Buckingham Palace published the story about the Sussexes being expelled from Frogmore Cottage. Since then, the palace has tried various excuses to explain why King Charles isn't a dogsht father. It's also why a 70-something king can be petty and vindictive and racist. The excuse that Charles was "spitting mad about Prince Harry's memoir" was initially offered. (The timeline supports that). The excuse changed to "well, Charles just dreadfully worried about money." After that, the palace put the blame on Prince William, Kate, and Prince Andrew, who had been demanding Royal Lodge. This house-shuffle--evicting Prince Andrew and putting him in Frogmore--was the only way to solve the problem. All of these excuses were layered with King Charles's self-pity. It's almost as if he is terribly upset at being "forced" to be such a dogsht father, but it's not in his control. Here are some highlights:

Relationship between Charles and Harry: Mail sources have reported that Charles has been unable to reconcile with his youngest son due to the implosion of their relationship. The King was apparently not keen to fuel their ongoing row and made the difficult decision to ask the couple for their departure from Windsor. The King and his staff felt that they could not resist acting after Harry and Meghan's repeated insults over the past year, particularly in their Netflix series and prince's memoir.

Ripping off the Band-Aid. A source stated that the decision was made to begin the process. It's painful, but once it is done, it will be done.

Will the Crown Estate be required to pay the Sussexes' money? Tonight's discussion also raised questions about whether the Crown Estate that leases Frogmore to Sussexes might end up owing them money. Frogmore Cottage used to be five run-down staff residences. It was then converted into one large home with private gardens using PS2.4million of taxpayers' funds. Everything beyond basic fixtures and fittings was paid for by the couple.

The Sussexes paid a lump amount: Royal officials last year confirmed that Harry and Meghan are financially independent and stated that the couple's decision not to pay the PS2.4 million on Frogmore was a good deal for taxpayers. According to the Palace's annual accounts the lump sum they transferred to pay for the renovation of their former marital home on Queen's estate also covered future rental costs. However, even though the Sussexes had paid rent for several years in advance, royal circles are now asking if they would be owed any money back.

The Sussexes still paid for maintenance: According to reports, the couple was also responsible for maintaining their home's garden. The taxpayer-funded Sovereign Grant was acting as the 'landlord' and completing more major work, including any necessary repairs to the Grade-II-listed property. According to a senior royal source, the rent was calculated independently and was based on market value. They added that they were confident in stating that the rent was a good deal for both the Sovereign Grant as well as the taxpayer.

[From The Daily Mail]

Last week, Prince Andrew threatened King Charles with a lawsuit if Charles attempted to force him out Royal Lodge. He also refused to reimburse him for all Andrew had invested in the property over the years. I hope that the Sussexes follow the same path. It's not just about the Sussexes needing reimbursement for (seemingly), overpaying in advance for the lease. It's also about the $3million they invested in the property. It's bonkers. It's absurd.

Charles is accused of "ripping off the Bandaid" and, as I have said, Charles has deeper self-pity than anyone else. He thinks he is the victim because Harry wrote a book Charles won't read.

Images courtesy of Cover Images