Should Prince Charles have freedom of speech?

This dude:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well, his name's charlie and he likes buildings like this: http://www.elizabethannedesigns.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/westminster-abbey.jpg

But this guy:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

His name is Pierce "marbles in his mouth" Gough, and he likes buildings like this: http://www.contemporist.com/photos/bolgen_01.jpg

And now there's a big whoohar of Charlie's interfering and influence of modern British architecture. Some liberal whiney faces are up in arms because they want nice glass on the front of their dockside apartments, and they say Charlie's way too powerful to have any democratic say in it. I know, bizarre eh?

So, what's you view. Do you think anyone with and much power and influence such as prince Chuck should be telling the architectural establishment what they should be building for the future preservation of our much in need of a good sandblast buildings?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is Prince Charles doing anything illegal? What's the use of having power if you can use it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope, but some people say he's holding back the development of contemporary architecture. Which means none of this: http://www.kevinheavey.co.uk/images/gherkin_building.jpg, or this, http://www.richard-seaman.com/Travel/UK/London/Highlights/LondonEyeFromNorthBank.jpg and absolutely nothing like this, http://i.pbase.com/o6/11/346711/1/85080296.GA9j9yF8.DSC_4540sml.jpg.

There are some people who want to keep England nice an old looking, and others want our buildings to look all shiny and new, and I think they're about to have a wrestling match over it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

good, because that thing is hideous.

 

That same building was considered for most phallic building.
If it impacts on buisness, it won't matter what prince charles says, for now, he has some say, but the moment money is lost because people aren't attracted to the new buildings, he'll be out on his ass.

 

I'm on Charles side here.

 

The thing about "modern" architecture is that it has a tendency to represent the views of those who shirk aesthetic timelessness in favour of being different. What looks progressive today often isn't a long term view, and in future decades merely looks ugly.

 

Charles has a right to his opinion, oh and I agree with him.

 

Absolutely not.

 

They could do what they did here in the US. They build the Conference Center around an historical building. It now sits in the lobby.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If by modern architecture you mean those God-awful blocks of 'estate' flats that you see in most British cities, I'm with Charles--they're the most appalling experiments in social alienation you could possibly come up with.

 

-=-

The fact that a supposedly free country, a representative democracy, still has a queen & prince makes it extremely difficult to seriously discuss anything about them.

 

why not just build more of these

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Prince charles is right, he has good taste. I've always thought he was a classy dude and tend to agree with him on most things.

 

Amen!

~String

 

Charles should be allowed a say, but his opinion should carry no more weight than any other individual's.
It's not his fault his sense of aesthetics hasn't advanced past the middle ages.

 

He has freedom of speech to express his opinion on buildings, and others have freedom of speech to express their opinion that he should shut the hell up.

Anyway, as someone else already pointed out, usually these sorts of ultra-modern buildings all just end up being considered weird and ugly within a decade of two of them being built. If you design a building along classical lines you aren't likely to make anyone think you're edgy and clever and pushing the boundaries or some such bullshit, but you can be pretty confident that in 15 years people won't look at your building and ask "WTF were they thinking???"

 

I honestly think he should be the king and his opinion should be all that matters.
Why have we got ourselves into this stupid "prime minister" "democracy" shit? It gives retards the illusion they have a say, but in the end they get to vote on one of two politicians, not one of which is ever a decent human being by any standard, let alone comparable to royalty, just some stuffy little sleezy turd, the kind of dickhole that would choose a career in politics, yeah right, that's the kind of guy you want leading a country... yeah no.
Prince charles, the whole royal family for that matter, are intelligent, classy, compassionate, sensible, good people, well read and knowledgable, and yeah they have good taste.
Why would anyone choose a snivelling little politician to lead them over royalty? It's just idiotic.

 

Plus devious, conniving, dishonest, outdated and verging on woo woo.