I have much sympathy for the view of Patrick Hannan, which I quoted the other day:
He often seems very like the persona created by the great comedian Tony Hancock, someone whose abilities always left him short of his aspirations in, for instance, intellectual matters, and who subsided into a state of truculent pique at each failure.But the Guardian campaign against him and his influence over architecture seems to me to be based on a deceitful view. Reading the Guardian, you would think that the wider public is united in its love of the products of modern architecture, and only aristocratic reactionaries like Charles are standing out against this consensus.
Occasionally, however, the newspaper allows the truth to break through. Here is the Guardian from yesterday, mentioning in passing the Prince's role in torpedoing Richard Rogers' plans for the Chelsea Barracks site:
While local opponents of the scheme welcomed him as a conquering hero, his intervention also provoked a storm of criticism from architects.And that surely is the key here. As ever, the Guardian is not speaking for the people but for the professionals. The long-standing rift between public taste and expert opinion is simply ignored because it would pose difficult questions for the paper's settled view of the world.