Tonight:
4°c
Queen demands to keep Palace secrets for 30 years
Joe Murphy, Political Editor29 Jan 2009
THE Queen wants royal secrets to be exempt from moves to open up more government papers to public view.
Buckingham Palace is pressing ministers to agree that records relating to the royal family should be excluded from plans to reform the 30-year rule.
An independent review by Editor-in-Chief of Associated Newspapers Paul Dacre will today recommend that historic papers including Cabinet minutes should be routinely released after 15 years, half the current waiting time.
His proposals, although likely to be phased in over several years, will hasten the release of records of the Thatcher and Major years, including the Falklands war, the poll tax riots and the 1984 miners' strike.
A 15-year rule would mean papers up to 1994, including the Black Wednesday currency crisis in 1992 and the bitter Cabinet splits over Europe under Sir John Major, would be eligible for release.
Halving the embargo would mean Government records of major royal events could be published early - including 1992, which the Queen called her "annus horribilis" because so many unpleasant scandals broke.
It included the formal separation of Charles and Diana, the separation of the Duke and Duchess of York and the publication of Andrew Morton's revealing book Diana, Her True Story, all of which were debated by government. There was also the public revolt against taxpayers being landed with a £40 million bill for the Windsor Castle fire.
Under the full 30-year embargo, none of the records relating to these events will be released until 2022, which is how Buckingham Palace would prefer it to be left.
Government insiders say ministers are almost certain to agree to the Palace suggestion that royal matters should be treated differently because, unlike Cabinet members whose careers in the spotlight are brief, the royal family are permanent fixtures.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw will announce that the Government is willing in principle to accept the recommendations of Mr Dacre, who was commissioned by Gordon Brown in 2007, subject to a consultation and legislation being passed.
Other exemptions will also be considered, including keeping back details of contacts with foreign heads of state who remain in office. Commercially sensitive information also may be held back for the full 30 years if it would cause difficulties for firms.
There was no right of access at all to government records until the Public Records Act 1958 introduced a 50-year rule, reduced to 30 years in 1967.
Reader views (53)
Either the monarchy is part of the constitution of this country, in which case we should demand full openness and accountability from the monarch and those of the family who have constitutional roles, as we should from the government as a whole.
Or they are not, in which the whole lot should be let go as ordinary citizens, and a new more democratic institution put on its place.
- Richard Burnham, Shrewsbury, 11/06/2009 22:32
Report abuse
There's no way they should be exempt from anything. Absolutely no justification for it at all. It is disgusting that the ridiculous circus of the monarchy is still trundling on without compounding the crime with more undemocratic poison like this. GET RID OF THEM AND DO IT SOON!
- Mai, Fall of the House of, Windsor, 11/06/2009 15:16
Report abuse
This is disgraceful at a time when the public wants more openness in light of the parliamentary expenses scandal. It is time the monarchy was abolished allowing Britain to become a true democracy.
- Roger Ivan Hart, Deal, UK, 11/06/2009 15:09
Report abuse
What have they got to hide ,it has been proved that they are rather unpleasant in their dealings with people who they do not like ,for example Diane and her Butler Paul Burrell and there are many more ,so that may be the reason that the Queen is reluctant to agree to the release of royal secrets as people would then be able to see what they truly are . It's time that we got rid of this Monarchist charade and freed the British people .
- Alan Price, CHORLEY G.B, 09/02/2009 14:04
Report abuse
Nobody should be above the law. mDespite their personal wealth the royal family is also heavily subsidised by us taxpayers. The institution is totally irrelevant and out of date. We should become a republic of citizens (not subjects) with nobody outside the law.
- Bill Walton, Leeds, 01/02/2009 19:31
Report abuse
If the queen doesn't want her family secrets coming out, all she has to do is 'resign' them from their ridiculous, undeserved, obscene position as a 'royal' family, abolish the monarchy and let them live like every other family.
- Roy Boy, Bridge of Weir, Scotland, 31/01/2009 02:00
Report abuse
Although the Monarchy is an institution of this realm, it should not be forgotten that it is still a family. Taking this into account, the 30 years rule should be retained for documents relating to personal royal matters. Lets not forget that the general publics' information is kept secret under 100 years rules.
- Michael Strachan, Fraserburgh, 30/01/2009 12:15
Report abuse
One would ask, what has one got to hide?
- Simon, London, 30/01/2009 12:03
Report abuse
Having visited your country I was impressed with how much of your country is dedicated to the efforts of the Royal Family. Maybe it is time to allow the Royals to provide for their own health, wealth and financial well being. Everyone is feeling the financial pinch these days - it may be time to cut the double standard you allow for these people by carrying them and all their baggage.
- Richard, New Hampshire, USA, 30/01/2009 11:44
Report abuse
'Airmiles Andy' has a private income. So do all the others! The tax payers don't pay for any of them and only the Queen and Prince Philip are on the Civil List so what they do with their money and where their daughters park their cars is their own business!
- Rb, Stafford, 30/01/2009 11:38
Report abuse
If the Queen and her relations, crowd or whatever, want to be an official adjunct of the State, then they should be subject to the laws and rules governing the officials and records of the State. They can't have it both ways, be dead important and dead private. Anyway, what have any of them, including Her Herself, ever done to protect our sovereignty, and if they can't do that, what is their purpose as part of the State?? It is just a family business, and all they do is whatever is necessary to maintain their priveleged social status and wealth. I would do the same in their shoes, but wouldn't have the manipulative skills to succeed!! It's amazing, we have no written constitution, but the politicos still can't see a way of doing away with them. Of course they are all part of it really, waiting for their Lordships and Knighthoods and Honours! All is vanity.
- Sandy, Ealing, UK, 30/01/2009 10:54
Report abuse
her majesty at the end of the day is an individul like us, who deserves a little bit of privacy at some point in her life. Yes, she governs our nation and we should know what goes on, but look at it this way. Would you want your family constantly being bombarded for personal information? Would you give the information? the royals have been too soft for many a year, and its pleasing to see they're taking a stance on their lives once again.
- Stephen Anderson, hereford, 30/01/2009 09:53
Report abuse
This is another disgraceful example of retaining a family as hereditary Head of State. The work of our Head of State, as with all politicians and public servants, should be open to full public scrutiny. It is time we relieved ourselves of this self-serving family and its sycophantic hangers-on. We need a properly elected Head of State who is fully accountable to the citizens of our country.
- Roger Ivan Hart, Deal, England, 30/01/2009 09:33
Report abuse
As a tax payer I resent funding all the parasites who go to make up the royal family. Airmiles Andy ought to find gainful employment and fund the excessive binges his daughters enjoy on a regular basis. Beatrice has just passed her driving test and been given a new car (paid for indirectly by us). No doubt it too will be left parked outside a night club with the keys in the ignition. I would have respect for the Windsors if they became self funding.
- R.F., Yorks, UK, 30/01/2009 09:32
Report abuse
More privileges for the privileged,and you lot can go eat cake.
- Kev, London-UK, 30/01/2009 08:54
Report abuse
If people choose to bitch about unelected Heads of State, maybe they should start with the unelected Scotsman resident at 10 Downing Street.
- Lezli Taubler, London/UK, 30/01/2009 02:25
Report abuse
Always the same from the palace, always they want special treatment,always want more its really simple, stop taking money from British people, stop air miles andy and the rest of the worthless family having free everything and then there is no accountablity, im sure she will love to pay for something for a change.
- Mark Devries, Bangkok Thailand, 30/01/2009 01:30
Report abuse
To all of you who want to see presedent Mandelson in Buckingham palace, be careful what you wish for, it might just happen.
- Dave, London NW, 30/01/2009 01:04
Report abuse
A sinister plot by the EU to get rid of our Monarchy, wasn't it last week they were all votin to hide their Expenses.
Get us our the EU your Majesty and I would Gladly burn the records, whatever they might be.
- Adrian Peirson, hull britain, 30/01/2009 00:09
Report abuse
“… it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession which concerns mankind… as it opens the door to the foolish, the wicked, and the improper, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.”
“… though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the crown in possession of the key.”
Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
Governance by systemic iniquity, in other words, elevates humanity’s most ignoble being. The principle is the thing: to stand proud in our own nobility; to enjoin with all in common law; to exclude none from office, nor from justice. If we expect the highest standard of public service from others, and yet would take our own full measure of responsibility, we must scale this citadel of secrecy. Or we may never find ourselves responsible, and we may never say that we are free.
Take back the key.
- Charles, Todmorden, England, 29/01/2009 22:35
Report abuse
Tell me all. I pay , I deserve no know it all, i would love to know the exact amount they cost us dont tell me its 60p a day or some such rubbish.
- Dory, newcastle england, 29/01/2009 18:46
Report abuse
The Windsor family and the queen in particular is already exempt from far too much that the rest of us have to put up with - like paying proper taxes.
- Philip Smith, Beverley, 29/01/2009 17:40
Report abuse
Well said, Pete Traill. As for Thomas Rex Campbell and Roz, once again I notice how the expats dictate to us poor subjects left behind.
This Windsor lot are taking the mickey - through our elected representatives, we the people should decide our laws; not these parasites.
Perhaps the current economic crisis will wake people up so they make enough noise in protest at this and other royal outrages - eventually, the politicians might hear us and give us a referendum on moving to an elected head of state. The day cannot come soon enough.
- Gareth Robson, Beckenham, England, 29/01/2009 17:32
Report abuse
Again the Queen thinks her royal family deserve special treatment. It's scandalous.
What's the reason given, for special treatment?
The fact that they are in 'office' for longer!
This is more reason to have knowledge of the facts not less!
We need to know what's going on..especially important with an insitution the British People have no control over whatsoever!
- Charlie Kiss, London. UK, 29/01/2009 17:32
Report abuse
What is wrong with having a luxury Keith of Doncaster? I dread the thought of a grey, characterless country dominated by faceless men (and the ghastly Nu Labour women) in grey suits without humanity, religion or history to recommend them. The Queen has served this country faithfully and well all her life. She still works hard in her 80s. Nobody here seems to have the faintest idea what the Royal family do or their role; which is tragic. The Americans grovel everytime the Royal Family visit. The Russians deeply regret murdering their own Royal Family (and that was certainly not a majority decision - it was the grey faceless men who did that)- need I go on? All these ugly, spiteful posts are pathetically jealous and ignorant and I for one would feel that we would have lost enormously if the Royal Family ever step down. I despair. And if you're not interested - why bother to comment at all?
- Sallyanne, London UK, 29/01/2009 17:24
Report abuse
Oh No! Its Roz of Chamonix again! Are you retired Roz that you can comment on each and every issue that happens here in the UK?
- Susannah, London UK, 29/01/2009 17:16
Report abuse
No! This is the 21st century not the 18th! Unless they pay their entire cost of living including residences, staff and personal expenditure from their own resources, the Windsors affairs must be transparent to us their stake holders.
- Jon, London, 29/01/2009 17:13
Report abuse
There is every reason for an exemption. When the matters discussed would for anyone else be considered a private matter and never released in public.
- Paul, London, 29/01/2009 17:07
Report abuse
Why on earth should the Royals have any more special treatment? They don't publish full accounts, they don't pay proper taxes on their vast incomes. Above all they have power and influence that politicians can only dream of, without once submitting to an election. They are a business funded by us the taxpayers and as such we have a right to know what dealings they had with government.
- Richard Wells, St. Austell Cornwall, 29/01/2009 17:03
Report abuse
Disloyal? Hardly
Shame our revolution didn't succeed like the French one.
By the way, I am British, but in reality that means nothing, as I am a free thinking `Earthling` first and foremost, not hampered with a strange desire to cow down to unelected people in a small silo like country.
How did the royalty come to power and wealth? By treading on the underclasses, thats how.
So let the information out, if the `Royals` have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about.
Are they to have ID cards too?
- Pete Traill, Hounslow, Middlesex, 29/01/2009 16:39
Report abuse
The events of 1992 were NOT "debated by government"...a total error. And by refusing to fund the restoration at Windsor-the State's responsibility-the Government abrogated one of its main 'duties' towards the Monarchy: financial oversight. The Royal Household did it on their own, under budget, and superbly (perhaps the posters should go and see it)...with no taxpayer support and no oversight. Exactly what the Royal Household should do with Buckingham Palace. There are many avenues open to raise money for essential repairs (wealthy Russians, Yanks, Arabs, contributing in return for discrete plaques on the walls; selling some of that artwork; personal tours by the "Royals" at 50 quid a pop etc.) if you all are too busy forking over for the 2012 Olympics (how many billions again?). The worst of the British character is revealed in these comments (ignorance, hypocrisy and envy): and you, Kathy, with the others here, should actually read the Royal Accounts (it's on-line-unlike here in the U.S.)before you make such outlandish comments. You see, you do not support their 'drunken binges'. And perhaps you should be more concerned about the state of your once great country (including your ridiculous Parliament) before you prattle on about members of your Royal Family.
- Thomas Rex Campbell, New York, 29/01/2009 16:33
Report abuse
Records about the Royal Family cover their entire lifetime and all areas of their lives and presumably are in vastly intimate detail. The people who are actually in charge of the farcically-run UK are not obliged to reveal such intimate detail - they don't even have to produce receipts to back up their expense claims - why should the Royal Family?
This move can only be for two reasons (a) prurience (b) to deflect attention elsewhere. It brings to mind all the Royal scandals under John Major, which popped up as regular as clockwork whenever there was a problem getting the Maasricht Treaty through . . .
- Roz, Chamonix, France, 29/01/2009 16:13
Report abuse
I bet she does!
- Viola, London, UK, 29/01/2009 15:58
Report abuse
The should be kept secret for ever. It is none of anyone elses business.
- John Smith, London , England, 29/01/2009 15:57
Report abuse
The monarchs are supposed to be servants of the people (civial servants), paid for by us tax-payers, and should thus be totally accountable and treated equally over issues Freedom of Information.
And, like politicians, they should be voted into the post rather than inherit - let them stand for election - or rather, just one of them as Head of State, as we dont need any of the hangers-on.
And what do they need all those tied cottages for? When they want to use Buckingham Palace it's theirs - when it needs money spanet on it, it's 'ours', the taxpayers. Use it purely for state occassions and open it to tourists the rest of the time and it would pay for itself.
- John Campbell, Cardiff, Wales, 29/01/2009 15:50
Report abuse
I find the comments on this site about the Queen and her family disgusting, offensive and disloyal - to our own country if indeed the people posting here are British. Also painfully uninformed with ignorant, mistaken information. The Queen and her family only use public money for the things that they do in an official capacity. Strange though it may seem, they have their own private money (accumulated over 150 years) and this is the money they use for their own personal expenditure. Why do people in this country seek to dispose of the one real asset we have left? The Royal Family.
- Susannah, London UK, 29/01/2009 15:45
Report abuse
Anybody who is paid from tax payers money, including politicians and other public 'servants' must be fully accountable to their pay masters i.e. you and me. For one family in 'modern Britain' to have a 2 bedroom house is a blessing, but for one family to have many houses and hundreds of servants only supported by our money is surely immoral, when financial carnage is destroying whole families. What you sow, you will reap.
- Bondy, london, 29/01/2009 15:41
Report abuse
Elizabeth Windsor is already the most priviledged woman in Britain. The status accorded her and her family belongs in a bygone age. There is no case at all for any royal exemption.
- Rebecca Bell, Lymington, England, 29/01/2009 15:31
Report abuse
Absolutely not. We are not her subjects anymore. She and her family are but cival servants, paid for out of taxes that I, and others have worked damed hard for. The `Royals` should not be exempt.
- Pete Traill, Hounlsow Middlesex, 29/01/2009 14:16
Report abuse
Paul from Chatham - where's the evidence that "they generate more income for the country than they actually cost"?
I certainly haven't seen any. Perhaps you could provide a link or two to back up your claim.
- James Gray, London, 29/01/2009 14:16
Report abuse
The Queen, bless her, should be exempt from such information release!
Its the 600 or so MP's and thousands of civil servants first.
- John Brian Hughes, wales, 29/01/2009 14:06
Report abuse
Is anyone really interested? I think there are more important things to worry about than viewing a few of the Royal Family's documents from the past. Emily - maybe they are spending 'our money' as you put it but I would bet they generate more income for the country than they actually cost.
- Paul, Chatham, UK, 29/01/2009 13:48
Report abuse
We pay for their lavish palaces and other homes, the designer clothes on their backs, they're extravagant holidays, their drunken binges and wild partying and frankly we have every right to know whats going on... and not just after 15 years. The fact that we still keep the royal family in the first place is utterly ridiculous. And please nobody spout the old 'they bring in tourism' rubbish at me!
- Kathy, london, 29/01/2009 13:43
Report abuse
For as long as they are dipping their hands into our taxes (and even suggesting that they would like MORE) then they should be as accountable. I have have no choice but to pay for them, although there are much worthier causes. At the very least the government can show support for the poor battered taxpayer by not allowing the greedy Windsors to bend the rules at their will.
- Jilly, London, 29/01/2009 13:39
Report abuse
Elizabeth Windsor can demand all she likes, she going to have to get used to the idea that she works for US, and if she doesn't like it she knows what she can do. Unelected and unaccountable is unacceptable.
- Steve Smedley, Suffolk, UK, 29/01/2009 13:31
Report abuse
In this day and age there is no reason why we should treat royal affairs any different to other state matters.
"ministers are almost certain to agree to the Palace suggestion that royal matters should be treated differently because, unlike Cabinet members whose careers in the spotlight are brief, the royal family are permanent fixtures"
How is that a justification for delaying information on royal affairs? 'Oh your majesty, we must bow to your permanent status in light of our own horribly temperamental nature!'
It's all a bit pathetic really.
- David Austin, Northants, UK, 29/01/2009 13:13
Report abuse
Here we go again. This is another case of double standards - one rule for elected politicians, one rule for the Windsors. I really hope the government doesn't capitulate this time and give them yet another exemption - they're already exempt from FOI. I hope the pressure group Republic is challenging this in the strongest possible terms.
- Jonathan Tennant, London, 29/01/2009 13:13
Report abuse
The monarchy has already exempted itself from Freedom of Information, so this comes as no surprise at all. We wouldn’t accept this kind of behaviour from MPs so why do we continue to let the royals get away with it? It’s our money they’re spending – let’s at least have some kind of accountability!
- Emily, London, 29/01/2009 13:09
Report abuse
They're always looking to exempt themselves from scrutiny. The fact they're entirely unaccountable means we have to be able to see official papers and documents about them... perhaps even sooner than 15 years.
They're also exempt from Freedom of Information laws... what have got to hide?
- Graham Smith, London, UK, 29/01/2009 13:05
Report abuse
I can't say I blame Mrs. Windsor, after all if the public knew half of what went on, they'd insist on being a republic. The monarchy can not be above the law, nor exempt from any of its requirements. And, as Frank says, they are *ours*, when we say jump, they should say 'How high?'
- John Flemming, Scunthorope, UK, 29/01/2009 13:02
Report abuse
Interesting how Labour are happy to reveal government secrets about the Falklands War but not about their own war in Iraq.
- Ian, London, 29/01/2009 12:22
Report abuse
We own you darling, you are my employee and I expect you to jump when I tell you to.
Now dish the dirt!!
- Frank, Home Counties, England, 29/01/2009 12:12
Report abuse
She has presided over a government, which has, in her name, taken from us centuries of hard won rights and freedoms.
Frankly, I'm not interested in what she does or does not want.
In this 21st Century socialist dictatorship, she is completely irrelevant and a luxury we can ill afford.
- Keith Lonsdale, Doncaster, 29/01/2009 10:40
Report abuse
