Supreme court to rule on Prince Charles letters | UK news | The Guardian Prince Charles letters Supreme court to rule on Prince Charles letters Judgment due on whether government illegally blocked publication of letters to ministers in which prince sought to change policies What are Prince Charles’s ‘black spider’ memos? Friday 20 March 2015 07.46 EDT Last modified on Tuesday 19 July 2016 09.58 EDT Close This article is 1 year old The supreme court’s judgment on whether the government unlawfully blocked the publication of a series of secret letters written by Prince Charles is due to be made public on Thursday next week, court officials have announced . For 10 years, the government, with the support of Charles, has been resisting a freedom of information request by the Guardian to see the letters sent by the prince to ministers in which he sought to change policies. Thursday’s ruling appears to be the final stage of the dispute. A defeat for the government would clear the way for the publication of the correspondence, which, according to ministers, contains the prince’s “most deeply held personal views and beliefs”.

The supreme court’s website lists the case as due for ruling on Thursday 26 March in courtroom one at 9.45am . The proposed bench for the ruling is Lord Neuberger – the court’s president – Lady Hale and Lord Mance. The lengthy legal battle reached the highest court in the land in November when seven judges in the supreme court started examining whether the government had the legal power to veto the publication of the letters. Dominic Grieve , the then attorney general, had overridden a court and issued the veto in 2012 because he believed that disclosure of the letters would “seriously damage” Charles’s future role as king if they were made public. The heir to the throne has for many years been accused of “meddling” in government affairs. He is reputed to have sent frequent letters to ministers on a range of issues that concern him, but their contents have rarely leaked into the public domain. These letters are known informally as the “black spider memos” because of Charles’s scrawled handwriting. Backed by the cabinet, Grieve argued that disclosing the letters could create constitutional problems as the public could come to think that the prince had disagreed with government policies.

Grieve said it was crucial that, under the British constitution, the monarch was not seen to be biased towards any political party, or to become entangled in political controversies. He maintained that the prince’s ability to carry out his duties as monarch would be undermined if the letters were made public because he would not be able to recover his position of political neutrality. Ministers have spent at least £275,000 on hiring lawyers to prevent the exposure of the letters, which, according to Grieve, “were in many cases particularly frank”. What kind of King will Charles III be? | Robert Booth Read more The legal battle started in 2005 when the Guardian submitted a freedom of information request for copies of the prince’s correspondence with ministers between September 2004 and April 2005. During those months, the prince exchanged 27 pieces of correspondence with ministers in seven Whitehall departments – and it is these letters that would be published if the Guardian succeeds at the supreme court. The prince insists he wants to “promote and protect what is good about Britain and its people”, and that this entails him “acting personally as a catalyst to facilitate change, to generate debate, or to raise overlooked issues”.

Issues that have concerned him have included genetically modified crops, planning and the environment. However, Charles insists that he does not stray into party political matters. The Guardian reported last year that the prince is preparing to reshape the monarch’s role if he becomes king and make “heartfelt interventions” in national life , in contrast to the Queen’s longstanding public silence. An unauthorised biography of the prince by journalist Catherine Mayer , published in February, said Charles intends to be a more campaigning sovereign than his mother, although she fears that Britain will not be ready for his radical new style of monarchy. At the hearing lasting two days in November, Lord Neuberger , the president of the supreme court, and six senior judges, heard arguments from barristers for the government and the Guardian. They scrutinised how three judges in a freedom of information tribunal in 2012 had ordered the publication of the letters , ruling that the public should know how the prince seeks to alter government policy. “The essential reason is that it will generally be in the overall public interest for there to be transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government,” the three judges in the tribunal said .

Dyson concluded that Grieve had “no good reason for overriding the meticulous decision” of the tribunal and could not overrule its verdict “merely because he disagrees with” it. The letters at the centre of the dispute involved ministers in the Cabinet Office, and the departments covering business, health, schools, environment, culture and Northern Ireland. Ruling overturns government attempt to block release of ‘black spider memos’ to ministers after decade-long battle between the Guardian and Whitehall Published: 26 Mar 2015 A brief look at how the supreme court came to rule that government attempts to block publication were unlawful, and what happens next Published: 26 Mar 2015 Prince Charles letters to be released after Supreme Court ruling - BBC News BBC News Prince Charles letters to be released after Supreme Court ruling 26 March 2015 Close share panel Image copyright EPA The Supreme Court says letters by Prince Charles to the government can be published, after a Guardian campaign. The UK's highest court was asked to judge whether the Attorney General's office acted unlawfully when it prevented their publication in 2012. The newspaper sought disclosure of the letters, written to seven government departments between 2004-5.

The prince's office at Clarence House said it was "disappointed the principle of privacy had not been upheld". A spokeswoman also said the issue was "a matter for the government". It has been argued that releasing the so-called "black spider memos" - a reference to the prince's handwriting - would undermine his neutral political status. The government wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds trying to cover up these letters Alan Rusbridger, Editor-in-chief of Guardian News and Media Politically embarrassing Prime Minister David Cameron called the ruling "disappointing" and said the government would now consider how best to release the documents. He added: "This is about the principle that senior members of the royal family are able to express their views to government confidentially. I think most people would agree this is fair enough." Mr Cameron also hinted that the legislation could need tightening in the wake of the ruling. "Our FOI (Freedom of Information) laws specifically include the option of a governmental veto, which we exercised in this case for a reason.

"If the legislation does not make Parliament's intentions for the veto clear enough, then we will need to make it clearer." Campaign for Freedom of Information director Maurice Frankel welcomed the decision to release the letters but expressed concern that any move now to strengthen the veto could see it extended to more politically embarrassing cases. "That would be very unwelcome," he said. "It gives ministers the opportunity to overturn the wheelbarrow every time they don't like a decision." On the ruling to release the letters, he added: "This is a critical decision which strengthens the FOI Act. It says the courts, not ministers, normally have the last word." "Black spider memos" In 2010 the government changed FOI laws to remove the public interest test. The Republic group, which campaigns for a "democratic alternative to the monarchy", is now calling for the law to change so future requests for disclosure can be successful. Republic CEO Graham Smith said: "This is excellent news. The government must now act to end royal secrecy.

Any risk to the monarchy must pale against a risk to democracy from having an activist prince acting in secret." "We can't have a situation where we don't know what influence Charles is having on government policy." "The changes made to FOI laws in 2010 must be reversed so future requests for disclosure can be successful." Shortly before the ruling, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said Prince Charles was "entitled to assume" his letters would remain private. Speaking on his weekly LBC radio phone-in Mr Clegg said there was "a legitimate role" of the government allowing it to say "correspondence like that since it was intended to be private should remain private". A Number 10 spokeswoman was unable to give any timetable for disclosure of the letters. Analysis By Peter Hunt, BBC diplomatic and royal correspondent What was once private, will now - at some stage - be very public. A future king's letters to seven government ministers - written, no doubt, in his distinctive style which includes plenty of underlinings and exclamation marks. We have a sense of what they might contain. The former attorney general has described them as particularly frank and he said their publication could lead the public to interpret them as disagreeing with government policy at the time.

Those around the prince insist the contents are relatively benign and they are relaxed about their eventual publication. Given his passion and his history of conveying blunt messages, some of Charles' letters will, at the very least, raise the odd eyebrow. His challenge is that their release will focus attention once again on how he operates, so close to the throne. Prince Charles divides opinion as heir. Will he be, and can he be, a unifying monarch? Read more on Peter Hunt's blog. The Guardian said it had been "pressing the government" for 10 years to see the letters and Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of Guardian News and Media, said he was "delighted" by the ruling. "The government wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds trying to cover up these letters, admitting their publication would 'seriously damage' perceptions of the prince's political neutrality," he said. "Now they must publish them so that the public can make their own judgment. "This is a good day for transparency in government and shows how essential it is to have a fully independent judiciary and free press." According to previous Attorney General Dominic Grieve, the letters contain the prince's "most deeply held personal views and beliefs".

Media captionThe ruling was made by the Supreme Court, as Nicholas Witchell reports Legal battles The prince is heir to the throne and, as the royal family's own website explains, it is central to the British constitution that the reigning monarch should remain politically neutral. Mr Grieve has also said that any perception the prince had disagreed with the then Labour government in 2004-5 "would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is King". Guardian journalist Rob Evans originally applied to see letters under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004; this was initially denied by the information commissioner.

But several legal decisions followed: In September 2012 the Upper Tribunal ruled that Mr Evans and the public were entitled to see "advocacy correspondence" from the prince (27 out of the 30 letters) The seven government departments concerned did not appeal but Mr Grieve, then attorney general, imposed a veto In March 2014, three Court of Appeal judges unanimously ruled that Mr Grieve had "no good reason" for using the ministerial veto Seven justices at the Supreme Court in London have now heard a challenge by current Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC against the Court of Appeal ruling, but that was dismissed, paving the way for the letters to be published. The Supreme Court considered by a majority of five to two that the attorney general was not entitled to issue a certificate under Section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act - known as a veto - "in the manner that he did", and ruled that the certificate was "invalid".

Lord Neuberger concluded that Section 53 does not permit the attorney general to override a decision of a judicial tribunal or court by issuing a certificate "merely because he, a member of the executive, considering the same facts and arguments, takes a different view from that taken by the tribunal or court". This would be, he said, "unique in the laws of the United Kingdom". Mr Frankel added: "The veto is not a trump card to be slipped out of a minister's sleeve to block any embarrassing disclosure. Ministers will now have to argue their case not impose it." Prince Charles's handwritten 'black spider' letters to ministers MUST be made public, Supreme Court rules | Daily Mail Online comments Prince Charles, pictured today, has been told his letters to ministers must be released despite warnings it would infringe his 'freedom of expression' Prince Charles's 'lobbying' of ministers is set to continue unabated – even though more than two dozen private letters already written by him on issues of Government policy will be made public within weeks. Clarence House yesterday expressed its 'disappointment' that the Supreme Court ruled the Attorney General had acted unlawfully in using a veto to block publication of his so-called 'black spider' memos.

But senior royal sources also insisted to the Mail that the future king had no regrets about acting as an 'advocate' for his people. One said the judgment was 'unlikely to impact' on Charles doing what sees as his public duty. Yesterday's ruling by the UK's highest court follows a nine-year legal battle between the Government and The Guardian newspaper, which used the Freedom of Information Act to apply for 27 letters written by the Prince to senior politicians to be released. The Prime Minister also said he was disappointed by the ruling. Charles has long been accused of bombarding ministers with memos in an attempt to influence policy on issues close to his heart such as the environment, farming, the countryside, GM crops and complementary medicine. During the period in question – September 2004 to April 2005 – he wrote to seven Government departments: 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.

The correspondence – nicknamed black spider memos because of Charles's scrawling handwriting and use of underlining and exclamation marks – is said, according to previous Attorney General Dominic Grieve, to contain 'full and frank' expressions of his 'most deeply held personal views'. RELATED ARTICLES Share The newspaper was initially successful in its application. In 2012, however, the Attorney General employed a rarely-used ministerial veto to block publication under Section 53 of the FOI Act. He said the public could interpret the letters sent to ministers in the last Labour government as showing Charles 'disagreeing with government policy'. This would be 'seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because, if he forfeits his position of political neutrality… he cannot easily recover it when he is king'. That veto was challenged by The Guardian in the Supreme Court which ruled, by a majority of five to two, that the government did not have a right to overrule a decision taken by the courts.

Charles and Camilla today spent today riding in a rickshaw at Clarence House to promote a race across Madhya Pradesh, India later this year Views: An August 2000 letter from Lord Irvine, Tony Blair's mentor and later the Lord Chancellor, heavily annotated by Prince Charles in his 'black spider' handwriting 'JUDGES CANNOT BE OVERRULED' The seven Supreme Court judges made their ruling on two legal points. One was whether Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General in 2012, was right to issue a Section 53 certificate under the Freedom of Information Act, effectively blocking publication of the letters. The other question was whether an obscure EU directive – the 2003 Environmental Information Regulations – meant that any specific environmental information contained in Charles’s letters must be published. Lord Neuberger, the court president, said the Court of Appeal had already rejected Mr Grieve’s arguments that Charles’s views must be kept private. He said that it was not lawful for ‘a member of the executive to overrule a judicial decision simply because he disagrees with it’. Four other judges agreed that the letters should be published but Lord Hughes and Lord Wilson disagreed.

Lord Wilson said the Appeal Court judges had ignored the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Six of the judges said that environmental matters in Charles’s letters should be made public under the EU directive. Discussions are under way as to how to co-ordinate the release of the 27 letters. This may not happen for several weeks but they are likely to prove embarrassing to the Prince. They cover issues such as the Armed Forces, the plight of foot and mouth-hit farmers and other rural concerns. They are probably the only letters to be released because the law has been changed to make correspondence by senior members of the Royal Family exempt from FOI requests. Mr Cameron echoed Clarence House's views yesterday, saying: 'This is a disappointing judgment and we will now consider how to release these letters. This is about the principle that senior members of the Royal Family are able to express their views to government confidentially.' A spokesman for the Prince said: 'Clarence House is disappointed the principle of privacy has not been upheld.' David Cameron said the ruling was 'disappointing' and argued that senior Royals should be able to communicate with ministers 'confidentially' But senior royal sources also insisted that Charles and his team were quite 'sanguine' about the decision.

'This has come down to quite a narrow legal principle and was not about the content of the letters,' one said. The source rejected descriptions of the future king as a meddler, insisting he was an 'advocate' simply trying to shine a light on issues raised with him by members of the general public. Asked whether the ruling would stop the Prince writing to ministers, the source said: 'This is a small loophole in the law that the government have very quickly closed. I can't imagine it [the decision to publish] would impact on the Prince of Wales as he undertakes his public duties and service.' PRINCE CHARLES: A SELF-CONFESSED 'BUSYBODY' WRITING UP TO 1,000 LETTERS A YEAR Letter lover: Prince Charles is said to have sent 1,000 letters a year at peak periods in his life A defiant Prince Charles has always maintained he has the right to express his forthright views to ministers even after he becomes King. At peak periods, his passionate words have poured out at the rate of 1,000 letters a year to ministers and other public figures.

As the furore over his 'black spider' letters peaked in 2012, the heir to throne was said to be unrepentant about the row furore sparked by the Government's decision to stop 27 'particularly frank' letters written to ministers in the last Labour government to be revealed. Courtiers told the Mail that it is the prince's 'right and absolute duty' to correspond with politicians over issues that affect his country and future subjects. And sources close to the prince made clear that Charles will continue to air his opinions, even during his private meetings with the Prime Minister after he accedes to the throne. 'The Prince of Wales absolutely sees it as his duty to make his views known to ministers,' they said. 'He is a man of passionate belief and will always strive to make his views clear.' As a self-confessed 'interfering busybody', Charles has become renowned for expressing his strong views on a huge variety of issues ranging from youth opportunity to architecture and the environment. His prolific missives are known as 'black spider memos' because of his scrawled handwriting.

Explaining his willingness to get involved in issues and causes he said himself: 'The trouble is, I always feel that unless I rush about doing things and trying to help furiously, I will not (and the monarchy will not) be seen to be relevant and I will be considered a mere playboy.' British Supreme Court paves way for Prince Charles letters to be released - The Washington Post British Supreme Court paves way for Prince Charles letters to be released The inside track on Washington politics. Be the first to know about new stories from PowerPost. Sign up to follow, and we’ll e-mail you free updates as they’re published. You’ll receive free e-mail news updates each time a new story is published. You’re all set! By Karla Adam March 26, 2015 Follow @karlaadam LONDON — Britain’s highest court cleared the way for 27 private letters written by Prince Charles to government ministers to be made public, the contents of which could prove deeply embarrassing for the royal family and prompt a debate over the proper role of the heir to the British throne.

The long-awaited ruling Thursday by Britain’s Supreme Court caps a 10-year legal battle between the Guardian, a left-leaning British newspaper, and the British government, which fought hard to prevent the letters from seeing the light of day. In a short statement, Prince Charles’s press office at Clarence House, his London residence, expressed regret that “the principle of privacy has not been upheld.” British Prime Minister David Cameron said that the ruling was “disappointing” and that the government was now considering how to release the letters. “This is about the principle that senior members of the royal family are able to express their views to government confidentially. I think most people would agree this is fair enough,” he said. Within the next month, seven government departments will hand over the letters — known as the “black spider memos” because of the prince’s scrawling handwriting — which will be pored over to gain a better understanding of the mind-set of the heir to the British throne.

Supporters of Prince Charles have argued that the letters could compromise his kingship — as the royal family states on its Web site , “the Sovereign must remain politically neutral.” The publication of the letters could also inflame the debate between royalists and republicans over the role of a modern-day prince and heir to the throne. Unlike his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles’s opinions on a variety of topics are well known, such as those on genetically modified foods (bad) and classical architecture (good). [ Read more: Prince Charles, Camilla visit the U.S. ] His supporters say that he is entitled to private correspondence and should be able to voice his views and that his approach will change once he becomes king. Those campaigning for the disclosure of the letters argued that he could be exploiting his position and that any attempt to influence policy or meddle in government affairs should be made transparent. “This is a good day for transparency,” Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian, said in a statement. He added: “The government wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds trying to cover up these letters, admitting their publication would ‘seriously damage’ perceptions of the Prince’s political neutrality.

Now they must publish them so that the public can make their own judgment.” This legal saga stretches to 2005, shortly after the British government introduced Freedom of Information Act requests and Guardian journalist Rob Evans asked to see the correspondence between Prince Charles and government departments over a half-year span. In 2012, then-Attorney General Dominic Grieve, who described the letters as “particularly frank,” blocked their publication after an independent tribunal ruled that they should be disclosed to the public. But on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-2 decision that Grieve’s veto of their release was unlawful. The correspondence that will be published includes 27 letters exchanged between Prince Charles and politicians in former prime minister Tony Blair’s government from September 2004 to April 2005. They are only a sample of what’s out there. It’s well known that Prince Charles is a prolific letter writer. During a tribunal in 2012, the court said, for instance, that the prince had written in excess of 1,000 letters in 1987 alone, some addressed to senior politicians on government policy issues relating to the disabled, South Africa and Romania.

Accessing royal communications has become harder since the Guardian first launched its battle. The Freedom of Information Act was amended in 2010, and now communications from the monarch, the heir and the second in line to the throne are exempt for 20 years or five years after the individual’s death, whichever is longer. The prince and his wife, Camilla, recently returned from a four-day tour of the United States, where they met with President Obama at the White House. Prince Charles, 66, has been taking on more of his 88-year-old mother’s duties, who in September will become the longest-reigning British monarch, passing the record set by her great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria. Read more: New batch of Prince Charles letters to ministers published - ITV News 4 June 2015 at 2:43pm New batch of Prince Charles letters to ministers published Seventeen letters between Prince Charles and government departments have been released, in a second batch following a long legal battle led by the Guardian. Labour's former Health Secretary - and current leadership contender - Andy Burnham ended a reply to the Prince of Wales with a wordy sign-off, declaring himself the royal's "humble and obedient servant".

The letter was released by the Cabinet Office Among the latest letters exchanged between Prince Charles and the government was an inquiry about complementary medicine, sent in June 2009. The newly-appointed health chief responded in due course and added a handwritten sign-off: I have the honour to remain, Sir, Your Royal Highness's most humble and obedient servant. – Andy Burnham Mr Burnham's message is in line with formal British social etiquette, as outlined by Debrett's - but sits in stark contrast to his colleagues at the time, including his predecessor Alan Johnson, who largely favoured simpler alternatives such as "Yours Sincerely". Prince urges minister to discuss 'heritage matters' In one letter, released today from Prince Charles to then Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw in 2009, the prince asks him to get in touch and "discuss various heritage matters". The letter, dated June 16, came a week after the Labour MP took on the role of Secretary of State for Culture,Media and Sport. Prince Charles voiced his concerns over 'derelict and abandoned' historic sites. Credit: Cabinet Office In it, Charles briefly detailed his concerns about "major historic sites, many of which are lying derelict".

He also hit out at "unscrupulous owners" for abandoning certain unnamed sites. He wrote: "As many of these historic sites are often in fairly deprived areas, their revitalisation can make a big difference. Not only that, but I do feel we owe it to those dedicated craftsmen who built the buildings in the first place, and many of whose descendants probably still live in the area, to bring their dedicated workmanship back to life." Further Prince Charles letters published More letters sent by the Prince of Wales to government ministers between September 2007 and June 2009 have been published. Clarence House said the letters show the range of The Prince of Wales' concerns and interests for this country and the wider world. More letters sent by the Prince of Wales to government ministers have been published. Credit: PA Wire The latest correspondence includes six from the prince himself and three from Private Secretaries. There are also eight from government ministers. It follows the publication of a series of private letters - known as "black spider" memos because of the prince’s distinctive handwriting - last month after a lengthy campaign by the Guardian for them to be released.

The Government and officials at Buckingham Palace had battled to keep the letters out of the public eye but the Court of Appeal declared the veto unlawful last year - a ruling upheld by the Supreme Court judges in March. Play video David Cameron says he has had "relatively regular" meetings and correspondence with Prince Charles, adding: "I think the heir to the throne should have every right to write letters to government ministers or politicians." Speaking to ITV Wales News, the Prime Minister described the Prince of Wales as a "man with huge passion about public life" and said "I hope he carries on having the strong views that he does". He also said his government had made the "right" decision in amending the Freedom of Information Act to prevent future correspondence between the monarch and heirs to the throne being published. Prince Charles's letters to ministers to be published - BBC News BBC News Prince Charles's letters to ministers to be published 13 May 2015 Close share panel Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Prince Charles's notes were sent to government departments while Tony Blair was prime minister Secret letters sent by the Prince of Wales to Labour government ministers a decade ago are to be published later.

The 27 "black spider memos", so called because of Prince Charles's handwriting, will be released after a decade-long campaign by The Guardian. The government's veto on publication was declared unlawful by the Court of Appeal last year - a decision which was upheld by the Supreme Court in March. The letters, written in 2004 and 2005, will be published with redactions. Their publication follows a ruling on Tuesday by the Upper Tribunal of Britain's Administrative Appeals Chamber. It said the material could be published subject to any "provisional redactions" to protect personal data of people other than the prince. The letters, which cover the period between September 2004 and April 2005, reflect - according to former attorney general Dominic Grieve - Prince Charles's "most deeply held personal views and beliefs". During a visit to a Prince's Trust charitable project in London, the prince was asked by a reporter if he was "worried" about the release of the documents. "Very predictable," he replied, as his press secretary Kristina Kyriacou pushed away the microphone of Channel 4 News reporter Michael Crick.

Analysis BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt In public - in speeches, on television and through articles - Prince Charles has, for decades, attempted to influence public opinion on matters that he cares passionately about. But how does he behave in private? It's a question officials, particularly at Buckingham Palace, would rather wasn't being asked. It's a question we'll be in a better position to answer with the publication of these letters sent to members of Tony Blair's government. They'll be examined for evidence of any pressure brought to bear by a hereditary monarch-in-waiting on elected ministers, and for any evidence that government policy was changed following the prince's intervention. The correspondence may prove to be benign or may lead people to conclude the future king has been in the habit of overstepping the mark. Read more from Peter The prince's letters were sent to a number of government departments while Mr Blair was prime minister. They are known as "black spider" memos because of his distinctive handwriting and use of underlining and exclamation marks. Denis MacShane, a Labour former Europe minister, saw some of the letters - written on large foolscap paper with heavy black ink - during his time at the Foreign Office.

He said that at the time the letters he saw were seen as interesting but were not taken very seriously by staff at the Foreign Office. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The problem is no member of the Royal Family will ever dare to write a letter to the government again for fear their private views will be front page news. "I think he should be able to communicate with the government privately." 10-year tussle In 2005 Guardian journalist Rob Evans originally applied to see the Prince's letters under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI). This was initially denied by the information commissioner and several legal decisions followed. Writing in the Guardian , the journalist said his paper limited the request to cover just eight months because FOI rules allow applications to be refused if too much information is requested. In 2010, the Freedom of Information Act was tightened and now correspondence involving the monarch or heir to the throne cannot be made public for 20 years or five years after the writer's death, whichever is longer.

Mr Grieve vetoed an original decision to order publication made by the Upper Tribunal in 2012, but it was eventually ruled that his actions were invalid, paving the way for the documents finally to be disclosed. The documents are expected to be published by the Guardian, the Information Commissioner and the Cabinet Office at 16:00 BST. In March, Prime Minister David Cameron called the Supreme Court judgement to allow publication "disappointing". Black spider memos: Prince Charles's secret letters published | The Week UK Black spider memos: Prince Charles's secret letters published May 13, 2015 Sources insist the letters sent to government ministers 'are much more boring than people think they are' email Getty Images Private letters sent by Prince Charles to several government ministers have been published, bringing an end to a decade-long battle between the government and a Guardian journalist. Reporters poring over the letters, nicknamed the "black spider memos" because of his characteristic handwriting, have so far found little to excite their interest. "Prince Charles wrote to ministers almost exclusively on matters that are well known to be his closely-held personal interests," says The Guardian , which campaigned for more than a decade to have the letters released.

"Farming, the environment, armed forces, supermarkets, architecture, schools, Prince's Foundation projects, badger culling and even Patagonian toothfish and albatrosses." The most controversial passage identified so far appears to be a claim that British troops in Iraq were underequipped. "I fear that ... our armed forces are being asked to do an extremely challenging job particularly in Iraq without the necessary resources," he wrote to Tony Blair in 2004. Clarence House said in a statement: "The Prince of Wales cares deeply about this country, and tries to use his unique position to help others. He has devoted most of his working life to helping individuals and organisations, to make a difference for the better of this country and the world." Dan Sabbagh, The Guardian's national editor, suggested on Twitter that the prince had "wasted taxpayers' money fighting The Guardian". Prior to publication the secret letters had been said to contain the prince's "most deeply held personal views and beliefs", which the government argued might affect his position of political neutrality, but The Guardian has long called the failure to publish the letters "a right royal cover-up".

The future king was said to be "calm" about their publication, believing that they contain "no bombshells" that will embarrass him, sources told the Daily Telegraph before the letters were released. "They are much more boring than people think they are," the source said. Earlier today, the prince brushed off Channel 4 reporter Michael Crick, describing his questions about the letters as "predictable". The Cabinet Office has published 27 letters sent to several government departments, but only ten of them were sent from the prince himself and the rest were written by his aides, the newspaper reports. They were published at 4pm, with "provisional redactions" in order to protect the personal data of third parties. Their release follows a Supreme Court ruling in March which said the government's repeated attempt to conceal the letters was unlawful. The ruling represented a major victory for The Guardian as well as freedom of information campaigners. Clarence House responded to the ruling by saying it was "disappointed the principle of privacy had not been upheld" What are the black spider memos?

Named after the prince's distinctive "dark, longhand scrawl", the letters were sent by Prince Charles to several government ministers between September 2004 and April 2005. The 27 letters, marked private and confidential, were written expressing the prince's views on various aspects of government policy, according to The Guardian . They were sent to ministers in the Cabinet Office, and the departments covering business, health, schools, environment, culture and Northern Ireland. How did it all begin? The battle, described as a game of "judicial ping-pong" began back in 2005, when Guardian journalist Rob Evans submitted an official request to see the memos.

Evans's request was initially denied by the information commissioner, but several legal rulings have since followed: In September 2012, the Upper Tribunal ruled that the Prince's "advocacy correspondence" (27 out of 30 letters) could be made public The ministers involved accepted the decision, but attorney general Dominic Grieve imposed a veto on publishing them In March 2014, a unanimous Court of Appeal ruling found that Grieve had "no good reason" for using his ministerial veto Since November 2014, the Supreme Court has been examining whether the government had the legal power to veto the publication of the letters Why was their publication vetoed? The then attorney general Dominic Grieve said that the letters reflected the prince's "most deeply held personal views and beliefs" and were in many cases "particularly frank", but insisted that there was "nothing improper" in the nature or contents of the letters. Backed by the cabinet, Grieve argued that revealing the letters could create constitutional problems, as the monarch could not be seen to favour a political party or get involved in political wrangling. He said that any perception that Prince Charles disagreed with ministers "would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch," reports Reuters .

Last year the government also claimed that publishing the letters would infringe the prince's freedom of expression. "Everyone has the right to respect for their correspondence. Such respect is necessary not only as an aspect of privacy, but also to enable freedom of expression, " James Eadie QC, for the government told The Independent . What reasons are there for publishing the letters? "It seems to us that the reasons Dominic Grieve gives for vetoing the publication of Prince Charles's letters are the very reasons that we, the public, should insist on seeing them," writes one Guardian reader. Prince Charles has often been accused of "meddling" in government affairs, something he prefers to call "mobilising", says The Guardian 's Robert Booth. There is growing concern about the extent of his powers among the public and fears that he could be exploiting his position by lobbying government ministers. Anyone trying to understand how far his influence extends "quickly discovers that an edifice of state-enabled secrecy surrounds the prince's power", he says.

Sign up for our daily newsletter Newsletter Black spider letters: Prince Charles warned Blair that British troops lacked 'necessary resources' - as it happened - Telegraph Prince Charles Black spider letters: Prince Charles warned Blair that British troops lacked 'necessary resources' - as it happened Prince of Wales's so-called 'black spider' memos to Government departments are published after a 10-year legal battle - follow latest updates Prince Charles' signature in the book of condolence after visiting the city centre of Omagh August 18, 1998 Photo: Reuters Gordon Rayner, Gregory Walton and Steven Swinford 9:40PM BST 13 May 2015 Latest 21.40 That concludes our rolling coverage of the Prince Charles 'black spider' letters. Read our latest story on the disclosure that Tony Blair privately acknowledged the failings of Britain's helicopters in Iraq after being warned by the Prince of Wales that troops were being put at risk because they lacked "necessary resources". Good night. 20.30 Law firm law Bevan Brittan has said that the disclosure of private letters sent by the Prince of Wales to ministers is likely to increase pressure for a further review of the Freedom of Information Act.

Emma Godding, Head of Information Law at Bevan Brittan, said: “The new government will need to decide how it will respond to the judgment and no doubt the Act will face greater scrutiny. The use of the FoIA has expanded way beyond the scale anyone anticipated when it was introduced a little over 10 years ago. “The Supreme Court drew a line in the sand, making it clear that the government of the day cannot overrule the decisions of the courts in relation to the application of FoIA simply because it disagrees with the courts' view. “It would be politically challenging for any government to attempt to withdraw from what is now a well established access to information regime. “However, the cost and large amounts of time involved in handling FoIA requests are now significant issues. One option is for the Government to consider further limiting its scope, but that in itself could face legal challenge.” 18.55 Jacob Rees-Mogg comments on the disclosure of the Prince of Wales' 'black spider letters'. 18.20 The Prince of Wales exchanged correspondence with two Labour education secretaries, discussing healthy eating in schools and professional development for teachers.

The letters show some of Charles's thoughts on schooling, revealing that he finds the idea that teachers should not impart knowledge but act as "coaches" "difficult to understand" and that he believed approaches to teaching and learning needed to be "challenged". In one, the Prince begins by congratulating Ruth Kelly on being appointed Education Secretary, adding he suspects "it may not be the easiest of tasks", while in another he starts a report to her predecessor Charles Clarke by referring to himself as someone with "old-fashioned views (!)". There are five letters in total which discuss an annual residential course established by the Prince in 2002. The first, from Charles's office, was written to Mr Clarke in October 2004 is about a feasibility study which looked at the potential for developing the Prince's Education Summer Schools - which the then Department for Education and Skills was helping to fund.

The second comes from Charles to Mr Clarke directly and begins by saying: "If you can bear to receive a report on this year's Education Summer School from someone with such old-fashioned views (!), I particularly wanted to express my gratitude to you for your continuing support of this venture which, as you will recall, was held in Buxton at the end of June." Typed on Clarence House headed paper, in November 2004, the letter later says: "I need hardly add that it would be absolutely marvellous if, having contributed to the study, you felt able to continue supporting the initiative into 2005 and beyond... But perhaps I am now too dangerous to associate with!". 17.40 Among the letters to Tony Blair, the Prince makes a joke about the Freedom of Information Act - the very legislation which enabled the publication of his correspondence. In a letter dated February 24, 2005, Charles said: "It was very good to see you again the other day and, as usual, I much enjoyed the opportunity to talk about a number of issues.

"You kindly suggested that it would be helpful if I put them in writing - despite the Freedom of Information Act!" Charles is known to have a good relationship with ministers from all parties and his letters to them are about issues he cares deeply about. The publication of his correspondence is unlikely to put him off raising matters that are brought to his attention in the future. The Prince's principal private secretary William Nye said: "He will think about how he deals with things but I think he'll continue to want to reflect the views that he hears from members of the public, and talk about things that matter to our society and the world to ministers of any government." 17.30 A passion for Patagonian toothfish The Prince also carried out correspondence with environment, food and rural affairs minister Elliot Morley on the subject of illegal fishing and the High Seas Task Force Mr Morley was chairing to tackle the problem. In October 2004, he wrote to the minister: "I must say it is enormously encouraging to know of your efforts to try and bring to heel the recalcitrant countries who sanction, either directly or by turning a blind eye, pirate and illegal fishing".

And he added: "I particularly hope that the illegal fishing of the Patagonian Toothfish will be high on your list of priorities because until that trade is stopped, there is little hope for the poor old albatross, for which I will continue to campaign." A patagonian toothfish (IMAGE: Reuters) Charles had been raising concerns about the plight of albatrosses for years, thousands of which were dying each year due to illegal fishing, and his concern increased as more albatross species came closer to extinction, Clarence House said. In the letter he raised the issue of whether the Royal Navy could play a role in tackling illegal fishing and said he was looking forward to the publication of a Royal Commission report on sustainable fishing, writing: "I hear on my own grapevine that it may be quite hard-hitting." "Let us hope that between all of us who mind about sustainable fishing, we can make a difference before it is all too late," he wrote. 17.20 Prince Charles also complained to Mr Blair about the Office of Fair Trading, writing: "Unfortunately, I am told that the Office of Fair Trading is becoming a serious obstacle to developing dairy co-operatives of the necessary size and influence.

"As I understand it, it sees the United Kingdom as ring-fenced with the Channel acting as a barrier to imports, which is, of course, ridiculous." He added that Mr Blair had said he would look at the matter and "see if there was anything which could be done to help the O.F.T to take a wider view". Mr Blair, in his letter of response dated October 11, 2004, reminds the Prince of the OFT's independence. "Of course, as you recognise, they are rightly an independent body and I couldn't influence them even if I wanted to," the then prime minister wrote. Both Mr Blair and the heir to the throne signed their letters to one another "Yours ever". 17.10 Prince Charles also lobbied Tessa Jowell over Antarctic refuge huts used by Shackleton and Scott. He wrote: "I am at a loss to understand how this restoration project can be correctly described as 'overseas'?

"Whatever the case, and however futile my plea to you for a bit of imaginative flexibility in the interpretation of these rules, I just want to emphasize the iconic importance of these huts in those great Antarctic journeys." 17.05 The Prince of Wales wrote to former culture secretary and Labour London mayoral hopeful Tessa Jowell to lobby for the protection of buildings at the capital's iconic Smithfield Market, which were slated for demolition. Quote As you know, I attach the greatest importance to preserving, restoring and re-using such precious heritage townscapes and I can only pray that the deputy prime minister will take your advice and give the most careful consideration to development plans," he wrote. 17.00 The Prince of Wales described opponents of a badger cull as "intellectually dishonest" in a letter to Tony Blair advocating culling to tackle tuberculosis in cattle. Writing in February 2005, to the then prime minister, Charles criticised the "badger lobby" for not minding about the slaughter of cattle which contract the disease but objecting to the killing of badgers.

He urged Mr Blair to "look again at introducing a proper cull of badgers where it is necessary", warning that the rising number of cases of TB in cattle was the most pressing and urgent problem facing the agricultural sector. And he pointed to a study in Ireland which he said proved that badger culling was effective in ridding cattle of TB. "I, for one, cannot understand how the 'badger lobby' seem to mind not at all about the slaughter of thousands of expensive cattle, and yet object to a managed cull of an over-population of badgers - to me, this is intellectually dishonest," he wrote. 16.55 The Telegraph's Peter Spence points out one letter to Tony Blair in which the Prince appears to recommend a candidate for an independent, official job. Given how important a topic pressure on suppliers has become, if Charles has influenced policy here, it's a big deal.

— Peter Spence (@Pete_Spence) May 13, 2015 16.50 In another series of letters from 2004, Patricia Hewitt, then secretary of state for trade and industry, tells how she met Robin Boles, chief executive of the charity In Kind Direct, which was set up by Charles. In the letters the Labour minister said she could not help by giving funding directly to In Kind Direct, which redistributes surplus goods from manufacturers and retailers to charities, but said she would try to assist it by introducing it to other public sector bodies and Government colleagues. Ms Hewitt suggested In Kind Direct apply to the South East of England Development Agency for funding, which it did. But the charity was turned down. According to the letter, she also alerted a government initiative called Corporate Challenge to the work of the charity, which was founded to increase corporate support for community organisations. Charles wrote back to Ms Hewitt the following month, thanking her for her efforts and saying the Government's Corporate Challenge programme goes to "the very heart" of what he was trying to achieve.

Towards the end of the letter, the Prince said if there was no success with the Corporate Challenge team, the minister may be hearing from him again. Charles was at St James's Palace in central London when the letters were released. He spoke at the Prince's Trust's Our Young People Our Future conference, before joining a reception with supporters to mark 40 years of the Trust, in front of guests including the television presenters Ant and Dec, who are Trust ambassadors, and Channel 4 newsreader Jon Snow. The Prince made no mention of the letters during his speech. 16.45 In one note, Prince Charles concludes a letter to a Northern Ireland Minister, Paul Murphy, by saying 'apologies for pestering you about so many things'. 16.40 There are no "black spider" letters among the batch released - so-called because of the black ink used by the Prince and the underlining of words. Charles's 10 letters are typed, there are a further 14 by ministers and three letters between private secretaries. Only a handful have handwritten additions by the Prince's hand.

16.35 Prince Charles wrote to Ministers, inviting them to attend a conference on architecture to give them a perspective on “vital aspects” of urban design, it can be disclosed. The Guardian also reports he wrote to Ministers to arrange meetings with charity representatives, including In Kind Direct, which redistributes products from companies to charities. In one missive, the Prince hand writes an apology for the length of the letter which deals with the European Directive on Herbal Medicines. He describes the directive as a 'sledgehammer to crack a nut'. He suggests that the policy is having a 'deleterious effect on the complementary medicine sector in this country'. In 2005 the Department of Health was considering regulation of herbal medicine and acupuncture, following a European directive. Charles had a long-held belief that complementary approaches are an essential part of any healthcare system, as long as they are safely and effectively delivered, are based on evidence and are properly integrated with any conventional treatments, and he made a speech to the World Health Assembly on the theme.

Clarence House said that, along with many practitioners and patients, Charles was "keen to encourage the development of an appropriate regulatory regime with the dual purpose of preserving choice of practitioner and product, while also maximising patient safety". Mr Reid sent Prince Charles a letter in February 2005 telling him that a consultation found there was "strong support" for statutory regulation of herbal medicine and acupuncture. 16.30 A Clarence House spokesman said: "The letters published by the Government show The Prince of Wales expressing concern about issues that he has raised in public like the state of farming, the preservation and regeneration of historic buildings, the re-use of disused hospital buildings, the professional development of schoolteachers, and others. In all these cases, The Prince of Wales is raising issues of public concern, and trying to find practical ways to address the issues. "Nonetheless, The Prince of Wales believes, as have successive Governments, that he should have a right to communicate privately. "The publication of private letters can only inhibit his ability to express the concerns and suggestions which have been put to him in the course of his travels and meetings.

"This view has been given effect by Parliament, which passed legislation in 2010 to ensure that the communications of The Prince of Wales, and that of The Queen, should be exempt from publication under the Freedom of Information Act. "This change emphasised the unique constitutional positions of the Sovereign and the Heir to the Throne. "Clarence House continues to believe in the principle of privacy." 16.25 The letters concern various issues including: • Badger culling and the countryside • Armed forces resources • Issues facing workers in the diary farming sector • Cattle 16.20 Prince Charles' spokesman said he carries out more than 600 engagements a year which "gives him a unique perspective" and has led to him identifying issues that "he, or his charities, or his other connections, can help address". He went on: "Sometimes this leads him to communicate his experience or, indeed, his concerns or suggestions to ministers, from all Governments, of whatever party, either in meetings or in writing. "Government ministers have often encouraged him to do so, and many have welcomed the Prince's views and ideas on a range of subjects.

There are examples of this in the correspondence that has been made public." 16.15 The most controversial of the memos was written on September 8, 2004, when he wrote to Tony Blair expressing his concern over the lack of resources for British troops in Iraq. He raised concerns about whether the armies Lynx attack helicopters were fit for purpose, before adding: "I fear that this is just one example of where our armed forces are being asked to do an extremely challenging job [particularly in Iraq without the necessary resources." 16.10 The publication of private letters between the Prince of Wales and ministers "can only inhibit his ability to express the concerns and suggestions which have been put to him in the course of his travels and meetings", Clarence House has said in a statement as some of the letters were made public following a lengthy legal battle. 16.00 The letters are now being published. 15.57 The publication of the Prince of Wales 'black spider' memos has been protracted and expensive. According to The Guardian newspaper, which made the original requests, over the past decade ministers have spent £274,000 trying to block the release of the memos.

Significant costs have also been incurred by The Guardian, which taxpayers will now have to pick up. 15.37 The Prince of Wales has been meeting TV duo Ant and Dec during a visit to Marks & Spencer as part of his "make your mark" campaign. The Prince of Wales met TV duo Ant and dec on Wednesday during a charity visit to Marks & Spencer The programme will help 1,400 unemployed young people find jobs with placements at Marks & Spencer. This shot was taken shortly after the now infamous video of the Prince of Wales' aide grabbing the microphone of a reporter who asked him a question. 15.30 Anticipation in the run up to the publication of the 'black spider' memos is building. This is the latest from Michael Crick of Newsnight, he who asked a question of the Prime of Wales earlier: Cabinet Office badly teasing those waiting for Charles letters on website.

They've just posted document: "Dart charge users by postcode." — Michael Crick (@MichaelLCrick) May 13, 2015 15.23 Christopher Hope, the Telegraph's chief political correspondent, has been in lobby today where the Prime Minister's Official spokesman has suggested that in future the government may veto the release of memos: QuoteDavid Cameron is tightening the law to stop ministerial discussions being released under Freedom of Information Laws. Downing Street is looking at ways to strengthen the right of the Government veto FOI requests. Under the original, Freedom of Information Act, ministers had the ability to veto the publication of material under the Act in extreme circumstances. But the Supreme Court’s decision to release some historic letters from the Prince of Wales to Government ministers exposed a loophole in this. The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said the Government was looking at ways to strengthen the use of the veto on FOI rulings after the court ruling in the black spider memo case. 14.45 More unwelcome news for the Prince: the bookmaker Paddy Power has lengthened the odds on the Prince of Wales being the next monarch as a result of the anticipated controversy over the black spider memos.

Having been the 1/4 favourite he is now quoted at 4/11. His son the Duke of Cambridge is at 7/4, with Prince George at 20/1. 14.37 Meanwhile a picture of the Prince of Wales and mentors from his mentoring intiative Mosaic has been unveiled as part of an exhibition at London's Brunei Gallery by the photographer Peter Sanders. The photograph is part of the Art of Integration exhibition and is described as a ‘continuation’ of a photograph taken in 2000 by Peter Sanders which captured the Prince on a visit to Islamia School, founded by the singer Yusuf Islam, formerly known as Cat Stevens. The Prince of Wales has worked for many years to encourage inter-faith dialogue and greater understanding of other religions both in Britain and abroad. 14.23 Perhaps it's a bit of Jose Mourinho-style media management by Kristina Kyriacou to draw attention and criticism away from her boss, but her microphone-grabbing antics are rapidly becoming the only black spider story in town until the memos themselves are published.

Highlights of her brush with Crick include her body-check of him as he tries to get close, and the zzzzzippp noise as the microphone cover comes off. There is more detail here about the incident and about Ms Kyriacou. 13.27 Oh dear. Channel 4 have just posted a video of the moment Michael Crick doorstepped the Prince - and it shows the Prince's Communications Secretary, Kristina Kyriacou, grabbing Crick's microphone and pulling the cover off it before unceremoniously dropping it on the ground. A bit of tension there, perhaps? 13.17 The Prince of Wales has a day of engagements relating to his work with the Prince's Trust today. He began the day by visiting Marks & Spencer's flagship Marble Arch store, meeting young people who have been taking part in a month-long work programme. He ignored a question from Michael Crick of Channel 4 News about whether he was "worried" about the publication of the letters when he arrived at the venue.

He went on to Poplar in east London to open a new Prince's Trust building, and will spend the afternoon hosting a reception and conference at St James's Palace to mark 40 years of the Prince's Trust. The Prince of Wales arriving at Marks & Spencer on Oxford Street (Eddie Mulholland) 13.07 The memos will be released by the Cabinet Office on the gov.uk website. The latest timings we have been given is that they will appear there at around 4pm. 13.04 Denis MacShane (EPA) Denis MacShane, Labour’s former Europe Minister, saw some of the Prince’s letters, which he said were written on foolscap paper with heavy black ink. He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: QuoteI can’t remember what was in them but they were odd because they were written on foolscap paper, you can’t get them in the Photostat machine. When you read them it was a bit of ‘Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. It was like a retired archbishop or university vice-chancellor, the problem with Prince Charles is he’s almost retired before he’s begun the job.

I can honestly say the ones in the Foreign Office were regarded more as oddities and chuckle time and of course we would send our best drafter to draft a reply from the Foreign Secretary, just as a letter from any high person, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Chief Rabbi would get a very considered reply but there was nothing shocking. I think the real worry for the Government is, is no member of the Royal Family will ever dare to write a letter to the government again and nobody in any position of status will ever dare write for fear their private views, bingo, will be front page news. It reduces the interflow, the Royal family are important, he’s going to be head of State one day, I think he should be able to communicate with the government privately. 13.00 Hello and welcome to our live coverage of the release of the Prince of Wales's letters to Government departments, which will be published by the Cabinet Office this afternoon. A total of 27 pieces of correspondence will be released, but The Telegraph has been told that fewer than 10 of them were written by the Prince himself.

And despite their nickname of 'black spider memos' because of his spidery handwriting, all of them are typewritten, we are told. Here is the moment the Supreme Court made its ruling on the release of the letters. Prince Charles' 'black spider' memos to be revealed today | Daily Mail Online Letters and memos written by Prince Charles to government ministers are set to be published today Prince Charles is braced for embarrassment today as his ‘black spider memos’ are finally published. After a lengthy legal battle, 27 letters written in 2004 and 2005 to ministers in Tony Blair’s government will be made public. The memos could prove hugely controversial, especially if it appears the future king successfully lobbied to change policy. They are said to be ‘particularly frank’ and contain the Prince’s ‘most deeply held personal views and beliefs’. Royal sources acknowledged that ‘two or three’ are likely to cause a public furore. But they insisted Charles had no regrets about acting as an ‘advocate’ for his people. Ministers have long complained about Charles bombarding them with so-called ‘black spider’ handwritten memos, in which he expounded his views on his pet projects.

The government has spent at least £375,000 on lawyers to fight the legal battle. Former Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, blocked the release of the letters in 2012, saying that to do so would be ‘seriously damaging to his role as future monarch’. But earlier this year the Supreme Court, the highest in the land, said their publication could not be prevented. RELATED ARTICLES Share It was announced yesterday that the memos will be published with some redactions. The memos could prove hugely controversial, especially if it appears the Prince had successfully lobbied to change policy. An August 2000 letter from Lord Irvine, Tony Blair's mentor and later the Lord Chancellor, heavily annotated by Prince Charles in his 'black spider' handwriting They are said to be ‘particularly frank’ and contain the Prince’s ‘most deeply held personal views and beliefs’. Critics say that, as heir to the throne, the prince should not be lobbying for his pet projects and should start displaying the sort of neutrality he will need when he takes over as head of state. A royal source told the Mail that the publication of the letters was ‘unlikely to impact’ on Charles doing what sees as his public duty.

rince Charles is said to have sent 1,000 letters a year at peak periods in his life expressing his views Judges at the Supreme Court decided that correspondence between Prince Charles and government ministers should be made public Another insisted that Charles and his team were actually quite ‘sanguine’ about the release of the letters. ‘This has come down to quite a narrow legal principle was not actually about the content of the letters themselves,’ they said. ‘While we are very disappointed that his privacy has not been respected, we are feeling quite sanguine about the contents of the letters being made public.' U.K. publishes Prince Charles' secret letters to officials FacebookEmail Twitter Google+ LinkedIn Pinterest U.K. publishes Prince Charles' secret letters to officials LONDON (AP) — The British government has released previously secret letters written by Prince Charles to government officials — letters that were the subject of a lengthy legal battle that pitted Charles' Post to Facebook U.K.

publishes Prince Charles' secret letters to officials LONDON (AP) — The British government has released previously secret letters written by Prince Charles to government officials — letters that were the subject of a lengthy legal battle that pitted Charles' Check out this story on USATODAY.com: CancelSend A link has been sent to your friend's email address. Posted! A link has been posted to your Facebook feed. 1 To find out more about Facebook commenting please read the Conversation Guidelines and FAQs U.K. publishes Prince Charles' secret letters to officials Gregory Katz and Sylvia Hui, The Associated Press 1:49 p.m. ET May 13, 2015 A copy of the letter that Prince Charles wrote to the then Prime Minister Tony Blair, dated Sept. 8, 2004, one of a series of his private letters to government ministers that were released Wednesday May 13, 2015, by the government following a lengthy legal battle.

(Photo: Philip Toscano, AP) LONDON (AP) — The British government has released previously secret letters written by Prince Charles to government officials — letters that were the subject of a lengthy legal battle that pitted Charles' right to privacy against the public's right to know. The cache of 27 letters, including 10 written by Charles personally, includes letters written a decade ago to former Prime Minister Tony Blair and other top officials on topics that include agriculture, redevelopment in Northern Ireland and other matters. The British press has dubbed them the "black spider" memos, due to the handwritten greetings and closings that Charles wrote in his familiar cramped style. The letter-writing is controversial because as Britain's future king, Charles is expected to remain neutral on political topics. In the memos, the sometimes quirky prince, known for his commitment to organic farming and traditional architecture, freely expresses himself on matters like badger culling, the readiness of the Armed Forces and standards for the use of alternative medicines. In one letter to Blair on Sept. 8, 2004, the future king and military veteran raises concerns about the British Armed Forces not getting enough resources. He mentions delays in delivering military aircraft due to budgetary pressures.

"I fear that this is just one more example of where our Armed Forces are being asked to do an extremely challenging job (particularly in Iraq) without the necessary resources," Charles wrote. Funding levels for the military is a political topic for any country's government. The British government tried for years to keep the letters secret — fearing that publishing them might damage public perceptions of Charles' neutrality — but eventually lost a Freedom of Information case brought by The Guardian newspaper. (Photo: Alastair Grant, AP) Charles' press office issued a statement Wednesday defending the letters. It said Charles was "raising issues of public concern and trying to find practical ways to address the issues." The royal statement said Charles was expressing concerns about issues that he has raised before, including "the state of farming, the preservation and regeneration of historic buildings" and other matters. Charles had earlier said he is unhappy that his privacy was not protected. The government has also indicated it may tighten rules to protect future royal communications from release under the Freedom of Information act. There were signs of tension Wednesday as an angry senior press officer working for Charles tore the cover off the microphone being used by a TV reporter who asked the prince about the letters.

The government was ordered to release the letters in 2012 after losing its court case. But the attorney general vetoed the decision, arguing that Charles' letters were part of his preparation to become king and should be kept private. That was upheld by one court, but then overturned in 2014 by the Court of Appeal, which decided there was no justification for overturning the earlier decision. Britain's Supreme Court in March supported that ruling, leading to Wednesday's publication of the memos. 4 CONNECT TWEET LINKEDIN 1 COMMENTEMAILMORE Read or Share this story: NEVER MISS OUT The Short List Let us bring the headlines to you every night. Stay current and catch up on the biggest stories of the day.

Question: Prince Charles' private letters to government ministers, made public by the UK Supreme Court in 2015, are known as the '(What?) memos', due to his handwriting style?
Answer: Black spider