King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (nee Bowes Lyon)

[Norbert]

It was meant to be offensive and still is. Certainly it was not a term of endearment within the royal family.

[CHRISinUSA]

I believe it is technically though it is now used by the Foreign Office as part of the Commonwealth division, who use it primarily for admin and PR purposes. I guess the government 'officially' leases the property from the crown, though I am not entirely sure how this works in reality!!!

No, Marlborough House is not part of the Foreign Office.  In September 1959, the Queen placed Marlborough House at the disposal of the British Government as a Commonwealth centre and it came into use as such in March 1962.  In 1964, the idea of an international and independent secretariat to service the growing Commonwealth was proposed, and Marlborough House became its actual headquarters in 1965.  Rather than being part of the UK Government, the Secretariat is actually an "intergovernmental agency of the Commonwealth" responsibly equally to the governments of all Commonwealth countries.


However, the UK Government pays for the maintenance of the house, through the Property Services Grant in Aid paid to the Royal Household.  In effect, the Royal Household acts as a "contractor" in maintaining the buiilding on behalf of the Government, who in turn funds the building on behalf of the Commonwealth.  While each Commonwealth country contributes funding annually for the Secretariat operations, I can't tell if the UK alone shoulders the burden for the house itself.

But - from what I've read, there is no "rent" paid to the Crown - it appears to be similar to a Grace and Favor basis.

[Eddie_uk]

Chris would you happen to know what Marlborough House was used for between 1953, following Queen Marys death, and when the Queen placed Marlborough House at the disposal of the British Government in 1959?

[CHRISinUSA]

I believe it sat vacant for that 6 year period.

Perhaps the Queen was waiting for a change of heart from the Government over its funding.  Or perhaps it was being considered as a future home for another member (or members) of the Royal Family.  But eventually, as we know, The Queen agreed to allow its use by the Commonwealth.

I don't know on what legal basis the Secretariat occupies the house.  Most Crown owned properties seem to be given out on fixed-term leases or grants.  Assuming that applies, eventually the house will revert back to the Crown and could possibly, one day, again be used as a royal residence. 

After all, Kensington Palace is being slowly phased out.  So perhaps St. James, Clarence House and Marlborough House will be increasingly needed to accomodate royal residents or offices.  For example, after Charles succeeds, Clarence House will likely be William's London home.  Would Edward and Andrew continue to have their London apartments at Buckingham Palace?  Or would they need to move elsewhere to make room for Harry and his eventual family?

[Eddie_uk]

I don't know on what legal basis the Secretariat occupies the house.  Most Crown owned properties seem to be given out on fixed-term leases or grants.  Assuming that applies, eventually the house will revert back to the Crown and could possibly, one day, again be used as a royal residence. 

I hope so!! It's a beautiful house, a real gem.

[Norbert]

The house is open on "  London Open Day" in September...without it's furniture it's rather drab I'm afraid ...and you cannot go upstairs.

[Eddie_uk]

Thank you Norbert,  annoyingly I missed the last open house day as I had wanted to visit it then. What a shame one can't go upstairs though. I bet it looked wonderful at the time of Queen Marys death..

[Norbert]

The best of the crop of royal palaces is Lancaster House with it's sumptuous staircase and classical interiors. As regards Buck House I don't think a future Charles III ( or George VII ) will reside there. I've understood that it will be used for state occasions and will be opened fully to the public whilst he will remain at Clarence House/ St James's

[Lucien]

6 Years ago:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1206898241.html

courtesy Brent,BRMB.

Thought with all the QETQM affeccionado's here,someone would have noticed the aniversary...

[CHRISinUSA]

The best of the crop of royal palaces is Lancaster House with it's sumptuous staircase and classical interiors. As regards Buck House I don't think a future Charles III ( or George VII ) will reside there. I've understood that it will be used for state occasions and will be opened fully to the public whilst he will remain at Clarence House/ St James's

Interesting about the idea of Charles staying at Clarence House.  William IV also remained at Clarence House as Sovereign.  But I have also read suggestions before that Charles plans to live at Windsor primarily, and use BP for only state occasions. 

And so true about Lancaster House!  If I were Charles and required a London home aside than BP, I'd definitely choose Lancaster!

[CHRISinUSA]

Still slightly off-topic, but I did a little reading on Lancaster House and see that in 1913, Lord Leverhulme, a Lancastrian, bought the lease for the nation and what was then known as Stafford House became Lancaster House.

Now, I'm not that "up" on British long-term lease arrangements, but aren't they usually a max of 99 years?  If so, than the lease would be up again in 4 years, and technically the house would then revert back to the Crown unless the lease were extended to the FCO.

Should the next monarch choose not to live at BP, I think Lancaster would be an ideal London residence for him.  Clarence House is simply insufficient.

[Norbert]

The P O W likes Clarence house with it's memories of the Queen Mother, and St James's over the road is his office....so plenty of room.

[Lucien]

Don't know if you already know this site Norbert,here's for you:

http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/coronation/memorialfront.html

Courtesy Ademar.

[Norbert]

Any experts on the life of the late Queen Mother know where and when she had her "coming out ball". I've been told that it might have been in a mansion in Charles St just off Berkeley Sq...many thanks

[Leuchtenberg]

It was meant to be offensive and still is. Certainly it was not a term of endearment within the royal family.