Should Buckingham Palace.be Open All Year?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25922896

I don't want this to turn into an anti-monarchy/Republican debate, but should Buckingham Palace be open through the year to pay for it's upkeep?

On TV this morning some suggested that with the amount of rooms it has, maybe the MPs should give up their London accommodation and move into the palace.

Another asked if the Queen pays any 'bedroom tax'?

Maybe all the Royals should live together under one roof?

[woofgang]

I think it could be open more than it is. The report only suggested opening it when the queen is not in residence, not "all year"

[EcclesCake]

My first thought when I read a report on this was that maintenance needs to be carried out and that is best done when HM is not in residence and consequently hosting events.

Downtime is needed in every property to carry out essential work whilst minimising disruption to the occupants.

[woofgang]

depending on what is being done. Eccles, other stately homes stay open while undergoing repairs and even make a feature of them when its safe to do so.

[woofgang]

Wells Cathedral was especially good at this.

[FredPuli43]

It would be more helpful to everyone if the Treasury and the body overseeing the expenditure would say precisely how much could be saved, how, and where. As it is, all we are getting is generalities and the observation that the household hasn't shrunk. For example, how much would be brought in by having the State Rooms at Buckingham Palace open for more days?

[Gromit]

They Shouldn't do anything with it until the Queen dies. Though it does seem to be badly managed at present, overspending and using its reserves. Maybe replace the present household management with some bean counters who know what they are doing.

Prince Charles has no intention of living there when he becomes monarch. He wants it opened as an hotel. A much better idea than housing MPs.

[youngmafbog]

Who actually owns it ?

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// Prince Charles has no intention of living there when he becomes monarch. He wants it opened as an hotel. A much better idea than housing MPs. ///

Where have you read that Gromit?

It ideally situated for ceremonial ceremonies as well as a tourist attraction, one has the Mall leading uop to it and a large frontage to take the crowds, what other palace in London has these?

[Gromit]

AOG

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052681/Buckingham-Palace-turned-hotel-Prince-Charles-King.html

[anotheoldgit]

youngmafbog

Who actually owns it ?

/// Q12. Does The Queen own Buckingham Palace? ///

/// A. Occupied Royal Palaces, such as Buckingham Palace, are not the private property of The Queen. They are occupied by the Sovereign and held in trust for future generations. ///

/// There are two categories of Royal residences: the occupied Royal Palaces and the unoccupied Royal Palaces. ///

/// The former comprises Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, the Palace of Holyroodhouse, St. James’s Palace, Kensington Palace (excluding the State Apartments) and Clarence House, and are used by members of the Royal Family and their Households. ///

/// The latter are no longer used as residences by the Sovereign and comprises Hampton Court, the Tower of London, the State Apartments at Kensington Palace, the Banqueting House at Whitehall, and Kew Palace with Queen Charlotte’s Cottage. ///

/// Buckingham Palace is not only the London home of The Queen; The Duke of Edinburgh, The Duke of York, The Earl and Countess of Wessex, The Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra also have private offices and apartments located within the Palace. ///

/// The Queen privately owns two properties, Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House, which are not publicly funded. ///

http://www.royal.gov.uk/FrequentlyAskedQuestions/20%20most%20asked%20questions.aspx

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

That was what he said around his 50th birthday back in 1998.

His mother tried and Churchill vetoed the idea, but the question that must be asked now is, have we any politicians of Churchill's calibre now?

/// So, when she and Prince Philip had their own thoughts of abandoning Buckingham Palace at the start of her reign — they were perfectly happy to raise their young family at Clarence House — Prime Minister Winston Churchill vetoed the idea. Monarchs, he said, belonged at the Palace. So off they went. ///

[FredPuli43]

Now...em...Sorry I was distracted by 'Brooke Vincent wears thick padded coat on way to ITV Studios' next to the picture of Buckingham Palace gardens [The Mail]. The Mail really does have important news...er..yes.. hotel. It seems that the Prince has that idea and quite right too. The palace is ideal for a hotel, a country hotel in the middle of London (about 27 acres of gardens and convenient for the tube). Wonder who'd run it ? The Radisson Buckingham Palace Hotel? The Sheraton? The Mandarin? The Buck House Travelodge? Any ideas?

[Canary42]

All the Royals living together under one roof ?

Now there's an interesting concept. Sparks would fly methinks.

[jno]

yes, perhaps the MPs who've called for this shoud be required to rent out their own second homes (also paid for by the public, duck islands and all) when not in residence? Fair's fair: they cost us quite a bit of money.

[anneasquith]

not in residence..............geez oh just how many rooms do they need to live in, and they have the cheek to charge the public to visit !

[mikey4444]

What I can't work out is why Betty needs to many Royal Residences ? She can only sleep in one bed per night, after all. Isn't one palace enough for one Queen ?

[jno]

Mikey, you could say that of anyone, but 165,000 people have second homes in the UK (and that's not counting those who have one or more abroad).

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/mar/30/second-homes-expensive-andrew-motion

I can't think of any particular reason why the queen shouldn't be one of them.