Sir, What has become of the Royal Horticultural Society? It used to be a serious society, run by, and for the benefit of, horticulturalists. It now seems to have become little more than a highly commercial horticultural entertainment business, run by accountants, and PR and marketing people and staffed by a burgeoning bureaucracy with little or no horticultural interest or experience. The prime objectives seem to be increasing income and self-promotion. What was once a learned society has become little more than a marketing brand.

The move some years ago to broaden the appeal of the RHS and increase its membership has produced unintended consequences, not least a role reversal by the staff. The RHS seems now to cater primarily for the mass amateur membership, with little to offer to knowledgeable gardeners and decreasing expertise among its staff.

I understand the RHS is starting to withdraw support from specialist plant groups, beginning with the Lily Group. The Garden magazine has degenerated into little more than a human interest magazine on a gardening theme, and The Plantsman magazine is following a similar route. Apparently profitability is more important than serious content that expands our knowledge about of plants and horticulture.

The RHS is already pricing out small specialist nurseries and many members from the main shows, and at Chelsea the former are being replaced by stands selling fashion accessories. The last benefit to members, free entry to the decreasing number of Westminster shows, is being withdrawn, though initially by the devious staging of the Autumn Show at the Temple. How long will it be before all these shows are stopped to satisfy the accountants, who point out that the RHS can make more money by renting out the halls than to use them themselves for shows. That is not why they were built, or called the Horticultural Halls.

Times Archive, 1817: Meeting of the Horticultural Society

Among the vegetables some most beautiful brocoli, raised by Mr Ronald, attracted notice

The RHS Council neither consults the membership nor communicates with it beyond the bland summary and accounts presented in advance of the AGM. In these days of corporate governance is this a proper way to run a multimillion-pound charity? While the RHS must cater for a wide range of interests, the furthering of serious knowledge and understanding that was once the primary objective of the society is being neglected, no doubt because it is not profitable in financial terms.

It is to be hoped that those disaffected senior members will overcome the great taboo of criticising the RHS in public and remember the consequences of good men remaining silent.

Gary Dunlop
Newtownards, Co Down

Explore Letters

• Feedback