Buckingham Palace has long been the place where history is made.
As the symbolic seat of the British royal family, the stately building with gilded finishes and an imposing facade is one of the most recognisable in the world, a landmark as identifiable as the Louvre or the White House.
State banquets, jubilee celebrations, royal births and wedding receptions have all taken place in the London house, its balcony serving as the perfect stage for polite waves to the public and choreographed photo ops.
But for all its fame and grandeur, Buckingham Palace is not the cosiest place to live and, at times, it has even posed a risk to the very royals that call it home.
There was that winter in 2001 when pest control was called in after rodents were discovered in the Queen's kitchen.
Buckingham Palace tried to reassure the public there were only "very small numbers" of mice, but the unpleasant issue reared its head again years later when then-United States president Barack Obama had a run-in with one in his room during a visit.
A bigger scare occurred in 2007 when masonry on the outside of the building gave way, narrowly missing Princess Anne as she was getting into her car.
There have also been problems with asbestos, roof leaks and unsafe rubber cabling that could have caused "catastrophic" building failure.
Many of these issues are due to age. First built in the 1700s, Buckingham Palace has undergone dramatic face lifts over the centuries to keep it fit for purpose.
The latest round of restoration and re-servicing work, which began in 2017 at a cost of 369 million British pounds ($765 million), has ostensibly prevented King Charles and Queen Camilla from moving in.
Donald Trump won't be allowed to dine there for his "unprecedented" second state banquet in September for the same reason. The US president will instead join the monarch at Windsor Castle.
But when work is finally complete, it's not clear if King Charles, or his heir, Prince William, will ever make Buckingham Palace their home.
The younger royal is reportedly resolved to live elsewhere as king, a historic shift that raises questions about the future of Buckingham Palace and the type of monarchy the Windsors' hope to emulate going forward.
Like 'living above the shop'
Buckingham Palace has served as the official residence of sovereigns for 188 years, but it's never been a favourite home.
"Nearly no member of the royal family has ever enjoyed living at Buckingham Palace," said Giselle Bastin, a royal commentator from Flinders University.
"Its enormous proportions are not conducive to cosy family living; it's rather over the top in terms of its decoration and colour schemes; and, I imagine, it feels a little like 'living above the shop.'"
The large house was built for the Duke of Buckingham, where it gets its name, before it was acquired by King George III for his wife, Queen Charlotte, in 1761.
It underwent extensive remodelling in the 1830s to become a palace worthy of a king and queen.
But the sovereign at the time, King William IV, never moved in, preferring the much smaller Clarence House to the gaudy "Buck House".
The monarch even tried to offload the building to the UK parliament when it burned down, but he was knocked back by British MPs who thought it should remain in the royal family.
In July 1837, Queen Victoria became the first reigning monarch to make the palace a home, likely pleased by its distance from Kensington Palace, her controlling mother and her mother's 'adviser' John Conroy.
"In short, Buckingham Palace became the seat of the royal family because a much oppressed young woman ran away from home," Dr Bastin said.
In the years since, royals have complained the London house is cold, gloomy and not designed for modern living.
King George V still made a point of living there during World War I, as did his successor King George VI in World War II. And Queen Elizabeth kept the tradition, despite her preference for other royal houses.
Now it seems King Charles and his heir Prince William may decide to shake things up.
King Charles at Clarence House, Prince William moves to a lodge
It's long been rumoured the king, who is fond of his longtime home Clarence House, may not wish to live in Buckingham Palace.
British journalist and author Andrew Marr claimed in his 2011 book, The Diamond Queen: Elizabeth II and Her People, that the then-prince of Wales had considered making Windsor Castle in Berkshire the main royal residence when he became king.
"I know he is no fan of 'the big house', as he calls the palace," an unnamed source told the Times in 2017.
"He doesn't see it as a viable future home or a house that's fit for purpose in the modern world. He feels its upkeep, both from a cost and environmental perspective, is not sustainable."
King Charles's team previously dismissed the reports. And royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliam told the AFP last week that "it is the intention of King Charles and Queen Camilla to do so [move to Buckingham Palace]".
"Although given that he is battling cancer, this may well not happen," he said.
Dr Bastin says it's "significant" that King Charles has opted not to move from Clarence House into the private quarters of Buckingham Palace since his coronation.
"[When she became queen], Elizabeth and Philip had wanted to stay at Clarence House, but [Winston] Churchill did not think it appropriate that the sovereign remain at Clarence House while her widowed mother stayed on at Buckingham Palace," she said.
"Unlike his mother, [Charles is] old enough to stand his ground and not be bossed around by any prime minister. I can't see him swapping Clarence House for Buckingham Palace."
If the royal residence were to change under King Charles, the move would likely have the backing of Prince William.
Last week, it was revealed the Prince of Wales and his wife will relocate to Forest Lodge in Windsor Great Park with their three children; Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis.
While the move itself is not that remarkable, multiple UK outlets have reported the royal couple see this as a shift "for the long-term" and view Forest Lodge as their "forever home".
"It will be where they plan to live as a family when the Prince and Princess of Wales become King and Queen," the BBC reported.
The decision is "further proof that [William] is someone who doesn't adhere to convention", according to Dr Bastin, and is reminiscent of King George V's preference for his beloved York Cottage on the Sandringham Estate.
"Many visitors to York Cottage were struck by how modest and unfussy [it] was compared to other grander royal residences," she said.
"But George and Mary liked the small scale of it, liked living on the Sandringham Estate surrounded by countryside rather than in London.
"I suspect that William and Catherine are drawn to Forest Lodge for many of the same reasons.
"Living on the Windsor estate will give them the chance to raise their young family with a higher degree of privacy and 'calm', and offer a much clearer separation between their official duties and their home life."
Could this be a shift towards Europe's bicycling monarchies?
The eight-bedroom Forest Lodge is bigger than the Wales's current home at Adelaide Cottage, a four-bedroom home located on the Windsor Castle grounds, but it's smaller than Clarence House and other royal residences.
Valued at 16 million British pounds, the house is also on the cheaper end of the royals' real estate portfolio.
As such, the move also seems to be a symbolic one, in line with Prince William's vow last year to rule with humility.
Some commentators also believe it's a sign that the heir could one day join the modest ranks of Scandinavia's "bicycling monarchies".
The term has come to characterise a more informal style of royalty with a flatter structure and fewer working royals, popular in countries where people "bicycle often".
Dr Bastin said it's unlikely Prince William's change of residence is a significant step in this direction, particularly given the "bicycling monarchies" of Scandinavia tend to live in palaces.
"Tiaras and tricycles can still exist together," she added.
But if King Charles and Prince William were to live elsewhere, what would the future of Buckingham Palace be if it's not the main residence of the royal family?
From a 'monarchy HQ' to a tourist hotspot
While Buckingham Palace's days as a home to royals appear to be numbered, there are myriad other ways it could be used.
Royal insiders have previously told the Times that King Charles had considered turning it into a businesslike "monarchy HQ", where the monarch would continue to host state occasions and diplomatic receptions.
The king's private office and communications team could also be set up there, the insiders said. Buckingham Palace could then be opened to the public on a larger scale or turned into a museum.
Last year, the London house's newly re-serviced East Wing was opened to visitors for the first time with 75 British pound ($155) guided tours run throughout July and August. It was viewed as part of a broader ambition to make royal residences more open to the public.
But plans to modernise the traditional ways of the monarchy will undeniably spark some backlash.
"It would be a disaster if Buckingham Palace were sidelined," Fitzwilliams told AFP.
"It is an iconic building, comparable only to the White House and known worldwide."
With a multi-million-dollar makeover still underway, concerns about the fate of Buckingham Palace once its complete may hold greater weight.
