Sir, In your leading article (“The Prince of Wails”, June 26) you assert that the debate should simply be about identifying good or bad architecture. I would submit that there is no such thing as good or bad architecture, only architecture which is good or bad in context. Lord Rogers of Riverside’s design was wrong for the historic context of the classical Royal Hospital.
Classicism has demonstrated itself to be a language that can be endlessly reinvented in the idiom of any age. If it was right for Palladio to reinterpret it in 1570 and right for Robert Adam to do the same 200 years later, why is it somehow wrong for Quinlan Terry and the Prince of Wales to attempt it in 2010?
Hugh Buchanan
Pencaitland, East Lothian
Sir, I am sure that the Prince of Wales’s comments concerning Chelsea Barracks meet with the wholehearted approval of the silent majority in this country and it is reassuring to have the heir to the throne taking a deep interest in all matters affecting the nation. It is also refreshing to know that the Qatari investors have a respect for the Prince’s views, which in some quarters in this country is sadly lacking.
Advertisement
A property developer’s sole interest is money — a motive which the Prince of Wales cannot be accused of exploiting. He is more entitled to an opinion than any of us.
Peter Spiegl
Easton on the Hill, Lincs
Sir, As the organisation responsible for approaching the Prince of Wales to take an interest in Chelsea Barracks, may we inject a little reality into the hysterical reaction to the outcome of the court case between Qatari Diar and Candy & Candy.
It has been reported that Mr Justice Vos criticised the Prince’s intervention as “unwelcome”, when what he actually said was that Qatari Diar and Candy & Candy “regarded this intervention, no doubt, as unexpected and unwelcome” — which was precisely its purpose.
Advertisement
Last February a wide circle of local residents were opposed to what they regarded as a deeply inappropriate scheme, which failed to conform to Westminster City Council’s own design brief for the site. In involving the Prince of Wales, the hope was that a contact could be made with Qatari Diar at a high level in an effort to persuade them to consider an alternative scheme for the site, which the Chelsea Barracks Action Group had commissioned, to show how the site might be developed more sensitively and in keeping with neighbouring streets in Belgravia and Chelsea. The residents also campaigned extensively with members of both Westminster City Council and the Greater London Authority.
We fail to see how it can be undemocratic to allow local residents an alternative vision for what is undoubtedly one of the most important development sites in Central London, and, had it not been for the Prince’s intervention, we would all have had to live with what even many Modernist architects have regarded as a mediocre scheme.
Simon Davie
Georgine Thorburn
Chelsea Barracks Action Group
Sir, I wonder why you think it is “welcome” to have “a future king who seeks to contribute animatedly to the debates that are shaping the country he will one day inherit”.
Advertisement
When the Prince of Wales inherits the throne, he will have to keep his opinions to himself. He might as well start now. It’s part of the price of royalty.
Peter Barlow
Dunoon, Argyll
Sir, In response to the judge’s comments on the Prince of Wales’s “unwelcome” intervention, the Prince’s spokesman, Paddy Harverson, said that the Prince “has every right to express an opinion privately, which he does with passion, because he cares”.
Mr Harverson misses the point completely. The letter was on the headed paper of Clarence House, the official residence of the Prince of Wales. This office comes with implicit and explicit powers, and his title has implicit and explicit authority. Was Charles speaking on behalf of just himself, the monarchy, Wales, England, or maybe even the UK? What could the future consequences be to the recipients of non-compliance? The Qataris would be very much forgiven for this being manifestly unclear, and their internal communications show that this was very much the way it was interpreted.
Advertisement
To claim that the Prince was expressing a private view is at best a naive interpretation of his decision to write. Indeed, the logic is circuitous: it was clear that the impact was expected to be significant, or the Prince would not have taken the time to put his views to paper. I am sure that both the Prince and I would agree that his personal expertise in architecture alone does not warrant such an expected impact.
The Prince should concentrate on areas of public life on which he is qualified to comment, or where he has been democratically appointed to speak on behalf of the British people.
Jack Edmondson
London SW6