Prince Charles Being Political?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
 
US Royal Watcher said:
Thanks for the links, Nico. Here's one from the Washington Post. Seems to be much ado about nothing:
Prince Charles, the toothfish and the toothless ‘black spider’ letters - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

Sadly the Washington Post totally missed the point. The Government refused to disclose the contents of the princely letters because that would harm the Prince's basic right on privacy and confidentiality. The Washington Post more or less is on the side: "Why did it cost all that effort and so much money, just publish it" but that is not the point.

I sincerely hope that -for the sake of principle- the UK Government goes in appeal at the EU Court of Justice, to see how they consider the fact that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is ignored: "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."

:flowers:
 
It has finally happened and I am in shock and awe and speechless (well... almost) after reading Stephen Glover's article in the Daily Mail. :shock:

After being so used to to scanning the comments section every now and then and seeing some very nasty and negative comments, it really surprised me at just how positive the comments were. If I had any doubt that the published letters put Charles in a good light, I'm 100% sure now.
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
Sadly the Washington Post totally missed the point. The Government refused to disclose the contents of the princely letters because that would harm the Prince's basic right on privacy and confidentiality. The Washington Post more or less is on the side: "Why did it cost all that effort and so much money, just publish it" but that is not the point.

I sincerely hope that -for the sake of principle- the UK Government goes in appeal at the EU Court of Justice, to see how they consider the fact that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is ignored: "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."

:flowers:
Click to expand...


I believe the point made by the UK courts is that, as heir to the throne, the PoW is a state official. His correspondence to ministers qualifies then as government/state correspondence (as opposed to private correspondence) and is therefore subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

Brief BBC summary of the topics raised by the PoW in the "black spider memos".

10 things that Prince Charles wrote letters about - BBC News
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mbruno said:
I believe the point made by the UK courts is that, as heir to the throne, the PoW is a state official. His correspondence to ministers qualifies then as government/state correspondence (as opposed to private correspondence) and is therefore subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
Click to expand...

The Prince of Wales can not be a state official. Only his mother is.

Where is the end? Should eventual letters by the Duchess of Cornwall or Princess Michael now also be published? When someone writes a letter to someone else, the person may have the basic right to trust that it will be treated with utmost confidentiality.
 
Dman said:
I think it's been said that there will be more letters released.

I agree, everyone can see even in his letters that Charles cares about the issues that affect peoples lives.
Click to expand...
As far as I am aware, there are only 27 letters.

muriel said:
It is the government, and not Prince Charles, who is arguing that the letters ought not to be released.
Click to expand...
A point missed by many, not least the Washington Post!

Mbruno said:
I believe the point made by the UK courts is that, as heir to the throne, the PoW is a state official. His correspondence to ministers qualifies then as government/state correspondence (as opposed to private correspondence) and is therefore subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
Click to expand...
Ah no. The following link lays out the parameters of the FOI and, more importantly, it's exemptions. Exemption 37 is the one we need to fully grasp. It is preceded by a kind of precis in red which helps.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/informati...uidance-for-practitioners/exemptions-guidance
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the link to the exemptions to the FOI, Marg. Given this information, I am not sure why his letters were released.


I just read the Richard Kay/Geoffrey Levy article in the Daily Mail. I don't understand why people avoid reading the Daily Mail--it is very entertaining. I especially appreciate how impressed Kay and Levy were at the revelation Charles actually does research before writing about a particular subject. It was obviously a foreign concept for Kay and Levy.


I especially enjoyed that Kay and Levy described Charles's letter to then-Trade and industry secretary Patricia Hewitt as "menacing" because it said Charles would follow up if the plan was unsuccessful. It seems Kay and Levy believe that Charles' letter sent Patricia Hewitt into a complete panic over the very idea of receiving another letter from the Prince of Wales.


What a pair of losers.
 
MARG said:
As far as I am aware, there are only 27 letters.

A point missed by many, not least the Washington Post!

Ah no. The following link lays out the parameters of the FOI and, more importantly, it's exemptions. Exemption 37 is the one we need to fully grasp. It is preceded by a kind of precis in red which helps.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/informati...uidance-for-practitioners/exemptions-guidance
Click to expand...

Please read the full judgment of the Supreme Court at

https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2014_0137_Judgment.pdf


My understanding is that the Court ruled that the post-2011 absolute exemption in Section 37 did not apply in this case. Instead, the previous qualified exemption applied and,as far as Prince Charles' memos were concerned, it was overridden by the public interest test.
 
Last edited:
US Royal Watcher said:
Thanks for the link to the exemptions to the FOI, Marg. Given this information, I am not sure why his letters were released.
Click to expand...
Because the letters fell outside the 2011 Exemptions which were not retrospective and the information was already in the public domain.

Mbruno said:
I believe the point made by the UK courts is that, as heir to the throne, the PoW is a state official. His correspondence to ministers qualifies then as government/state correspondence (as opposed to private correspondence) and is therefore subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

Brief BBC summary of the topics raised by the PoW in the "black spider memos".

10 things that Prince Charles wrote letters about - BBC News
MARG said:
Ah no. The following link lays out the parameters of the FOI and, more importantly, it's exemptions. Exemption 37 is the one we need to fully grasp. It is preceded by a kind of precis in red which helps.

Exemption guidance for freedom of information (FOI)
Mbruno said:
Please read the full judgment of the Supreme Court at

https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2014_0137_Judgment.pdf

My understanding is that the Court ruled that the post-2011 absolute exemption in Section 37 did not apply in this case. Instead, the previous qualified exemption applied and, as far as Prince Charles' memos were concerned, it was overridden by the public interest test.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I thought I was quite clear in my response to the above post that that the letters were released because they were not covered by the Exemptions, almost everything in the letters being already in the public domain. However, the prefix to the 2011 Exemptions contained a Precis written in Red no less, clarifying HM, PoW and his heir's position.
Communications with the Monarch, the Heir to the Throne or second in line to the Throne or those acting on their behalf is now subject to an absolute exemption. All the rest remain qualified.
Click to expand...
So, HM gets a total pass and the PoW and his heir get a qualified pass. 3.6 states, in part:
The Queen is in a unique position in that it is particularly difficult to disentangle her public and private personas. Unlike any other figure in public life, except the heir to the throne, she was born to her position in public life and has no choice but to accept the resulting media interest. It is important to remember that 'what the public is interested in' is not the same as 'the public interest' as used in the Act.
Click to expand...
And 3.7 states, in part:
Communications between the heir to the throne and Government Ministers, including those between their respective private secretaries, where such views are not already in the public domain are, like those of the Sovereign, likely to remain sensitive because they could, at a later date, be taken to show a lack of political neutrality. It is therefore likely that the public interest test in respect of such communications will continue to be determined in favour of withholding the information.
Click to expand...
Having read both the Judgement and the 2011 Exemptions, section 37, one thing is very clear, the UK courts cannot have mandated that "as heir to the throne, the PoW is a state official" when it is legislatively clear that neither HM nor the PoW ever was nor is now, a "State or Public Official".
 
These letters are a dud.

The Prince of Wales privately lobbied Alex Salmond when he was First Minister to help a stately home, a decaying castle and his own Highlands food brand, according to previously secret correspondence.

Extracts from seven letters released by the Scottish Government under Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation showed he also wrote to the former SNP leader calling for financial aid to the Soil Association in Scotland, of which he is patron, for an initiative promoting healthy food.

In his reply to the latter request, Mr Salmond asked his officials to investigate the possibility and signed off: “I have the honour to be, Sir, Your Royal Highness’s most humble and obedient servant.”

But the disclosure prompted accusations from antimonarchy campaigners of “political meddling” by Prince Charles, who is known as Duke of Rothesay in Scotland, while Mr Salmond rejected claims that he is a Royalist “sook”.

Clarence House said the prince was raising issues of public interest about which he had also raised in public, such as the preservation of historic buildings and “the benefits of sustainable food supply chains.”
Click to expand...
Read more: Prince Charles' 'black spider' letters to Alex Salmond - Telegraph
 
Such a shame! Some people , the Guardian and Republic had so much expectations with this. I feel bad for them :D:D .
 
:previous: You worried?

It is vastly amusing to see and hear from the disgruntled republicans. I mean, you have to laugh at them having scored the ultimate own goal. Charles lobbied on behalf of the people . . . that's a hanging offence isn't it?

After all these years of trying to portray Charles as some sort of despicable, latter-day Machiavelli whose machinations, signaled by his infamous "Black Spider Letters", they finally won the right to read, publish and expose him for what he really is. And I am sure more than a little champagne or single malt marked the legal win of the battle royal. Then came the actual letters.

Imagine their horror when those letters were published, letters they had long claimed would, if made public, have the potential to bring about the fall of the monarchy itself. Instead of Charles being exposed as some sort of demented meddler, the only thing exposed to the open glare of the public was a fine future King who cares about the pretty mundane problems of very ordinary people and the preservation of historic places such as Dumfries House, the bungling incompetence of media hungry republicans and last but not least, a huge legal bill. :flowers:
 
Last edited:
That was remarkably archaïc by Mr Salmond, not even to the Queen but "just" to the Duke of Rothesay: In his reply to the latter request, Mr Salmond asked his officials to investigate the possibility and signed off: “I have the honour to be, Sir, Your Royal Highness’s most humble and obedient servant.”
 
:previous: Yes, in the finest traditions of a Minister in the government of King William IV, circa 1835. He'll never live that one down!
 
A lot is being made of this on social media but I'm not sure its news. I thought it was common knowledge. It was released under Freedom of Information. From the story:

A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “It has been established practice for many years that the sovereign and the heir to the throne receive the minutes of cabinet meetings. It is important that the head of state and her heir are properly briefed.”
Click to expand...
Prince Charles has been receiving secret government memos for decades, documents reveal - Mirror Online
 
... and... is this news? I thought it was pretty normal for him to do that...
 
How thick are these people. You really think your future head of state doesn't have access to government papers. He is the future KING. :bang:
 
I honestly think I've known he's done that for years. Its been stated often that Charles receives the "boxes" just like his mother so this is no "breaking news" to me.

He needs to know what's going on as much as his mother does because should there be any reason that the Queen couldn't fulfill her role, Charles needs to step in and be informed. Just common sense to me.
 
Republic, The Guardian and many British people actually want the next Head of State to assume his responsibilities with no idea of what is going on ... and that is what would happen if he wasn't seeing the boxes.


The last monarch I know who wasn't seeing the boxes from reaching their majority was Edward VII and even then he did do so for the last few years of his mother's reign and it was her personal decision that kept him from seeing them earlier.


George V, Edward VIII and Elizabeth II all saw them from their majority onwards (and I assume the Duke of York did during the reign of Edward VIII while he was the heir presumptive). Charles has been seeing them since his 18th birthday - as a Counsellor of State.


I suspect William also sees some of them already - as part of his training and as a Counsellor of State.
 
Peter Hunt ‏@BBCPeterHunt
The BBC has learnt that the Duke of Cambridge does receive Cabinet papers. He is given them occasionally.

Peter Hunt ‏@BBCPeterHunt
Prince William is given the gov documents to help him understand the workings of Whitehall and to prepare him for when he is King.

Rudolph posted this information in another thread but it confirms that William does see them on occasion.

Interesting that Labour is demanding the inquiry when they held power for the majority of the time that Charles has been receiving the information.
 
See the neighbouring monarchy overseas, the Netherlands: there the Heir is installed as a member of the Raad van State (Council of State), founded in 1531. See picture. This most honourable college needs to be consulted in the legislative process. It is also the highest Court of Administration.

That the Heir is a member has everything to do with his destination: once he will be the head of state. Not a doctor, not a salesman, not a pianist, he will be King. It was (and is) considered wise that the future head of state is known with "the machinery of state". The Dutch Heir has, via the membership of the Raad van State, already before the kingship access to all legislative documents, including the confidential notes and memoranda.

I think it is only wise that the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge, with their future perspectives fixed and set in concrete, have access to state papers indeed. It is their destiny. Better too early than too late.
 
Duc-At what age did Beatrix and later W-A become members of the Raad van State?
 
Charles has been a member of the Privy Council for decades and so receives all the same information that every member of that body receives.


He has also been eligible to serve as a Councillor-of-State since 1966 and so has been privy to a lot of information since then - as it appropriate for the heir to the throne.


That he has been receiving information since 1992 ignores the fact that he has been receiving it for a lot longer than that.
 
I have no objection whatever to Charles (as the Queen's deputy and as heir to the throne) receiving copies of the contents of the red boxes. I don't think it's inappropriate either for William to be seeing some of them. It's only prudent when you have a very elderly monarch and an heir who is in his late 60's.

It is what Charles does with the privileged information that he receives that I have problems with. I just don't agree that the heir to the throne should be acting as some sort of super-lobbyist for his causes, even if he does passionately believe in them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blog Real
King Lodovico I, King Lodovico II and Kingdom of Etruria
Replies
3
Views
599
Blog Real
Blog Real
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
412
Tatiana Maria
T
H
Royal Fears and Phobias
Replies
9
Views
1K
Biri
B
T
Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy
Replies
6
Views
959
Tatiana Maria
T
Marengo
  • Sticky
Charities and Causes of King Charles III and the Prince's Trust 2, Sep 2022 -
Replies
13
Views
790
maria-olivia
maria-olivia

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom