King Charles Skips Living in Buckingham Palace After £369M Refurbishment

Is the palace's shake-up a bold modernization of the monarchy or a costly betrayal of public trust?
King Charles Skips Living in Buckingham Palace After £369M Refurbishment
Above: King Charles III and Queen Camilla arrive at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, on April 27, 2026, for their State Visit to the United States. Image credit: Chip Somodevilla/Staff/Getty Images

The Facts

  • King Charles III and Queen Camilla will not move into Buckingham Palace after the completion of a decade-long, £369 million ($487 million) refurbishment project, instead remaining at Clarence House as their London home for the duration of his reign.
  • The refurbishment, which began in 2017, replaced ageing electrical wiring, lead pipes and boilers — many untouched since the 1950s — to reduce fire and flood risk, with the project due to be completed in March.
  • The expectation was that the king would return to live at Buckingham Palace, a tradition observed since Queen Victoria's time. However, security concerns also influence this decision, as the king's presence at the palace could restrict visitor access.

Sources Split


The Spin


Narrative A

King Charles choosing to stay at Clarence House instead of Buckingham Palace is a smart, forward-thinking move that puts public benefit first. Opening the palace to more visitors year-round maximizes a nationally funded landmark for everyone, not just the royals.

Narrative B

Taxpayers just spent £369 million renovating Buckingham Palace and now King Charles will never live there again — that's a staggering waste of public money with no real accountability. The palace must be fully open year-round with all ticket revenue going back to the Treasury.


Metaculus Prediction


© 2026 Improve the News Foundation. All rights reserved.Version 7.17.1

© 2026 Improve the News Foundation.

All rights reserved.

Version 7.17.1