tag:theconversation.com,2011:/nz/topics/black-spider-memos-16940/articlesBlack spider memos – The Conversation2023-01-03T06:57:52Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1928942023-01-03T06:57:52Z2023-01-03T06:57:52ZThe British monarchy has always controlled how much we see of it, but Charles III could change that<p>The late author Hilary Mantel <a href="https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies">once wrote</a> of Queen Elizabeth II that she was “a thing that existed to be looked at”. This became even truer in death. </p>
<p>From the moment the sovereign left Balmoral Castle in the back of the glassy hearse on September 8 2022, we could, if we wanted, stare nonstop at her coffin for the eight days that followed. The visibility of the monarchy – of both Elizabeth II and of her successor, Charles III – during that extraordinary period was unprecedented. </p>
<p>Monarchs have not always attended funerals. As historian Matthias Range shows in his book <a href="https://boydellandbrewer.com/9781783270927/british-royal-and-state-funerals/">British Royal and State Funerals</a>, Charles I was chief mourner at James I’s funeral in 1625, but this was unusual. The next incoming heir to be visible at the funeral of his predecessor was William IV in 1830. </p>
<p>By contrast, as Elizabeth II gradually withdrew from the public’s gaze, a grieving King was there to fill the vacuum. This served to ease and legitimise the regime change. And the exposure was, for many, affecting. In my book, The Drama of Coronation: Medieval Ceremony in Early Modern England, I <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/drama-of-coronation/B63DC86C42DC9CB9CD508A0F155BB1CC">show</a> how the emotional bonds between a monarch and their people have long been deliberately nurtured through ceremony. The modern royal family in particular <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvkjb3sr">relies</a> on these bonds to survive. </p>
<p>People were surprised, then, when it was reported that the palace had negotiated with the broadcasters to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/22/royal-family-veto-footage-coverage-queen-elizabeth-ii-funeral">restrict</a> how much footage of the national mourning period they could keep. </p>
<p>This raises questions about what levels of visibility and transparency are appropriate for the slimmed-down monarchy promised by Charles III, and about the purpose of royal ritual and pageantry in a modern world. <a href="https://www.visiblecrown.com/the-queen-in-barbados">As my research</a> on the royal tours shows, visibility has always been risky. But it is also risky to lurch between full-on exposure and selective secrecy.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A coffin draped in the royal standard with a purple cushion, a candle and a crown, and the king seated beside it." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499808/original/file-20221208-12646-p3m533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499808/original/file-20221208-12646-p3m533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499808/original/file-20221208-12646-p3m533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499808/original/file-20221208-12646-p3m533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499808/original/file-20221208-12646-p3m533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499808/original/file-20221208-12646-p3m533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499808/original/file-20221208-12646-p3m533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">King Charles III seated in front of the Queen’s coffin in Westminster Abbey.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.alamy.com/king-charles-iii-in-front-of-the-coffin-of-queen-elizabeth-ii-during-her-state-funeral-at-the-abbey-in-london-picture-date-monday-september-19-2022-dominic-lipinskipool-via-reuters-image482946995.html?imageid=FCD43770-54EF-457B-A918-EFA9201DEB41&p=1323335&pn=3&searchId=e7c62ca6a5a1938197af542a85cec3cc&searchtype=0">Reuters | Alamy</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How royal visibility is manufactured</h2>
<p>The nonstop coverage of the period of national mourning showed how there can be unwelcome moments. Video footage of a <a href="https://www.itv.com/news/2022-09-17/man-charged-after-person-rushed-to-queens-coffin-in-westminster-hall">man rushing at the Queen’s coffin</a> as she lay in state in Westminster Hall has, for example, been removed. </p>
<p>After the funeral, it was revealed that the BBC, ITV and Sky had one week in which to make only 60 minutes of the entire ten days’ coverage available. This worried both journalists and historians about the extent of royal control and the censoring of what was a national, historical event. The palace declined to comment. </p>
<p>This is not unusual. We can expect the same at Charles III’s coronation. The royal family’s success rests on the palace’s careful curation of their image and their ongoing battle with the media about what can and cannot be shown. </p>
<p>In 1953, it was agreed that the BBC would not film the moment Elizabeth II was anointed Queen. Charles is unlikely to request this when he is anointed with consecrated oil on May 6 2023, but he could. Either way, whether visible or hidden, this sacred, pivotal moment of the coronation ceremony will cause a stir. It is a rite which worried even medieval commentators for its imitation of God’s anointing of Christ.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/52NTjasbmgw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The problem with the retrospective censoring of Elizabeth II’s funeral was that it felt like a betrayal. Her death and the accession of Charles had been so deliberately public, as well as oddly intimate, that we temporarily forgot that access to the royals is always mediated and their visibility manufactured. </p>
<p>The discretion often cited as the key to Elizabeth II’s success as a constitutional monarch suited her - she was a young woman - and her time. Charles, by contrast, is 74 and much more open; we already know what he thinks about a lot of things. The 19th-century constitutional historian Walter Bagehot might have warned about letting in daylight upon magic in his book <a href="https://historyofeconomicthought.mcmaster.ca/bagehot/constitution.pdf">The English Constitution</a>, but the light has been pouring in for ages and the mystery somehow seems to remain. As Mantel <a href="https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies">put it</a>: “The faculty of awe remains intact.” </p>
<h2>A vocal constitutional monarch</h2>
<p>Much is kept secret, often with good reason, and influence is immeasurable. On the private weekly meetings between sovereign and prime minister, the political theorist Harald Laski wrote in his 1938 book The Monarchy that: “On no element in the Constitution is our knowledge so inexact.”</p>
<p>With death should come some transparency. But the royal archives in Windsor are famously inaccessible and selective. Those <a href="https://www.royal.uk/archives">private papers</a> of Elizabeth II that are no longer required for current royal or governmental use will be transferred there now that she has died, but they are not there yet. </p>
<p>To the government’s (and palace’s?) dismay, Charles III’s famous <a href="https://theconversation.com/dull-content-but-the-release-of-prince-charles-letters-is-a-landmark-moment-41801">“black spider memos”</a>, so-called because of Charles’s distinctive scrawly handwriting, were <a href="https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05377/SN05377.pdf">brought to light in 2015</a> but in redacted form. These letters to several government departments revealed Charles corresponding with ministers <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/prince-of-wales-correspondence-with-government-departments">on issues</a> that mattered to him, from housing and health to the environment. </p>
<p>The government still maintains that all such correspondence should be private. In early October, the investigative journalism organisation Declassified UK <a href="https://declassifieduk.org/exclusive-hundreds-of-diplomatic-files-on-king-charles-censored/">reported</a> that hundreds of Foreign and Commonwealth Office files in the National Archives relating to overseas visits made by Charles when he was Prince of Wales were being retained. </p>
<p>When he first spoke to the nation as king, Charles <a href="https://www.royal.uk/his-majesty-king%E2%80%99s-address-nation-and-commonwealth">pledged</a> to “uphold the constitutional principles at the heart of our nation”. This referred to his <a href="https://theconversation.com/prince-charles-the-conventions-that-will-stop-him-from-meddling-as-king-106722">former meddling</a> – or as he called it, “motivating”. In a BBC television interview <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0br9x0l">in 2018</a> he rebuffed the accusation that he would continue to speak out:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I’m not that stupid. I do realise it is a separate exercise being sovereign. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>At the end of October, two days into Rishi Sunak’s premiership, the House of Lords <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-10-27/debates/860DD443-8429-4D81-A024-D3FADD23408C/COP27">debated</a> the UK government’s decision to not heed Cop26 president Alok Sharma’s advice that King Charles should attend Cop27 in Egypt. The King <a href="https://theconversation.com/cop27-how-king-charles-has-demonstrated-his-commitment-to-the-environment-from-afar-194032">hosted a reception</a> at Buckingham Palace instead. </p>
<p>But Charles’s views on climate change are well known. As head of state in 14 other countries as well as the UK, he could, and perhaps should, continue to be vocal about it. To fall silent now would be bizarre. Indeed, there are many other issues which a head of state could usefully address with care. Has the time come for a non-mute constitutional monarch?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/192894/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alice Hunt receives funding from The Arts and Humanities Research Council. </span></em></p>Charles’s coronation will be the most constitutionally significant ceremony of his entire reign. It should prompt discussion about what a modern monarchy could be.Alice Hunt, Associate Professor in History, University of SouthamptonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/418012015-05-13T17:53:35Z2015-05-13T17:53:35ZDull content, but the release of Prince Charles letters is a landmark moment<p>After a decade of legal battles, the content of the infamous <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office">black spider memos</a> – letters sent by Prince Charles to former government ministers – turned out to be a damp squib rather than the smoking gun we had hoped for.</p>
<p>But even if Charles seems preoccupied with fish, badgers and herbal remedies in his missives, the fact that these letters have been made public is extremely significant. The release of the 27 documents by the UK government – 14 letters from the Prince of Wales written in 2004 and 2005, ten replies, and three exchanges of correspondence between private secretaries – shows just how powerful the Freedom of Information Act has become.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information/what-is-the-foi-act/">legislation</a>, which celebrated its tenth birthday in 2015, is responsible for a transformational opening up of British bureaucracy. It turned on its head centuries-old presumption of official secrecy, solidified with official secrets legislation.</p>
<p>The legislation was directly responsible for exposing the large-scale <a href="https://theconversation.com/miller-resigns-but-keeping-mps-honest-is-still-a-messy-business-25287">abuse of expenses</a> among British parliamentarians in 2009. The news that MPs had been making lavish claims at the cost of the taxpayer lead to an unprecedented loss of trust in their kind – and jail for several former politicians who made false claims.</p>
<p>While the scandal initially emerged when documents were leaked to the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/">Daily Telegraph</a> by an anonymous source, the material was being prepared for release under the Freedom of Information Act.</p>
<h2>Fish, farmers and badgers</h2>
<p>There are few such explosive allegations in the Charles letters. In many, he is vocal on issues he is known to be passionate about – architecture; the armed forces; agriculture; the environment; rural affairs; and protecting specific species, such as the Patagonian toothfish – much to the mirth of <a href="https://twitter.com/HRHToothfish">Twitter users</a>.</p>
<p>Arguably his most interesting intervention is a letter raising concerns about the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/427301/No10_Scanned_Letters.pdf">funding of equipment</a> for the armed forces. As a future monarch, holding ranks of Admiral of the Fleet, Field Marshal and Marshal of the Royal Air Force, his intervention is meaningful.</p>
<p>In a letter dated September 8 2004 Charles wrote to the prime minister of his concerns that important “Oxbow” equipment, used in airborne surveillance, was not working properly because of problems with Lynx aircraft.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The procurement of a new aircraft to replace the Lynx is subject to further delays and uncertainty due to the significant pressure on the defence budget. I fear that this is just one more example of where our Armed Forces are being asked to do an extremely challenging job (particularly in Iraq) without the necessary resources.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>By any standard, this can only be interpreted as an implied criticism of the government of the day, and of its support for the Armed Forces in particular during the Iraq war. That it comes directly from the Prince of Wales is all the more significant.</p>
<p>In another exchange with the prime minister, Charles raises concerns about excessive red tape for farmers, and complains about the Office of Fair Trading being overly restrictive on the growth of dairy coops. His comments on the delays in paying single farm payments to farmers – and the difficulties these delays have on rural dwellers.</p>
<p>In another letter dated 24 February, 2005, he raises concerns about bovine tuberculosis and the impact it was having on farmers. He criticises the “badger lobby” for objecting to <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/badger-cull">managed culls of badgers</a>, arguing that their opposition to such a proposal is “intellectually dishonest”.</p>
<h2>Dear Tony</h2>
<p>The release of private letters between the prince and Tony Blair are all the more ironic given the Blair government introduced the Freedom of Information Legislation – though Blair subsequently said that FoI was his <a href="http://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2010/09/tony-blair-admits-that-the-hunting-ban-and-foi-legislation-were-mistakes-as-his-memoirs-are-publishe.html">worst mistake</a> in government, describing himself as a “nincompoop” for introducing it.</p>
<p>In one telling letter, the prince notes he was putting his thoughts down on paper “despite the Freedom of Information Act” – confident that his private correspondence would never be released.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81597/original/image-20150513-2452-1rqx5c6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81597/original/image-20150513-2452-1rqx5c6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81597/original/image-20150513-2452-1rqx5c6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81597/original/image-20150513-2452-1rqx5c6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81597/original/image-20150513-2452-1rqx5c6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=325&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81597/original/image-20150513-2452-1rqx5c6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81597/original/image-20150513-2452-1rqx5c6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81597/original/image-20150513-2452-1rqx5c6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Don’t worry Tony, no-one will ever know.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/427301/No10_Scanned_Letters.pdf">UK government</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That really is the most important lesson in this case – and one in danger of being forgotten. When powerful figures think no one is looking, they do write letters like these. </p>
<p>The UK government is now talking about amending the Freedom of Information Act to give ministers more power to deny requests from the public for access to documents. That push back against openness is occurring worldwide – in the US the legislation is <a href="http://cironline.org/foiaproject">riddled with delays and costs</a>; in Australia, the Information Commissioner’s Office was <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/02/freedom-of-information-may-cost-800-as-coalition-seeks-to-abolish-regulator">abolished</a> by the government; and in Ireland <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/cabinet-abolishes-15-freedom-of-information-fee-1.1851481">fees were introduced</a> to dissuade FoI requesters – though this decision was recently reversed. </p>
<p>FoI is not a panacea but it does offer a small guarantee of openness and transparency that powerful elites cannot hide behind. Any move by the British government to water that down would be regrettable.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41801/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom Felle does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Prince has views on defence procurement, badger culling and the Patagonian toothfish. Should we care?Tom Felle, Acting Director, Interactive and Newspaper Journalism, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/418052015-05-13T17:32:20Z2015-05-13T17:32:20ZSorry Prince Charles, the British government isn’t a soft play area<p>Among royal-watchers, the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2015/may/13/read-the-prince-charles-black-spider-memos-in-full">black spider memos</a> – 27 letters written by Prince Charles to various government departments between late 2004 and early 2005 – have aroused the sorts of expectations usually only generated by a Star Wars sequel.</p>
<p>The Guardian’s legal battle to secure their release under freedom of information legislation has stretched over ten years, and each stage of this long process has prompted fresh speculation as to what they contain. So after all this wait, do we have the thrilling archival equivalent of The Empire Strikes Back, or a dreary disappointment like The Phantom Menace?</p>
<p>Maybe a bit of both. The range of subjects covered by the letters is remarkable: from the redevelopment of <a href="http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2080981-prince-of-wales-correspondence-with-secretary-of.html">Cherry Knowle Hospital</a> in Sunderland to <a href="http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2080977-no10-scanned-letters.html">aircraft procurement</a> for the armed forces, and from the future development of the <a href="http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2080989-prince-of-wales-correspondence-with-secretary-of.html">Prince of Wales Education Summer Schools</a> to the interests of livestock farmers. </p>
<p>But they tend to relate to subjects that would not in other circumstances be regarded as particularly newsworthy. Furthermore, they merely confirm what we already knew from his public speeches: that the Prince of Wales takes a great interest in particular issues, such as agriculture, architecture, education and complementary medicine, and that he has no hesitation in lobbying on behalf of his pet projects.</p>
<p>What is, perhaps striking, is the vehemence with he expresses his personal views on some highly charged political issues. In November 2004, for example, he told the Education Secretary, Charles Clarke:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>My Summer Schools are also challenging the fashionable view that teachers should not impart bodies of knowledge but should instead act as ‘facilitators’ or ‘coaches’, a notion which I find difficult to understand, I must admit.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Indeed, in an admission that his distrust of modern educational methods was well known, he admitted to Clarke: “Perhaps I am now too dangerous to be associated with!”</p>
<p>Towards the end of an extremely long and wide-ranging letter to Tony Blair, the then prime minister in September 2004, he complained that the delay in the procurement by the Ministry of Defence of a new helicopter to replace the Lynx was “just one more example of where our Armed Forces are being forced to do an extremely challenging job (particularly in Iraq) without the necessary resources”. Had a copy of these comments fallen into the hands of the Conservative opposition, the results would have been politically explosive.</p>
<p>Defenders of Charles have suggested that the letters merely represent part of a legitimate process of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/26/when-will-prince-charless-letters-be-published">educating himself in the business of government</a>. Yet the older he becomes (and at 66 he is already over the standard retirement age in the UK), the more incongruous seems the idea that he should be able to treat Whitehall as some sort of soft play area. </p>
<p>Indeed, the notion that writing hectoring notes to ministers counts as preparation for the role of constitutional monarch in the 21st century seems questionable in the extreme: it’s a bit like a currency forger claiming they are merely educating themselves in preparation for becoming head of the Royal Mint.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"598504738448121856"}"></div></p>
<p>There will no doubt be plenty of debate about the significance of the letters. They do, however, provide some extremely rare documentary evidence about the contemporary relationship between the palace and the British government. </p>
<p>But in securing their release, has the Guardian damaged the ability of senior royals to express their private views to ministers? Speaking on the Today Programme, the former Foreign Office Minister, Denis McShane, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32716450">claimed</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>No member of the royal family will ever dare write to the government again … for fear that their private views just going to be front page news. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>If only that were true. The Guardian was only able to secure the release of the letters because it made its original request to see them before <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/royal-family-granted-new-right-of-secrecy-2179148.html">changes were made to the Freedom of Information Act</a> in the dying days of Gordon Brown’s administration. This removed any public interest appeal against a decision to withhold correspondence relating to the Queen or Prince Charles. </p>
<p>Indeed, the Guardian reports that David Cameron is <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/13/no-10-hints-at-ministerial-veto-guarantee-on-publication-of-monarchs-letters">already planning</a> cross-party talks to ensure that this sort of revelation can’t be repeated. So Charles will be able to continue to engage in this kind of lobbying without any fear that his comments will be made public. </p>
<p>McShane also suggested, in common with some other former recipients of Charles’ letters, that they simply contained the sorts of innocuous musings that might have been written by “a retired university vice-chancellor” or “a retired archbishop”. The public will now have the opportunity to assess that for themselves. But if they agree with McShane’s conclusion, they might well ask why a government eager to control public spending <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/jan/21/mps-expenses">spent more than £400,000</a> trying to keep the letters secret.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41805/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Murphy receives funding from the AHRC.</span></em></p>Defenders claim Prince Charles was just trying to educate himself. But shouldn’t he know better?Philip Murphy, Director of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies and Professor of British and Commonwealth History, School of Advanced Study, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/393972015-03-26T18:01:38Z2015-03-26T18:01:38ZThe writing’s on the wall for Prince Charles – he has to learn not to meddle in politics<p>The <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/26/supreme-court-clears-way-release-secret-prince-charles-letters-black-spider-memos">UK Supreme Court</a> has ruled that secret letters sent by Prince Charles to government ministers can be published, following a decade-long battle fought by the Guardian newspaper.</p>
<p>The letters are said to contain Charles’ personal views on a variety of issues. They are seen by some as reflecting an intention to influence government policy. The detail could prove highly embarrassing for Charles, who as heir to the throne cannot be seen as a partisan figure.</p>
<p>The court’s decision is the culmination of a very expensive legal process. It began in April 2005, when Guardian journalist Rob Evans exercised his right under the recently implemented Freedom of Information Act to apply to see 27 letters written by Charles to various government departments since the previous September.</p>
<p>The application followed several <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1408279/Black-spider-letters-catch-Charles-in-web-of-controversy.html">reports</a> that Charles was sending handwritten letters to government ministers in an attempt to influence their views.</p>
<p>The seven government departments involved refused to disclose the information and their decision was upheld by the Information Commissioner. In September 2012, a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/sep/18/prince-charles-letters-ministers-judges">special tribunal</a> upheld Evans’ right to see “advocacy correspondence” from the Prince of Wales on the grounds that this would be in the public interest.</p>
<p>The judgement was swiftly overturned by the then attorney-general, Dominic Grieve, on the basis that Charles’s political neutrality would be undermined by the release of the documents. In March 2014, the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/12/attorney-general-unlawful-prince-charles-letters">Court of Appeal</a> ruled that Grieve had acted unlawfully and backed the tribunal’s conclusion.</p>
<p>Given this definitive Court of Appeal ruling, it can hardly come as any surprise that the Supreme Court has now endorsed it. By the time of the Court of Appeal judgment, this exhaustive process had already cost the British taxpayer nearly <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/government-has-spent-%C2%A3275000-blocking-guardian-bid-see-prince-charles-letters">£275,000</a> in legal fees. It had not, however, dissuaded the Prince of Wales from continuing to use his position to promote his private views.</p>
<p>In November 2014, a source close to Charles <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/19/becoming-king-not-silence-prince-charles-allies">told the Guardian</a> that he would “be true to his beliefs and contributions,” and would “continue with his heartfelt interventions”. </p>
<h2>Diminished public confidence</h2>
<p>Even before the letters have been published, this episode has almost certainly diminished public confidence in the institution of the monarchy. The very considerable amount of money the elected representatives of British voters have spent attempting to withhold the truth is just the start.</p>
<p>The distinguished constitutional historian <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/04/prince-charles-make-monarchy-matter">Vernon Bogdanor</a> has suggested that Charles has not undermined trust in his ability to act as a politically neutral monarch on the basis that his interventions were not party-political. But increasingly, the political issues that matter to the British public do not split neatly along party-political lines. In any case, some of the issues that Charles has made no secret of supporting – such as <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/prince-i-ll-leave-britain-over-fox-hunt-ban-1-1377082">fox hunting</a> – are certainly matters that have divided the main parties.</p>
<p>This story does not in any sense represent a victory for freedom of information. The palace has lobbied hard for the government to retreat from the principles of the 2000 act as they related to royal correspondence. Governments of both major parties have been craven in yielding to this pressure.</p>
<p>A Gordon Brown-era change to the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/royal-family-granted-new-right-of-secrecy-2179148.html">Freedom of Information Act</a>, which came into force in the early days of the Cameron government, means there is now no public interest appeal against any decision to withhold correspondence relating to the Queen or Prince Charles. That makes these letters the last that can be made public. As a society, we have effectively surrendered the right to know how constitutional monarchy has operated in our lifetimes. And as a contemporary historian I feel this is a huge loss.</p>
<p>Constitutional theorists make fine distinctions between the rights the Prince of Wales has established for himself by precedent, including the right to “advocacy correspondence”. But most people have very little interest in constitutional theory. They do, however, have very firm ideas about what is right and what is fair. And a senior member of the British royal family who uses their hereditary position to attempt to exercise special influence over elected ministers is likely to satisfy neither of these criteria.</p>
<p>The long reign of Elizabeth II has lulled us into a false sense that constitutional monarchy in the UK is almost impregnable. History suggests it is not. And any monarch who fails to emulate the current Queen’s high standards of political neutrality is likely to learn that the hard way.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39397/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Murphy receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council.</span></em></p>The British public have come to expect impartiality from the monarchy under Elizabeth II.Philip Murphy, Director of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies and Professor of British and Commonwealth History, School of Advanced Study, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/243632014-03-17T13:36:24Z2014-03-17T13:36:24ZExplainer: what political clout does Prince Charles have?<p>A matter concerning Prince Charles, letters written to government ministers and a bid by the Guardian to make them public has been playing out in British courts and the media for the past few years. It highlights an interesting and important aspect of constitutional law namely, what, if any, political power does the monarch, or members of her family, wield?</p>
<p>We all know that a constitutional monarch should be “politically neutral”. What that actually means in practice is more difficult to define. We can safely assume that the Queen has political views of her own. Constitutionally, she is perfectly entitled to make those views known to her ministers. <a href="http://www.economist.com/topics/walter-bagehot">Walter Bagehot</a>, who provided the British with the closest they have to a <a href="http://cakeofcustom.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/rights-to-be-consulted-to-encourage-and.html">working definition of constitutional monarchy</a>, famously claimed that the sovereign had three rights in relation to ministers: to be consulted, to encourage and to warn. This offers ample scope for the implicit expression of political views.</p>
<p>The notion of political neutrality, therefore, rests not on an expectation that the Queen is “apolitical”, but on three other things: the doctrine of ministerial “advice”, a strict code of secrecy, and the personal discretion of the monarch. The Queen only speaks and acts publicly in any significant sense on the advice of her ministers. This both maintains the power of elected representatives and shields the Queen from personal criticism. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, British prime ministers strictly adhere to the convention that the substance of their conversations with her in their weekly meeting should be treated as confidential. In this, as in many other aspects of Britain’s unwritten constitution, much depends on everyone behaving well. No amount of secrecy will maintain an impression of political neutrality if the monarch gives any impression of being partisan or determined to promote their own political agenda. Luckily, the Queen has been a model of good behaviour.</p>
<p>The expectations placed upon other members of the royal family are less clear, particularly if they are not directly in line to the throne. Prince Philip never seems to have felt much obligation to conceal his views or render them anodyne (Harold Macmillan <a href="http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/books/2011/06/supermac-in-eight-anecdotes/">dismissed</a> one of his interventions as being “too like that of a clever undergraduate who has just discovered Socialism”). On the whole, however, his comments have been treated indulgently, both because they tend to enliven otherwise rather stilted royal occasions and because they generally steer clear of party political issues. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the recent decision of princes William and Harry to join their father in support of a public campaign against elephant poaching will probably be seen less as a political intervention than a continuation of the tradition Frank Prochaska <a href="http://www.frankprochaska.com/books/royal-bounty/">has described</a> as “welfare monarchy”, by which members of the royal family have sought to associate themselves with “good causes”.</p>
<p>Prince Charles, however, is a very special case, and not simply because he is the heir apparent. Rather than simply slipping out in casual conversation, his firmly-held and sometimes controversial views have formed the basis for a number of set-piece speeches. We also know that he is in fairly regular contact with ministers. Putting the two together, it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that Charles may be exploiting his special access to Whitehall in order to lobby for his pet causes in ways that might undermine confidence in his ability to act as a politically neutral sovereign. His supporters claim his contacts with ministers are merely a way of <a href="http://www.academia.edu/3589443/Constitutional_Conventions_and_the_Prince_of_Wales">preparing him for kingship</a>. Prevented, however, by official secrecy from learning about the precise nature of these contacts, we are in no better position to assess whether a troubling constitutional line has been crossed than we are to know whether the fridge light goes off when we close the door.</p>
<h2>Guardian FoI request</h2>
<p>Soon however, we may be able to make just such a judgement. In April 2005, the Guardian journalist Rob Evans applied under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act to obtain the release of 27 letters written by Charles to various government departments since the previous September. The departments refused to release the papers and their decision was upheld by the information commissioner. Evans’ appeal against this ruling was then considered by a special tribunal. During the course of an exhaustive six-day hearing, it considered evidence from all sides and even went into closed session when examining the documents themselves. </p>
<p>In September 2012, the tribunal upheld Evans’ right to see “advocacy correspondence” from the Prince of Wales on the grounds that “it will generally be in the overall public interest for there to be transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government”. </p>
<p>The judgement was, however, almost immediately <a href="http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/49610/prince-charles-letters-outrage-attorney-generals-cover">overturned by a certificate issued by the attorney-general</a>, Dominic Grieve, who claimed the release of the documents would undermine Charles’s political neutrality and inhibit his ability to correspond frankly with ministers. Last week, in the latest twist to this story, the Court of Appeal <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26544124">overturned Grieve’s decision</a>, pointing out that he had been unable to point to any error of law or fact behind the tribunal’s conclusion.</p>
<p>So where does that leave us? Unless the Supreme Court overturns this latest judgement, Charles’s “advocacy correspondence” will have to be released. Even if it is not, we know the tribunal believed its contents to be of such political significance that it was in the public interest to release it. In the process, the tribunal demonstrated the need for a public watchdog to prevent members of the royal family using official secrecy to conceal actions that many of us would consider improper and unconstitutional. </p>
<p>The tragic irony, however, is that any similar request made today under FOI would almost certainly fail. In a change introduced in the dying days of the last Labour government, and which came into effect in January 2011, the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/25/contents">law was revised</a> so that there is now no public interest appeal against any decision to withhold correspondence relating to the Queen and Prince Charles. This, it was explained, was so that “the constitutional and political impartiality of the Monarchy is not undermined”. </p>
<p>The change clearly came in response to pressure from the palace, keen to ensure that no similar attempt could be made to investigate royal activities. The government was cowardly in surrendering to this, and as the letters themselves may vividly reveal, the public interest was very poorly served. The notion that secrecy alone can maintain the political neutrality of the monarch is dangerous and wrong.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24363/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Murphy receives funding from the AHRC.</span></em></p>A matter concerning Prince Charles, letters written to government ministers and a bid by the Guardian to make them public has been playing out in British courts and the media for the past few years. It…Philip Murphy, Director of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies and Professor of British and Commonwealth History, School of Advanced Study, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/164482013-07-30T05:17:20Z2013-07-30T05:17:20ZQuacktitioner Royal is a menace to the constitution and public health<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28265/original/4rb8xssb-1375097210.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2200%2C1501&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Prince or medical expert: which hat shall I wear today?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">PA/Eddie Mulholland</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A constitutional monarch is purely ceremonial and plays no part in politics. But in the UK it isn’t quite as simple as that. The first problem is that we have no constitution. </p>
<p>Things haven’t changed much since the 19th century when Walter Bagehot, author of The English Constitution, wrote that “the sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy … three rights - the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn.”</p>
<p>These are not inconsiderable powers in a country which is meant to be run by elected representatives. But nobody knows how these powers are used: almost all of it is done in secret. </p>
<p>Charles, Prince of Wales, is unusually public in expressing his views. But he also does so in private. He is <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/25/prince-charles-letters-judges-allow-appeal">currently the subject of an appeal</a> to force the publication of letters written to government officials - the so-called “black spider memos”.</p>
<p>In 2010, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/7147870/Prince-of-Wales-I-was-accused-of-being-enemy-of-the-Enlightenment.html">he told a conference</a> he was proud of being called “the enemy of the Enlightenment” - a remarkable point of view for someone who, as King, would become the patron of the Royal Society, that product of the age of enlightenment.</p>
<p>I’ve no doubt that Prince Charles means well. But his views on medicine date from a few centuries ago, and he has lost no opportunity to exploit his privileged position to proclaim them.</p>
<h2>Euphemisms for quackery</h2>
<p>The “integration” in the Foundation for Integrated Health (PFIH), which was set up to promote the prince’s views, is just the latest euphemism for “alternative” or “quack”. When the Foundation collapsed because of a financial scandal in 2010, it was replaced by the “College of Medicine”. The name changed, <a href="http://www.dcscience.net/?p=3632">but not the people</a> behind it. </p>
<p>Initially this phoenix was to be named the “<a href="http://www.dcscience.net/?p=3263">College of Integrated Health</a>”, but by this time the Prince’s views on medicine had become sufficiently discredited that the word “integrated” was quickly dropped. This might be thought less than frank, but it is just the classic <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-bait-and-switch-of-unscientific-medicine/">bait and switch</a> technique, beloved by used car salesmen.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28264/original/n27hmw3r-1375097012.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28264/original/n27hmw3r-1375097012.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28264/original/n27hmw3r-1375097012.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28264/original/n27hmw3r-1375097012.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28264/original/n27hmw3r-1375097012.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28264/original/n27hmw3r-1375097012.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28264/original/n27hmw3r-1375097012.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">They promise you the world …</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Loozrboy</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The prince’s views were also well publicised in Complementary Healthcare: a Guide for Patients, which omitted or misrepresented the evidence about whether treatments worked or not. I wrote a more accurate version: the <a href="http://www.dcscience.net/?page_id=733">Patients’ Guide to Magic Medicine</a>.</p>
<h2>A letter from the prince</h2>
<p>This guide was arguably a danger to public health. When it was rightly criticised by Edzard Ernst, an academic expert in complementary medicine, a letter sent from an aide at Clarence House <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/mar/11/health.monarchy">to Ernst’s vice-chancellor</a>, Steve Smith, resulted in <a href="http://www.dcscience.net/?p=89">disciplinary proceedings</a> against Ernst that lasted for a year, and ended with a pompous reprimand.</p>
<p>None of this criticism has dimmed the prince’s enthusiasm for barmy medical ideas.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28266/original/zw9w83ht-1375098236.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28266/original/zw9w83ht-1375098236.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=823&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28266/original/zw9w83ht-1375098236.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=823&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28266/original/zw9w83ht-1375098236.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=823&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28266/original/zw9w83ht-1375098236.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1035&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28266/original/zw9w83ht-1375098236.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1035&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28266/original/zw9w83ht-1375098236.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1035&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">On the hunt for answers: we might never know why Jeremy visited the prince.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">PA/Dominic Lipinski</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In July, Minister of Health Jeremy Hunt visited the prince at Clarence House. The visit was <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/hes-at-it-again-prince-charles-accused-of-lobbying-health-secretary-over-homeopathy-8723145.html">reportedly to persuade the minister</a> to defend homeopathy, though it was more likely to have been to press the case to confer a government stamp of <a href="http://www.dcscience.net/?p=5562">approval on herbalists</a> and traditional Chinese Medicine practitioners through statutory regulation.</p>
<p>Charles’s greatest ally, <a href="http://www.dcscience.net/?p=6007">the Conservative MP David Tredinnick</a>, who got into trouble for charging to expenses astrology software that purported to <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/09/tory-mp-david-tredinnick-astrology">diagnose medical conditions</a>, recently raised this again <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130709/halltext/130709h0001.htm#130709h0001.htm_spnew0">in parliament</a>. </p>
<p>We might never know what was discussed in Hunt’s meeting. And <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/written-ministerial-statement-freedom-of-information-act-veto-of-release-of-prince-charles-letters">the Attorney General</a> has blocked the release of private letters sent to seven government departments as “disclosure of the correspondence could damage The Prince of Wales’ ability to perform his duties when he becomes King.” This is precisely why they should be made public.</p>
<h2>The prince’s influence</h2>
<p>The prince’s influence is big in the Department of Health (DH). He was given £37,000 of taxpayers’ money to produce his guide, and an astonishing £900,000 to prepare the ground for the hapless self regulator “Ofquack”, or the <a href="http://www.dcscience.net/?p=3311">Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council</a>. </p>
<p>When NHS Choices (set up by the DH to assess evidence) was rewriting its web page about the most discredited of all forms of quackery, homeopathy, officials <a href="http://www.dcscience.net/?p=5778">referred the new advice to Michael Dixon</a>, the Prince’s Foundation medical director. Were it not for the Freedom of Information act, inaccurate information would have been included.</p>
<p>The Prince of Wales’ business, Duchy Originals, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-440103/Duchy-original-sins--Charles-range-spotlight.html">has been condemned</a> by the Daily Mail, for selling unhealthy foods. And when it started selling quack “detox” and herbal nonsense he found himself censured by the medicines regulator, <a href="http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/03/duchy-originals-pork-pies.html">the MHRA</a> and <a href="http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2009/5/Duchy-Originals-Ltd/TF_ADJ_46199.aspx">the Advertising Standards Authority</a> (ASA) for unjustifiable medical claims.</p>
<p>Ainsworth’s homeopathic pharmacy has two royal warrants, from both Prince Charles and the Queen. They sold “homeopathic vaccines” for meningitis, measles, rubella and whooping cough. </p>
<p>Ainsworth’s had already been <a href="http://bit.ly/16tAm8j">censured by the ASA</a> in 2011 for selling similar products. The MHRA failed to step in until Sam Smith, a young BBC reporter, made a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZf9mUzI4RI&feature=c4-overview&list=UUei35H3nu7bduw-6DBJFGrQ">programme about it</a>. It still sells Polonium metal 30C and Swine Meningitis 36C, and a booklet recommending homeopathic “vaccination”. Ainsworth’s sales are no doubt helped by the royal warrants. </p>
<h2>Runs in the family</h2>
<p>Charles is not the only member of the royal family to be obsessed with bizarre forms of medicine. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28262/original/vyytgbzm-1375095788.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28262/original/vyytgbzm-1375095788.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=944&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28262/original/vyytgbzm-1375095788.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=944&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28262/original/vyytgbzm-1375095788.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=944&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28262/original/vyytgbzm-1375095788.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1186&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28262/original/vyytgbzm-1375095788.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1186&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28262/original/vyytgbzm-1375095788.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1186&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Frederick Quin, England’s first homeopathic doctor in Vanity Fair 1872.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia Commons/Adriano Cecioni</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The first homeopath to the British royal family, Frederick Quin, was a son of the Duchess of Devonshire (1765-1824). Queen Mary (1865-1953) headed the fundraising efforts to move and expand the London Homeopathic Hospital. King George VI was so enthusiastic that in 1948 he conferred the royal title on it. </p>
<p>The present Queen’s homeopathic physician is Peter Fisher, who is medical director of a hospital, now rebranded, as the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine (RLHIM).</p>
<p>The RLHIM is a <a href="http://www.dcscience.net/?p=4213">great embarrassment</a> to the otherwise excellent UCL Hospital Trust. It has been repeatedly <a href="http://bit.ly/11UK3Ze">condemned by the ASA</a> and has been forced to withdraw all of its patient information. It’s hard to imagine that this anachronistic institution would still exist without the patronage of the Queen.</p>
<p>To justify the secrecy of Charles’s letter, the attorney general said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is a matter of the highest importance within our constitutional framework that the Monarch is a politically neutral figure. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Questions about health policy are undoubtedly political, and the highly partisan interventions of the prince in the political process make his behaviour unconstitutional. They endanger the monarchy itself. Whether that matters depends on how much you value tradition and how much you value the tourist business generated by the Gilbert & Sullivan flummery at which royals excel.</p>
<p>The least that one can ask of the royal family is that they should not endanger the health of the nation. If I wanted to know the winner of the 2.30 at Ascot, I’d ask a royal. For any question concerning science or medicine I’d ask someone with more education.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/16448/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Colquhoun does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A constitutional monarch is purely ceremonial and plays no part in politics. But in the UK it isn’t quite as simple as that. The first problem is that we have no constitution. Things haven’t changed much…David Colquhoun, Professor of Pharmacology, UCL, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.