If monarchs don't live in royal palaces, what's in them?

[Skippyboo]

So, St. James is still used to house royal offices, right? And several members of the family do live there. Are there any ceremonies or such involving the monarch that still happen there instead of Buckingham Palace?

And if so, I'm curious if the Queen has an apartment for her personal use at St. James. I know it's essentially right next door to Buckingham, so I can't imagine her ever wanting to spend the night at St. James. But if she does do business there, it would seem appropriate to keep a place where she could have some privacy; perhaps to change clothes if needed or, in her current stage of life, to take some time alone to rest between meetings or ceremonies.

There is one big ceremony that happens at St James's Palace instead of Buckingham Palace. We just haven't seen it for 63 years. The proclamation of a new monarch happens from St James's. The palace is also used for receptions mainly hosted by other royals instead of the Queen.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

If monarchs don't live in royal palaces, what's in them?
Tourists' money. Lots and lots of tourists' money.

Hm no... I don't think tourists visit Stockholm, Brussels, Madrid, London or Amsterdam because there are palaces. Even with the tourists entrances all palaces need additional funding to pay the staff, the maintenance, the facilities, the gas, water, electrics, the fire- and safety appliances, the insurance. It costs huge amounts but as these are national patrimonium, these are worth preserving. Some countries do it in excellent state (Sweden, Netherlands, France, Spain) and some countries again and again delay and only do the most necessary (Belgium, United Kingdom).

 

[Countessmeout]

Hm no... I don't think tourists visit Stockholm, Brussels, Madrid, London or Amsterdam because there are palaces. Even with the tourists entrances all palaces need additional funding to pay the staff, the maintenance, the facilities, the gas, water, electrics, the fire- and safety appliances, the insurance. It costs huge amounts but as these are national patrimonium, these are worth preserving. Some countries do it in excellent state (Sweden, Netherlands, France, Spain) and some countries again and again delay and only do the most necessary (Belgium, United Kingdom).

It may not be enough to cover repairs, but yes castles are a huge draw for tourists to countries like the uk, France and Germany. I highly doubt anyone has gone to London and not done the tower. The problem with the U.K., many of the palaces needing repair, like buckingham, are not open to the public, or not very often. People don't tour Kensington or st James. The money comes from the historical palaces which are open to tour or rent. That is why some noble families have open their houses to the public. There us a huge interest to see them, helps fund keeping them running.

 

[Iain]

I have seen virtually every documentary every done on or interviews of Charles and have never heard him say he will reign as George VII. That would be in very, very bad taste and totally unacceptable - almost treasonous for the heir to the throne to be talking about what he will do as King.

Why would it be in bad taste and unacceptable? Charles is known to be outspoken and there is nothing wrong in saying what name he would be known as.

[quoteApparently it was a presumed that Elizabeth would take the name Victoria II but when Winston Churchill brought up the subject Elizabeth looked at her mother who gave her a dirty kook and she said "my name will be Elizabeth."

It wasn't Churchill but one of the staff who was with her in Kenya to whom that comment was made and then her decision was reported back to Churchill. The argument all along had been that Victoria should stand alone as a name and not be used by another monarch as it was 'too soon'.

Churchill mentioned it in one of his books. He said he had an audience with the Queen after she returned from Kenya and brought up the subject of her regnal name. There is no reason why Victoria should stand alone and how was it 'too soon'? Victoria had been dead for 51 years when Elizabeth took the throne. There were two Edwards and two Georges with a far sorter space of time.

She doesn't travel back and forth every day and frequently has engagements there on successive days. When that is the case she stays there - so she is frequently there for four or five nights at a time from March to August and again in October and November. She spends 4 months of the year out of London, August, September, December and January while she spends most of April at Windsor along with a large part of June. Sure she isn't at BP all the time but she is there more than two nights a week for the 6 months a year she undertakes regular duties in London.[/QUOTE]

I never said she travelled back and forward every day. I have a friend who's cousin works at Buckingham Palace and she says the Queen very rarely stays more than two nights there. Remember that Windsor is only 45 minutes away which is no time at all and even if she has engagements on other days there is no reason why she can't go back to Windsor. We now know through documents issued under the Freedom of Information Act that the boast that the King and Queen stayed in London during the war is a load of rubbish. It has emerged that they travelled from Windsor to London every morning and back again in the evening. The night the palace was hit by a bomb they had to be woken up and driven back to London to give the impression that they had been in the building when it was hit.

 

[Iain]

I agree 100% with the façade. Besides that: Buckingham Palace has some monstruous sugarcake-and-bonbonnière interiors with frills here and swirls there. Other palaces like Hampton Court or Kensington Palace provide better interiors, in my humble opinion.

This picture gives an idea of the palace minus the façade, just think that grey mammoth away: picture

There are some pictures of the palace before the facade was built but I can't seem to upload them.

The facade as it is today was not as Albert intended it to be. It was remodelled in 1913.