Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Prince Charles' 'black spider' letters: What has Clarence House been fighting to protect?

Supreme Court judges did not read the letters

Chris Green
Thursday 26 March 2015 14:31 EDT
Comments
The 27 notes have been dubbed the “black spider” memos due to the Prince’s unique style of handwriting
The 27 notes have been dubbed the “black spider” memos due to the Prince’s unique style of handwriting (Charles Fred Thornhill/Reuters)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The seven Supreme Court justices who handed down their judgement today were only deciding upon a point of law, so they did not have to read the 27 letters which both Clarence House and Government have fought so hard to keep secret.

One of the only people who knows what is in the so-called “black spider” memos – penned by Prince Charles to seven different Government departments over a seven-month period in 2004 and 2005 – is Dominic Grieve, the former Attorney General who vetoed their publication in 2012.

Justifying his decision not to release them at the time, he said that much of the correspondence reflected Prince Charles’s “most deeply held personal views and beliefs” and were “in many cases particularly frank”.

He continued: “They also contain remarks about public affairs which would in my view, if revealed, have had a material effect upon the willingness of the government to engage in correspondence with the Prince of Wales, and would potentially have undermined his position of political neutrality.”

The correspondence reflects Prince Charles’s 'most deeply held personal views and beliefs'
The correspondence reflects Prince Charles’s 'most deeply held personal views and beliefs' (Arthur Edwards/Getty Images)

Prince Charles is known for his strong opinions on a range of topics, from the environment and farming to complementary medicine and architecture. Perhaps his most notorious intervention came in 1984, when he described plans for a new extension to the National Gallery as a “monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend”. The project was later scrapped.

More recently, he wrote to Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, the emir of Qatar, urging his family to drop plans for a radical redevelopment of Chelsea Barracks in favour of a more traditional alternative. The plans were later shelved, leading to accusations that he had abused his “privileged position”.

The seven departments which received letters from Prince Charles in 2004 and 2005 were Business, Innovation and Skills; Health; Children, Schools and Families; Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Culture, Media and Sport; the Northern Ireland Office and the Cabinet Office.

Mr Grieve said he believed they had been written “as part of the Prince of Wales’s preparation for becoming king”, and that the disclosure of their contents could damage his ability to perform his duties as monarch. “It is a matter of the highest importance within our constitutional framework that the monarch is a politically neutral figure able to engage in confidence with the government of the day, whatever its political colour,” he added.

Soon, the British public will be able to judge for themselves whether or not he was right.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in