BY BEN KERRIGAN
Prince Charles subjects news broadcasters to a set of contractual preconditions ahead of television interviews, The Independent revealed today. The conditions include advance knowledge of questions, the right to monitor the editing process and also the right to block any unapproved broadcast.
The heir to the throne imposes the signature of a 15-page contract in advance of any interview before it is released. As a result of the undesired censorship, a scheduled interview of the Prince in Paris on Sunday by Jon Snow for Channel 4 was cancelled because the producers declined to consent to the draconian demands of the Prince. Some other broadcasters have succumbed to his comprehensive stringent terms in order to secure interviews with him.
The contract stipulates that an interviewer of Prince Charles “may solely ask questions” previously approved by Clarence House. The questions are written out in full within the contract.
“In the event that the Interviewer or any personnel of [the broadcaster] asks a question which has not been pre-approved, HRH or the member of [Clarence House’s] staff present during the filming of the contribution may intervene and halt filming.” In such circumstances, the broadcaster “shall have no right to use or exploit in any form whatsoever any of the material filmed”.
It specifies that, during the editing of the filmed interview, “issues concerning matters of fairness, balance, confidentiality or security or concerns about religious, political or racial sensitivities may be raised by the representative of [Clarence House]
Critics believe the Prince is unwilling to be challenged on a broad section of issues by presenting himself open to questions in the same way as many politicians who have no advance indication of the sort of questions they will be asked. For one so opinionated and vocal about his views on climate change and other miscellaneous issues, his royal highness indirectly seeks to be opaque on certain matters for reasons best suited to him and his royal image. His attempts to influence political decisions is also well documented as reflected in his ”black spider” memos to ministers published by the Guardian after a 10 year freedom of information battle by the Guardian newspaper. Charles proclivity for censored publicity seeks to give him an unfair advantage over other public figures and enable him to conveniently evade crucial topics the interviewer may wish to ask him.
The public deserves the right to know the real Prince Charles and understand what he does and does not stand for. Influencing public opinion must come with public accountability to create a level playing field. Otherwise the official protocol demanded by the Prince becomes tantamount to a claim that his privileged Royal status is not sufficient but should be extended to placing him above everyone else in terms of treatment, thereby inadvertently undermining the valued notion of equality of treatment ethically entrenched in the British culture.
