{"id":2505759,"date":"2026-07-17T08:25:57","date_gmt":"2026-07-17T08:25:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/en\/?p=2505759"},"modified":"2026-07-17T08:25:57","modified_gmt":"2026-07-17T08:25:57","slug":"mps-bid-to-end-royal-secrecy-and-open-the-crown-up-to-scrutiny-byline-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/en\/mps-bid-to-end-royal-secrecy-and-open-the-crown-up-to-scrutiny-byline-times\/","title":{"rendered":"MPs Bid To End ‘Royal Secrecy’ And Open The Crown Up To Scrutiny \u2013 Byline Times"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Read our<\/mark> Monthly Magazine<\/mark><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

And support our mission<\/strong> to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

A Green MP is leading a bid to end the UK\u2019s culture of \u2018royal secrecy\u2019 through a bill which would give the public powers to scrutinise the work of the crown.<\/p>\n

Si\u00e2n Berry\u2019s bill to amend the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act, introduced this Tuesday, would end the outright exemption for the King, the heir to the throne and the \u201cwider royal family\u201d from the 2000-era transparency law.<\/p>\n

Berry wants to open up the royals to Freedom of Information requests \u2013 something almost every public body is subject to and which allows researchers, journalists and the public to ask for documents in the public interest.<\/p>\n

Section 37 of the Freedom of Information Act means the Sovereign (i.e. King Charles) and the two nearest heirs to the Throne are totally exempt from Freedom of Information requests.<\/p>\n

There is no \u2018public interest test\u2019 that can override this. The rule also covers all communications with them, sweeping up communications with ministers and officials, even if they relate to politics and public spending.<\/p>\n

Communications with the wider royal family are also exempt from FoI, but are subject to a public interest test \u2013 so if there is an overriding public interest in releasing, for example, communications between a minister and Prince Harry, theoretically that information could be released. However, many researchers and historians frequently find that officials block these requests too.<\/p>\n

\n

ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE<\/h4>\n

Receive the monthly Byline Times<\/em> newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Royal biographer Dr Andrew Lownie, whose recent book on Andrew, Entitled<\/em>, exposed wide-ranging allegations of cronyism and misconduct, told Byline Times<\/em>: \u201cFrom my experience \u2014 and I\u2019ve now used this over ten years on members of the Royal Family \u2014 that public interest test has never once come down in favour of disclosure.\u201d<\/p>\n

He has been told material on then-Prince Andrew\u2019s role as a trade envoy won\u2019t be released until 2065 \u2013 a timeframe he says has no basis in law. It would be 105 years after Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor\u2019s birth. <\/p>\n

That\u2019s despite the then-Prince\u2019s role being officially separate to royal titles, and was instead an official Government appointment.<\/p>\n

The Foreign Office and the Department for Business and Trade have used a scattergun of exemptions, seen by Byline Times<\/em>, to block requests on who accompanied Andrew on trade trips \u2013 including claiming it would harm law enforcement, national security, health and safety, and even describing Lownie\u2019s efforts as \u201cvexatious.\u201d<\/p>\n

A separate FoI fight with Southampton University and the Cabinet Office over Lord Mountbatten\u2019s diaries in 2021 left the historian out of pocket by \u00a3500,000 in legal costs. He eventually won his battle, but believes many times his own costs in public money were spent fighting the requests.<\/p>\n

Even when material is released on the royals it is often heavily censored. Lownie says of the Lord Mountbatten case: \u201cThey tried to redact every single mention of the Royal Family in those three thousand pages. Really innocent stuff \u2014 \u2018Prince Philip came for tea,\u2019 \u2018Princess Elizabeth had her birthday party today\u2019 \u2014 nothing remotely sensitive.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThey were even redacting names that had already appeared in the published version of the diaries.\u201d <\/p>\n

All of this was under exemptions from FoI law that Berry is now trying to undo.<\/p>\n

Berry\u2019s bill \u2013 which stands little chance of succeeding without Government backing \u2013 would omit section 37 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; to \u201cprovide that the sovereign, the Royal Family, the Royal Household, the Royal Archive and the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster\u201d are treated like any Government department or quango when it comes to FoI requests.<\/p>\n

In 2023, researchers from Index on Censorship surveyed 28 historians and journalists about their experience requesting archive materials on the royal family \u2013 much of which is publicly-funded.<\/p>\n

It hinted at the extent to which the Palace holds sway over every archive in the UK.<\/p>\n

One respondent, reportedly working for the Lambeth Palace Library archives, told the anti-censorship group they were instructed, at the Royal Archives\u2019 request, not to provide documents from the 1940s\u201350s related to the royals when a researcher requested them.<\/p>\n

And the non-profit group found that a 2023 policy change at the BBC required unseen royal-related BBC material to be vetted and sensitive content relating to the royals redacted before researchers could see it, apparently after a request from \u2018Royal Liaison\u2019. It suggested a direct channel of Palace influence over the national broadcaster\u2019s own archive.<\/p>\n

\n

\u2018Archaic Rules\u2019<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Berry told Byline Times<\/em>: \u201cThroughout the whole Andrew [Mountbatten-Windsor] saga, there was a prohibition on criticising members of the royal family in Parliament, which then got relaxed by the Speaker just ahead of him being stripped of his royal status.<\/p>\n

\u201cNow he\u2019s not royal, which is why I mentioned him several times in my speech. But these are archaic rules, and we do need to treat the royal family much more like a normal public body.\u201d<\/p>\n

When Berry learnt about the royals\u2019 FoI exemption, she says she was \u201coutraged that it existed.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n

Beatrice and Eugenie continue to be housed in Kensington and St James\u2019 Palace, despite not being working royals, a new report reveals<\/p>\n

David Hencke<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cI started talking to people who\u2019d been trying to get information that way for a while, and had just hit a wall,\u201d Berry says.<\/p>\n

She argues the Palace authorities are \u201creaching out to stop other royal-related information being released, at their own discretion, in places that have nothing to do with them.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cNone of that\u2019s right.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Green MP says that \u201cknowing you\u2019re completely protected, beyond what any other public servant is, probably doesn\u2019t encourage good behaviour.\u201d<\/p>\n

Berry believes that, if materials relating to former-Prince Andrew\u2019s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein had been put in the open earlier \u2013 without the need for Parliament to issue a \u2018humble address\u2019 demanding their release \u2013 potential wrongdoing could have been prevented. Mountbatten-Windsor is currently under police investigation over allegedly leaking confidential Government documents to business associates (he denies all wrongdoing).<\/p>\n

\n

Commons Gagging Order<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Berry, who is a republican, is also incensed by Parliament\u2019s own rules against discussing the royals.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe were reminded just today by the Speaker\u2019s Office that we mustn\u2019t criticise the current monarch\u2026I had to make it very clear I wasn\u2019t obliquely referring to the King, because I\u2019m not allowed to\u2026<\/p>\n

\u201cIt was very, very clear I couldn\u2019t criticise the King, or even imply it, in my speech.\u201d<\/p>\n

Asked if she feels hamstrung by Parliament\u2019s limits on criticism of the royals, Berry said: \u201cNo one in Parliament likes it. The Speaker, and particularly some of the Deputy Speakers, will stand up and call \u201cOrder\u201d and tell you off for something you\u2019ve said \u2013 and that makes you nervous. It makes you want to hold back.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou\u2019ve no idea what it\u2019s like being told off in front of the whole Chamber. The first time it happened to me\u2026The shock of it was such a throwback, like literally being five years old and told off at school. It\u2019s such a weird feeling.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n

As the eighth in line of succession to the British throne is arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, Hardeep Matharu explores how elite impunity is built on creating a sense of powerlessness in the many \u2013 in her editorial first published in the latest monthly print edition of Byline Times<\/p>\n

Hardeep Matharu<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Outside of Parliament (itself part of the Crown Estate), Berry says the royal family is able to \u201ccurate which historians get access [to royal-linked archives] and which don\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThey\u2019re protecting the royal image right back through history, and that means we don\u2019t have a true picture of our own history. I think that\u2019s really wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

A Call From the Palace<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The issues go beyond law and into convention and culture, too.<\/p>\n

In 2008, when she was the Green Party\u2019s de facto<\/em> leader, Berry provided a quote to the Daily Mail<\/em> criticising then-Prince Charles\u2019 air travel.<\/p>\n

She was working at Imperial College at the time, and says she got a phone call from the Palace press office the next day \u201ctelling me off\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey were saying how disrespectful I was being, that I should be more grateful, that he was actually very green and was promoting organic farming and environmental causes, and that I shouldn\u2019t be criticising him.\u201d<\/p>\n

She describes it as \u201ca bit of a bollocking\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cAt one point I did say, \u2018Well, I am a republican\u2019 \u2013 because he kept going on about respect, and I said there\u2019s a limit to how deferential I\u2019m going to be.\u201d<\/p>\n

Berry\u2019s Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Amendment) Bill has the backing of the National Union of Journalists as well as a cross-party group of MPs, including Conservative David Davis MP and Your Party leader Jeremy Corbyn MP.<\/p>\n

The Cabinet Office, Department for Business and Trade, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) were contacted for comment.<\/p>\n

\n

MPs sponsoring the Bill:<\/strong><\/p>\n