This was previously sent to Not My King newsletter readers, if you want first access to exclusive stories as a newsletter reader, click here to sign up.

THE council, the Government, most public agencies like the police and so-called arm’s length companies are all required to release a great deal of information to the public on demand.

This is the purpose of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and despite its flaws, it means many organisations which have power over the people of these isles must publish information they would otherwise prefer to keep under wraps.

But one powerful organisation is given key exemptions which allow them to operate in the shadows away from the glare of public scrutiny. That’s the royal household.

The act provides for an “absolute exemption” for the King, his heir and the second in line to the throne from any requests from members of the public or the media wanting to know what they are up to behind closed doors.

To put it simply: if you are the leader of a council, you could expect your emails to become a matter of public record if they were requested under FOI laws. If you’re King Charles or Prince William, you can relax.

READ MORE: Holyrood petition aims to end monarchy's secret lobbying on Scottish laws

As the saying goes, if you have nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to worried about. So what are they hiding?

Proponents of the monarchy like to talk about it like it’s a benign old giant off in the hills, coming down for big events like the opening of a new bridge or hospital but generally keeping themselves to themselves and giving us a nice, warm happy Christmas message on the telly every year.

The truth is quite different. The Guardian has previously revealed how the royals vetted at least 1,062 laws during Queen Elizabeth’s reign.

As journalist and lecturer James McEnaney warns, the situation could be even worse under King Charles – who has more of a reputation as an “interventionist”.

McEnaney worked on a series of articles around six years ago on the future King’s political meddling – but said finding out what he is up to now he is head of state will be much harder.

He told The National: “Even if Charles wasn’t much more interventionist and interested than his mum, it still means that the unelected head of state can carry out all sorts of activities to influence the behaviour of democratically elected representatives and it’s legally impossible for people to find out why.”

READ MORE: Government memo reveals 'almost certain' draft Scottish laws secretly changed for Queen's approval

McEnaney added that the royals were more “FOI-able than people think” – but pointed out his previous efforts to expose Charles’s interventions, by lobbying the Scottish Government to promote the charity Teach First, were successful because he was not yet head of state.

He added: “Now it’s going to be far harder to make the argument that the royal exemption is being misused because the things that he’s doing are part of a role, everything’s part of the state.

“Which was definitely the case before, I mean, him lobbying about Teach First – he was doing that in his role as an ambassador for an organisation, so it was nice and clear cut.

“You can’t withhold that under royal exemption. But there’s lots and lots and lots of other stuff that we’ll never get near because of the fact that basically anything – royal correspondence and all that – if it’s related to his roles in terms of the British state then there’s pretty much nothing you can do.”

Katy Clark, the Labour MSP for West of Scotland, last year launched a bid to reform FOI law – including changing the rules to end exemptions for the royal household in light of revelations of their influence over the Scottish Government.

READ MORE: King Charles allowed to vet Rent Freeze Bill

The MSP told us giving royals special treatment was at odds with the founding principles of the Scottish Parliament.

She said: “Freedom of Information is clearly out of date and needs reform, which is why I am intending to introduce a member’s bill to the Scottish Parliament.

“The public should have the right to full disclosure about how they’re governed and how their services are delivered in a democratic society.

“Currently, all communications with the royal household are exempt from FOI coverage. I do not believe this is fair or appropriate, particularly given it has been reported that the royal household have repeatedly lobbied the Scottish Government on the impact of proposed legislation deemed to affect their public powers, private properties or personal interests.

“The Scottish Parliament was established to be ‘open, accessible and accountable’, so it is disappointing that this arcane custom has been inherited from Westminster. FOI should follow the public pound, and that includes the royal household.”

Buckingham Palace was approached for comment.