Nelliemoser The play is speculative and just poses some questions. Although it could be interpreted by some as characterising Charles as some sort of fighter for freedom of information, I'm not sure that in real life such a characterisation can be supported.
Charles has definitely not been a champion of openness, at least not where his own behaviour is concerned. Over as ten year period, his legal representatives fought the Guardian tooth and nail, through several Court hearings and appeals, to keep secret letters written by Charles to various members of the then government, including Blair.
The Guardian editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, said: “We fought this case because we believed – and the most senior judges in the country agreed – that the royal family should operate to the same degrees of transparency as anyone else trying to make their influence felt in public life. The attorney general, in trying to block the letters, said their contents could ‘seriously damage’ perceptions of the prince’s political neutrality. (!)
Michael Meacher, a former Labour environment secretary who received private letters from Charles about policy, called for a new system of transparency around his correspondence with ministers when he becomes king to “remove public suspicion from the process”..... “At least we would know he [Charles] has been giving his opinions and, some would say, lobbying ministers.”
What I think is really concerning is that since the original request to see Charles’s letters, the government tightened up the Freedom of Information Act to provide an “absolute exemption” on all requests relating to the Queen and the heir to the throne. That means such applications are now automatically rejected. So this appears to mean that anyone in the royal family can, in effect, seek to influjence governments on any number of issues without the voting public having any idea that this is happening.