Wales Residences 2, Kensington Palace, Adelaide Cottage & Anmer Hall: Sep. 2022-


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Once upon a time, William and Kate reportedly spent 4 million pounds renovating Apartment 1A at Kensington. At the time, it was said they plan to live there for "many years to come". So how often do they stay at Apartment 1A now? While it is called "Apartment" it actually has 20 rooms, so should be plenty of space for their family and staff and security, etc.

What about Anmer hall? Is that just for weekends/holidays?
 
I don't mind old buildings being renovated from time to time. Even if the Wales give it up, I am sure it would be possible to find a different purpose for it. They do seem to use their Kensington apartment from time to time, based on their family picture on Trooping the Colour day. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the photo was shot there. I think it's not unreasonable to keep a place in the capital and I'm not sure if it would make sense to change something now anyways. If they ever plan to give up their Kensington residence, for me it would make most sense when Buckingham Palace renovations are done or when he is King.
 
How close were these houses to Forest Lodge anyway? I'm sure the people staying there must also have been pretty decent or they wouldn't be there. [.....]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
German tabloid "Bild" has this report about the nearby tenants of Foret Lodge

The tenants who lived in the nearby former stables were surprised that they had to move out,“ a palace employee confirmed to BILD. ”The palace explained the reasons for this, and the tenants were understanding."

There were no official eviction notices. But it was not possible to stay. The cottages were too close to the lodge where William is moving in with his family – they probably don't want nosy neighbors when the royals start their new chapter there.

According to BILD, the families have been provided with new accommodations in the 4,800-hectare park, some of which are even better than their original ones.
 
German tabloid "Bild" has this report about the nearby tenants of Foret Lodge

The tenants who lived in the nearby former stables were surprised that they had to move out,“ a palace employee confirmed to BILD. ”The palace explained the reasons for this, and the tenants were understanding."

There were no official eviction notices. But it was not possible to stay. The cottages were too close to the lodge where William is moving in with his family – they probably don't want nosy neighbors when the royals start their new chapter there.

According to BILD, the families have been provided with new accommodations in the 4,800-hectare park, some of which are even better than their original ones.

Moving is never fun, but this sounds pretty win-win for everyone then.
 
German tabloid "Bild" has this report about the nearby tenants of Foret Lodge

The tenants who lived in the nearby former stables were surprised that they had to move out,“ a palace employee confirmed to BILD. ”The palace explained the reasons for this, and the tenants were understanding."

There were no official eviction notices. But it was not possible to stay. The cottages were too close to the lodge where William is moving in with his family – they probably don't want nosy neighbors when the royals start their new chapter there.

According to BILD, the families have been provided with new accommodations in the 4,800-hectare park, some of which are even better than their original ones.
'Better' is relative, the fact is, they were given no choice but to move and they might have been happy where they were.
 
'Better' is relative, the fact is, they were given no choice but to move and they might have been happy where they were.
But isn’t that normal and legal in the rental market? If the landlord decides not to renew the contract (and gives proper notice), the tenants have ‘no choice’ but to leave. Or if the tenants decide not to renew (and give proper notice), then the landlord has no choice but to find another tenant.
 
Once upon a time, William and Kate reportedly spent 4 million pounds renovating Apartment 1A at Kensington. At the time, it was said they plan to live there for "many years to come". So how often do they stay at Apartment 1A now? While it is called "Apartment" it actually has 20 rooms, so should be plenty of space for their family and staff and security, etc.

What about Anmer hall? Is that just for weekends/holidays?
KP 1A remains the London home of the Wales family, 12 years after they took it over. And I suspect it will remain their London home for many years. It is the only home provided to them by the state. How often it is used is not in the public domain, that is a matter the family.

Anmer is privately owned, and is largely used for holidays. Is there a problem with having a holiday home?
 
How close were these houses to Forest Lodge anyway? I'm sure the people staying there must also have been pretty decent or they wouldn't be there. [.....]
I would think both security and privacy have a role to play here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would imagine they keep Kensington 1A firstly for their staff’s daily use (correct me if I’m wrong — I’m not sure where the Waleses’ staff offices are), and secondly for the image it projects.

It’s similar to how many luxury brands maintain a flagship in prime locations to showcase their status.

I’m not saying William needs to showcase his status, but I believe it is symbolic for the heir to maintain a residence in London. Whether it would be wise to downsize it is another story.
 
I would imagine they keep Kensington 1A firstly for their staff’s daily use (correct me if I’m wrong — I’m not sure where the Waleses’ staff offices are), and secondly for the image it projects.

It’s similar to how many luxury brands maintain a flagship in prime locations to showcase their status.

I’m not saying William needs to showcase his status, but I believe it is symbolic for the heir to maintain a residence in London. Whether it would be wise to downsize it is another story.
The KP staff are based in Apartment 8&9, not in KP 1A, which is the home of the Wales family.
 
What would the apartment be used for if they would vacate it? I don't think they are leasing out KP apartments, as they do with places on the Windsor estate? So I imagine it may mean that the apartment would be kept empty.
 
Their Windsor home is so close to London. As others have asked, do they really need to keep their apartment in KP?
I wonder if it might open them up for new criticism if they give up their London base, as it's still the seat of government and Windsor isn't. If that would happen, some people might say something along the lines of "the vacation prince is giving up his work altogether and is going to spend his time in the outdoors exclusively", or something like that. But we also don't know their plans and their reasoning behind it. They could theoretically choose to spend more time in London again, when the kids are in boarding school or something like that. We don't know. One could argue that a smaller place would be enough in such a case, but could this be achieved without new renovations? This is why I think, if they ever plan to downsize in London, it might be wise to wait a bit and finish to renovate their new house first.
 
Last edited:
Their Windsor home is so close to London. As others have asked, do they really need to keep their apartment in KP?
As a foreigner, I honestly have no idea how far these 2 places are. But to me, London is London and Windsor is Windsor. London is the capital of the UK, and William is the heir.
 
What would the apartment be used for if they would vacate it? I don't think they are leasing out KP apartments, as they do with places on the Windsor estate? So I imagine it may mean that the apartment would be kept empty.
I think renting out the apartment would be a great idea especially if they are planning on making this new place their forever home instead of this one.. I think I read that 2 apartments were being rented from St James palace so there is nothing new regarding a non royal renting. The rent could be used towards funding his homeless initiative if that is allowed.
 
KP 1A remains the London home of the Wales family, 12 years after they took it over. And I suspect it will remain their London home for many years. It is the only home provided to them by the state. How often it is used is not in the public domain, that is a matter the family.

Anmer is privately owned, and is largely used for holidays. Is there a problem with having a holiday home?
The Wales have moved homes several times. Every time they move, there is a cost. There is a lack of transparency on who is paying the cost. William has stopped disclosing financials on the Duchy of Cornwall when he took over, even though Charles published reports when he was PoW.

The talking points issued by the palace contradict previous statements about how KP was supposed to be their long term home (at least until William becomes the Monarch).

[.....]

The media has the audacity to called this move a "Downsize" (Yes, this is a real headline on The Times website) How is moving from a 4 bedroom house to a 8 bedroom house a "Downsize". Are we in an upside down world? The media is reporting the move, but there is no investigation only regurgitation of talking points from their PR team.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What would the apartment be used for if they would vacate it? I don't think they are leasing out KP apartments, as they do with places on the Windsor estate? So I imagine it may mean that the apartment would be kept empty.
I think that’s probably a consideration, and it also would make sense for William and Catherine to spend more time in London once their children are all boarding school age. That’s only what, six years away? It’s not long as far as property planning goes.

If they want to treat the new home as their main family home and their London apartment as a business residence, that makes sense. Three residences seem like a lot, but each also seems to serve a purpose.
 
This is a thread to discuss the residences of the Wales family, and a number of comments have been removed because they had nothing at all to do with that. Please stick to the thread topic.
 
The Wales have moved homes several times. Every time they move, there is a cost. There is a lack of transparency on who is paying the cost. William has stopped disclosing financials on the Duchy of Cornwall when he took over, even though Charles published reports when he was PoW.

The talking points issued by the palace contradict previous statements about how KP was supposed to be their long term home (at least until William becomes the Monarch).

[.....]

The media has the audacity to called this move a "Downsize" (Yes, this is a real headline on The Times website) How is moving from a 4 bedroom house to a 8 bedroom house a "Downsize". Are we in an upside down world? The media is reporting the move, but there is no investigation only regurgitation of talking points from their PR team.
Things change. This is a wildly wealthy family who have many options. Considerations as their children got older changed. And foremost was probably their privacy and space as they become teenagers. Security at school for example is harder in central London. I couldn't care less how many times they move. Good look.
 
Eh, it's not TRH The Wales's place to care about who gets displaced because of their move. The Crown Estate is responsible for those properties, and if TRH The Wales's needs are more important than the inconvenience to the other tenants, then so be it. I'll willing to bet that something like that happening was in the rental contract, so they really should have been better prepared.
 
I think renting out the apartment would be a great idea especially if they are planning on making this new place their forever home instead of this one.. I think I read that 2 apartments were being rented from St James palace so there is nothing new regarding a non royal renting. The rent could be used towards funding his homeless initiative if that is allowed.
If KP1A were to be rented out, the money would go to the government, not William. And that money would not then be available for the homeless initiative.
 
The Wales have moved homes several times. Every time they move, there is a cost. There is a lack of transparency on who is paying the cost.

What costs might you be referring to? The cost of the actual movers? The cost of the refurbishment of the home they are moving to? The cost of restoring / making good any damages to the last home?

Lets discuss the cost of the refurbishment:

1) KP 1A: The only official residence of the couple. Structural / civil work was funded through the Sovereign Grant as the apartment had not been refurbished since Margaret took it on in the early 1960s. Amongst other works, asbestos was required to be removed, and the roof needed repair. Any soft furnishings / interior decoration work was funded privately.

2) Anmer: Privately owned, and the refurb was funded privately

3) Adelaide Cottage: Rent paid to the Crown Estate by the couple privately. Minimal refurb required, funded privately.

4) Forest Lodge: Rent paid to the Crown Estate by the couple privately. Refurb costs funded privately.

What additional transparency might be required in this regard?
 
Last edited:
True, but then again Edward, Anne and Andrew only have one residence; the Wales have three.

In addition to their main homes in the country, Edward, Anne and Andrew all had apartments at BP. Due to the refurb at BP, Anne and Edward now have apartments at St James'. For Edward, Anne and Andrew, the only home funded at the state was their respective London apartments; the country homes have all been bought (Gatcombe) or leased (Royal Lodge, Bagshot Park) in arms-length transactions.

For the Wales', the only home provided by the state is KP 1A. The other homes are privately owned (Anmer) or leased (Forest Lodge) at no cost to the state, so is really no concern to us.
 
Last edited:
I would think both security and privacy have a role to play here.
I was able to locate Forest Lodge on Google Earth, but I'm not entirely sure which building it is, probably the one on the left. According to Google Earth, it's called Stable Cottage, there is no name for the other buildung.
But you can clearly see that the two buildings are very close to each other. This makes it obvious why the current tenants have to move to another house in Windsor Great Park.

 
But isn’t that normal and legal in the rental market? If the landlord decides not to renew the contract (and gives proper notice), the tenants have ‘no choice’ but to leave. Or if the tenants decide not to renew (and give proper notice), then the landlord has no choice but to find another tenant.

Agreed, but I don't think there have been any suggestions in this thread that the Crown Estate violated the law. Rather, many have been suggesting that it was somehow wrong of the Mail to report that the previous tenants were told to move - thus the responses.

Would the same grace be extended to another member of the royal family if they did the same thing?

It was certainly reported on, and criticized, when the four tenant families were asked to move from Villa Parkudden to make room for the would-be princess couple. (That is not to say the criticism was necessarily correct, but it demonstrates that commenting on such actions is not unique to the Wales or even the UK royal family.)
 
Back
Top Bottom