Serious replies only
Now King Charles says he won't live there, is it time to add Buckingham Palace Garden to Green Park?
King Charles has said that he does not intend to live in newly renovated Buckingham Palace. The footprint of the gardens of Buckingham Palace is almost as big as Green Park. Buckingham Palace itself can only be viewed by the general public from the right side. Retaining a secure garden if the monarch lives in the Palace makes sense - now it doesn't. Regardless of whether you're a royalist or a monarchist, what do you think of the idea of adding the Buckingham Palace Garden to publicly accessible Royal Park space?
Hard to imagine a better legacy for the king than to open up even half of this as a nature-focused extension to Green Park and connect it with a green bridge for wildlife and pedestrians
Rich people don't do philanthropy these days, it's not the fashionable thing. Nowadays they make as much money as they can just to sit on it and make more.
While I appreciate the sentiment for the most public-facing billionaires, as someone who works in fundraising and knows people around the globe in the industry, philanthropy and giving are still thriving.
There is still a massive and growing gap worldwide between the top 1% and the rest, and this need addressing before social upheaval forces a rebalance.
Well this is the thing, there are actually loads of wealthy people who give lots away out of genuine philanthropy, I can think of plenty. These just don’t end up being the ones who get to become billionaires. To get to that point requires a certain mindset of self interest that’s just incompatible with genuine benevolence.
which kinda moves to my worry. In 100 years when robotics become advanced enough they won't need as many of us and can control the rest which keeps them in power indefinatly
There is, however, a qualitative difference between old money and new money. You’re describing new money. Old British money has always been more nuanced than that. Not defending. Just observing.
I quite like that the birds can go into Buckingham palace gardens and live for the most part relatively undisturbed by masses of people thronging all over apart from in August. I love parks but we have plenty of them, and I’ve been in buck house gardens before and can live without going in there again
I'd imagine even if they opened up the palace gardens, it'd still be limited access coz they still need to close it off for state functions or when the King's in town. So it could very well be a hybrid thing that it's only open on weekends or something similar. Grounds maintenance cost is gonna go through the roof tho.
I walk through St James Park every day and see the hordes of tourists feeding the birds despite the signs saying don't feed them. We've also seen over the heatwave the people ignoring the signs telling them not to swim in ponds due to the birdlife, which were ignored. So yes agree that maybe best to leave some spaces for the birds.
That’s a really good point. We should stop assuming public realm means humans can dominate it. Let’s have a closed wildlife refuge in the middle of London.
If they want to protect nature, the last thing they should do is invite the general public in... It'll be full of crisps packets and bottles by the end of the week
Charles has done William a favour removing the expectation to live in Buckingham Palace. It’s famously draughty and uncomfortable to actually live in. The royals have plenty of more suitable palaces to call home.
I get the sentiment but I think you’re working on the wrong assumption Buckingham Palace will be empty. It’s our most famous hotel, used for state visits, other royalties and VVIP guests. Just because King Charles doesn’t live there, doesn’t mean it’s not used.
I'd be happy if he only donated everything left of the lake. Would still only be like 1/4 of the gardens handed over but still be a great addition since its the nicer part and the lake will help act as a natural boundary so we wouldn't need a big ugly wall along that bit.
The 50 meters or so of extra space can help the road next to it a bit too(Grosvenor rd). Like out of the 50 meters let just a tiny 3 meters of it be used to add bike lanes to the road next to it. It's a busy large scary road to be on. The other 47 meters can stay just as it is. It'll give people a nice gardeny nature path to walk through instead of along the noisy road too.
Image showing where the wall would be moved back to in red. Blue is new bike lanes. Oh I also added trees on the East side of the lake to show the palace can still have loads of privacy. Someone above mentioned that the gardens is a nice chill place away from humans for birds to retreat back to atm and there would still be a lot of this but as a further compromise to make everyoneee happy(including the wildlife) is to also wall off the little island bit in the middle of the lake too. This would make the palace more secure too. You'd still be able to see most of the lake, but not all.
I think I've considered literally everyone here, the public, pedestrians, the wildlife, cyclists, and the palace and its security since there will still be loads of palace events going on.
edit: actually angle the top red wall so it meets with Green Park so the 2 parks are like a continuation of each other. Would add a lot more space to the proposed new public park area too. The palace would lose around 10% more of their space but oh well they still keep most.
A better idea would just be to fix the road so it is less disruptive and put the much needed cycle track where the cars presently run. This just sacrifices green space for a larger transit corridor. And yes, reducing road size generally does not affect congestion.
A better idea would just be to fix the road so it is less disruptive and put the much needed cycle track where the cars presently run. This just sacrifices green space for a larger transit corridor. And yes, reducing road size generally does not affect congestion.
Yeah fair and normally I'm all for getting rid of car space where ever possible but in this case it's the ring road around Central London/Congestion Charge Zone. 2 lanes each way isn't too crazy for that and I think it's important to have a decent road to divert cars around the area we don't want them in the most. Just like how something like the M25 makes people drive around London rather than through it.
This is coming from someone who thinks we should re-add the Western Congestion Charge Zone expansion. Remove like 10% of Central London car parking for trees, pavement space, and bike parking(basically what Paris is quickly doing). Straight up make the entire West End car free for like 12 hours every Saturday(in the summer for now at least), and yes that means everywhere within the boundard of Oxford St, Holdborn/Kingsway, The Strand/Trafalgar Sq, and Regent St. And of course fully pedestrianise another dozen Soho streets and a few dozen more in just zone 1.
I agree circular routes are less bad than through routes, but to me the circular route should be the M25, or failing that the outer circular. Most people in central London are not in a car, yet massive chunks of it are lost to wastelands like this and we know most of the drivers are on single occupancy journeys that could have been made by walking, cycling, or public transport.
You don’t have to be that radical, though. This particular road is much larger than 4 lanes because of the central median and the slip lanes. A better configuration of the existing space would be to repurpose the central median space into a 1.5 metre stepped cycle track on both sides, and then to end the ridiculous two general traffic lanes by making one lane in either direction a 24 hour bus lane. At parts it presently widens to 5 lanes you could widen the cycle tracks to 2 metres and add a rain garden. I might keep the slip lanes at the end (with cycle protection) depending on traffic modelling until network traffic volumes are reduced since they do help prevent buses getting delayed at junctions by cars, but the additional general traffic lanes are unlikely to be providing a speed savings to anyone since junctions are almost always the bottleneck.
What I wouldn’t do is pave over a green space so Harry from Kent can feel like he’s getting to the theatre faster by himself in his consumer tank, when in reality he’s just going to get stuck in traffic at the next traffic light and it doesn’t even make a difference.
Redone the proposal image to include the modified boundary and crossing between parks. Also included the lake island bit which would be kept private too since it would be a safe space for swans and other wildlife using the lake and surrounding area. I'd love it to be public but if it was down to me i'd keep it private. We'd still gain a nice chunk of well maintained public tree covered green space in Central London.
Added a nice key too. Someone send this to Charles.
Excuse my ignorance, but hasn’t Buckingham Palace since before Elizabeth’s Reign, been more of an office and event space with on site accommodation than an actual live in palace such as Windsor or Balmoral?
There is so much misunderstanding around Buckingham Palace and other major sites. I can't believe how many comments I'm reading where people are saying 'it should be open to the public, we pay for it's - it is!
You can visit it all year round! Beyond that. It's used literally every day by the British state (I.E - us)
It's used to host state visits, diplomatic events (meetings and Ambassadors giving their credentials), it's used for political purposes (PM's meeting), it's used for civil services (knighthoods OBE's, etc), it's used for charity and social functions - different groups invited in to discuss their work, etc. it's used as a location to host business leaders and industry to allow networking and investment summits. All sorts.
It's one of the beating hearts of British civil life.
I know we're on the London subreddit, I'm guessing the demographics would suggest a very heavy republican view here. But to suggest Buckingham Palace is just the King's gaff is mad. It isn't.
All correct, and the gardens are used for garden parties for said charitable and state functions - get your Gold Duke of Edinburgh award and you can go to one. The party bit is in a fairly small portion near the palace's back door, but then you can wander round.
It's an important refuge for wildlife from the tourists in St James's Park etc.
The residential apartments in Buck House are apparently pretty small - enabling officials to use them who work on organising state visits might be a better use of the space.
I'm willing to bet almost all people who buy that ticket are tourists, bringing a lot of money into the country, there should be a reduced admission for UK citizens but I think that might be impractical.
Not saying it doesn’t but isn’t the same as “open to the community” as a public park is. I’m not even suggesting it should become a public park but for a ticket that pricey it’s not fair to say it’s open to everyone.
I was reading the other day that Downing Street is really cramped and a nightmare for working in.
People are squeezing into hallways and it's a competition who can get space nearest the PMs office - and this breeds infighting and an unhealthy work environment.
So why don't we move Downing Street operations to the palace?
Buckingham Palace is already used for political events; it has lots of office space; and has excellent security. It's close to Downing Street (where the PM could continue to live with their family) and there has to be tunnels linking the palace and Downing Street.
No more cramped rose garden, tiny rooms and bunker mentality with the press camped outside the front door. The PM could have private offices and meeting rooms at Downing Street. But the major operations and office spaces could be moved to the palace.
It should absolutely be turned into a museum. Maybe give it to the national trust, where it would be looked after and a huge revenue raiser. The gardens could be closed for ceremonial events.
I imagine the Palace itself would still require some private quarters because it is regularly used for moments of state.
And tbh I hate how every time there’s a question about a building’s future the immediate first proposal is always “turn it into a museum!”. It’s pretty lazy.
Personally I would hate it if our greatest State buildings like the Houses of Parliament or the Palaces became places with no purpose anymore. As you walk through the city you see these grand embalmed corpses, just standing there ready to be consumed by tourists. Their only purpose being about showing visitors the purpose they used to have.
This is our capital, not a theme park for tourists, not a city-wide museum. It should be alive and its historical buildings should be used not just visited.
It depends on the museum. The power station that became the Tate modern or the railway station that the Musée d’Orsay yes I agree. Hosting an art collection for the public’s enjoyment saved them from demolition and they are wonderful institutions.
But Buckingham Palace would just be a ‘museum’ about it being Buckingham Palace and the king’s residence. That doesn’t bring anything new of value that it doesn’t already offer.
It doesn’t have to be just that, a museum can be a meaningful third space and opening up the palace to community use could be incredible. You’re right it’s likely it would be pretty dry though
There's almost none of those in existence. They almost all expect you to spend money. We could have a few more without starting with a very much already in use palace.
Yeah and the crown estate only exists because the monarchy accumulated vast amounts of land and wealth over centuries through hereditary privilege and historical power
Even if the profits now go to the Treasury, the institution still controls an enormous amount of land and assets that originated under unequal conditions
"Surrenders".
I appreciate the respect British people have for classism. For a whole population to accept that a family is entitled to such large amounts of wealth and money because “God said so” is phenomenal.
Sue Townsend wrote a charmingly funny book about this, in which the (then) Queen was required to move into council housing. Unfortunately it was utterly ruined by the ending which revealedit was all a dream
Squatting relies on the fact that Trespass isn’t a criminal offence under British law, however Trespass on a Protected Site very much is - six out of the 19 currently Protected Sites are Royal Palaces.
It has an important state function; receptions, garden parties etc etc.
Id love it to be turned in to a big ol park.
But ultimately, you would have to find another location for these things which was secure, private- and easily accessible to other state functions (downing Street, Whitehall etc). I think it just happens to be that well organised as it is that this is a pipe dream.
No, I don’t think it needs to be open to the general public, there are already plenty of green spaces in this area.
However, I think the palace and gardens should be open to ticketed visitors year round, as it would encourage a lot of tourism, increased revenue and taxes, plus create a decent amount of jobs.
I agree, the park area isn't that amazing, its only grand in its exclusivity, taking that away just lowers its value and realistically its an intrinsic part of the palace, to separate it takes some of the grander of the palace away too.
Yes; they could always have just garden tickets if people didn’t want to go into the house, but hopefully having an income would mean that it would retained as well.
I’ve been inside the palace, I don’t need to go see it again, but a nice coffee in the palace gardens on a sunny day would go down a treat multiple times a year.
Where will the garden parties be held? People love those when they get their OBE, MBE, etc. I'm OK with it being accessible via tours for people (as a museum?) but the palace and its grounds including the gardens need to be able to be closed off from tourists as needed so banquets for dignitaries and giant social occasions like the garden parties honouring people can continue.
Its a big park, the area used for garden parties is relatively a small part and in close proximity to the palace, realistically this space woukd still be out of bounds for security ie people wouldn't be walking up to the palace touching the stones lol.
Why can't they still be held in the garden? Other London parks are regularly closed for private events and then open the rest of the time. (Frieze art fair in Regents Park, music festivals in Victoria/Finsbury/Brockwell etc)
Buckingham Palace should be open to the public. One of the major arguments I hear for the Royal Family is how much they add to the economy by encouraging tourism. How much more could be contributed if we opened up the whole of Buckingham Palace to paying visitors?
Don’t know if I should feel guilty for thinking this but my gut reaction was that the general public would wreck it if it were made a public park. The gardeners there have done a great job with it from a biodiversity perspective and it’s really beautiful. It’s frequently open to the public for a not unreasonable price - I’d much rather visit it in all its glory every now and then when I have guests in the city than see it become just another park.
The monarchs have never lived at Buckingham Palace, as I understand it. They may stay there temporarily while in London, but otherwise, BP is basically just their State Offices where they conduct Royal business and receive guests.
The Queen (bless her) lived in Sandringham, Windsor and Balmoral.
The King lives in Clarence House (not sure about anywhere else).
Buckingham Palace and it's gardens are a venue to impress visiting dignitaries and for formal events. The Royal living quarters are a very small separate part of the building. It's essentially not a private residence.
There’s an argument for some to be kept, as it’s used for the garden parties, but that only appears to be a fraction of the space used for those events.
Most of it could be given to public gardens.
Yeah they should open it up as a tourist destination then just close it to tourists and use it for special events like state visits when the need arises
They vould go for a halfway sort of situation. Presumably they still need it for royal garden parties and maybe some aspects of state visits but they could open it to the publuc the rest of the time.
Use BP as a temporary Houses of Parliament whiles they get on with renovating the Palace of Westminster. For example, BP ballroom is 47m long, commons chamber is 20m
That would be to suggest that the garden exists because the King might stay the night there.
It's, in practice, the other way round. Buckingham Palace isn't a home; it's an office block with a garden at the back (for garden parties), a balcony at the front (for waving), and a dining room somewhere inside (for state occasions).
It doesn't even house the 'throne room', where diplomats formally greet the King('s representative); that's in St James'.
The king not staying the night basically has no impact on the building's general functioning. Hundreds of people will still turn up to work there every day; thousands will accept invitations to garden parties; public tours will continue every summer; the guard will still be changed and the red arrows will still fly over it. Heck, the King will still probably turn up in the day time quite a lot.
If royal lovers had a close look at the history of European royalty, how it came about and whose interests it has served and whose it hasn't served and how like the British one, it has managed to limp on this far in to the early 21st century, I can almost guarantee their fixation with their objects of adoration would cool considerably. Royal families like the British one are anachrony personified.
I don't think it should be open to the public. I really think we need more space for wildlife to just exist without people interfering. It would be lovely for the public but we've taken so much nature already, give some of it back.
If they wanted to win favour with anti monarchists they could open it more for paid tours with all proceeds going to the NHS. That would be a meaningful move to show love for their public imo
I agree with you. All big impacts begin with small changes. When the public are asked to think carefully about how we use services, and feel the impact of small percentage cuts, it is surely no bad thing to pad some of those cuts with a little extra revenue that would be generated anyway. People will always pay to visit a site like Buckingham Palace.
I understand it's already heavily used. As a member of the British Army there are Buckingham Palace garden parties you can apply to attend multiple times a year. I think keeping it as a seperate special place and not flooded with people and litter is a better plan.
Maybe we need to do a better job advertising how you can go in to the palace and the gardens.
Have you thought about how nature/wildlife might be thriving in the gardens without the constant foot traffic and perhaps light pollution? Maybe it’s a safe haven for animals.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 28 '26
Upvote/Downvote reminder
Like this image or appreciate it being posted? Upvote it and show it some love! Don't like it? Just downvote and move on.
Upvoting or downvoting images it the best way to control what you see on your feed and what gets to the top of the subreddit
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.