• How Prince won: Charles in shock Chelsea barracks victory
• The major players in the bitter battle of Chelsea barracks

Reader views (81)

 Add your view

It seem sfairly clear to me that the point is being completely missed. Whether you like the plan or not, it is not up to Charles to use his unelected power to subvert the system that has been set up to judge such things. The fact of the matter is that the project was due to receive planning- the council only received about 400 letters of complaint and some 60 odd in favour. We set up panels of people to judge these developments. It is frankly outrageous for this process to be ignored by a man with an axe to grind and levers to pull. This decision has direct impact on the lives of at least 5000 people. If Charles had actually personally laid off these people, there would be an outrage in the press. I fail to see how in reality his actions amount to anything less.

- Ali, London, 17/06/2009 18:40
Report abuse

I live in Trellick Tower, a listed modern "brutalist" masterpiece by Erno Goldfinger, loved or loathed by many. But some how it sits well here. The Rogers mess, presumably knocked up on the back of a paper napkin like most of his work seems to be, doesn't fit with Chelsea. Large swathes of Britain have been ruined by a combination of inept architects and ignorant if not corrupt planning officers. Time we went back to something resembling a human scale.

- John, London, 17/06/2009 10:16
Report abuse

Richard Roger’s demand for a “national enquiry” into Charles’s intervention into the Chelsea Barracks development more than anything highlights how out of touch the modernist super star architects are with reality, that there is nothing more important in the world than seeing their designs become physical reality. He chooses to disregard the objections of the many people living in the neighbourhood who signed the petition against the project and blames everything on Charles.

When Charles did voice his opinion in support of the locals the architectural world rallied to Roger’s defence, with letters to the newspapers and articles denouncing Charles printed in this paper and others but no counter argument was published on behalf of the petitioners. Now that his plans have been shelved by the developers he screams like a little boy who’s had his toys taken away and no doubt the same voices will join him in decrying this perceived abuse of constitutional power.

Roger’s proposed development WAS out of character with the surroundings but that should be no surprise as all of his designs seek to impose themselves by being alien to the environment, like the overloud pub boor braying above the noise of the crowd. Most people faced with a new building in their neighbourhood would prefer something “sympathetic” and “in character” with the surroundings. As far as Chelsea Barracks goes the vast majority simply don’t care or even know who Richard Rogers is.

- Max Beaird, Leyton, UK, 17/06/2009 07:57
Report abuse

I wish Charles had used his mighty influence as Prince of Wales re the just-opened hideous building atop Mount Snowdon in north Wales, the new restaurant/shop which has been named HAFOD ERYRI, virtually unpronounceable by those who do not speak Welsh. The building is an eyesore, in no way at all fits in with the surroundings. It has no beauty, no majesty, no charisma, it's just a big chunky, metallic thing resembling a warehouse. So very sad.

- Iwan Jones, Wales, 17/06/2009 06:52
Report abuse

A Labour peer complaining that HRH has been working behind the scenes to achieve his goal. What utter hypocrisy. Labour politicians work like that all the time. In any case, in the court of public opinion, HRH has massive support. I have no problem with this patrician like intervention; if I was a purist I might object but we don't live in a pure world and HRH is perfectly entitled to voice his opinion. It really is odious for people who feel empowered to comment on all aspects of HRH's life, in appalling detail sometimes, to then complain when he voices his own, sincere and heartfelt opinion. Another point is, he clearly is not being corrupt he is simply objecting for realistic and sensible reasons.

- Gary, W2, London, UK, 17/06/2009 02:59
Report abuse

Adolf Hitler, who was not a trained architect, detested modern architecture, especially the work of the socialist inspired Bauhaus movement. He used his power and influence to promote the work of his favorite Neo- Classical architect, Albert Speer.
Sound like anyone we know?

- Cliff Steele, Melbourne, Australia, 17/06/2009 00:19
Report abuse

If the pompous lord wants a public enquiry, let him put his money where his oversized mouth is, and let him pay all the costs. After all, he managed to afford to buy himself a title, so a mere enquiry would be like spitting into the ocean as far as his finances are concerned. And of course, it would slightly delay his diappearence into total oblivion, which would no doubt tweak his inflated ego. What a sad little man.

- L.Taubler, London / ENGLAND, 16/06/2009 23:53
Report abuse

Refurbish Chelsea barracks as a decent place for some of our army to live and train.
Who does this Rogers geezer think he is anyway.
Prince Charles is great and does a damn sight more for us than Rogers.
Who remembers Rogers and the rubbish he spouted about the disgusting Robin Hood Garden estate - and he presumed to know better than English Heritage.

- Sally70, Bedford, 16/06/2009 23:39
Report abuse

Roger's design is awful - it's a Broadwater Farm for millionaire's. The driving factor is clearly to maximize the units that can be built and subsequent profits. I'm glad Prince Charles has had the courage to criticise it where other people have been dazzled by Roger's reputation. Listening to Roger's thowing his toys out of his pram is sickening.

- John, London UK, 16/06/2009 23:30
Report abuse

Many excellent articles appear here in support of HRH the Prince of Wales. One of the many exemplary contributions is that of Wm F Mccormick, St.Thomas, Canada. Lord Rogers: it is high time you retire, for good.

- Tinkerbelle, london, 16/06/2009 22:26
Report abuse

Well done HRH! He's managed to save one small part of London's soul from the souless creations of 'award winning' architects. More power to your elbow Sir!

Enne

- Enne Ke, London UK, 16/06/2009 22:05
Report abuse

Is it too much to hope that 'Lord' Rogers will soon be as obscure as his patron Gordon Brown? Thank you Prince Charles. Architects like Rogers have pretty well destroyed most of London, Rogers was trying to finish off one of the last relatively unspouiled parts. His own house down the road from mine is mid 19th century stucco but his view is that others should not have this.

- Andrew, Chelsea, 16/06/2009 21:56
Report abuse

Bravo to HRH...he is dead right on this one. Rogers design was a monstrosity of titanic proportions.

Well done Charles.

- Sally Soames, London, UK, 16/06/2009 21:38
Report abuse

I am 99% with Lord Rogers on this one. I hope he and/or his associates read this comments. The following comment is "spot on"
The most effective way for Lord Rogers to show his disgust would be for him to renounce his peerage. I would bet money he does not!
I , and the public will support him 100% if he does that.

- Z.Ristovski, London.UK, 16/06/2009 21:22
Report abuse

Prince Charles has spoken out for thousands of Londoners without a voice, who don't want to see our city turned into a faceless metropolis of meritrioius modern buildings. Good to see our royal family speaking on behalf of the majority of its people.

- Dr Rosie Llewellyn-Jones, London, in England, 16/06/2009 21:06
Report abuse

Good for you Charles.

- Mordwinoff, Lisle France., 16/06/2009 17:40
Report abuse

I wholeheartedly support Rogers on this. This project's cancellation will mean financial and commercial difficulties for my work. The planning process is there for a very good reason. Also, I do wish that the press would stop refering to the project as being of glass and steel- there was much more artistry to the facade than the Prince appears able to comprehend. Portland stone is not the only material in the world.

- Ali, London, 16/06/2009 17:25
Report abuse

Absolutely delighted that Charles spoke against this development. Go HRH!!!!

- Ladywholunches, london, 16/06/2009 17:21
Report abuse

I absolutely agree with Lord Rogers. The disturbing thing about HRH and his views on architecture, is that he knows very little. He really does not know any more than the average layperson. If he wants to be taken seriously he should study architectural design and then put forward real debate. We would not have Wembley or the 02 Arena or Docklands if he had his way. How many desperately needed jobs are lost in this much needed time?.

- Ian Smith, HULL, 16/06/2009 17:16
Report abuse

I'm with HRH Prince Charles on this one too. The Press just seem to want a reason to knock Charles - who represents a lot of people with his concerns about Lord Rogers proposal. I'm glad he spoke up for what he believes. Also, there's so much more goes on behind the scenes on both sides than we ever get to read or hear about in the media. I think Charles is more on the ball than the media generally like to give him credit for.

- R Needham, London, 16/06/2009 16:58
Report abuse

Steven Dale, London, England - HRH should be apolitical?

Where did HRH get involved in politics? What is 'politcal' in opposing the building of an unpolular set of buildings (with the people who live there rather than the self satisfied, self congratulating crowd of Rogers!)? Where does it say that the more high ranking people you know, the less you should be allowed to speak to them about your concerns? Where does it say that ANYONE must refrain from using any and all legal means to oppose something they disagree with? Reasoned persuasion is perfectly legal - unless it is being claimed the Qataris were 'forced' to change their plans?

...and by the bye - lawsuits have to have merit to get anywhere. Those lost (potential) jobs do not mean people are left sitting idle and unpaid, it simply means they are available for umpteen other projects that are in the pipeline. Contracts, when they are signed, include cancellations language. HRH, like anyone else in the circumstances, would be quite rightly bullet proof.

- Rogan, Irving, 16/06/2009 16:35
Report abuse

whether you are a fan of traditionlist or contemporary architecture is not the point. The issue is that there are well established planning lawas in thsi country that allow people affected by developments to object and take applications through extermily long and expensive review processes. This is the process that seems lost on Prince Charles and he clearly believed that he had the right to use his position to overide this. Rogers cannot inflict his taste on the public as the law does not enable this,m however Prince Charles feels he has the right to inflict his...
From a personal taste perspective I do actually think that Rogers had made a significant contribution, Teerminal 5 and the Lloyds Building are great examples of his work..

- Martin_Clerkenwell, london, 16/06/2009 16:35
Report abuse

I am with HRH on this one.

- Paul, Edinburgh, 16/06/2009 16:18
Report abuse

Lord Rogers missed the opportunity to design a landmark structure, something that people would come to London now and in many years in future to view. His design for this project cannot be considered a landmark, simply commercial building that can be seen anywhere in the world.

- Yousif Nouri, Surrey, 16/06/2009 16:01
Report abuse

Naturally Rogers is furious as he looses money,prestige and influence as a result of the Qatari decision.New labour henchmen like him are not used to opposition and don't like it wherever it comes from.
We need Prince Charles to feel free to continue expressing his views whether we agree with them as I do in this case or not as I don't on the subject of holistic medecine.
What he has to say is nearly always interesting.

- Gapster, London, 16/06/2009 15:56
Report abuse

Lord Rogers' attack is pure hypocrisy coming from someone who traded his artistic integrity for fast money and privilege.
I suspect Lord Rogers is a frustrated old man haunted by the realization he has created nothing of any lasting importance. His life can be compared to the Millennium Dome. The building cost approximately 800 million pounds and yet is expected to last only 25 years. Further, not being self supporting it cannot be considered a true dome. Lord Rogers has made a very good living constructing simple tents and must be content with that. In a time when one's carbon footprint is so important his works have become symbols of irrelevance and poor planning which is why he cannot attract any more landmark projects.
To say Prince Charles has acted in an unconstitutional manner is ludicrous. It is not only right that he should challenge us to build for tomorrow it is his duty. Lord Rogers must live with the shame of being unable or unwilling to rise to the challenge.

- Wm F Mccormick, St.Thomas, Canada, 16/06/2009 15:28
Report abuse

I feel that both Charlie Windsor and Mr Rogers are wrong. Windsor is abusing his position by getting very involved but not being prepared to debate at all however Rogers is no better.

Both schemes have a grotesque over-density of the kind revered by Ken Livingstone and take no account of the infra-structure required for such developments. Charlieboy’s objections, in the main, also apply to his own suggestions. Local residents and business must be consulted and the requirements for schools, medical services, transport, refuse disposal, utilities, the list is endless, must be attended to. The cock up at Imperial Wharf, where none of these were thought about, because of incompetent local planning departments is about to be repeated. The best example is the station at Imperial Wharf. It was made a condition of planning that this be refurbished and reopened. Marvelous, but the planners in their wisdom forgot to put a time on it so everything was finished and sold and still the station is not opened. The developers were given a free hand to take the mickey. The building of 70 odd more flats that permission was given for is another example of planning incompetence.

The row between Charlieboy and Rogers must not be allowed to cloud the main problem, that of rubbish planning.

- Antoine Desmoines, London, UK, 16/06/2009 15:22
Report abuse

Lord Roger's ego has been bruised. He would seem to think he knows best as a Socialist and an architect, what we lesser beings should have to tolerate in the built environment. How fortunate that the the Prince of Wales has made a stand against him on our behalf. The most effective way for Lord Rogers to show his disgust would be for him to renounce his peerage. I would bet money he does not!

- William, London, 16/06/2009 15:20
Report abuse

Lord Rogers' days are numbered. When will we have an enquiry into his awful architecture? And not a secret one either. You can't go on pretending that something awful is artistic. There is, after all only one Damien Hurst, and we don't need an architect to ape the post-skill world of modern art. Rogers was designing another glass ghetto to rip off investors and destroy the environment. His selfish egoism is so Labour.

- Jamal Akhbar, Edinburgh, 16/06/2009 15:06
Report abuse

This is CRAZY! An unelected titled public figure with friends in high places, uncompromising views on architecture and more than a whiff of cronyism is complaining that an unelected titled public figure with friends in high places and uncompromising views on architecture has more than a whiff of cronyism . . . !

One of these pair can pass laws on the rest of us, the other can't. One of them advises the Mayor of London about architecture whilst his firm applies for the projects he advises on, the other doesn't. One receives expenses from the HM Government, the other doesn't. Neither of them will enter into a public debate on the matter, but whereas Rogers is sided with by other modern architects, Prince Charles is siding with classical architects, National Heritage and the residents who will have to live on the site. Oh, and the building didn't match the planning criteria, but the first would like to force it through anyhow!

So how do you like your cronies: Old School, with nothing to gain, or Jumped-Up and throwing their political weight around?

And in case anyone is in doubt: Britain does not have a written constitution, so HRH cannot behave 'unconstitutionally' in any case: perhaps it's time for that ELECTED House of Lords after all - Labour and Lord Rogers changed the structure of British Government without consulting the country's population as to whether it wanted an Upper House stuffed with Labour cronies in the first place.

- Roz, France, 16/06/2009 14:56
Report abuse

Rogers designs and builds complete monstrosities. He is an insuffereable egotist. None of his stuff will still be there in 100 years times.
Charles is, for once, right.

- Bob, Oxford, 16/06/2009 14:48
Report abuse

Well done Prince Charles! I have the greatest respect for you for speaking out. Pity the Royal Family doesn't do it more often. Lord Rogers, what gives you the right to force through unpopular and unwanted plans?

- David, Essex, 16/06/2009 14:46
Report abuse

Since when did HRH, or anyone for that matter, NOT have the right to write to someone else about something he felt strongly about?

The word 'petulant' springs immediately to mind about Roger's whinging.

- Rogan, Irving, 16/06/2009 14:42
Report abuse

Methinks Lord Rodgers is not mandated to demand anything, so might he climb back into his little box, or perhaps retreat to the ivory tower from whence he views the small people and complains pompously about a man who knows about that which is beautiful and acceptable and that which is plain ugly and opportunistic.

- Ted, London, 16/06/2009 14:39
Report abuse

Bond of trust? What a load of tosh! Prince Charles achieved what quite a few people had wanted to do and perhaps Chelsea has been spared from a less than notable construction.

Methinks my Lord doth protest too much.

- Matt, London, 16/06/2009 14:27
Report abuse

Lord Rgoer should not waste any public money by demanding a "national inquiry". He should read the comments made in this column and listen to the voices of the great majority of the local residents who vehemently opposed the hideous plan from the very start. Lord Roger and his cronies can't bear the idea of somebody who can and has voiced the true public sentiment and is genuinely passionate about the skyline of London rather than somebody who is only interested in lining his own pocket. As a punishment for many of Lord Rogers follies he should be sentenced to live the rest of his life in one of his own monstrosities.

- S Cooper, London, 16/06/2009 14:16
Report abuse

Is Rogers also going to demand an enquiry into whether the other objectors (residents in the area!) have a "constitutional right to become involved in matters which have economic, political and social ramifications".
I find these small esoteric cliques of people who think they should dictate what we look at, eat, wear and read so tiresome. "Bringing in the foundation, his own boys if you like, is unbelievably questionable" - well who awarded you your awards but your "own boys". Your building is not going to be built - get over it.

- Patricia, LONDON, 16/06/2009 14:15
Report abuse

Who says the Qataris took any notice of the Prince and his letter? Last I heard the Qatari royal family had politely but firmly said that Charles letter notwihstanding, they were happy with the design. I think the withdrawal from this design is dependent on many factors. Question: Were I to write a private letter to the Qatari prime minister opposing this design and subsequent to that, the Qatari's had dropped the design, would there be a national enquiry into me? The unelected, grace and favour Labour supporting 'Lord' Rogers seems to be just furious his design has been subject to such debate and presumably his remuneration which may reflect the decision not to proceed. The local residents deeply and strongly opposed the design which Rogers and his cohorts had rushed through, without due consultation with those that would have to live with it. The correspondent here who goes on about it being the 21st century is correct in his understanding of dates. We want buildings that are a delight to live in and to view, clearly very few thought that would be the result of the Rogers design which is set in the context of a very crowded urban landscape.

- Helen, norwich, 16/06/2009 14:11
Report abuse

Nobody wanted the Stalinest inspired tower blocks of the 60s except the Stalinest inspired planners.

Nobody wants the tower blocks now except rootless property developers. They get away with this sort of thing everyday in the poorer boroughs of London. Good on you Prince Charles.

Any chance you can do the same for the drooling parasites we have masquerading as our politicians?

- Londoner, London, England, 16/06/2009 14:10
Report abuse

Lets get some facts straight - as there is a lot of mistakes and frankly wrong and almost slanderous comments being made:
1. The Qatari royal family listen to Prince Charles, and out of courtesy, if they feel something they are involved in will cause offence to a fellow royal - they would act to avoid it. Hence their decision to ask their investment/ development company to drop Rogers' project
2. Roger's firm will have relied on the fees to keep people in jobs - so there may well be job losses
3. It was Foster who designed the Millenium bridge, and even then, the wobble was an engineering error, not his.
4. Architecture is subjective - not everyone likes modern architecture, similarliy, not all of us want fake classical buildings (as HRH would advocate). If the client and the planning office were happy, and the scheme generated jobs which in this climate is good thing.

Whether we like the scheme or not, think that the planning system is difficult or just don't like an architect for what he has done in the past - btw, anyone seen his spanish airport? The fact remains, Rogers was working for a client, and HRH has unquestionably interferred with that process - a legal contract. If it could be proved, Rogers would have every right under law to sue HRH for the lost fees.

Now that would be interesting...

- Colin, London, 16/06/2009 14:06
Report abuse

Gordon, the Millennium 'wobbly' bridge was built by Norman Foster, not Rogers. And just as many pre-modernist buildings 'never worked' for their inhabitants yet they are still considered architectural icons because of their contribution to the built world.

- Darren, London, 16/06/2009 13:50
Report abuse

Does Lord Rogers want the Inquiry to be held in private as with the Iraq war or does he want it in Public.

Does Lord Roger's statement mean that he believes all the unelected Lords running government departments have no right to be there?

- Roger, London, London, 16/06/2009 13:47
Report abuse

Thanks to Prince Charles if his comments had any influence on the developers. From my experience in development control I can say, like any other members of public, Prince Charles has the right to express his opinion on any development matters. Criticizing anyone for expressing their opinion isn't it violating the law Sir Rogers.

- Fahmida Khandokar, Research Associate, 16/06/2009 13:45
Report abuse

It seems to me that many correspondents are missing the point.

It is not whether the design is good or bad or if that Lord Rogers is a good or bad architect. It is whether in the 21st century Prince Charles, a person with stacks of influence but no political authority should seek to wield that unelected influence. If anyone says that in a democarcy he is so entitled, we might as well pack up and go home - no, he does not have that right or be allowed to utilise such influence. He is a member of the Royal Family, the heir to the Throne and as such should remain apolitical, even if he is right. I don't know if on this topic he is or is not right but I do not think he has the right to throw his weight around.He should be taken to one side, preferably by his mother, and told to put a sock in it.

- Steven Dale, London, England, 16/06/2009 13:40
Report abuse

Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Prince Charles used his influence not his power. As a citizen he has every right to complain.What did he do that was undemocratic or, in fact, was autocratic?
The Qataris decided against it not the UK Government nor the Royal family

- Peter Glazier, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 16/06/2009 13:34
Report abuse

Well done, I say.

- Patrick, London SW1, 16/06/2009 13:24
Report abuse

Lord Rogers should remember that he is an unelected Lord that has got to power in our un-democratic system by being a friend of the Labour Party. Under the strange rules that have been handed down over history he has been bestowed a position in our system of government. So what makes him think he has any more rights than Prince Charles?

Lord Rogers should also be reminded, that while he has come up with the odd inspired structure, most of what he has produced are just temporary structures with no real aspiration of a long life in the same way that the 1960’s tower block. Unfortunately for Lord Rogers he has already been behind enough buildings, to have a track record of what we have to expect.

This is pure sour grapes and an abuse of his very privileged position, just because his ideas where not up to scratch.

- Ian, Reading, England, 16/06/2009 13:20
Report abuse

I agree with Rogers that, given this is the 21st not the 12th century, no one should be wielding power by birthright. Nor should architects have the power to push through unwanted schemes - in the UK they do not such power. The planning process is actually quite unwieldy and obstructive which in some cases is a good thing.

The MP expenses scandal is an example of how necessary change in the UK is being held back by anachronistic traditions permitting no questions asked 'grace and favours' style abuse of our money by those in power - we do not additionally royalty attempting to wield unvoted for power - this is unconstitutional.

- Jim, london, 16/06/2009 13:17
Report abuse

Prequently both Foster and Roger, as well are other promenant architects are dubbed 'award-winning' and therefore somehow given the right to impose their own will and architectural thinking on the full population. But the term 'award-winning' should be questioned, as their status of 'award-winning' has been given them by architectural and 'cultural'organizations which normally follow the typical modernist architectural trends. But who - except Prince Charles has the presence and promenance to speak for the People! Shouldn't 'Lord' Foster listen to the local population and those loving directly in the area in which these building are to be built. What right has he to complain about Prince Charles' defense of the opinion of the local residence - when neither he nor Rogers live in teh area.

Thank heavens for the un-elected but couragous Prince Charles.

- John Marsteller, Geneva, Switzerland, 16/06/2009 13:15
Report abuse

Not only the Pompidu centre and the wobbly bridge but also the Lloyds building which never worked. The "broken trust" is with Rogers foolish clients and sooner he retires the better for the quality of architecture worldwide. It is also noticeable that Rogers has not chosen to live in one of his monstrosities.

- Gordon, London, 16/06/2009 13:05
Report abuse

I kind of like the Rogers plan. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. It's not as if Chelsea is full of buildings of the calibre of the Chelsea Hospital across the street. What about the Battersea power station across the river? Could anything be more hideous? And that is considered a national treasure. What about the hideous apartment blocks that now dominate the riverfront from Vauxhaul to Chelsea Harbour which somehow only by comparison make the MI5 building look like a dignified statement. I also happen to think the Prince talks alot of sense, but unfortunately he is not an architect, is he. Do we really want to infest Chelsea with a plague of McGeorge's, McEdward's and McVictoria's?

- Bloke, London, 16/06/2009 12:59
Report abuse

Lord Rogers, who built that ugly Pompidou centre, has a vested interest in this rubbish, so shouldn't be allowed to make any demands. In the 1960s he would have been winning awards for those ghastly tower blocks now being torn down. Thank God Prince Charles intervened!

- Philip, Moscow Russia, 16/06/2009 12:41
Report abuse

I can't say I am a massive fan of Prince Charles, but thank goodness he has stepped in to stop Lord Rogers' awful and egotistical plan which no residents of the area have ever wanted. It was just a design by ego - well done Prince Charles!

- Ken Joralemon, London, UK, 16/06/2009 12:37
Report abuse

Well done Charles remember the wobbly bridge that cost us a fortune - Mr Rogers has met his Armageddon and throwing his peerage out his pram..bless !

- Ms J Eccles, London, 16/06/2009 12:30
Report abuse

At last Lord Rogers has been brought to earth and one of his dreadful designs killed! Hooray for the Prince for standing up to this self opinionated architect. None of his designs are friendly to people - they are hard and unfeeling - look at the new German Parliament Building. Good riddance to him and his designers!

- Charles, Hanwell, UK, 16/06/2009 12:27
Report abuse

London has it's own beauty and history. Chelsea Barracks being part of it. While realising the capital has to adapt and function do we really need another 'modern' building that will probably look as grotesque and out of place in thirty years as those buildings from the 50's and 60's did by the time we got to the 80's. The bottom line is that these particular architects didn't make as much money out of this as they anticipated. Well done Charles.

- Bern, Whitstable England, 16/06/2009 11:57
Report abuse

Prince Charles has done nothing other than write a letter. He has no control over architecture and no power over the developers, a foreign company. It's entirely their decision to go ahead or not, and they've had thousands of angry letters from other people.

I would guess in the current financial climate with building projects bankrupt and abandoned everywhere, and with Lord Rogers very expensive requirements stretching the budget, that this has been put on hold for financial reasons. Rogers himself is unelected and with Norman Foster has virtually a duopoly on all prominent building in London. He's probably been dropped because he's too pricey and is using this smokescreen for publicity and self-defence.

- Tom Moncrieff, london W6, 16/06/2009 11:55
Report abuse

Lord Rogers: "...now wants an inquiry to investigate whether Charles has a constitutional right to become involved in matters which have economic, political and social ramifications."

Fair enough.

While we're at it, can we also have an inquiry as to how Lord Rogers was able to ride roughshod over the written objections of hundreds upon hundreds of local residents in the first place.

And as others have said, if the good Lord feels so strongly about unconstitutional privilege, perhaps he will be so kind as to abdicate his Lordship and return to being 'Mr Rogers' once more...

- John, London, 16/06/2009 11:42
Report abuse

"Lord" Rogers has simply been out played and outsmarted on this. Rogers endlessly uses his "position" amongst his peers so why not Charles. No doubt he'll be resigning his peerage in disgust....I think not.
Well done Charles. The design was frankly extremely hideous.

- Charlie, London, 16/06/2009 11:34
Report abuse

Sour grapes by an unaccountable New Labour apparatchik who clearly is used to riding roughshod over local opinion. The proposed plans were completely out of keeping with the area and would never have been permitted in any other European capital. Shame on the Mayor and the national Conservative party for not having taken a stand on this and thank God for Prince Charles.

- David, Fulham London, 16/06/2009 11:29
Report abuse

This is all about money, these modernists just want to build a ghetto on the grounds of Chelsea barracks, and do a runner with the cash, they don't seem to care about our Capitol city, I and millions of people love classical, and care about what we leave the future generations, so Lord Rogers, is it not about time you listened to Prince Charles, and take on board what he says?, as for Chelsea Barracks, in my opinion ,it should not have been sold in the first place, Labour selling the family silver springs to mind.

- David Crocket, Bradford UK, 16/06/2009 11:28
Report abuse

A very good point raised in the article is how Charles gets involved in matters, it is worrying and symbolises the dark aspects of our society.

- Jk, London, uk, 16/06/2009 11:17
Report abuse

Sour Grapes? Of course.
One unelected person complaining about the perceived power of another unelected person, while forgetting that yet another unelected person (i.e. Joe Public) might think that the first unelected person has too much power.

- Dt, Harrow, UK, 16/06/2009 11:01
Report abuse

There should be a national inquiry in to how developers and architects can inflict there disgusting bland buildings on to us, creations that have no worth in themsevles but seem to only to scar our landscape.

Yes we want jobs, and housing, and prosperity, but perhaps our architects can see it as a challenge to do this withouth great ugly glass and steel manifestations. Why don't they give the idea of decoration ago, of aesthetic beauty, of detail. Come on Lord Rogers, when you manage to design something beautiful then you might have a point worth listening to.

- London, London, 16/06/2009 10:57
Report abuse

'Lord' Rogers now thinks he can lord it over the rest of us and impose his vision on this lovely part of old London?

SOmeone had to say the emperor's clothes looked terrible !

- Cap, London, 16/06/2009 10:46
Report abuse

Good for you Charles. Who does Rogers think he is? Any more trouble from him and you can set your soldiers on him the jumped up squirt.

- Albert Hall, hove england, 16/06/2009 10:37
Report abuse

Prince Charles used his position and influence, but did not ABUSE them - there is a key difference. He certainly did not scupper the plans single-handedly. Rogers is angry because he has lost a large fee and has also lost face, to some extent. However, trying to limit the prince's right to express an opinion, albeit vigorously (he often talks a lot of rubbish anyway) amounts to sour grapes. Would Rogers object to unelected rock stars and film stars taking up crusades in the same way?! Of course he wouldn't. Charles does not make decisions. There is no abuse of power.

- James, Wandsworth, 16/06/2009 10:23
Report abuse

I think Rogers has a point. Charles is too fond of sticking his noses into affairs that do not concern him from quack medicine on the NHS to architecture. He, of course, like all of us, has a right to an opinion but to use his position of inherited power to influence decisions that should only be made by democratic mandate is clearly unconstitutional.

- John David, London, 16/06/2009 10:12
Report abuse

Lord Rogers appears to think he is god, like someone else who runs this Government. HRH is expressing his view as a person, not necessarily as a Royal, and he has been listened to. Isn't that what free speech is all about. Since it seems the residents weren't listened to by Lord R and his minions, who have no interest in what the local people think. Good on you HRH and Lord R should just be philisophical - you win some and lose some.

- Dave, ashington, West Sussex, 16/06/2009 10:05
Report abuse

Hell hath no fury like the protective fury of the establishment of professional institutions. From art to finance, to the medical profession, no one protects their own more. How dare mere mortals have an opinion of their own. Yesterday you published a critique of the Royal Academies annual Summer Show., in short this exibition by the venerable RAs wa abysmal.

Throughout the ages is has always been thus. Overpaid and over opinionated. So good luck to Prince Charles.

- Alan Green, Woodford Green, 16/06/2009 10:02
Report abuse

"Someone who is unelected, will not debate but will use the power bestowed by his birthright must be questioned"

As far as I know Prince Charles has no more authority or power than that of a concerned individual.

Also he was not the only person who was advocating that the plans were ill-conceived.

I am not sure what the issue is here. Sour Grapes?

- Guy, Luxembourg, 16/06/2009 09:57
Report abuse

Of course Richard Rogers is not going to refuse his title when it helps him get his own way (like ignoring the views of the 'common' people who actually have to live near his creations), but when some one else with a title that he can't brow-beat here he is straight to the press. Ah poor diddums.

- Jim, London, 16/06/2009 09:56
Report abuse

If the Prince of Wales is the only person in this country who is able to curb the excesses of our vulgar, avaricious, arrogant architects, then something is seriously wrong somewhere.

- Ken, Bexleyheath, 16/06/2009 09:49
Report abuse

The tide is turning against the metropolitan, self appointed, left leaning elite. Rogers is aghast that there are people out there who would dare stand up to his pretentious designs and not fawn over him like the New Labour sycophants. The Royals have stood up for the peasants against the Lords. Well done Charles.

- Danny, London NW5, 16/06/2009 09:48
Report abuse

I reckon that this country would be a better place if the Queen was able to make more use of her nominal power.

- Mark, Billericay, UK, 16/06/2009 09:46
Report abuse

Hear,hear. HRH has no right to intervene in these matters. My opinion is that the proposed development should be as livable,but modern and striking, as possible and in total contrast to Wren's Chelsea Barracks. One should compliment the other and at the same time bring the best out of each of them.

- Adrian, London, 16/06/2009 09:40
Report abuse

On whose behalf is Rogers claiming to speak for? From what I can tell the vast majority of people I speak to are fed up with these grotesque glass and steel monstrosities him and his ilk wish to inflict on the average Joe. He may be able to design a building, but his buildings are still ugly and out of sync with the rest of the built environment. It's time we held a national inquiry into the merits of the modern trash Rogers and co design, and perhaps a constitutional amendment banning criticism of HRH over issues of this nature. And he's lucky he builds his rubbish now- had he tried it a few hundred years ago he'd be lucky to escape with his head.

- Richard, London, 16/06/2009 09:33
Report abuse

How about our right not to have this modernist rubbish inflicted on us?

Rodgers and his cronies are self serving and full pompousness someone has to stop them

- Duncan, Kent, 16/06/2009 09:33
Report abuse

"Are we going to have royalty dictating to us modern art? Are we going to have royalty dictating their taste in music? Are we going to have royalty dictating their belief in medicine, modern or not?"

I am unaware that the Prince was in any position to "dictate" upon any planning consideration. He was offering his opinion as a citizen of the country, just like Lord Rogers.

Besides, are we always to put up with whatever architects and other "experts" consider to be good taste? Who speaks for the man in the street and local residents whose opinions never appear to be considered by local planners?

Of course, had Prince Charles endorsed his design, Lord Rogers would have been the first to play the constitutional card, wouldn't he...

- Nick J, St Albans, UK, 16/06/2009 09:30
Report abuse

If he is really cross about it, perhaps he should relinquish his knighthood. I wonder if the real sting is the overwhelming support for Charles' point of view in this situation.

- Nick, sydney, australia, 16/06/2009 09:19
Report abuse

so presumably Rogers is OK dealing with a royal family when they are potential bankrollers of his schemes but should they have the temerity to question his designs they're setting dangerous precedents. Toys and pram spring to mind.

- Rob, London, 16/06/2009 09:16
Report abuse

Add your comment