Re: HRH Design

On Fri, 3 Feb 1995, John Young wrote:

>    One should see the HRH families and architecture in situ
>    with the crowds of servants and guards and out-buildings
>    and carparks and commercial accretions, cheek by jowl or in
>    the old-timey villages nearby.  Gaze at the posters, the

John, I think I, too, find it appalling.

One of the problems with this thread (and our last cycle, too) on Mr.
Windsor...I think it's important to call him that to re-awkanen ourselves
to the enormous preposertousness of the Crown...(no offense to the
Windsors as individuals or to any British here)...at any rate...I prefer
to call him Mr. Windsor because...because I was in Britain 3 years ago and
I sensed the great debilitation brought on by the Crown...a herditary
class of lower 'nobles'...each jockying for invite...a great mortal blow to
the character of the individual who is not even in the race. A great cloud
of snobbery too thick for Americans (save those from Boston or Virginia,
perhaps) to even imagine. I suggest it's healthy to use a respectful but
common form of address such as Mister; every time we refer to him as HRH
or Prince Charles we reinforce the mythology.

BUT...BUT...BUT... Mr. Windsor's hereditary job should not be confused
with the key spatial components of traditional towns which (I understand)
he (as individual human being) advocates:
1. a street
2. a sidewalk
3. buildings enfronting (oh how I love those architectural terms!) the
street and with direct visual and physical access to it.
4. the parking lots obscured

Certainly, Mr. Windsor's job should be yet further diminished...But Mr.
Charles Windsor's sense of what is important about the traditional town is
right on.

I have asked this here before...what is an 'innovative and challenging'
urban design form that one might propose in lieu of the one offered by
another amateur, Mr. Windsor?

David Sucher