Making the write decision on Charles' letters

A story that has featured in the UK news over the past week has been how Prince Charles' letters written to government ministers 10 years ago, after much debate in court, are going to be made public- despite opposition to this from the government and Prince Charles himself. I personally agree with this opposition. It's easy to side with the decision to publish them- to cite public interest, and the idea of "what does he have to hide?" (A logic which has been used for snooping on the public, as well as exposing the files of the secret services-arguably to the detriment of national security and the armed forces).

At the end of the day, it is the opinions of a man being shared with the government- opinions which ministers can consider, but are not obliged to follow, as with anyone else's views. But he's not your man-on-the-street, he's the heir to the throne, having an influence, some may say. This is true, he is indeed heir to the throne- and one of the crucial duties of the monarchy is to provide advice and opinions, based on their lifelong exposure to government and global affairs. Prince Charles would be neglecting his duties if he didn't offer advice. When revealed, it's likely they will arouse some controversy- as indeed virtually all opinions do. As soon as someone expresses an opinion, there is bound to be someone who disagrees. However, if leaders become too concerned with trying to please everybody, they would not be able to get things done, and will ultimately please nobody.

Moreover, does the public really need to know the opinions of all its leaders? It's one thing for leaders to express opinions in public, at their own risk; but they are not even entitled to private opinions? We respect this with the current monarch's monthly meetings with the Prime Minister; world leaders often meet in private, and summarise (and presumably censor) their discussions afterwards at press conferences. Where do we draw the line with the logic of "it's the public's right to know"? The last Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was caught out during the last general election when he privately expressed a lack of sympathy with a voter who took a strong view on immigration- by the logic that that discovery was in the public good, maybe we should always record politicians' conversations (private and public; at work or at home) so that the public can ensure that the opinions politicians express are genuine.

If it is felt that the contents of these letters should be released, why not at least take the same approach as with government records, and wait for 30 years?