The Queen secretly owns Bank of England shares

Tony Gosling tony at
Sun Jun 10 19:45:11 BST 2012

At last making some real headway with this vexing 
question of who owns the shares of the Bank of England.
This ain't nationalisation ma'am!

2 Extracts from
A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy
By Lynne Picnett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior
With additional historical research by Robert Brydon
Mainstream publishing – 2003
1 84018 766 2

In early 1973 new legislation governing the 
ownership of shares was proposed by the Heath 
Government. This would force stockbroking 
companies to disclose the names of the 
individuals on whose behalf they bought shares 
(to prevent them gaining a controlling interest 
in a company by buying shares in several 
different names). The Queen was concerned that 
this would mean that details of her private 
investments would be made public, which would 
allow her personal wealth to be calculated - 
which the royal family had always strenuously 
avoided - and asked her Private Secretary, Sir 
Martin Charteris (who had succeeded Sir Michael 
Adeane in 1972), to express her anxiety to Edward Heath.
The legislation was delayed, but eventually 
became law - under Labour in 1976 as the 
Companies Act. However, a special clause was 
included that exempted a new shareholding 
company, Bank of England Nominees. This was 
established with the purpose of handling 
investments solely on behalf of heads of state 
and their immediate families. This allowed the 
Queen's investments and those of her family - 
along with those of other heads of state, such as 
the Sultan of Brunei, who were quick to take 
advantage of the exemption - to be effectively 
concealed. Extraordinarily, not even the 
Chancellor of the Exchequer is permitted to know 
about the Queen's personal investments.
Andrew Morton writes:
The result of this legislation has been to cocoon 
further the royal finances in a web of mystery. 
Journalists who delve into dusty share registers 
find the impenetrable phrase 'Bank of England 
Nominees' staring back at them when they try to 
find a hint of royal investment in a company.
The justification for the clause was that public 
knowledge about where the Queen invested her 
money might influence the market. However, that 
this was just an excuse is revealed by a memo 
sent from the Palace to the Government saying 
that it is 'to be congratulated on a neat and 
defensible solution'. In other words, the Palace 
were pleased that the Government had come up with 
a way of justifying the secrecy.

........Thanks to the legal privileges she enjoys 
- such being able to hide her investments behind 
the screen of the Bank of England Nominees - the 
Queen's personal wealth is literally 
incalculable. There is no information available 
to enable it to be calculated with certainty, 
although a recent analysis by the Independent 
estimated Elizabeth II's personal fortune to be 
around £175 million. Of course, the question can 
fairly be asked why her subjects need to know 
about her private means, which are quite separate 
from the government funds intended to pay for her 
expenses as Head of State. But the distinction is 
not always clear: for example, although the 
estates at Balmoral and Sandringham - acquired in 
Victoria's reign - are said to be the Queen's 
private property, there is evidence that Victoria 
and Albert acquired them at least partly with 
money diverted from the Civil List, in which case 
surely the state has a claim on them? And when 
these houses are occupied they are paid for by 
the taxpayer, on the grounds that wherever the 
Queen is she is always the Head of State.
What of the Royal Collection - the works of art 
that according to one estimate are worth around 
£7 billion, and which contain three times as many 
paintings as the National Gallery? In theory the 
Queen holds all these 'in trust' for the nation; 
in practice she alone possesses them, while they 
remain largely unseen by the rest of us (at 
anyone time, less than a half of a per cent of 
the collection is on public display). There is 
also the very vexed question of the 'grace and 
favour' properties, paid for the state but occupied by......

1. 'A Kingly Caste of Germans'
2. 'The People's Prince'
3. 'Christ! What's Going to Happen Next?'
4. 'A Kind of English National Socialist'
5. 'The Most Unconstitutional Act'
6. 'The End of Many Hopes'
7. 'The House of Mountbatten Now Reigns!'
8. 'That German Princeling'
9. 'In Spite of Everything, He was a Great Man'
10. 'After All I've Done for this F-ing Family'
11. 'There are Powers at Work in This Country 
About Which We Have No Knowledge'
Notes and References
+44 (0)7786 952037
"Capitalism is institutionalised bribery."

"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic 
poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung

Fear not therefore: for there is nothing covered 
that shall not be revealed; and nothing hid that 
shall not be made known. What I tell you in 
darkness, that speak ye in the light and what ye 
hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. Matthew 10:26-27

Die Pride and Envie; Flesh, take the poor's advice.
Covetousnesse be gon: Come, Truth and Love arise.
Patience take the Crown; throw Anger out of dores:
Cast out Hypocrisie and Lust, which follows whores:
Then England sit in rest; Thy sorrows will have end;
Thy Sons will live in peace, and each will be a friend.  

More information about the Diggers350 mailing list