The decision by King Charles and Queen Camilla not to live at Buckingham Palace once a costly, 10-year refurbishment is complete has raised questions about the future of this emblem of the British monarchy and stirred criticism.
The central London palace – one of the world’s most recognisable buildings – has served as the official residence of UK sovereigns since 1837, when Queen Victoria began her more than six-decade reign.
The royal family’s recent history has been intrinsically linked with the imposing 755-room residence overlooking The Mall.
King George VI and Queen Elizabeth continued to live there during World War II, while Charles was born in Buckingham Palace in November 1948.
From war victory celebrations and post-wedding kisses to annual birthday appearances, its balcony has provided a stage for some of the monarchy’s most memorable – and photographed – moments in recent history.
However, in an announcement Thursday alongside the release of annual royal finances, Charles and Camilla said they will remain living at nearby Clarence House once a £369 million (US$488 million; RM2.08 billion) palace renovation project ends next year.
The couple have lived at Clarence House since they married in 2005.
“His Majesty retains huge affection for Buckingham Palace and a deep respect for its role in royal and public life,” a palace spokesperson said.
“It will be a buzzing hive of royal activity in every other way,” the spokesperson added, insisting it would continue as “the ceremonial and operational centre of royal life”.
The announcement came alongside Charles becoming the first reigning monarch to disclose his personal tax bills, revealing he had paid more than £30 million (RM169 million) since taking the throne in September 2022.
The palace said the release was part of its “commitment to transparency” as royal finances come under increasing public scrutiny.
The unprecedented move got widespread coverage in Britain and beyond. But so too did the decision not to move to Buckingham Palace, which has drawn rebukes.
“Why invest in this significant renovation paid for by the British taxpayer, if ultimately the king and queen are not going to use it as their official residence?” asked royal expert Ed Owens.
The decade-spanning works have involved replacing boilers, electrical cables and pipes to reduce fire and flood risks. It is due to be completed next March.
“It’s difficult to justify them not living there,” Owens told AFP.
Britain’s tabloids appeared equally unimpressed.
“Big bucks for an empty home,” the Daily Mirror splashed across its front page. The Daily Express opted for: “A palace not fit for a king!”
“Abandoning Buckingham Palace was unthinkable for previous monarchs,” The Sun argued, reminding readers that late King George VI and his wife, Queen Elizabeth, had stayed on during WWII’s Blitz when it was bombed nine times by the Germans.
In its statement, the palace acknowledged the planned living arrangement were “both a change from the past and a recognition of the future”.
It noted “increased opportunities for public access” as factoring into the decision.
