Queen Elizabeth II, 95, is now unlikely to ever move back to Buckingham Palace … and people have thoughts.
When the pandemic began, the British monarch moved full-time to one of her other residences, Windsor Castle (an hour’s drive from London). The Sunday Times revealed earlier this week that two years down the line, she’s not likely to spend a night again at Buckingham Palace.
The palace is undergoing a ten-year renovation, so its next occupants will likely be Prince Charles and his wife Camilla, with Charles next in line to the throne.
The Queen has long been known to favor her Windsor home. However, news she’s fully vacating Buckingham Palace comes in the same week that the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said Britons were welcome to house Ukraine refugees in their homes.
Related: Gay dating app asks users to help Ukrainians and is blown away by response
The war in Ukraine has prompted a humanitarian crisis, and 2.5million inhabitants of the country are now believed to have fled. Many LGBTQ citizens have had to flee to countries such as Hungary and Poland, which have both cracked down on LGBTQ rights in recent years.
The UK has been criticized for not taking many Ukrainian refugees compared to other European countries, and for making the visa process overly complicated for those fleeing the war. It’s estimated it has only issued 1,000 visas to those who already have family in the UK.
Johnson told Sky News the visa process would be simplified and extended in the coming days, and that “if people want to welcome [them] into their own homes, they can do so”.
Many people immediately offered the same solution.
775 rooms at Buckingham Palace apparently. Ideal opportunity to help address the refugee and housing crises? pic.twitter.com/WlNVcoSTUB
— Will Austin (@WillAustin1964) March 10, 2022
Here’s an idea. Now that the Queen has moved out of Buckingham Palace, perhaps some of its 775 rooms could be used to house #UkraineRefugees
— Sean Smith (@SeanSmithCeleb) March 10, 2022
#GMB the govt are asking us to open our homes for refugees are we starting with the MP’s second homes or perhaps the 775 rooms in Buckingham palace could help? @kategarraway @benshephard
— Patrick Maher (@patrickmaher85) March 11, 2022
Happy to offer my spare room, but maybe we could commandeer Buckingham Palace? No one’s using it 🤷🏼♀️ https://t.co/GM5WL0MYO3
— Violet (@VitriolicViolet) March 11, 2022
Royal Family’s contribution during Pandemic has been zilch. Said or done nothing to stop @BorisJohnson‘s slaughtering of his own people. An empty Buckingham Palace seems an ideal location for ma’am to contribute to helping Ukrainian refugees in their hour of need. Bet she doesn’t
— Matthew Payne (@Matthew82069336) March 11, 2022
There are 775 rooms in Buckingham Palace, and the Queen only uses *six* of those. That’s 769 rooms that could house refugees. Let’s see the Royal Family step up. How many politicians are putting up refugees in their empty second homes?https://t.co/vvE6FTpnHL
— 千卂丨乙卂几 (@f__tweets) March 11, 2022
BREAKING: As the prime minister asks the British public to open their homes to Ukrainian refugees, the Queen remains very fucking quiet about Buckingham Palace x
— Laura Kuenssberg Translator (@BBCLauraKT) March 11, 2022
Related: Prince Harry embraces his inner rhinestone cowboy and Gay Twitter™ approves
The Royal Family famously does not speak out on political issues, although they have made an exception over Ukraine. Prince Charles has called Russia’s attack on Ukraine “unconscionable” and met with refugees.
Prince William and his wife Kate visited a Ukrainian cultural center on Wednesday and William said, “Everyone is horrified by what they are seeing. It’s really horrifying.”
The Queen has not made any comment, but when she met with Canada’s Justin Trudeau earlier this week, she pointedly had a big vase of yellow and blue flowers in her room. A palace source said the choice of colors—the same of the Ukraine flag—was unlikely to be accidental.
Jim
Elizabeth Mountbatten and her progeny needs to quit the UK government teat.
Kangol2
True that. She’s very, very rich in her own right so she could stand to survive on her ample holdings, as is the case with her son, Charles, whose reign will probably mirror that of his ancestor Edward VII, who took over after his mother (Victoria) had reigned seemingly forever (60+ years). The Edwardian Era–9 years but significant ones–in Britain had some notable highlights, brief though it was.
Strange fact: Edward VII was related to numerous monarchs across Europe via his mother, father and siblings; one nephew was the horrid Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, who eventually launched a war against his uncle’s country (and those of other relatives as well)!
Cam
I love the phony Royal family P.R. they keep trying to put out that says they give the country way more than they cost because of tourism.
Funny, because France doesn’t have a royal family anymore and their castles etc. get even more tourism than the UK. These folks are leaches that provide nothing.
Justnanny
I think it should become a home for the homeless. The royal family gets no more welfare for their upkeep. Let them support their own worthless selves.
DuMaurier
Sure; just give the Queen back the Crown Estates, which her ancestors voluntarily turned over to the government in exchange for a fixed income known as the Civil List; she’d be way richer.
graphicjack
The tourism the family generates is not just from tours of their homes. They visit countries all over the world and promote tourism of those countries, as well as the UK in terms of people hoping to meet them or attend royal events. The senior members also do a lot of charitable work and the Queen in her 90s works harder than most people in their 30s. While, yes, they are very wealthy, and a lot of that wealth is through special privileges they get simply because they’re born royal, we also tend to forget that a lot of their trappings are actually not their property, but the state’s.
That being said, is there a ‘need’ for the royal family anymore? Not really… but I guess I figure they don’t really cause too much harm, unless of course they also happen to be assholes like Andrew or useless like extended family of the royals who aren’t required to do any charity work. I think Charles is hellbent on really trimming down which royals actually get publicly funded, so maybe there’s hope that just the immediate family gets money and the rest will need to shift for themselves.
Joshooeerr
All highly questionable. Tourists visit castles and stately homes. Nobody gets to meet a royal. Most never even get to glimpse one at a great distance. Royal events are attended by the same inner circle of hangers on. The “charities” they work so hard for are mostly phoney edifices in which 80% of the money raised is funnelled back into administrative costs, or are a thin cover for commercial enterprises (such as Charles various “Duchy” products). The whole thing is a giant scam. I’m constantly amazed that royalists can watch the regular royal scandals (this year it’s Andrew) and see them as anomalies, or revere the current queen – a woman who has spent 70 yers making speeches and never once said anything even vaguely interesting.
SFMike
It’s not surprising the UK isn’t taking in many refugees as they left the EU because “conservatives” didn’t want foreigners in their country. Don’t look to the right to value anything more than their own personal fortunes.
Fahd
It’s up to the people of the UK whether to remain a constitutional monarchy or not.
The British have exploited people around the world for centuries; the tough talk is nice, but yes taking in a fair share of Ukrainian refugees is definitely in order. Buckingham Palace will probably be a construction site during the remodeling, so that might not be the best place, but maybe they could find accommodation in some of Prince Charles’ many holdings in London and throughout the realm.
I hope Boris Johnson’s government does the right thing.
masteradrian031
In reaction to ALL the negative reactions against the Monarchy here I would like to know if these negativelings realsie that when the monarchy would be abandonded at this moment who’d be President……….
I bet they don’t like BORIS to be sitting in some high-payed for residency…….
With the monarchy gone there’s another head of state appointed or elected, and that one at this point in moment would be BORIS…… and also Presidents cost a lot of money, look at the costs of the French Presidency, the residencies to maintain, to entertain people…
Anyway, does anyone know how much money of tax-payers is going into maintaining the palaces, and how much they themselves put into the maintenance, the staff?
Boris as President….. I’d be running very fast from the island, I’d be swimming across the channel!
DCFarmboy
Live wherever you want, bitch. Just get your ass out of the north of Ireland.
jt1990
DCFarmboy is this how you people show respect to a 95 yo who is very kind and grandmotherly despite being a member of the Royal Family? Unlike you, she may not enjoy some gross ass man calling her ‘bitch’
Heywood Jablowme
I have no idea why Queerty is so obsessed with the monarchy, or ever writes about it at all, but the British did get rid of the monarchy once. They chopped the king’s head off and ended up with a “republic” led by a religious wacko dictator. Jeez, read some history!
I realize some of you live in an anarcho-syndicalist commune, like Dennis the Peasant.
winemaker
Of all the world leaders Queen Elizabeth II is one of our best ally’s. With all the turmoil today it’s great having this lady who has sat on the British throne longer that=n anyone other than Queen Victoria, who was another American ally. About time to give her the respect due instead of the worthless sub-human and disgusting communist chinese and the same can be said about the russians as well.
kevkev
Queen Elizabeth is the longest reigning British monarch ever. She surpassed her great-great grandmother, Queen Victoria, nearly seven years ago. She has reigned since the death of her father on 06 Feb 1952. Can’t wait for the whole Windsor clan to be nothing more than a memory.
trojanboy
Pointless, immoral, grasping tedious, unnattractive and pretty much all stupid (despite the opportunities they have had and the money spent on their education).
Poor Princess Diana married beneath her.
This family soap opera should have been cancelled very many seasons ago.