E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Getty Images file / 2012 Indigo
A professor says of Prince Charles: "If he led an idle life we would criticize him; when he takes an interest we slap his wrist and say he can't go there."
LONDON - It may come as no surprise that researchers conducting a survey over a four-week period found that the Duchess of Cambridge was featured on the front pages of British newspapers more frequently than anyone else, and her husband, Prince William, came fifth.
It's fair to say Britons' see a lot of the royals in their papers - but what do they know about what the monarch and her heirs think of the country's affairs? The answer is very little. The queen is obliged to remain politically neutral and has no political authority - and keeps her views to herself.
Which is why a rare opportunity to learn about Prince Charles's thoughts on topical issues has generated so much interest; there were calls for the release under the Freedom of Information Act of 27 letters written by the Prince of Wales to seven government departments between September 2004 and April 2005. But this has been scuppered by the government - the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, using a veto to overrule a court decision and keep the letters secret.
Tantalizingly, Grieve said the letters revealed the prince's "most deeply held personal views and beliefs" and were "particularly frank." But he suggested they could lead to Prince Charles being seen to disagree with government policy and so be favoring one political party over another - which clearly he wanted to avoid.
Grieve added: "Any such perception would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch, because if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king."
Certainly in the past Charles has not been coy about expressing fairly conservative views on issues close to his heart, such as architecture, or farming and the environment. But it seems pretty clear the content of these letters went further.
Prince William, Kate 'hugely saddened' by publication of topless photos
Rob Evans, a journalist writing for The Guardian newspaper who made the initial request for the letters to be released, told NBC News the letters should be seen, because people have a right to know how much influence the Prince of Wales has.
"Prince Charles is known to lobby government on a wide range of issues, but he's unelected and there has been a lot of concern about how he influences government behind the scenes... the public ought to know how much effect he is having on government policy," Evans said.
NBC's Michelle Kosinski takes a look at newly released video of a young and seemingly happy Prince Charles and Diana with their toddler sons, William and Harry from 1986.
The original court ruling (now overturned by Grieve) in similar vein concluded: "Those who seek to influence government policy must understand that the public has a legitimate interest in knowing what they have been doing and what government has been doing in response."
Evans says he will now take the matter to the high court to try to overturn the government's veto.
Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter
Public opinion is divided. Commentator David Aaronovitch wrote in The Times, "The clever silliness of Mr Grieve's letter says... that you the subject/citizen really don't want to know if your next king or queen's a bit of an idiot because you're getting them anyway."
But Professor Robert Hazell of University College London suggests this protection is useful - even necessary - for the Prince of Wales, as there is no obvious or established path for him to follow to keep abreast with national affairs, and prepare for his future role as king.
More reporting on the British royal family from NBCNews.com
He told NBC News: "We do ask a lot of Prince Charles ... he's meant to be interesting and worthy. If he led an idle life we would criticize him; when he takes an interest we slap his wrist and say he can't go there."
"We're entitled to know his public pronouncements, not his private thoughts - same as anyone else" tweeted Parliamentarian, MP Tom Harris, in favor of the letters being kept secret.
Watch World News videos on NBCNews.com
The issue also raises questions about Charles's role in general - how DOES he occupy himself as he waits to ascend to the throne (it's been a 61-year wait so far)and how does he prepare for the “job” he will eventually hold?
It's a role Professor Hazell describes as "a blank space."
Royal censorship? BBC says 'sorry' for daring to report UK queen's comments
Last month Britons got an unexpected and revealing glimpse of the queen's personal thoughts when a BBC journalist divulged the details of a private conversation in which she admitted she had lobbied government ministers over the radical Islamic cleric Abu Hamza. The BBC swiftly apologized for this breach of confidence, and Buckingham Palace said it would never comment on private conversations involving any member of the royal family. This was an extremely unusual episode.
As for Prince Charles’s letters, the decision to keep their contents secret only has the effect of increasing speculation about what they contain and hunger to find out. It will now be up to the High Court to judge if the public will get a chance to see their contents.
Carl Court / AFP - Getty Images
After six decades on the throne, view images from the extraordinary life of Queen Elizabeth II.
More world stories from NBC News:
- U.S. nonprofit 'names and shames' businesses to put bite into Iran sanctions
- Van full of bodies stolen during drivers' break in Germany
- Revolt of the underclass in Syria
- Fidel Castro statement read at Havana event amid rumors about his health
- 'Spy of the West': Al-Qaida, Taliban struggle to justify attack on Pakistani teen
- UK computer hacker wins 10 year fight against extradition to US
- Syrian helicopter reportedly downed by rebels over Idlib
- Algae bloom off Canada tied to company's salmon 'fertilization' test
Leave a Comment:
Charlie may have conservative views on architecture, farming and the environment but he was an ardent liberal when it came to his marriage vows. In any event, this Canadian lady wants to see the day when Canada no longer kowtows to the British monarchy.
No more ardent a liberal when it came to marriage vows than his wife was. And I would guess a substantial percentage of the Britsh (and US and even Canadian) population in general.
Charles is a man, a husband & father who loves his country - certainly he is allowed to have his own opinions and if he does become king, he doesn't have much power to make or change laws, so why can't he have his own opinions? He can / should clearly state that he does, but what the current government says - goes and he does (clearly) respect that. Our presidents are presidents of all of us and they do not have to share all our opinions. We'd like them to, but often they don't. As long as they (potus) listens to and responds to the - majority - that's democracy. England is a democratic country with a uniuqe situation. If the royal household makes suggestions, the leadership doesn't have to go along. It's not like the old days where the king if the leaders didn't do what they wanted they (the king) could have their heads off. Personally I think the country should know how the royals feel about - things - the country needs to know that the royals care about thier country. - But I live on this side of the pond.
That is not what the article says. Prince Charles's opinions and more saliently those of the queen are setting policy. Rather different from someone "having opinions".
And the country in question is not "England". It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which includes Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Never mind. I said my peace. :)
Charlie-Boy is the prince-of-wing nuts. More importantly, should he ever become monarch - and I hope that the Queen insists that he will abdicate in favor of his eldest son immediately on her passing - he will have his very private once a week chats with whomever is the Prime Minister.
Beyond that, Charlie-Boy can say whatever he likes to his gormless cronies while foxhunting in France, but writing to government ministers or yapping on TV is a complete no-no. He is Charles-not-yet-the-Turd and should STFU.
So, let me understand this as an outsider. The royal family is secretly actually running the UK government but the newspapers of the UK are not allowed to publish which decisions the royal family are making and the people of the UK aren't even allowed to know that the royal family are doing this. And it's all all right with the people of the UK.
OOoookay. I certainly don't understand that, but it's not really my business either.
1. Then your ancestors should have supported George Washington. 2. Other than her likeness being on your money what kowtowing? The governor general is always someone the Canadian Prime Minister picks and his/her role is ceremonial. You do realize Canada has been a independent country since 1867? Gradually since then the ceremonial trappings have been reduced. 3. 28% of your population is of British ancestory. Without the 23% that are French that % would be much higher. In the USA that percentage is 13%. Like it or not she is the Queen of Canada. She is also the Queen of England. It's two separate titles. That's your countries history. Sure you can get rid of her completely ceremonial role. Just like Mounties can throw away their dress coats and the soldiers at parliment can troop the colors wearing kaki or just not do it again. Better yet you can give up the entire pretense let Quebec secceed and just become Americans.
Great response
Shouldn't matter one way or another if the "next king or queen is an idiot" since they are not elected and not part of the government, governing body (Parliament) or governing process. Their opinions are just that "their opinions". Unfortunately, here, in the United States, rich, powerful people like the Koch brothers, Grover Norquist, and others are having more to say in our government bodies, our political process and Supreme Court decisions, all of which is very wrong. If the public (citizens) don't complain here, or in Great Britain, the rich will take away all of our freedoms and rights.
Don't forget Ophra,Bill Gates,and George Soros.
If the queen and heir apparent are obliged to remain politically neutral due to no political authority then they are both failing in their duty to keeping their opinions to themselves.
Hardly the closing of a door on a private conversation or expressing one's views in private correspondence is by no means keeping an opinion to one self.
Release the letters.......tradition for the sake of tradition hardly makes a case for privacy.
Neutral or not, would YOU want to be ruled by a single family that never had to win a fair election in the entire existence of their whole family? Regardless of what the press portrays, many 'British subjects' revile the 'royal family' and consider them leeches upon the British economy, and would love to be free of their freeloading.
Numerous opinion polls say otherwise. Most Britons favour the monarchy and even if Scotland votes for independence from the UK they are retaining the monarchy. Also, the London School of Economics has shown that the British economy makes more money from the monarchy than it costs to have it.
The stores over there are full of tacky monarchy based items. The gift shop at Buckingham Palace is full of it.
I think if anyone writes a letter to a public official it should be made public. See definition of PUBLIC.
I completely support the monarchy and for the knucklehead above who called Prince Charlie the prince of wing nuts....that guy is so much smarter than you...he has been way ahead on farming procedures, he loves his country which is why he cares so much about what they build in London and protecting the history of the country...he loves his sons...honors his mother and married the love of his life...what can you say?
Certainly in the past Charles has not been coy about expressing fairly conservative views on issues close to his heart, such as architecture, or farming and the environment.
Really? He is an advocate for sustainable and organic farming. In the US, this would be branded very liberal.