THE father of a North-East soldier killed in Iraq has praised Prince Charles for raising concerns that our armed forces were ill-prepared for such a conflict.

Corporal Simon Miller, from Washington, Wearside, was one of six Royal Military Policeman slaughtered by a mob after they were cornered in a police station south of Basra, in June 2003.

Charles wrote to the-then Prime Minister Tony Blair in September 2004 to question the resources available to British forces and in particular problems deploying new surveillance technology.

He said the armed forces were being "asked to do an extremely challenging job (particularly in Iraq) without the necessary resources".

Cpl Miller's father John told The Northern Echo: "Prince Charles got it absolutely spot on.

"It's a fact, we know the troops never had enough resources put in place. Not enough equipment, not enough armour, not enough communications and as a result that was one of the reasons why my son was killed."

The 21-year-old died alongside Lance Corporal Ben Hyde, 23, of Northallerton, North Yorkshire, and Corporal Paul Long, 24, of South Shields.

It was subsequently claimed the Red Caps had just a third of the ammunition they were supposed to have together with inadequate radio equipment which meant they were unable to call for help.

The letter to former Sedgefield MP Mr Blair is one of ten sent by the prince to ministers released following a long legal battle. A further 14 by ministers and three letters between private secretaries were also released.

As they were released, Clarence House issued a statement saying: "The publication of private letters can only inhibit his ability to express the concerns and suggestions which have been put to him in the course of his travels and meetings."

"The Prince of Wales is raising issues of public concern, and trying to find practical ways to address the issues."

The Prince lobbied on issues ranging from badgers and TB to herbal medicine, education and illegal fishing.

He also urged the Government to fund the preservation of huts used by Antarctic explorers Scott and Shackleton and showed a particular interest in the fate of the former NHS hospital asylum site at Cherry Knowle, Sunderland.

In one detailed and lengthy letter to the former Sedgefield MP, dated September 2004, the Prince wrote of his concerns over the Armed Forcesm, in particular problems with the new Oxbow surveillance technology, warning its deployment was "being frustrated by the poor performance of the existing Lynx aircraft in high temperatures".

''I fear this is just one more example of where our armed forces are being asked to do an extremely challenging job (particularly in Iraq) without the necessary resources," he added.

Mr Miller said: "They (the Government) knew the Army did not have the right equipment, did not have the right resources and that the radio equipment and communication system was for use in European conditions. They knew that before they went."

A 2006 inquest into the deaths of the Military Policemen revealed they had no way of calling for help and their commanders had no idea where they were.

It heard that patrols were frequently sent out without a telephone because there were not enough to go round and vehicle radios had a very limited range.

In his response, former Sedgefield MP Mr Blair replied on October 11 that year, saying the limitations were well known and the budget for the coming years included investment in helicopters.

Twenty-seven letters - 10 from Charles to ministers, 14 by ministers and three letters between private secretaries - were released following a 10-year campaign by Guardian journalist Rob Evans.

Charles is understood to be "disappointed" the confidentiality principle was not maintained as his memos - written between September 2004 and March 2005 - were finally published.

His principal private secretary William Nye said: ''He will think about how he deals with things but I think he'll continue to want to reflect the views that he hears from members of the public, and talk about things that matter to our society and the world to ministers of any government.''

The Prince also asked Mr Blair to put "pressure" on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs over the bureaucratic burdens facing farmers and in February 2005, he described opponents of a badger cull as "intellectually dishonest" and advocated culling to tackle tuberculosis in cattle.

He urged Mr Blair to "look again at introducing a proper cull of badgers where it is necessary", warning that rising number of cases of TB in cattle was the most pressing and urgent problem facing the agricultural sector.

As of March last year, more than a quarter of a million pounds (£274,481.16) had been spent by the Government on legal fees to try to block the publication of the letters, claiming it would undermine the principle of the heir to the throne being politically neutral.

The Prince also criticised the then-Labour government for transferring responsibility for the regeneration of a former NHS hospital asylum at Cherry Knowle, Sunderland.

He wanted to see it redeveloped for housing and a new hospital but feared the plans would not be realised after the site was transferred from the NHS to English Partnerships Agency in 2004.

The Prince also exchanged correspondence with two Labour education secretaries, discussing healthy eating in schools and professional development for teachers, revealing that he finds the idea that teachers should not impart knowledge but act as "coaches" "difficult to understand".

Charles also described a European regulation to restrict practitioners of herbal medicine as like ''using a sledgehammer to crack a nut'' and complained to Mr Blair about regulatory body the Office of Fair Trading, describing it as a "serious obstacle" for dairy co-operatives.

In February 2005, he also complained about the "dominant position" of retailers and its effect on British farmers. Other issues raised by the Prince included the plight of the albatross and the fate of a Chilean fish.

Last night Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West, suggested Charles was putting the future of the royal family at risk through politically partial statements.

He branded some of the heir to the throne's opinions progressive, but said others were "eccentric" and "barmy".

"His views are no more significant than the views of a person you might meet in the pub. He's putting at risk the future of the Royal Family by making politically partial statements.

"The serious role of a head of state is to act politically impartially and to intervene when prime ministers act in their own interests rather than the nation's.

"He's incapable of doing the job if he's politically partial. His views vary from the progressive to the eccentric to the barmy and he's a victim of his own environment. He lobbies on behalf of those that share his views."

Peter Hain, who was Welsh secretary at the time the letters were written, said that because of his post and Charles's role as the Prince of Wales they corresponded regularly and he would send reports to Charles for him to comment on.

He said: "I'm not a monarchist but I think he was well within his rights to express his views.

"You have to be a weak minister to somehow be rolled over simply because you receive a letter from the heir to the throne."

He added: "I never had a problem with it; I thought his letters were interesting and passionately expressed. Often I agreed with him and sometimes I disagreed with him. I thought it was really healthy he was expressing his views."