Private Letters of Prince Charles Released After Long Court Battle

LONDON — Private letters exchanged between Prince Charles and British ministers that were released on Wednesday after a decade-long court battle display the prince’s detailed knowledge of sustainable and organic agriculture, historic preservation, herbal medicines and the armed forces.

Though Charles urges then Prime Minister Tony Blair and some of his ministers to pay attention to issues known to be of great interest to the prince, and take action on others, the letters do not seem overbearing or especially demanding. Replies to the prince are polite, detailed and often a month or more after his original letter.

The letters can seem anodyne, like letters to the editor, but far more detailed and more knowledgeable about the workings of government. Denis MacShane, a former Foreign Office official who saw them, compared them to the views of a retired bishop or civil servant.

But given the sensitivity of the monarchy’s relationship to the government of the day — the royals are to reign, not rule — the effort of the heir to the throne to influence policy is controversial, even if his prescriptions are not especially bold. And there will be an effort by the British news media to ascertain whether his memos had any impact on government policy under Mr. Blair.

Mr. MacShane said that the Foreign Office did not take the memos particularly seriously, but he defended the prince’s right to communicate privately with ministers. This is presumably what Queen Elizabeth II does in her regular audiences with her prime minister.

“The problem is no member of the royal family will ever dare to write a letter to the government again for fear their private views will be front page news,” Mr. MacShane told the BBC. “I think he should be able to communicate with the government privately.”

One of Prince Charles’s letters for instance, to Mr. Blair, on Sept. 8, 2004, deals in intricate detail with the concerns of farmers and urges the government “to encourage people to buy British” within the limits of European Union regulations. He suggests the procurement by the government of British beef. And the prince urges Mr. Blair to work to cut down “the bureaucratic and administrative burden on farmers.”

“Vigilance is essential to help officials resist returning to type!” he writes.

At the end of that letter, Prince Charles discusses a visit he made to the military in Northern Ireland and bemoans the poor performance of the British Lynx helicopter in hot climates, such as Iraq. He says that there were delays in replacing the Lynx, and he complains that “I fear that this is just one more example of where our Armed Forces are being asked to do an extremely challenging job (particularly in Iraq) without the necessary resources.”

The letter prompted a detailed response from Mr. Blair, but not until Oct. 11, more than a month later.

In a letter dated Feb. 24, 2005, Prince Charles acknowledges the chance that his candid correspondence could become public when he responded to Mr. Blair’s requests to put his views in writing – “despite the Freedom of Information Act!”

That letter concentrates on agriculture and the slaughter of cattle for bovine tuberculosis, and “my anxiety about this country’s lack of self-sufficiency in staple foods, such as meat and vegetables.” It also mentions climate change and European Union restrictions on herbal medicines. Mr. Blair answered, but again more than a month later, on March 30.

Other letters to departmental ministers express concern about illegal fishing, the plight of the albatross and the Patagonian toothfish, sustainable development, the diets of schoolchildren and the preservation and reuse of historic buildings, like the Armagh Gaol and Smithfield Market. The prince urges “a proper cull of badgers” despite “the badger lobby.”

A statement from the prince’s office at Clarence House defended Charles and deplored the publication of the letters. “The publication of private letters can only inhibit his ability to express the concerns and suggestions which have been put to him in the course of his travels and meetings,” the statement said.

Prime Minister David Cameron expressed disappointment that the letters were allowed to be published, and a spokesman said that the government would look for ways to tighten the law, which was amended in 2010, to prevent any such publication of letters between the monarch or the Prince of Wales and the government.

The release of the letters, after some redactions, follows a long legal battle by The Guardian and its reporter Rob Evans, who made the Freedom of Information Act request, which the government opposed. The 27 letters that were released had been exchanged by Prince Charles and the ministers between September 2004 and April 2005.

In 2012, Dominic Grieve, a former attorney general, vetoed the information tribunal’s decision to order publication, warning that the letters “contain remarks about public affairs which would in my view, if revealed, have had a material effect upon the willingness of the government to engage in correspondence with the Prince of Wales, and would potentially have undermined his position of political neutrality.”

The letters are known as “black spider memos,” based on the prince’s spidery handwriting, his use of black calligraphy ink on heavy paper and his predilection for exclamation points. But these letters are almost entirely typewritten or printed, with only a few personal notes and salutations in Prince Charles’s own hand.

During a visit to a Prince’s Trust charitable project in London, Charles was asked by a reporter if he was “worried” about the release of the documents. “Very predictable,” he replied.

The Clarence House statement also said: “The Prince of Wales cares deeply about this country, and tries to use his unique position to help others. He has devoted most of his working life to helping individuals and organizations, to make a difference for the better of this country and the world.”

Indeed, Prince Charles has often spoken publicly about his views in speeches and through the news media.

Still, freedom of information advocates greeted the release of the letters as a significant moment.

“The release of the Charles memos represents a major victory for the freedom of information process, showing that ministers cannot block disclosure simply because they don’t like the result,” said Maurice Frankel, director of the U.K. Campaign for Freedom of Information.

Bron: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/w....html?ref=world

Eigen Mening:

Kort samengevat: Persoonlijke brieven van Prins Charles zijn gepubliceerd na een lange rechtszaak. Deze brieven betreffen correspondentie met ministers en toenmalig eerste minister Tony Blair. De brieven gingen vaak over de aanpak van de regering betreffende landbouw, het leger, medicijnen en monumentenzorg.

Nu persoonlijk ben ik niet pro koninklijke familie die zich moeit met staatszaken. Het is aan de koninklijke familie om te heersen, niet te regeren (vermeldt in het artikel). Dat de Prins interesse toont is dan wel misschien een goede zaak maar zo'n dingen hebben we al vaker gehoord waarin ze toch stiekem inspraak hebben.

Koninklijke families zijn er enkel nog om een soort status te zijn. De tijd van het regeren is zo goed als voorbij. Ik vind dat ze zich beter afzijdig kunnen houden. Als ze zich willen interesseren voor enkel staatszaken, mij best, maar doe dit publiekelijk. Hoe dit nu overkomt is alsof Prins Charles voor een tijd de regering heeft beïnvloedt, en ook de beslissingen van de toenmalige partij.

In zekere zin is het goed dat deze brieven het daglicht hebben gezien hoewel deze niet direct schadelijk zijn. De Prins toont zich bezorgd maar het is de argwaan die erachter zit dat de meeste schade kan doen.