The row over Prince Charles’ letters is not just legal argument vs public interest. There are real constitutional implications

By convention, the monarch has the right to be consulted, to advise and to warn

Share

Should Prince Charles’s letters to various government departments, with their unique “black spider” handwriting, be published? This may seem to be an exceedingly obscure question, but it goes to the heart of Britain’s constitutional arrangements. For were Charles, when he succeeds to the throne, to be less punctilious than his mother, Queen Elizabeth, in not taking sides in political argument, then the settlement between the monarch and Parliament, that began to take shape at the time of the Glorious Revolution of 1689, would have been breached.

Earlier this week, Lord Dyson, the head of the civil judiciary in England, and two colleagues in the Court of Appeal, ruled that Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, had acted unlawfully when he blocked the publication of the letters. The Attorney General is appealing to the Supreme Court. Prince Charles has apparently been sending these missives since 1969, when he addressed a letter to the Prime Minister of the day, Harold Wilson, about the fate of Atlantic salmon.

We can learn a good deal about their nature from the Attorney General’s arguments before the courts. He said the 27 pieces of correspondence between Charles and ministers in seven government departments dated between September 2004 and April 2005 contain the Prince’s “most deeply held personal views and beliefs”. They are in many cases “particularly frank”. The Cabinet Office and the departments responsible for business, health, schools, environment, culture and Northern Ireland all received such correspondence. Grieve observed that a cornerstone of the British constitution was that the monarch could not be seen to be favouring one political party over another.

The Queen has never been likely to make this error. That is because she remembers the exact circumstances in which her father, George VI, unexpectedly became King. His brother, Edward VIII, had been forced to abdicate because he refused to accept the advice of the government of the day that he could not marry a twice-divorced woman, the American Wallis Simpson. His 10-year-old elder daughter, Elizabeth, well understood the importance of what had happened for she headed her diary that day, “Abdication Day”.

George VI immediately set about the important task of restoring faith in the Royal Family’s dedication to duty. After all, something that is not often mentioned had once again had been made plain: that British monarchs reign on sufferance. Parliament has absolute rights in the question of the succession to the throne.

King George VI’s premature death as the result of a thrombosis in 1952 (he was only 56 years old) meant that his elder daughter, Elizabeth, would have to complete the task he had begun. She has often spoken of her father and seems consciously to have tried to behave as he might have done. Since December 1936, a period of nearly 80 years, first George VI and then Elizabeth II have both alike carefully observed the conventions of our unwritten constitution.

But when we do see the correspondence, if we do, it may not be an easy matter to judge. For the monarch has three classic rights in his or her relationship with the government: the right to be consulted, the right to advise and the right to warn. This pithy Victorian formulation was re-stated in the mid 1980s by the Queen’s private secretary, Sir William Heseltine. He said that the monarch enjoyed the right, and indeed the duty, to express his or her opinions on government policy to the prime minister. On the other hand, the monarch must act on the advice of ministers, whatever he or she thinks.

In this light, the correspondence may well show that Prince Charles, in his mid-50s at the time, had been doing nothing worse than prematurely exercising the monarch’s rights to be consulted, to advise and to warn. But whether intentionally or not, the Attorney General made it sound much more serious when he observed that any perception that Charles had disagreed with Tony Blair’s government “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”.

In other words, it looks as if the Attorney General’s unspoken motive in opposing publication of the letters is that they really do show that Prince Charles had been crossing the line. We urgently need to be able to judge that for ourselves.

It’s awfully odd to protect a liar, m’lud

Was I dreaming, I wondered, as I read a report of Mr Justice Bodey’s recent remarks in the Family Court?

The summary of the case stated that a City fund manager, who had fathered a child during an affair and had lied to the courts about his wealth so as to reduce his paternity payments, couldn’t be named. Why not exactly, since none of us would entrust a single penny of our savings to a known liar?

And the unnamed fund manager well understands this because he said that if his lies were disclosed, there would be a grave risk that it would spell his financial ruin.

However, Mr Justice Bodey is reported to have stated that it was not the role of the Family Court to “proactively disclose information which might be of interest to outside agencies such as the police, the Revenue, regulatory bodies or employers”.

Let me spell that out – not to tell the police, even though a crime (perjury) might have been committed; not to tell Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, even though somebody might be highly likely to have been avoiding tax; not to tell the regulatory bodies, even though investors might be in danger of being misled; not to tell an employer, who might be horrified to learn the true character of an employee.

This doesn’t make any sense to me. I had always thought that we ordinary citizens had, at the very least, a duty to report any crime to the relevant authorities. But apparently Family Court judges don’t have to worry about any of that stuff.

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Operations Manager

competitive: Progressive Recruitment: I am currently recruiting for an Operati...

Project Coordinator/Order Entry, Security Cleared

£100 - £110 per day + competitive: Orgtel: Project Coordinator/Order Entry Ham...

Senior Digital Marketing Executive

£35000 - £45000 Per Annum: Clearwater People Solutions Ltd: Our client based i...

Junior Developer- CSS, HMTL, Bootstrap

competitive: Progressive Recruitment: A leading company within the healthcare ...

Day In a Page

Read Next
Prime Minister David Cameron walks on stage to speak at The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) annual conference on November 4, 2013  

Does Cameron really believe in 'British Values'?

Temi Ogunye
The Lada became a symbol of Russia’s failure to keep up with Western economies  

Our sanctions will not cripple Russia. It is doing a lot of the dirty work itself

Hamish McRae
Save the tiger: The animals bred for bones on China’s tiger farms

The animals bred for bones on China’s tiger farms

The big cats kept in captivity to perform for paying audiences and then, when dead, their bodies used to fortify wine
A former custard factory, a Midlands bog and a Leeds cemetery all included in top 50 hidden spots in the UK

A former custard factory, a Midlands bog and a Leeds cemetery

Introducing the top 50 hidden spots in Britain
Ebola epidemic: Plagued by fear

Ebola epidemic: Plagued by fear

How a disease that has claimed fewer than 2,000 victims in its history has earned a place in the darkest corner of the public's imagination
Chris Pratt: From 'Parks and Recreation' to 'Guardians of the Galaxy'

From 'Parks and Recreation' to 'Guardians of the Galaxy'

He was homeless in Hawaii when he got his big break. Now the comic actor Chris Pratt is Hollywood's new favourite action star
How live cinema screenings can boost arts audiences

How live cinema screenings can boost arts audiences

Broadcasting plays and exhibitions to cinemas is a sure-fire box office smash
Shipping container hotels: Pop-up hotels filling a niche

Pop-up hotels filling a niche

Spending the night in a shipping container doesn't sound appealing, but these mobile crash pads are popping up at the summer's biggest events
Native American headdresses are not fashion accessories

Feather dust-up

A Canadian festival has banned Native American headwear. Haven't we been here before?
Boris Johnson's war on diesel

Boris Johnson's war on diesel

11m cars here run on diesel. It's seen as a greener alternative to unleaded petrol. So why is London's mayor on a crusade against the black pump?
5 best waterproof cameras

Splash and flash: 5 best waterproof cameras

Don't let water stop you taking snaps with one of these machines that will take you from the sand to meters deep
Louis van Gaal interview: Manchester United manager discusses tactics and rebuilding after the David Moyes era

Louis van Gaal interview

Manchester United manager discusses tactics and rebuilding after the David Moyes era
Will Gore: The goodwill shown by fans towards Alastair Cook will evaporate rapidly if India win the series

Will Gore: Outside Edge

The goodwill shown by fans towards Alastair Cook will evaporate rapidly if India win the series
The children were playing in the street with toy guns. The air strikes were tragically real

The air strikes were tragically real

The children were playing in the street with toy guns
Boozy, ignorant, intolerant, but very polite – The British, as others see us

Britain as others see us

Boozy, ignorant, intolerant, but very polite
How did our legends really begin?

How did our legends really begin?

Applying the theory of evolution to the world's many mythologies
Watch out: Lambrusco is back on the menu

Lambrusco is back on the menu

Naff Seventies corner-shop staple is this year's Aperol Spritz