well what properties should he get rid of? What would be the point, as most of them are open to the public and are used quite a bit anyway,
These comments reminded me a situation I read happening in Spain were the president of one of the communities, which in the USA would be equivalent of a governor of sorts, wants the King to give up the summer royal palace,
Marivent, as well as the Spanish language to be removed from usage.
On the UK side my opinion is that these properties need to stay within the Royal Family sphere, even if they became available as part time museums. Like the
Palacio de Oriente in Madrid. The relationship that these properties have, as part of historical events in the past and in the futire, makes them a bit more special for visitors.
As a person who often visits the spectacular gilded age mansions museums in NY, knowing the property is still in use or attached to the family gives it a sense of continuity. Last month we visited for the second time in four years the
John D. Rockefeller Estate in NY called Kykuit full of Picassos, Andy Warhol's and modern art worth billions. And parts of the estate are still in use by the family as headquarters to their charities.
Case and point, amongst many things, Balmoral will now be remembered as the final resting place of the longest living female monarch in history. Buildings are not just stone and masonry, these royal properties have a sense of history still being made that tourists love to hear about in the tours.
