quinta-feira, 4 de maio de 2023

28/03/2011 : A propósito da visita de HRH o Principe Carlos de Inglaterra a Lisboa, (28/03/2011) por António Sérgio Rosa de Carvalho./ Regarding the visit of HRH Prince Charles of England to Lisbon, (28/03/2011) by António Sérgio Rosa de Carvalho.

28/03/2011 

Ler Também em baixo, o artigo do cr;itico do Guardian, Simon Jenkins  publicado ontem ( 13-5-2015 )



Aqui temos um grande homem, cuja visita poderia ter grande significado para o futuro da Reabilitação Urbana e a Preservação do Património Arquitectónico de Lisboa, se a Autarquia e quem a dirige estivesse melhor informada ... Posso sugerir a leitura de “Arquitectura Escolha ou Fatalidade”, Livro – Manifesto de Leon Krier, conselheiro do Principe Carlos, publicado em 2000 e traduzido por mim numa iniciativa conjunta com Krier, afim de divulgar as suas ideias ao público na Lingua Portuguesa ?



Há muitos anos que sigo o percurso coerente de Principe Carlos de Inglaterra e os seus genuínos e constantes interesses, na área da Arquitectura, Urbanismo, Ecologia, Agricultura Biológica, Medicina Alternativa…etc.,
Apesar de existirem dezenas de organizações que desempenham diversos e importantes papéis na Sociedade com o seu patrocinio, de ele ter provocado uma revolução Agrícola nos seus estados de Cornwall, convertendo toda a produção agrícola para a Agricultura Biológica com a comercialização de diversos produtos, de ter construido uma pequena cidade exemplar ( Poundbury), onde as suas ideias sobre a Arquitectura e o Urbanismo foram postas em práctica, no entanto o seu papel fundamental como Networker, só foi verdadeiramente conhecido e reconhecido há pouco tempo através de um Documentário sobre a sua vida.
Com efeito, o Principe Carlos era uma das figuras mais desconhecidas, efeito de uma campanha de desinformação desenvolvida pelos media, na sequência histérica da 'canonização' da Princesa Diana.
Que ele aproxima directamente os políticos e os líderes Mundiais, e que 'pressiona' para as Boas Causas, fazendo um apelo, com organização e argumentação sólida e convicta, à sua responsabilidade ética, é algo que coerentemente está em sintonia com o seu genuino sentido de 'oblige' e que honra a sua divisa, que ele põe continuamente em acção … 'Ich Dien' … ou seja … Eu Sirvo.
Provávelmente esta atitude ética e coerente ir-lhe-á custar a coroa (embora últimamente e progressivamente a opinião pública tenda finalmente, para um reconhecimento das grandes qualidades e obra deste homem notável, e hoje em dia, já a maior parte dos britânicos prefere vê/lo no trono em lugar do seu filho) mas já lhe garantiu o estatuto de um verdadeiro Principe … Principe de Alma.

António Sérgio Rosa de Carvalho
Publicada por Jeeves à(s) 11:03:00 da manhã a 28/ 3 / 2011


ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

Here we have a great man, whose visit could have great significance for the future of Urban Rehabilitation and the Preservation of the Architectural Heritage of Lisbon, if the Municipality and those who run it were better informed ... May I suggest reading "Architecture Choice or Fatality", Book – Manifesto of Leon Krier, advisor to Prince Charles, published in 2000 and translated by me in a joint initiative with Krier, in order to disseminate his ideas to the public in the Portuguese Language ?

 

For many years I have been following the coherent path of Prince Charles of England and his genuine and constant interests in the area of Architecture, Urbanism, Ecology, Organic Farming, Alternative Medicine... and so on.

Although there are dozens of organisations that play diverse and important roles in the Society with his patronage, that he has brought about an Agricultural revolution in his states of Cornwall, by converting all agricultural production to Organic Farming with the marketing of various products, that he has built an exemplary small town (Poundbury), where his ideas about Architecture and Urbanism have been put into practice,  however, his pivotal role as a Networker was only truly known and recognized recently through a documentary about his life.

In fact, Prince Charles was one of the most unknown figures, the effect of a disinformation campaign developed by the media, in the hysterical wake of the 'canonization' of Princess Diana.

That he directly brings together politicians and world leaders, and that he 'presses' for Good Causes, making an appeal, with solid and convinced organization and argumentation, to his ethical responsibility, is something that is coherently in tune with his genuine sense of 'oblige' and that honours his motto, which he continually puts into action ... 'Ich Dien' ... That is... I serve.

Probably this ethical and coherent attitude will cost him the crown (although ultimately and progressively public opinion tends at last to a recognition of the great qualities and work of this remarkable man, and nowadays, already most Britons prefer to see him on the throne instead of his son) but it has already guaranteed him the status of a true Prince ... Prince of Soul.

 

Antonio Sérgio Rosa de Carvalho

Posted by Jeeves at 11:03:00 am on 28/3/2011



"As for the propriety of the prince’s actions as heir to the throne, it seems the monarchist right and republican left have joined forces in constitutional hysteria. The heir to the throne rules nothing, being heir only to titular headship of state. He has neither constitutional nor political status. He commands no party, no ministers, no peers, no budget, not even Gloucestershire county council. No newspaper dances to his tune.

The only serious privilege he wields is over the Duchy of Cornwall, where his special pleading to Whitehall is no different from that of any landowner. He runs a decent art college and a worthy foundation, which espouse his range of interests. But this hardly endangers the stability of the state.

Indeed, the running message of the black spider letters is not potency but a plaintive sigh of woe at a world going to the dogs."
"The Guardian has shown the Prince of Wales to be a small fry in this ocean. What about the sharks?"
Simon Jenkins

The black spider memos: a royal sigh of woe at a world gone to the dogs


The publication of Prince Charles’s letters is a victory. But he’s small fry compared with the lobbying industry sharks
If the Prince of Wales had been plain Charles Windsor, he would probably be a green columnist for the Guardian. The “black spider” letters to ministers, published today, are so anodyne as to suggest a Private Eye spoof. We have his various views on hill farms, bovine TB, military helicopters, herbal medicine, Smithfield market, Antarctic huts and the fate of the albatross. They hardly come as much surprise; indeed, most were publicised at the time.

All received a polite ministerial brushoff. The government spent a quarter of million to avert our eyes from this – but of the promised upmarket Russell Brand there is no sign.

The publication of the letters is a signal victory for the Guardian’s 10-year campaign for transparency in government. The information tribunal, the high court and the supreme court all agreed: there had to be a limit to the attorney general’s veto on a freedom of information matter. There was an “overall public interest” in the prince’s “advocacy” letters to ministers.

The case for secrecy was always confused. On the one hand, the prince was regarded as a private citizen entitled to have messages to ministers kept confidential. On the other, the former attorney general Dominic Grieve said “the monarch in training” should enjoy the same privileges as the Queen.

First, the prince is not the Queen, who is anyway too careful to put her views in the post. Meanwhile, letters by celebrities to ministers on specific matters of public policy are nowadays bound to leak. Such letters – many drafted by supplicants – require reply from the Whitehall machine. The best policy is openness from the start.

The victory for transparency now needs carrying on to more challenging territory
As for the propriety of the prince’s actions as heir to the throne, it seems the monarchist right and republican left have joined forces in constitutional hysteria. The heir to the throne rules nothing, being heir only to titular headship of state. He has neither constitutional nor political status. He commands no party, no ministers, no peers, no budget, not even Gloucestershire county council. No newspaper dances to his tune.

The only serious privilege he wields is over the Duchy of Cornwall, where his special pleading to Whitehall is no different from that of any landowner. He runs a decent art college and a worthy foundation, which espouse his range of interests. But this hardly endangers the stability of the state.

Indeed, the running message of the black spider letters is not potency but a plaintive sigh of woe at a world going to the dogs. The causes long known as dear to the prince’s heart are organic farming, alternative medicine, opposing GM foods, global warming and traditional architecture. There are strong opinions but no political partisanship in his interventions. The one topic on which he is said to exert unfair influence is over modern architecture. Yet examples are puny.

The prince’s widely shared antipathy to the National Gallery “carbuncle” once proposed in Trafalgar Square was said to “help” ministers reject what they would have rejected anyway. As for Lord Rogers’s modernist estate at Chelsea Barracks, it was local opposition that caused Westminster planners to indicate rejection, leading the Qataris to withdraw their plan. It merely suited the developers to blame royalty rather than democracy for their failure. The claim peddled on today’s BBC Today programme that the prince has “put back British architecture 30 years” is absurd, as any glance at London’s skyline will attest.
The prince’s critics profess worry that by writing letters he jeopardises the neutrality he should observe as a future monarch. Republicans should be delighted rather than dismayed at this. But even monarchists should recognise that the Queen has survived some four decades of her son’s often eccentric preaching on numerous topics.

That heirs to the throne should be silent is a novel concept. Hanoverian princes consorted persistently with oppositions. Victoria herself could never quite see why ministers would not do as she told them. She adored Melbourne and Disraeli but detested Gladstone. In the 1930s Edward, Prince of Wales, toured the Great Depression and maddened ministers by muttering: “Something must be done.”

It is possible, as conjectured by Mike Bartlett’s recent play King Charles III, that Charles might refuse to sign a statute to which he objected on principle. He might draw the line at GM foods or fracking. If so, he would have to abdicate – as Baudouin of Belgium did for a day rather than ratify abortion. That is no problem. There are plenty more kings where he came from.

Somehow the body politic has survived the Prince of Wales. He is a pragmatist constantly striving to make some difference in the world, reluctant to accept that is not his lot.

The Guardian view on the black spider memos: a victory for the rule of law, a warning to Prince Charles
Editorial: After 10 years, Whitehall and Buckingham Palace have finally lost their campaign to keep the prince’s advocacy letters a secret
Read more
His opinions are not extreme. He is careful in his interests and associates. Despite a semi-public flirtation with the Social Democrats in the 1980s, he avoids party dispute. He no longer kills animals for sport. It is surely benign that someone in his position cares, as he clearly does, about public health, the environment and the state of the world. The letters indicate at best a mild concern.

The victory for transparency now needs carrying on to more challenging territory. The black spiders are harmless creatures compared with the multimillion-pound tarantulas of big-time political pressure, uncharted and undisclosed. Where are the construction and property interests, the doctors and big pharma, the beef and barley barons, the defence suppliers and the bankers? During the financial crisis, the publicly owned RBS was paying six lobbying firms to put pressure on ministers.

David Cameron in opposition claimed lobbying as “the next big scandal waiting to happen”. He then appointed Francis Maude “to make the UK the most transparent and accountable country in the world”. The result was a mouse of a registrar. Tamasin Cave and Andy Rowell of Spinwatch reckon just 1% of lobbying is even remotely “regulated”. Small wonder that trust in government has gone from 80% in 1997 to 30% today.


The issue here is not the privacy of private communication, which the Cameron government holds cheap when it is intruding on others. The issue is how open should be all processes of Whitehall policy formation. Are we entitled to know the conduits of access enjoyed by those with a massive financial interest at stake? The Guardian has shown the Prince of Wales to be a small fry in this ocean. What about the sharks?


Sem comentários: