied up to media figures to get better coverage for herself. Well, congrats to Buckingham Palace, because they’re also using THAT as a reason for why Charles is evicting the Sussexes from Frogmore.

King Charles decided to take Harry and Meghan’s UK home off them after learning of the Duke’s takedown of stepmother Camilla. The monarch is said to have believed his son had “crossed a line”.

Sources said the King was outraged by a string of Harry’s accusations such as his claim Camilla was responsible for leaking stories to the press. The Duke also referred to the Queen Consort as “the villain” in TV interviews promoting his memoir, Spare. Charles took decisive action immediately after being passed a dossier of findings by aides revealing details from the explosive book. He started the eviction process from five-bedroom Frogmore Cottage on the Windsor estate on January 11, the day after the memoir was published.

Royal insiders said the revelations have resulted in irreparable damage to Harry’s relationship with his father and brother Prince William. Harry told of his fears that Camilla would turn into a “wicked stepmother”. The Prince said he and William had begged their father not to marry her. The Duke of Sussex confessed he eventually only wanted Camilla to be happy so she could be less “dangerous”. In a TV interview, Harry added: “She was the villain. She was the third person in their marriage. She needed to rehabilitate her image.”

Royal sources have said the King was affronted by an accusation that Camilla had plotted to marry him. Harry said in the book: “Shortly after our private meetings with her, she began to develop her long-term strategy, a campaign directed at marriage and… the Crown (with the blessing of our father, we supposed)… Stories started appearing in all the newspapers about her conversations with Willy, stories which recounted lots of small details, none of which came from my brother.”

An insider said: “It was the last straw. Harry was well aware how Camilla would be a red line for his father and he crossed with flagrant disregard anyway. The King felt without a doubt it crossed a line – it was the ultimate act of disrespect.”

[From The Daily Mirror]

Again with the story about how Charles hasn’t even bothered to read Spare. You would think – given how much outrage and agita has been focused on Harry “ripping his family to shreds” – one of them would just… read the book? Instead of depending on their aides to write Cliffs Notes. I think Charles would actually be surprised by how much Harry still loves him. In any case, while Harry did write his honest assessment of Camilla and her machinations, I’m sure Harry pulled his punches about a lot of what Camilla has done and said over the years. Charles should be grateful that Harry didn’t go harder on both of them. But instead, Charles just keeps… proving that everything Harry has said and written is the truth.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar.

Gigi Hadid has been promoting her new Netflix show and she’s been wearing a lot of fashion in New York all week. [GFY]
The Succession trailer is bonkers! [JustJared]
Madonna is dating a 29-year-old boxer named Josh Popper? [Dlisted]
Drew Barrymore & Ross Matthews went to Flavor Town. [OMG Blog]
Iowa Republicans want to ban gay marriage. [Jezebel]
Lainey on the Sussexes’ Frogmore eviction. [LaineyGossip]
Review of Red Rose. [Pajiba]
What is Michelle Duggar doing in Israel? [Starcasm]
Fan Bingbing is back and wearing Giambattista Valli. [RCFA]
Drake apologizes to his exes for being such a gossip. [Buzzfeed]
Kourtney Kardashian has such a vapid existence. [Egotastic]

Wednesday afternoon – roughly eighteen/twenty hours after The Sun broke the story – the Duke and Duchess of Sussex confirmed the fact that King Charles is evicting them from Frogmore Cottage. The Archewell spokesperson told People Magazine: “We can confirm The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been requested to vacate their residence at Frogmore Cottage.” So, there you go. The story is true, they’re being evicted from the family home they paid for, in the sense that they fully reimbursed the Sovereign Grant for the cost of the renovation (noted in the SG’s 2021 report), and they were up-to-date on their lease payments. Beyond the renovation cost (which, again, they paid in full), they paid upfront for the decor, fixtures, paint, wallpaper and furniture. Strip it all down to the studs before you leave!

So, yeah, Charles looks small, vindictive, petty, disgusting, all of it. Not only to evict the Sussexes, but to then try to install his rapist brother in the same house. Because Charles WILL pay for Andrew’s upkeep, just not in the grand mansion of Royal Lodge. The funny thing is that the royal rota – usually squealing for MOAR punishments, MOAR humiliations for the Sussexes – are now quite queasy with how all of this looks. Enter Becky English with a brand-new piece in the Mail: “Charles felt he had to act as king rather than as a father: REBECCA ENGLISH reveals why Charles backed moves to evict Prince Harry and Meghan from Frogmore Cottage.” Some highlights:

Charles is not just a father, he is a king. “And I know from numerous conversations with royal insiders in recent months that he feels he owes it to his country to act as a monarch, regardless of the repetitive family drama. Which is why, as I understand it, he has backed bold moves to ‘evict’ his son and his family from their Frogmore Cottage home.

Won’t someone think of the poor empty house? [Eviction] is a risky decision and one that the Sussexes’ coterie of media defenders have already seized upon in their efforts to paint the duke and duchess as victims of a protectionist and remorseless institution (although how they square this with the fact the pontificating couple have made clear they see their future in the US, thereby leaving an entire house empty for more than 11 months of the year, is anyone’s guess).

An act of retribution: There is no doubt that the timing of the move – days after the publication of Harry’s controversial and damning memoir, Spare – appears to suggest it was an act of retribution. And there are certainly many in the royal household who will smile with satisfaction at seeing the back of the ‘disloyal duo’, as some refer to them. Indeed, as I reported on Saturday there is still a great deal of ill will ‘boiling over’ at Buckingham Palace at the couple’s behaviour in recent months and neither the King nor the Prince of Wales are in any mood to pander to Harry’s tantrums.

Charles the Vindictive: But Charles is not a vindictive man and despite being deeply hurt at much of what he understands his son had said about him and his wife (he still hasn’t read Harry’s memoir and has no intention of doing so), I am told that this move was a while in the planning.

The royal housing crisis: “The Royal Family, you see, have something of a housing crisis. Not the kind of crisis faced by so many of the king’s subjects, it has to be said. More the fact that they have a surfeit of grand houses and not enough people to justify their existence as lavish private homes – except, oddly, for Windsor, which is proving to be a bit of a bottleneck.

Ah, it’s all William and Kate’s fault: “The problem has been sparked by the Prince and Princess of Wales’s decision to move their family out of their substantial Kensington Palace apartment and onto the Royal Family’s Berkshire estate. For now they are in Adelaide Cottage, a not immodest residence by anyone’s standards but with just four bedrooms (not even one for the nanny) they are living cheek-by-jowl. As one familiar with their situation tells me: ‘The kids go to playdates at houses far bigger and grander than theirs.’ A first-world problem admittedly, but one that would be solved if, say, a 30-room, seven-bedroom property such as Prince Andrew’s Royal Lodge became free. If, of course, he could be persuaded to ‘downgrade’ to five-bedroom Frogmore Cottage instead, a move he is said to be fiercely resisting. Who knows where this merry-go-round of mansions will end?

Severing ties with the Sussexes: Because the Sussexes will no longer benefit from the ring-fence of security that Windsor affords them, the duke and duchess will inevitably argue – no doubt through court cases and ‘friends’ briefing the media – that any future visits to Britain for them and their children are infinitely more complex now. They could stay with family or friends but, let’s be honest, they have fallen out with so many people that this isn’t even a realistic option on the table. It begs the question as to whether Charles will ever see his grandchildren again? More immediately, it also now gives Harry and Meghan the perfect excuse not to attend the coronation.

[From The Daily Mail]

Let’s get this clear: Charles was desperate to change the subject after his tea with the EU president blew up in his face, so he leaked the Frogmore eviction as a distraction. Then that blew up in his face, so the palace is openly briefing Becky English that the Sussexes *had* to be evicted from Frogmore Cottage because it needed to be freed up for Prince Andrew, because William and Kate have their hearts set on Royal Lodge. Thus, Charles just dropped this all on the Waleses’ laps – it’s not enough that they have four homes already, or that Kensington Palace Apartment 1 sits vacant for most of the year as well. William and Kate wanted Royal Lodge and Charles just had to arrange it for them. Well, well. “The kids go to playdates at houses far bigger and grander than theirs…” GTFO. They can always go over to Houghton Hall if they need to spread out.

As for “They could stay with family or friends but, let’s be honest, they have fallen out with so many people that this isn’t even a realistic option on the table.” They have plenty of friends and associates in the UK, the real issue is security and the Mail f–king knows it, because the Mail has explicitly incited violence against the Sussexes.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

I’m going to need Buckingham Palace and their sycophantic royalist reporters to stick with one talking point for 24 hours. Since the news broke on Tuesday evening that King Charles is “evicting” the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from Frogmore Cottage, no one can keep their stories straight. Charles is either budget-conscious or vindictive, and this eviction is either about the cost of living crisis or about Andrew needing to downgrade from Royal Lodge or it’s about Charles being incandescent with rage over Harry’s memoir. Pick a bullsh-t excuse and stick with it. Well, Tom Bower has selected his talking point and he’s going to ride this one to the grave. He is such an unhinged old man:

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s eviction from Frogmore Cottage doesn’t surprise at least one royal expert.

“Harry and Meghan provoked him [King Charles] with Harry’s disgraceful book and the interviews he gave,” Tom Bower told Page Six exclusively in a recent interview, referring to Harry’s memoir, “Spare,” and his appearances on “60 Minutes” and “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.”

“I mean what did he expect?” the “Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the War Between the Windsors” author continued. “Harry wanted the royal family to come on bended knee begging for forgiveness and he’s completely crossed the spectrum, he’s in the mad wilderness of deranged victimhood.”

[From Page Six]

“Harry wanted the royal family to come on bended knee begging for forgiveness.” Harry said he and his wife are owed apologies but he wasn’t expecting anyone in his garbage family to actually apologize. His memoir was about how he was neglected, abused, trapped and gaslighted for decades, and his dogsh-t father’s response is to financially abuse Harry even more and tell the world that the Sussexes are unwelcome in the UK. Speaking of, another royal expert doesn’t understand why the Sussexes are complaining about Frogmore because they could always just stay in Windsor Castle:

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will still have a safe place to stay when in Britain even after they lose Frogmore Cottage, a royal historian has claimed. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex confirmed on Wednesday evening they have been asked to vacate their official residence in the UK, an order reportedly issued by King Charles in the wake of the publication of Prince Harry’s book Spare.

Royal historian Marlene Koenig argued other royal residences could provide a safe haven for Meghan, Harry and their children when they travel to the UK. The US-based commentator told Express.co.uk: “Harry apparently views Frogmore Cottage as ‘the only place left that’s safe’ which for me is a strange comment. Why? There are plenty of rooms at Windsor Castle where they could stay if they choose to come to the UK.”

Ms Koenig refrained from using the word “eviction”, explaining the Crown Estate owns the property rather than the King or Meghan and Harry. She said: “This means Harry’s lease was with the Crown Estates, same for Royal Lodge, Adelaide Cottage, Fort Belvedere and many other properties in Windsor, small and large.”

Moreover, the commentator added, in May 2022 it was claimed the Duke had extended his lease on the Windsor property, believed to be a 12-month rolling deal. If this is the case, last year’s lease will expire within weeks.

[From The Daily Express]

There is a question – one which I hope gets answered at some point – about the terms of the Sussexes’ lease on Frogmore, and how long it was supposed to be and whether their lease agreement includes anything about the Sovereign Grant reimbursing the Sussexes for what they paid for the renovation and refurbishment of Frogmore. Scobie suggested that they had a long-term lease agreement and then this woman claims they only had a one-year lease. I’d really like to know those details. As for “they could just stay in Windsor Castle” – well, that’s one way to convince Prince William to move into the castle. Just let the Sussexes stay in Windsor Castle for one night and William will throw a massive tantrum and demand that HIS family needs full control of the castle. And in any case, Charles is making it perfectly clear that the Sussexes are entirely unwelcome in the UK and in royal properties.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Instar.

The Sun broke the story about King Charles “evicting” the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from Frogmore Cottage, their home on the Royal Windsor estate. In the Sun’s initial reporting, sources made it clear that the eviction was retaliatory, a vindictive old man punishing his son and his son’s family specifically because of Harry’s memoir. The thing is, by coming out and saying that the king is really that f–king petty and vindictive, it makes the king look pretty bad. Which is why some palace sources were sent out to soften the language about the eviction, and make it about Charles being budget and image-conscious, and the Sussexes simply had to be evicted because of Britain’s cost of living crisis. Except that Charles can’t hide the pettiness and the timeline shows that this eviction was retaliation specifically for Spare:

King Charles III is kicking Prince Harry and Meghan Markle out of Frogmore Cottage — and gifting it to disgraced royal Prince Andrew.

A source confirms to Page Six that the incoming king began the eviction process in January just one day after the redheaded royal’s memoir “Spare” hit shelves.

“This eviction surely spells the end of Harry and Meghan’s time in the UK,” a source told The Sun.

[From Page Six]

Let’s underline the point: on January 10, Spare was released. On January 11, King Charles informs the Sussexes (somehow) that they’re being evicted. Then for the next six weeks following the eviction notice, Charles then openly briefs the British media about how he expects Harry to turn up at the coronation and how everyone expects him to leave his Black wife and mixed-race children back in Montecito. These people are unhinged. And Charles wants everybody to know that he was spitting mad about Spare, to the point where he “evicted” the Sussexes 24 hours after Spare was published.

Incidentally, many of you have theorized that the Sussexes probably told Charles (or his minions) that they planned to leave Frogmore anyway and this “eviction” is pure palace spin. That’s a good theory, except that I do believe that Harry wanted to hang on to Frogmore for a few more years at least, especially since he’s still engaged in a legal battle over his police security when he visits. Keep in mind, Harry has never wavered from his position that he wants to be free to travel back to his birth country whenever he wants, and he wants his children to know Britain as well. While I think the Sussexes moved a lot of their stuff out of Frogmore last year, I do believe they intended to retain their lease on the cottage for several more years, which is why Harry renewed the lease in the first place. The Archewell spokesperson also confirmed that the palace told the Sussexes that their lease was being terminated, so…yeah. The palace instigated this, not the Sussexes.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar.

So far, we know for sure that Adele, Elton John, Ed Sheeran, the Spice Girls and Harry Styles have all turned down offers to perform at King Charles’s coronation concert, part of the three-day Chubbly holiday in May. Sheeran – more than anyone else in this group – has performed at some royal or royal-adjacent events in the past, including last year’s Platinum Jubbly. But with Charles sitting on the throne, it looks like the bloom is off the rose. British musical artists are avoiding Charles like the plague, which has got Rolling Stone wondering: “Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?” Some highlights:

No more cheekiness: “The Nineties were so different in British pop culture. It was New Labour, everyone was playful and being a bit cheeky,” explains Michael Cragg, author of Reach For The Stars, a book about Nineties and ‘00s British pop. But, Cragg says, “that cheekiness absolutely isn’t here anymore. Now we really want to know who people are and the version of the Royal family that we’ve learned of recently through Prince Harry’s book and how the Prince Andrew scandal was handled: the reality is awful. You could not be the biggest band in the world now and walk up and plant a kiss on them and it still work.”

Artists are worried about the backlash they would get: “The royal family has faced a number of PR disasters in recent times, and anyone performing at the show would have to consider whether there would be a backlash from appearing amongst their fans,” says Simon Jones, PR to Little Mix, Niall Horan, and Louis Tomlinson.

It’s straight-forward for many artists though: Kingsley Hall of political band Benefits, whose 2022 anti-monarchy single “Flag” was number one on the Official UK vinyl the week of the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, explains of the British cultural temperature, “We’ve had so much exposure and negative exposure of the Royal family – jubilees, weddings, fallings out, accusations of racism, notable deaths, someone being accused of being a sexual predator – in what I would classify as a short space of time. People are sick of it and probably won’t be involved for that reason.”

Royalism is a dirty idea. Meg, head of a leading British music PR company, notes that both Styles and Adele are at points in their careers where they need to define themselves beyond a successful decade in music. “For them right now, storytelling is really important,” says Meg, whose real/full name has been withheld by request. “These big symbolic associations carry a lot of weight and literally go down in history books in bold and underlined. I can understand why there’d be a big PR discussion around artists doing it or not.”

Charles is not the country’s grandfather. “I don’t know what there is to gain for artists by associating with him,” says Meg. “With the Queen, she was fab and glamorous to some people. Charles doesn’t add anything — there’s not a legacy of his that anyone would want to align with. It’s televised, so a lot of people will hear your songs, sure, but in terms of long-term PR strategy, I don’t know if performing would add positively to an artist’s narrative unless they were staunchly pro the monarchy.”

The cost of living crisis in the UK: Ellie (whose real/full name has been withheld by request), founder of a British pop music PR company, says, “Strip back the gold and red cloak, and you have a country where parents are choosing between feeding their kids or keeping them warm. How much money is the coronation costing the taxpayer? It feels like a political statement to play.”

Adele is for the working class, not the royals: As Adele superfan Grace Martha from London notes, Adele is a proud champion of being working class from Tottenham, one of the most ethnically diverse areas in Britain. “The pomp and money this coronation is costing doesn’t represent her values at all,” says Martha. “This issue is so specific to our culture; Americans might think, ‘Oh, she’s from London and a cockney, why wouldn’t she do it?’ But they don’t understand the nuances of different areas, cultures, and identities here. She’s for the ‘everyday person,’ and the everyday younger person in London doesn’t rate the royal family anymore.”

British colonialism is front & center: That is behind the struggle to secure A-List British acts, says Hak Baker, a musician from London: “Any situation where I’d bow to an openly racist colonial imperial system that refuses to apologise for its past and eradication of my people’s history I’d rather avoid with a barge pole. We are more aware of the past now. They are not exempt from recognition. I think they’re going to have a hard time.” Han Mee of Manchester band Hot Milk agrees emphatically, calling it an “outdated institution” that does not represent modern Britain. “Leave it in the past, it’s as old, aged, and expensive as the whiskey that props it up but without the strength and merriment,” she says. “I liked Liz, but it should have died with her – the coronation is a kick in the teeth when this country has never been more of a s–t show.”

[From Rolling Stone]

The final point of the article is basically: King Charles and the royal institution are clout-chasing these artists, which means that the Windsors need Ed Sheeran more than he needs them. Which is true – it doesn’t hurt Adele’s career or Elton John’s career to turn down the Chubbly concert. Sure, they might have gotten a sales boost (the concert will be televised), but at what longterm cost to their careers? The thing I keep thinking about is that the Chubbly organizers went to artists who are world-wide stars, not “popular solely in Britain.” Adele, Ed, Elton, they tour arenas around the world, they see how other countries operate, and in some cases, they live in other countries. That gives them a different perspective on the royal sh-tshow and the politics of the monarchy. Anyway, I guess Charles will have to hire Kate for a Chubbly piano recital.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgird, Instar.

Embed from Getty Images

Adele & Rich Paul might be engaged? [Dlisted]
Shawn Mendes & Sabrina Carpenter might be happening? [LaineyGossip]
An update on the Roald Dahl story. [Pajiba]
Tessa Thompson wore something interesting for the Creed 3 premiere. [Go Fug Yourself]
Jack Black is such an underrated person & actor. [Seriously OMG]
Who was the best-dressed at the SAG Awards? [RCFA]
Matthew McConaughey’s sons look so grown! [Just Jared]
SCOTUS will “decide” the fate of Biden’s student debt relief. [Jezebel]
Ashley Benson is on vacation. [Egotastic]
Anti-drag Tennessee governor… did drag, years ago. [Buzzfeed]
Michelle Williams usually doesn’t do big jewelry but this necklace is stunning. The Valentino gown is pretty great too. [Tom & Lorenzo]
The South Korean LGBTQ community has a legal breakthrough! [Towleroad]

Embed from Getty Images

The Sun broke the news last night that King Charles is “evicting” the Sussex family from Frogmore Cottage, the family home on the Windsor Estate which was “given” to them by Queen Elizabeth. The Sussexes paid the exorbitant cost of renovating the dilapidated royal property and they have a current lease on Frogmore as well, a lease which Charles is simply breaking out of spite. Well, Omid Scobie has the motherlode of royal tea about the news – he must have gotten the heads up on this before the Sun, or maybe all of the royal rota reporters were getting briefed on it. You can read Scobie’s full piece here. Some highlights:

Frogmore Cottage is protected & secure: Their official UK residence, which is covered by the Met’s Royalty and Specialist Protection Unit, made it easy for the family to spend time with the Queen during their June 2022 visit, and it’s where Harry and Meghan have based themselves during multiple stays since moving to California. Though the Sussexes travel with their own private security team, royal protection officers provide a level of security – including access to essential intelligence information – that is already deemed necessary for other members of the Royal Family.

The Sussexes have paid for Frogmore in full: Alongside the unprecedented sovereign grant reimbursement was also a large sum paid by the couple to the Crown Estate covering the rent on the property for the foreseeable future. But now, less than three years into that long-term lease, Prince Harry has been dealt a crushing blow after his father, King Charles, announced he is evicting the family from their Windsor property – a decision made shortly after his revealing memoir, Spare, was released in January.

People are appalled: At a time when communication between Harry and his family has reached an all-time low, further details provided to the couple by the institution have been scant. The property, they were told, is needed for someone else. It’s news, sources tell me, that has left Harry and Meghan stunned, and at least two members of the Royal Family “appalled”. That “someone else” now has been revealed as Prince Andrew. The late Queen’s disgraced son — who was stripped of his royal titles and patronages amid underage sex abuse allegations by Jeffrey Epstein survivor Virginia Giuffre (which the Prince has denied) — was last week offered the keys to Frogmore by King Charles after being warned he must downsize from his Royal Lodge mansion by August.

The Sussexes must vacate by the summer: “Harry and Meghan have until early summer to vacate,” a source shares. “Initially they were given just weeks, but now they have at least until after the coronation.” (No word yet on whether the couple will be attending said coronation – invites aren’t being sent to its 2,000 guests until next week).

A cruel punishment: The decision on the Sussexes’ home is a clear sign of just how sour relations between the King and his son have become. Given the timing of the news, it’s hard not to view it as a response to his son’s literary tell-all, which is said to have left the monarch “spitting mad”. “It all feels very final and like a cruel punishment,” says a friend of the couple. “It’s like [the family] want to cut them out of the picture for good.”

Charles doesn’t want to see his mixed-race grandchildren: But despite the [security] risks, and the prospect of grandchildren Archie and Lilibet not being able to visit in the future, King Charles is sticking firm to his eviction notice. The monarch, I’m told, has focused his priorities elsewhere. “I think the King is just fed up with the entire situation,” says a royal source. A Buckingham Palace spokesman refused to comment.

Andrew has been evicted from Royal Lodge too: “He has until autumn to leave but is resisting,” adds an insider, who confirms that it was Charles who personally offered Frogmore to his brother. The King is also reportedly covering the cost of private, unarmed security for Andrew, estimated to be close to £3m a year.

Prince William wanted Frogmore Cottage too: It’s not the first time the future of Frogmore Cottage has been discussed without Harry present. Last summer, the Prince William briefly had his eyes on his brother’s seven-bedroom home before choosing the nearby Adelaide Cottage for his family. A source said William “had questions” about whether Harry and Meghan’s home could be an option. “The optics would have been terrible though,” they added.

The Sussexes made Frogmore into a real family home: Prior to getting the keys, the cottage had spent more than 90 years split into five separate units for estate workers. “It was really tatty but they did so much to turn it back into a proper home, so many personal touches and so much of it on a tight budget,” a friend said at the time. Adds a source, “This is not just some random rental they keep for convenience. Every drawer is full, every closet is packed… It’s a real family home.”

[From Yahoo UK]

I mean… given how Charles went out of his way to snub and disrespect Harry and Meghan when QEII passed away, I figured that Charles would eventually find some way to evict them from Frogmore Cottage. I just didn’t think it would be done in such an obviously petty and vindictive way, but hey, that’s on brand for Charles and his loser advisors. The thing which I thought would “protect” the Sussexes is the fact that Frogmore Cottage is just some… minor little cottage on an enormous estate full of forts, castles, mansions and palaces. Like, the Windsors have sooo many properties at their disposal, who cares about this shack? Apparently, everyone. As soon as QEII gave the Sussexes the cottage, William was jealous, Charles was furious and the public was outraged. Of course William wanted Frogmore!

Also… there are other cottages on the Windsor estate – Andrew doesn’t have to be moved into Frogmore, he could be moved into one of the other smaller cottages in Windsor or Sandringham or literally wherever. Charles is making several really nasty choices here.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Congrats, British peeps, you’re getting a new princeling and he’s a pale 48-year-old divorced dude with a very sketchy past. Over the past week, we’ve heard a lot about Queen Consort Camilla and how this will be HER coronation too, and she’s insisting that her children and grandchildren be included front and center in the Chubbly proceedings. It’s a signal that Camilla’s long game has come to fruition, and it would not surprise me at all if her adult kids, Tom Parker Bowles and Laura Lopes, are now in line for titles and royal apartments and positions within the Firm. Speaking of, the Times of London had this hilariously obvious piece: “Tom Parker Bowles: the Firm’s new secret weapon? The Queen’s first born is about to gain prominence in the royal family. All signs are that he’s an asset, says Andrew Billen.” Step aside, Countess Sophie – the Windsors have a new secret weapon!

Prince Harry only mentioned Tom once in Spare: Tom appears in but a single paragraph. Harry, angry at press stories about his hunting trip to Germany in 2017, complains that he believes they had been offered by the Palace “in exchange for greater access to Pa, and also as a reward for the suppression of stories about Camilla’s son, who’d been gadding around London, generating tawdry rumours”. Talk about tabloid smears.

Holy sh-t: Now, however, at the coronation in May it seems that it will be Harry who is little more than a face in the congregation. Instead it is reported that the son of Tom Parker Bowles and his sister Laura’s twin boys will have a formal role at the ceremony, probably, I understand, as pages. “The Sussexes,” one royal commentator opined, “will now have to watch on as Camilla’s family steal the limelight, a nation’s hearts and millions if not billions of clicks and likes.”

Tom Parker Bowles is the new Prince Harry: As a royal inexpert, however, I do have one other thought: if indeed Harry is deposed in favour of TPB, it may not be a bad swap. Where the professional spare brings discord, the professional eater brings harmony.

Inclusive royals: The royal historian Hugo Vickers told a paper that the move to include Camilla’s grandkids was indicative of the growing “inclusivity” of the royal family. Socially, admittedly, it may not look that way. Even Sara Buys, Tom’s ex-wife, an English-Zimbabwean magazine editor, would sometimes puzzle over something he said and did, concluding: “It’s a toff thing, isn’t it?” But in Wiltshire they breed hardy, county, down-to-earth toffs. Tom went to Eton but was threatened with the local comprehensive if he did not buck up and do some work. The family ate Sainsbury’s ready meals and Camilla’s signature dish, as recorded in his recipe book Let’s Eat, was roast chicken with a single twist: “My mother insists that chopping off the dangly bit above the cavity and putting it on top of the bird improves the flavour.” Oh, and take it out when it’s done.

What a crazy paragraph: In his youth, he was in any case inducted into the democracy of human pain. He boarded at seven in a paedophile-inclined prep school and then, at Eton, although happier there, endured the press’s vilification of his mother. He was 18 when Diana named Camilla as her husband’s lover; 19 when Charles’s tampon fantasy about his mother became public. Aged 24, he found the press coming after him too. He admitted snorting cocaine at Cannes. It was nothing to do with the pressures of his situation, he has said, “I just loved raving.”

Wow, Giles Coren gets around: “He is not all cloistered. I think he’s seen the worst that the press and the media and public opinion can do to a person and reckons he can cope with everything hereon,” says Giles Coren, who lunches — martinis, two bottles of wine, a Poire Williams to finish — with Parker Bowles at least twice a month. He counts him as not only his closest friend among the restaurant critics (“not much of an achievement”) but a friend to whom he will trust his darkest confessions. “You get an impression of indiscretion but that is because when he talks about his family, he’s talking about the King. So it sounds a bit indiscreet but it never is. He keeps a secret better than anybody. He is incredibly respectful about his stepfather, whom he refers to only as his stepfather, and obviously to the Queen, but he tells funny stories about them and does their voices.”

Tom is still friendly with his ex-wife: “They’re still mates, still tight. They were married young. They were both posh, fun, party people, clever and sexy and funny and naughty and all that. I think that can lead to great fun, exciting marriages and then you have children and things will get a bit more grey, but they’re still great friends. He still stays with them at Christmas. I don’t think he ever went to Balmoral.” Coren believes Parker Bowles’s childhood alone would have been enough to turn someone else “bitter and twisted, which is obviously one of the things Harry must be”. Yet it has not.

[From The Times]

These people can’t help but inflict and project their insanity onto other people. It sounds like Tom is incredibly indiscreet, especially given that his BFF Giles Coren was one of several British toffs confirming Prince William’s affair with Rose Hanbury. It also sounds like Queen Camilla is promoting her ghastly large adult son as a “replacement prince” for Prince Harry. Goodbye, charismatic ginger and hello to a face only a horse would love. Speaking of, my mouth is still agape at this line: “The Sussexes will now have to watch on as Camilla’s family steal the limelight, a nation’s hearts and millions if not billions of clicks and likes.” GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

In Spare, Prince Harry described how, in 2018, he and Meghan were newly married and expecting their first child (Archie), and how they had outgrown the tiny Nottingham Cottage. They had been offered several “grand” properties, but Harry didn’t want those. So QEII offered the Sussexes Frogmore Cottage, which was then a dilapidated shack in dire need of a full renovation. The reno was done quickly, at exorbitant cost (reportedly around $3.1 million), which should tell you a lot about the state of Frogmore Cottage. After they moved to America, Harry then “paid back” the cost of Frogmore’s renovation in full. Frogmore is just one of dozens of cottages, homes, castles, forts and palaces on the Royal Windsor estate, meaning it’s a royal property, so that money simply went back into whatever estate fund. Back in 2018-19, Harry was only given something like a two-year lease on the property. He reportedly renewed the lease on Frogmore even after the Sussexes moved to America, and when they visited the UK in recent years, they stayed at Frogmore. Well, funny story. King Charles is “evicting” them.

King Charles is evicting Prince Harry and Meghan from Frogmore Cottage — and has offered it to Prince Andrew. The Sussexes are now drawing up plans to ship their remaining belongings to the US. The move, which follows damning allegations from Harry and Meghan about the royals, throws into doubt their chances of a coronation invite in May.

Disgraced Andrew was offered the keys to the five-bed Windsor home last week. King Charles began the process of chucking Harry and Meghan out of Frogmore Cottage days after his son’s controversial memoir Spare was released. Buckingham Palace issued an eviction notice to the US-based couple as the world reeled from the extraordinary attacks Harry launched against the Royal Family.

The disgraced Duke of York, who faces being booted out of his Royal Lodge mansion, was last week offered the smaller Frogmore Cottage, and is said to be “resisting”. But Harry and Meghan are believed to have no choice but to quit the Windsor property, a gift from the late Queen, which would leave them without a UK home. They are now drawing up plans to remove their belongings from the five-bed house and ship everything to Montecito, California.

The move also throws into doubt the couple’s chances of getting an invite to the Coronation of Charles and Queen Consort Camilla at Westminster Abbey on May 6.

An insider said: “This eviction surely spells the end of Harry and Meghan’s time in the UK. Andrew is resisting the idea of moving into Frogmore Cottage after he was offered it last week. But it shows Harry and Meghan are powerless to stop the eviction.”

[From The Sun]

“This surely spells the end of Harry and Meghan’s time in the UK.” They literally moved to America three years ago. “A gift from the late Queen,” a gift in which they paid for in full despite the face that they were given a short-term lease on a royal property. “It shows Harry and Meghan are powerless to stop the eviction…” You mean King Charles is so petty and punitive that he would illegally break his son’s lease on a tiny cottage on the Royal Windsor estate just as a show of his limp, flaccid power? Sure.

Anyway, when the Sussexes came to the UK last year for the Jubbly, I theorized that they took a private plane home because they were moving most of their stuff out of Frogmore anyway. I also assume that when Princess Beatrice and Jack Brooksbank were staying at Frogmore, they probably moved some of Harry and Meghan’s things into storage and/or brought their belongings to California when they visited. This idea that poor Harry and Meghan will have to scramble to move their things out after being “evicted” and “left homeless” is just Charles throwing red meat at the British papers. I suspect William is also behind this – after all, I’m pretty sure he fancies Royal Lodge for himself and he always has.

PS… I’m covering Scobie’s latest report separately, please don’t threadjack.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Netflix and Misan Harriman/The Sussexes.