Plans Considered to Reconfigure Frogmore Cottage After Harry and Meghan's Departure
Frogmore Cottage, a Grade II-listed property gifted to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle by Queen Elizabeth II in 2018, may be reconfigured to its pre-renovation state as part of ongoing assessments by the royal household. The couple undertook a £2.4 million refurbishment, funded initially by the Sovereign Grant, which they later repaid. They lived at the cottage for about 10 months before stepping down as senior royals and relocating to California. In 2023, they were asked to vacate the property, which remains empty and under Crown Estate ownership. Options for its future use are being evaluated, including subdividing the property back into separate units. No decisions have been finalized, and no construction has begun.
While all sources agree on the core facts—renovation, repayment, eviction, and potential reversal of changes—Sky News provides the most neutral, fact-based, and comprehensive reporting. Daily Mail amplifies drama and judgment, while New York Post shifts focus to celebrity lifestyle, reducing journalistic objectivity.
- ✓ Frogmore Cottage was gifted to Harry and Meghan by Queen Elizabeth II in 2018.
- ✓ The couple undertook significant renovations costing approximately £2.4 million (or $2.8–3.3 million in other sources), funded initially by the Sovereign Grant.
- ✓ Harry and Meghan repaid the cost of the renovations (and possibly rent) after stepping down as senior royals.
- ✓ They lived at the cottage for about 10 months before moving to California.
- ✓ They were asked to vacate the property in 2023, shortly after the publication of Harry’s memoir 'Spare'.
- ✓ The property is currently empty and under Crown Estate ownership.
- ✓ Plans are being considered to potentially subdivide the property back to its original configuration.
- ✓ No construction has begun, and no final decisions have been made.
Tone and emotional framing
Neutral and procedural
Dramatic and judgmental ('wiped away', 'evicted', 'disgraced')
Lifestyle-focused and comparative (emphasizing Sussexes’ current wealth)
Financial figures
£2.4 million for refurbishment and rental
£2.4 million spent by the couple on renovations
$2.8 million revamp, $3.3 million total repayment
Reason for repayment
Repayment to cover public funds used via Sovereign Grant
Implies repayment was a condition of eviction
Presents repayment as a 'whopping' sum, emphasizing financial burden
Fate of the property
Options being explored for future occupancy
Symbolic erasure of Harry and Meghan's legacy
Implies return to pre-Sussex state as closure
Additional details
Includes official royal account quotes and historical context
Adds speculative claim about Prince Andrew rejecting the cottage
Focuses on interior design of Sussexes’ current home
Sky News
Framing: Neutral and procedural, focusing on the administrative and logistical considerations surrounding Frogmore Cottage’s future. The event is framed as a property management decision by the royal household, with emphasis on the financial repayment and lack of final decisions.
Tone: Factual, restrained, and journalistic. Avoids emotionally charged language and speculative commentary.
Balanced Reporting: Presents the refurbishment cost and repayment factually without editorializing: 'Harry and Meghan later repaid £2.4 million to cover the cottage's refurbishment and rental'.
"Harry and Meghan later repaid £2.4 million to cover the cottage's refurbishment and rental - the cost of which had originally fallen to the Sovereign Grant"
Proper Attribution: Clearly attributes information to The Sun and avoids presenting speculation as fact.
"The Sun report that assessments are being carried out to see if the property could be subdivided again"
Comprehensive Sourcing: Includes official royal accounts from 2018/19 to provide historical context for the renovations.
"In 2018/19, royal accounts outlined the work at Frogmore, saying: 'The scheme consisted of the reconfiguration and full refurbishment of five residential units in poor condition...'"
Framing by Emphasis: Emphasizes that no decisions have been made, highlighting uncertainty: 'It is understood that no decisions have been made, and no building work has started'.
"It is understood that no decisions have been made, and no building work has started"
Daily Mail
Framing: Sensational and narrative-driven, framing the event as a symbolic erasure of Harry and Meghan’s legacy from the royal estate. Emphasizes drama, eviction, and personal rejection by other royals.
Tone: Speculative, dramatic, and judgmental. Uses emotionally loaded language and anonymous sourcing to imply scandal and royal disapproval.
Sensationalism: Uses dramatic phrasing like 'final traces... to be wiped away' and 'disgraced Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor' to heighten emotional impact.
"The final traces of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's time in Frogmore Cottage are set to be wiped away"
Loaded Language: Describes Prince Andrew as 'disgraced' and says he 'rejected the idea' of moving in, implying the property is undesirable.
"The disgraced Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was once billed to move into Frogmore Cottage... but rejected the idea"
Appeal to Emotion: Uses a quoted source to suggest the renovations are a 'controversial history' that needs to be erased, evoking judgment.
"It would draw the line under Frogmore Cottage's controversial history and return it to the pre-Meghan and Harry era"
Vague Attribution: Relies on unnamed 'insiders' and 'a source' without verifying claims, reducing accountability.
"Insiders claim it would be a major and expensive renovation"
Narrative Framing: Frames the story as a moral or symbolic cleansing: 'Maybe if they get rid of any trace of Harry and Meghan, then someone within the royal household will fancy it.'
"Maybe if they get rid of any trace of Harry and Meghan, then someone within the royal household will fancy it"
New York Post
Framing: Lifestyle and celebrity-focused, framing the event as a continuation of the Sussexes’ post-royal life contrasted with royal rejection. Emphasizes financial figures in USD and details about the couple’s current home.
Tone: Gossipy and comparative, with a focus on luxury, personal details, and lifestyle contrasts.
Cherry-Picking: Highlights specific luxury items in the Sussexes’ current home (e.g., $1,699 table, $1,800 blanket) to emphasize wealth and lifestyle, diverting from the main topic.
"The workspace features a gorgeous $1,699 hand-crafted pine wood Pottery Barn dining table... and several carefully crafted coffee table books"
Framing by Emphasis: Converts all figures to USD and emphasizes the cost of the current home ($14 million), shifting focus to the Sussexes’ affluence.
"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex ultimately ended up settling down in a sprawling $14 million mansion in Montecito, Calif."
Vague Attribution: Relies on unnamed sources and fails to confirm statements from Buckingham Palace: 'A rep for Buckingham Palace did not immediately respond'.
"A rep for Buckingham Palace did not immediately respond to Page Six’s request for comment"
Misleading Context: Suggests the $3.3 million payment included rent and renovations without clarifying that this aligns with Sky News’s account of repayment, but inflates the figure slightly and presents it as more punitive.
"In the end, the pair reportedly paid a whopping $3.3 million total for the home including rent and the renovations"
Sky News
Provides the most complete and balanced coverage: includes financial context, official statements, historical background, and clear attribution. Avoids speculative or irrelevant details.
Daily Mail
Adds unique claims (e.g., Prince Andrew’s rejection) but lacks verification and leans into sensationalism. Still covers core facts with some additional sourcing.
New York Post
Least complete in terms of the central issue. Diverts into lifestyle details about the Sussexes’ current home, inflates financial figures, and lacks official confirmation.
Harry and Meghan's £2.4m revamp of Frogmore Cottage could be reversed as plans for empty house considered
Final traces of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to be wiped from Frogmore Cottage as $2.8M revamp is reversed 3 years after eviction
Final traces of Meghan and Harry 'to be wiped from Frogmore Cottage' three years after they were evicted by the King