The topic of politically active royals has been the focus of some attention here before – some of you may remember Royal Dutch and of course Moonbat Princess – but these were rather low profile exercises compared to the latest affair from Britain. The unauthorized publication of some of Prince Charles’ diaries where he styles himself as a “dissident”, acting as a counterweight to the political establishment has provoked an outcry on a number of levels. Apart from the juicy bits such as the prince lamenting having to fly business class, the most interesting one surely is the political dimension of it all. He may be a dissident, but politicians generally let him and worse, listen to him.

A few years ago British writer-columnist Johann Hari published a rather scathing review of the Windsor clan entitled God Save the Queen and he has offered some extracts of it on his site this week. So to underline the point of political influence that some royals have been granted or simply taken, here’s telling excerpt from Hari:

Thirdly, the Prince acted as an “unofficial envoy” during the war on terror. Charles and his spin-doctors were eager to see this task trumpeted in the press (it made the front page of the Daily Mail) despite the fact that it was meant to be a behind-the-scenes job. Charles’ task was to keep the Saudi royal family – notoriously one of the most corrupt, decadent and totalitarian ruling houses in the world – on side because he is so friendly with them. Yet even in this, he was unsuccessful: the House of Saud has publicly distanced itself from the ‘war on terror.’

Such a role for the prince could be explained away as helpful or as not directly interfering with ministers as Tony Blair did earlier this week. Yet, it is hard not to escape the impression that the extreme deference of elected officials to a future king does have the potential for some unwanted political outcomes. The absence of any tangible public records leaves us to guess whatever it is that Britain’s dissident-prince discussed with his for instance his Saudi counterparts. Or how in turn the prince himself may have become unduly influenced by whatever agenda the House of Saud saw fit to promote when the prince came calling. The release of the prince’s diaries by one of his former assistants – while questionable from an ethical point of view – has once more raised the issue of political transparency in the West’s few remaining monarchies.