An article published on Jan. 8 in The Independent outlined a new measure designed to protect the Royal Family from the public eye.
Broad changes to the Freedom of Information Act mean that documents and records related to the affairs of the British monarchy will be protected from disclosure, “even if they are in the public interest.”
The changes reverse a policy that had exposed financial details relating to the Royal Family’s affairs.
Defenders of the change argue that protecting the privacy of the Royal Family’s correspondence is a crucial part of their role within the constitutional monarchy.
This role requires that the Queen and Royal Family remain politically neutral in the public eye, while advising the government privately concerning policy.
Equally important is a monarch’s ability to write to government ministers without fearing that their communication might come to light.
It’s understandable that any individual might want to protect their correspondence and financial status from the public—let alone a group as scrutinized as the Royal Family.
However, it’s hard to view this as anything but an attempt to hide embarrassing secrets.
Critics of the new protection rules have been quick to point to previous instances of extravagant spending by of the Royal Family being kept from public eyes, including an effort by the Queen to heat Buckingham Palace using a government poverty fund. They insist that the solution is more disclosure, not secrecy.
The wide purview of the new rules is also problematic, as some have suggested that it could be applied outside of the Royal Family to any of its staff, effectively creating a publication ban of any documentation relating to the activities of the monarchy.
Since the Royal Family draws on funds dispersed by the government, the government should be held able for how that money is spent. A spokesperson for Buckingham Palace indicated that the new rules would allow uncensored material to be published 10 years earlier than under previous guidelines.
However, this doesn’t help negotiate concerns about publicly relevant material being withheld indefinitely.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].