The Crown: What does Netflix’s dramatisation and the celebritisation of an evolving monarchy mean for the royal family in 2018?

com.google.Chrome.j5urj9

With Prince Philip now retired from his public role and Prince Harry set to marry an American actor in the spring, the royal family has entered 2018 in the midst of a period of change. Yet change is nothing new; the monarchy is constantly evolving. Bob Morris asks where does it now stand and what further changes may be expected? He also discusses the historical accuracy and cultural impact of the popular Netflix drama, ‘The Crown’. 

As the monarchy enters 2018, unavoidable demographic effects are becoming more apparent. The Queen is now 91 and Prince Philip has announced his retirement from official duties at the age of 96. The Queen remains commendably diligent in her public duties, notching up nearly 300 engagements in 2017, although none of those took place abroad. There it is evident that the Prince of Wales (himself close now to 70) has increasingly taken up the burden, assisted principally by the Duke of York and the Princess Royal. As in recent years, the latter continues to be the busiest member of the family for domestic engagements.

There continue to be small, mostly low-voiced susurrations of speculation about whether the Queen will herself ‘retire’ in some way when, for example, she reaches her husband’s age; whether she will be succeeded by Prince William rather than by Prince Charles; whether the new king would remain Head of the Commonwealth; and at what point any of the fifteen Commonwealth states where the Queen remains monarch (known as the realms) will turn themselves into fully-fledged republics. Continue reading

Charles in waiting: 63-year-old pays tribute to Queen – and his own destiny?

Taken from Michael White’s article in the Guardian

Professor Robert Hazell, head of University College London’s Constitution Unit, argues that the most powerful case that republicans could make for abolishing the ancient British monarchy – practical rather than theoretical – is “the serious burdens it places on the royal family”.

“The Queen is 86, an age when most people have retired; she’s been in the job for 60 years with no prospect of relief until she dies. She won’t ease up and she feels her coronation oath was a sacrament, so there is no question of abdication. It is a very heavy burden, for which we will be applauding her this weekend. She’s stuck on the treadmill.”

Prince Charles? “He’s 63, itself an age when most people are starting to contemplate retirement, yet he’s not actually started the job he’s spent his adult life preparing for. That is burdensome, too. There are other demands we make on them in terms of the human rights we now value. The Queen has no freedom of expression or religious belief: she must be an Anglican in England and become a Presbyterian when she crosses the Scottish border. She has no freedom to travel, which the rest of us take for granted, and royal marriages need approval. It may be gilded, but it’s still a cage,” concludes Hazell.

Prince Charles and FOI, part III

OysterThe Veto

Prince Charles has once again been thrown into the spotlight thanks to Freedom of Information.  Following an investigation by the Guardian which made full use of FOI, “a secretive constitutional loophole” was discovered which gives Prince Charles the right to veto legislation that might affect his private interests in relation to his role as Duke of Cornwall.  The Guardian claims that since 2005 Prince Charles’ consent has been sought for bills on up to seventeen occasions. Funnily enough, neither the government nor Clarence House has revealed what real impact the veto has had.

The Prince’s veto is intrinsically linked to the Duchy of Cornwall, created in 1337 by Edward III to provide an income for the Monarch’s eldest son and heir.  The Duke of Cornwall must consent to laws which might affect his estate.  The reason behind this parliamentary procedure is that, if no heir existed, the Duchy would revert to the monarch and is therefore subject to royal prerogative.  Whilst the veto seems archaic and out of place in our modern representative democracy, its recent exposure has not prompted any moves to decrease the Prince’s influence.  According to Downing Street, there are no plans to change the 700 year old convention.

The FOI request

In stark comparison, a request for environmental information (EIR) has instigated a groundbreaking change for the Duchy with regard to FOI.  In 2008 Michael Bruton requested information from the Duchy regarding the introduction of non-native oysters to the Port Navas Oyster Farm, a designated conservation area.  Bruton wished to know which environmental assessments had been carried out to ensure that introducing the non-native oysters would not have a detrimental effect.  The Duchy, claiming itself to be a private estate, refused to give the information.

In October 2011, three years after the initial request for information, an information tribunal ruled that the Duchy of Cornwall should in fact be classed as a Public Authority, thus becoming subject to FOI and finally allowing Bruton to acces the information he requested.  The Duchy had in fact failed to carry out an environmental assessment of the oyster farm.

The ruling by the information tribunal is not however just a personal victory for Bruton.  In classifying the Duchy of Cornwall as a Public Authority, the estate has been completely redefined.  Primarily because much of the Duchy’s actions impact on the environment, they will no longer be considered confidential, as has been the case for the past 700 years.  The decision therefore makes the Duchy generally more open to public scrutiny and challenges.  The past couple of weeks have therefore seen Prince Charles’ role as Duke of Cornwall both upheld (with his right to veto remaining intact) and undermined (being no longer exempt from FOI/EIR).  Whilst he considers whether to appeal the tribunal’s decision, perhaps he should be reminded that, as the saying goes: you win some, you lose some.

Prince Charles and FOI, Part II

The last time Prince Charles came under the spotlight for getting too close to Parliament, the news was we could get none. This month, the Guardian found a way around that.

The Royal Family’s communications with ministers became exempt under the Freedom of Information Act during the final days of the previous government, making it difficult for anyone to find out whether Prince Charles was stepping over his constitutional boundaries when meeting with ministers.

The same does not apply to communication between ministers and charities – and Charles is president of 20 of them.

The Guardian obtained 17 emails and letters between five of the prince’s charities and ministers and officials in four government departments and found evidence of what a few months ago were just a series of (arguably well founded) suspicions.

The charity Business in the Community, which Charles has presided over for 25 years,

“urged business secretary, Vince Cable, to rethink a decision to scrap the Northwest Regional Development Agency. The Prince’s Foundation for a Built Environment urged the local government minister, Grant Shapps, ‘to incorporate greater community engagement in planning and promoted its own planning work around the country as something for him to consider in the ‘national planning framework’.”

Urging may have also meant persuading. The Department for Communities and Local Government awarded a £800,000 grant to the Prince’s Foundation “to advise local groups on new developments.”

The Department denies any connection between Charles’ lobbying and the grant, but Paul Richards, special adviser to former secretaries of state for communities and health recalls how the prince’s letters seemed to sail smoothly into ministers’ hands.

“There was a frisson of excitement when a letter came in from Charles and there was easy, open-door access for his office and charities in a way I felt other organisations would struggle to match. My sense was that the charities were given a star status and that means they get priority and I would be astonished if that was any different under the current government.”

A letter from Charles’ office to the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, about planning issues in the city, is being withheld because disclosure could harm the prince’s “political neutrality.”

The Guardian obtained the correspondence between ministers and Prince Charles’ charities through the government – if it had attempted to obtain the information through his charities, they would have hit another obstacle: they are not covered by the Act and won’t be anytime soon.

The majority of charities are not subject to FOI (the ones that are, are listed under Schedule 1 of the Act). The scope of FOI will be extended to more organisations by the end of next year under the Protection of Freedoms Bill,  but it’s uncertain whether the Princes’ charities will be considered therein.

Bringing Prince Charles back

Prince Charles

Prince Charles’ private meetings with government ministers, and the fact that we cannot know what was said in them ,has become a small controversy buried under a scandal, namely the one about News of the World and its various mischiefs.

What seemed to be the beginning of an interesting debate was inevitably cut short. A small recap may be useful to bring the story back to the fore and continue with the discussion.

A week ago, the Mail on Sunday reported that prince Charles held at least 9 private meetings with senior ministers and also mentioned his notorious “black spider” letters to ministers – referring to the Prince’s lengthy notes on policy, inked in his spider-like handwriting.

This came after Alastair Campbell, who was former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s communications chief, revealed that Blair was frustrated with the Prince’s interventions on policy issues.

The monarchy no longer has any political power in the UK and Prince Charles’ constitutional role is to remain largely a symbolic head. Private meetings with ministers could be seen as pushing boundaries. But more important is that we can’t know for sure if Charles was, in fact, exceeding his position because the Royal Family’s communications with ministers became exempt under the Freedom of Information Act during the final days of the previous government.

In response, campaigners have called for a review to the changes in the law.

Maurice Frankel of the Campaign for Freedom of Information told The Independent that the revelations of regular private meetings with ministers showed that the changes in the FOI Act were not sustainable and suggested the Prince could use the exemption to conceal his political involvement.

“There is a legitimate case to made, for example, in protecting discussions between the Queen and the Prime Minister. But this type of roving lobbying by Prince Charles is a different matter. There is a question as to whether any political role he might be taking is being concealed by the use of this exemption. It should be made subject to review and, in some circumstances, the release of that information is justified.”

When the changes were first announced, Ben Chu, commented in The Independent that though the royals are no longer political actors, their symbolic position representing the U.K. must also be kept in check. Their exemption from the FOI Act also eliminates the mechanism meant to scrutinise their actions.

 “The Royal Family must be above politics and provide a focal point for respect from all Britons. But that does not undermine the argument for scrutiny and oversight of royal affairs. The monarchy needs to be seen as a dignified figurehead. Financial profligacy or improper behaviour by members of the Royal Family would bring the monarchy into disrepute and jeopardise its constitutional role. Statutory transparency (in the form of the Freedom of Information Act) would help to keep royals on the straight and narrow.”

The changes to the FOI Act came after Prince Charles was accused of intervening to halt a £3 billion redevelopment of the Chelsea Barracks by the Qatari royal family.

At the time, the Royal Family was exempt from direct requests for information under the FOI Act, but public bodies could be asked to disclose the information they held about them. The requests were subject to a public interest test.

The changes that took place in January rendered the Royal Family an absolute exemption from the release of details about his contacts with ministers and civil servants.

Here is what the Constitution Unit wrote about them in March.

“The absolute exception covers all communications of the monarch, her heir, and the second in line to the throne, while the correspondence of the rest of the Royal Household with public bodies remains subject to a qualified exemption. So… requests about finances would result in exactly the same outcome now as before the amendments. Similarly, if people are requesting records of Prince Andrew’s activities as the UK’s trade envoy, then the decision to release, at least under section 37, will be taken in light of a qualified exemption. The real change will be felt with respect to the third and more controversial example: letters allegedly sent between ministers and Prince Charles lobbying on political matters are now inaccessible to FOI requesters.“

With all this talk about Freedom of Information, Martin Rosenbaum, the BBC’s FOI specialist added another element to the mix: the FOI law may be only part of the issue here.

Because Prince Charles’ policy concerns has more to do with the environment than with any other policy issue, much of the information we want to know about is not covered by the FOI law at all, but rather the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR).

The EIR do not have any specific provisions protecting the Royal Family, Rosenbaum said, so requesters can fire away. But there are exemptions.

“The letters written by Charles himself could be withheld on the basis that it would harm his interests, as someone not obliged to supply information to the public authority. And the Information Commissioner has ruled that replies to him from the government can be kept secret, because by revealing his views they would thus reveal his personal information in breach of the Data Protection Act.”

In all matters not related to the environment, however, the FOI exemption for the royals should be looked at. After all, the Prince Charles may be only a symbolic figurehead and a private person in his own right – but not every private individual enjoys such access to Members of Parliament. Isn’t it in the public’s interest to know what is being said to them?