Why was £369m spent if King Charles isn’t going to live at Buckingham Palace?

A royal expert has explained why was £369 million spent if King Charles is not going to live at Buckingham Palace after its 10-year refurbishment finishes next year.

Taking to X, formerly Twitter handle, royal expert Victoria Arbiter has disclosed the reason after officials said King Charles will not live at Palace after its 10-year refurbishment finishes next year.

As per the details, the monarch’s decision not to live at Palace and remain at Clarence House, his longstanding London home nearby, comes ahead of the completion next year of a £369 million ($487 million) refurbishment.

When work started in 2017, officials had expected the palace to remain the monarch's primary London residence, as it had been since Queen ⁠Victoria became sovereign in 1837.

The royal expert tweeted “why was £369m spent if the King isn’t going to live at BP? It’s really quite simple: he wasn’t having his house done up. The Monarchy’s HQs is being made fit for purpose in the 21st Century - wiring, electrics, plumbing, asbestos etc most of which hasn’t been touched in eons.”

James Chalmers, monarch’s treasurer, known as the Keeper of the Privy Purse, said palace would remain the primary venue for ceremonial and official functions including hosting state visits.

"It is and will remain 'monarchy HQ', the crown jewel of our national buildings, with the sovereign’s standard flying proudly from the roof whenever His Majesty is in London," he told reporters.