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
Simon Jenkins /
Wednesday 13 May 2015 19.50 BST /
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/13/black-spider-memos-prince-charles
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:
Enviar um comentário