Joanna Blythman

IT'S hard not to see a certain irony in the self-righteous indignation expressed by luminaries of the architectural profession towards HRH Prince Charles. He is castigated for using his influence undemocratically, bending the ear of his mates (in this case, the Qatari royals who are bankrolling Richard Rogers's Chelsea harbour project) to subvert the public planning process. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Since when was the planning process democratic? Try telling that to community protest groups the length and breadth of Britain which find themselves more or less impotent as the "progress" juggernaut thunders over them time and time again.

Massive housing and commercial developments, new superstores and roads ... such projects come before the public for scrutiny only when developers have already had cosy exploratory chats with local planners and carved up the whole deal behind the scenes. Even then, they are pushed through the so-called planning process with unseemly, and sometimes mischievous, haste. Ever noticed how public consultation plans for municipal mega-projects, with tight schedules for objecting attached, suddenly get launched on a Friday afternoon before a holiday period when no-one can be bothered to scour the council notice section of the local newspaper?

It's no good architects coming over all democratic and squeaky clean here. With the exception of a few less ruthlessly commercial practitioners committed to working with communities, architects are in on these deals from the beginning, drawing up plans for their developer paymasters and generally schmoozing with the municipal mafia. They have a direct financial interest in seeing such projects go ahead; at least HRH doesn't.

For observers of the latest skirmish in the ongoing war of words between HRH and UK architecture's top table, any adjudication on the merits of these rival viewpoints can seem like a choice between two unsympathetic constituencies. What's worse: Charles, a crusty, privileged relic of an anachronistic institution; or Messrs Alsop, Gough, Foster et al, a minted, hubristic, diva-like bunch who speak in an arcane language of pretentious riddles and evidently feel that they know better than the common people.

The media reported the prince's RIBA speech as an apology to the profession, reassurance that he wasn't picking a fight along the lines of his much-quoted "monstrous carbuncle" remark of 1984. Few, if any, of these media commentators took the trouble to listen to what he actually said (www.architecture.com/TheRIBA/175thAnniversary/AnnualLecture/speech.aspx). HRH was faintly conciliatory, making it clear that he wasn't rekindling the sterile fight between "modernists" and "traditionalists", but he didn't back down. Charles simply reiterated his call for a more "bottom-up" environmentally-aware architecture that listens to local communities, learns from the guiding principles of the past and does not trample over anything that is particular and vernacular in the pursuit of the novel and technological.

Much as it pains me as a dyed-in-the-wool republican, Charles talks sense on lots of things. Anyone in any doubt about this should read David Lorimer's book Radical Prince, wherein the author examines the prince's thinking on everything from ecology and education through to religion and health. HRH's contribution to the public debate on such matters is remarkably consistent: he is critical of the blinkered pursuit of modernistic - for which read technocratic, mechanistic - solutions and wants to see this balanced by respect for traditional, time-honoured custom and practice. Good on him.

Charles performs a sterling public service by championing causes that need high-profile support. He sticks up for natural, sustainable, organic farming methods against the magic bullet, intensive farming approaches that are touted around behind the scenes by the bully-boy biotech lobby. Much to the chagrin of powerful pharmaceutical interests, he defends alternative medicine against blinkered professional elites who dismiss as irrational therapies as diverse as acupuncture, herbalism and homeopathy because they draw on tried and tested folk knowledge which doesn't fit in with the simplistic reductionist paradigm that dominates modern science.

You can say that Charles abuses his position to influence public debate, but I welcome his contribution because, as he told RIBA: "Few people dare to speak out ... for the very good reason that if they do they find themselves abused and insulted, accused of being old-fashioned, out of touch, reactionary, anti-progress, even anti-science - as if it was some kind of unholy blasphemy to question the state of our surroundings, of our natural environment, our food security, our climate and our own human identity and meaning. Little wonder, then, that most people shy away from pointing out that the Emperor isn't actually wearing very many clothes any more".

As Charles left the hall after giving his RIBA address, a woman stood up and shouted: "Abolish the monarchy!" My default republicanism would normally incline me to agree with that sentiment, but then I'm thrilled to see such an establishment figure at liberty to fight the right corner. It's enough to turn me into a monarchist - well, almost.