Letters between the Prince of Wales and the British government will remain secret after the Attorney General intervened to block a court order mandating their release.

Last month, a panel of judges ruled that seven government departments had to disclose correspondence they had received from Prince Charles. But Section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 gives ministers a veto over such decisions. In a ten-page document that accompanied his decision , Dominic Grieve MP said that he was taking action to protect the political neutrality of the Crown.

One of the fundamental principles of Britain’s constitutional monarchy is that the sovereign must be politically neutral. By longstanding convention, the Queen only acts on the advice of the government of the day. However, she must be kept informed about the business of government, and she is free to share her views privately with ministers. The need to preserve the Crown’s neutrality is seen as so important that communications between the royal family and the government are treated as strictly confidential, although the Freedom of Information Act 2000 originally allowed certain documents to be disclosed if it was deemed to be in the public interest.

Throughout her sixty-year reign, Queen Elizabeth II has shown herself to be a model of political circumspection. She does not give interviews, and on the few occasions when she does not speak on ministerial advice, her remarks are scrupulously apolitical. There was a brief furor in 1986 when the Sunday Times claimed that some of Margaret Thatcher’s policies were causing the Queen ‘dismay,’ but the assertion was swiftly rubbished by the Palace.

Prince Charles, on the other hand, has gained a reputation for being rather more outspoken than his mother. He has not shied away from public comment on topics such as architecture and organic farming, and he is known to share his views with ministers from time to time. While his critics claim that he is exerting undue influence on the government, his defenders argue that, as the future king, he is entitled to discuss his views with ministers.

The present tussle started back in 2005 when Rob Evans, a journalist from the left-leaning Guardian newspaper, sought to use the Freedom of Information Act to force the disclosure of Prince Charles’ correspondence with several government departments. His request was opposed by the government, and he ended up having to fight it all the way to the Upper Tribunal of the Administrative Appeals Chamber.

Last month, the Tribunal ruled that the disclosure of the documents was in the public interest. In their ruling, the judges sought to draw a distinction between correspondence that allows Prince Charles to prepare himself for kingship and correspondence that advocates certain positions. While the former should remain confidential, the latter could be disclosed to the public.

But the Attorney General disagreed. “In my view, it is of very considerable practical benefit to the Prince of Wales’ preparations for kingship that he should engage in correspondence and engage in dialogue with ministers about matters falling within the business of their departments, because such correspondence will assist him in fulfilling his duties…as king,” Grieve said.

Grieve also pointed out that, although the letters could be “frank,” they did not cross the lines of constitutional propriety. But at the same time, their disclosure could make it harder for people to accept his political neutrality when he becomes king.

“The ability of the monarch to engage with the government of the day, whatever its political colour, and maintain political neutrality is a cornerstone of the UK’s constitutional framework,” Grieve concluded.

Rob Evans, the journalist who originally asked for the letters to be disclosed, condemned the Attorney General’s decision, claiming that “the public has a right to see these letters” in order to gauge Prince Charles’ influence on government policy.

The anti-monarchy group Republic chimed in as well. “The Attorney General’s decision is all about protecting Charles and the Royal family from scrutiny, putting his demands above the rights of the British people,” said Graham Smith, the group’s chief executive.

“Dominic Grieve has made it clear today that no citizen should ever bother trying to find out what the royals are doing behind closed doors: the government will never let the light in.”

In the future, it will be impossible to use the Freedom of Information Act to sneak a peek at royal correspondence. Under changes to the law that took effect last year, the Queen, Prince Charles, and the Duke of Cambridge now enjoy a blanket exemption from the act.

Image Courtesy of   The Great Photographicon

The article Prince Charles’ Letters to Remain Secret appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Over 1,000 boats took to the Thames for a grand pageant to mark the second day of Queen Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations.

An estimated 1.2 million people thronged the banks to get a glimpse of the 86-year-old monarch and her family as they progressed down the river.

The event began when the Queen and her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, arrived at Chelsea Pier, where they were met by the Prince of Wales in his capacity as Patron of the Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant, along with his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall. After reviewing a Guard of Honor of Chelsea Pensioners, the royal party boarded a tender from HMY Britannia, which took them to the royal barge.

The craft that would carry the royal family was the MV Spirit of Chartwell, a 210-foot hotel barge usually used for luxury cruises along the Thames. The Spirit of Chartwell was heavily modified for the occasion so that she might resemble historic royal barges from the 16th and 17th centuries. The barge’s sides were adorned with red drapes, and the bow was decorated with a crown and the royal cypher. Also on board were extensive horticultural arrangements featuring flowers from the Queen’s gardens. Designed by Rachel de Thame, star of BBC Two’s Gardeners World, they followed a red, gold, and purple color scheme.

The Queen and her husband took in the day’s events from two lavish thrones placed under a canopy on the barge’s top deck. She was accompanied by other senior members of the royal family, including the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and Prince Harry.

Pageant participants were grouped by type, and the groups were separated by ‘herald barges’ carrying bands that played a diverse assortment of music. The bands ranged from the Academy of Ancient Music and the London Philharmonic Orchestra to the Shree Muktajeevan Pipe Band and Dhol Ensemble and Rhythm on the River. Among the pieces played was a new composition based on the original titles of Handel’s “Water Music.”

The boats taking part in the procession were equally diverse, and included rowboats, sailboats, steamboats, as well as an array of historic ships, including Dunkirk little ships and a Maori war canoe. One of the highlights was the Gloriana, an 94-foot vessel built specially for the occasion in the style of 18th century royal barges. Powered by 18 oarsmen, the Gloriana was the brainchild of Lord Sterling, who organized the Queen’s Golden Jubilee celebrations in 2002.

“I became enamoured with the idea of building something timeless and got inspiration from Canaletto’s paintings that showed the great barges of the 18th Century and decided to build one,” he told the BBC.

The Gloriana was financed entirely through donations and will be given to the Queen as a present to mark the occasion.

Image Courtesy of dutourdumonde / Shutterstock.com

The article Queen’s Diamond Jubilee: River Pageant on the Thames appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Charlie Gilmour, son of Pink Floyd guitarist Dave Gilmour and a history student at Cambridge University, received a 16-month jail sentence for violent behavior during a protest last year. Thousands of students staged protests against the increase in university tuition in London’s Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square in December.

Gilmour, 21, and some other protesters broke away from the demonstration to attack a convoy transporting Prince Charles and Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall. He leaped onto the hood of a Jaguar in the royal motorcade and threw a trash bin at the car, and a photograph was taken of him swinging from one of the flags on the Cenotaph, a memorial to dead British war veterans.

He also broke into a store by kicking in a window and stole a mannequin’s leg. Though hanging from the flag was offensive, it was not part of his violent disorder charge, unlike his kicking in store windows with a violent crowd. Lord Justice Anthony Hughes said there was “a serious mob disorder.”

There were times during the demonstration in Parliament Square where Gilmour was a in a good mood before his violent rampage. He was seen shouting good-naturedly and reciting poetry. However, he later tried to set some newspapers on fire in the Supreme Court’s doorway, but was “dissuaded and scampered away.”

Gilmour had been in jail since July, where he was at first sentenced for “outrageous and deeply offensive behavior,” and pleaded guilty to violent disorder. However, he disputed the 16-month long sentence.  Evidence showed that Gilmour was under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and he claimed to have taken LSD and Valium before going on a rampage.

Despite hearing that Gilmour had “successfully reformed and rehabilitated himself” and had dealt with “underlying drug and alcohol problems,” the judge still upheld the sentence. The Court of Appeal commented on Friday, saying that the decision was not “manifestly excessive (nor) wrong in principle” and that the judge at Kingston was “entitled to come to the conclusion which he did.”

Hughes, one of the appeals judges, stated, “We do not believe that violence in this context and of the kind displayed by this defendant can normally be met by other than significant sentences of immediate custody, even for those of otherwise good character.”

Gilmour’s parents were not present at the Court of Appeal for the day of the sentencing.

Image Courtesy of   http://www.facebook.com/pinkfloyd

The article Sentence Stands for Dave Gilmour’s Son appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.