The British monarchy resides at Buckingham Palace. Every child knows that, and that’s the building with the famous balcony they wave from.
But wait, it’s not that simple. Buckingham Palace is used for official functions, and houses offices supporting the work of the monarch. But Charles and Camilla don’t actually live there, they stay at Clarence House; Elizabeth II would, in her final years, spend most of her time at Windsor.
So perhaps Buckingham Palace is the “official” residence, and whatever place they stay at is an unofficial one? Not so fast, because there’s also St James’s Palace, often called the official residence even though no monarch has lived there in a long time - “official” to such an extent that foreign ambassadors in London are technically not accredited “to the United Kingdom” but rather “to the Court of St James’s”.
So are both Buckingham and St James’s Palaces “official” but in a different way? Or is there no such thing as an “official” residence, and the word is meaningless in law?
IIRC, St. James was Charles’ residence while mummy was living in Buckingham/Windsor.
Clarence House and Lancaster House appear from Google earth to be a part of the St. James complex, are they not?
Wikipedia says:
Currently, Clarence House is the London residence of King Charles III and his wife, Queen Camilla. They intend to continue to use Clarence House as their London home until at least 2027 during renovations to Buckingham Palace. Buckingham Palace will remain the administrative headquarters for the monarchy and the location of state events during this time.
So, not necessarily because Chuck doesn’t want to live in Buckingham Palace?
I may be totally off base here, but I always understood it to be that the Court of St. James was the “official” royal court and residence in terms of the Monarchy, while Buckingham Palace is where they actually live and all the work actually gets done. It’s a historical precedence sort of deal- it was the Court of St. James centuries ago and still is, even though the royal family moved to Buckingham Palace some time ago.
Kind of like if the President chose to live somewhere else, the White House would still be the “seat” of the Executive Branch and the official Presidential residence.
Basically, St James’ Palace was the ‘main’ royal palace in London, where, back when monarchs still wielded a lot of power, the business of the Monarch got done. It’s where the royal court hung out while in London, hence why Ambassador’s would be (and still are) ambassadors to the Court of St James. Now, St James is pretty old and creaky, and at some point, Queen Victoria decided that Buckingham Palace was much newer, more spacious and comfortable and so moved there as her ‘official’ London residence.
But you know how we Brits love tradition. God forbid we’d change anything official unless we actually had to, so while Buckingham Palace is now the place of business for the King, St James still holds sway as the Most Important Palace and gets to hold things like the Accession Council. It’s also where several other court functions still happen. Before Charles inherited Clarence House, he lived there and used it as the official office of the Prince of Wales. I’m not sure about William.
I note you asked about legal status. I doubt there’s any such thing. It’s about tradition. If Charles decided that his official London residence was a semi in Leytonstone, I doubt Parliament would need to write a law about it.
Best way I can describe it is, say, a company may have a registered office that is the ‘official’ address of the company for company registration purposes - perhaps the first office they ever had (St James), but their actual Head Office - the place where the main work gets done and the Board Directors rock up to, is somewhere else, bigger and more glamorous and that’s the place most people think of as the main office (Buckingham Palace).
I don’t know about legal status but I’ve always equated Buckingham with their home and St. James with their office. And unlike me it’s a short commute.
Law doesn’t come into it. It’s the combination of tradition plus whatever the monarch orders (which they have to be careful about imposing over tradition).
As I understand it, QEII was living elsewhere with her husband, and her mother was holding onto Buckingham Palace, until Churchill advised QEII that the government would like her to live above the shop, and she moved her mother out to Clarence House.
KC has freedom about personal arrangements, but the ‘legal status’ is that he follows the advice of the government on political matters, and if the government wants to make it political they can.
It was slightly more complicated than that. The new Queen and Philip wanted to remain in Clarence House. That had only recently undergone a major refurbishment for them, partly at their own expense. So, remaining there could have been presented as financial prudence. But Churchill overruled them. The Queen Mother was happy to let them have Buckingham Palace. However, that was because she had her eye on Marlborough House, then occupied by the still living but soon to die Queen Mary. She wasn’t happy to palmed off with Clarence House instead.
If the government of the day feels it is a political matter, it is a political matter.
If Queen Elizabeth had wanted to vacation in Sun City South Africa at the height of the anti-apartheid era, the PM would advise her that there must be a different place to vacation that would suit Her Majesty. They would not tell her not to go, but it would be worded as the government’s opinion and she must honour this by tradition.
Let me see if I get this right. QE2 always wore hats to represent wearing a crown as Queen Regnant. If PM Keir Starmer advised Queen Camilla to never wear a hat outdoors since she is not a ruling queen she is obligated to never wear a hat outdoor as a matter of politics? And the Brits would not say, “Dude, you don’t have more important things to worry about?”
OK, maybe Q. Camilla is a bad example but what if they did it with Queen Kate?
The example is not a very realistic one, because it’s hard to imagine that the prime minister could make a plausible case that Camilla’s wearing hats would cause some sort of political problem for the UK. But if he could make such a plausible case, then by unwritten constitutional convention, Camilla would be obliged to abide, and the British electorate would accept this. It’s a constitutional monarchy, after all, which implies that in anything political, the monarch and the wider royal family follow ministerial advice. A more realistic example was the 1936 crisis, when the ruling King had to abdicate because the government advised him against marrying the woman he wanted to marry. That would probably not happen today, but that’s because changed social norms mean the King being married to a divorcée would not cause political problems anymore. The rule that the monarch has to follow the government’s advice in political matters still stands, even where this impinges upon his or her personal life.
Elizabeth wore hats because she was born in the 1920s when everyone wore hats and she liked them.
A better (but still forced) example might be that the Queen’s favourite hat designer was Russian with ties to Putin. They might advise that a Ukrainian or British hat designer might be more appealing to the British public. Again, this is trivialness and wouldn’t happen in real life.
So he still has to justify it? To whom? The House of Commons during Question Time? It’s not just, “It’s political because I say it is.”?
But that makes sense as a political question given the rules about divorce in the Anglican Church at the time and Edward VIII being the head of it.
I thought the idea of her wearing a hat as a crown might be an urban legend or shit my mom made up. It was the most innocuous thing I could think of as why should the PM be allowed to advise on it that the PM could stretch to make it political make it political.