Prince Charles's black spider memos to be published on Wednesday

[Jesus Malverde]

Source: Guardian UK

Prince Charles’ secret letters to British government ministers expressing frank views that the government has warned could undermine his political neutrality will finally be published on Wednesday.

The move follows a 10-year battle by the Guardian to expose the heir to the throne’s so-called ‘black spider memos’ to public scrutiny.

The 27 letters were sent between Charles and ministers in seven government departments in 2004 and 2005 and were the subject of a Freedom of Information Act request by the Guardian journalist Rob Evans.

The government has been battling to protect the Prince of Wales from scrutiny over what the former attorney general Dominic Grieve has described as Charles’s “particularly frank” interventions on public policy in the letters.


Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/12/prince-charles-black-spider-memos-letters-published

[Hoppy]

1. Beats the shit out of me as to why the Brits

continue to pay taxes to support any of those louts.

The only one who I would support is Prince Phillip. At least he is always good for a couple of laughs.

[rurallib]

2. they bring in tons of tourist bucks

it is the only logical explanation I have ever heard.

[Hoppy]

3. There is that. Then why don't they give the royals their own TV shows.

Phillip gets 1/2 hour a week, in between drinks to to comment on habits of working class people. He can also evaluate the clothing styles of visiting dignitaries and visitors to the Tower of London.

BBC can invite the Bush twins to take him bar hopping to introduce Phillip to the newest "in" drinks.

Fergie can hold weekly contests on who is the best toe sucker.

The Princes can show off their newest Nazi uniforms.

The ratings will be off the roof.

[MADem]

13. Well, they have one--in a way.

There is a new version of SPITTING IMAGE on, it's called NEWZOIDS, and it does the same thing with the puppets that the old show did. It's pretty funny.

They do a riff on the TV show Mrs. Brown's Boys, only they call it Mrs. Crown's Boys, and Mrs. Crown is, of course, the Queen.

[snooper2]

9. does all the tourism pay for them and their palaces to exist?

[rurallib]

10. from my memory I do remember hearing that yes it does

Here is an article - couple years old that says yes it does:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/

According to Buckingham Palace, sustaining the royal family costs Britons 53 pence, or about 81 cents, per person, per year. The total came to about 33.3 million pounds (about $51.1 million) for 2012-2013, according to the Palace, up from 32.4 million pounds the previous year.
<>
But some British republicans -- those who want to abolish the monarchy -- say the actual cost is much higher, once you factor in things like security detail and the cost of preparing for royal visits. Their figure is about 200 million pounds, or $307 million.
<>
The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace. The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle .

So it looks like any business - you have to spend money to make money. Looks like they bring in about twice what they cost. No doubt in all this it is hard to say where to stop counting costs and where to stop counting revenue. How many tourists would never had taken the trip had there not been a royal family etc.?

[Chakab]

4. It's not just the Brits supporting them. The Queen is still the head of state of Canada, Australia,

New Zealand, Barbados and a few other countries.

[treestar]

5. IIRR most of the wealth is theirs

Their ancestors were wealthy people.

Interesting that Charles did this. But to them, he's really just another citizen. No power. Maybe some sort of bully pulpit, but if he did this secretly, he was not interested in that.

[zazen]

6. I'm glad he cares enough to be engaged and doesn't just rest in entitlement and wealth

I guess the royals ultimately have to limit their "policy work" to non-profit foundations where they bring visibility to certain issues, but at least he's not just enjoying all the wealth without even bothering to engage himself in improving the world (as he sees it, but still. . . . ). Here we have idiots like George W. Bush, given everything, who doesn't even open a book willingly or travel to Europe unless he has to.

And the voyeuristic obsession of people with that guy's private life (including these memos, which is more appetite for the same, since it's hardly some British constitutional crisis) is bizarre, but it's become so commonplace that it's not seen for the sick codependency it has become.

I applaud the guy for speaking out about GMO and climate change and marrying a woman his own age.

[Hoppy]

7. I agree with you on this.

[Person 2713]

15. +1 many of the letters bring up issues that need an influential voice : farmers , alternative meds,

how a child's behavior can be influenced by nutrition, etc
Intrusive busy body to Blair and gov.dept heads using crown influence on policy perhaps but he could be just yachting and driving fast cars around mountains never having any cause but himself .

[displacedtexan]

8. Almost all public appearances by the royal family are to support charities.

Without their sponsorship, do you really think the rich would donate so generously to worthy causes? I read somewhere that 50% or more donated to charities is a direct result of royal sponsorship. They may be relics, but they're still useful. Also, they own all of those jewels, castles, and palaces on public display which are used to raise public money... And probably a ton of the art in the museums.

We depend on celebrity sponsors and society types to raise awareness; they have people with crowns.

[First Speaker]

11. If they're private letters, I don't see the problem...

...as Walter Bagehot wrote in *The British Constitution*, the monarch--or heir to the throne, in this case--has the right to advise. This appears to be all he was doing.

[MADem]

14. A letter to a public official regarding the work that official is doing is not private.

This is a bit problematic. It's been brewing for years. They call them "black spider" because his handwriting is a messy scrawl.

His comments could be perceived as undermining/favoring one party over another, and that's where the difficulty ensues.

[Jesus Malverde]

12. The memos

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/prince-of-wales-correspondence-with-government-departments