The previous government, Conservative, offered a portrait of Charles Windsor, new hereditary head of state, to all public bodies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the portrait Mr Windsor is resplendent in a military uniform, with medals not won in battle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to the then deputy prime minister the portraits would remind citizens that Charlie Windsor was the \u201cultimate public servant\u201d even though the man hardly looks like he is dressed for hard work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Twenty thousand portraits were sent to public bodies that asked for them. But 46,500 other organisations turned down the offer. Only 3% of NHS hospitals wanted to display a portrait of a hereditary head of state their staff had not been allowed to vote on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Just seven percent of universities showed an interest in having Windsor’s mug adorn their halls, a reminder of how public assets are diverted for the profit of his family . And even the state church had a limited interest. Just a quarter of its parishes wanted to put up a picture of their head official. Much more enthusiasm was shown by local councils and the Coast Guard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Guardian newspaper wanted to know more about which bodies had taken a portrait to display in their premises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But it found that a new government, Labour, wanted to hide the identities of these monarchy loving bodies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In an apparent effort to protect the reputation of the feudal monarchy the Labour government offered the newspaper extraordinary excuses for its refusal to reveal who had taken a \u201croyal\u201d portrait.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In October 2024 the Cabinet Office in refusing the newspaper’s freedom of information application claimed absurdly that publication would be an \u201cactionable breach of confidence\u201d. The Guardian explained that the meaning of this was that a public body that had asked for a portrait could sue the government for disclosing that fact!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When the newspaper appealed the decision the Cabinet Office changed its grounds for keeping the information secret to a claim that disclosure would \u201cprejudice the effective conduct of public affairs\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It has also stated that letting its citizens know would \u201cgive rise to controversy\u201d and \u201ccreate negative public perception\u201d according to the newspaper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Cabinet Office conceded to the Guardian that citizens might like to know which bodies had taken a portrait. But it feared that to release the figure could discourage public bodies from taking part in future schemes of this type \u201cdue to negative media coverage or reputational harm\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In short the government wanted to avoid controversy that might further undermine the monarchy. So it put that above citizen’s right to know.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Guardian quoted \u201croyal historian\u201d Dr Ed Owens as saying that releasing the portrait take up figures would show that \u201cthere isn’t a great deal of interest\u201d in head of state Windsor. He added that the greatly lessened presence of \u201croyal\u201d portraits in public places today was \u201cvery telling\u201d. In support of Dr Owens’ view a You Gov poll in 2024 suggested that the percentage of those polled who believed the monarchy is good for Britain had fallen from 60% to 51%.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The previous government, Conservative, offered a portrait of Charles Windsor, new hereditary head of state, to all public bodies. In the portrait Mr Windsor is resplendent in a military uniform, with medals not won in battle. According to the then deputy prime minister the portraits would remind citizens that Charlie Windsor was the \u201cultimate public […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1641","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-republic"],"yoast_head":"\n