People: The Sussexes will not fight the Frogmore Cottage expulsion

People: The Sussexes will not fight the Frogmore Cottage expulsion

People Magazine has an interesting update on Frogmore Cottage's eviction. While I'm sure some will shout "it wasn't from the Sussexes", I like to give props to media outlets that actually do try to be fair to Prince Harry or Meghan. Although I don't agree 100% with People's coverage of the royals, it is true that they do try to be fair to Prince Harry and Meghan. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are not retaliating against King Charles' decision to expel them from Frogmore Cottage in the U.K. According to a source, the Duke and Duchess are "factual" about their...

People Magazine has an interesting update on Frogmore Cottage's eviction. While I'm sure some will shout "it wasn't from the Sussexes", I like to give props to media outlets that actually do try to be fair to Prince Harry or Meghan. Although I don't agree 100% with People's coverage of the royals, it is true that they do try to be fair to Prince Harry and Meghan. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are not retaliating against King Charles' decision to expel them from Frogmore Cottage in the U.K. According to a source, the Duke and Duchess are "factual" about their request to leave Frogmore Cottage. They aren't trying overturn this decision. According to the source, Harry, 41, and Meghan, 38, are happy to have their children in California. They moved there in 2020, after having stepped back as senior members in the royal family. People close to the couple feel the decision is regrettable. Frogmore Cottage in Windsor was home to the couple and their children, Archie Harrison, 3 years old, and Lilibet Diana, 1 year old, respectively, during their visit to the U.K. A spokesperson for Harry and Meghan said last week that they could confirm that the Duke and Duchess have been asked to leave Frogmore Cottage. PEOPLE has learned that Prince Harry and Meghan knew of the move prior to the publication of Spare in January. The couple is yet to receive a refund of $2.9 million that they spent on renovations and rental costs over many years. Their lease has not expired. Robert Lacey, a royal historian, tells PEOPLE King Charles is doing things that Queen Elizabeth didn't. "Charles is now the guardian for the institution. He says that the King can't just sit back. It shows Charles that he has the steel his mother lacked. The Queen couldn't bring herself to confront Harry when he was an adult." [From People] Is the correct verb "confront" in this instance? The royal establishment, which includes Lacey for better or worse, has been the subject of much discussion. It was suggested that King Charles' eviction was a demonstration of "strength", which is the strength a petty, vindictive dogsht father rather than a man who wants to spend time with his children, daughter-in law, and grandchildren. Charles's "eviction of his son, who paid everything, including an advance rental", has become a hero's story for him speaks volumes about the royal system. It's not news to anyone that the Sussexes were informed about the eviction shortly after Spare was published. Sources claim that Harry was informed by the palace about the eviction last week, on January 11, the day after Spare's publication. The Royal Estates should give Harry $3 million. Photos courtesy Cover Images, "60 Minutes".