Registered: 1233384002 Posts: 2,465
Reply with quote #1
I have a sinking feeling about this.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4892462/Prince-Charles-won-t-live-Buckingham-Palace-King.html __________________ "For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France "[WWII] would never have come unless, under American and modernizing pressure, we had driven the Hapsburgs out of Austria and Hungary and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany." - Winston Churchill
Registered: 1364648352 Posts: 611
Reply with quote #2
Not the sort of news item that I'd like to hear about too. A slightly depressing turn of events if it comes to pass.
__________________ Yours Sincerely Queenslander
Registered: 1217151204 Posts: 6,754
Reply with quote #3
Uncharacteristic piece of illiteracy from the
Mail there. Loathe is a verb meaning to detest. Loath is an adjective meaning reluctant, averse. You can spell it loth if you prefer, but not loathe, as the Mail did twice. That is a different word, and the wrong one. As for the story, as usual with royal 'news' it's pure speculation. I agree that if it were to happen it wouldn't be the best idea, but there's no point in getting worked up about it until it actually does. For which there would be a quite exact precedent, as it happens. William IV, for whom Clarence House is named, declined to move to Buckingham Palace, which his brother and predecessor George IV had been extensively remodelling with a view to it becoming a principal royal residence, instead remaining at Clarence House. He might have moved in eventually, as he did have the works restarted under a new architect, but died without ever doing that. So the Mail is right that Queen Victoria was the first monarch to permanently reside there. Whether Elizabeth II will be the last is, as I say, speculation rather than story at this point. As a further coincidence, for what it's worth (not much), at 64 William IV was the oldest person yet to accede to the Throne. Obviously, the Prince is already well past that age and will displace his remote uncle upon accession.
Registered: 1262548452 Posts: 361
Reply with quote #4
I'm guessing that Charles has become very attached to his estate at Highgrove House, where he's been living for the past almost 40 years. He probably prefers country living, with it's opportunities for gardening and farming, both of which he obviously enjoys very much. And further opening Buckingham Palace to the public isn't a bad idea. It would be nice if he'd retain some smaller living quarters at Buckingham Palace so that he will still be a resident of London city, and for the sake of tradition. But since he'll be acting as King not for some limited term, but presumably for the remainder of his life, it's understandable that he'd like to live in surroundings that are more congenial to his own personal pastimes and habits.
__________________ Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
Registered: 1195143426 Posts: 5,108
Reply with quote #5
I'm not sure that this is that big of a deal. It's been no secret that the royals aren't overly enthused about living in Buckingham Palace, often quoted as regarding it as "hotel like" in in it's set up. Not at all what most people would desire in a home. Both the Queen and Prince Charles are reported to favor basing the monarchy out of Windsor Castle more. The Palace would continue to be the scene of the major events and functions of the monarchy, the monarch just wouldn't be sleeping there anymore on a permanent basis. The Royal Palace in Madrid functions in this way, the King and Queen host state dinners and other grand events in its magnificent chambers, but they live in Zarzuela Palace which is much more conducive to they way modern people live. Remember the actual official seat of the British monarchy is not Buckingham Palace, but the Palace of St. James, to which all foreign ambassadors are accredited, and which has not had a monarch in residence since the Hanoverians.
__________________ The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.
Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)
"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Registered: 1217792370 Posts: 43
Reply with quote #6
Queen Elizabeth didn't want to move into Buckingham Palace when she became Queen. She wanted to remain in Clarence House but Winston Churchill insisted that she had to move into the palace. As the years have gone on she spends less and less time there and is apparently there only three days a week, preferring to be at Windsor. For the later years of Victoria's reign the palace was hardly used and at one point a notice appeared outside saying that the palace was for sale due to the long absence of the previous occupant. Many of the main royal palaces are no longer where monarchs live but are used as the office or for state occasions, Madrid, as has already been pointed out, also Stockholm and Brussels. The Dutch have the right idea with the monarch living in whatever palace they prefer. Queen Wilhelmina lived in
Noordeinde Palace, Queen Juliana in Soestdijk Palace and Queen Beatrix at Huis Ten Bosch.
Registered: 1369491278 Posts: 431
Reply with quote #7
Mind you, having a single fixed royal residence is good for ensuring security and for finances, I'd reckon.