Prince Charles letters released

It's precisely the kind of work I'd expect the Heir to the Throne to be doing - inquiring, commenting, drawing attention to issues and reports.

Is it? I kind-of thought the heir should be doing what the Queen does, and following her example (turning up at garden parties, cutting ribbons, if having audiences with ministers then listening, perhaps making an observation here or there but meticulously avoiding controversy or party political positions, etc)

Do you believe there are any limits on what the heir should be allowed to do? If so, what are they?

Sure, he isn't permitted to take his differences with the Government into the public arena, and he cannot make specific demands or insist on a course of action. It's clear the Prince is aware of that and is quite delicate about raising issues.

Are you aware of his actions in relation to Edzard Ernst and the Chelsea Barracks redevelopment?

He has a history of being an activist prince, and his views in certain areas are quite well-known. It's pretty well-known that he conceives his role as future king quite differently from how the Queen has conceived hers.

His comments about the National Gallery redevelopment about 30 years ago are a fairly good example of what I'm talking about; now, I personally agree with his assessment of the proposed changes, but that is really beside the point.

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2004/may/17/architecture.regeneration

It's clear the Prince is aware of that and is quite delicate about raising issues.

Princes of Wales back in the day had absolutely zero conventions governing their behaviour. Edward VII when Prince sat on parliamentary committees, and William IV when heir stood and debated in the House of Lords. I vaguely remember another (separate) prince proposing to stand to become an MP!

I just wanted to loop back to your claim that he is quite delicate about raising issues; are you sure about that? Delicacy and tact are probably the last qualities I would associate with Prince Charles' interventions, both public and behind the scenes

Would you like to return to that?

I've read the bulk of the letters and they all seem to be pretty harmless - he apologises for 'being a bore', makes some general observations, and sometimes is clearly rankled at something. Nothing unacceptable

X

I like Prince Charles. He had the right to write to ministers on matters he cares about, just as any citizen could

but the precedent is correct now in letting it be known the the public. The Guardian pursued this to the death, and the government in return tried blocking it with all it could. The whole case is a bit pathetic by both sides, glad to see an end to it.

Obviously to do even such 'lobbying' to Ministers as Monarch would be not be acceptable, but he isn't Monarch yet.

He is a man of conviction with a clear morale centre, and I think he will make a good King.

Isn't that the point, though? He's not just any citizen, and any ordinary citizen would not, (a) have his correspondence so conscientously and respectfully responded to, and (b) have his correspondence to ministers kept secret by virtue of his status as Prince of Wales

The whole point is that he is not entitled to an opinion, like anyone else; I know the temptation must be immense to intervene when you are a Prince, but the Queen has set the example and it is for the prince to follow. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, and in accepting that role, the Windsor family accepts inherent limitations on their freedom to act (in exchange for material comfort beyond imagining, prestige as the first family of the nation, protection and deference, etc). That is, if you like, the deal.

To be honest I'm not sure that argument stands up; the whole basis on which the government and Clarence House argued his correspondence should be secret is that this is part of his "training" to be king. If this special access is being allowed on the basis of his position, and on the basis that it is preparing him to be monarch, then it makes no sense to say that he should be permitted to behave in a manner that we would not approve of from the Queen. If this is his kingly training, then I imagine one would expect him to behave as we would expect of a king?

I must say I disagree. He has made it quite clear to his friends that he views his role as more of an activist King, and that he doesn't intend to tone it down when he accedes to the throne.

The reason the current monarch is so beloved and universally respected is that she never puts a foot wrong. She is literally the perfect constitutional monarch, she adopts a studied neutrality and has never allowed herself to be drawn into controversy of any sort. Over the current reign, the Queen's behaviour and approach to our constitutional monarchy has hardened into a constitutional convention, one which is broadly supported.

I suspect once the Prince of Wales accedes to the throne and begins to act as he has said he will, then you will come to see the inherent complications in such behaviour. If he wants to have a say like any other citizen, he can disclaim the throne. But if he wants to be a constitutional monarch, then he must accept that his freedom to act and express himself in public or on public matters is profoundly circumscribed

Isn't that the point, though? He's not just any citizen, and any ordinary citizen would not, (a) have his correspondence so conscientously and respectfully responded to, and (b) have his correspondence to ministers kept secret by virtue of his status as Prince of Wales

The whole point is that he is not entitled to an opinion, like anyone else; I know the temptation must be immense to intervene when you are a Prince, but the Queen has set the example and it is for the prince to follow. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, and in accepting that role, the Windsor family accepts inherent limitations on their freedom to act (in exchange for material comfort beyond imagining, prestige as the first family of the nation, protection and deference, etc). That is, if you like, the deal.



Actually, the legal precedent has been extinguished; these are the only letters of Charles' we will ever see, as shortly after the Guardian made that Freedom of Information request ten years ago, the government enacted a law that completely exempts the royal family from Freedom of Information, and this government plans to strengthen it by giving ministers and even stronger FOI veto.

There will be hundreds of other letters we will never see, including ones written this month



To be honest I'm not sure that argument stands up; the whole basis on which the government and Clarence House argued his correspondence should be secret is that this is part of his "training" to be king. If this special access is being allowed on the basis of his position, and on the basis that it is preparing him to be monarch, then it makes no sense to say that he should be permitted to behave in a manner that we would not approve of from the Queen. If this is his kingly training, then I imagine one would expect him to behave as we would expect of a king?



I must say I disagree. He has made it quite clear to his friends that he views his role as more of an activist King, and that he doesn't intend to tone it down when he accedes to the throne.

The reason the current monarch is so beloved and universally respected is that she never puts a foot wrong. She is literally the perfect constitutional monarch, she adopts a studied neutrality and has never allowed herself to be drawn into controversy of any sort. Over the current reign, the Queen's behaviour and approach to our constitutional monarchy has hardened into a constitutional convention, one which is broadly supported.

I suspect once the Prince of Wales accedes to the throne and begins to act as he has said he will, then you will come to see the inherent complications in such behaviour. If he wants to have a say like any other citizen, he can disclaim the throne. But if he wants to be a constitutional monarch, then he must accept that his freedom to act and express himself in public or on public matters is profoundly circumscribed

I've no issue. His role is to be above party politics and impartial in that sense, it is not per say to be apolitical.