Grace and Favour residences

[TampaBay]

Was Diana's apartment "Grace & Favour" or did the queen pay rent for that too?


TampaBay

[CHRISinUSA]

The answer ot that is "yes" and "no". 

Senior royals who are on "the royal circuit" of official duties are always given an "Official London Residence" on the Royal Estate (ie - in one of the Occupied Royal Palaces).  The cost of maintaining these buildings is paid by the Government by way of the Property Services Grant in Aid (in exchange for the Queen's hereditary revenues from the Crown Estate). 

All other internal costs (domestic and office staff, catering etc.) used to be paid by the Government from the Civil List, but today the Queen pays that herself from her Duchy of Lancaster income.  This extends to the Queen's four children, as well as three of her four paternal first cousins (the Dukes of Glouchsters and Kent, and to Princess Alexandria).  Charles does receive an Official Residence, but no Civil List (his household is funded by his Duchy of Cornwall income).

So in summary - when Diana was married to Charles, their apartment was an "Official Residence".  The physical structure was paid for by the Government through Property Services, while the household costs were funded by the Duchy of Cornwall.  At the divorce, Diana was granted the apartment herself by the "grace and favour" of the Queen.  The Government still maintained the building itself, but Diana's household costs were funded by the 600,000 pounds annual household allowance that was part of her divorce settlement.  I don't know who paid that allowance (The Queen herself or Charles, but either way it was a private - not taxpayer - expense).

[CHRISinUSA]

The Michael-Kent apartment, in contrast, has always been grace and favour, because neither Prince nor Princess Michael have ever officially been on "the royal circuit" - and so are not entitled to an "official residence".  This is where things got dicey with Parliament.  Obviously when the Queen decided to give the couple the apartment as a wedding gift, she did so because Prince Michael is a Royal Highness and a male line grandson of a monarch.  In times past, that's all it took for someone to warrant rent-free accomomdation on the Royal Estate. 

Clearly Parliament no longer agrees with that idea - they decided that if you aren't working for the Crown full-time, the Crown shouldn't fund your home no matter who your grandfather was.  Which is why I assume that the York princesses or the Wessex children probably won't end up living on the Royal Estate as adults; although 50 years ago it would have been unthinkable for them to NOT have housing at Kensington or St. James.

[TampaBay]

I believe that all HRH's should be furnished London accommodations in a Royal Palaces.  If QEII or the "government" is giving them something then "they" would have a say and right to comment on their behavior and deportment.

I think one of the problems with the British Royal Family is that  QEII seems to have lost control or is not using her control. I do not see her exercising her right as head of the House of Windsor/Montbatten/Glucksburg as did say QV, GIV and Diamond/Emerald Drawers, GV and Cookie or Edward VI.

Every good Firm needs a strong and wise CEO.

TampaBay

[jehan]

Royal Palaces.  If QEII or the "government" is giving them something then "they" would have a say and right to comment on their behavior and deportment.

I think one of the problems with the British Royal Family is that  QEII seems to have lost control or is not using her control. I do not see her exercising her right as head of the House of Windsor/Montbatten/Glucksburg as did say QV, GIV and Diamond/Emerald Drawers, GV and Cookie or Edward VI.

Every good Firm needs a strong and wise CEO.

TampaBay

But just when in history has the monarch really had control over the behaviour of the adult offspring of the dynasty?

George lll?  Victoria?  George V?

All of them had sons whose behaviour was no better or worse than what we see today.  Probably worse, in fact.  I think you are asking way to much of ERll- what you ask of her has never been achieved by any other monarch ( at least those who had children who did not want to "live the quiet life").  It's just that the modern paparazzi is only too ready to put any misdemeanors out there for all to see.  Doesn't mean the behaviour itself is anything new.

[TampaBay]

jehan,

I see your point.

However, I cannot believe how some Windsor Royals act.

TampaBay

[CHRISinUSA]

I believe that all HRH's should be furnished London accommodations in a Royal Palaces. 

I agree that the senior royals (other than the Monarch and Consort) need London homes, as a base for their official engagements, and to accomodate the staff who support them.  And those homes require security cordons around them.  Right now there are 7 such "apartments" scattered across four locations:  2 in Buckingham Palace (Andrew and Edward), 1 in Clarence House (Charles and Camilla, William and Harry), 2 in St. James (Anne and Alexandria), and 2 in Kensington (the Kents and the Glouchesters).  In a couple years, William and Harry will wed and need their own (bringing the total need to 9).

That's why I've never understood why Kensington Palace seems to be being phased out.  BP doesn't have room for 9 separate royal residences and their supporting offices.  Neither does St. James presently (most of it is offices).  But Kensington Palace is properly configured to comfortably accomodate all 9 royals - and their households - within one security cordon.  Why not use all of St. James for court offices (eliminating the need for a security cordon), and use all of Kensington to house the royals' London homes? 

[TampaBay]

Does the Duke of Kent have a "grace and favor" London Residence?  If so where is it?


Thanks!

TampaBay

[TampaBay]

The future of those apartments - and in fact the entire private residential area of the palace - remains unknown.  Given the howling of Parliament a few years back over the palace's maintenance costs, it appears doubtful that any future royals will live there, but I wonder if new courtires / staff are still being given quarters there even today.

The apartments at KP will still required maintenance, someone to wash the windows, cut the grass...etc...etc... no matter if someone is living in them or not.  Chris, I agree with you that the abandonment of KP makes no sense.

TampaBay

[Robert_Hall]

The vacated apartments will most likely be turned over to the museum. They need the space and it would be more productive.

[TampaBay]

The vacated apartments will most likely be turned over to the museum. They need the space and it would be more productive.

Sir Robert,

So nice to have you back.

TampaBay

[TampaBay]

And those homes require security cordons around them.  Right now there are 7 such "apartments" scattered across four locations:  2 in Buckingham Palace (Andrew and Edward), 1 in Clarence House (Charles and Camilla, William and Harry), 2 in St. James (Anne and Alexandria), and 2 in Kensington (the Kents and the Glouchesters). 

I think I read somewhere that Andrew spends very little time at BP when in London and prefers to stay elsewhere with friends or Sarah.  Does anyone have more info?

TampaBay

[Robert_Hall]

Thanks, TBTW, but I am not back for long- I return to Europe for 3  months on election day.
  I do not think any of the RF care much for BP, it is more of an "office building" than a real residence. And, as palaces go, I think it unimpressive.

[Norbert]

I was rather surprised at those who went to the " debutants" expo at KP and say they didn't see Pss Margarets apartments. You would have passed right through most of it  and up the stairs past her bathroom ( you can see the blue 60's wallpaper via the fan light) and back into the 17c state apartments. The projector room was the only part of her drawing room you could not see! But you can certainly stare into her negected patio garden. Her children stripped the place like a plague of locusts and the only memorable fitting left is a Meissen style chandelier and the blue colour of the drawing room. It was sad to loose it as a modern interior by Hicks but now only empty rooms.

[TampaBay]

Balmoral and Sandringham:

Are any of the subsidiary residences on these properties currently leased?

Also, is Highgrove Estate owned by Charles the POW or is in owned by the Duchy of Cornwall?  If it is owned by the Duchy will the Highgrove Estate automatically pass to William (as the next POW) when Charles ascends the throne?
 

TampaBay