Prince Charles Being Political?

[Curryong]

Yes, however the Guardian's circulation figures are nothing to write home about and apparently their royal wedding issues caused a temporary bump in their revenue for that edition! That says something to me about both the Guardian and republicanism in Britain.

Poll after poll for decades have shown that republicanism in Britain, whether led by Republic or the Guardian is on a slow boat to nowhere. The monarchy's too interwoven into Britain's fabric.

Anyway, more DM musings on Charles's letter writing activities.


How Prince Charles writes 1,000 letters a year to the great and good | Daily Mail Online

 

[AdmirerUS]

The letters themselves don't prove Charles has any influence etc.

One could conclude that the relative inaction of the government despite the letters shows Charles' lack of influence.

 

[hernameispekka]

But he is the future king of England very different to Mr Smith
No ones cares what Mr Smith writes but most people would be very interested in what Charles is writing about

This is true. But releasing this sets a disturbing precedence. When is it ok to release? A prominent community leader? Only when writing to a controversial politican. That letters can be published like that is a good way to get people scared of writing letters like that.

 

[Rudolph]

A lot of what Charles writes is commonsense and most people agree with him even if sometimes he comes across as a bit eccentric.

Considering the hype around the letters I think the Guardian/republicans will be disappointed when the public rally behind Charles

 

[Skippyboo]

What is the rule for correspondence between MPs and large party donors? A multi pound donation is probably going to carry more weight than a letter from Charles.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[VictoriaB]

A lot of what Charles writes is commonsense and most people agree with him even if sometimes he comes across as a bit eccentric.

Considering the hype around the letters I think the Guardian/republicans will be disappointed when the public rally behind Charles

The Guardian readers though will fall in behind the republican outrage that the paper will no doubt find and that is the audience they will be writing for.

It doesn't really matter how benign the letters may be, the Guardian will find something to get worked up about. That's the reason they sought release of them and by hook or by crook they'll find it and use it in their campaign for a republic.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Jacknch]

How ironic it would be if after all the court cases and fuss and nonsense over these letters, the content turns out to be rather less interesting than the Guardian hopes.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

If Charles's letters are released and it is shown that he has lobbied successfully for any changes in the law which would benefit him or the administration of the Duchy of Cornwall, that will be tremendously damaging to his reputation, imo, when the Press examine the particulars.

It isn't much good, imho, pointing out that Joe Stubbs of Greater Wallop wrote a hundred letters on the same subject or that a hundred Alice Turnips wrote on the question.

We know, everybody knows, that letters from the Prince of Wales get greater attention from the minister concerned. No-one in the public arena is concerned with Alice and Joe's views on anything.

However, if the Prince of Wales is seen to be acting behind the scenes that brings into question his political neutrality when he becomes King, and that's something in a Parliamentary democracy everybody should be concerned about.

First of all, I think public officials are concerned about Alice and Joe's view, elected officials need ordinary people in order to be re-elected. However, it is also a fact of life that some people have more influence than others--and not just the Prince of Wales. Any politician in the UK is more likely to return a phone call from Richard Branson than a phone call from an ordinary voter.

I agree there is a problem of perception because of Charles' unique role in British society. He is supposed to be non-political, but if there is legislation that would impact his interest or the Duchy, some people believe that he should not try and influence the legislation, even though every other member of society would be able to do so.

That seems fundamentally unfair to me. Charles pays taxes and may have information that the ministers need in order to make an informed decision. The biggest concern seems to be that he put his contacts in writing. I suppose he could just switch to oral communication.

 

[MARG]

A lot of what Charles writes is commonsense and most people agree with him even if sometimes he comes across as a bit eccentric.

Considering the hype around the letters I think the Guardian/republicans will be disappointed when the public rally behind Charles

Now that would be a riot!

First of all, I think public officials are concerned about Alice and Joe's view, elected officials need ordinary people in order to be re-elected. However, it is also a fact of life that some people have more influence than others--and not just the Prince of Wales. Any politician in the UK is more likely to return a phone call from Richard Branson than a phone call from an ordinary voter.

I agree there is a problem of perception because of Charles' unique role in British society. He is supposed to be non-political, but if there is legislation that would impact his interest or the Duchy, some people believe that he should not try and influence the legislation, even though every other member of society would be able to do so.

That seems fundamentally unfair to me. Charles pays taxes and may have information that the ministers need in order to make an informed decision. The biggest concern seems to be that he put his contacts in writing. I suppose he could just switch to oral communication.

Charles is not required to be "Politically Neutral" until he becomes the monarch. Up until then, theoretically, he has the same rights as any other citizen.

Realistically he, like Richard Branson or any other such high profile citizen probably do get the chance to be heard, or at least have their letters answered.

 

[Fürstin Taxis]

If the content is harmless then why the fight about the release?

 

[Iluvbertie]

It is the principle of the issue. This time the content might be harmless but there may be other public figures or royals whose letters aren't so harmless and the legal decision is that privacy no longer exists in the UK.

 

[MARG]

If the content is harmless then why the fight about the release?

That's like saying the police can search anything, anywhere, without a warrant because if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear!

It is the principle of the issue. This time the content might be harmless but there may be other public figures or royals whose letters aren't so harmless and the legal decision is that privacy no longer exists in the UK.

I agree, the principle of this issue is very important and the release of any piece of information out of context is specious at best. It also sets a dangerous precedent. Who is the next lucky VIP to be exempted from privacy laws?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

If the content is harmless then why the fight about the release?

Because any EU-citizen has the right on privacy of correspondence.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

Two things are clashing here: the opinion of the British Government (and the Prince of Wales) that his correspondence is, like that of any other British citizen, private and that principle should be respected. The opinion of The Guardian is that the princely correspondence was sent to the Government, might be of public interest and therefore should be made public.

My assessment, based on what we already know, is that these correspondences are not spectacular and handle about causes close to the Prince's heart. But try to replace yourself into the Prince's position (and that of his sons and any other royal). Not only they have to fight for every centimeter of public privacy, now they even have no privacy anymore in something like written correspondence...




The Prince of Wales has a good cause to go to the European Court but then the British Government, often so fulminating against "Europe", should now go to the Lords Justice in Strasbourg and there is a big chance the European Court will shred the outcome of the British procedure because the conclusion probably will be that Article 8 can only be broken for most serious and exceptional cases (like murder investigations, anti terrorism operations, etc.) and it is hard to see a justification of the infringement on the Prince's right on privacy without that framework.

 

[PetticoatLane]

Charles is not going to go to the European Court to enforce his rights under the ECHR. Both those things are toxic with the British public. The idea that "Europe" can tell our own country what to do is the nub of the problem British people have when it comes to the European "project". It would be a much bigger PR disaster for him personally than a few letters he's written about recycling or wind farms.

 

[muriel]

Charles is not going to go to the European Court to enforce his rights under the ECHR. Both those things are toxic with the British public. The idea that "Europe" can tell our own country what to do is the nub of the problem British people have when it comes to the European "project". It would be a much bigger PR disaster for him personally than a few letters he's written about recycling or wind farms.

It is the government, and not Prince Charles, who is arguing that the letters ought not to be released.

 

[Rudolph]

Only losers in ruling on Prince's letters

The judgement by the Supreme Court that the letters written by the Prince of Wales to government ministers must be made public is not in the national interest and hinders the proper functioning of the constitution.

One of Somerset's most famous sons, Walter Bagehot the great constitutional authority, set out the three powers of the monarch. These are to be consulted, to encourage and to warn. Each week since 1952 the Queen has granted an audience to her prime minister starting with Winston Churchill to discharge these functions. As the monarchy is hereditary this will be the future role of the Prince of Wales once he becomes King and it is sensible that he should be fully informed and engaged with the political process in a confidential manner.

More: Jacob Rees-Mogg: Why Prince Charles' letters should not be made public | Western Daily Press

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Former Deputy Prime Minister Lord Prescott: the future King should write 'as many as he damn well likes'

Read more: John Prescott defends Prince Charles over published 'spider letters' | Daily Mail Online

 

[Dman]

Peter Hunt @BBCPeterHunt · 1h 1 hour ago
Publication of some of Prince Charles' letters to government moves a step closer. @UKSupremeCourt has formally quashed a government veto.

 

[Dman]

Decision not yet taken on how much of letters attempting to influence policy should be redacted before documents are made available to public-
Prince Charles 'black spider memos' may not be released for months | UK news | The Guardian

 

[MARG]

It is the government, and not Prince Charles, who is arguing that the letters ought not to be released.

You know, I have a sneaking suspicion that the majority of readers have never been aware that it was the government fighting against the release of the POW's letters, but rather that Charles was doing it to keep his nefarious machinations secret.

 

[muriel]

You know, I have a sneaking suspicion that the majority of readers have never been aware that it was the government fighting against the release of the POW's letters, but rather that Charles was doing it to keep his nefarious machinations secret.

Exactly my point!

 

[Rudolph]

Private correspondence between the Prince of Wales and government ministers will be made public on Wednesday following a ruling by Britain's highest court that an attempt to keep them secret was unlawful.

The Prince has expressed “disappointment” that his so-called “black spider memos” to seven departments in Tony Blair’s Labour government will be made public, though aides insisted he was “relaxed” about light being shed on his lobbying.

In March a Supreme Court ruling brought an end to a 10-year Freedom of Information battle by declaring that Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, acted unlawfully when he imposed a veto on publication of the 27 letters to and from the Prince written in 2004 and 2005.

More: Video: Prince Charles 'black spider memos' to be published on Wednesday - Telegraph

 

[MARG]

More: Video: Prince Charles 'black spider memos' to be published on Wednesday - Telegraph

Well, we really must bow to democracy in action and wonder how long it will take them to sort them out of the avalanche of letters to Ministers released to the media.

I mean it, is only right if his letters are in the public interest, so too are everyone else's. The number of letters Prince Charles has written is infinitesimal and will take the media weeks to sort from the piles . . .

Don't mind my sarcasm. I just don't get why Charles is not afforded the same right to privacy as any other member of the public.

Oh, he really does live a life of privilege, except for his thoughts and letters . . . they are public property!

 

[VictoriaB]

Well, we really must bow to democracy in action and wonder how long it will take them to sort them out of the avalanche of letters to Ministers released to the media.

I mean it, is only right if his letters are in the public interest, so too are everyone else's. The number of letters Prince Charles has written is infinitesimal and will take the media weeks to sort from the piles . . .

Don't mind my sarcasm. I just don't get why Charles is not afforded the same right to privacy as any other member of the public.

Oh, he really does live a life of privilege, except for his thoughts and letters . . . they are public property!

Other letters would also be available - if anyone asked. The problem is that the Guardian isn't interested in the opinions of Mrs Smith or Mr Jones just in pushing their republican agenda by embarrassing (they hope) the POW.

I don't know how accurate the report is, but the DM says the Guardian requested letters sent to labour ministers in the Blair Government. Why the need to only show instances when the Prince disagreed with labour policy? Why not request letters written to conservative ministers as well? Are the Guardian only interested in disagreement with labour policy rather than government policy of any persuasion?

It will be interesting to see the way in which the more responsible sections of the press report the letters. I have every faith in the tabloids having a hysterical reaction. Are the reports going to put the letters in context by reporting how many other letters ministers got for and against their proposal, whether the minister changed their policy and the reasons why they changed their policy.

 

[Dman]

Kate Williams @KateWilliamsme · 2h 2 hours ago
The #BlackSpiderMemos #PrinceCharles are due to be published at 3pm today, after 10 yr battle between @guardian and government

 

[wyevale]

The 'infamous' letters were duly published this afternoon, and if BBC Radio 4's 'PM programme [which is widely respected], is anything to go by, there is NOTHING in them , to which a reasonable person might object !

Seems that the Guardian has spent a great deal of its money on proving a point [one that has failed to make the Republican 'splash' it hoped for], and which will merely cement the affection in which the tireless Prince is held by the public.

'In one of his most strident letters the Prince wrote to Mr Blair [then the PM] expressing concern that the RAF had insufficiently modern and efficient aircraft during the war in Iraq'.

The public , too, was worried about this, [at the time], and it is EXACTLY what I would expect of an Air Commodore, in HM Armed Forces.

I suspect the general public will feel the same !

 

[Nico]

Ah ah now what's the fuss is all about !
As excpected the anti "meddling prince" campaign is backfiring, these letters revealing a caring man concerned by the future of the nation.

Prince Charles wrote to Tony Blair in 'black spider' letters | Daily Mail Online

Nice try !

 

[Princess Mara]

After reading them, I believe I like Prince Charles better now-The man has good common sense. A shame about the cost of keeping them from the public, though.

 

[muriel]

So, based on press commentary, nothing particularly controversial at all!

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

After reading them, I believe I like Prince Charles better now-The man has good common sense. A shame about the cost of keeping them from the public, though.

These costs were made to fight for the man whom, as only citizen in the whole kingdom, is denied the basic human right on privacy of his correspondence. Finally in a most mind-baffling demarché by juridicians, the public should know what the Prince thinks about badgers, albatrosses, the equipment of the Navy, the administrative strain on farmers and the concerns about failing education standards.

If The Guardian (which has immensely shot it its very own republican foot) has not started the whole crazy manoeuvre to deny the Prince a basic human right (which they would defence for anyone else...) then these costs were not necessary...