[Diggers350] Queen Got 1973 Companies Act Exclusion Clause To Hide ‘Embarrassing’ Private Wealth

Tony Gosling tony at cultureshop.org.uk
Mon Feb 15 15:20:31 GMT 2021

Queen Elizabeth II Got 1973 Companies Act 
Exclusion Clause To Hide ‘Embarrassing’ Private Wealth

So. What Might Be The Extent Of Queen Elizabeth 
II’s Hidden Wealth
.? (see bottom)

<http://tlio.org.uk/author/tony/>TONY GOSLING 
OCCASIONAL EMAILS HERE https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/diggers350


Revealed: Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth

the Queen’s territories are added together, the 
Russian Federation ceases to be the largest single political entity on earth.

Elizabeth’s private lawyer put pressure on Edward 
Heaths ministers to alter a law that would have 
revealed her shareholdings to the public, 
government memos show. Composite: Guardian Design Team

Monarch dispatched private solicitor to secure exemption from transparency law

Pegg and 
Evans  Sun 7 Feb 2021 
<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent>Queen’s consent


<https://www.theguardian.com/uk/queen>The Queen 
successfully lobbied the government to change a 
draft law in order to conceal her embarrassing 
private wealth from the public, according to 
documents discovered by the Guardian.

A series of government memos unearthed in the 
National Archives reveal that Elizabeth Windsors 
private lawyer put pressure on ministers to alter 
proposed legislation to prevent her shareholdings 
from being disclosed to the public.

Following the Queens intervention, the government 
inserted a clause into the law granting itself 
the power to exempt companies used by heads of 
state from new transparency measures.

The arrangement, which was concocted in the 
1970s, was used in effect to create a 
state-backed shell corporation which is 
understood to have placed a veil of secrecy over 
the Queens private shareholdings and investments until at least 2011.

The true scale of her wealth has never been 
disclosed, though it has been estimated to run 
into the hundreds of millions of pounds.

Evidence of the monarchs lobbying of ministers 
was uncovered by a Guardian investigation into 
the royal family’s use of an arcane parliamentary 
procedure, known as Queens consent, to secretly 
influence the formation of British laws.

Unlike the better-known procedure of royal 
assent, a formality that marks the moment when a 
bill becomes law, Queens consent must be sought 
before legislation can be approved by parliament.

It requires ministers to alert the Queen when 
legislation might affect either the royal 
prerogative or the private interests of the crown.

of the royal family describes it as a long 
established convention and constitutional 
scholars have tended to regard consent as an 
opaque but harmless example of the pageantry that surrounds the monarchy.

But documents unearthed in the National Archives, 
which the Guardian is publishing this week, 
suggest that the consent process, which gives the 
Queen and her lawyers advance sight of bills 
coming into parliament, has enabled her to 
secretly lobby for legislative changes.

Thomas Adams, a specialist in constitutional law 
at Oxford University who reviewed the new 
documents, said they revealed the kind of 
influence over legislation that lobbyists would 
only dream of. The mere existence of the consent 
procedure, he said, appeared to have given the 
monarch substantial influence over draft laws that could affect her.

Disclosure would be embarrassing

The papers reveal that in November 1973 the Queen 
feared that a proposed bill to bring transparency 
to company shareholdings could enable the public 
to scrutinise her finances. As a result she 
dispatched her private lawyer to press the government to make changes.

Matthew Farrer, then a partner at the prestigious 
law firm Farrer & Co, visited civil servants at 
the then Department of Trade and Industry to 
discuss the proposed transparency measures in the 
companies bill, which had been drafted by Edward Heaths government.

The bill sought to prevent investors from 
secretly building up significant stakes in listed 
companies by acquiring their shares through front 
companies or nominees. It would therefore include 
a clause granting directors the right to demand 
that any nominees owning their companys shares 
reveal, when asked, the identities of their clients.

Three crucial pages of correspondence between 
civil servants at the trade department reveal 
how, at that meeting, Farrer relayed the Queens 
objection that the law would reveal her private 
investments in listed companies, as well as their 
value. He proposed that the monarch be exempted.

I have spoken to Mr Farrer, a civil servant 
called CM Drukker wrote on 9 November. As I had 
recalled he or rather, I think, his clients are 
quite as concerned over the risk of disclosure to 
directors of a company as to shareholders and the general public.

He justifies this not only because of the risk of 
inadvertent or indiscreet leaking to other 
people, Drukker continued, but more basically 
because disclosure to any person would be embarrassing.

After being informed that exempting only the 
crown from the legislation would mean it was 
obvious any shareholdings so anonymised were the 
Queens property, Farrer, the correspondence 
states, took fright somewhat, emphasised that the 
problem was taken very seriously and suggested 
somewhat tentatively that we had put them into 
this quandary and must therefore find a way out.

Drukker continued: He did not like any 
suggestions that holdings were not these days so 
embarrassing, given the wide knowledge of, for 
example, landed property held. Nor did he see 
that the problem might be resolved by any 
avoidance of holdings in particular companies. It 
was the knowledge per se that was objectionable.

After being informed by Farrer that he must now 
seek instruction from his client, Drukker advised 
a colleague: I think we must now do what you 
suggested we should eventually do warn ministers.

Three days later, another civil servant, CW 
Roberts, summarised the problem in a second memo.

Mr Farrer was not only concerned that information 
about shares held for the Queen, and transactions 
in them, could become public knowledge (since it 
would appear on the companys register) and thus 
the subject of possible controversy, Roberts wrote.

He regards any disclosure of beneficial ownership 
of shares by the crown, even if restricted to the 
directors of the company, as potentially 
embarrassing, because of the risk of leaks.

He continued: Mr Farrer has accepted an 
invitation to go into the matter with us, but has 
said that he will not be able to do so for a few 
days, until he has taken instructions from his principals.

Secrecy clause

By the following month the Heath government had 
developed an ingenious proposal through which the 
Queens dilemma might be resolved.

With the help of the Bank of England, my 
department have evolved the following solutions, 
which will appear in the bill, wrote the 
Conservative trade minister Geoffrey Howe to a fellow minister.

Howe proposed that the government would insert a 
new clause into the bill granting the government 
the power to exempt certain companies from the 
requirement to declare the identities of their shareholders.

Officially, the change would be for the benefit 
of a variety of wealthy investors. Such a class 
could be generally defined to cover, say, heads 
of state, governments, central monetary 
authorities, investment boards and international 
bodies formed by governments, Howe continued.

In practice, however, the Queen was plainly the 
intended beneficiary of the arrangement. The 
government intended to create a shell company 
through which a range of these investors could 
hold shares. It meant that any curious member of 
the public would be unable to pinpoint which of 
the shares owned by the company were held on behalf of the monarch.

My department have discussed this solution with 
the legal advisers to the Queen, Howe noted. 
While they cannot of course commit themselves to 
using the suggested new facility, they accept 
that it is a perfectly reasonable solution to the 
problem which they face, and that they could not 
ask us to do more. I am therefore arranging that 
the necessary provisions should appear in the bill.

It would be three years before the bill and its 
secrecy clause would come into law. In February 
1974 Heath called a general election, resulting 
in all legislation that was going through parliament being thrown out.

However, the proposal was resuscitated by the 
subsequent Labour government under Harold Wilson 
and became law in 1976, with much of the original 
bill simply copied into the second edition.

The exemption was 
immediately granted to a newly formed company 
called Bank of England Nominees Limited, operated 
by senior individuals at the Bank of England, 
which has previously been identified as a 
possible vehicle through which the Queen held shares.

Shares believed to be owned by the Queen were 
transferred to the company in April 1977, 
according to a 1989 book by the journalist Andrew Morton.

The exemption is believed to have helped conceal 
the Queens private fortune until at least 2011, 
when the government 
that Bank of England Nominees was no longer covered by it.

Four years ago, the company was closed down. 
Precisely what happened to the shares it held on 
behalf of others is not clear. As a dormant 
company, it never filed public accounts itemising its activities.

A possible landmine

The use of Queens consent is normally recorded in 
Hansard, the official record of parliamentary 
debates, before a bills third reading. However, 
no notification of consent for the 1976 bill 
appears in the record, possibly because it was 
only sought for the 1973 version that never made it to third reading.

Howe, who died in 2015, appears to have disclosed 
the role of Queens consent which is invoked when 
ministers believe a draft law might affect the 
royal prerogative or the private interests of the 
crown during a parliamentary debate in 1975 
a previously unnoticed speech.

In relation to that draft legislation, as to any 
other, the advisers of the Queen, as they do as a 
matter of routine, examined the bill to see 
whether it contained, inadvertently or otherwise, 
any curtailment of the royal prerogative, Howe said.

Howe had been prompted to speak in the 
parliamentary debate during a row caused by the 
leak of high-level Whitehall papers to the 
Morning Star newspaper. The leak revealed the 
governments intention to exempt the Windsor wealth from the companies bill.

It was a major scoop for the communist newspaper, 
but the leaked papers did not establish whether 
the Queen had lobbied the government to help conceal her wealth.

At the time, the Financial Times remarked that a 
possible landmine for the Conservatives would be 
if Buckingham Palace in 1973 had taken the 
initiative in suggesting that disclosure of the 
Queens shareholdings should be excluded from the bill.

The newly discovered papers reveal exactly that. 
At the very least, it seems clear that 
representations on the part of the crown were 
material in altering the shape of the legislation, Adams said.

When contacted by the Guardian, Buckingham Palace 
did not answer any questions about the Queens 
lobbying to alter the companies bill, or whether 
she had used the consent procedure to put pressure on the government.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the Queen 
said: Queens consent is a parliamentary process, 
with the role of sovereign purely formal. Consent 
is always granted by the monarch where requested by government.

Whether Queen’s consent is required is decided by 
parliament, independently from the royal 
household, in matters that would affect crown 
interests, including personal property and 
personal interests of the monarch, she said.

If consent is required, draft legislation is, by 
convention, put to the sovereign to grant solely 
on advice of ministers and as a matter of public record.

So. What Might Be The Extent Of Queen Elizabeth II’s Hidden Wealth

Who owns the world? The Queen, the family of the 
actress Nicole Kidman, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and the media tycoon


When the Queen’s territories are added together, 
the Russian Federation ceases to be the largest 
single political entity on earth. Like the 
Queen’s realms, the Russian Federation is 
dramatically underpopulated and immensely rich in mineral wealth of all kinds.

Together, the Queen’s realms have a depth of 
international political defence unlike any other 
alliance. They are combined together in the 
Commonwealth, the largest single bloc in the 
United Nations, the largest single combination of 
nations outside the UN, and they are all headed 
by the same diminutive octogenarian. If the Queen 
could convert her landholdings into cash, she 
would not only be the richest individual on 
earth, but also the richest person who has ever 
lived. Another way she could achieve that, 
however, is by turning upside down the 13 tax 
havens of which she is both ruler and owner and shaking the cash out of them.

#1 Queen Elizabeth II – Queen Elizabeth UK


Land: 6.6 billion acres of land worldwide 
including Great Britain, Northern Ireland, 
Canada, Australia and a few other spots here and 
there. Also, the all-important Falkland Islands.

Background: England’s third (and most likely soon 
to be second) longest serving monarch, Elizabeth 
II retains royal title over The British 
Commonwealth and as such manages to keep her face 
on money throughout the globe.

With her 6.6 billion acres, Elizabeth II is far 
and away the world’s largest landowner, with the 
closest runner-up (King Abdullah) holding control 
over a mere 547 million, or about 12% of the 
lands owned by Her Majesty, The Queen.

estimates provided by The New Statesman.

Queen Elizabeth II owns 10,312,500 square miles 
of the Earths surface surpassing the states of Russia, China, and the U.S.A.


Aren’t they just so deserving?

In fact, the Queen of England is the largest landowner on Earth.

Turns out, the Queen of England (of royal German 
lineage: Saxe-Coburg-Gotha of the House of Wettin 
Monarchy planned to imprison Jews into 
Concentration Camps, confiscate Jewish property 
in 1926 years before Nazis ) owns what amounts to 
one sixth of the earths non ocean surface.  Which 
makes her, among other things, the richest person in the world.

In fact, She is the only person on earth who owns 
whole countries, and who owns countries that are 
not her own domestic territory.

Interestingly, Queen Elizabeths personal land 
holdings are presented in somewhat of a 
diminished fashion in the article where this information is found (see below).

Using the figures provided, if one divides 
$33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three TRILLION 
dollars) the estimated value of her private land 
holdings according to the article by $5,000 (the 
estimated value given per acre in the article), 
one finds the number of acres personally owned by 
the Queen is not in the millions. Its in the BILLIONS.

Queen Elizabeth II  has title to, and is 
therefore the legal owner of 6,600,000,000 ( SIX 
BILLION, six hundred million) acres of the Earths 
surface. Thats 10,312,500 square miles.  Quite the little homestead.

Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth.

Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United 
Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, 
is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres 
of land, one sixth of the earths non ocean surface.

She is the only person on earth who owns whole 
countries, and who owns countries that are not 
her own domestic territory. This land ownership 
is separate from her role as head of state and is 
different from other monarchies where no such 
claim is made Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.

The value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx).

This makes her the richest individual on earth. 
However, there is no way easily to value her real 
estate. There is no current market in the land of 
entire countries. At a rough estimate of $5,000 
an acre, and based on the sale of Alaska to the 
USA by the Tsar, and of Louisiana to the USA by 
France, the Queens land holding is worth a 
notional $33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three 
trillion dollars or about £17,600,000,000,000).

Her holding is based on the laws of the countries 
she owns and, land title is valid in all the 
countries she owns. Her main holdings are Canada, 
the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 
million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country 
on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New 
Guinea with 114 million acres, New Zealand with 
66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres.

She is the worlds largest landowner by a 
significant margin. The next largest landowner is 
the Russian state, with an overall ownership of 
4,219 million acres, and a direct ownership 
comparable with the Queens land holding of 2,447 
million acres. The 3rd largest landowner is the 
Chinese state, which claims all of Chinese land, 
about 2,365 million acres. The 4th largest 
landowner on earth is the Federal Government of 
the United States, which owns about one third of 
the land of the USA, 760 million acres. The fifth 
largest landowner on earth is the King of Saudi Arabia with 553 million acres

Largest five personal landowners on Earth

Queen Elizabeth II
6,600 million acres

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
553 million acres

King Bhumibol of Thailand
126 million acres

King Mohammed IV of Morocco
113 million acres

Sultan Quaboos of Oman
76 million acres
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/pipermail/diggers350/attachments/20210215/182aace4/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: fbb4f9b5.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 162473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/pipermail/diggers350/attachments/20210215/182aace4/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
NB please do reply with remove as the subject or 
first line if you do not wish to recieve further emails - thanks

"And I think, in the end, that is the best 
definition of journalism I have heard; to 
challenge authority - all authority - especially 
so when governments and politicians take us to 
war, when they have decided that they will kill and others will die. "
--Robert Fisk

Download, donation only, Tony's three watermarked 
books http://www.bilderberg.org  - My books https://payhip.com/TonyGosling

'From South America, where payment must be made 
with subtlety, the Bormann organization has made 
a substantial contribution. It has drawn many of 
the brightest Jewish businessmen into a 
participatory role in the development of many of 
its corporations, and many of these Jews share 
their prosperity most generously with Israel. If 
their proposals are sound, they are even provided 
with a specially dispensed venture capital fund. 
I spoke with one Jewish businessmen in Hartford, 
Connecticut. He had arrived there quite unknown 
several years before our conversation, but with 
Bormann money as his leverage. Today he is more 
than a millionaire, a quiet leader in the 
community with a certain share of his profits 
earmarked as always for his venture capital 
benefactors. This has taken place in many other 
instances across America and demonstrates how 
Bormann’s people operate in the contemporary 
commercial world, in contrast to the fanciful 
nonsense with which Nazis are described in so much “literature.”

So much emphasis is placed on select Jewish 
participation in Bormann companies that when 
Adolf Eichmann was seized and taken to Tel Aviv 
to stand trial, it produced a shock wave in the 
Jewish and German communities of Buenos Aires. 
Jewish leaders informed the Israeli authorities 
in no uncertain terms that this must never happen 
again because a repetition would permanently 
rupture relations with the Germans of Latin 
America, as well as with the Bormann 
organization, and cut off the flow of Jewish 
money to Israel. It never happened again, and the 
pursuit of Bormann quieted down at the request of 
these Jewish leaders. He is residing in an 
Argentinian safe haven, protected by the most 
efficient German infrastructure in history as 
well as by all those whose prosperity depends on his well-being.'

Download, donation only, Tony's three watermarked 
books http://www.bilderberg.org
Or buy Tony's three books for £10-£15 here https://payhip.com/TonyGosling


You can donate to support Tony's work here http://www.bilderberg.org/bcfm.htm

TG mobile +44 7786 952037  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/pipermail/diggers350/attachments/20210215/182aace4/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Diggers350 mailing list