New Statesman - Modernists’ royal failure

I wasn’t going to do it, but the reverential silence as 400 architects stood up for the Prince of Wales was too tempting. Just as the prince was leaving the lecture hall at the Royal Institute of British Architects after his speech to mark its 175th anniversary, a raging gut instinct kicked in, and I belted out, “Abolish the monarchy!”

“Absolutely not,” responded a plummy voice from somewhere in the audience. There were a few urgent cries of, “She’s the one in red!” The RIBA head of security was soon by my side, in a fluster, ticking me off for bad behaviour. It felt like being back at school.

Indeed, the editor of the Architects’ Journal patronisingly described me as a “naughty girl” in his diary column. Worse still, he implied I’d done it just to get publicity for my magazine, Blueprint. Is it inconceivable that I might actually want to see the monarchy abolished? People are such conformists these days.

There was another reason I felt compelled to heckle the prince. Architects have failed so miserably to tackle his reactionary ideas about architecture. Twenty-five years ago he started a style war, famously describing the proposed extension to the National Gallery as a “monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved friend”. The impact of the speech was huge: the firm that had designed the “carbuncle” nearly went out of business, the National Gallery competition was relaunched and a postmodern design with a neoclassical façade was chosen.

The battle between modernists and postmodernists raged for several years. The prince made a TV programme and an exhibition about his architectural preferences, A Vision of Britain. He even built a village, Poundbury in Dorset, to demonstrate his “new urbanism” principles. But nowadays, many of his ideas overlap with those of the architectural profession, emphasising sustainability, contextuality and low energy design to tackle climate change.

So there was a sense of real shock when, in early April, the prince intervened again in another controversial London plan, the redevelopment of Chelsea Barracks, owned by Qatari royalty. Richard Rogers’ practice was proposing a modern design on a historic site: the prince wrote to the emir of Qatar asking him to drop the plans in favour of a neoclassical scheme by his favourite architect, Quinlan Terry.

It was with bated breath last week that the profession sat down to hear what new insult Charles would hurl at RIBA’s celebrations. But times have changed. The prince stressed the common ground he shares with architects and attempted a reconciliation.

Critics noted the prince’s attack on modernism. But the fact is that most architects agreed with everything he said. In his opening remarks, RIBA president Sunand Prasad even mentioned postwar “car-bungles” (housing estates that encourage car use).

Prince Charles’ ideas are as small-minded and anti-progressive as ever. It’s architects who have changed. Twenty-five years ago they might have challenged his parochial philosophy. Now all they can do is agree that architecture should embrace limits and designers should be less ambitious. The new conformist architect is even shocked to hear the view that having an unelected head of state is outdated and anti-democratic.

Vicky Richardson is editor of Blueprint

3 comments from readers

David Forster
21 May 2009 at 14:42

Interesting points, but the fact is that the writers priviledge of attendance was as a representative of her magazine. In all honesty, it is hardly the way for a professional journalist to act and, as a magazine editor myself, I can't help but feel this WAS a publicity stunt - a view I would suggest is backed by subsequent plugging of the incident here, on Blueprint magazine's twitter feed and no doubt heavily in the next issue of the magazine itself. Pity the New Statesman has helped to make the whole stunt even more effective by publishing this soapbox piece.

Julia
24 May 2009 at 20:47

Another self-promoting elitist letting us know how clever she thinks she is.

boccherini
27 May 2009 at 09:40

If we are going look at developing a new constitution then we need to start a fresh. We must start an open debate on the whole structure, starting with the monarchy, who are also are a tad illusive when it comes to the issue of expenses and helicopter trips and ignoring the Freedom of Information Act. Charles is regularly sticking his nose into affairs, if he wishes to continue then he must abdicate his desires to be king. In my view it is now time to explore the option of introducing an elected head of state.

Post your comment

David Forster
21 May 2009 at 14:42: Interesting points, but the fact is that the writers priviledge of attendance was as a representative of her magazine. In all honesty, it is hardly the way for a professional journalist to act and, as a magazine editor myself, I can't help but feel this WAS a publicity stunt - a view I would suggest is backed by subsequent plugging of the incident here, on Blueprint magazine's twitter feed and no doubt heavily in the next issue of the magazine itself. Pity the New Statesman has helped to make the whole stunt even more effective by publishing this soapbox piece.
Julia
24 May 2009 at 20:47: Another self-promoting elitist letting us know how clever she thinks she is.
boccherini
27 May 2009 at 09:40: If we are going look at developing a new constitution then we need to start a fresh. We must start an open debate on the whole structure, starting with the monarchy, who are also are a tad illusive when it comes to the issue of expenses and helicopter trips and ignoring the Freedom of Information Act. Charles is regularly sticking his nose into affairs, if he wishes to continue then he must abdicate his desires to be king. In my view it is now time to explore the option of introducing an elected head of state.

Modernists’ royal failure

People who read this article also read:

3 comments from readers

Post your comment

Related Links

Read More