The issue of whether or not letters written by Prince Charles to government ministers should be made public is once again in the news ("Appeal over ruling on Prince's letters", The Herald, March 13).
This time three judges on appeal have found unanimously that the Attorney General, as the Government's principal legal adviser in England, was in error in imposing a veto on the release of these letters. It is now going to the Supreme Court for decision.
I believe that the Prince of Wales, an unelected and highly-privileged individual, should no more be capable of influencing government policy than John Citizen. If he has an irresistible impulse to put pen to paper for the edification of a government minister, then he should be able to do so. However, he should not be allowed to do so under a shroud of secrecy, dressed up as "confidentiality".
The general public, of course, have been able to form their own views as to his capabilities from the various lectures and speeches he has given. One can readily concede that he has been behind a number of what can be regarded as good works. However, here is a man who appears to be obsessed with the trappings of position, was not above using his position to market goods commercially in the form of the Duchy Originals and has proved over the years, unlike the Queen, who has proved to be a unifying force on the whole, to be a divisive influence through the expression of his opinions.
If he were to continue in this vein, upon inheriting the throne, such behaviour could prove to be dangerous for the future wellbeing of the monarchy.
His attempts to use his influence on the formation of government policy in a clandestine manner should be exposed and let us hope that the Supreme Court so finds.
Ian W Thomson,
38 Kirkintilloch Road,
Lenzie.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article