The Spectator editorialises:
There was something magnificently comic about Lord Rogers of Riverside accusing the Prince of Wales of ‘unconstitutional’ behaviour. The modernist architect is predictably outraged that his hideous design for a development on the site of the old Chelsea Barracks has now been ditched — after Prince Charles wrote to a member of the Qatari royal family, which was financing the project.
The Rogers project would have been a horrible eyesore so close to Sir Christopher Wren’s Royal Hospital, and the Prince was right to urge the Qataris to consider an alternative design commissioned from Quinlan Terry. No doubt Lord Rogers feels aggrieved to have been outmanoeuvred by the royal Rolodex. But as one of the most conspicuous and well-connected members of London’s elite it is hilarious that he, of all people, should complain about another man using his contacts to get his way.
There is nothing ‘unconstitutional’ about this splendid outcome. Lord Rogers is angry for one reason alone: he got beat.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I find myself in agreement.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing unconstitutional about "Prince Charles" doing what he did.
Of course some would claim thats a good reason to have a different constitution....which is of course a different argument.
But isn't the justification for a hereditary monarchy that it doesn't dabble in what are essentially political decisions?
ReplyDeleteNo. That is pure fantasy, and I'm not even sure when or how it started, although it is certainly post-War, and the Queen herself has not always observed it.
ReplyDelete