royal-blue
Courtier
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 618
- City
- Balmoral
- Country
- United Kingdom
There is a risk that if Clarence House (likewise KP) is left empty for too long then the BRF may face calls to give up the property entirely.
There is a risk that if Clarence House (likewise KP) is left empty for too long then the BRF may face calls to give up the property entirely.
To my mind St James's is a much more interesting building than KP & it's that palace that I would like to see open up much more to the public. St James's is also far less suited than KP for pied a terres for working members of the family.
KP is run as a public palace largely now. In future I see them all living in smaller residences within these palaces while they open. The state ones. BH should really be open year round for tours.
It makes me smile that not that long ago when the media was reporting Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas had signed a lease on a palace at St James there was so much pearl clutching and cries of "the horror, how common!". Yet the reality is IMO things like that have to happen as it brings money in for the upkeep of the palaces.
I think that is why the Palace still allow staff to live in St James and KP as when they do a rebate it taken from their salary. Some apartments are of course able to be rented out commercially but some, e.g. those close to royal residences etc, are too sensitive to rent out "on the open market".
A number of creative ways have been found and used, e.g the Chief of the General Staff (head of the army) did at one point have an official apartment in KP for which the MoD paid rent.
Clarence House does seem, IMO, relatively surplus to requirement if the King & Queen Camilla move to BP but, let's not forget it is part of the St James' complex so it isn't like its just going to sit there untended to. I suspect we will see some movement of London residences - Anne is always said to have had an apartment at St James but an office at BP, Edward and Andrew had both rooms and offices at BP. Going forward the bothers moving into St James would make sense, freeing up more rooms at BP. It is possible one of Charles' siblings could move into Clarence House even if its just use of some rooms.
I can imagine a scenario in which Clarence House serves as a actual living mansion for the royal couple (Charles & Camilla, later William & Catherine) while Buckingham Palace has a mainly representative and museal function. This is similar to the big palaces in Madrid, Stockholm, Brussels, Amsterdam and Luxembourg: none of these are used as an actual residence but nevertheless remain an important "hub" in the workings of the monarchy.
Well they don’t own much of the properties personally, they just have access to the homes. If there was no monarchy, they would still have to be maintained by the government of the day. Celebs are irrelevant to this because they aren’t funded by taxpayers.I read some of the above and I see costs. Also, I expected this "over-supply" of royal homes when Queen Elizabeth II passed away.
I am against the privileged, including presidents of France, having too many homes. For instance, according to the decorating glossies, there are celeb couples with five homes each couple and that's too much even if they rent out the homes during the tourist seasons.