This is from last week, but oh well:

The Times – Past notes: Should princes be seen and not heard? By Graham Stewart

The Prince of Wales has done it again. Hundreds of locals campaigned against the erection of uncompromisingly modern buildings opposite Sir Christopher Wren’s Royal Hospital in Chelsea. Yet it was the Prince’s appeal to the site’s Qatari owners that is credited with ensuring the withdrawal of the scheme.

Lord Rogers of Riverside, the offending architect, has spluttered about “an abuse of power”. Claiming that the Prince has acted unconstitutionally, he is demanding the formation of a committee of experts to pronounce on whether the Prince can ever again get involved in such contentious matters.

Rogers may not regard historical setting as relevant to his own designs but he ought to accept that the past produces the precedents in any debate about what royalty can and cannot do. This bodes ill for those who believe princes should be seen and not heard.

I think those who hate historical precedent in architecture (and the people of Chelsea wouldn’t be so pissed off if he was a classicist) aren’t likely to be great fans of historical precedent in people disagreeing with them.