Queen Elizabeth II’s net worth is reportedly $ 480 million – amid allegations that she pressured the government to change a law to keep her wealth a secret.
The monarch’s lawyer pressured public officials to change the bill so that the public could not know about their shareholdings in the 1970s.
A new law proposal was defined to bring new transparency to companies, allowing directors to know who owned or who controlled shares.
Matthew Farrer, the Queen’s lawyer, said her clients took the matter “very seriously” and admitted that disclosing any investments would be “embarrassing”, according to government documents released in the UK’s National Archives.
The documents, published by The Guardian, say the Queen’s private legal adviser said public officials “have put them in this dilemma and therefore must find a way out”.
Max Mumby / Indigo / Getty
It was during a meeting in 1973 with officials from the Department of Commerce and Industry, prompting officials to “alert ministers”.
The revelations expose the palace to claims that the queen had access to lobby the government in support of her own private financial interests.
Thomas Adams, a specialist in constitutional law at the University of Oxford, said The Guardian the documents showed “the kind of influence on legislation that lobbyists would only dream of”.
Queen Elizabeth II’s Net Worth
Elizabeth receives public money annually through the Sovereign Grant, which reached $ 118 million this fiscal year.
She also has income from the Duchy of Lancaster, a private property held in custody by the UK sovereign, valued at more than $ 738 million.
However, your personal wealth is much more difficult to track due to the laws and exemptions that apply to the royal family.
Despite the additional secrecy, the Sunday Times’ rich list valued its net worth at £ 350 million ($ 480 million) in 2020, declaring that a large part of its shares are invested in prime stocks.
The GuardianThe company’s investigation showed how the government drafted legislation in 1973 that should bring new transparency to UK companies.
For the first time, board members would have the opportunity to obtain information about shareholders, which were previously unavailable.
National Archives documents show that the Queen’s lawyer believed that the law, as it stood, could have taken directors and even the public and the media to know where Elizabeth had invested her money.
The documents quote public official CM Drukker writing on November 9: “I spoke to Mr. Farrer.
“As I remembered, he – or rather, I think his customers – are just as concerned with the risk of disclosure to company directors as to shareholders and the general public.
“He justifies this not only because of the risk of inadvertent or indiscreet leakage to other people, but more basically because disclosing it to anyone would be embarrassing.”
“Warn ministers”
Buckingham Palace was first consulted on the proposed law because the UK government needed to obtain “royal consent”.
The tradition in Britain is that the monarch must be consulted on legislation that may affect the crown’s interests.
The documents appear to show that early warning allowed the monarchy to intervene at an early stage in the drafting process in order to pressure the government to change the law.
The civil servant described in the UK government’s internal memo how the queen’s lawyer opposed any disclosure about her investments, regardless of whether it was controversial.
Drukker wrote: “He didn’t like any suggestion that the properties were not so embarrassing today, given the extensive knowledge, for example, of real estate.
“He also didn’t see that the problem could be solved by any evasion of interests in specific companies. It was the knowledge itself that was questionable.”
The document details how Drukker told the lawyer that granting an exemption only to the crown could backfire, as the anonymity of an investor would indicate that he must be the queen.
With that, says the document, Farrer “was a little scared, emphasized that the problem was taken very seriously and suggested – somewhat provisionally – that we had put them in this dilemma and, therefore, we should find a way out”.
Elizabeth’s lawyer told the department “he must now seek instructions” from his client, while Drukker advised a colleague: “I think we should now do what you suggested we should do – warn ministers.”
A change in the law
A follow-up memo three days later by another public official, CW Roberts, echoed Farrer’s concerns, referring to the Queen by name.
He wrote: “Mr. Farrer was not only concerned that information about the shares held by the Queen and the transactions between them could become public knowledge (since they would appear on the company’s register) and therefore subject to possible controversy.
“He considers any disclosure of usufruct of shares by the crown, even if restricted to company directors, as potentially embarrassing, due to the risk of leaks.”
Government files show that the bill was eventually changed so that a broader class of investors would be exempt.
Geoffrey Howe, the conservative government’s trade secretary, wrote: “Such a class could generally be defined to cover, say, heads of state, governments, central monetary authorities, investment councils and international bodies formed by governments.”
“Consent is always granted by the monarch”
A Buckingham Palace spokesman emphasized that the monarch did not attempt to block the legislation.
A statement said: “The Queen’s consent is a parliamentary process, with the role of the Sovereign purely formal.
“Consent is always granted by the Monarch when requested by the Government. Any claim that the Sovereign has blocked the legislation is simply incorrect.
“If the queen’s consent is necessary, it is decided by Parliament, independently of the Royal House, on matters that would affect the interests of the Crown, including personal property and personal interests of the Monarch.
“If consent is necessary, the bill is, by convention, submitted to the Sovereign to grant only on the recommendation of ministers and as a matter of public record.”