Royal family security concerns have been cited by Pippa and her husband at a planning inquiry

Added: 2026-05-31

[00:00:01]So, I think I did a video about it a few months back and the gist of it is that the other girl's sister, they she and her husband bought a particular property and they have blocked the public footpath that has granted people access for eons and eons and eons. So they blocked it because it I believe it crosses over their land or something like that. But the um the arrangement that has existed prior to them buying that property was that the footpath was open to the public. So the other girl's sister's husband James Matthews, he bought Barton Court in August 2022.

[00:00:53]And this is a 32 room property in West Barkshire and it cost approximately £15 million and it sits in a 145 acre land.

[00:01:07]And in September of 2022, he installed an electric security gate on the drive.

[00:01:15]And this blocked access to a pathway that the West Barkshire Ramblers describe as having been used by the walking public for decades. So the council, they investigated the application for a definitive map modification order. So he took out a map modification order to say this is part of my land. Investigate this blah blah blah blah blah. And [clears throat] um the council found that the route was reasonably alleged to exist as a public right of way based on evidence, legislation, and case law.

[00:02:01]>> [snorts] >> And I think a lot hinges on that public right of way because if these people are saying that they've always used you know it's always that path has always been used for decades then anyway now James Matthews is opposing that finding.

[00:02:20]His argument at the inquiry has two elements. He is saying that the first of all he was not alerted to any public use of the drive during the process called conveyancing. There's a process where people you know do a lot of investigations just before you buy a property blah blah blah blah blah. He said he wasn't made aware of that.

[00:02:44]number one. And the second is that due to his family's high public profile, there is a need for a higher level of security than would otherwise be the case. Now, the second part of his argument I find very interesting.

[00:03:04]Let's examine both arguments, though, cuz you know me, I like to be fair. Now on the conveyancing point, the legal principle at the center of this case is that a public footpath can be deemed to exist if it's been enjoyed by the public for an in for an uninterrupted time of about 20 years without force, secrecy or permission. So if for over 20 years members of the public have enjoyed a particular public pathway that is legal that is legal and that is recognized under the law. So the absence of a formal notation in conveyancing documents does not get rid of that right if it exists through usage. So you saying well we weren't told during the conveyancing process that is a you problem that is nothing to do with the public because as far as the public are aware and as far as the council are aware they've always enjoyed the privilege of walking through that public path without anyone saying oi you can't do that.

[00:04:26]So that for me is interesting. And also the estate manager who ran Barton Court from 2016 to 2022 told the inquiry he occasionally encountered people on the drive approximately one one person every 2 to 3 months suggesting that usage was occurring during that period. So even the estate manager says, "Well, I've seen people rambling around, you know, maybe one person every couple of months." So yeah, it was assumed by the public and by everyone that they had the right to use the public pathway. Okay. Also, local residents uh Trevor Kohl's he has stated in writing that past proprietors always respected the right of way and that it is only since the new owners arrived that obstructions have appeared interesting on the security argument. Again, I want to hang my coat on this one. This is interesting to me.

[00:05:44]James Matthews is saying that his family's high profile creates a specific need. The family in question is the other girl's sister, himself, and their three children. As you know, the other girl's sister, well, you know who she is. And at the end of the day, the other girl's sister is not a working royal. Now remember what they told us about security, right? They said security for working royals only.

[00:06:18]So if she holds no official royal title and she has no official security provision from the state, the security concern is legitimate as a general proposition for any prominent family. I know wealthy families who have very very high level security needs and that's a fact. But you invoking a royal adjacency in a public planning inquiry to try and justify why people cannot have the public right of way that has existed for centuries.

[00:07:06]That is an argument I feel does not hold water and it needs examining because the pathway in question is a rural drive in West Barkshire and this is a path in which local walkers and ramblers have been moving for decades. I promise you nobody is going to leave their home just so they can drive all that way to gorp at your family home. Trust me, no one gives a toss. You're not that important, honey.

[00:07:42]You are not royal. You are royal adjacent.

[00:07:47]You do not carry any um any any um engagements on behalf of the royals.

[00:07:55]So invoking that ah sorry ain't going to wash. Even people in the UK would find it difficult to pick you and your husband and your children out of a lineup because even the ones we pay for, we do not care that much about them. So trying to invoke that in the deepest um interiors of West Berkshire, it doesn't hold for me. So I think this is not the kind of security parameter issue that justifies permanently closing down a public pathway. But anyway, a decision is going to be made in June and the ramblers are waiting and the gate is still closed.

[00:08:48]Now, we can kind of see where this might be headed.

[00:08:54]Um if the decision is a yes to the ramblers that yep the right of way had existed and um that electric fencing or gate or whatever needs to be removed that would be a win for the ramblers. But if the decision is no um to the ramblers i.e. sorry, their security needs um are greater than yours. Then I wonder if there's going to be any outrage in the press. I wonder if this is going to be the start of it because that means that the other girl's family can start invoking things left, right, and center because now because it seems to me that with every day that passes, there's this level of the other brother's going to be king. He's going to be king. You know, with every day, it's like he's getting one foot nearer to the throne. One foot nearer to the throne. Remember the unhinged briefings that were led by Tom Sykes for months and months especially when the king was diagnosed with cancer as in proper cancer when he was diagnosed and there was like oh my god he should abdicate he should do this he should do and the briefings were very strong the briefings coming out of the other brother's camp yeah he's going to be king only for people to realize that actually the king is probably going to live longer than many of them thought. And number two, even Tom Sides did an article admitting that the other brother is not ready. And recent briefings, occasional briefings mind you, have also indicated that many feel that the other brother is not ready, that he needs therapy, that he needs to be mentored, he needs this. and they're talking about his bellowing uh voice, his tempers, his rages, and how is he going to handle people he doesn't fundamentally agree with, but he's got to be diplomatic and do business with them. So, the more [clears throat] the longer, you know, it it looks to me that with everyday passing, he's going to be king narrative is getting stronger. But then again, what do I know? But let me know your thoughts in the comments, please.

[00:11:16]Because this is interesting. But I just thought, yeah, it's ro adjacent enough to be newsworthy. And I wonder what's going to happen. But anyway, let me know what you think. [clears throat] My name is Elizabeth. I am the author of The Lux Prreneur. Sorry, I have a frog in my throat. I'm the author of the Lux Prreneur. And for more insights like these, please like, share, comment, and don't forget to hit the subscribe button. And to support my work in holding truth to power, you can buy me a coffee at buy me a coffee.com/elizabetharu or you can [clears throat] get a copy of my book, The Lux Prneer from Amazon, Water St. or barns and noble.