How extraordinary that so much effort , by so many royal advisors and politicians , should have been expended in keeping secret what a future head of state has written to government ministers . All those who deplore the Supreme Court ’ s decision , however , are wrong . For I believe this is a great day not only for the freedom of information which the law demands and allows . It should also be seen as a great day for the monarchy . The Supreme Court ruling that Prince Charles ' 27 'black spider ' memos should be released marks not only a great day for the freedom of information , but also one for the monarchy . One Tory bigwig recently told me that the Prince ’ s letters would reveal him to be ‘ barking mad ’ , but when I questioned him , he admitted he had not read a word of them . I thought this was a good example of how much damage the secrecy over his letters has done the Prince of Wales . When we are told that his correspondence is so hush-hush that it must be suppressed , we naturally imagine his letters will be inflammatory , or embarrassingly eccentric . We remember some of the Prince ’ s strong turns of phrase , as when , in his leaked diaries , he described senior members of the Communist Chinese government as ‘ appalling old waxworks ’ . We remember , too , his tendency to self-pity and self-absorption , and the round-robin letter to friends in which he complained about being seated in club-class on a plane to China for the Hong Kong hand-over to the Beijing government in 1997 , saying tetchily his seat was ‘ uncomfortable ’ . But despite this , many of his views are eminently sensible . He is bursting with ideas on subjects as varied as the environment , architecture , town planning , Shakespeare , agriculture , the King James Bible and much else besides . What ’ s more , his opinions on architectural carbuncles or on the need for caution over genetically modified food are shared by countless numbers of Britons . Contrary to popular belief , the Queen has not always been completely above the political fray . For decades , he has been a sort of one-man Opposition to many of the idiotic or ugly things going on in our country . Many commentators have said that they deplore the Prince sounding off and getting involved in the day-to-day running of this country ’ s affairs . They fear that if he expresses views , he will be seen as having a political bias . This , they claim , could not be more different from the approach which has been so successfully pursued by the Queen – who is believed not to express opinions to individual ministers . The monarchy is deemed to be strengthened by Her Majesty ’ s silence . But the Queen has not always been completely above the political fray – and for all we know , she might have made any number of interventions and recommendations to ministers of which we know nothing . How else , for instance , did we all come to be told the story that she deeply disagreed with Mrs Thatcher about the PM ’ s refusal to impose trade sanctions on South Africa during the apartheid years ? The Queen certainly had a vested interest – as she feared for the future of her Commonwealth and even lined up with her Commonwealth leaders against the British prime minister . The story was impeccably sourced – to the Queen ’ s Press Secretary of the day , Michael Shea – yet it was denied by No . 10 . The row over South Africa was undoubtedly an example of the monarch so-called ‘ interfering ’ . Anyway , the truth is that we no longer live in an age of deference . Nor do we live in an age of secrecy . Yesterday ’ s judgment makes plain that Charles can not hide the contents of the 27 letters to Labour ministers . It is entirely right that letters which he writes to publicly elected representatives about matters of government policy should be made available to the public . But ever since an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act in 2011 , any such correspondence is legally deemed to be private . Ever since an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act in 2011 , any correspondence by the Royal Family is legally deemed to be private . Regardless , I would support to the utmost not only his right , but his duty to get involved in political issues – as long as he does not undermine his position or that of the monarchy . But answer this question : would you rather have a king who spoke up for the silent majority against self-appointed experts on agriculture , architecture , defence , youth employment , education , Islam – or would you rather have an ignoramus ? What is the point of his having established so much expertise in certain fields if he can not share it with ministers ? The corollary of his ‘ interference ’ is that when he does speak up , he should be prepared to argue his position in public , rather than in spidery secret memos . For my money , I ’ d far rather have a head of state who ‘ interferes ’ occasionally – as Charles is likely to do – than one who sits back and leaves everything to politicians who think only of their own interests rather than the country ’ s .
The Supreme Court ruled that Shakespeare memos should be released . Known as 'black spider ' memos because of royal 's scrawled handwriting . But many of his views on the environment and agriculture are sensible . And contrary to popular belief , the Queen is n't completely above politics .