TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 14 °C Sunday 19 May, 2013

Britain blocks publication of Prince Charles letters

The attorney general blocked the letters saying it could be difficult for Charles to fulfil his duties as king if they are released.

Image: David Jones/PA Wire

BRITAIN’S ATTORNEY GENERAL has blocked the publication of letters from Prince Charles to government ministers, saying it could be difficult for him to fulfil his duties as king if they are released.

A panel of judges in September had approved a freedom of information request by a journalist from The Guardian newspaper for the disclosure of the letters written by the heir to the throne in 2004 and 2005.

But attorney general Dominic Grieve overruled them, saying that publishing the correspondence between Charles and the ministers could damage the principle of Britain’s royals being politically neutral.

“If such correspondence is to take place at all, it must be under conditions of confidentiality,” Grieve said in a written statement.

“Without such confidentiality, both the Prince of Wales and ministers will feel seriously inhibited from exchanging views candidly and frankly, and this would damage the Prince of Wales’ preparation for kingship,” he added.

“I consider that such correspondence enables the Prince of Wales better to understand the business of government, strengthens his relations with ministers and enables him to make points which he would have a right – and indeed a duty – to make as monarch,” Grieve said.

The prince’s strong views on architecture and the environment have caused controversy before, notably when he nearly 30 years ago lambasted plans for a new wing of London’s National Gallery as a “monstrous carbuncle”.

But the fact that he had also been writing to ministers did not emerge until a report in The Guardian in 2009, leading to accusations of direct royal meddling in government business.

- © AFP, 2012

VIDEO: Watch Prince Charles present the weather on the BBC >

Read next:

Comments (10 Comments)

  • Ah damn! And I was sooo looking forward to reading them!!

    Reply
  • So publishing the infamous “spidergrams” is a threat to the principle of royal neutrality, but writing them in the first place isn’t. I see.

    Reply
  • Yawwwwwnnnnnnnn

    Reply
  • Complete farce. Or maybe the attorney general received Correspondence too

    Reply
  • Anyone who thinks the royals don’t get involved in britains political affairs is dreaming . Sure they would like you to think this is the case that they are only there for show but they have vested interests , still the same wealthy families around the world pulling the strings , just change a name here and there every few generations .

    Reply
  • So.. just to clarify, we are looking for private corrispondence with the government to be published because it is prince Charles, and the fact that it was blocked is a reason to complain? I wonder how willing people would be to have their private corrispondence with the government published? I understand Charles is a public figure but come on, seriously.. He has the same civil liberties as anyone else.

    Reply
    • You gave me a good laugh there padraig the same civil liberties my arse . What planet is it you live on cos it sure ain’t this one .

      Reply
    • I think the problem is the other way around. If he weren’t the prince, the correspondence would be published immediately. He has no REAL political power anyway, so his political views shouldn’t be taken any differently than anyone else’s.

      Reply
    • P. O’Connor…… You don’t seem to be aware of the nature of this correspondence. The Guardian, under the Freedom of Information Act, happened to find out that Big Ears and his Mum had to be consulted on any ministerial decision that might affect their business interests, thus giving them the opportunity to hurl all sorts of demanding letters at government representatives. All this correspondence relates to Charles, an unelected aristocrat, interfering in the business of a democratically elected government. I believe the Divine Right of Kings disappeared under the reign of one of his namesakes.

      Reply
  • Charles the “Horse Whisperer”

    Reply

Add New Comment