Morning:
8°c
Palace rejects call to open doors longer to raise funds
Neil Millard27 Jan 2009
THE QUEEN'S accountant has rejected calls for Buckingham Palace to be opened to the public all year round to raise funds needed to maintain the royal residence.
The keeper of the Privy Purse, Sir Alan Reid, said the plan was not practical and the public could not be allowed to wander around the Palace during a state visit.
The refusal comes after MPs on the public accounts committee called on royal household officials to look to the US White House, which remains open to the public for much of the year.
They say more frequent opening of the Palace, which is open for only 63 days a year, would raise much-needed funds. Royal buildings have a £32million maintenance backlog. Committee chairman Edward Leigh said: "You cannot close the whole Palace because the Duke of York is sitting in his flat upstairs."
But Sir Alan told the committee that members of the royal family were in residence for about 300 days per year. The Queen stays there for three to four days a week giving audiences, investitures take place 22 days a year and more than 100 receptions are held there.
The plan would not be financially viable as student wardens would have to work during term time to keep the Palace running, and there would be a burden of extra administration, the committee was told.
The committee said temporary buildings installed for openings could remain all year round and that it was easy to find casual staff among London's student population.
Reader views (7)
Repair the palace, move royals out, and open it to the public all the year so it pays for it self
- Michael Church, london, 27/01/2009 21:36
Report abuse
Just give her the money, it isn't for a spending spree it's to literally save national treasures. I read the place hasn't been re-wired since she came to the throne for heavens sake.
Give the palace the money it needs...not wants...NEEDS. Or declare a republic whereupon the money would have to be immediately forthcoming anyway.
The sticking point is her isn't it. Grow up. There are plenty of presidents and not one of them come as inexpensively as our head of state. My countrymen make me despair.
- M.A.Towey, London UK, 27/01/2009 14:20
Report abuse
If - as is rumoured - she requires an increase in her allowance this year, then she should convert the palace into a five star hotel and move into smaller premises.
- Ross, Yorks, UK, 27/01/2009 14:05
Report abuse
Squatters should invade and occupy the whole building, power to the people.
- Alfred, UK, 27/01/2009 13:24
Report abuse
Very few people/companies have a ready resource to make a bit of extra cash effortlessly. Of course people would not be wandering round during a state visit! But for the rest of the time, I don't see why the palace should be shut to the people who pay for it. Some time ago the Queen had her hand held out for extra funds. No! No! No! Close the place down if you have to Ma'am. You have plenty of other houses to choose from.
- Jilly, London, 27/01/2009 13:19
Report abuse
Then let her pay for all of the backlog by selling one of her extra public paid for properties - or even some of the art that she 'owns' in the name of the people.
- Elliott Gordon, Watford, England, 27/01/2009 11:36
Report abuse
I think people forget that the Queen only lives in a small private bit at the top of Buckingham Palace: the rest of it is a combined 5 star hotel, office and reception venue used for State business. Our Communist friends in the Labour Party would like us to think she mooches around in her crown and eats breakfast in a vast guilded banqueting hall.
Lets have the public wandering around the Houses of Parliament a bit more - I'm sure lots of people would find the cradle of Democracy more interesting - just now, for security reasons you understand, you can hardly get near it . . .
- Roz, Chamonix, France, 27/01/2009 11:24
Report abuse
