The 240-bedroom, 78-bathroom fixer-upper

Buckingham Palace is in such poor condition that buckets have to be set out to catch water dripping from the roof in the gallery where the Queen's priceless art collection is kept.

The Queen and members of the British Parliament live and work in this country’s two most iconic buildings: Buckingham Palace for her, the Palace of Westminster for them. But moisture, mice and moth-eaten heating and electrical systems, among other ills, are turning both structures into something of a nightmare for their illustrious inhabitants.

Conditions inside the 19th-century buildings have become so dire they threaten to achieve what the Blitz could not: force Her Majesty, the noble peers in the House of Lords and the members of the House of Commons to abandon their digs, at least while refurbishment is undertaken.

Surveyors and engineers warn of an urgent need for asbestos removal, better plumbing, pest control, upgraded wiring, improved fire safety and repairs to the crumbling masonry, a large chunk of which came perilously close to nailing Princess Anne’s carafter detaching from a Buckingham Palace parapet in 2007.

But spending billions in taxpayer money on nicer accommodation for politicians and the Royal Family is a tough sell at a time when the government is promising the deepest cuts in welfare and other social spending in at least a generation. Plenty of Brits believe their elected representatives have dipped their hands liberally enough into the public purse.

To Dickie Arbiter, that’s a shortsighted view.

“All these are government buildings,” said Arbiter, who worked in Buckingham Palace as Elizabeth’s press secretary before retiring. “Our children and grandchildren and their children won’t thank us if we allow these buildings to fall into a state of disrepair.”

He scoffs at suggestions that his former boss, one of the world’s richest women, ought to fund her own home improvements. The Queen does not actually own Buckingham Palace; it’s held “in trust” for use by the reigning monarch.

“There are those cynics who say, ‘Well, the Queen lives there, she should pay for it,’ which is a bit like saying, ‘Obama lives at the White House, let him take care of it,’” Arbiter said.

Regardless of who foots the bill (and it won’t be the footman), the price tag would be enormous.

Buckingham Palace is basically a 240-bedroom, 78-bathroom fixer-upper (great location!) that would cost the equivalent of an estimated $300 million to bring up to modern standards. Some redecorating is definitely in order: The last time the interiors were spruced up was around the time of the Queen’s coronation. That was 62 years ago.

The boiler hasn’t been overhauled in about as long. Royal minions have had to set out buckets to catch water dripping from the roof in the gallery where Elizabeth’s priceless art collection is kept.

Across St. James’s Park, a makeover for the Gothic revival Palace of Westminster would cost significantly more. According to an independent appraisal released in June, the project could cost the equivalent of between $7 billion and $11.6 billion Cdn.

Mark Tami, a member of Parliament from the Liverpool area, said a “major intervention” is clearly necessary.

“You’re talking about a building which is in the centre of London, which is exposed to the elements and pollution,” he said. “There comes a point where just the odd patching here and there won’t suffice.”

The roof leaks, the pipes are corroding and much of the communication cabling is inadequate for the demands of the digital age. It took “quite a time” to install broadband and Wi-Fi, Tami said; connection speeds remain erratic.

Tami sits on a “restoration and renewal” parliamentary committee that is expected to decide early next year whether to embrace one of the renovation plans outlined in the June report.

The least expensive option would require Parliament to move out of the Palace of Westminster for six years. The most expensive option would allow the 650 members of the House of Commons and assorted scarlet-robed lords and ladies mostly to stay put, with partial closures of the building on a rolling basis over 32 years.

The Royal Family probably would be less inconvenienced than lawmakers by a move. Elizabeth, who is in good health at 89, already spends weekends and summers at Windsor Castle outside London and Balmoral Castle in Scotland, respectively. She could live comfortably in either place, or at her privately owned country retreat in Sandringham, in eastern England.

Buckingham Palace is where she mostly conducts state business on weekdays — “a bit like living above a shop when you’re on duty in London,” Arbiter said.

The Queen has never openly complained about the condition of Buckingham Palace. But no doubt she’d like to see her principal pad since childhood, with its 775 rooms, kept in better shape.

“She certainly wouldn’t utter anything like that in public,” Arbiter said. “It’s really for the officials in that department to browbeat the powers that be to dish out the money, to say this building is going to fall to pieces unless something is done about it.”

Source: Toronto Star Henry Chu Los Angeles Times, Published on Sun Sep 13 2015

Tagged , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: