It has been reported that not only will King Charles stay at Clarence House rather than moving fully into Buckingham Palace but also, the Prince of Wales intends to remain at Windsor even when he becomes king.
Personally, I can’t help but wonder if this is a mistake. I’m sure that their PR advisors have found something appealing in the optics of kings favouring more homely options than the grand but austere palace. However, that may draw more attention to the surplus of properties at the Crown’s disposal. Further, if the tourists will stream to the Palace still, without expecting to get a glimpse of the monarch, then doesn’t that start to challenge the argument that the monarchy is necessary for tourism. People will travel to look at grand old buildings after all.
Most significantly, though, I think that there is something symbolic about the link between office and residence. It’s the idea that just like the Prime Minister, the King lives above the shop. He is resident and active at the heart of power.
This reminds me of the imagery in the Old Testament of the Tabernacle and Temple. Of course, God did not inhabit the temple as though he was contained by it. However, it was a bit more than symbolic initially. God made his manifest presence seen and felt there. However, as Israel rebelled, so God withdrew that manifest presence and the Temple became no more than a symbol.
I wonder too, if we as individuals and churches need to learn something from this. Are we content for our churches and our lives merely to symbolise God’s presence with us or are people able to see that he really is present, working in, for and through us?
Faithroots 