Now the Cabinet Office is facing accusations that they have been covering up inconvenient truths about our royal family. They redacted public information about the late Princess Diana’s death and funeral preparations. A new trove of documents has recently been released through the Freedom of Information Act. Together, these documents tell the story of a troubling sequence of communications and events that beg fundamental questions about transparency and accountability in government operations.
In 2005, the UK government’s Cabinet Office made public documents related to the years of intrigue and speculation that shrouded Diana’s untimely death. UK ambassador to France, Michael Jay, gave an extraordinary description of the mood after her death. He shared everything that happened in the days and weeks after this needless and tragic moment occurred. The documents shed light on an embarrassing episode involving a birthday telegram sent to the Queen Mother. Capt Sir Alastair Aird’s private secretary, when told this first letter was “incorrectly addressed.”
Roderic Lyne from the No 10 private office dealt with the complaint personally. He argued that British Telecom had failed to take proper care of the telegram during its transmission. He stated, “The message itself, as it left our hands, was entirely correct. In transmitting it, it appears that British Telecom most unfortunately addressed the telegram in the improper manner which you described.”
In an ironic turn, Prime Minister John Major’s office was forced to issue a grovelling apology to the Queen Mother for the telegram snafu. The thanks of the Queen Mother came in strong and clear. In a return email, she expressed her warm thanks for a wonderfully kind message of good wishes.
Jacques Chirac, then the President of France, was not immediately updated about the dramatic happenings accompanying Diana’s death. This lack of timely information made a difficult situation even worse. This lack of attention fueled rumors and misinformation surrounding what he was doing during that fateful stretch of time. The Downing Street has been criticized for refusing to disclose details of a conversation between Tony Blair and Chirac in 2005, citing that such discussions were “confidential” and “fundamentally not in the public interest.”
Interestingly, files relating to royal visits from 2004 and 2005 were strikingly missing from the documents released under the files. These minutes often detailed the travels that Prince Andrew went on, to countries such as China, Russia, and Spain. The exclusion has raised alarm about how royal family affairs are managed and their impacts on public money.
This is in light of a recent loosening of regulations restricting royal travel coming under the same scrutiny. In the case of expenses claimed by Prince Andrew while serving as a UK trade ambassador, they would now be paid for by the Royal Travel Office. The amendment injected an additional £90,000 into the Royal Travel Office’s budget. This decision raised the ire of advocates who felt there should be zero royal exemption from public scrutiny.
Graham Smith, the chief executive of Republic, insisted transparency was essential. He was clear that no members of the royal family should be exempt from public record scrutiny. There can be no favoritism here – everyone deserves the same protection under the law.