British Royals Offer Rare Glimpse of Home Life
Billie
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's Prince Charles is throwing open his new London
mansion to give the public a rare glimpse of the lavish abode he will share
with his two sons and partner Camilla Parker Bowles.
The 54-year-old heir-to-the-throne took up official residence at Clarence House
-- a cream-colored, five-story home built in the 1820s and occupied by the
Queen Mother for half a century until her death in 2002 -- earlier this week.
Courtiers showed reporters round on Tuesday. And members of the public will be
allowed to take $8 tours from Wednesday, with 46,000 visitors expected over the
summer.
"The Prince thinks the place is wonderful and he wanted people to see it,"
Charles' treasurer Kevin Knott told Reuters on the lawn in front of Clarence
House.
"It is just as he will live in it. It resonates his grandmother. And it's a
wonderful opportunity for people to see more of the royal art collection than
they would otherwise."
Royal aides did not balk on Tuesday at confirming that Parker Bowles would have
a connecting bedroom at Clarence House, confirming her status as Charles'
permanent partner since the collapse of his marriage with the late Princess
Diana.
Charles' two sons with Diana -- Princes William and Harry -- will also have
suites at Clarence House, which they will all use as a family home when in
London.
The public, however, will not be allowed to see the most private quarters, with
tours limited to the ground floor rooms used for dinners, meetings and
receiving visitors.
There, paintings on show range from a 17th century portrait by Flemish master
Anthony Van Dyck, to a set of views of Windsor Castle by English 20th century
artist John Piper, and images of the royal family's famous corgi dogs and
race-horses.
"Much of the art was acquired by the Queen Mother. She was the most important
royal collector in the 20th century," said Jonathan Marsden, deputy surveyor of
the Queen's works of art.
"She has a wide-ranging eye for works of history and members of her own family,
as well as contemporary and decorative art."
Plenty of personal touches also litter the rooms -- notepads used by Charles,
photos of the royals, signed books.
Following the similar opening of parts of Buckingham Palace several years ago,
the tours of Clarence House clearly form part of the royal family's attempt to
make themselves more accessible to the British public.
Charles may also be keen to show how taxpayers' cash has been used -- 4.4
million pounds ($7.1 million) of the renovation came from the public purse,
while he stumped up 1.6 million.
While some lamented the lessening of royal mystique, others said greater
transparency was the royals' duty.
"They soak up a huge amount of public money. The number of houses that the
royals inhabit should be reduced and the rest should be opened fully to the
public," republican legislator Norman Baker said.
"Visiting Sandringham or Buckingham Palace wouldn't be top of my list of things
to do, but it'd be nice to see where our money's being spent."
Prince Charles has moved into Clarence House from the nearby York House wing of
St. James' Palace, whose cramped quarters he used to disparage as "Car Park
House."
Clarence House, just down The Mall from Buckingham Palace, was originally
designed by architect John Nash for the Duke of Clarence, who later resided
there as King William IV.
"STUPIDITY IS NOT A HANDICAP. Park elsewhere!"
Sara
>pusss...@aol.com (Billie ) wrote in message news:<20030805185148...@mb-m14.aol.com>...
>
>
>>By Andrew Cawthorne
>>
>>LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's Prince Charles is throwing open his new London
>>mansion to give the public a rare glimpse of the lavish abode he will share
>>with his two sons and partner Camilla Parker Bowles.
>>
>>The 54-year-old heir-to-the-throne took up official residence at Clarence House
>>-- a cream-colored, five-story home built in the 1820s and occupied by the
>>Queen Mother for half a century until her death in 2002 -- earlier this week.
>>
>>Courtiers showed reporters round on Tuesday. And members of the public will be
>>allowed to take $8 tours from Wednesday, with 46,000 visitors expected over the
>>summer.
>>
>>
>>
>
><snipped>
>
>
>>Charles may also be keen to show how taxpayers' cash has been used -- 4.4
>>million pounds ($7.1 million) of the renovation came from the public purse,
>>while he stumped up 1.6 million.
>>
>>While some lamented the lessening of royal mystique, others said greater
>>transparency was the royals' duty.
>>
>>"They soak up a huge amount of public money. The number of houses that the
>>royals inhabit should be reduced and the rest should be opened fully to the
>>public," republican legislator Norman Baker said.
>>
>>"Visiting Sandringham or Buckingham Palace wouldn't be top of my list of things
>>to do, but it'd be nice to see where our money's being spent."
>>
>>
>
>This is ridiculous. The taxpayers PAID 7.1 million dollars for this
>54-year old man and his mistress to live in the lap of luxury, and
>then he charges THEM $8 a ticket to view it?
>
>Are the British nuts? I sometimes don't agree with how my taxes are
>spent, but at least it's on stuff that relates in some way to the
>national interest. This is pretty amazing, that the British put up
>with this.
>
>
It's not so much the way it is spent. As you said, our taxes go to
totally outrageous things, also (we just don't know about them until the
media publicizes them). It's the amount they have to fork over. If I
paid half my income to taxes, I'd be superpissed about it being spent
wastefully. But, truthfully, I think they are pissed. I was watching
ITV news, which is more like local news than BBC, and they made a huge
deal out of the fact that the taxpayers were billed that much and said
it may affect whether they are willing to help support the monarchy in
the future. It was also pointed out in the story that the public
actually owns the property Prince Charles is using and could kick him
out if they wished. In addition, I suppose they found out after the
fact--as we often do--what asshole things their taxes were used for.
When the news does those *your money* segments, I am often totally
outraged by them, but what can you do after Congress has already passed
the bill full of pork, or spent the money--march on Washington?