The one Queen act that Princess Kate ‘refuses' to do
It has a pedigree like no other – 775 rooms, its own lake and ATM – but when the day comes, King William V and Queen Catherine won't want a bar of it and are reportedly scrap nearly 200 years of tradition and will refuse to move in.
Since 1837, the Palace has been the official London residence of the monarch but the Waleses have already, seemingly, let it be known they have no intention of ever calling the 52-bedroom Palace home.
One of the most famous buildings on the planet now looks set to become the biggest white elephant the royal family has been saddled with since Andrew found himself at a loose end.
It's been a rocky few years for the old girl.
Since 2017 the Palace has rung with the sound of hammers and saws as it undergoes a $776 million, 10-year renovation. This programme includes everything from replacing the plumbing a fresh-faced 20-something Prince Philip had installed to fixing a leaky glass roof over a priceless trove of Canalettos, Vermeers and Rembrandts.
Because of all this work, so far, King Charles and Queen Camilla have yet to be able to move in there.
However the end is in sight and this week the Palace confirmed the decade-long reno (or in their lingo, 'reserviecing') is on track to finish according to schedule in 2027.
Except now no one wants to live there.
Already William and Kate seem to be indicating they have no interest in packing their bags when the inevitable day comes.
You might think, golly gosh why? It's a literal Palace with hot and cold running servants and more Rembrandts per square inch than even the Netherlands can boast. It is the rien ne va plus of opulence and a deeply symbolically-imbued national treasure that befits the head of state.
The reality is though, no one inside the royal family actually likes the Palace that much.
Back in the day, come the end of the working week, Queen Elizabeth and Philip beetled off to Windsor Castle or Sandringham to breathe large sighs of relief over the drinks trolley. In 2020 when the pandemic struck, they decamped to Windsor full-time with a trusted cadre of aides and formed 'HMS Bubble'. They never moved back to London.
Then came the accession of Charles in September 2022, but with the renos still ongoing, he and Camilla stayed put at their place, Clarence House, just a short walking distance down The Mall. (Though One takes the State Bentley to travel the 200 metres or so to the Palace where One's offices are.)
On the King's coronation day in May 2023, BBC camera crews filmed His Majesty, still in is
positively medieval regalia making his way down Palace halls strewn with dust sheets and
scaffolding.
(Side note – Charles does work out of the Palace. His private office and communications teams are run out of there and it is where he conducts the business of State and having the Prime Minister around for a weekly cuppa. William would likely do the same.) What this week's news confirms is that come 2027, the Palace will be ready to be fully occupied and to have a ready King and Queen occupy the usual private apartments.
But the old dear faces a very lonely future. Charles and Camilla have signalled they aren't going to pack up their Lladro dog figurines and bunion pads to trade Clarence House, where they have been for 25 years, for the museum piece.
'I know [the King] is no fan of 'the big house', as he calls the palace,' a source has previously told The Times. 'He doesn't see it as a viable future home or a house that's fit for purpose in the modern world.
Look further down the road and things look even sadder for the fabled building.
Unlike his father who publicly entertained the possibility of one day making the Palace his home, William and Kate aren't even doing that, seemingly making it clear from this far out it's a hard pass for them.
William reportedly agrees with his father's view and thinks 'the palace is not suitable for modern family life,' per the Times.
This gels with the blueprint that he and Kate put in place as far back as 2011 when they wed. Just think of it as HMS Normally Normalton. The couple has always tenaciously, and some might argue a tad naively, tried to keep their life as work-a-day as possible – at least for people who travel with gun-toting protection officers to pop down to Asda for a litre of skim milk.
Home for the Waleses is Adelaide Cottage, a four-bedroom home on the Windsor Estate that used to be where Kings stashed their dutiful equerries, not where two future Kings dossed down. So compact, in royal terms, is the Cottage they have no, gasp, live-in staff. Brave stuff.
The prince and princess still religiously share the school run. They are also, reportedly, regularly seen at their kids' concerts, plays and sporting matches.
Recently, the next King of Great Britain was seen standing poolside at his daughter Princess Charlotte's swimming gala, holding her sports bag, 'just like any other dad,' The Times ' royal editor Roya Nikkhah reported.
For the privacy-loving Waleses, having to pack up and move into Buckingham Palace would constitute nightmare stuff. Just to really mash metaphors, it's the world's most opulent, gilded fishbowl.
Consider the sheer numbers. It is filled with 800 plus staffers and every summer 300,000 plus tourists pay to tramp through it goggling at all the filigree frou frou and paying $98 for a decidedly average cream tea out the back.
It also, in normal times, hosts 40,000 members of the public at garden parties, 10,500 investiture attendees, and 40,000-plus people for official receptions.
London attracts about 20 million international visitors a year – you would have to think about 19,999,999 go and stand outside the Palace and have a sticky beak.
Imagine trying to live in the middle of that and trying to pop out for a flat white or to attend Prince Louis' trombone recital.
(William would, like Charles, have his office there and still use it for doing his public-facing Kinging.)
Which brings us to a multibillion-dollar problem that William will inherit – the number of royal properties will outstrip the number of HRHs to fill them. There will be Highgrove House, Clarence House, the Castle of Mey, Sandringham, Balmoral, Anmer Hall, St James's Palace, and swathes of the Kensington Palace complex including the properties there currently occupied by 80-somethings the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent and the Duke and Duchess of Kent.
(Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's former home Frogmore Cottage is still empty too.)
The public wouldn't stand for, nor would he consider for a second, filling them with sponging second and third cousins.
Being King is never a piece of cake.
If you want an indication of the direction that William and Kate are taking Crown Inc, look no further than a Colchester hospital this week where the Princess of Wales turned wearing a pair of Veja trainers and talked about her feelings. Now that is an activity I'd wager that no one has ever attempted inside Palace walls.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
The Glastonbury 'death' chant that sparked a firestorm
Sydney Pead: Music has always been a powerful form of protest, but a rap band who played the popular music festival Glastonbury in the UK could be facing criminal charges after leading the crowd in chants calling for death to the Israeli military, which were live streamed on the BBC. Today, British music journalist Dorian Lynskey on the controversy and when protests by musicians go too far. I'm Sydney Pead on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Dorian, you were actually at Glastonbury this year, which is one of the biggest music festivals in the world. For those of us who couldn't make it, can you just set the scene for us? Dorian Lynskey: So if you haven't been to Glastonbury, you probably won't realise how big it is. It's sort of as big as a small city. It's about 200,000 people, multiple stages. God knows how many acts. There isn't really like a central narrative or focus to the festival. There's countless different experiences of the festival. So it's always quite weird reading like a media account of what was happening at Glastonbury. Sydney Pead: But this year, the festival was more controversial than usual. A British rap group called Bob Vylan was in the middle of their set. Bobby Vylan: Bob f***ing Vylan. Sydney Pead: And the front man, Bobby Vylan, began talking about the war in Gaza. And then he led a series of chants with the audience. Can you just sort of step me through that set? Dorian Lynskey: You know, t they'd chant a free Palestine, which was quite common. Quite a few people saying that. Bobby Vylan and Glastonbury audience: Free, free! Gaza! Free, free! Gaza! Dorian Lynskey: But then I think said, have you heard this one? And then a different chant, which was death to the IDF. Bobby Vylan and Glastonbury audience: Gaza! Aight have you heard this one though? Dorian Lynskey: That was the whole focus of the controversy. And what was weird, I think, is that Kneecap, the Irish rap trio who all the controversy was around. That's what in the build up to Glastonbury, it was like, should they play Glastonbury? Should the BBC show their set? That was meant to be the focus. And the reason why so many people were there to watch, to see Bob Vylan actually was because they were waiting for Kneecap. Sydney Pead: Now, this set and this chant, it was live streamed. on the BBC to millions of people. And that caused this huge uproar. The broadcast regulator got involved and said the BBC had questions to answer over the decision to keep broadcasting those comments. It was just this huge kind of uproar that happened in the wake of that set, right? Dorian Lynskey: The BBC chose not to show it later on iPlayer. Glastonbury Festival condemned those comments. What they were meant to do in the moment, I really don't know. You know, if you watch the clip, the Death to the IDF chant, it's seconds. So it's like, well, what could they have done? Cut it off a second or two earlier? It always happens. You get the media, particularly the right wing media and politicians trying to make this into an enormous thing. And at the core of it is, you know, I think, like an extremely misjudged chant and like an unnecessary one as well, which enables all of this kind of uproar to occur. Sydney Pead: The BBC has since announced that in the future it will no longer stream live acts that it considers to be high risk. It said there was no place for anti-Semitism on the BBC. But the broadcaster was already on high alert because, as you mentioned, the Irish rap group Kneecap was coming on the stage straight afterwards. Their set went on to echo similar sentiments to those of Bob Vylan. Mo Chara, member of rap group Kneecap: And it's important. Like, I know sometimes, listen, I can see the amount of Palestinian flags here and it's f***ing insane. The BBC editor is going to have some job. News reporting: Kneecap led the crowd in expletive-laden chants about the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer after he said it wasn't appropriate for the group to perform. Sydney Pead: For background, one of the rappers in the band Kneecap, he's known as Mo Chara, he was already facing charges under the British Terrorism Act. He's accused of supporting a terror group at a live Kneecap show last November. News reporting: One of its members was charged for allegedly displaying the flag of Hezbollah, a prescribed terrorist organisation, at a gig last year. He's denied the charge. Dorian Lynskey: That was the story going into the festival. That was why there was pressure. I mean, Prime Minister Kier Starmer, when asked about it, said: oh, I don't think Kneecap should be playing Glastonbury at all. And that's why the BBC wasn't live streaming it. Yes, it all stems from that incident, that police investigation, yeah. Sydney Pead: So, Dorian, all of this ignited this huge firestorm in the wake of Glastonbury. The Glastonbury organisers distanced themselves from Bob Vylan's performance. They said their chants very much crossed a line and that there's no place at Glastonbury for anti-Semitism or hate speech or incitement to violence. The PM described the comments as hate speech, and it even led to two of those Bob Vylan members having their US visas cancelled before their upcoming US tour. But lastly, these two performances have resulted in another criminal investigation being launched. But let's talk a bit more about these two bands, because they are by nature protest groups, aren't they? Kneecap in particular is a political act. Dorian Lynskey: I think Bob Vylan are nothing without that, more so than Kneecap, because Kneecap have a kind of weird combination of sort of almost like cartoon comedy rap and very sincere politics. But by their nature, by their essence, they're political, because they're often rapping in the Irish language. I mean, they are Republicans, they want a united Ireland. And so, I mean, that's a pretty, that in itself has been controversial. And they admitted to me when I interviewed them at that time that they courted that to some extent. And I think that's what is often an issue for bands that play with controversy. And that they want to be provocative, they want to cause a fuss. It's sort of good for them if a politician is angry with them. It's good publicity, it gets the message out, it gives them an enemy. Sydney Pead: Let's talk about this kind of act, really, because they are protests really through music, and that is nothing new. We've always seen this throughout history. And you've written a whole book on the history of protest song. So what are some similar examples where we've seen this before? Dorian Lynskey: I mean, there are examples of artists who were trying to be provocative. They were trying to make an impact. You know, the Sex Pistols, particularly around the time of God Save the Queen, you know, obviously that was meant to wind people up. If you look at political artists that have had some longevity, you could say The Clash, say Rage Against the Machine, Billy Bragg. These are people that kind of, they never really quite find themselves in the firestorm. And what normally causes trouble is it's not normally songs. It's things people say. It's things people say in interviews. It's things people blurt out on stage. So it's not as if either kneecap or Bob Villain have written and recorded songs with the messages that have got them into trouble. Sydney Pead: Do you think the fact that these comments are filmed and shared and streamed to millions of people, does that make a difference to what can and can't be said? Dorian Lynskey: I think it changes it so much. I mean, there were, of course, controversies before. There were things that I came across that people used to say, people said in the music press when I was researching my book, that were so controversial and I'd never heard of them. And they caused them no trouble at all because they were just in the music press and nobody really noticed. And that circulation of the stories around the world and of the clips, and if you see that Bob Vylan clip, even just the way he's saying it, it makes it worse. Did it just come out? Was it an idea that, okay, I don't care if this destroys our career? And maybe what I don't quite understand about the Bob Vylan case is what they thought would happen, like the thinking behind it. Because it's like, okay, you know that you're at Glastonbury. You know that you're on the BBC. You're going a lot further than just Free Palestine. Like, what are you trying to achieve? What do you think is going to happen here? Sydney Pead: Just like Bob Vylan have had their US visas revoked, we've seen similar things happen here in Australia. We just had the rapper Kanye West refused a visa to enter because of anti-Semitic song lyrics. That song is titled Heil Hitler, to be fair. Our Immigration Minister, Tony Burke, he said Australia wouldn't support Nazism. Tony Burke, Minister for Home Affairs: My officials looked at it again once he released the Heil Hitler song and he no longer has a valid visa in Australia. Patricia Karvelas, Host of ABC's Afternoon Briefing: So that's it, Kanye West not allowed to come to Australia? Tony Burke, Minister for Home Affairs: Well, he had a valid visa. He no longer has a valid visa. Sydney Pead: So is it the same thing? Dorian Lynskey: Well it gets so complicated because I think it's always on a case by case basis. I mean, you know, and you can call that inconsistency or hypocrisy. But I mean, there has to be room for artists and indeed, you know, people in general to be able to say a range of things that may be offensive. And yet, you know, the case that you mentioned there, if you've been anti-Semitic and you've sold T-shirts with swastikas on them, and then you release a song called Heil Hitler, you know, there is provocation and then there is just simply almost rude not to revoke the visa. Sydney Pead: Mm. Well, both Bob Vylan and Kneecap, they stand by their actions. Bob Vylan says they've been targeted for speaking up. They and their fans say the criticism and the police action is purely a distraction from the issue which they were trying to protest, which is, of course, in this case, the war in Gaza. We've touched on it, but what do you think? Where is the line here? Dorian Lynskey: Yeah, I mean, I find it very difficult because I am, you know, I'm very torn. I have, you know, enormous sympathy with Gaza, enormous rage at the Israeli government and the fact that the literal killings by the IDF are less newsworthy than someone saying death to the IDF, right? So that annoys me and it seems completely disproportionate. On the other hand, you know, you do have to be honest about, OK, well, what is acceptable? What do you think is an acceptable sort of form of protest, a language of protest? So, of course, there is no free speech absolutism where your political biases don't come into play. Nobody is going, oh, you should just be able to say anything you like. It's always like you'll defend one person but not another person. Sydney Pead: And finally, Dorian, so much has been achieved through protest song. A great gig brings people together and can be a powerful force for change. So when bands are accused of crossing the line into hate speech, is it counterproductive? Dorian Lynskey: I mean, I think it probably is. If you're trying to make your point, and this is true across not just protest music but political activism, the words you choose matter. So the anti-Vietnam protests, for example, you know, end the war and then chanting in favour of, like, the Viet Cong. I mean, that looked terrible on TV. That seems, that really hurt the cause. So I think that it's a mistake, I think, for defenders of sort of knee-capable villains to think that, you know, they have to defend them 100% because that means that they are defending Palestine or free speech or so forth. Because there is a difference in politics between wise strategy and self-defeating strategy. And so the words that you choose, whether or not you have the right to say them, they really matter. And I think if he just said, you know, F the IDF, I think that would have been fine. I think it's as soon as you introduce death too, which, you know, it does sound very, very sensitive, very aggressive, particularly if people are kind of chanting it back. And bear in mind that festival crowds, a lot of time, they would just sort of chant anything. It's not as if they were all fully signed up, necessarily. There is an instinct to sort of go along with whatever the person on stage is saying. But that sounded sort of really menacing. And so then you have to think, okay, well, can you agree with even, like, 90% of what someone says about Palestine, about Israel, and yet still recognise that the things that have got them into trouble, the things that police investigation and causing these massive headlines, are something else and they're beyond the pale and they're not just a more exaggerated version of that sentiment. And can you then also say, okay, well, this can be bad, even if it's obviously not as bad as what is actually happening in Gaza. Sydney Pead: Dorian Lynskey is a British music journalist who attended Glastonbury. This episode was produced by Kara Jensen-Mckinnon and Adair Sheppard. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sydney Pead. ABC News Daily will be back again tomorrow. Thanks for listening.
News.com.au
11 hours ago
- News.com.au
Ozzy Osbourne takes to the stage for the last time
Ozzy Osbourne and his Black Sabbath bandmates have taken to the stage for the final time. The frail 76-year-old arrived on stage at Villa Park in Birmingham, UK, dressed in his trademark black, sitting on a bat throne for the historic gig. Called Back To The Beginning, it is frontman and rock veteran Ozzy's last time performing on stage amid his worsening diagnosis of Parkinson's disease, The Sun reported. The crowd was delighted to see the iconic rocker back on stage, and kept chanting his name. Ozzy was equally thrilled to be performing, and repeatedly broke out into a massive grin. The gig was already being touted as 'the greatest heavy metal show ever' ahead of Saturday and Ozzy played a short five-song set reuniting with his bandmates Geezer Butler, Tony Iommi and Bill Ward. It is the first time in 20 years that the original Black Sabbath line-up have performed together. Ozzy, 76, has vowed it will be his final performance due to his deteriorating health. He went public with his Parkinson's diagnosis in 2020. Back To The Beginning has also featured a mega line-up of fellow rock stars, performing their own sets and as a supergroup, and all the profits made will be going to charity. The money will be shared equally between Cure Parkinson's, Birmingham Children's Hospital and Acorn Children's Hospice. Metallica and Slayer were on the line-up for main sets as they celebrated Ozzy's remarkable legacy. Pantera, Gojira, Alice In Chains, Halestorm, Lamb Of God, Anthrax, and Mastodon also played at the show. Ahead of the gig, Ozzy's wife Sharon told The Mirror: 'There won't be any head banging. Not any more. But his voice is still absolutely perfect. 'Even if you don't like his music, you can't not like Ozzy – he draws you in.'
News.com.au
12 hours ago
- News.com.au
The one Queen act that Princess Kate ‘refuses' to do
There is no other building in the world that has housed four Kings, four Queens, 27 princes and princesses, close to 113 international heads of state and Prince Andrew's 72 teddy bears – really – than Buckingham Palace. It has a pedigree like no other – 775 rooms, its own lake and ATM – but when the day comes, King William V and Queen Catherine won't want a bar of it and are reportedly scrap nearly 200 years of tradition and will refuse to move in. Since 1837, the Palace has been the official London residence of the monarch but the Waleses have already, seemingly, let it be known they have no intention of ever calling the 52-bedroom Palace home. One of the most famous buildings on the planet now looks set to become the biggest white elephant the royal family has been saddled with since Andrew found himself at a loose end. It's been a rocky few years for the old girl. Since 2017 the Palace has rung with the sound of hammers and saws as it undergoes a $776 million, 10-year renovation. This programme includes everything from replacing the plumbing a fresh-faced 20-something Prince Philip had installed to fixing a leaky glass roof over a priceless trove of Canalettos, Vermeers and Rembrandts. Because of all this work, so far, King Charles and Queen Camilla have yet to be able to move in there. However the end is in sight and this week the Palace confirmed the decade-long reno (or in their lingo, 'reserviecing') is on track to finish according to schedule in 2027. Except now no one wants to live there. Already William and Kate seem to be indicating they have no interest in packing their bags when the inevitable day comes. You might think, golly gosh why? It's a literal Palace with hot and cold running servants and more Rembrandts per square inch than even the Netherlands can boast. It is the rien ne va plus of opulence and a deeply symbolically-imbued national treasure that befits the head of state. The reality is though, no one inside the royal family actually likes the Palace that much. Back in the day, come the end of the working week, Queen Elizabeth and Philip beetled off to Windsor Castle or Sandringham to breathe large sighs of relief over the drinks trolley. In 2020 when the pandemic struck, they decamped to Windsor full-time with a trusted cadre of aides and formed 'HMS Bubble'. They never moved back to London. Then came the accession of Charles in September 2022, but with the renos still ongoing, he and Camilla stayed put at their place, Clarence House, just a short walking distance down The Mall. (Though One takes the State Bentley to travel the 200 metres or so to the Palace where One's offices are.) On the King's coronation day in May 2023, BBC camera crews filmed His Majesty, still in is positively medieval regalia making his way down Palace halls strewn with dust sheets and scaffolding. (Side note – Charles does work out of the Palace. His private office and communications teams are run out of there and it is where he conducts the business of State and having the Prime Minister around for a weekly cuppa. William would likely do the same.) What this week's news confirms is that come 2027, the Palace will be ready to be fully occupied and to have a ready King and Queen occupy the usual private apartments. But the old dear faces a very lonely future. Charles and Camilla have signalled they aren't going to pack up their Lladro dog figurines and bunion pads to trade Clarence House, where they have been for 25 years, for the museum piece. 'I know [the King] is no fan of 'the big house', as he calls the palace,' a source has previously told The Times. 'He doesn't see it as a viable future home or a house that's fit for purpose in the modern world. Look further down the road and things look even sadder for the fabled building. Unlike his father who publicly entertained the possibility of one day making the Palace his home, William and Kate aren't even doing that, seemingly making it clear from this far out it's a hard pass for them. William reportedly agrees with his father's view and thinks 'the palace is not suitable for modern family life,' per the Times. This gels with the blueprint that he and Kate put in place as far back as 2011 when they wed. Just think of it as HMS Normally Normalton. The couple has always tenaciously, and some might argue a tad naively, tried to keep their life as work-a-day as possible – at least for people who travel with gun-toting protection officers to pop down to Asda for a litre of skim milk. Home for the Waleses is Adelaide Cottage, a four-bedroom home on the Windsor Estate that used to be where Kings stashed their dutiful equerries, not where two future Kings dossed down. So compact, in royal terms, is the Cottage they have no, gasp, live-in staff. Brave stuff. The prince and princess still religiously share the school run. They are also, reportedly, regularly seen at their kids' concerts, plays and sporting matches. Recently, the next King of Great Britain was seen standing poolside at his daughter Princess Charlotte's swimming gala, holding her sports bag, 'just like any other dad,' The Times ' royal editor Roya Nikkhah reported. For the privacy-loving Waleses, having to pack up and move into Buckingham Palace would constitute nightmare stuff. Just to really mash metaphors, it's the world's most opulent, gilded fishbowl. Consider the sheer numbers. It is filled with 800 plus staffers and every summer 300,000 plus tourists pay to tramp through it goggling at all the filigree frou frou and paying $98 for a decidedly average cream tea out the back. It also, in normal times, hosts 40,000 members of the public at garden parties, 10,500 investiture attendees, and 40,000-plus people for official receptions. London attracts about 20 million international visitors a year – you would have to think about 19,999,999 go and stand outside the Palace and have a sticky beak. Imagine trying to live in the middle of that and trying to pop out for a flat white or to attend Prince Louis' trombone recital. (William would, like Charles, have his office there and still use it for doing his public-facing Kinging.) Which brings us to a multibillion-dollar problem that William will inherit – the number of royal properties will outstrip the number of HRHs to fill them. There will be Highgrove House, Clarence House, the Castle of Mey, Sandringham, Balmoral, Anmer Hall, St James's Palace, and swathes of the Kensington Palace complex including the properties there currently occupied by 80-somethings the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent and the Duke and Duchess of Kent. (Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's former home Frogmore Cottage is still empty too.) The public wouldn't stand for, nor would he consider for a second, filling them with sponging second and third cousins. Being King is never a piece of cake. If you want an indication of the direction that William and Kate are taking Crown Inc, look no further than a Colchester hospital this week where the Princess of Wales turned wearing a pair of Veja trainers and talked about her feelings. Now that is an activity I'd wager that no one has ever attempted inside Palace walls.
