Buckingham Palace 1: Ending Sep 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
That's what I thought until I saw the stills taken from it - again, it looks like the man is trying to kick in the other windows. It wouldn't be the first time someone broke into Buckingham Palace, either - Michael Fagan springs to mind. If it really did happen it looks pretty far up and the man surely would have required an ambulance? (the captions are Spivey's, not mine - I cut and pasted it as a whole from his article).

http://i60.tinypic.com/2z5j81u.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is fake. No any of the dozens of tourists outside has filmed it. No any arrest has been reported. No any guard has seen anything. No any newspaper has reported an intruder.
 
A Royal Welcome:

"At the Summer Opening of Buckingham Palace in 2015 experience A Royal Welcome.

Find out what goes on behind the scenes to create the magic and magnificence of an official visit to the Palace. From the dresses designed to the ingredients chosen and the porcelain selected, the preparations behind State Banquets, Garden Parties and other royal occasions will be revealed.

Last year the Royal Family welcomed around 62,000 guests to Buckingham Palace, at State Visits, receptions, Garden Parties, Investitures and private audiences. This year, displays throughout the State Rooms will recreate the settings for these occasions, and will show the preparations that go into each one, whether a private audience with Her Majesty The Queen or a Garden Party for thousands.

For the first time ever, visitors to the Summer Opening will enter the State Rooms through the Grand Entrance, used by those who come to the Palace at the invitation of The Queen, including Heads of State and Prime Ministers."-
A Royal Welcome - Buckingham Palace Summer Opening 2015
 
Buckingham Palace

Details from the Queen's Audience Room at Buckingham Palace

http://i57.tinypic.com/2v2xoig.jpg -One of the curtains in the Queen's Audience Room at Buckingham Palace. The design of the border with roses, thistles and shamrocks was enlarged from a mid-nineteenth-century ribbon by John Fowler and George Oakes.
http://i61.tinypic.com/5555sk.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Queen 'may have to move out of Buckingham Palace' amid £150m revamp

Around £150 million needs to be spent on a major revamp of Buckingham Palace, according to royal sources - and the Queen may need to move out while the work is done.

The full scale of the refurbishment project was outlined as the annual royal financial statement was released, revealing the monarchy cost the taxpayer a total of £35.7 million last year for the second year running - the equivalent of 56p per person.

The sum, known as the Sovereign Grant, will help pay for some of the works, though additional funding may be needed.
Click to expand...
More: Queen 'may have to move out of Buckingham Palace' amid £150m revamp - ITV News
 
Buckingham Palace's £150m repairs could force Queen to leave | Daily Mail Online

It has been her London home for nearly 90 years, but the Queen may have to move out of Buckingham Palace for a year under plans to carry out £150million-worth of urgent repairs.

If she leaves, it will be the first time a monarch has been forced out since Queen Victoria designated it as an official residence in 1837.

Surveyors called in to assess the royal residence say it needs a major top-to-toe overhaul after years of neglect.

They have suggested that the cheapest option would be to move out the sovereign and all her 426 staff in one go to so all the work can be done at once.
Click to expand...
 
Jacknch said:
I think of they are going to do it, they may as well get it all done once and for all - it may be cheaper in the long run.
Click to expand...

I agree, and I think it's easier to do it while the Queen is still alive, because Charles then avoids being accused of spending too much money on luxury / interior etc.
 
Last edited:
Someone posted a video on another thread of the Queen hosting a reception at Buckingham Palace (David Beckham was in attendance) and I must confess, my impression was that the interior of the rooms I saw seemed very dull and dark, a little shabby here and there and in need of redecoration/refurbishment as well as the more vital maintenance.

I do not wish to compare the palaces of individual countries as they all have their own history and design, but when I have seen receptions etc at the one in Brussels for instance, the rooms appear bright and sparkling, with polished wooden floors and chandeliers. Maybe I dislike faded red velvet too much!
 
ROYAL NORWAY said:
I agree, and I think it's easier to do it while the Queen is still alive, because Charles then avoids being accused of spending too much money on luxury / interior etc.
Click to expand...


That probably will happen anyways. Look at Apt 1a, the money from the sovereign grant was used to remove asbestos, fix wiring, etc -boring structural stuff but all the articles were on the interior design/2nd kitchen which was paid for with private money not public.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
It even made italian news this morning! They were talking about the Queen and Philip moving to Windsor Castle?
 
I say, go ahead and repair the whole place. The royals would do fine at Windsor for a whole year. I'm thinking St. James's Palace and Windsor Castle would be mainly used during the repairs.
 
Last edited:
It may make sense and be the right time anyway for the Queen to take up more permanent residency at Windsor Castle - especially at her advanced age and since she is cutting back on official engagements. Many State Visits have started off at Windsor Castle and I believe that investitures etc have taken place there.
I can't immediately think of a suitable alternative for official and state functions in London.
 
The Queen would simply stay at Windsor all week instead of moving between the two homes.


If it takes longer than expected - as most of these things do - it may even mean that the monarch moves out of BP permanently and that it becomes the white elephant/museum rather than the London home. Charles, reportedly doesn't want to live their and The Queen also is reported as preferring Windsor way more so this would suit everyone - a palace open to the public year round and not used for official engagements. Could still use the balcony but the other events aren't visible so no loss there.
 
Iluvbertie said:
The Queen would simply stay at Windsor all week instead of moving between the two homes.


If it takes longer than expected - as most of these things do - it may even mean that the monarch moves out of BP permanently and that it becomes the white elephant/museum rather than the London home. Charles, reportedly doesn't want to live their and The Queen also is reported as preferring Windsor way more so this would suit everyone - a palace open to the public year round and not used for official engagements. Could still use the balcony but the other events aren't visible so no loss there.
Click to expand...

I find myself agreeing with you on this - the Palace in Amsterdam serves very nicely as a place for people to visit and is a remarkable venue for official events.
 
It's a beautiful palace and I think it should remain the royal family's official working residence. I think it's no bother for St. James's Palace and Windsor to be used during the repairs of Buckingham Palace.

Museum idea is nice, but people flock to London to see Buckingham Palace and tour it because the popular British royal family still live and work there. The effect wouldn't be the same. It's a living and breathing home and that's why Buckingham Palace is so special. Just imagine if the Palace of Versailles was still a home for the French royal family, the palace would be put back on the map as France's most popular destination to visit and tour.
 
Last edited:
The queen is not only person who lives and works in BP.
More than 400 staff work and LIVE in BP also. The palace is the administrative headquarters of Head of the State.

Buckingham Palace has 188 staff bedrooms and 92 offices.
 
Spheno said:
The queen is not only person who lives and works in BP.
More than 400 staff work and LIVE in BP also. The palace is the administrative headquarters of Head of the State.

Buckingham Palace has 188 staff bedrooms and 92 offices.
Click to expand...

It's a big living and breathing palace. Buckingham Palace would never be the same if all of that just go away. A year worth of repairs are worth it and the royals returning to the palace is worth it.
 
Dman said:
I say, go ahead and repair the whole place. The royals would do fine at Windsor for a whole year. I'm thinking St. James's Palace and Windsor Castle would be mainly used during the repairs.
Click to expand...

I agree, but the press and the republic group will go absolutely crazy. We are talking about £150 million, probably even more.

Dickie Arbiter explains the problems the royal household has with such a small budget, and so many palaces that should be maintained.
Palace maintenance: 'Bits of the building keep falling off' - BBC News
 
Given MPs are about to spend billions (between 3 and 7 billion) to repair the Palace of Westminster, 150 million isn't a lot of money for BP.

Britain seems to be the only country in the western world that has such difficulty funding its Head of State.
 
ROYAL NORWAY said:
I agree, but the press and the republic group will go absolutely crazy. We are talking about £150 million, probably even more.

Dickie Arbiter explains the problems the royal household has with such a small budget, and so many palaces that should be maintained.
Palace maintenance: 'Bits of the building keep falling off' - BBC News
Click to expand...

I think it's all worth it. Complaints or not, it's totally worth keeping the royal family based there and for it to be safe and refreshed working and touring environment.
 
Why force them to live there when they don't want to do so? Elizabeth and Philip didn't want to move in in 1952 and were forced to do so by Churchill but even then spend as little time there as possible preferring Windsor. Charles has already been reported as having the idea of not living there so why force them to live in a house none of them actually want to live in?


As for tourists - Versailles is already the most visited place in France and would have fewer visitors due to the fact that large parts of it would have to be closed if a family did actually live there.


I have been to London 8 times so far and on one day in those 8 visits, each of at least 5 days, did I ever see the Queen's standard flying there. It didn't remove the enjoyment, or that of the thousands of other people who were there to see the building. After all there is really only one or two times a year when people actually can see the royals at BP - Trooping being one and sometimes a special other event. Otherwise it is simply a big building where the Queen lives and if you are really lucky you might see a royal coming in or going out but that isn't all that often in my experience and even if you do they are in a car going reasonably fast to get where they want to go.
 
Jacknch said:
Someone posted a video on another thread of the Queen hosting a reception at Buckingham Palace (David Beckham was in attendance) and I must confess, my impression was that the interior of the rooms I saw seemed very dull and dark, a little shabby here and there and in need of redecoration/refurbishment as well as the more vital maintenance.

I do not wish to compare the palaces of individual countries as they all have their own history and design, but when I have seen receptions etc at the one in Brussels for instance, the rooms appear bright and sparkling, with polished wooden floors and chandeliers. Maybe I dislike faded red velvet too much!
Click to expand...


Isn't Buckingham Palace much bigger and older though than the Royal Palace in Brussels ? I don't really know and that is why I'm asking.
 
To me... the vast difference to visiting a LIVED [as well as worked] in house is made obvious by many visits to historic houses that this country is SO richly endowed with.The difference between Chatsworth [lived in] & Kedleston [not] is palpable.

The 'lived in' houses 'feel' domestic [because they ARE], no matter how grand, or intimidating the architecture.

Versailles [although STAGGERINGLY magnificent] just doesn't have that 'it' and tourists just shuffle around UNCOMPREHENDING of the space, and the meaning it ONCE had.
A family [something we are ALL part of], living somewhere [something we ALL do], makes it 'relatable' to everyone.

Windsor will be excellent temporarily, and anything that needs to be done 'in town' can be done at St James'...
 
Last edited:
wyevale said:
To me... the vast difference to visiting a LIVED [as well as worked] in house is made obvious by many visits to historic houses that this country is SO richly endowed with.The difference between Chatsworth [lived in] & Kedleston [not] is palpable.

The 'lived in' houses 'feel' domestic [because they ARE], no matter how grand, or intimidating the architecture.

Versailles [although STAGGERINGLY magnificent] just doesn't have that 'it' and tourists just stagger round UNCOMPREHENDING of the space, and the meaning it ONCE had.
A family [something we are ALL part of], living somewhere [something we ALL do], makes it 'relatable' to everyone.

Windsor will be excellent temporarily, and anything that needs to be done 'in town' can be done at St James'...
Click to expand...


I agree completely. To me, there's a huge difference in visiting a living-and-breathing historic residence and visiting a no-longer-inhabited residence that's been turned into a museum.

It's always been my understanding that many - if not all - of the royals don't particularly like living in Buckingham Palace, though I think many of them would just as soon not spend much time in London generally. I think, though, that it's important for the family to keep a main headquarters in London, and Buckingham Palace is certainly that place. I think it's important not only for using the state rooms, but it's obviously also convenient for the monarch and some other members of a family (not to mention staff) to have both offices and private apartments there. As mentioned, it's not only the Queen who lives there.

St. James's Palace can obviously be used for official events in London in the meantime, but I think it would seem quite odd for St. James's Palace and Kensington Palace to London's only inhabited royal palaces in the long term.

How they handle things in the short term will also be interesting. Obviously the Queen can stay at Windsor, but places will have to be found for all the other people who live and/or work at BP. They not only need to find alternate space for these people, but it needs to be alternate space that isn't also in need of major repairs. As we've seen when other members of the family move into new quarters, that in itself can lead to quite a lot of time and expense.
 
The morning news here just had a British reporter on who said that the repairs could take up to 10 years. If that is the case then the public will be completely used to BP not being a royal residence so no need for it to return to being that - especially if there is a new reign underway.


St James' is the 'official' seat of the royal court anyway so why shouldn't it be the 'official' home as well?
 
Iluvbertie said:
The morning news here just had a British reporter on who said that the repairs could take up to 10 years. If that is the case then the public will be completely used to BP not being a royal residence so no need for it to return to being that - especially if there is a new reign underway.


St James' is the 'official' seat of the royal court anyway so why shouldn't it be the 'official' home as well?
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that the repairs will take much longer than they say (repairs always do), but that doesn't necessarily mean that the entire building would have to be vacated during all that time.

While St. James's Palace is, yes, the "official" seat, how many people really know that, or even really know that it exists? I don't think it's particularly recognizable to most people, and I'm not sure it would be practical. In giving up Buckingham Palace as a residence and office, that would be giving up quite a lot of well-located, usable space. Logistically and symbolically, it just makes more sense to me in the long term.
 
According to news reports, it will take a year and BP will be closed for the public during one summer.

The Queen, family and staff may continue to live at BP during the renovations. They would just move to different parts of the BP.

The staff is reportedly down to around 270.

Although nothing has yet been decided on the logistics, they can began renovating the private rooms while the Queen is at Balmoral and the public rooms while she is at Sandringham.

BP is very large and there is no need to vacate the entire building during renovations.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
Buckingham Palace 2: Sep. 2022 -
2 3
Replies
60
Views
6K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
iceflower
State Visit from Moldova to Norway: May 6 - 7, 2024
Replies
12
Views
3K
Annine
A
iceflower
Queen Margrethe's Golden Jubilee Celebrations 2022
15 16 17
Replies
492
Views
70K
Izzie
Izzie
muriel
Queen Elizabeth II's Platinum Jubilee Celebrations: 2022
26 27 28
Replies
822
Views
111K
yukari
Y
Blog Real
The Royal Alcázars of Seville
Replies
8
Views
1K
Stefan
Stefan

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom