Pippa Middleton and her Terribly Moderately Wealthy husband James Matthews now live primarily in Berkshire, just a short distance away from Pippa’s parents. Pippa and TMW James used to live in London, but I believe they sold their townhouse and relocated to the country, where they purchased a grand £15 million estate. They’ve done a lot of renovations to the house and the property, and they’ve invested in other commercial real estate in the area too, including a petting zoo and some sort of posh glamping venue. But this is about their private estate, which includes 145 acres. Apparently, Pippa and TMW James don’t want peasants to use their footpath, even though the footpath has been commonly used for decades.
Pippa Middleton and her husband are at the centre of a village row over the use of a footpath at their £15million estate. The Princess of Wales’s sister and finance tycoon James Matthews moved their young family into the 145-acre country pile in West Berkshire two years ago.
The estate was previously owned by late design tycoon Sir Terence Conran, who allowed locals to use a country lane leading up to the Georgian mansion’s private drive. However Ms Middleton and her husband have decided to close off the lane to walkers, with signs warning ‘Private: No Public Access’ and ‘No Trespassing’ appearing around the estate. One villager told The Mail on Sunday that the couple’s decision to block the pathway was ‘outrageous’.
He added: ‘I like to walk, and I don’t see why I can’t walk there. I have been walking along there for 50 years. When Sir Terence had it, he had no objections. I think we should have a right to roam. These people seem to be overprotective of their property. I don’t think it is right. We are quiet villagers. We don’t have vandalism around here. With all the notices stuck up, it feels like us and them.’
Another villager said: ‘I think it is a shame. It is a lovely walk. Although it wasn’t officially a footpath, Sir Terence didn’t have any objections. He was very nice. Everyone liked him. He was quite involved in the village. It feels they are depriving the village of an amenity. People might get the impression they are throwing their weight around.’
Through his estate manager, Mr Matthews submitted a Highway Declaration Notice to West Berkshire Council in March marking out his private territory. It made it clear that the road previously used by locals is off limits. Eugene Futcher, chairman of the West Berkshire Ramblers, has launched a counter application, seeking to have the driveway declared a public right of way. The council is expected to reach a decision next year but, as landowners, the Matthews family are allowed to impose their own restrictions until then.
However some villagers have expressed their support for the couple, with one business owner saying: ‘The public assume it is a right of way. It has never been a right of way. They were always allowed to walk it by the previous landowner but now it’s owned by somebody else. [The Matthews] have just exercised their right.’
They added: ‘Ramblers are narrow-minded people who don’t have anything and don’t want other people to have anything. It is jealousy. If it was their house or garden, would they want anybody to walk through it?’ Mr Matthews was approached for comment.
Don’t get me wrong, we have these kinds of disputes here in America, but they’re really common in the UK. In America, the signs would go up and people would shrug and say “okay, well that’s their property after all.” But in the UK, people feel entitled to what they always saw as their right to walk on privately owned land. In the UK, Pippa is seen as haughty and bougie for this. Of course, maybe the answer is less privately-held land and more public parks and publicly owned trails? Maybe there shouldn’t be a vast real estate network owned by the crown and the Duchy of Cornwall?
Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.
-
- London, UNITED KINGDOM – Pippa Middleton puts on a stylish display with husband James Matthews as they attend the Cirque du Soleil’s Luizia at the Royal Albert Hall Pictured: Pippa Middleton, James Matthews BACKGRID USA 13 JANUARY 2022 USA: +1 310 798 9111 / usasales@backgrid.com UK: +44 208 344 2007 / uksales@backgrid.com *UK Clients – Pictures Containing Children Please Pixelate Face Prior To Publication*
-
- London, UNITED KINGDOM – Pippa Middleton attends the Heart Hero Awards 2023 in London. Pictured: Pippa Middleton BACKGRID USA 6 DECEMBER 2023 USA: +1 310 798 9111 / usasales@backgrid.com UK: +44 208 344 2007 / uksales@backgrid.com *UK Clients – Pictures Containing Children Please Pixelate Face Prior To Publication*
-
- London, UNITED KINGDOM – Pippa Middleton attends the Heart Hero Awards 2023 in London. Pictured: Pippa Middleton BACKGRID USA 6 DECEMBER 2023 USA: +1 310 798 9111 / usasales@backgrid.com UK: +44 208 344 2007 / uksales@backgrid.com *UK Clients – Pictures Containing Children Please Pixelate Face Prior To Publication*
-
- London, UNITED KINGDOM – Pippa Middleton attends The Heart Hero Awards in London. Pictured: Pippa Middleton BACKGRID USA 6 DECEMBER 2023 USA: +1 310 798 9111 / usasales@backgrid.com UK: +44 208 344 2007 / uksales@backgrid.com *UK Clients – Pictures Containing Children Please Pixelate Face Prior To Publication*
-
- Together at Christmas Community Carol Service held at Westminster Abbey Featuring: Pippa Middleton Where: London, United Kingdom When: 08 Dec 2021 Credit: John Rainford/Cover Images **NOT AVAILABLE FOR PUBLICATION IN THE UK**
-
- Pippa Middleton arriving for the Royal Carols – Together At Christmas service at Westminster Abbey in London Featuring: Pippa Middleton Where: London, United Kingdom When: 08 Dec 2023 Credit: PA Images/INSTARimages **NORTH AMERICA RIGHTS ONLY**
Probably unpopular: I’d do the same as Pippa. I don’t want people walking on my property as they wish, footpath or not.
Just because it was done doesn’t mean it always will.
But that’s the end of my agreeing with any of this. Owning 145 acres is obscene when you are not agriculture, solar, wind etc
And here’s her BIL solving the housing crisis!! /s The problem is a single family owning 145 acres. That’s 290 1/2 acre plots for 290 families, not to mention terrace housing.
It’s grotesque.
The land in North America was set up a bit differently with “public land” to be used for parks and other things. England was never set up that way, but there were areas considered “common” land that were technically parks but on land owned by an aristo. There was always an expectation that the aristos would keep some of that land open for the common people. If the rich don’t want to do this any more, it’s time to reform how land is allocated. They tried doing this in Scotland but the laws are different.
Yep, just adding to this, we have different land laws & ideas about private property. I remember my year of grad school in England, whenever I wanted to go for a nice, long walk, I could ramble along country lanes & footpaths, with little gates here & there, crossing somebody’s farmland. But always on recognized footpaths–rights of way. That’s the distinction here, I think. This pathway was wasn’t formally determined to be a right of way.
The right to roam is an ancient prerogative in England. The ordinance survey maps show established footpaths, bridlepaths, etc. that cross private land. Many have been in use since the Roman Empire. This one maybe not so long, maybe not yet recognized. I still think the principle that the Kings Peace entitles one to roam the biways of the land should prevail.
Sounds like “you’re not wrong, you’re just an a**hole”. I don’t understand why a single family needs so much space that they can’t allow people to walk the trail. I would understand their decision if they caused some issue in the past, but doesn’t look like it. If I was that rich, why would I give a sh*t about that? It isn’t like people are walking all over their home, it is a trail. It seems like the previous owner knew that it wouldn’t take anything from him to treat people in his own town with respect.
The previous owner was Terence Conran and he and his wife didn’t live there full time and didn’t have small children. Also, as an American, liability immediately comes to mind. Not sure how it works in the U.K., but it would be a lawsuit waiting to happen in the US.
@Megan, are their small children hanging out around the trail? It is a giant estate. It wouldn’t be anywhere near their home. They would say that if it did.
The trail is connected to their driveway, which means it provides a path directly to their house.
@megan. I agree that here liability is always an issue. We had school children using our back yard as a shortcut to the grade school. No trespassing signs don’t work for people who don’t read them. When I saw 2 little boys almost fall from a very small tree that was not meant to be climbed we put up a fence. People are sue happy. I wonder if the Matthews have already had this happen.
@Megan, it is a huge estate. It says “leading up to the Georgian mansion’s private drive”. That doesn’t mean people are walking up to the private drive, just one part of trail goes up there, which is normal.
If it was elsewhere on the huge estate I would agree it may be petty. But it’s right at their driveway. Privacy and liability are both issues here.
Of course the trail would lead up to the driveway, that’s how trails are set up. I think we need to stop giving the benefit of the doubt to rich people who have way too much land.
We have no idea how long this driveway would be either. Already I see weasel words in the article and I would love a photo that shows what they are claiming.
This says the walkway leads right up to their driveway. I would not want strangers in my driveway.
The trail leads up to the driveway is not the same as being in their driveway. This description is very broad and could mean a number of things so it’s not the best description to say whether they would have a right to be bothered when the previous owner was not. I wonder why the path was designed to lead towards their driveway? Which one was there first and is there an option that works for both parties so that there is no tension? I see both sides but I would need a better description or a photo that explains it better in order to have a more informed opinion on this. I hope that they and their neighbors can come up with a solution that works for both sides.
yeah, this is what I think. The Matthews may be legally right, but what a way to enter into a small community by closing down what’s essentially been a public walkway for 50 years. Way to endear yourself to the locals.
It says this leads to their private drive (who knows how long that could be), not that it goes directly past their house or that there have been any issues with people trying to get close to their kids or whatever. it sounds more like them throwing their weight around because they can, and not because there’s an actual need to do so.
So again, they may be right, but it doesn’t mean the public doesn’t have a reason to be outraged.
am I the only one feeling like the business owners supporting them are probably Middleton cronies or the like?
I see weasel words trying to make this trail look like a security issue. Of course a trail ends up at a driveway. But where on the driveway and how far from the home? This is a massive property and we aren’t talking a regular house in the suburbs.
They also tried to block off access to the property the family owns in Scotland. But Scottish laws prevent this.
Many people have sidewalks cross their property at much closer view than what Pippa and her husband have to deal with. Once again it does show that rich people cannot be expected to do the right thing, hence why there are laws needed. Looks like they need to expropriate the trial for public use because Pippa and James aren’t good neighbours.
The fact that we’re even reading about it makes me agree with the Matthews. If they are going public with this, what’s to stop them from going right up to their property and trying to sell stories/pics?
They have lived there for at least two years without anyone trying to sell stories or pictures of them. This story going public in the DF doesn’t mean anything of the sort, especially since there were people who agree and disagree with their stance on this and they are going through the courts to try and resolve the issue.
“Of course a trail ends up at a driveway” -that is one of the strangest sentences I’ve read.
I own a small cabin ,on much less acreage than Pipa, that I use as a summer home and have had problems with people trespassing. In the US trespassing is dangerous for the homeowner because of our sue happy society. I have no trespassing signs posted as required by my insurance. I don’t mind walkers using the paths. Especially the path to the edge of the forest where there is a beautiful view of a valley. But they have fished out my pond and leave beer cans on the banks. They have also tried hunting on my land and that is something I will not tolerate. If the path is far from the house and people are just walking I see no issues with it. Pippa should get to know the villagers and maybe she’ll change her mind.
Terence Conran was a design wizard and it’s sad to hear his beautiful home now has “the Middleton effect “. It would have been nicer to have transitioned to making the pathway private with a bit more care? Maybe have some open days through the year?
The contents of the house were auctioned off in 2022. I don’t know if that was before or after the Matthews bought the property. Imagine buying it furnished and stepping into Terence’s world. That would have been so amazing.
They tore out his gardens and put in an Olympic size swimming facility.
As the sister of the future Queen maybe it has more to do with security and her connection to Kate.
Pippa’s house does have 26 more bedrooms than Kate’s cottage, so maybe they stay over a lot.
That’s my thought as well but I don’t know how detailed and thorough their security is when they stay away from their home(s).
30 rooms not bedrooms. There are pictures of the kitchen, dining room, and sitting room when Terence Conran lived there. Royal Lodge has 30 rooms and 7 bedrooms.
BUT HOW MANY BATHROOMS?????? /s
That’s my thought, too. I’m sure paparazzi wouldn’t be rambling through the forest for a photo of Terence Conran
There have never been paparazzi photos published in British newspapers of Pippa or Carole or James or Mike walking in a place outside of a London city street since Kate was married. Either a deal or a legal decree was working out on that a long, long time ago. There have been photos of them in cars and only at times the media could justify it as a news story, like Carole driving Kate in March.
If Kate goes anywhere she has a ton of security as well as the local ambulance and other security vehicles at any property she stays at. That’s how locals in Buckleberry knew she was at her parents far more than in wales with William. So no walkway needs to be permanently shut just because Kate might visit her sister. But she’s more likely to be at her parents nearby where the taxpayers paid for security upgrades for her and the kids to stay.
Nah, if Kate was staying there regularly the locals would know because of the increased security presence and that would have been mentioned in this article.
Come to Scotland and try that. Ha. We have right to roam laws. Keep the damn rich landowners in their place if at all possible.
So does Sweden.
Personally, with that much freaking land, a decades-long tradition of respectful walkers allowed to use it, and this sneer towards hikers:
“They added: ‘Ramblers are narrow-minded people who don’t have anything and don’t want other people to have anything. It is jealousy. If it was their house or garden, would they want anybody to walk through it?’ Mr Matthews was approached for comment.”
I hope that the ramblers win.
Yeah, I thought that was really snotty. They don’t own property, they’re just jealous. 😤
Those exact thoughts ran through my mind.
I mind a number of years ago Ann Gloag, the owners of Stagecoach buses at the time, not sure if they still own the co., bought some place in Perthshire and they tried to put a stop to hillwalkers going through their land. They won because a huge amount of land was seen as private garden.
Another was some mob near Aberfoyle restricting access to a Munro and I mind seeing the signs about boars in the area being the reason, well apparently there are boars because it would seem they were breeding them for meat and they escaped. Folk in the local area were being asked to help them cull the boar because they had gotten out of control numbers wise, this bit of info came from a tradeswoman we had doing a piece of work years ago. There’s been other cases but not sure of the outcomes.
Ha, I was thinking of stories over the years of QEII meeting people out for hikes on or near Balmoral lands. There were no security issues there, I guess, lol.
The Queen and Charles both ran into people publicly and had their photos taken by non paparazzi and moved on with their lives. William and Kate screamed down an old man that accidentally crossed their paths and assumed he was only there to photograph them when he was not.
This comment section is frightfully American with it’s “I’d do the same.” I will always side with the “common people who don’t have anything” over the rich.
I agree with the homeowners. It’s their land and they have thr right to not want people to trespass on it.
It’s in the UK. Do you know ANYTHING about UK land rights?
Do you know about land rights in the UK? Each country, well England and Wales share similar laws, Scotland and N.I. again have different laws. So yes op is quite right in saying it’s private land so they are entitled to make the path private and restricted. It doesn’t have a by law saying it’s a right of way so that entitles usage by everyone.
Lots of English property law experts here today. Wonder how many could even explain the law of perpetuities or the difference between joint tenancy or tenants in common?
If I bought property then it’s my right to keep people out of it.
We have a house on 2 acres. It’s on the pond in our neighborhood. There is a walking path around the pond. The neighborhood has an easement on my property, and all the other properties on the pond that allows people to walk around the pond on the path.
In the US, I believe easement law would allow for the path to continue to be used in this case – because it’s been used for 50 years uncontested. I’m not a real estate lawyer though, just a former agent, so I could be mistaken. (and obviously Pippa is in the UK)
That’s what I was thinking too, but maybe Sir Terrance’s dying started some sort of clock (I’m assuming he died because I saw it mentioned his furniture was sold). I feel like the community should have petitioned for an easement when that happened to try to lock in the right that had been established. I think it was foolish and naive to just expect the new landowners to just go along with it. I’m genuinely surprised there wasn’t a meeting about it at some point.
This sounds like a premise to one of my British murder mystery stories! This is definitely a thing that happens in Bleak House! I love it
Yes, this! I am not a lawyer but did take a business law class and I remember learning about easements. The fact that the public has been allowed use of this walking path for so many years would definitely factor into this in the US – idk about in Britain. Any British legal minds here that can clarify?
I think if it were important to this Sir Terrance to continue providing the public access to the path through his land, he would have put it on paper and filed it with the proper authorities when he was alive. He didn’t, which kind of finalizes the matter.
It doesn’t make Pippa and her husband assholes. If you line up the Middletons in most-to-least asshole order, it seems like Pippa would fall at the low end of the line.
That’s not how common usage works. And yes Pippa and James are jerks. They tried to restrict access to property in Scotland for the same thing but the laws there explicitly prevented it.
It’s their land if they don’t want anyone using it that’s their right.
Do you know anything about land use rights in the UK? Not the same as the USA.
I don’t see how they can get a way with that, given there is a right of way access legally required in the UK. By law, they have to provide an alternative pathway. Wait ‘til the ramblers association gets wind of this!
Even more so in Scotland with Right To Roam laws. Why on earth should the wealthy always supersede on the rights of the common person.
I was watching a video the other week of some mountain bikers riding on a road in Balmoral and coming across King Charles who they ended up having a chat with. It looks like Balmoral is riddled with pathways for people to use.
It sounds like it’s not actually a legal right of way, though. Having said that, I think the ,ovals are arguing it has become one after 50 years of use.
Either way, not a good look for Pippa and her husband.
There are soooooo many articles out there about this. It sounds like they are saying, without saying explicitly, look how New Money the Matthewses are! They aren’t being generous landowners. They are making it alllll about them!
It’s their land and they can stop people if they want esp if it leads onto their drive way. There r always land / border disputes in England as people often try to land grab.
Taking a short cut or walk through private property just because u want to or have been used to doing is not a right. If the previous owner was fine with it great but that still does not mean u can still expect the same privilege from the new owners.
The land laws in England need to change to allow for more public rights and access.
This sounds like a situation where they may be technically right according to the law but morally assholes because they are upstarts who don’t understand noblesse oblige, which Sir Terrence did.
And no this walkway isn’t near their house so let’s not even pretend that this is a security concern. They tried to pull the same stunt on the land in Scotland but the laws there are tighter.
The laws in England need to be changed though. Common land was a medieval concept that gets ignored now.
Literally none of this matters if the actual law is on the homeowners’ side. None of it. Neighbors can have all the feels they want but it’s not their deeded property, it belongs to a person and that person (2 here) said no. Nouveau security experts on the internet, pissy neighbors, fake morality claims and all Do. Not. Matter.
If the neighbors have an issue, they can take it to court instead of complaining in tabloids.
They added: ‘Ramblers are narrow-minded people who don’t have anything and don’t want other people to have anything. It is jealousy. If it was their house or garden, would they want anybody to walk through it?’“
He might as well just say rambling is communism.
The term ramblers conjures images of middle aged retired types who skulk around the country side noising into other people’s home and while it is true to an extent (I have witnessed this), its a nice way to enjoy the country side however many areas have local country parks for the public to ramble around in.
It’s a contentious issue as while most ‘ramblers’ or walkers are generally well behaved there are those who take the piss and ruin it for everyone else. I used to live in an area where the private land owner used to allow the public access to some paths but that stopped after locals started using it to fly tip, take/sell drugs and wouldn’t clean up after their dogs (even thou he provided bins for dog poo). As the landowner is responsible for upkeep for the land, he kept having to clean up after everyone and got sick of it; and there were costs to him (the waste centre’s here charge you to drop off things now). Needless to say the locals were up in arms about it even thou the most vocal ones where the ones guilty of leaving their sh!t around (on public land they can get fined from the council for not cleaning up their dogs mess and fly tipping is illegal with fines starting at £400 – the council won’t pick up from private land). I moved away but I think he got his way as he had CCTV to back himself up.
I recently spent a whole weekend binging “At War With Nextdoor”, and now here’s something that could be an episode in its own right.
There were also several cottages on their land, that had been rented by local people fir decades. Prior to their moving, they were served section 21 Eviction notices & most of these families ended up housed by the local council in cramped hotel rooms, parents with kids.
Again, there’s no law that prohibits a landlord to evict a tenant that pays his rent and lives honourably.
Finally, the reason we have informal paths on properties in the UK is because 1% own something like 90% land.
Huh, sounds like this is something that could have been featured in a certain documentary about preventing homelessness. “here’s what NOT to do.”
This is it. Lots of people in North America are posting like the laws around public land are the same as in England. It isn’t. In North America, there is far more public land whereas in the uk everything was owned by aristos from the time of William the conqueror and so thinks like public parks and trails don’t exist in the same way.
Exactly, they’re just two different sets of laws, two different mind-sets, really. And 145 acres? To this American, that sounds like a drop in a bucket. My dad had 40 acres, and he’s was just a regular working stiff.
Amen. They don’t understand that nearly ALL English land is owned by something other than the state, that even London commercial buildings are “leased” from the same 3, 4 aristocratic property owners.
Oh, wow, that’s terrible!
There is a legal ‘right to roam’ in the UK common law that has been recognised for centuries – so the burden is on the land owners to demonstrate why there is a need to restrict access. It’s the new-money land-owners who constantly try to fight it (they will most likely go with safety/privacy concerns, if there hasn’t been any vandalism or proof of people straying from the path, then they will lose the appeals).
Came to say this – there are well-established common law precedents to protect public access to privately owned land. Constantly challenged / complained about by estate owners. In that corner of England the local ramblers are probably pretty well heeled themselves.
Oh but the new English property law experts here today say otherwise. We are also going to ignore the right to roam section on the literal UK gov website outlining how this is possible.
I didn’t realize they bought Conran’s house! It was all very hush hush at the time, and none of the papers would comment on the actual house – just that it was a private off market transaction, and that Pippa bought a house grander than any on the Windsor castle estate except for the castle itself. I also remember only 50 acres of land being reported at the time – so oh my gosh, 145!!
I wonder how Kate feels when her sister lives in an absolute monster of a mansion, and Kate is stuck in oh-so-‘idle class Adelaide. I also am low key not shocked that Pippa made her husband scoop up this house for her 😂 so she could finally have somewhere grander than Kate.
I also remember reading that Pips and James evicted a whole bunch of people who lived on land they owned. With 145 acres, and houses, wouldn’t you think they would want tenants? That part always confused me, but even more so now that I know how much land there is. I’m shocked that she would be pulling this privacy thing. I guess she really does want to treat herself as royally as possible. These aspirations of grandeur are wild.
Okay so I went down a rabbit hole and found a vanity fair article about it. It seems like part of Conran’s idea for the estate was to bring it back to life – he hired a riverkeeper, wanted people to fish there (for a “nominal” fee), brought the gardens back to life and was supplying produce to local restaurants, etc. So people traipsing around on their “rambles” probably didn’t faze him, he might have encouraged it.
But you all….the best part….the kitchen?
It has an AGA!!!!!! Pippa really did one-up Kate again LOL!
I doubt that Kate is ever at Adelaide Cottage on the weekend. James’ book was quite revealing about what has long been suspected – she and the children spent a great, great deal of time at Middleton Manor.
Gotta give Pippa a Thatta Girl! she married a huge amount of money Fella.
I don’t see what the big deal is about or the Hubby, neither strike me as brilliant or talented, just lots of $$.
Now, when you have huge amounts of land, IMO, the outdoors are available to be enjoyed by all. Everyone should also be respectful, tidy, and enjoy Nature.
Folks should stay a good distance back from anyones home tho. But large open land is meant to be enjoyed by all.
I feel this way about the BRFs huge land where Anne lives. At least it’s open Nature instead of being 7-11s and subways crammed in.
For those who say Kate should have followed Pippa’s path and landed a wealthy husband with a monster mansion without obligations of royal duties because Pippa looks so ‘happy’ now, I don’t see it. I think P is slightly savvier and a better actress that K, and James is not abusive. But is that happiness one sees in her interactions with her husband? The Wysteria Sisters both came out as Ma Midd directed them.
I think Pippa knew James was a sure thing, could give her the lifestyle she wanted, and so she married him. She’s never looked in love with him. I think she likes him just fine, but that she’d much rather have ended up with George Percy or even that Alex guy who dumped her for her fame mongering ways. IMO she loved the lifestyle, wanted a family, and found a guy who “would do.”
Miss Scarlett — That’s it. But I’m pondering this idea of ‘the lifestyle she wanted’.
Did Pippa (or Kate!) never read any cautionary tales about fate punishing people by giving them what they thought they wanted?
Imagine if Meghan had aspired to have ‘a lifestyle’ and chose Harry as a means to that end!
James actually likes Pippa and waited for her once the aristo plan didn’t work out. She’s in a much better position than Kate on that alone.
This was an episode of Midsomer Murders! Midsomer ramblers …. Lol 😂
Seriously tho’.. I wouldn’t want people traipsing through my property even if they had been doing it for 50 years. Now if had been a legally recognized right of way that would be different. But it doesn’t sound like it is.
I saw that one!
Who exactly are “ramblers” as the word is used in the UK. Are they individuals out for a walk or does it refer to a specific group of people? What do they mean ramblers are people who have nothing? Are a lot of things just “tradition” as it’s always done that way, but not set into law or official rules, so this sort of thing occurs?
No, it’s just people who like to go for a nice, long walk in the country. Sometimes they’ll have walking clubs, or rambling clubs. Here in the states, where we have state parks & National Parks & National Forests & Wildlife Refuges & BLM land with trails–hiking, boardwalk, accessible–it’s just a little different.
Kate, Pippa and James all married into money.
I wish I had done that, I’m so worn down by poverty and working class jobs for decades, I’d jump at 5% of that life.
They started with money. They married into more money.
Some people seem utterly determined to make Pippa some sterling example against Kate or suggest tension between Kate and Pippa. Pippa has been absolutely nothing but a lockstep card carrying pro-Kate social climber. People make much of her for-profit study at leisure “masters’ degree” that she clearly got in service to her future commercial endeavors. Pippa has done very little but marry a rich man and move home to Mommy. This is nouveau riche behavior, as is James keeping leaking, derelict farm equipment. The Middletons are all cut from the same cloth of privilege and superiority. They have *all* become “quite grand.”
In their own minds anyway … grifters in reality really
The coolest thing that Pippa did was upstage Kate at the wedding.. well
Played Pippa!
For generations, our family owned a beach house about two blocks from the beach. It was not a fancy house (two bedrooms with accordion doors and a single bathroom and nothing updated since 1960) and it was not a fancy beach, but our property had a unique quality: the driveway encompassed two blocks. So you could pull through one street and park on the other where our house was located. We only allowed the neighbors in front to use it because otherwise they would have no way to access their driveway. Invariably countless tourists on summer break would try to use it as a cut through which none of us locals appreciated. (My great grandmother lived there alone year round and it made her nervous). Countless uncomfortable interactions telling people not to trespass. Past a pile of cars with all their babies, beach carts, booze etc. getting close enough to said cars to touch them. It was right next to the house because…it was a driveway. Nobody cared. Even with a sign. In 2015 my family sold the property and the new owner flipped it and sold half of the driveway to the neighbors in front them put up a fence so nobody can use it as a trail any longer.
It’s Pippa’s property and I don’t know if it’s American or not to feel protective of one’s privacy but I would definitely describe the complainants as entitled boomers 🤷♀️
ETA just saw there are laws to protect right to roam, so never mind! Lol
I don’t know how the footpath thing works but why not win over the locals by adding a new dedicated footpath? 145 acres is a lot of land for people to just live there and not farm it. I think shutting the existing one down without offering an alternative is tacky.
We are in an environmental crisis caused by capitalism and the supremacy of private property over everything else. The amount of land amassed by monarchy, aristocracy and the obscenely wealthy in the UK is wrong and people need a right to roam, and a right to access nature, and a modicum of mental and physical health and wellbeing.
It’s their land.
Full stop.
Period dot.
End of story.
It’s not up for others to feel entitled to.
This isn’t some massive estate in the middle of a concrete jungle somewhere. These people that feel entitled to traipse about on someone else’s land, likely have sprawling plots of their own and/or lots of public countryside to stroll and enjoy.
Bloody hell, they should go fourth and do just that.