M'Lord Rogers is an interesting man, with interesting things to say:
"I think that anyone who uses his power due to birth [like Prince Charles', whose views on the Chelsea Barracks redevelopment saw it stopped] breaks a constitutional understanding - it's not a law, it's a constitutional understanding - and a trust we have within our society about the role of people who have received power in that manner."Again, we find replicated the debates of yesteryear, a true bourgeois finding arbitrary authority of a Royal getting in his way.
To say I'm no fan of M'Lord Rogers is an understatement. His best achievement is his remuneration package, which, according to Private Eye is calculated on a post tax basis (i.e. his gross pay increases when direct taxation goes up to protect his net/take home pay). he's an inspiration to us workers on how to avoid the burden of taxation falling upon us.
Nonetheless, he is but one bourgeois, but we still see the old class struggle, and its root causes played out in this merry little drama. Prince Charles did stop a development, when so many other individuals who object to schemes are overridden or ignored by the planning process. Doubtless, he had a quiet word with the Qatari royal family, but it's enough to show aristocratic power still remains.
Should we celebrate M'Lord Rogers' stance? No, we just laugh that the constitutional lash up once again shows creaking signs, and hope that the end to both rulers and robbers is at hand.