Much Ado about Nothing
Sometimes there is a huge row about the publication of a document or report, and when it finally sees the light of day you wonder what on earth all the fuss was about.
Perhaps the classic example comes from a naval conflict which took place a hundred years ago next year, the battle of Jutland.
Captain Harper was asked to write the official record of the battle: by the time it was published he had retired as a Rear Admiral.
"The Harper Record" was the subject of many questions in parliament about why it had not appeared, and various bureaucratic delays: when the official version was finally published it was disavowed by the Admiralty in a note on the fly-leaf. Admiral Harper was to write that
"The vicissitudes which the original Record underwent must, however, be patent to anyone who followed the series of tortuous manoeuvres and official prevarications in Parliament whenever it was asked for."
Harper went on to write a book on the subject which was called "The Truth About Jutland" - and yet if you read this book, which is a passionate defence of the Jellicoe, the RN Commander in Chief at the battle, and of most aspects of the Royal Navy's performance, you will wonder why on earth his views were controversial.
He did make a few mild criticisms of Admiral Beatty, Jellicoe's second in command and successor, and politely but firmly disagree with Winston Churchill. Beatty was First Sea Lord during most of the period when the "tortuous manoeuvres" about the "Harper Record" was taking place: Churchill had returned to office as Chancellor by the time the record came out, although I doubt if he had anything to do with the attempt to suppress Harper's views. Presumably Beatty or some of his supporters did not want Harper's criticisms to see the light of day: they probably did far more damage to his reputation because of the attempt to suppress them.
It is much the same with Prince Charles' so-called "Black Spider" letters. Why on earth was there such a fuss about them? I can only presume that the people responsible felt they had to protect the privacy of his correspondence but it might have been much simpler to have advised the prince years ago to ask for his letters to be published.
Few people reading them won't agree with at least some of the points he makes. I cannot see that there was anything sinister in them, and it is clear from the outcome that ministers did not feel under undue pressure to acceded to Prince Charles' suggestions if they did not agree with them.
Nor can I see that the impartiality of the monarchy has taken any significant damage. The picture that comes over in the letters is neither some right-wing ogre nor champagne socialist, just someone who cares.
Perhaps the classic example comes from a naval conflict which took place a hundred years ago next year, the battle of Jutland.
Captain Harper was asked to write the official record of the battle: by the time it was published he had retired as a Rear Admiral.
"The Harper Record" was the subject of many questions in parliament about why it had not appeared, and various bureaucratic delays: when the official version was finally published it was disavowed by the Admiralty in a note on the fly-leaf. Admiral Harper was to write that
"The vicissitudes which the original Record underwent must, however, be patent to anyone who followed the series of tortuous manoeuvres and official prevarications in Parliament whenever it was asked for."
Harper went on to write a book on the subject which was called "The Truth About Jutland" - and yet if you read this book, which is a passionate defence of the Jellicoe, the RN Commander in Chief at the battle, and of most aspects of the Royal Navy's performance, you will wonder why on earth his views were controversial.
He did make a few mild criticisms of Admiral Beatty, Jellicoe's second in command and successor, and politely but firmly disagree with Winston Churchill. Beatty was First Sea Lord during most of the period when the "tortuous manoeuvres" about the "Harper Record" was taking place: Churchill had returned to office as Chancellor by the time the record came out, although I doubt if he had anything to do with the attempt to suppress Harper's views. Presumably Beatty or some of his supporters did not want Harper's criticisms to see the light of day: they probably did far more damage to his reputation because of the attempt to suppress them.
It is much the same with Prince Charles' so-called "Black Spider" letters. Why on earth was there such a fuss about them? I can only presume that the people responsible felt they had to protect the privacy of his correspondence but it might have been much simpler to have advised the prince years ago to ask for his letters to be published.
Few people reading them won't agree with at least some of the points he makes. I cannot see that there was anything sinister in them, and it is clear from the outcome that ministers did not feel under undue pressure to acceded to Prince Charles' suggestions if they did not agree with them.
Nor can I see that the impartiality of the monarchy has taken any significant damage. The picture that comes over in the letters is neither some right-wing ogre nor champagne socialist, just someone who cares.
Comments