So Belgravia has problems. Frankly, who cares. A loophole has been closed and the Times treats it like a national emergency. I hate to tell you this Mr Editor, but there's more problems facing folk who'll never be millionaires or billionaires than empty houses in a posh area of London
It’s a conflation of history and relevance. Britons thousands of years of history- mixed with the vast array of Nobel estates and the Crown estates make it difficult for those living, breathing, eating ‘historical culture’ to sort the old from the relevant.
History has been turned into monetized endeavors. Any property, including Buckingham Palace can be toured and ogled.
Historical museum models like the V&A warehouse are extraordinary not just because of the size of collections but because of access.
Without access to the history, it’s irrelevant and meaningless. What’s being argued is the “haves who have always had”, at someone’s expense mind you, need to be preserved. But why?
I enjoy art, architecture, history not as a bubble but as something instructive to our societies evolution (or lack thereof).
“ the more things change the more they stay the same” is an adage that is permanently with me. We’ve done all this before. Therefore, the relevance of Belgravia? New money, FOMO, egos seeking recognition… it’s all highly personal, not cultural.
There’s no access via the poor little rich people model. And just like in the early days of Belgravia, “any foreigner with money” can purchase the estate. Making historical relevance to the social fabric of London moot.
As a resident of London who lives here because it’s ace, my least favourite parts of the city are Mayfair, Belgravia, Kensington (minus Hyde Park, the museums & Royal Albert Hall), etc. Because they’re so not London. They are devoid of everything which makes this city a wonderful place to be. It actually makes my skin itch if I go there.
So Belgravia has problems. Frankly, who cares. A loophole has been closed and the Times treats it like a national emergency. I hate to tell you this Mr Editor, but there's more problems facing folk who'll never be millionaires or billionaires than empty houses in a posh area of London
Who could have imagined having an ex editor of The Mail running The Times would replace “newspaper of record” with facsimile of Mail and Telegraph
Thank you, Bear. Now I can stop worrying about those poor non-doms and have another bowl of gruel.
Exactly All Of This!
It’s a conflation of history and relevance. Britons thousands of years of history- mixed with the vast array of Nobel estates and the Crown estates make it difficult for those living, breathing, eating ‘historical culture’ to sort the old from the relevant.
History has been turned into monetized endeavors. Any property, including Buckingham Palace can be toured and ogled.
Historical museum models like the V&A warehouse are extraordinary not just because of the size of collections but because of access.
Without access to the history, it’s irrelevant and meaningless. What’s being argued is the “haves who have always had”, at someone’s expense mind you, need to be preserved. But why?
I enjoy art, architecture, history not as a bubble but as something instructive to our societies evolution (or lack thereof).
“ the more things change the more they stay the same” is an adage that is permanently with me. We’ve done all this before. Therefore, the relevance of Belgravia? New money, FOMO, egos seeking recognition… it’s all highly personal, not cultural.
There’s no access via the poor little rich people model. And just like in the early days of Belgravia, “any foreigner with money” can purchase the estate. Making historical relevance to the social fabric of London moot.
As a resident of London who lives here because it’s ace, my least favourite parts of the city are Mayfair, Belgravia, Kensington (minus Hyde Park, the museums & Royal Albert Hall), etc. Because they’re so not London. They are devoid of everything which makes this city a wonderful place to be. It actually makes my skin itch if I go there.
Love 'cannonised' in note 6. A Freudian slip?
I think it’s called making mountains out of mole hills.