Britain’s supreme court rules that 27 letters written by Prince Charles to ministers in 2004-2005 can be disclosed to the media – but how much do we know about the so called ‘black spider’ letters?
In 2005 Guardian journalist Rob Evans applied to see a number of written communications between Charles and various government ministers between September 2004 and April 2005.
Despite a court victory, the attorney general vetoed disclosure in 2012.
After the court of appeal ruled in 2014 that the ministerial veto was unlawful, the attorney general appealed to the supreme court in a last-ditch attempt to stop disclosure, arguing it could undermine Prince Charles’ position.
The supreme court however does not have the letters and they will not be immediately released. Government departments are in possession of the letters and it was not immediately clear how disclosure would be handled following the supreme court ruling.
Clarence House on Thursday reacted with disappointment to the decision. A spokeswoman for the Prince said: “This is a matter for the government. Clarence House is disappointed the principle of privacy has not been upheld.”
Charles’s ardent opinions have been fully and freely aired over the years, whether it be impassioned pleas over the fate of the planet or outspoken criticism of modern architecture. The environment, farming, the countryside, GM crops and complementary medicine have all provoked comment by the future king during his lengthy stint as Britain’s longest-serving heir apparent.
Former aide Mark Bolland claimed in 2006 that the Prince even saw himself as a “dissident” working against current political opinion. A glimpse into Charles’ correspondence with ministers came in 2006, when it was reported that he had lobbied against the Human Rights Act in a series of letters.
He was said to have written the word “rubbish” on a response he received in 2001 from Lord Irvine of Lairg, then the lord chancellor, who defended the act.
In 2002, a leaked letter to then-prime minister Tony Blair, ahead of a large pro-hunt march in London, showed that the Prince had relayed a Cumbrian farmer’s view that the campaigners were being treated worse than other minorities.
Some of the issues he raised publicly in 2004 and 2005 – when the letters decided upon at the supreme court were written – included the built environment, teaching, a rise in allergies and sick building syndrome.
Charles, who often refers to his so-called meddling in his speeches, has frequently faced criticism over his contact with the government. Questions have been raised as to how his outspoken opinions will feature when he eventually becomes king.
Sources close to Charles have suggested he will break with tradition and make “heartfelt interventions” in national life when he becomes monarch. The Guardian newspaper reported in November 2014 that Charles would not follow his mother’s discretion on public affairs, but instead speak his mind on issues such as the environment.
A new unauthorised biography of Charles by editor-at-large of Time magazine Catherine Mayer said that the prince was planning to introduce a “potential new model of kingship”, but that the Queen was concerned about the potential style of the monarchy under her son.
But the Prince’s top aide, principal private secretary William Nye came to his defence, saying the heir to the throne understood “the necessary and proper limitations” on the role of a constitutional monarch.