StructureHub

Oh, man.  The UK is really getting some mileage out of Prince Charles.  He’s propensity for stumbling into kerfuffles provides for great theater.  Only this time, he is completely right, kind of.

What happened?  Prince Charles wrote a foreward for a book on restoring old houses, at one point mentioning his belief that restoring buildings to their original state is preferable to adding modern components or additions.  The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) didn’t take kindly to his (their royal patron) statement in light of their frequent use of modern architecture.

Apparently, SPAB’s collective head would explode if it coexisted with the Prince’s innocent position (expressed independently), so it requested that he bring his views in line with their standards.  SPAB was (apparently) blind to the irony of existing for the “protection” of “ancient” buildings, yet demanding patrons to forebear from loving them so much as to prefer them in their original state.  Prince Charles must have seen the irony too, because he promptly resigned his post.

It’s not that I prefer Prince Charles’ (sometimes misguided) desire to reinvent the supposed bucolic past with certain architects; in fact, I tend to favor SPAB’s approach.  But really, SPAB?  The Prince wasn’t interfering with your activities because of any conflict with his views; he didn’t try to cut your funding because he likes his thatch without titanium.  He expressed his viewpoint (which is doubtless known by everyone anyway) in a book.  The foreward of a book.  What’s so threatening about that?

On a larger level, I am amused by the fact that we have a Prince, infatuated with traditional architecture, that was told to conform with the views of an organization that embraces modern architecture, which originated as a movement toward (among other things) individualism.

Image courtesy of hoder