LONDON, United Kingdom (AFP) — The decision by King Charles and Queen Camilla not to live at Buckingham Palace once a costly, 10- year refurbishment is complete has raised questions about the future of this emblem of the British monarchy and stirred criticism.

The central London palace — one of the world’s most recognizable buildings — has served as the official residence of UK sovereigns since 1837, when Queen Victoria began her more than six-decade reign.

The royal family’s recent history has been intrinsically linked with the imposing 755-room residence overlooking The Mall.

King George VI and Queen Elizabeth continued to live there during World War II, while Charles was born in Buckingham Palace in November 1948.

From war victory celebrations and post-wedding kisses to annual birthday appearances, its balcony has provided a stage for some of the monarchy’s most memorable — and photographed — moments in recent history.

However, in an announcement Thursday alongside the release of annual royal finances, Charles and Camilla said they will remain living at nearby Clarence House once a £369-million ($488-million) palace renovation project ends next year.

The couple have lived at Clarence House since they married in 2005.

“His Majesty retains huge affection for Buckingham Palace and a deep respect for its role in royal and public life,” a palace spokesperson said.

“It will be a buzzing hive of royal activity in every other way,” the spokesperson added, insisting it would continue as “the ceremonial and operational center of royal life.”

The decision not to move to Buckingham Palace has drawn rebukes.

“Why invest in this significant renovation paid for by the British taxpayer, if ultimately the king and queen are not going to use it as their official residence?” asked royal expert Ed Owens.

The decade-spanning works have involved replacing boilers, electrical cables and pipes to reduce fire and flood risks. It is due to be completed next March.

“It’s difficult to justify them not living there,” Owens told Agence France-Presse.

Britain’s tabloids appeared equally unimpressed.

“Big bucks for an empty home,” the Daily Mirror splashed across its front page. The Daily Express opted for: “A palace not fit for a king!”

“Abandoning Buckingham Palace was unthinkable for previous monarchs,” The Sun argued, reminding readers that late king George VI and his wife, queen Elizabeth had stayed on during WWII’s Blitz when it was bombed nine times by the Germans.