Now Prince Philip is retiring, no one will spend much time at Buckingham Palace – so why not give it to the people?

Now that the Duke of Edinburgh is to retire, who will live in Buckingham Palace? Can we really expect a 91-year-old woman to spend her nights alone in a vast mausoleum? Neither the Duke nor the Queen enjoys staying there, and after stepping down from official duties in November, Prince Philip will divide his time between Windsor Castle and Sandringham.

Queen Victoria complained the place was unsuitable for a family, and Prince Charles isn’t a fan either. Why not relieve the royals of the burden? A report in 2015 estimated that the restoration of Buckingham Palace would cost £150m, and take 10 years – but there’s another solution.

Back in 2001, architect Sir Terry Farrell made a Channel 4 documentary proposing that the palace was opened up to the public. His scheme involved tearing down the surrounding walls and creating a new public piazza.

Farrell called the buildings “hostile” and the architecture “bland”. The Edwardian additions to the main building could be stripped away, and it could be repurposed as a tourist attraction. Or why not move Parliament into the palace and turn Pugin and Barry’s masterpiece by the Thames into a brilliant theme park, restored by a luxury hotel group?

At the moment, repairs to the Parliament buildings will cost over £3.5bn of public funds. Having visited Buckingham Palace on several occasions (lovely staff, shame about the horrible 1950s electric fires), I can confidently say that it’s clear this is no place to call home – even if you’re the Queen. It’s much more suited to large-scale events, weddings and offices. Why not put luxury brands on the ground floor? It would make the perfect Visit Britain shopping mall. It could also house the royal household’s ceremonial costumes, so that the proposed mega-basement under the listed Orangery in Kensington Gardens could be scrapped.