Queen Elizabeth II’s net worth is reportedly $ 480 million – amid allegations that she has pushed the government to change a law to keep her wealth secret.
The monarch’s lawyer has put civil servants under pressure to change draft legislation so the public was unable to find out about her shares in the 1970s, it turned out.
A proposed new law has been introduced to give new transparency to companies, enabling directors to know who owns or controls shares.
Queen Farrer’s lawyer, Matthew Farrer, said his clients took the issue “very seriously” and conceded that the disclosure of investments would be “embarrassing”, according to classified government documents at the UK National Archives.
The documents, published by The guardian, says the queen’s private legal adviser claims that government officials “put themselves in this trouble and therefore need to find a way out.”
Max Mumby / Indigo / Getty
This took place during a 1973 meeting with staff of the Department of Trade and Industry, who asked officials to ‘warn ministers’.
The revelations expose the palace to allegations that the queen gained access to the government in support of her own private financial interests.
Thomas Adams, an expert 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 is paid public money annually by the Sovereign Grant, which amounts to $ 118 million this tax year.
She also has income from the Duchy of Lancaster, a private estate held in trust for the sovereign of the United Kingdom, worth more than $ 738 million.
However, her personal wealth is much more difficult to trace due to laws and exemptions that apply to the royal family.
Despite the added secrecy, the Sunday Times Rich List valued its net worth at £ 350 million ($ 480 million) in 2020, saying many of its shares were invested in blue-chip stocks.
The guardianThe investigation showed how the government enacted legislation in 1973 to bring about new transparency for British companies.
For the first time, directors would be able to learn information about shareholders, which was not previously available.
According to papers from the National Archives, the queen’s lawyer could believe that the law could lead to directors and even the public and media where Elizabeth had invested her money.
According to the documents, the civil servant CM Drukker wrote on November 9: ‘I spoke with mr. Farrer spoke.
‘As I recall, he – or rather, I think, his clients – is just as concerned about the risk of disclosure to company directors as it is to shareholders and the general public.
“He justifies it not only because of the danger that someone else might accidentally or indiscriminately leak, but more basically because the disclosure to any person would be an embarrassment.”
“Warn ministers”
Buckingham Palace was first consulted on the proposed law because the British government had to get ‘royal permission’.
The tradition in Britain is that the monarch should be consulted on legislation that may affect the interests of the crown.
The documents apparently show that the advanced warning enabled the monarchy to intervene at an early stage of the drafting process in order to persuade the government to change the law.
The civil servant described in the British Government’s internal memorandum how the Queen’s lawyer is objecting to any disclosure about her investments, whether it is controversial.
Drukker wrote: ‘He does not like any suggestions that possession is not so embarrassing these days, given the wide knowledge of, for example, land ownership.
“He also did not see that the problem could be solved by avoiding shares in certain companies. It was the knowledge itself that was offensive.”
The document sets out how Drukker told the lawyer that the crown could only be granted exemption, as the anonymity of an investor suggests that it should be the queen.
To this the document states that Farrer ‘was somewhat frightened, emphasized that the problem had been taken very seriously and suggested – somewhat tentatively – that we had put them in this trouble and therefore had to find a way out.’
Elizabeth’s lawyer told the department “he should now be instructed by his client, while Drukker advised a colleague:” I think we should now do what you suggested we should finally do – warn ministers. “
A change of law
A follow-up note three days later by another government official, CW Roberts, reiterated Farrer’s concern, referring to the queen by name.
He writes: ‘Mr. Farrer was not only concerned that information about shares held for the Queen, and the transactions therein, could become public knowledge (as it would appear in the company’s register) and thus could be the subject of possible controversy.
“He regards any disclosure of beneficial ownership of shares by the Crown, even if limited to the directors of the company, as a potential embarrassment due to the risk of leaks.”
The government dossiers show that the draft law was eventually changed so that a wider class of investor would be released.
Geoffrey Howe, trade secretary in the Conservative government, wrote: “Such a class can be broadly defined, for example, heads of state, governments, central monetary authorities, investment boards and international bodies formed by governments.”
“Permission is always granted by the monarch”
A Buckingham Palace spokesman stressed that the monarch had not tried to stop the legislation.
A statement said: ‘Queen’s Consent is a parliamentary process, with the role of Sovereign purely formal.
‘Permission is always granted by the Monarch at the request of the government. Any allegation that the Sovereign has blocked legislation is simply not correct.
‘Whether Queen’s permission is required is decided by Parliament, independent of the royal household, in matters affecting Crown’s interests, including the personal property and personal interests of the Monarch.
“If permission is required, draft legislation is by convention imposed on the Sovereign to serve only on the advice of ministers and as a matter of public record.”