Clarence House


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
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.

I think KP is surplus to requirements, and should be vacated in the not too distant future.
 
My take is that KP is actually very useful for working members of the RF so should be retained. It's also easy to bring parts of it back into public use & then have them revert back to the household as required - as was done with appt 1a.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

SJP remains the "senior" Palace. Its where the Proclamation happens, its where all the history is. Ambassadors are appointed to the Court of St James'. Its also where a lot of the royal receptions are held, outside of BP. Can't see teh stature of SJP being reduced in any way.
 
Charles previously state BP is the London home of the monarch, and he would be moving there. He said this around the time the cost of the renovations were bouncing around. Isn’t the renovation time frame 10 years?
 
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.
 
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 is entirely possible that BP is opened up for longer once the refurbishment is complete.

My understanding is the key issue in restricting the time period for tourists being allowed into BP lies with the state rooms, where the tourists are allowed, are mixed in or are in close proximity with rooms used regularly for public engagements by members of the BRF. If they can resolve the issue by using rooms in a different part of the palace for public engagements, they would be able to open the palace for longer.
 
I agree that if any of the palace’s in London stops being an inhabitated royal palace anytime soon, it will be Kensington Palace.

The only royals living inside the Main palace now are to my knowledge Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, but i’m sure they will move if Charles finds them something else… It’s not like they would have to buy an apartment in a suburb…

The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, and the Duke and Duchess of Kent lives on the palace grounds but not in the main palace…

Then there is some Grace and Favour apartments for former staff of the palace and the Royal Court. I don’t think Charles will continue to provide apartments at the palaces for former staff members… And honestly, why should he ? Either you work for the monarchy, or you don’t

The Wales’ will by all likelyhood stay in Windsor and use Adelaide Cottage (and down along the line probably move in at the grander Royal Lodge) as their living residence…

With Andrew’s apartment and office at Buckingham Palace being vacated there should be space for them, should they need a London-base even before the renovations are finished
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Fair point about parts of KP being used by people like the Chief of Defence Staff.

Prior to William moving to KP in 2013, the only members of the BRF with homes at KP were the Gloucesters, Kents and Prince Michael of Kent (who pays a commercial rent for his apartment). This is exactly what we have today again, barring the use of an apartment by the Prince & Princess of Wales, and their offices there.

As regards Clarence House, I can't see it being allocated to either Anne or Edward. That said, it is entirely possible that it gets used as offices, as part of the SJP complex, or possibly opened up as a museum.
 
Last edited:
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.

(The King of Spain lives at the Zarzuela Compound near El Pardo Palace, the King of Sweden lives at Drottningholm Palace, the King of the Belgians lives at the Château de Laeken, the King of the Netherlands lives at Huis ten Bosch Palace and the Grand-Duke of Luxembourg lives at the Château de Berg).
 
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.

That is entirely possible, but the King has chosen to npt make any public statements about the future of the varius royal homes.
 
There is always the possibility that Clarence House is being kept as a future residence for Queen Camille if she were to outlive Charles. She would need a London residence outside of BPif that was to happen.
 
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.
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.
 
^This is defo a consideration. I'm sure the family would always want to keep some private properties because the likes of BP, Windsor etc are state owned and would not still be theirs were, for example, the monarchy to be abolished. The King's only private properties are Sandringham and Balmoral plus some lesser properties. I'm not saying that makes having so many properties right but I'm sure that is a consideration along the line.
 
Back
Top Bottom