An iconic landmark in London.. Why do members of the British royal family not want to reside in Buckingham Palace?

- When the British Royal Family is keen to commemorate major national occasions with all their luxurious manifestations and official celebrations, Buckingham Palace often forms the ideal backdrop for these occasions. Since 1837, the palace has become the official residence of the British Kings in London, and Queen Victoria was the first to reside there after her accession to the throne about two centuries ago.

Since then, although kings and queens have owned many country residences such as Windsor Castle and Balmoral Palace in Scotland, Buckingham Palace has remained their main residence. However, King Charles III decided to break this historical tradition.

It was recently announced that King Charles and his wife, Queen Camilla, will not move to reside in the palace after the end of its massive restoration project, which lasted 10 years and cost about 369 million pounds sterling, and is scheduled to be completed next year. Instead, the couple will continue to reside at Clarence Palace, where the monarch has resided since 2003, while Buckingham Palace will remain the administrative and official headquarters of the British monarchy.

A palace spokesman confirmed to Ofoq News that the building “will remain a vibrant center for royal activities,” saying: “His Majesty still has great love for Buckingham Palace and deep respect for its role in royal and public life.” It remains to be seen whether Charles' decision to stay at Clarence Palace will diminish the interest of visitors who flock daily outside the palace's gilded walls, hoping to catch a glimpse of royal life.

Visitors' opinions varied regarding this decision. While some of them believed that the value of the palace lies in its history and architecture regardless of the king’s residence there, others considered that the absence of the royal family from the palace makes it lose part of its charm and symbolism. For his part, James Chalmers, the King's Treasurer and Keeper of the Royal Treasury, told British media that the palace will remain the main venue for hosting ceremonial and official events including public figures and VIP guests.

The king will also maintain private rooms inside the palace that he can use when needed while in London. The palace's roots go back to 1761 when King George III bought the building as a residence for his wife, Queen Charlotte, and their children.

Then King George IV commissioned architect John Nash to transform it into a royal palace, but he died before the project was completed. When William IV assumed the throne, he preferred to remain in Clarence Palace, and offered Buckingham Palace as an alternative headquarters for Parliament after its building burned down in 1834, but Parliament rejected the offer.

During the reign of Queen Victoria, the palace witnessed its last major expansion with the addition of the eastern wing overlooking The Mall Street, bringing the number of its rooms today to 775 rooms, including 78 bathrooms. The current restoration work, which began in 2017, is not limited to improving the exterior appearance, but rather includes a comprehensive replacement of the electrical, plumbing and heating systems, enhancing fire safety measures, and removing the dangerous asbestos that was discovered in the basement, a process that cost more than 10 million pounds ($13.4 million).

The need for these works was urgent, after the palace witnessed many problems over the past years, such as water leakage and the collapse of parts of the building. Breaking tradition Although Charles's decision is the first of its kind in 189 years, history has witnessed kings who did not reside continuously in the palace.

Queen Victoria herself withdrew from public life after the death of her husband, Prince Albert, in 1861, and spent most of her time at Windsor Castle. Cynics even hung a sign on the palace gate in 1864 in which they wrote: “For rent or sale due to the decline in activity of the previous resident.” Queen Elizabeth II also left the palace during the Corona pandemic for Windsor Castle, and it was known that she did not prefer to live in Buckingham, as her move there was associated with sad memories following the death of her father, King George VI, according to Robert Hardman, a royal expert. Who wrote the biography of King Charles and Queen Elizabeth, in an interview with Ofoq News. Hardman points out that she had hoped to stay in Clarence Palace, but the then Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, insisted that she move to the king’s official residence.

Hardman explains that this is due to the nature of Buckingham Palace itself, as it was designed to be an official residence for the head of state rather than a family home. While Clarence Palace gives a feeling of warmth and privacy, Buckingham Palace feels more like a stately state institution reserved for official ceremonies.

The palace underwent many architectural modifications over the years, most notably the redesign of its eastern facade in 1913, and the construction of the Queen Victoria Monument in front of it, which is the form the world knows today. The restoration work was financed through a temporary increase in the Sovereignty Grant, the annual government allocation to finance the official activities of the Royal Family, derived from the proceeds of the British Crown estate.

This grant is expected to decrease after the project is completed, but will still be much higher than it was a decade ago. The decision sparked criticism from some opponents of the monarchy, who considered that taxpayers had borne the high cost of renovating the palace, while the king chose not to reside there.

They believe that converting the palace into an international museum or art gallery would be more beneficial to the public, while the royal family asserts that the palace will remain the administrative and symbolic heart of the royal institution, even if it is no longer the king’s permanent residence.