I read with interest a BBC article about Lord Rogers’ anger with Prince Charles for an apparent intervention into an architectural tendering process for Chelsea Barracks. He alleges abuse of position which calls into question the constitutional position of the Monarchy. Kind of an overreaction one might have thought, from a man surely aware of the undemocratic vagaries of planning processes.
Having only a fragmentary knowledge of architecture I did a bit of looking round and found, lo and behold, that Rogers A) is one of NuLab’s favourite architects, B) was responsible for the Pompidou centre (knew I knew him from somewhere; the only good thing about the PC I understand is that it is in Paris, and mercifully remarkably well hidden), and C) had a long-term feud going on with the classical architect, Lady Thatcher’s favourite, Quinlan Terry. According to Roger Scruton, “No one has been more malicious in the attempt to deprive Terry of work than the great guru of modernism, Richard Rogers”, and “When at last Terry fought his way through to a public commission in London — the new infirmary at the much-loved Royal Hospital in Chelsea — and had obtained all the necessary consents, Rogers had the impertinence to write to the Deputy Prime Minister asking him to call in the plans.”
Let’s be clear about this: Lord Rogers is the establishment man in this story; any other perspective is studiously ignored. The Prince is branded, Terry is ignored. Rogers’ own ideology and associations are unexamined. The BBC could scarcely be more biased. They must think it is all ok.
It's worse than 'biased'. In many respects and examples the BBC is best described as 'Labour's Broadcasting Corporation', such is the attitude and (often) aggression towards 'non Labour' interviewees.
Perhaps somone could remind "Lord" Rodgers that we still have free speech in this Country, if he doesn't like it, GO, you will not be missed. I rarely agree these days with The Prince of Wales, but he has the right to speak out, he may be listened to. We little people get ignored especially by arrogant socialist, rich of course, like Rodgers. Bring back the Hereditory Peers for all our sakes.
Derek
Apparently, this is a news report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8103159.stm
Henry Fairlie, the British journalist, coined the phrase “The Establishment” in The Spectator in 1955. "By the 'Establishment', I do not only mean the centres of official power—though they are certainly part of it—but rather the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised. The exercise of power in Britain (more specifically, in England) cannot be understood unless it is recognised that it is exercised socially."
The BBC has tried to portray itself as the outsider fighting for the rights of the little guy (they honestly believe they are) but they are part of the “establishment” power structure of the UK.
So why this constant anti-Charles stuff? I wish I knew but it’s worth noting that it’s as regular as water torture, personal beyond belief and very damaging to his image.
I’m no supporter of Prince Charles but I feel sorry for the fellow. Methinks somewhere, someone doesn’t want him to be king.
Both Ed Thomas and John Bosworth make excellent points.
In the days when the Footlights crowd mocked 'the establishment' it may have largely comprised earls and bishops. Today, however, it is best epitomised by the likes of Dame 'Suzi' Leather, 'Lord' Mandelson and Rogers himself.
Which, in passing, raises an interesting issue. Who voted for 'Lord' Rogers. Or 'Baroness Scotland? By whose writ were they given the power to govern us?
And, of course, who ever voted for the BBC to be the mouthpiece of these fools?
The average lefty on the BBC is always banging on about egalitarianism and freedom of speech. Until someone they don't like comes along and says something 'off message.'
Odd isn't it?
Add this in with the recent 'do we need the Monarchy' debates that seem to be flourishing and perhaps an agenda appears?
The designs were just awful (very reminiscent of the 'Walkways in the Sky' of Sheffield in the 1960s).
It looks like Emperors across the Establishment are starting to lose their finery. The BBC next.
Charles, if anything, is the anti-establishment figure these days. And he's all the better for it. Now if only I could help him shake off his infatuaiton with Islam!
I'm no ardent Royalist, but I admire him increasingly for the genuine care he has for the wellbeing of society and the REAL things he does to its benefit – an accusation that could never really be levelled at ZaNu Labour.
Reminds me of the wonderful scene in the first ever episode of 'Coupling', where Labour-voting Sally starts moaning about the Establishment, and has to be told (by Tory Patrick and his new gay, Tory chum) that Labour's in power, they're the Establishment now and the Tories are the Rebel Alliance to the Labour Death Star. Sally can only confusedly mumble, "But we're the goodies ! We're always the goodies !" as Patrick and his chum merrily hum the Star Wars theme at her.
Curiously, the article doesn't seem to have any local reaction to the developement cancellation: I wonder why ?
Couldn't be that the residents, who'll actually have to live with whatever sprouts on the Chelsea Barracks site, are actually rather pleased that the eyesore vanity project won't be going up and are therefore not simpatico to Rodgers' complaints, could it? No, surely not. Couldn't be that.
Still, funny for Rogers (married to Ruth of that ilk, of River Café and New Labour inner circle fame) to complain about abuse of position considering what he, Livingstone and Prescott have shoehorned through against planning recommendations, residential opposition etc these last 12 bloody years.
Not to mention the horrible 60's estate sheduled for demolition that he's using his influence to save. And the BBC certainly are careful not to mention it.
John Bosworth
There was a later book of essays on the various elements of the establishment, eg Simon Raven writing on the army, others writing on the monarchy, the city establishment of key bankers and interlocking directorships of major companies, the broadcasting world, academia etc. Edited, I believe, by the then editor of the New Statesmen.
And some of us are old enough to have been members of Peter Cook's Establishment Club in Greek Street – named to cock a snook at the targets of the cabaret's satire. Dudley Moore used to play jazz piano in the basement each evening. Great place, cheap to join and use. Private Eye was then set up in the upper floors, I believe.
Those were the days !
The centre of my home town, Bradford, was totally wrecked in the 1960s by "democratic" planners and architects who knew best. The monstrosities that replaced the Victorian buildings that gave the place its character have now been demolished.
A lot of damage was done in the 1960s. If only Charles had been born a few years earlier.
I’ve seen many towns and cities in Germany that have been rebuilt or restored to preserve their individuality. They seem to attract approval over here but when we attempt it, it’s called “kitsch”. Not enough advancement for Lord Rogers perhaps?
And yes, I know about Berlin and Foster’s Reichstag.
There is an excellent book 'Britain's Lost Cities' by Gavin Stamp which describes in almost heartbreaking detail the destruction to Britain's cities wrought by architects in the immediate post-war years. The architects main policy was, of course, self-enrichment and they blamed the Luftwaffe. Cities such as Bradford, Bristol, Edinburgh, Dundee – all ruined by these bastards, and they want to do more damage, assisted by the BBC.
If the BBC really were British, it would put on an investigative, historical program which showed how lovely our cities were before the architects were let loose, using Stamp's book as the template. It won't happen.
Lord Rogers was given a sound off slot on the Today programme for Tuesday June 16th at around 7:30. The "interview" had been pre-recorded. What it amounted to was a PR style piece in which the noble Lord (who, as others have rightly observed, is a NuLab current establishment apparatchik) was invited to hold forth. No real challenge to his allegations, effective or otherwise, was made from start to finish. It was, in effect, a love in between the BBC and Lord Rogers, with an implicit snipe at the monarchy. Hopeless, yet again
There is a valid point under this – Prince Charles should not be allowed to interfere in political decisions, he is only there by birthright and shouldn't be getting his own way in regard to the nation simply because of it
planning processes may not be democratic, nobody is claiming they are – but Rodgers is an architect and was chosen by the developers, what right does Charles have to stick his nose in?
May I go to a developer and tell them I don't like their building? No, I can sing for it
Prince Charles is a British citizen,I don't know if he votes,but he has as much right to criticise a design as Rogers has to make money out of it.
Architects forever whinng about their artistry is a somewhat sickening thing.
Mmmn, I've read your post a couple of times and your point about BBC bias is still lost on me.
The story is about whether the future King should be expressing an opinion or intervening in causes. It's not the first time the issue has been raised. Prince Charles' behaviour is a departure from the norm.
I don't see what Lord Rogers' own associations have to do with it, and I'd be surprised to see that recieve significant coverage in any other media.
"Mmmn, I've read your post a couple of times and your point about BBC bias is still lost on me."
Right, and in your next sentence you proceed to tell me what the story is "about". Did you ever hear of a media "narrative"? How did you get this idea of Charles' previous? The Times? The BBC? Both have anti-Royal agendas. The fact that Rogers goes unexamined here is material- he is not above interfering himself as the post makes plain but the BBC ignore. Rogers has his agenda too, and his influence, yet this is deliberately overlooked. The final irony is that it's a Lord telling a Prince where to park his influence.
There are other details too, such as the fact that Charles was not the initiator of opposition to Rogers- Chelsea residents started it and Charles assisted them. This too is ignored, and I understand why. It is surely beyond the interest level of the prejudiced audience the BBC seeks to stir up.
Your response is either naive, ignorant, or deceitful. Take your pick.
I strive to be even handed. Much as I dislike Prinnny Big Ears and let's face it who voted for the over priviliged buffoon. I also dislike Rogers and his shite designs. So I say a plague on all their houses.
If this was Paris 1793 I'd cheerfully send them both to meet Madame Guillotine.
This has now got its own HYS: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=6605&edition=1&ttl=20090617095043
The title is "Should the power of the Royals be re-examined?" – hardly fair, as Charles has no 'real' power afaik, but then if you are spinning the anti-royal line, I guess that's the sort of impression you'd want to project.
Personally, I think Charles' views on architecture are pretty close to most people – namely, most of the modern stuff is shite.
Anyway, I suggest an alternative HYS – "Should the power of the BBC be re-examined?". I'm sure that'd be far more interesting.
What has the state-funded bbc,the Lords, the Church and the unelected monarchy got to do with democracy?
They all disgrace our country.
Re Democrazy , the difference being that Charles has shown a deep and abiding concern for the British landscape, rural heritage, and architectural gems.
This is a man who may have faults, but has always acted in what he perceives to be the long term interests of the British people. (As incidentally, did the hereditry Peers , accustomed as they were to the priciple of passing on their legasy to the next generation, unlike fast buck egotists like lord rogers.)
Democrazy: A few weeks ago, Joanna Lumley used her influence to force a democratically elected Government into a U-turn.
Joanna Lumley was never elected and is hardly under privileged. Was she wrong?
If I recall her work from decades past, she was certainly privileged in some respects.
Tarquin: "May I go to a developer and tell them I don't like their building? No, I can sing for it"
1:27 AM, June 17, 2009
What's stopping you? With a name like Tarquin I'm sure that gives you almost as much cachet as Prince Charles!
Funny how the Have Your Say disappeared to the archive so very quickly. Funny how it doesn't show up on the Search function. Funny how the vast majority of the comments supported Prince Charles. Funny that.