Is Buckingham Palace just a big railway station filled with Royals? - National Post

The BBC, in an odd bit of "celebrating" the Queen's diamond jubilee, questions whether Buckingham palace is just a big ugly building.

And it concludes that, yes, it is pretty ugly. Or maybe just dull. Or Victorian (which is generally not considered a compliment).

According to architectural critic and writer Jonathan Glancey, whom it quotes, "Sir Aston Webb's monumental Neo-Classical facade, completed in 1913, was – and remains – very dull indeed, a kind of huge provincial Edwardian bank with the interior of a railway hotel blown out of proportion."

Adds Ingrid Seward, editor of Majesty Magazine:

"It's a workplace. Being the official head of state's residence, it's a very big, formal, draughty place with a lot of mahogany wardrobes. It's like a huge hotel. Not remotely cozy or a home by any means."

Phew. The good news is that it apparently doesn't matter, because none of the Royals ever go there much. Never have.  George IV stayed away from London to avoid the rabble, Victoria spent most of her time somewhere else, Edward VII spent a lot of money trying to fix the place up but preferred spending his time at Sandringham, Biarritz, Cowes, Balmoral and Marienbad. And Queen Elizabeth heads to Windsor every weekend.

So why keep the place? Well, tourists like it, and it's handy for celebrating weddings, jubilees, new babies and that sort of thing. Also convenient for garden parties and mingling with the little people. And the tours help pay the bills.

Plus, where else to keep the servants? According to the BBC, the palace contains 92 offices, 188 staff bedrooms, 78 bathrooms, 19 State rooms and 52 royal and guest bedrooms.

National Post

PS: Nobody wants to say so, but with all those rooms, it's probably pretty easy to avoid running into certain tedious princes who are still hanging around waiting to be king, if you get my drift.