This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/10/prince-charles-case-for-republic
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Charles makes case for a republic | Charles makes case for a republic |
| (2 months later) | |
| The Guardian is right to maintain that it is in the public interest to publish a series of "particularly frank" letters from Prince Charles to British ministers seeking to influence government policy (Prince's 'black spider memos' to be kept from public view, judges rule, 10 July). Regardless of whether it succeeds in securing their release, however, the key point is already clear. As the attorney general himself admits, the heir to the throne has acted in a way that would be likely to undermine confidence in his political neutrality were he to become king. The only way Clarence House can now draw a line under the issue is to announce that the lobbying activities apparently revealed by the letters have ceased and will not be resumed. This would at least suggest the existence of a learning curve in the prince's preparations for the role of constitutional monarch. Professor Philip Murphy Director, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London | The Guardian is right to maintain that it is in the public interest to publish a series of "particularly frank" letters from Prince Charles to British ministers seeking to influence government policy (Prince's 'black spider memos' to be kept from public view, judges rule, 10 July). Regardless of whether it succeeds in securing their release, however, the key point is already clear. As the attorney general himself admits, the heir to the throne has acted in a way that would be likely to undermine confidence in his political neutrality were he to become king. The only way Clarence House can now draw a line under the issue is to announce that the lobbying activities apparently revealed by the letters have ceased and will not be resumed. This would at least suggest the existence of a learning curve in the prince's preparations for the role of constitutional monarch. Professor Philip Murphy Director, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London |
| • It becomes clearer and clearer that our country is ruled as much by back-door influence as by the democratic process. In our view, the veto used by Dominic Grieve as a minister is actual confirmation that Prince Charles has indeed influenced the government to alter policy and/or policy decisions to his benefit. We just don't know which ones, but we can be sure there are plenty to cover up. By dint of heredity alone, he owns huge estates throughout the country, and has power over the lives of countless people whose labour maintains him in the lap of luxury. In our opinion he is the best and most conclusive argument we have for a republic. | • It becomes clearer and clearer that our country is ruled as much by back-door influence as by the democratic process. In our view, the veto used by Dominic Grieve as a minister is actual confirmation that Prince Charles has indeed influenced the government to alter policy and/or policy decisions to his benefit. We just don't know which ones, but we can be sure there are plenty to cover up. By dint of heredity alone, he owns huge estates throughout the country, and has power over the lives of countless people whose labour maintains him in the lap of luxury. In our opinion he is the best and most conclusive argument we have for a republic. |
| Charles is not the only wealthy pretender who influences this government, just the sorry public face of a sanctimonious, hypocritical and unelected old boys' network who believe they have the right to influence and dictate national policy without any accountability to ordinary people. We should be immensely grateful to those brave whistleblowers who uncover such anti-democratic practices. Long live Edward Snowdon and his ilk. We desperately need many more like them. Kay and Barrie Thornton Ellesmere, Shropshire | Charles is not the only wealthy pretender who influences this government, just the sorry public face of a sanctimonious, hypocritical and unelected old boys' network who believe they have the right to influence and dictate national policy without any accountability to ordinary people. We should be immensely grateful to those brave whistleblowers who uncover such anti-democratic practices. Long live Edward Snowdon and his ilk. We desperately need many more like them. Kay and Barrie Thornton Ellesmere, Shropshire |
| • The attorney general's flawed argument that publishing the Prince of Wales's letters to ministers would run the risk of the prince's being seen not to be politically neutral is precisely the reason why they should be published. His views and beliefs (described by cabinet ministers as "deeply personal") expressed to government while the prince is heir to the throne are material to his behaviour when he becomes king. Our constitution rests on the key principle of monarchical neutrality, a position, it appears, he would find hard to maintain. The people – the other partner in the constitutional relationship – have the right to know this. The attorney general therefore surely has a duty not to block publication of the letters. Gillian Dalley London | • The attorney general's flawed argument that publishing the Prince of Wales's letters to ministers would run the risk of the prince's being seen not to be politically neutral is precisely the reason why they should be published. His views and beliefs (described by cabinet ministers as "deeply personal") expressed to government while the prince is heir to the throne are material to his behaviour when he becomes king. Our constitution rests on the key principle of monarchical neutrality, a position, it appears, he would find hard to maintain. The people – the other partner in the constitutional relationship – have the right to know this. The attorney general therefore surely has a duty not to block publication of the letters. Gillian Dalley London |
| • Does this mean that the judges have decided that it is the controversial nature of the policy content of the letters which, if known to the public, would be damaging to the future king, rather than the apparent fact that he writes interfering letters to government ministers? As a correction, a "Henry VIII clause" does not give ministers the power to override statute. It gives them limited power to amend specific statutes by an order which is subject to scrutiny by parliament and can be debated and overturned by parliament. David O'Carroll Gower, West Glamorgan | • Does this mean that the judges have decided that it is the controversial nature of the policy content of the letters which, if known to the public, would be damaging to the future king, rather than the apparent fact that he writes interfering letters to government ministers? As a correction, a "Henry VIII clause" does not give ministers the power to override statute. It gives them limited power to amend specific statutes by an order which is subject to scrutiny by parliament and can be debated and overturned by parliament. David O'Carroll Gower, West Glamorgan |
| • I buy the Guardian every day as one of my contributions to funding free speech, democracy and an open society. Thank you for the article on your eight-year battle to force the publication of Prince Charles's private letters to ministers. It is appalling Dominic Grieve vetoed a tribunal's decision that the letters should be published. Where is democracy when royalty has the ear of power? Publish all his letters and I guarantee they will cease – as they should do. The Guardian's legal challenges are I suspect expensive, so it is reassuring to know that my money is well spent. Keep it up. Erik Wilkinson Stroud, Gloucestershire | • I buy the Guardian every day as one of my contributions to funding free speech, democracy and an open society. Thank you for the article on your eight-year battle to force the publication of Prince Charles's private letters to ministers. It is appalling Dominic Grieve vetoed a tribunal's decision that the letters should be published. Where is democracy when royalty has the ear of power? Publish all his letters and I guarantee they will cease – as they should do. The Guardian's legal challenges are I suspect expensive, so it is reassuring to know that my money is well spent. Keep it up. Erik Wilkinson Stroud, Gloucestershire |
| • Poor Prince Charles: not to have the pleasure of having his letters published in the Guardian. John Bailey St Albans, Hertfordshire | • Poor Prince Charles: not to have the pleasure of having his letters published in the Guardian. John Bailey St Albans, Hertfordshire |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. | Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |
Previous version
1
Next version