No-one has ever wanted to live in Buckingham Palace.The Queen and Prince Philip had to be told to live their by the Prime Minister if the day. Using it for official functions, offices and the number one tourist destination in London seems the right way to go.
@@pattisonpattison3639 The only monarch I am aware of who didn't want to live in the palace was Edward VIII, according to his autobiography, but the government told him he had to live there. Except for him, they've all accepted that the Palace was part of the position.
@@wildideas7368 No they didn't 🙄 you know how many Prime Ministers she went through? Edward was "forced" to live there, nobody else did. If you don't know, don't make things up.
I don’t begrudge the King and Queen wishing to remain at Clarence House. It’s less ostentatious out of the way. The house is much more their style. Buckingham Palace is the corporate headquarters.
exactly. buckingham palace has evolved into the Monarch's central command: state occasions, visits, honours' lists and knighting, galleries, collections, aides and assistants planning trips etc... It functions more as a headquarters than a residence. there are smaller apartments and wings for those who live "in service", firefighters, post office, infirmary, barracks. the real home is Windsor.
@@shortylucy He's actually NOT correct. Why confirm something you evidently don't know anything about? The Queen's official residence was Buckingham Palace and she lived there most of the time. While she considered it a "working residence", if not travelling she would spend Monday to Friday at the Palace and the weekends at Windsor. Only in her and Philip's last years did they spent more time at Windsor than at Buckingham.
@@bobcraycraft7195I’m sorry but that’s appalling. Same as Blenheim and the NT. The stately houses are pricing themselves out of the market for the reasonably family day out. I’ve limited us to the museums, and the free, or at least relatively cheap, ecclesiastical, archeological, and geological sites
Buckingham Palace is the official office of the Monarchy and it's used for visiting VIP'S as accommodation , state dinners , and other public events , plus who wants to stay in a renovation site with constant workmen streaming through the corridors every single day except Sunday . Clarence House is smaller , more comfortable and more habitable as it doesn't have workmen streaming through the corridors every single day except Sunday , so the Monarch and their family members can do the work in peace . His Majesty is comfortable living in Clarence House as it was his home when he was the Prince of Wales and it can still be his home as the Monarch can stay in any Royal Resident if it's their choice . On the plus side Buckingham Palace can be opened to the public unless there is an official event , state dinner or other Royal event and the area that is being used for VIP accommodation can be closed from the public tours , this means that Buckingham Palace can be opened the bulk of the year and making money to maintain the Palace . The private apartments can be placed in one wing and the back of the Palace facing the gardens .
According to what I read, Buck House was a beautiful Romantic-era palace and King Edward VII destroyed it and Queen Mary was not able to undo the damage that her father-in-law had done.
He always said years ago he wanted it open all year round, the refunishment was mainly rewiring which needed doing plumbing work new boilers etc all work which was necessary. If he does not live there and it is open all year round it will bring in the money to help towards the bill for the work done makes sense
St. James’s Palace is the official headquarters of the Sovereign. Foreign Ambassadors are accredited to the “Court of St.James” not to the “Court of Buckingham Palace”. Clarence House is very conveniently situated for St. James’s Palace. Buckingham Palace should become a Museum and Art Gallery and a centre for State occasions, maintained by the State. The Sovereign and his immediate family should, of course, have private apartments there - it would not be right for them to have to travel home late at night after a State occasion. Suites should also be provided, of course, for visiting Heads of State and other important visitors.
Being French to me it is unimaginable that you are charged to visit those places. It should be free or at a very low price considering it is financed by taxpayers.
I was in the UK last week and took the tour. I was mesmerized by the art and architecture. The audio tour is outstanding with a great iPhone device that has video and discussions on the artwork and use of the rooms. It was also fascinating to see parts that aren’t quite done. It’s a work in progress and it is clear the work is critical to saving this world heritage site.
Buckingham is notoriously uncomfortable, however a small apartment could have been renovated for the monarch. If he does not reside there, are the gaurd required?
It’s sort of like the UK version of Romes Wedding Cake or Papal Palace, or Paris’s Arc de Triumph, or the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in America, or Lenin’s Mausoleum in Moscow - the national focal point for daily military ritual. We could I guess shift it to St James Palace, but it’s a less visible site. To shift it to Westminster Abbey wouldn’t work cos it’s already got its daily liturgical ritual and the old church canon laws on weapons in church. The Palace of Westminster is meant to belong to the commons so royal guard there wouldn’t be right. The cenotaph could work I guess but they’d be massively exposed and there’s already the horseguard stuff on Whitehall
It’s sort of like the UK version of Romes Wedding Cake or Papal Palace, or Paris’s Arc de Triumph, or the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in America, or Lenin’s Mausoleum in Moscow - the national focal point for daily military ritual. We could I guess shift it to St James Palace, but it’s a less visible site. To shift it to Westminster Abbey wouldn’t work cos it’s already got its daily liturgical ritual and the old church canon laws on weapons in church. The Palace of Westminster is meant to belong to the commons so royal guard there wouldn’t be right. The cenotaph could work I guess but they’d be massively exposed and there’s already the horseguard stuff on Whitehall
BallMoral is private probity, Bukingham Palace is public owned.if I am correctly oriented. I don't think BP is a nice place to live in. As an office it is much better.
@@andersjefsenrasmussen3003 I used to work with two young women who lived in Buck House apartments bc their fathers were staff. One was the daughter of the Queen's gardener and the other was the daughter of the manager who organised the banquets and visits by overseas dignitaries. There were also many other apartments for staff, offices for public servants who managed the appointments, correspondence and so on. The other wing was mainly reception rooms, the suites for visiting dignatories and the royal apartments. They said the galleries of art treasures belonging to the nation were magnificent. These art treasures are now being opened up for public viewing. Wish I could afford the airfares and such to see them. I hope they make videos for sale.
I don't know what they're talking about with £75 to tour the palace. We went two weeks ago at £32 each. I wouldn't recommend it, btw, too crowded and too rushed.
@@Fordnaneverything the Crown Estates makes as a revenue is surrenders to HM treasury who then provide a portion of the profits (about 25% usually) to the crown, pocketing the rest for Government use
The Spanish royal family lives outside Madrid, leaving vast Palacio Real for state events and public tours, and enjoying greater privacy for themselves.
I thought in recent Decades that Buckingham Palace was more or less used to recieve heads of state, negotiations other political purposes, lavish dinners and tours of the palace, i don't see why there would be a need to have permanent residents per se, if there is no purpose or reason. In many ways it is a monument, a symbol of the UK.
Buck House, as it's called by the RF, will remain the "office" of the RF. There will be apartments above, the same way CEOs keep a cot in the office in case of overnights.
I think BP should now be just opened to the public for all time and used only for business purposes as the official Royal home only. The Royals shoud live elsewhere and use it only for offical business purposes. BP should now be opened completly for the people to see.
AS should every other property they have exclusive use of. 1000 buildings or so. The king only needs an office and a modest residence. The rest can pay rent or pay their own way.
@@rizzo3170 you know one wing is apartments for staff like the gardener and the person who manages the official events. There are suited for visiting VIPs and offices for civil servant. Where would they go if they were tossed out to make the whole building pay for view museum and art gallery?
Listed historic homes in America are restored to important historical periods and not to 'current tastes' I understand that no one, except the Queen ever wanted to live in Buckingham including the Queen Morher.
I don’t think Queen Elizabeth WANTED to live there. She and Prince Phillip had just finished doing up Clarence House to make it their home. She felt she HAD TO live in Buckingham Palace as Queen, not least because she was young. It was seen as a part of her showing she was Head of State. The Queen Mother did not want to move out of Buckingham Palace because she saw it as a diminishing of her status. Queen Elizabeth much preferred living at Windsor, Sandringham and Balmoral.
From everything I read etc. even Queen Elizabeth did not want to live in Buckingham Palace, but her ministers especially Sir Winston Churchill insisted!
@@nanabutner that's true. the Queen was almost in tears She disliked it so much. "Dreary" and "gloomy" are the least of Buckingham Palace's qualities. Prince Philip said "it started life as a somewhat pretty country house and it has been all downhill ever since." No one who lived there, even the servants, ever much liked it. it served and that was it.
@@DakotaFord592 no she didn’t like it but she didn’t want to move out as she thought living elsewhere would diminish her status and reduce her influence over her daughter.
He already lived at the palace when his mother became🥅Queen. Until he went to boarding school & university & military, and before he got married. He is King now, he should be able to sleep in whichever of his houses that he wants to. With apartments available for getting ready for state events.
You two should be ashamed to pander to the grifters of the royal family. Its disgusting. A king and queen consort who are admitted adulterers who didn't give a hoot about their young children at that time nor their spouses supposedly following the Church of England's tenets about marriage. Rip off artists of the highest level or maybe the lowest level. And how rich it is that William decides to speak about HOMELESSNESS while they spend almost 400 million on a palace no one really uses...I mean you can't make this kind of ridiculousness up. Shame on you.
@@gillianrimmer7733 I see you have quite a relaxed attitude to these freeloaders, while over 4000 people in London alone are forced to sleep on the streets.
I see you have quite a relaxed attitude to these freeloaders, while over 4000 people in London alone are forced to sleep on the streets.@@gillianrimmer7733
Dont the Royals realise how greedy they look and what people think about them. I for one would be embarrassed being seen to be responsible for such wastage of tax payers hard earned money running so may properties. They work for me and I say sell all surplus properties. One property each.
These buildings are of national historic importance and therefore should be preserved as such. Whether one agrees or disagrees with hereditary monarchy is irrelevant to the importance of this country’s cultural heritage
The price tags for Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace, St James’s Palace, Windsor Castle will run into hundreds of millions of pound each. Even Clarence House could fetch at least £100 million which is what the Qataris paid for the freehold of the InterContinental Hotel on Park Lane (opposite Buckingham Palace) from the Crown Estate. Guess who will have the dosh to buy them? More likely, the Qataris, Saudis, Emiratis, Kuwaitis and, perhaps, one of the Hinduja brothers or the Ambanis. No Russian oligarchs (sanctions) or Chines billionaires (capital control by communist regime).
@@GaladrielForever I think how the residences are used will change over time, particularly when William becomes King. I can understand Charles not wanting to move out of Clarence house that’s been his home a couple of decades but Buckingham Palace will remain his official as Head of State. William could make Buckingham Palace both his residence and office, relinquishing Clarence House altogether. Alternatively, he could turn Buckingham Palace into a museum with some of the back offices converted into apartments for rental with Clarence house his residence and the official office of the Head of State reverting back to St James‘s Palace, as it was before Buckingham Palace existed. There are already small but still significant changes in place: Charles voluntarily gave up the Civil List’s share of the £1 billion in profits expected to be made from offshore wind farms on land owned by the Crown Estate. The £1 billion will now wholly go to the Treasury. An apartment in St James’s Palace is rented out to Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones. I expect we’ll see similar sort of rentals of the apartments in the palaces (particularly Kensington Palace) in the future.
@@GaladrielForever indeed. And what should happen to the apartments/ residences that were/ are currently used by extended members of the family as it slims down? In Kensington Palace, apartments 8 & 9 have been empty since Diana died. Apartment 1 has been empty since it was done up Harry and Megan and they never moved in. Who will Liv in some of the residences/apartments currently occupied by the HMQE’s cousins the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester and Prince Michael of Kent when they die? I think the only option is to have them all rented out at market rate, with 85% of the rent going to the Treasury via the Crown Estate.
Isn't the proper question to ask something more along the lines of which home is more comfortable? HRM Charles is advancing in years, so does he not deserve to live where he is most "at home?" I don't think " refurbishment"= comfort. Buckingham Palace is a historic building and like all structures of its magnitude require maintenance, especially when it is also a public building. Over the years, I have been told that the Palace isn't all that comfortable. I have been told that it is difficult to heat, along with the plumbing not being exactly top drawer. The Palace is where HRM Charles works, I can understand completely his not wanting to be there 24/7 outside of his duties. Same as anyone else, I say. Let Charles have the same choice as everyone has.
The reserving is funded by the Sovereign Grant which is currently 25% of the net profit the Crown Estate bring into the treasury, it's NOT paid by the people's personal taxes
But seeing as 100% of the profits of the Crown Estate should be going to the treasury, that means the shortfall has to be made up elsewhere, so we *do* end up paying more tax for no benefit.
@@Fordnan I understand this is challenging for you, facts by definition aren't fictional. You're perception surely is, but that's about all. Non-recurring benefits last year alone were £1,692 million, compared with non-recurring costs of £931 million (net positive non-recurring contribution of £761 million as I doubt math is a strength of yours either). Recurring benefits were £567 million in the 2023/24 financial year with recurring costs at £370 million. But since those numbers will be way to complicated for you, I'll break it down to a level you might even understand. Per person £8.50 benefit to £5.50 cost.
Can I stay there please ? Only in the summer months, of course (unless that indoor swimming pool is heated in which case Spring and Autumn would be ok too).
How much did the late Queen live in Buck Palce? I thought she preferred Windsor Castle for her London residence? I don’t understand why the King should not live where he feels most at home?
strange.....Charles said that he was DESPERATE to live in Buckingham Palace when the Queen was still alive. He wanted to be the King who lived ""over the shop"" , he said. It's not really opening the Palace to the ppl when most ppl can't afford the fee....only the rich can see Buckingham and Balmoral.
Disgusting that so many grandiose buildings are at the disposal of the Royals. Why Clarence House when Charles already had his Highgrove? Each royal should be allowed one property only. All other surplus properties should be sold. My 32 year old daughter is a teacher and cannot afford a two bedroom terraced house. Pull yourselves together, royals, my daughter does more to deserve a property than any of you. Where shall we stay this month - Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, Highgrove, Clarence House, Balmoral, Sandringham. This is sheer greed. Full staffs in each property. I do not want to pay for you at all!
🎉Highgrove is private property, so is Clarence House. So is Balmoral and Sandringham. Windsor Castle is public property. Are you going to go after all the 'commoners' who have a town house and a holiday house. What you are proposing is communism, and look how well that worked in Russia.
You do not pay for any staff in the private properties. The RF are major employers paid for by their own private income. The Sovereign Grant pays for the public buildings, but this is only 25% of what the RF pay in tax. They make a profit FOR the taxpayers plus generate millions, if not billions, in tourism. Buckingham Palace and Windsor host major art and heritage collections. The move to make them open to the public and the tourists may make them self funding and save money in the long run. After all, nobody objects to paying to see the Crown Jewels in the Tower. They are our national treasures.
Highgrove is a working farm. The profits from the produce, like the Windsor Castle farm shop are donated to charity. Several of the other estates are also working properties, perhaps the might also do the same. Also, the RF support many charities out of their own pocket and also devote a lot of their time promoting charities. Google the King's Trust (formerly the Princes Trust). and see how this has helped disadvantaged young people over many years.
Every other European monarch uses their principal Royal Palace as the ‘Official Royal HQ’ and always lives in a much smaller palace….i think it’s only right of The King to want to do the same.
@@carolross6583Easy enough. The government will no longer have its powers available to undermine parliament, and we'll no longer have to subsidise their profligate lifestyles without consenting to it. There are lots more ways, but that's a good start.
I know they bring in a lot of tourism money to the U.K., but when look at expenses and they don't pay taxes....is it a zero-sum OR are there more royal expenses than tourism income. Someone tell me, I don't know.
Okay, let's give this propaganda the treatment it deserves. There is not one jot of evidence that people with royal titles attract visitors who wouldn't otherwise come. 'Royal' attractions in France get an order of magnitude more visitors than do ours. As for tax, the queen voluntarily started paying income tax. That was loudly announced, but we're not allowed to know their financial affairs (**nobody** is), so more likely than not, they pay a nominal amount, like £1.
oh yes, the RF DOES pay taxes. during the tail end of the Depression (1930s) the new King George VI - our late Queen's father - noticed income tax paid on the RF's ownership of The City of London (what is called the Old City is all land leased from the RF which it has owned since the 700 to 800s) was minute compared to the rents the RF received. in exchange for not being taxed on their income the King (and later QEII) simply handed over the annual rents much to the benefit to the Exchequer (Min of Finance). dim-witted socialists and the other-than-loyal carped in the late 80s to 90s the RF pay income tax, conveniently forgetting about the rents... How convenient. Tony Blair said no. the Queen had told him six months before paying income tax She was willing to go along with it. result the RF keeps their rents as income (fair), pays tax on it (fair), and the Exchequer is out damned near 1 billion pounds per annum. And that's fair, too. The revenues directly derived from The RF, appearances, functions of State, the earnings for the Exchequer far exceed expenses - known as the "Civil List".
@@Scriptorsilentum Samuel Chatto is a potter, his dad is an artist. Margarita Armstrong Jones is a jewellery designer. Nicholas Windsor is an activist and isn't a working Royal as he's Catholic. Members of the Royal Family do pay tax. Over thirty people do.
The refurbishment is generated from assets owned by The Crown Estates which were relinquished by the monarch in 1760. The vast wealth from Crown Lands goes to the Exchequer. The £75 entrance fee I expect will also go towards maintenance.
Don't even get me started on the need for that underground carriageway connecting the office in Buckingham Palace and the sub basement in Clarence House...
" I REVERE ISLAM AND CELEBRATE THE MASSIVE CONTRIBUTION MUSLIMS HAVE MADE TO BRITISH SOCIETY I INTEND TO BE KING OF ALL THE FAITHS, WE NEED TO BE MORE WELCOMING." Traitor King Charles ( Feb 2023 London )
Convert tBuckingham Palace to flats for The New arrivals As it wuold be a waste again: of Us the Briitsh taxpayers money, paying for the upkeep of said Real Estate empty ,Or maybe convert for us?The people who actually pay for it, I know?Crazy innit,?
Why do you think so many homeless people rather sleep on the streets than go into the shelters? They were afraid that they would be attacked or have their stuff nicked. Mental illnesses, substance abuse and lack of personal hygiene as well as health problems among the homeless population is rife. Your comment is shallow and doesn’t even begin to solve the homeless problem. Besides providing homes we also need wrap-round services to ensure that the solutions to the homeless problem are sustainable and enduring.
@@sookibeulah9331 How is that practicable? What about the artworks, antiques, rare furniture and other objet d’art displayed in the royal palaces and castles? Are they included in the rental deal? What is going to happen to The Royal Collection staff? These are world famous historical buildings so we should set conditions on their use as this could affect our nation’s prestige. The highest bidders would not like that!
@@GaladrielForever most of the historic artwork are in the public/ official/ formal areas of the palaces, rather than the private apartments. Any art that isn’t would be relocated to public view, like to the Royal Collection, or other parts of Palaces opened up to public view. People wealthy enough to rent these apartments will have their own art. Who is going to live in all these Palaces when William becomes king? Who is going to fund the colossal cost of maintaining these buildings? In Kensington Palace apartments 8 & 9 have been empty since Diana died. Apartment 1 has been empty since Harry & Meghan did not to move into it. Who will live in the apartments rented by HMQE’s cousins The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, and Prince Michael of Kent when they die? What will happen to the huge apartment 1A (Princess Margaret’s residence) when William becomes king? Some of the less prestigious parts (former servants quarters and stables that have been converted are already rented out commercially) It would be insane to leave them empty when 85% of rental revenue would go to the Treasury/ tax payers (via the Crown Estate).
@@sookibeulah9331 Your ambition is to build 100,000 homes and just renting some parts of each palace/castle as private apartments will not bring in the sufficient funds to do so. These palaces/castle are also open to the paying public part of the year so it may limit the number of private apartments that can be rented to highest bidders at top market rates and they may not like having to mix with the hoi polloi. Kensington Palace is different as there is clear delineation between the state rooms and private apartments.The palaces/castles also provide office space for The Royal Household staff and organisations/charities under the royal umbrella. They will need to be moved out and the space turned into residences.
I think it's £75 for Buckingham palace because of its location,London is more likely to be visited, Balmoral is less accessible so I don't believe it will get as much foot fall
Regelui ii propun sa uneasca familia ca el a reusit sa o dezbine parasind-o pe Daiana . In primul rand : 1.Camila trebuie sa paraseasca fizic palatul. 2.Regele impreuna cu baietii sa mearga cu un preot la mormantul lui Daiana si sa cereti iertare din partea ei , dupa preotul o sa sfinteze mormantul. 3.Trebuie de ajuns la o intelegere intr-e frati pentruca sufletul lui Daiana sufera , suplimentar este ca🎉 DUMNEZEU se bucura cand noi ne iubim .5
It seems a waste to maintain two royal residences so close together. The government should tell Charles what they told Edward VIII - the king lives in Buckingham Palace. Period.
Buckingham Palace and other state owned royal establishments are maintained by an allowance (the Sovereign’s Grant) granted by the government from The Crown Estates. The Crown Estates were surrendered by George III to the Exchequer in 1760, and the vast wealth generated from the said estates goes in to government coffers and is used for public expenditure.
@@jayargonauts7428 The crown estate couldn't be 'surrendered' by George III because it was not his property to surrender. What actually happened was he accepted he couldn't manage the finances of state, and handed it all over to the government to do on his behalf, demanding a certain sum from the income.
Cant they house the migrants, refugees and asylum seekers there if they don’t want to live there. It would be a shame to let all that space go to waste.
Can all the toxic republicans leave this channel. I’m not sure why you are here spouting your revolutionary drivel. Leave us alone to enjoy this channel in peace.
Can you toxic sycophants leave us to have a functioning democracy in peace? Pay for the royals out of your own pocket; they don't need their extraordinary constitutional powers and privileges.
The reason its cheaper to go to Buckingham Palace over Balmoral Castle is, most likely, two fold. One, BP will have more visitors since its in Greater London and not in the far north of Scotland so they don't need to charge as much. And Two, BC is privately owned by the Royal family and BP is a crown estate, so his Majesty and the family in general may want to encourage people visit the crown estate more then their private homes, which is understandable.
HE IS LOOKING AHEAD.FLEMING HOTEL ACROSS THE WAY THERE HAS A SECRET TUNNEL,FROM THE BATHROOM TO A SECRET ROOM.VERY SAFE,AND NO ONE EVEN KNEW.IM TELLING A FISH TAIL.
I hate that Charles continually lies like this. First it was promising his parents that he would make Edward the Duke of Edinburgh when he acceded the throne but then you lot heard lots of murmurings from the palace the king didn't want to do this and was resistant against it but finally relented though he only gave it to Edward for his lifetime, even though Philip had said he wanted it passed down from him through Edward's line separate from the crown. Then Charles lied about Camilla being Princess Consort and then took down that official announcement several years before the dying queen gave her blessing to make it easier for Charles to have Camilla anointed queen. Now it's Charles lying that he has any intention of living in Buckingham Palace. It's no wonder Harry thinks he can do or say whatever he wants, he watched his own father duplicitously do the same his entire life.
When has that family ever acted with honesty or integrity? The queen had a fawning and servile press. If she had been subject to the same scrutiny as any of our politicians, she would have been rightly detested.
If the King wishes to make these palaces accessible to the general public then perhaps he could understand the poverty in the UK - it's for the rich foreign tourists and well endowed people. Perhaps a video production for the general public and for a true feeling a VR tour.
@@donab1369 nobody doubts that the royals bring tourist money in - just the prices are out of reach of ordinary people - it may be a good idea to do as they do overseas and give the local people a cheaper entrance fee.
@@dianeshelton9592 Oh, sigh! Yes, if we're being pedantic. Sigh! But anyone with the first clue about our economy knows that financial services are what drives the economy. Engineering of all kinds also contribute massively. Tourism is a tiny fraction of our economy, and the most popular tourist attractions can be found easily using a Google search. Not one of them depends on a political system that confers extraordinary constitutional powers and privileges upon one arbitrary family in order to attract tourists. Sigh! Can we get any more melodramatic in our ignorant comments? Sigh!
and? if the Uk royals were no longer there at all, so what? stop peddling the nostalgia narrative- kids are now being diadnosed with ricketts- in 2024 in the UK
Rickets is not a disease of poverty as it once was. It’s cause by vitamin D deficiency which is caused by a lack of UVB hitting the skin. It was once an issue because children worked in factories (rather than fields) but now it’s because children are stuck indoors looking at screens and wear high-factor sunblock when they do go out.
Rickets is not a disease of poverty as it once was. It’s cause by vitamin D deficiency which is caused by a lack of UVB hitting the skin. It was once an issue because children worked in factories (rather than fields) but now it’s because children are stuck indoors looking at screens and wear high-factor sunblock when they do go out.
@JWRogersPS Bozo you do understand how crown assets work if not come back to the expert ' That's me!!! Ill break it down & put you on game. Its belongs to the people.
@@MsBoujeevalentía Yeah... No. If you were an expert on the Crown Estates, I would think you would have a far better working knowledge of the English language. How old are you, 10?
@@archiebald4717 Yes, we do. And not only financially. The estimated £350 million per year is dwarfed by the emocratic and social cost of the monarchy.
@@gillianrimmer7733 I need to research it, do I? I don't think so. I've been proving unwitting advocates for the indefensible wrong for decades. You'll find it's *you* that needs to check the veracity of your sources.
![[UNCUT] “ช่อ พรรณิการ์” ปะทะเดือด “มัลลิกา” ชี้หน้า สั่งหยุด! I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 22 ส.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cJ_z_bHnvIE/mqdefault.jpg)
No-one has ever wanted to live in Buckingham Palace.The Queen and Prince Philip had to be told to live their by the Prime Minister if the day. Using it for official functions, offices and the number one tourist destination in London seems the right way to go.
@@RachelDavies-wn7ir Queen Victoria did, so she moved in, and turned it into her home above the shop.
@@pattisonpattison3639 The only monarch I am aware of who didn't want to live in the palace was Edward VIII, according to his autobiography, but the government told him he had to live there. Except for him, they've all accepted that the Palace was part of the position.
The Queen Mother also lived in Clarence House and Charles moved into it. Charles loved Clarence House and moved in there.
@@daniel_sc1024 Queen Elisabeth II didn't like to live there, but the prime minister insisted that she needs to live there.
@@wildideas7368 No they didn't 🙄 you know how many Prime Ministers she went through? Edward was "forced" to live there, nobody else did. If you don't know, don't make things up.
I don’t begrudge the King and Queen wishing to remain at Clarence House. It’s less ostentatious out of the way. The house is much more their style. Buckingham Palace is the corporate headquarters.
exactly. buckingham palace has evolved into the Monarch's central command: state occasions, visits, honours' lists and knighting, galleries, collections, aides and assistants planning trips etc... It functions more as a headquarters than a residence. there are smaller apartments and wings for those who live "in service", firefighters, post office, infirmary, barracks.
the real home is Windsor.
@@Scriptorsilentumstill, a $369 Million refurbishment?! For sure every tax payer should go see what they’ve paid for.
@@selecttravelvacations7472 You pay to go in ' can you afford it ?
@@tony8074 Also I bet--CLEARANCE HOUSE DOESN’T THAVE RATS!
I thought they mostly used it as an office. The Queen only stayed there when she had to I’ve heard.
You are correct.
@@shortylucy He's actually NOT correct. Why confirm something you evidently don't know anything about? The Queen's official residence was Buckingham Palace and she lived there most of the time. While she considered it a "working residence", if not travelling she would spend Monday to Friday at the Palace and the weekends at Windsor. Only in her and Philip's last years did they spent more time at Windsor than at Buckingham.
It won’t be the King’s “people” paying to view the East Wing, but lots of wealthy American and Chinese tourists who can afford the entry fee.
What's wrong with that?
There are still a lot civilised Britons who are interested in places like that. Just some biers less, and you have the entry fee.
£32. What are football tickets going for?
@@bobcraycraft7195I’m sorry but that’s appalling. Same as Blenheim and the NT. The stately houses are pricing themselves out of the market for the reasonably family day out. I’ve limited us to the museums, and the free, or at least relatively cheap, ecclesiastical, archeological, and geological sites
Buckingham Palace is the official office of the Monarchy and it's used for visiting VIP'S as accommodation , state dinners , and other public events , plus who wants to stay in a renovation site with constant workmen streaming through the corridors every single day except Sunday . Clarence House is smaller , more comfortable and more habitable as it doesn't have workmen streaming through the corridors every single day except Sunday , so the Monarch and their family members can do the work in peace . His Majesty is comfortable living in Clarence House as it was his home when he was the Prince of Wales and it can still be his home as the Monarch can stay in any Royal Resident if it's their choice . On the plus side Buckingham Palace can be opened to the public unless there is an official event , state dinner or other Royal event and the area that is being used for VIP accommodation can be closed from the public tours , this means that Buckingham Palace can be opened the bulk of the year and making money to maintain the Palace . The private apartments can be placed in one wing and the back of the Palace facing the gardens .
He lived there from about age 4 until boarding school & after college until he married.
They all hate it.
According to what I read, Buck House was a beautiful Romantic-era palace and King Edward VII destroyed it and Queen Mary was not able to undo the damage that her father-in-law had done.
He always said years ago he wanted it open all year round, the refunishment was mainly rewiring which needed doing plumbing work new boilers etc all work which was necessary. If he does not live there and it is open all year round it will bring in the money to help towards the bill for the work done makes sense
St. James’s Palace is the official headquarters of the Sovereign. Foreign Ambassadors are accredited to the “Court of St.James” not to the “Court of Buckingham Palace”. Clarence House is very conveniently situated for St. James’s Palace. Buckingham Palace should become a Museum and Art Gallery and a centre for State occasions, maintained by the State. The Sovereign and his immediate family should, of course, have private apartments there - it would not be right for them to have to travel home late at night after a State occasion. Suites should also be provided, of course, for visiting Heads of State and other important visitors.
Good idea. And sharply reduce the entrance fee or establish concessions for citizens
Being French to me it is unimaginable that you are charged to visit those places. It should be free or at a very low price considering it is financed by taxpayers.
I’m English and I’m having a hard time working that one out
Its how they pay for maintenance and upkeep. Saving taxpayers money
Quite right. Charles doesn't need to live there.it is a government office block.
I was in the UK last week and took the tour. I was mesmerized by the art and architecture. The audio tour is outstanding with a great iPhone device that has video and discussions on the artwork and use of the rooms. It was also fascinating to see parts that aren’t quite done. It’s a work in progress and it is clear the work is critical to saving this world heritage site.
£75. You are kidding !
John no joke .
Sounds crazy. Not very public friendly. In Paris museum’s entrance fees are around 14€ by person.
@@monikabrachetti8585What is crazy ? What does the charge of 14 Euros per person have to do with anything ?
@@annewalden3795 75£ seems very expensive to me to visit a chateau. I didn’t expect to get an aggressive comment for my opinion.
@@monikabrachetti8585 I think you must live a very sheltered life if you think my reply was aggressive .
Buckingham is notoriously uncomfortable, however a small apartment could have been renovated for the monarch. If he does not reside there, are the gaurd required?
of course, they aren't removing all the art work
@@carlabroderick5508 To guard the art treasures?
It’s sort of like the UK version of Romes Wedding Cake or Papal Palace, or Paris’s Arc de Triumph, or the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in America, or Lenin’s Mausoleum in Moscow - the national focal point for daily military ritual. We could I guess shift it to St James Palace, but it’s a less visible site. To shift it to Westminster Abbey wouldn’t work cos it’s already got its daily liturgical ritual and the old church canon laws on weapons in church. The Palace of Westminster is meant to belong to the commons so royal guard there wouldn’t be right. The cenotaph could work I guess but they’d be massively exposed and there’s already the horseguard stuff on Whitehall
It’s sort of like the UK version of Romes Wedding Cake or Papal Palace, or Paris’s Arc de Triumph, or the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in America, or Lenin’s Mausoleum in Moscow - the national focal point for daily military ritual. We could I guess shift it to St James Palace, but it’s a less visible site. To shift it to Westminster Abbey wouldn’t work cos it’s already got its daily liturgical ritual and the old church canon laws on weapons in church. The Palace of Westminster is meant to belong to the commons so royal guard there wouldn’t be right. The cenotaph could work I guess but they’d be massively exposed and there’s already the horseguard stuff on Whitehall
BallMoral is private probity, Bukingham Palace is public owned.if I am correctly oriented. I don't think BP is a nice place to live in. As an office it is much better.
@@andersjefsenrasmussen3003 I used to work with two young women who lived in Buck House apartments bc their fathers were staff. One was the daughter of the Queen's gardener and the other was the daughter of the manager who organised the banquets and visits by overseas dignitaries. There were also many other apartments for staff, offices for public servants who managed the appointments, correspondence and so on. The other wing was mainly reception rooms, the suites for visiting dignatories and the royal apartments. They said the galleries of art treasures belonging to the nation were magnificent. These art treasures are now being opened up for public viewing.
Wish I could afford the airfares and such to see them. I hope they make videos for sale.
Buckingham palace isn’t really a home it’s more of a museum/ceremonial building.
It is very expensive to vsit the. East Wing especially as it belongs to us and was refurbished at public expense
Time to get rid of these royals. Now they get a 60 million dollar pay raise on top of this!!! Show them the door!!!!
I don't know what they're talking about with £75 to tour the palace. We went two weeks ago at £32 each. I wouldn't recommend it, btw, too crowded and too rushed.
It’s not a HOME it’s a BUSINESS ADDRESS
King Charles has always been scared of the monk ghost that haunts Buckingham Palace.
Which ghost? 😉
King Charles is THE MOST self-centered British monarch since Edward VIII. I'm not surprised he doesn't want to live in the palace.
Opening up the palace for £75.00!!!!!! Yeah because we common people can afford that!
The tourists will.
£75 for the privilege of looking at public property. And of course, that £75 goes into royal coffers.
@@Fordnan No, it goes into taxpayer coffers.
@@amyboleszny543 Really? I doubt it, but that should go without saying.
@@Fordnaneverything the Crown Estates makes as a revenue is surrenders to HM treasury who then provide a portion of the profits (about 25% usually) to the crown, pocketing the rest for Government use
The Spanish royal family lives outside Madrid, leaving vast Palacio Real for state events and public tours, and enjoying greater privacy for themselves.
I would not live there either.
I thought in recent Decades that Buckingham Palace was more or less used to recieve heads of state, negotiations other political purposes, lavish dinners and tours of the palace, i don't see why there would be a need to have permanent residents per se, if there is no purpose or reason. In many ways it is a monument, a symbol of the UK.
It is being refurbished due to tours and future mega tours of the whole property.
Buck House, as it's called by the RF, will remain the "office" of the RF. There will be apartments above, the same way CEOs keep a cot in the office in case of overnights.
I think BP should now be just opened to the public for all time and used only for business purposes as the official Royal home only. The Royals shoud live elsewhere and use it only for offical business purposes. BP should now be opened completly for the people to see.
AS should every other property they have exclusive use of. 1000 buildings or so. The king only needs an office and a modest residence. The rest can pay rent or pay their own way.
@@rizzo3170 you know one wing is apartments for staff like the gardener and the person who manages the official events. There are suited for visiting VIPs and offices for civil servant. Where would they go if they were tossed out to make the whole building pay for view museum and art gallery?
Perhaps he'll invite a few thousand of the immigrants who arrived this week to move in ?
It's a state funded property.
He's a joke for a King. 😂😂
We own it, we want to see it!
BP was bodged from the start by John Nash, not a particularly good architect, although popular at the time.
Listed historic homes in America are restored to important historical periods and not to 'current tastes' I understand that no one, except the Queen ever wanted to live in Buckingham including the Queen Morher.
I don’t think Queen Elizabeth WANTED to live there. She and Prince Phillip had just finished doing up Clarence House to make it their home. She felt she HAD TO live in Buckingham Palace as Queen, not least because she was young. It was seen as a part of her showing she was Head of State.
The Queen Mother did not want to move out of Buckingham Palace because she saw it as a diminishing of her status.
Queen Elizabeth much preferred living at Windsor, Sandringham and Balmoral.
From everything I read etc. even Queen Elizabeth did not want to live in Buckingham Palace, but her ministers especially Sir Winston Churchill insisted!
@@nanabutner that's true. the Queen was almost in tears She disliked it so much. "Dreary" and "gloomy" are the least of Buckingham Palace's qualities. Prince Philip said "it started life as a somewhat pretty country house and it has been all downhill ever since." No one who lived there, even the servants, ever much liked it. it served and that was it.
The Queen mother loved living in Buckingham Palace!!
@@DakotaFord592 no she didn’t like it but she didn’t want to move out as she thought living elsewhere would diminish her status and reduce her influence over her daughter.
£75 is a lot
He already lived at the palace when his mother became🥅Queen. Until he went to boarding school & university & military, and before he got married.
He is King now, he should be able to sleep in whichever of his houses that he wants to.
With apartments available for getting ready for state events.
This proves he is out of touch a Historical Building he should live there.
You two should be ashamed to pander to the grifters of the royal family. Its disgusting. A king and queen consort who are admitted adulterers who didn't give a hoot about their young children at that time nor their spouses supposedly following the Church of England's tenets about marriage. Rip off artists of the highest level or maybe the lowest level. And how rich it is that William decides to speak about HOMELESSNESS while they spend almost 400 million on a palace no one really uses...I mean you can't make this kind of ridiculousness up. Shame on you.
Very well said 👏👏👏
oh good. Kick out the king and turn the palace apartments into public housing
Kick you
Clown
don't be silly
@@nicolawood9534Well said .These people are so short sighted and impractical.
'King Charles won't live at Buckingham Palace, despite £369 million refurbishment'. £369 million? A mere bagatelle of taxpayers money.
The Crown Estate has paid for it.
@@gillianrimmer7733 I see you have quite a relaxed attitude to these freeloaders, while over 4000 people in London alone are forced to sleep on the streets.
I see you have quite a relaxed attitude to these freeloaders, while over 4000 people in London alone are forced to sleep on the streets.@@gillianrimmer7733
@@gillianrimmer7733Crown Estate income should all go to the treasury. It is not, nor has it ever been the private property of any royal.
Is the crown estate paying bills of food banks? Because American Taylor Swift did.
charles should not be king. his mistress should go away.
Oh harry
Dont the Royals realise how greedy they look and what people think about them. I for one would be embarrassed being seen to be responsible for such wastage of tax payers hard earned money running so may properties. They work for me and I say sell all surplus properties. One property each.
These buildings are of national historic importance and therefore should be preserved as such. Whether one agrees or disagrees with hereditary monarchy is irrelevant to the importance of this country’s cultural heritage
The price tags for Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace, St James’s Palace, Windsor Castle will run into hundreds of millions of pound each. Even Clarence House could fetch at least £100 million which is what the Qataris paid for the freehold of the InterContinental Hotel on Park Lane (opposite Buckingham Palace) from the Crown Estate. Guess who will have the dosh to buy them? More likely, the Qataris, Saudis, Emiratis, Kuwaitis and, perhaps, one of the Hinduja brothers or the Ambanis. No Russian oligarchs (sanctions) or Chines billionaires (capital control by communist regime).
@@GaladrielForever I think how the residences are used will change over time, particularly when William becomes King. I can understand Charles not wanting to move out of Clarence house that’s been his home a couple of decades but Buckingham Palace will remain his official as Head of State.
William could make Buckingham Palace both his residence and office, relinquishing Clarence House altogether. Alternatively, he could turn Buckingham Palace into a museum with some of the back offices converted into apartments for rental with Clarence house his residence and the official office of the Head of State reverting back to St James‘s Palace, as it was before Buckingham Palace existed.
There are already small but still significant changes in place: Charles voluntarily gave up the Civil List’s share of the £1 billion in profits expected to be made from offshore wind farms on land owned by the Crown Estate. The £1 billion will now wholly go to the Treasury. An apartment in St James’s Palace is rented out to Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones. I expect we’ll see similar sort of rentals of the apartments in the palaces (particularly Kensington Palace) in the future.
@@sookibeulah9331 I believe that Charles and William are serious about having a slimmed-down monarchy.
@@GaladrielForever indeed. And what should happen to the apartments/ residences that were/ are currently used by extended members of the family as it slims down?
In Kensington Palace, apartments 8 & 9 have been empty since Diana died. Apartment 1 has been empty since it was done up Harry and Megan and they never moved in. Who will Liv in some of the residences/apartments currently occupied by the HMQE’s cousins the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester and Prince Michael of Kent when they die?
I think the only option is to have them all rented out at market rate, with 85% of the rent going to the Treasury via the Crown Estate.
Isn't the proper question to ask something more along the lines of which home is more comfortable? HRM Charles is advancing in years, so does he not deserve to live where he is most "at home?" I don't think " refurbishment"= comfort. Buckingham Palace is a historic building and like all structures of its magnitude require maintenance, especially when it is also a public building. Over the years, I have been told that the Palace isn't all that comfortable. I have been told that it is difficult to heat, along with the plumbing not being exactly top drawer. The Palace is where HRM Charles works, I can understand completely his not wanting to be there 24/7 outside of his duties. Same as anyone else, I say. Let Charles have the same choice as everyone has.
The reserving is funded by the Sovereign Grant which is currently 25% of the net profit the Crown Estate bring into the treasury, it's NOT paid by the people's personal taxes
But seeing as 100% of the profits of the Crown Estate should be going to the treasury, that means the shortfall has to be made up elsewhere, so we *do* end up paying more tax for no benefit.
@@Fordnan No you don't but you've already proven above that you won't let facts get into the way of your personal perception.
@@Mazeboxx And what fictional facts would those be?
@@Fordnan I understand this is challenging for you, facts by definition aren't fictional. You're perception surely is, but that's about all. Non-recurring benefits last year alone were £1,692 million, compared with non-recurring costs of £931 million (net positive non-recurring contribution of £761 million as I doubt math is a strength of yours either). Recurring benefits were £567 million in the 2023/24 financial year with recurring costs at £370 million. But since those numbers will be way to complicated for you, I'll break it down to a level you might even understand. Per person £8.50 benefit to £5.50 cost.
@@Mazeboxx "Math" - I see. Source?
Can I stay there please ? Only in the summer months, of course (unless that indoor swimming pool is heated in which case Spring and Autumn would be ok too).
Buckingham palace's private apartments are actually quite small. No wonder the King won't live there, when used to Clarence House.
How much did the late Queen live in Buck Palce? I thought she preferred Windsor Castle for her London residence? I don’t understand why the King should not live where he feels most at home?
Didn't i read many years ago that the p was haunted? Seems like the past is karma
It’s haunted by a Benedictine monk. It’s probably a punishment for destroying the old faith 😂
He has said for decades…He would never live in BP…
strange.....Charles said that he was DESPERATE to live in Buckingham Palace when the Queen was still alive. He wanted to be the King who lived ""over the shop"" , he said. It's not really opening the Palace to the ppl when most ppl can't afford the fee....only the rich can see Buckingham and Balmoral.
We don't like the so called king.
God Save The King and Long May He Reign!
Not so-called. He is the King.
The Japanese Emperor has seen all of it before! He was on that balcony along with the other royals when he was studying here in the 1980s!
Defund the monarchy
Disgusting that so many grandiose buildings are at the disposal of the Royals. Why Clarence House when Charles already had his Highgrove? Each royal should be allowed one property only. All other surplus properties should be sold. My 32 year old daughter is a teacher and cannot afford a two bedroom terraced house. Pull yourselves together, royals, my daughter does more to deserve a property than any of you. Where shall we stay this month - Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, Highgrove, Clarence House, Balmoral, Sandringham. This is sheer greed. Full staffs in each property. I do not want to pay for you at all!
Sold and then what?
Blame the government for the lack of affordable housing
🎉Highgrove is private property, so is Clarence House. So is Balmoral and Sandringham. Windsor Castle is public property. Are you going to go after all the 'commoners' who have a town house and a holiday house. What you are proposing is communism, and look how well that worked in Russia.
You do not pay for any staff in the private properties. The RF are major employers paid for by their own private income. The Sovereign Grant pays for the public buildings, but this is only 25% of what the RF pay in tax. They make a profit FOR the taxpayers plus generate millions, if not billions, in tourism. Buckingham Palace and Windsor host major art and heritage collections. The move to make them open to the public and the tourists may make them self funding and save money in the long run. After all, nobody objects to paying to see the Crown Jewels in the Tower. They are our national treasures.
Highgrove is a working farm. The profits from the produce, like the Windsor Castle farm shop are donated to charity. Several of the other estates are also working properties, perhaps the might also do the same.
Also, the RF support many charities out of their own pocket and also devote a lot of their time promoting charities. Google the King's Trust (formerly the Princes Trust). and see how this has helped disadvantaged young people over many years.
Every other European monarch uses their principal Royal Palace as the ‘Official Royal HQ’ and always lives in a much smaller palace….i think it’s only right of The King to want to do the same.
Monarchy has hundreds of properties which in todays modern UK is obscene
Sooner the privileged Monarchy is abolished the better UK will be
Hundreds ? Name 20.
How will it? Do explain.
Name 10.
@@carolross6583Easy enough. The government will no longer have its powers available to undermine parliament, and we'll no longer have to subsidise their profligate lifestyles without consenting to it. There are lots more ways, but that's a good start.
Without the monarchy it wouldn't be the United Kingdom (UK)
I think it should be available for tours and offices. For which it would have had to be renovated.
I know they bring in a lot of tourism money to the U.K., but when look at expenses and they don't pay taxes....is it a zero-sum OR are there more royal expenses than tourism income. Someone tell me, I don't know.
They do pay taxes even their distant relatives pay taxes. The whole Royal Family pays taxes.
Okay, let's give this propaganda the treatment it deserves. There is not one jot of evidence that people with royal titles attract visitors who wouldn't otherwise come. 'Royal' attractions in France get an order of magnitude more visitors than do ours.
As for tax, the queen voluntarily started paying income tax. That was loudly announced, but we're not allowed to know their financial affairs (**nobody** is), so more likely than not, they pay a nominal amount, like £1.
oh yes, the RF DOES pay taxes. during the tail end of the Depression (1930s) the new King George VI - our late Queen's father - noticed income tax paid on the RF's ownership of The City of London (what is called the Old City is all land leased from the RF which it has owned since the 700 to 800s) was minute compared to the rents the RF received. in exchange for not being taxed on their income the King (and later QEII) simply handed over the annual rents much to the benefit to the Exchequer (Min of Finance).
dim-witted socialists and the other-than-loyal carped in the late 80s to 90s the RF pay income tax, conveniently forgetting about the rents... How convenient. Tony Blair said no. the Queen had told him six months before paying income tax She was willing to go along with it.
result the RF keeps their rents as income (fair), pays tax on it (fair), and the Exchequer is out damned near 1 billion pounds per annum. And that's fair, too.
The revenues directly derived from The RF, appearances, functions of State, the earnings for the Exchequer far exceed expenses - known as the "Civil List".
@@Scriptorsilentum Samuel Chatto is a potter, his dad is an artist. Margarita Armstrong Jones is a jewellery designer.
Nicholas Windsor is an activist and isn't a working Royal as he's Catholic. Members of the Royal Family do pay tax. Over thirty people do.
Oh great another waste of money 💰 🤑
So the palace be torn down?
@@Pisti846 Why would Buckingham palace be torn down when it's part of British history?
It was made for the export market to sell to Europeans
OK sell it and give the proceeds back to the people who need it.
It belongs to us already. Charge them market rent on all but one residence (say, Clarence house), and one Whitehall office.
what a shameless bunch and so many people depending on foodbanks to live .£369 million to refurbish it and then charlie charges £75 to see it
Nobody relies on a food bank to live.
The refurbishment is generated from assets owned by The Crown Estates which were relinquished by the monarch in 1760. The vast wealth from Crown Lands goes to the Exchequer. The £75 entrance fee I expect will also go towards maintenance.
Wouldn't pay 75 pence........
. Glad cuz nobody wants you there to begin with
Symantics, to be able to eat and live. @@archiebald4717
Who cares where The king live.
Not my king boo
Open it to the public!!
Prince Philip would have loved not moving, but staying in their residence back then. Glad that King Charles has a choice
Decante it out, cram it back. 😅
Don't even get me started on the need for that underground carriageway connecting the office in Buckingham Palace and the sub basement in Clarence House...
What waste of money so, maybe it could be used for the homeless
Who would want to live there. It should be a bed and breakfast for the rich.
@@susangunn5866 Susan the rich can do better than Buckingham Palace .
Time for the king to retire now 😡
" I REVERE ISLAM AND CELEBRATE THE MASSIVE CONTRIBUTION MUSLIMS HAVE MADE TO BRITISH SOCIETY I INTEND TO BE KING OF ALL THE FAITHS, WE NEED TO BE MORE WELCOMING." Traitor King Charles ( Feb 2023 London )
Then they must turn it into a motel.
Sorry but I have totally gone off the Royal Family. Thus Family simply don't care about the poor and just live in absolutely luxurious surroundings 😮
Who's paying for this?
The Palace is owned by the State not by the King.. the King and the late Queen always hated it as cold and impersonal. Its the Office
@rogerfielding1117 OK, thanks
@rogerfielding1117 OK thanks
Us as usual 🙄
Profits generated by the Crown Estate.
WHERE'S MY KING NOW ? OI CHARLIE YOUR MOTHERS REALM IS IN TROUBLE AND I GUESS YOUR TALKING TO PLANTS ! 😠🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
End the monarchy and use the money to feed Britain's starving seagulls.
Damn the starving seagulls! They are a Nuisance!
@@GaladrielForeverYou are right .
Convert tBuckingham Palace to flats for The New arrivals As it wuold be a waste again: of Us the Briitsh taxpayers money, paying for the upkeep of said Real Estate empty ,Or maybe convert for us?The people who actually pay for it, I know?Crazy innit,?
Gary Buckingham Palace is used and it would be very expensive to convert it into accommodation.
New arrivals? You mean illegals? Immigrants?
Turn it into a homeless shelter, do some good for once in your life.
Why do you think so many homeless people rather sleep on the streets than go into the shelters? They were afraid that they would be attacked or have their stuff nicked. Mental illnesses, substance abuse and lack of personal hygiene as well as health problems among the homeless population is rife. Your comment is shallow and doesn’t even begin to solve the homeless problem. Besides providing homes we also need wrap-round services to ensure that the solutions to the homeless problem are sustainable and enduring.
No it’s be better to rent it out to the highest bidders at top market rents and use the money to built 100,000s of homes
@@sookibeulah9331 How is that practicable? What about the artworks, antiques, rare furniture and other objet d’art displayed in the royal palaces and castles? Are they included in the rental deal? What is going to happen to The Royal Collection staff? These are world famous historical buildings so we should set conditions on their use as this could affect our nation’s prestige. The highest bidders would not like that!
@@GaladrielForever most of the historic artwork are in the public/ official/ formal areas of the palaces, rather than the private apartments. Any art that isn’t would be relocated to public view, like to the Royal Collection, or other parts of Palaces opened up to public view. People wealthy enough to rent these apartments will have their own art.
Who is going to live in all these Palaces when William becomes king? Who is going to fund the colossal cost of maintaining these buildings?
In Kensington Palace apartments 8 & 9 have been empty since Diana died. Apartment 1 has been empty since Harry & Meghan did not to move into it. Who will live in the apartments rented by HMQE’s cousins The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, and Prince Michael of Kent when they die? What will happen to the huge apartment 1A (Princess Margaret’s residence) when William becomes king?
Some of the less prestigious parts (former servants quarters and stables that have been converted are already rented out commercially) It would be insane to leave them empty when 85% of rental revenue would go to the Treasury/ tax payers (via the Crown Estate).
@@sookibeulah9331 Your ambition is to build 100,000 homes and just renting some parts of each palace/castle as private apartments will not bring in the sufficient funds to do so. These palaces/castle are also open to the paying public part of the year so it may limit the number of private apartments that can be rented to highest bidders at top market rates and they may not like having to mix with the hoi polloi. Kensington Palace is different as there is clear delineation between the state rooms and private apartments.The palaces/castles also provide office space for The Royal Household staff and organisations/charities under the royal umbrella. They will need to be moved out and the space turned into residences.
I think it's £75 for Buckingham palace because of its location,London is more likely to be visited, Balmoral is less accessible so I don't believe it will get as much foot fall
We toured two weeks ago and it was £32 including an audio guide and the gardens. £75 is for a semi-private guided tour.
Regelui ii propun sa uneasca familia ca el a reusit sa o dezbine parasind-o pe Daiana . In primul rand :
1.Camila trebuie sa paraseasca fizic palatul.
2.Regele impreuna cu baietii sa mearga cu un preot la mormantul lui Daiana si sa cereti iertare din partea ei , dupa preotul o sa sfinteze mormantul.
3.Trebuie de ajuns la o intelegere intr-e frati pentruca sufletul lui Daiana sufera , suplimentar este ca🎉 DUMNEZEU se bucura cand noi ne iubim .5
It seems a waste to maintain two royal residences so close together. The government should tell Charles what they told Edward VIII - the king lives in Buckingham Palace. Period.
His mum didn't live there.
@@Fordnan Yes she did. As evidenced by the intruder that disturbed her in her bedroom.
@@daniel_sc1024 She *stayed* there. They have dozens of residences maintained at public expense.
Buckingham Palace and other state owned royal establishments are maintained by an allowance (the Sovereign’s Grant) granted by the government from The Crown Estates. The Crown Estates were surrendered by George III to the Exchequer in 1760, and the vast wealth generated from the said estates goes in to government coffers and is used for public expenditure.
@@jayargonauts7428 The crown estate couldn't be 'surrendered' by George III because it was not his property to surrender. What actually happened was he accepted he couldn't manage the finances of state, and handed it all over to the government to do on his behalf, demanding a certain sum from the income.
Cant they house the migrants, refugees and asylum seekers there if they don’t want to live there. It would be a shame to let all that space go to waste.
Can all the toxic republicans leave this channel. I’m not sure why you are here spouting your revolutionary drivel. Leave us alone to enjoy this channel in peace.
Can you toxic sycophants leave us to have a functioning democracy in peace? Pay for the royals out of your own pocket; they don't need their extraordinary constitutional powers and privileges.
The reason its cheaper to go to Buckingham Palace over Balmoral Castle is, most likely, two fold. One, BP will have more visitors since its in Greater London and not in the far north of Scotland so they don't need to charge as much. And Two, BC is privately owned by the Royal family and BP is a crown estate, so his Majesty and the family in general may want to encourage people visit the crown estate more then their private homes, which is understandable.
Ah nice so the taxpayer pays to do it up, then pays to see it. How about getting overseas tourists to pay and the taxpayer enjoys the profits...
Yep! You got it! Nothing is for free in this life😂😂😂
HE IS LOOKING AHEAD.FLEMING HOTEL ACROSS THE WAY THERE HAS A SECRET TUNNEL,FROM THE BATHROOM TO A SECRET ROOM.VERY SAFE,AND NO ONE EVEN KNEW.IM TELLING A FISH TAIL.
Shameless and William's big cause is homelessness.
Get rid of these ridiclous palaces for gods sake
How many years do we know this?
I hate that Charles continually lies like this. First it was promising his parents that he would make Edward the Duke of Edinburgh when he acceded the throne but then you lot heard lots of murmurings from the palace the king didn't want to do this and was resistant against it but finally relented though he only gave it to Edward for his lifetime, even though Philip had said he wanted it passed down from him through Edward's line separate from the crown. Then Charles lied about Camilla being Princess Consort and then took down that official announcement several years before the dying queen gave her blessing to make it easier for Charles to have Camilla anointed queen. Now it's Charles lying that he has any intention of living in Buckingham Palace. It's no wonder Harry thinks he can do or say whatever he wants, he watched his own father duplicitously do the same his entire life.
When has that family ever acted with honesty or integrity? The queen had a fawning and servile press. If she had been subject to the same scrutiny as any of our politicians, she would have been rightly detested.
If the King wishes to make these palaces accessible to the general public then perhaps he could understand the poverty in the UK - it's for the rich foreign tourists and well endowed people. Perhaps a video production for the general public and for a true feeling a VR tour.
Well those rich foreign tourists help the general public with the money they bring in
@@donab1369Tourism is a negligible industry in the UK. The vast majority of our income is from services.
@@donab1369 nobody doubts that the royals bring tourist money in - just the prices are out of reach of ordinary people - it may be a good idea to do as they do overseas and give the local people a cheaper entrance fee.
@@Fordnantourism is the very definition of a service industry. Sighs !
@@dianeshelton9592 Oh, sigh! Yes, if we're being pedantic. Sigh! But anyone with the first clue about our economy knows that financial services are what drives the economy. Engineering of all kinds also contribute massively. Tourism is a tiny fraction of our economy, and the most popular tourist attractions can be found easily using a Google search. Not one of them depends on a political system that confers extraordinary constitutional powers and privileges upon one arbitrary family in order to attract tourists. Sigh! Can we get any more melodramatic in our ignorant comments? Sigh!
King Charles already lived there after his Mum became queen, until boarding school & then of & on until he married.
Gollly, I'd live there...
and? if the Uk royals were no longer there at all, so what? stop peddling the nostalgia narrative- kids are now being diadnosed with ricketts- in 2024 in the UK
Hold the Government that you voted in to account! The King is not the Secretary of State for Health!
Rickets is not a disease of poverty as it once was. It’s cause by vitamin D deficiency which is caused by a lack of UVB hitting the skin. It was once an issue because children worked in factories (rather than fields) but now it’s because children are stuck indoors looking at screens and wear high-factor sunblock when they do go out.
Rickets is not a disease of poverty as it once was. It’s cause by vitamin D deficiency which is caused by a lack of UVB hitting the skin. It was once an issue because children worked in factories (rather than fields) but now it’s because children are stuck indoors looking at screens and wear high-factor sunblock when they do go out.
Can we have Buckingham Palace back then?. It would be nice to see what our taxes paid for.
Your taxes don't pay or any of it. It comes from income from the Crown Lands.
@@JWRogersPS the crownlands were stolen from us originally. Their lavish style of living should be stopped.
@JWRogersPS Bozo you do understand how crown assets work if not come back to the expert ' That's me!!! Ill break it down & put you on game. Its belongs to the people.
@@MsBoujeevalentía Yeah... No. If you were an expert on the Crown Estates, I would think you would have a far better working knowledge of the English language. How old are you, 10?
Why would he?
WHY WE HAVE THIS PRIVILEGED FAMILY LEACHING OFF THE PUBLIC IN THIS DAY AND AGE IS DISGUSTING.
The public does not pay for the Royal Family.
@@archiebald4717 Yes, we do. And not only financially. The estimated £350 million per year is dwarfed by the emocratic and social cost of the monarchy.
No member of the Royal Family receives an allowance from the government.
@@Fordnanyou need to research this
@@gillianrimmer7733 I need to research it, do I? I don't think so. I've been proving unwitting advocates for the indefensible wrong for decades. You'll find it's *you* that needs to check the veracity of your sources.
Money & top security do not bring peace.
No. The monarchy is utterly corrosive. The royals themselves are not the least of its victims.
To expensive
Let him live where he wants, he's the king.