Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To hope we can FINALLY see what is in Prince Charles's letters to ministers?

73 replies

ComposHatComesBack · 26/03/2015 13:04

AIBU to ask if anyone is intrigued to see what is in the so called 'black spider memos'?

Well done to the Guardian for keeping on with this for ten years, but the Supreme court has ruled that the letters written by Prince Charles to ministers can be published. It will be interesting to see if his lobbying resulted in any changes in government policy.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/26/supreme-court-clears-way-release-secret-prince-charles-letters-black-spider-memos

Along with his mother's stage managed intervention in the Scottish Referendum, I think this undermines the notion that the Royal family are somehow 'above politics' and are merely figureheads.

AIBU to also think his is a timely reminder what a politically powerful position the Queen will be in the extremely likely situation that there's a hung parliament in a few weeks time?

OP posts:
Lilymaid · 26/03/2015 16:04

The Supreme Court judgment is here. I will be surprised if we ever see sight of the documents (and if we do, the black marker of redaction will have strayed beyond blocking out the names of the officials).

alteredimages · 26/03/2015 16:08

Damnautocorrect it really isn't about whether we agree with his opinions or not. It is about major decisions being made at the whim of someone not necessarily qualified to offer an opinion. What if William became the next monarch and wanted to cancel green belts or eliminate subsidies for renewable energy? Would you still be in favour then? The idea we can rely on the head of state to offer a sensible long term vision for the country on the basis of being a royal is fundamentally flawed.

GallicGarlic · 26/03/2015 16:19

It is a frightening reminder of how undemocratic our system of government is and how open it is to interference.

YY. Big props to the Guardian and mother's mate for plugging away!

I agree the letters will be insufferably redacted, but all the same it's really important to show that Being Royal doesn't give you endless rights to overrule our fragile democracy.

I used to be all 'meh' about the royal family, but after Mumsnet forced me I decided to look into what powers they really have, I find it quite frightening. The less the better, imo.

Original poster
ComposHatComesBack · 26/03/2015 16:20

Whether I agree with Charles or not is irrelevant. I just don't see why his unqualified views on say, architecture should be listened to and acted upon. He holds no elected office and has no demonstrable expertise or experience. Yet when it comes to planning new buildings he expects the entire world of architecture and government to heed his advice and act upon it.

OP posts:
squoosh · 26/03/2015 16:25

Ugh, Charles and his hard on for faux Georgian architecture.

motherinferior · 26/03/2015 16:27

That's the thing; quite sensible people indulge him because his views overlap with (some of) theirs. But he shouldn't think he has any right to be heard.

Compo, yep, I think the response was terse. I'll look it up.

RandomNPC · 26/03/2015 16:31

Charles Windsor comes over as a obsessional weirdo. I can't wait to see these letters, I'm hoping we get a bit of a constitutional crisis out of it.

GwenaelleLaGourmande · 26/03/2015 16:38

Very much looking forward to the read. What are they hiding, on top of him meddling? Cameron says he is disappointed by the judgement, but from what I have read I don't see what other decision the court could have come to.

motherinferior · 26/03/2015 16:38

I imagine, to be fair, that 50 or so years of waiting for your mother to die isn't great for your mental health. It's faintly Shakespearian, though without the grandeur and poetry which CW would presumably like.

Binkybix · 26/03/2015 16:44

Ooh I'm really pleased with this judgement! Agree that Cameron's statement is one of a massive arse.

squoosh · 26/03/2015 16:47

I'm hoping we get a bit of a constitutional crisis out of it.

Me too I'm in the mood for one! Grin

I bet Charles has already had his coronation bunting made. Would be great to think it was put into permanent storage.

Binkybix · 26/03/2015 16:52

HMG will have spent ludicrous amounts of time exploring how far they can redact the letters already I'd have thought.

tartyflette · 26/03/2015 17:10

The Queen, as a constitutional monarch, and presumably Charles too, on his accession has the right to be consulted by government ministers, to advise and to warn. That is all. His frankly dangerous habit of writing private letters to ministers, presumably to try to influence decisions on his pet interests, is appalling. This is a man who has been indulged all his adult life, and whom even his own mother thinks lives very extravagantly. I think he will be a poor, if not disastrous king. (And I never buy any of his 'Ducky Originals' goods either.) i look forward with interest to the publication of the letters, even if redacted. It will still be very bad news for him, with any luck.

Lilymaid · 26/03/2015 17:19

I would expect Chris Grayling to come out with some extraordinary statement basically trying to ignore the court's ruling. More fun and games then!

Bettercallsaul1 · 26/03/2015 17:21

Couldn't agree more, Compos. I've been following the battle over releasing these letters with great interest - I can't believe it's been ten years.

Charles and his supporters haven't a leg to stand on with this. They actually admit that the reason for wanting to keep the letters private is that the views contained in them may lead people to doubt Charles' political neutrality which, they point out, is essential to his "kingship". This "reason" for withholding the letters is actually the reason that they must be released. Our monarchy is now a constitutional one, with the monarch retained as figurehead only and prohibited from wielding political power or influence. If Charles, as heir to the throne, has consistently been trying to do this over the years, safe in the assumption that it would never be held up to public scrutiny, the public have a right to know.

It is an abuse of privelege and he should be called to account.

RandomNPC · 26/03/2015 17:22

To the guillotine!

limitedperiodonly · 26/03/2015 17:24

I really want to see them.

When will it happen?

Tonight? Tomorrow?

Bettercallsaul1 · 26/03/2015 17:25

Random - that sounds distinctly familiar! Grin (knitting, Candycrush etc)

CaptainAnkles · 26/03/2015 17:29

So it'll be dull content with him overstepping the mark with how much influence he's meant to have, rather than calling the PM a cunt then? Boring.

RandomNPC · 26/03/2015 17:30

Apologies, it's my usual reaction when the royals are mentioned!

Original poster
ComposHatComesBack · 26/03/2015 17:32

Indeed Saul.

The best way of preserving his neutrality would have been to actually act in a neutral and non partisan way.

The whole thing smacks of his apologists saying "interfere all you like behind the scenes but for God's sakes make sure the plebs don't find out about it."

OP posts:
Bettercallsaul1 · 26/03/2015 17:32

Won't be boring if it leads to a constitutional crisis.

HelenaDove · 26/03/2015 17:33

Didnt the Queen give the Welfare Reform Bill Royal Assent.

What would have happened if she had refused.

Bettercallsaul1 · 26/03/2015 17:35

Random - the reason I remember is that I heartily concur! (with or without Charles' letters, but they just put the tin lid on it.)

Original poster
ComposHatComesBack · 26/03/2015 17:37

Then she'd have been deposed in all likelihood. If a monarch tried to that nakedly tried to stop an act from becoming law passed by parliament it would finish them and the monarchy.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread