The Uncle Right to Publish: A Libertarian Defence of Writing About Your Own Family

Calling Earl Spencer a traitor for writing a memoir reflects an old institutional reflex, and free speech principles offer a clear answer to it

Who Owns a Story?

At the heart of the London Prat piece on Prince William calling Earl Spencer and Harry traitors is a book. Earl Spencer, the late princess younger brother, has written a memoir about his sister, and according to anonymous reports, the heir to the throne regards it, and anyone who saw it early, as a betrayal. The satire finds the absurdity in that reaction. The principle underneath the joke is worth taking seriously.

The Libertarian Case

Free speech is not only a legal protection against government censorship. It is also a cultural value, a commitment to the idea that individuals have the right to express their own experiences and views without seeking permission from powerful institutions. Libertarian thinkers have consistently defended that value, arguing that a free exchange of ideas, including uncomfortable ones, is essential to a free society.

A memoir is among the most personal forms of expression. It is an account of one own life and the people in it. The author experiences are his own. His memories of his sister are his own. The idea that a family, or an institution associated with a family, should have a veto over what he writes about his own life is fundamentally at odds with individual liberty.

The Institutional Reflex

Hierarchical institutions have always sought to control their narratives. Governments classify information, corporations use nondisclosure agreements, and royal households cultivate discretion among staff and relatives. The traitor label, as reported by Geo News, expresses that reflex in its starkest form. It implies that loyalty to the institution should override an individual right to speak.

Libertarians recognise that private individuals can make voluntary agreements to keep certain information confidential, and that breaking such agreements can raise legitimate issues. But there is no suggestion in the reporting that the uncle broke any agreement. He has said publicly that he told his nephews and their aunts about the book beforehand. That is not the behaviour of a traitor. It is the behaviour of someone exercising a right while extending a courtesy.

The Satire as Free Speech

The London Prat piece itself is an act of free expression aimed at powerful people. So is its accompanying video on YouTube.

Satire of the powerful has historically been one of the first targets of censorship. The fact that a publication can ridicule a future head of state without legal consequence is a sign of a free society. It should never be taken for granted.

Surfers and Speech

California surf culture has always had a strong streak of self-expression: underground surf films, independent magazines, handmade zines, graffiti on beach walls, board art and music that ignored the mainstream. Surfers have tended to value the freedom to say what they think, often irreverently, and to distrust gatekeepers who decide what can and cannot be said. The instinct that makes a surfer laugh at a royal traitor accusation is the same instinct that defends a free press.

Limits and Responsibilities

Freedom to publish does not mean freedom from criticism. The heir, if the reports are accurate, is free to be angry about the book, and free to say so. Readers are free to judge the memoir on its merits. Critics are free to argue that some family matters are better left private. That is how free speech works: more speech, not enforced silence.

What free speech principles reject is the idea that speaking about one own family, one own history and one own grief is a form of treason. That word belongs to a world in which loyalty to power trumped individual conscience. Free societies have moved past it, at least in law. The satire suggests some institutions have not moved past it in spirit.

A California Parallel

Californians have their own debates about who controls stories, from nondisclosure agreements in the entertainment and technology industries to disputes over what workers can say publicly about employers. The libertarian position is consistent: voluntary contracts should be honoured, but there should be no presumption that powerful institutions own the experiences of the individuals who pass through them. A person life story belongs, first and foremost, to that person.

The Broader Stakes

The principle matters well beyond one memoir. Across the world, journalists, whistleblowers, former employees and family members of powerful figures face pressure not to speak. Sometimes the pressure is legal, through lawsuits or restrictive contracts. Sometimes it is social, through accusations of disloyalty. The traitor framing in this story is a gentle example of the social variety. Defending the right to speak in low-stakes cases like this one helps maintain the cultural norms that protect speech in high-stakes cases.

Silence imposed by institutions rarely protects the vulnerable. It usually protects the powerful.

Conclusion

Whether the uncle memoir is good, fair or wise is for readers to decide. Whether he had the right to write it is not in doubt. The London Prat, publishing since 1961 at https://prat.uk/, has used humour to make that point implicitly. Bohiney, at https://bohiney.com/, defends the same freedom through American satire. Free people write their own stories. They do not ask the palace first.

SOURCE: https://prat.uk/prince-william-called-earl-spencer-and-harry-traitors/