Buckingham Houses of Parliament?

[alt_historian]

I was watching a TV show earlier which mentioned the 1834 fire in the Houses of Parliament, which destroyed much of the existing interior (though the roof was saved due to heroic work by firefighters).

As we know, they were eventually re-fitted/re-built. However, it was mentioned that the king of the day, William IV, tried to get rid of Buckingham House (as it was then known), due to increasingly expensive refits going on at the time. He did so by seizing the opportunity, and offering the royal residence as a new home for the Houses of Parliament, given the extent of the fire damage in the Palace of Westminster.

The programme made it clear that the government of the day politely, but firmly, refused, feeling that the structure was far too large for Parliament (thoug it would certainly have plenty of accommodation - no more absentee MPs), and included far too much room for the public to spectate. Keep Parliament small and exclusive, was the idea - we all know the trouble they had over in France when the plabs were allowed to get too involved...


So. What if the government had accepted the idea, and moved to Buckingham House?

What sort of difference could this have made, in terms of: public participation; MPs' responsiveness to public opinion; the image of Parliamentary government in Britain; any other issues?


PS: I'm not sure whether they said/speculated on where, exactly, each House would go in the existing building of the day, or where MPs might be housed, have offices, etc. Others here will know much better than I how it could all be arranged.

 

[Thande]

I've heard this before as well. Would certainly be a "whoa" moment for anyone visiting from OTL, but otherwise I'm not sure if there would be much effect. Good point that it meant that all the MPs would be able to sit at once comfortably though (something which Wellington and Churchill specifically told them to avoid when they successively rebuilt the House of Commons).

 

[maverick]

We might have to look through ridiculously close parliament votes that could be affected by the presence of the absentee MPs who were absent IOTL...or just imagine/make up the effects...

"MP X of Y dies because he was stumped by a horse on his way to Parliament, which wouldn't have happened had Parliament remained at Westminster" or the opposite

 

[V-J]

This is absolutely impossible to gauge to any real extent, but it would certainly have given the 'feel' of British politics a much different edge. The gothic revivalism of Westminster was self-consciously archaic and was designed to impress the history of the institutions. An awful lot different from Buck House's much more 'modern' neo-classicism. As I recall one of the reasons that the offer was declined by Parliament was precisely because of neo-classicism's 'foreign' and 'liberal' connotations.

 

[Falastur]

We might have to look through ridiculously close parliament votes that could be affected by the presence of the absentee MPs who were absent IOTL...or just imagine/make up the effects...

"MP X of Y dies because he was stumped by a horse on his way to Parliament, which wouldn't have happened had Parliament remained at Westminster" or the opposite

The thing is, having lodgings on-site won't absolve MPs from their duty to return regularly to their constituencies to be active in the area they represent. I can't see many times when votes will be affected because MPs failed to traveling from their London house; I think the vast majority of close votes would be because MPs never intended to attend the vote, because they were away on official business - something which a lot of MPs are criticised by the British public for not doing enough anyway. In fact this is part of the Parliamentary strategy in the House of Commons. The Tories and Labour often release unpopular bills into Parliament when they know the opposition parties are too weak to vote them down. This is something that won't change IMO. If you had to push me one way or the other I'd say it would actually encourage higher attendance at Parliament in the middle term, resulting in a greater disenchantment with MPs' responsibilities by the electorate and resulting in Parliament being forced to pass a bill requiring MPs to spend a certain amount of time away from the House of Commons, attending to the needs of their constituents. If anything I'd say the long-term effect would be higher absenteeism.

 

[Thande]

This is absolutely impossible to gauge to any real extent, but it would certainly have given the 'feel' of British politics a much different edge. The gothic revivalism of Westminster was self-consciously archaic and was designed to impress the history of the institutions. An awful lot different from Buck House's much more 'modern' neo-classicism. As I recall one of the reasons that the offer was declined by Parliament was precisely because of neo-classicism's 'foreign' and 'liberal' connotations.

We should remember that Buckingham House was redesigned several times between then and now. At the time we're talking about, it looked like this. Note the presence of Marble Arch, which was later moved to make way for an extension.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:B...ablot_Browne_&_R.Garland_publ_1837_edited.jpg

 

[Tyr]

Gives us plenty of space for the imperial parliament at least. (hey, butterflies could happen )

Where would the monarchy live here? St.James is a bit....unbefitting for a modern monarch of such stature.

 

[The Professor]

Gives us plenty of space for the imperial parliament at least. (hey, butterflies could happen )

Where would the monarchy live here? St.James is a bit....unbefitting for a modern monarch of such stature.

I'd guess that Marlborough House would be purchased and St James extended to there. Extensions to what in OTL are Lancaster House and Clarence House are also possible.

 

[Dan1988]

Where would the monarchy live here? St.James is a bit....unbefitting for a modern monarch of such stature.

Kensington Palace, perhaps?

 

[alt_historian]

I've heard this before as well. Would certainly be a "whoa" moment for anyone visiting from OTL, but otherwise I'm not sure if there would be much effect. Good point that it meant that all the MPs would be able to sit at once comfortably though (something which Wellington and Churchill specifically told them to avoid when they successively rebuilt the House of Commons).

OK (and thanks to others for comment).

So, where might each house actually sit?

Would it still be the same adversarial setup? I know when the Commons chamber was rebuilt after WWII (as you obliquely refer to), it was suggested to make it a Continental-style circular or semi-circular chamber. Are there any large rooms like that in Buck House, or were there at the time? Some kind of built-in theatre maybe

Seriously, I've never actually been, I don't know what the rooms inside are like apart from what I've seen in films/TV, which is likely to actually be somewhere else standing in for it.

 

[Dan1988]

Would it still be the same adversarial setup? I know when the Commons chamber was rebuilt after WWII (as you obliquely refer to), it was suggested to make it a Continental-style circular or semi-circular chamber. Are there any large rooms like that in Buck House, or were there at the time? Some kind of built-in theatre maybe

Seriously, I've never actually been, I don't know what the rooms inside are like apart from what I've seen in films/TV, which is likely to actually be somewhere else standing in for it.

IIRC some Canadian provincial legislatures and the Australian House of Representatives use the semi-circular (actually more U-shaped) arrangement. The semi-circular arrangement does have one advantage - if the Government needs extra seats, they can just put people on the curves!

Other than that, looking at a floorplan of the OTL Buckingham Palace:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plan_of_Buckingham_palace.gif
and it seems like one could use the drawing rooms for both the Lords and the Commons, plus the Parliamentary Library and space for the JCPC. The Throne Room itself could be where the King/Queen makes the Speech from the Throne, among other functions. Imagine this as the Lords chamber: