"They don't just report the news, they create it": on Meghan, Harry and the Press

[MrsMaxDeWinter]

The much trumpeted story of the Dior deal is such a classic tabloid creation, isn't it.

I enjoyed this Grazia article that lays bare the utter nuttiness.

First the tabloids report the rumours as though they are true.

"Meghan to sign with Dior!"

No sources, just speculation based on Meghan and Harry wearing clothes by Dior a handful of times.

Then when both the Sussexes and Dior report that the rumours are not true, (Dior spokesperson said they are "nonplussed" about where the rumours came from) they spin it into "Meghan Rebuffed by Dior!"

This has also happened with Meghan's much rumoured run for the presidency: Robert Jobson actually wrote, with a straight face, in his book published in April 2023, that she was absolutely, certainly and most definitely going to run for president in 2024.

I mean any critical person would realise that the timelines don't make sense, she would have needed a fundraising Super PAC by the time the book was published, and in any event, Democrats don't normally challenge a sitting president ... but hey ho, Meghan is running for president in 2024 because a "Royal Correspondent" said so (and they are so knowledgeable about the American presidency) and a tabloid published it.

And it's the same with The Tig. She is going to launch it any day now. She wants to rival Gwyneth Paltrow! Story after story, based on nothing but speculation.

Rumour after rumour, speculation published as "news" to create media stories about a woman whose plans are not known to the tabloids because she and her husband made it crystal clear even when they were in the UK that they don't engage with the tabloid press.

And there are no "palace sources" who can speak with any kind of plausibility about the Sussexes, so the tabloids make it up as they go along, whipping up headline after headline, driving their readers into a frenzy over things they create ...

While ignoring the important news, like the damning questions by the judge in the Mirror Group case, who asked why the journalists, among them Piers Morgan, have not come to court to testify in the phone hacking trial ...

Oh no, that's not as important to report on as Meghan's fictitious Dior deal, completely implausible rumours of her presidential ambitions, and the speculated upon plans to best Gwyneth Paltrow!

https://graziadaily.co.uk/life/in-the-news/meghan-markle-smear-campaign-dior-spotify-faking-interviews/

The cottage had staff living in it and they were asked to vacate (booted out) after Harry said they'd like it. So there couldn't have been any renovations going on before Harry chose it.

If they did actually take the money from the sovereign grant and they shouldn't have, then that's wrong. There has always been speculation of the cost of the refurbishment. How much did it say in the sovereign grant accounts that it cost?

When they say 2.4M for 'housekeeping and hospitality' are they saying materials/flowers/cleaning etc. products only? Or are they including cleaning staff?

It's for entertaining costs such as garden parties, etc. I guess there were extra costs for the jubilee and the funeral.

I think it had previously been staff quarters but not that staff were living there immediate prior to it being readied for H and M.
I also recall some opaqueness about whether the £2.4m actually included rent as well - that may have been sorted out on previous threads as I've not been on here much recently

Booted out?

Harry said,I paraphrase "imagine how delighted we were when my grandmother surprised us with an offer of an available property near her which is Frogmore Cottage"

Dicky Arbiter went on BBC to say he had been there several times, and know exactly what it looks like and said extensive work was needed anyway.

Booted out?

They had had estate staff living in them. The queen asked if Harry would be interested in it and he went for a look round and said yes. So the staff had to go. I'm pretty sure I remember that planning permission had to be sought to make the changes because it's a grade 1 or 2 listed property.

If they did actually take the money from the sovereign grant and they shouldn't have, then that's wrong.

Well theres no 'if' about it. That's what they announced and why Harry had to pay it back. Then someone made an FOI about it and they had to say they had no correspondence about it because it is not crown estate, that much is clear but never, in all this time, has any of the papers actually raised this or pointed it out to us, the public.

This is what is reported in the media yesterday about it, factually wrong as it is:

At the annual Sovereign Grant account briefing on royal finances, Sir Michael Stevens, Keeper of the Privy Purse, said: “We can confirm that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have vacated Frogmore Cottage.
“We will not be going into any detail on those arrangements here.
“Safe to say that, as has previously been stated, the duke and duchess have paid for the expenditure incurred by the Sovereign Grant in relation to the renovation of Frogmore Cottage, thus leaving the Crown with a greatly enhanced asset.”

The refurbishments were planned already, this from 2019:

The Queen’s Treasurer, Sir Michael Stevens—also known as the Keeper of the Privy Purse—told reporters that “the building was returned to a single residence, and outdated infrastructure was replaced to guarantee the long-term future of the property. Substantially all fixtures and fittings were paid for by their royal highnesses.”

This confirming it is not a crown estate property:

*“Frogmore Cottage forms part of Frogmore House and Gardens, which were annexed to Windsor Castle for use by the Sovereign in perpetuity by an enactment in 1841 under Queen Victoria [redacted]. Frogmore Cottage is therefore a property which is at the disposal of His Majesty, a fact further reflected in section 5(5) of the Crown Estate Act 1961 which makes provision for such properties. As such, while the land on which Frogmore Cottage stands forms part of The Crown Estate it is, as part of Frogmore House and Gardens and while at the disposal of His Majesty, a property which the Crown Estate Commissioners are not permitted to sell, lease or deal with in any way.”

1. The Commissioner considers that, although there are several websites which link Frogmore Cottage to the Crown Estate, it is not the case that the Crown Estate either owns or manages Frogmore Cottage. The Commissioner has seen a copy of the Act of 5 October 1841 which makes it clear that Frogmore cottage is part of Windsor Castle: “An Act for annexing the Mansion House, Gardens, and Grounds at Frogmore, Part of the Land Revenue of the Crown, to Windsor Castle”. The Act was debated in Parliament on 16 September 1841, a record of which is publicly available in Hansard.*

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2022/4022860/ic-169686-b6j6.pdf

so it does seem that Harry was ripped off.

Yes. I always thought he was anyway because either way it is not his property and he won't be using it forever, so why did he have to pay for the things that were always planned anyway?? Long term property maintenance and upgrades should be the owners responsibility, like for any rental. But added to that now, is the fact the Queen should have paid for it herself because its actually not crown estate property.

I just don’t understand why you don’t see that H and M are also very grabby and greedy. They also don’t do anything in return for their huge riches.

I don’t understand this argument unless you are arguing against capitalism? H&M have been given riches based on the amount of money the capitalist companies have been willing to spend for their products. It would be unusual to stipulate charitable giving as part of these contracts. However- H&M do give to and find charity.

The RF are supported by the public purse and their “own” money again is built off the public. Criticism of the RF for penny pinching and not spending their own money when it comes to their own private property but trying to use the public purse is not unreasonable.

Can someone clarify the difference between Crown Estate and Occupied Royal Palaces because I don't understand the difference. The accounts refer to the SG providing funding to maintain the Occupied Royal Palaces which would include Frogmore but posters on here are referencing the Crown Estate - help a confuddled girl out!

Crown estate properties or land is managed by the crown estate commission. Occupied royal residences are those managed by the royal household. It can get a little confusing and murky- I think intentionally. Buckingham Palace is not part of the crown estate, it is also not owned by the royals, but it is an 'occupied royal residence' and managed by the royal household and held in trust to be passed on to each monarch. Kensington is partly managed by the royal household and partly by 'historic royal palaces' as some of it is open to the public. Frogmore house and gardens was purchased privately by Queen Charlotte.

So Frogmore would have fallen under “occupied royal residences” when Harry and Meghan were planning to live there and the needed renovations were undertaken along with their own planned cosmetic refurbishment?

I didn’t realize Harry had renewed the lease so recently. Feb 2022 seems like so long ago now.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/02/19/prince-harry-renews-lease-frogmore-cottage-keeping-one-foot/

Im amazed that they used the sovereign grant for something that isn't a crown estate. How is that even allowed?

No need to be amazed. The Sovereign Grant isn't used to maintain the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate is working land, not royal residences - it generates its own income, and its surplus profits go to the government.

That sum is then used for calculating the Sovereign Grant, which is handed to the monarch to cover various costs, and specifically includes the maintenance of the Occupied Royal Palace estate. Windsor Castle (and therefore Frogmore House/Cottage) is part of the Occupied Royal Palace estate. As is Buckingham Palace. They aren't the monarch's personal property, they are held by the monarch in trust for the nation.

Yes and I also checked back on previous reports on SG accounts and the definition of "occupied royal palaces" hasn't changed, so it's not like the RF snuck Frogmore in within the last year or two to enable them to utilise SG.

They aren't the monarch's personal property, they are held by the monarch in trust for the nation.

I know its true for some, like Buckingham. But Frogmore was privately purchased by Queen Charlotte? They do own some properties privately, right?

Sandringham and Balmoral are the private properties.

It was privately purchased, and then in 1841 it was annexed to Windsor Castle (an occupied royal palace). You've actually posted a comment from the ICO on this thread which sets this out, but you only seemed to read the part of that which said what it is not (ie, Crown Estate), and not the part that says what it is (ie, part of Windsor Castle).

IPSO Findings on Clarkson’s ‘Shame’ piece

Released on Friday night UK time I think - (Friday nights is known as ‘take out the trash night’ when media, govts etc dump things that they don’t want draw any attention to. By Monday morning there are newer stories and the news has moved on - usually.)

Longish read, but interesting.

There should be some small apology on The Sun somewhere but it won’t be prominent apparently. If someone sees it could you tell me what it says, as I can’t access it. Ta.

Hacked off Press Release re CLARKSON ‘shame’ piece in the Sun

“For the first time in @IpsoNews entire history it has upheld a complaint of sexism against a newspaper.
**
Wow.
**
But any tough real regulator would now launch a standards investigation into @TheSun newspaper…”

A Hacked off social media post on the matter.

That’s all folks!

The refurbishments were planned already, this from 2019:

The Queen’s Treasurer, Sir Michael Stevens—also known as the Keeper of the Privy Purse—told reporters that “the building was returned to a single residence, and outdated infrastructure was replaced to guarantee the long-term future of the property. Substantially all fixtures and
fittings were paid for by their royal highnesses.”

I don't understand what you're saying. Frogmore Cottage was used to house estate workers. In 2018 the queen asked Harry if he'd be interested in having Frogmore. Harry looked round it and said, yes. Then planning permission was applied for in order to make changes to the internal walls and structure. Planning permission was not obtained until the end on 2018. So no changes could have been made before then. Harry moved in in April 2019. Which is pretty fast going for a graded house, I'd say.

@Morestrangerthings

Thank you for those articles. The Byline one spells out what it took to get this ruling and how many complaints it receives that it does nothing about. Really worth a read

It shows that public opinion on disgusting articles like Morgan's matters because if it wasn't for the outrage and complaints about it, nothing would've happened. Good to see Meghan defended for once with all the shit she gets thrown at her (yes, pun intended)

Excellent news about Clarkson.

There is something that happens with the press around Meghan that makes people lose their damn minds and decency -- from publishing the letter to her father to publishing what was effectively one pervy man's sexual fantasy in a national newspaper.

Had forgotten about the "vivid bedroom promises" that Meghan made Harry that made him go "woke".

What a vile article and what a satisfying result.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jun/30/jeremy-clarkson-sun-article-on-meghan-was-sexist-says-press-regulator

It’s great that Clarkson has been held to account because that was a horrible article/ let’s not forget however all the shit that Meghan has been flinging herself. At people who can’t answer back.