Hm. Should we get in a huff because the Royal Parks admit that there are some aspects of the Albert Memorial that are a tad shall we say embarrassing?

I would say nah. The empire stuff is embarrassing. Also – and the Telegraph leaves this bit out – Al’s Mem has always been seen by many as a tad vulgar, to say the least. It’s also always been seen by many as an ugly blot on a beautiful park. It’s never been universally embraced as just a wonderful gift to the nation. Let’s not forget: Q. Victoria was considered very self-indulgent and derelict for going into such complete seclusion after Albert died. She had a job to do and she refused to do it; that was not universally admired.

The 176ft Albert Memorial opposite the Royal Albert Hall in Kensington Gardens, west London, was built to honour Queen Victoria’s late husband in 1872, when the British Empire stretched across the globe. 

It includes a golden sculpture of the Prince Consort himself, along with four groups of large statues representing the people and animals of four continents.

Asia is depicted as a woman on an elephant, America as a native American [man], and Africa as a woman riding a camel. The African sculpture also includes a white European woman reading a book to a black African tribesman.

Funny that the Telegraph thinks it needs to specify “woman” but “man” is automatic. Default-male much?

The Royal Parks website now says that the Albert Memorial’s “representation of certain continents draws on racial stereotypes that are now considered offensive”.

It tells how Victorian guidebooks about the memorial “describe how this ‘uncivilised’ man hunches over his bow. This pose was intended to represent him ‘rising up from barbarism’, thanks to his Western teacher. At his feet lie broken chains, which allude to Britain’s role in the abolition of slavery”.

Is it so terrible to include some commentary of that kind? I don’t think so.