[MTVN]

Private letters sent by the Prince of Wales to Labour ministers a decade ago have been published after a lengthy legal battle.

Clarence House said the move would "only inhibit" the prince's ability to express concerns.

In one letter to the prime minister, the prince said the armed forces were being asked to do a challenging job "without the necessary resources".

Release of the letters follows a decade-long campaign by the Guardian.

The 27 letters to seven government departments on wide ranging subjects, including the dominance of supermarkets, badger culling and the herbal medicine sector, were written between September 2004 and April 2005.

A government veto on publication was declared unlawful by the Court of Appeal last year - a decision which was upheld by the Supreme Court in March.

More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32726099

Ten things Charles wrote letters about: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32723652

Good to see a future monarch taking such an interest in his country or an abuse of his privilege and position? I tend towards the latter; we're often told about how the royal family have no real power so we might as well keep them but that argument loses strength when Charles' is trying to exert his influence to achieve favourable results in political matters. If the royal family wish to maintain their position then they should be completely neutral in such things.

[Marsh.]

Has his influence had any effect though?

The fact they don't actually have to pay attention proves their lack of power surely?

[Z]

I think it's a bit ****ty that people are trying to get his private letters published - if I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister about badger culling I wouldn't expect The Guardian to force it into front page news - it's private.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Z

I think it's a bit ****ty that people are trying to get his private letters published - if I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister about badger culling I wouldn't expect The Guardian to force it into front page news - it's private.

I agree. I was not in favour of this coming about.

[MTVN]

I think it's safe to say that as a member of the royal family, as the future head of state in a role which, to a large extent, is the face of the UK across the world, he is going to have a fair bit more influence than a bloke on the street. It's also a role that involves meeting with people of high standing and forging links with some of the most powerful people on the planet; his word is going to carry some strength. And when his position is public funded he must surely have some accountability to the public, I see no problem in publishing letters that he writes concerning political matters.

[Z]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I think it's safe to say that as a member of the royal family, as the future head of state in a role which, to a large extent, is the face of the UK across the world, he is going to have a fair bit more influence than a bloke on the street. It's also a role that involves meeting with people of high standing and forging links with some of the most powerful people on the planet; his word is going to carry some strength. And when his position is public funded he must surely have some accountability to the public, I see no problem in publishing letters that he writes concerning political matters.

I don't see it as any different than influential businesses lobbying government to sway their best interests - yes, everyone loves a scandal and finding out about private affairs, but it's not really our business to know IMO. One thing's certain, Prince Charles won't be writing letters anymore, whether you see that as a good thing or a bad thing doesn't really matter, the damage has been done.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Z

I don't see it as any different than influential businesses lobbying government to sway their best interests - yes, everyone loves a scandal and finding out about private affairs, but it's not really our business to know IMO. One thing's certain, Prince Charles won't be writing letters anymore, whether you see that as a good thing or a bad thing doesn't really matter, the damage has been done.

That's pretty much how I feel about it.

[the truth]

he should just post here anonymously under a pseudonym .....like ...erm...the truth? whoops

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Z

I don't see it as any different than influential businesses lobbying government to sway their best interests - yes, everyone loves a scandal and finding out about private affairs, but it's not really our business to know IMO. One thing's certain, Prince Charles won't be writing letters anymore, whether you see that as a good thing or a bad thing doesn't really matter, the damage has been done.

I think it's different to use influence that you have achieved through building up a successful business and using influence that you only have through a birthright. It might be an unspoken condition but we maintain a royal family partly on the understanding that they are politically neutral and don't interfere in matters of governance. Are these private affairs? It's not like he's writing about Diana, he's looking to influence matters of public policy.

[the truth]

what about any naughty letters and texts? wonder if he texts babecast?

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by the truth

he should just post here anonymously under a pseudonym .....like ...erm...the truth? whoops

Your Highness.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Your Highness.

arise sir smudgie and we'll hear no more about it

[Kizzy]

I actually see it as rather divisive, it sends a message to the would be king that his interference is not welcomed no matter how well intentioned.
Would I want the prince of Wales to stop giving his opinions? No.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I actually see it as rather divisive, it sends a message to the would be king that his interference is not welcomed no matter how well intentioned.
Would I want the prince of Wales to stop giving his opinions? No.

I think it's the other way round - a future head of state taking sides on controversial political matters when they're supposed to be neutral is more divisive. And I say that as someone who agrees with a lot of what he says.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I actually see it as rather divisive, it sends a message to the would be king that his interference is not welcomed no matter how well intentioned.
Would I want the prince of Wales to stop giving his opinions? No.

shouldn't the prince of wales be from wales ? I wonder what he thinks of that

[bots]

I'm with MTVN. The queen is always quoted and indeed does not interfere in government issues. This was highlighted by her refusal to influence the vote in the Scottish referendum.

Everyone knows that Prince Charles is something of an activist, many of the Royal family are representing the UK in inter country relations and promoting UK business. If their views are not transparent, then they could easily be manipulating situations for their own agendas. So, if they feel they must comment, it must be with full disclosure

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I think it's the other way round - a future head of state taking sides on controversial political matters when they're supposed to be neutral is more divisive. And I say that as someone who agrees with a lot of what he says.

Meant to be... is that not subject to change?
That's the thing about laws which dave knows all too well is that they can change with the times, rights can be amended...or removed.
I would welcome the head of state having a say, especially if he feels the governments decisions are detrimental to his kingdom.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I'm with MTVN. The queen is always quoted and indeed does not interfere in government issues. This was highlighted by her refusal to influence the vote in the Scottish referendum.

Everyone knows that Prince Charles is something of an activist, many of the Royal family are representing the UK in inter country relations and promoting UK business. If their views are not transparent, then they could easily be manipulating situations for their own agendas. So, if they feel they must comment, it must be with full disclosure

1) I thought the princes/princesses could state their opinions before becoming king or queen...then had to withhold opinions?
2) maybe Charlie thinks he will never get the top job so doesn't give a hoot for the censorship

[bots]

Originally Posted by the truth

1) I thought the princes/princesses could state their opinions before becoming king or queen...then had to withhold opinions?
2) maybe Charlie thinks he will never get the top job so doesn't give a hoot for the censorship

State their opinions by all means, but not under the radar. It has to be no influence at all, or transparent.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

State their opinions by all means, but not under the radar. It has to be no influence at all, or transparent.

I don't quite understand how you've worded your sentence there

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

State their opinions by all means, but not under the radar. It has to be no influence at all, or transparent.

Well good yeah, it's out there.. I hope they don't think they've muzzled him with this expose.
It's up the the prince to show they can't subdue him like they do us maybe

[the truth]

the bbc and monarchy slaves , their expose was a joke...just picked out the nicest most harmless stuff

[Kizzy]

What did they hope to achieve, that we'd all collectively throw our hands in the air and scream 'how very dare he'? ... I won't I'm glad someone in the monarchy gives a toss really, they might go up in my estimation if they found a voice and weren't just a picture on some box of souvenir fudge.