根据以下材料，回答36-40题<br /> The royal archives are a treasury of documents of national and international importance that stretch back over 250 years, from George III to the present queen.For this reason alone, the collections belong in the public domain,something the royal archivists recognized with their decision to put Queen Victoria's journals online.But it should not be for the royal archivists to decide on an arbitrary basis what can be seen and what cannot.Like the National Archives—perhaps even as part of it—there should be a transparent process through which royal documents relating to state affairs are generally available.<br /> The current dispute about the publication of footage of a young Princess Elizabeth with her uncle and mother performing a Nazi salute for the camera explains why this is such a neuralgic issue for Buckingham Palace.It exactly reflects the ambiguity at the centre of the monarchy, where the queen is both a private person and a part of the constitution.A still frame that captures the princess in a gesture that strikes us now as abhorrent still resonates, even if in 1933 it was commonplace in the often anti-Jewish upper classes to make light of Hitler's anti-Semitism. No wonder the royal archivists at Windsor guard the papers of father, uncle and grandfather with such care.<br /> Nonetheless, it is an unacceptable anomaly that the gatekeepers of documents relating to affairs of state should apparently be mainly concerned with concealing them from the public gaze.A glance at the papers of almost any national figure in the 20th century reveals how deeply the activities of the monarchy infused public life before the Queen came to the throne in 1952. And they continue to do so, which is why the Guardian fought a 10-year legal battle for the disclosure of Prince Charles's letters to ministers.<br /> The acknowledgments in countless histories of the 20th century betray the frustration of academics at the ruthless exploitation by royal archivists of their control over access.The ambiguity around the monarch as a private person is used either to justify banning access entirely, or as a way of legitimizing a scrutiny by the palace that more or less amounts to a right of censorship.The perception at least is that access is usually granted only to those writers who can be relied upon to pass friendly judgments.<br /> So it is an unusually brazen fiction for the royal archives website to declare that the royal household is committed to transparency.This is an institution to which freedom of information does not apply, because the royal household was not defined as a public body in the 2000 act.Papers in the collections are not described as public records as defined in the relevant legislation.<br /> Access is controlled by an unaccountable group whose activity, where it is visible at all, works most often to obstruct, not to facilitate.This is a deliberate and unacceptable attempt to thwart genuine academic endeavor.The royal family receives large amounts of public money, which for most people is justified by their public work.But that does not mean that their history can be sheltered from the public gaze.<br /> What justifies the cautious handling of royal documents by the archivists?