[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
IIs Hidden Wealth
.? (see bottom)
http://tlio.org.uk/queen-elizabeth-ii-added-1973-companies-act-exclusion-clause-to-hide-her-embarrassing-private-wealth/
<http://tlio.org.uk/queen-elizabeth-ii-added-1973-companies-act-exclusion-clause-to-hide-her-embarrassing-private-wealth/>15Feb2021
<http://tlio.org.uk/author/tony/>TONY GOSLING
<http://tlio.org.uk/queen-elizabeth-ii-added-1973-companies-act-exclusion-clause-to-hide-her-embarrassing-private-wealth/#respond>LEAVE
A COMMENT SUBSCRIBE TO THE LAND IS OURS'
OCCASIONAL EMAILS HERE https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/diggers350
Emacs!
Revealed: Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth
<https://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2011/03/land-queen-world-australia>When
the Queens territories are added together, the
Russian Federation ceases to be the largest single political entity on earth.
Elizabeths 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
by
<https://www.theguardian.com/profile/david-pegg>David
Pegg and
<https://www.theguardian.com/profile/robevans>Rob
Evans Sun 7 Feb 2021
<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent>Queens consent
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth
<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 familys 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.
The
<https://www.royal.uk/queen-and-government?ch=2#bio-section-1>website
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
<https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1977-04-21/debates/444d1fd8-8354-4a66-b6ae-67ab85b26151/Shareholdings(Disclosure)?highlight=%22bank%20of%20england%20nominees%22#contribution-55f33c74-1339-439f-874c-501e0e1d8372>almost
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
<https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110426w0001.htm>disclosed
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
<https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1975-02-26/debates/58c1920d-cae3-45f1-9f72-f66d09719954/CivilList?highlight=%22companies%20bill%22#contribution-1c631db0-dc09-4c23-ba43-b841b31029b4>in
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 Queens 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 IIs Hidden Wealth
.?
Who owns the world? The Queen, the family of the
actress Nicole Kidman, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and the media tycoon
<https://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2011/03/land-queen-world-australia>https://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2011/03/land-queen-world-australia
When the Queens territories are added together,
the Russian Federation ceases to be the largest
single political entity on earth. Like the
Queens realms, the Russian Federation is
dramatically underpopulated and immensely rich in mineral wealth of all kinds.
Together, the Queens 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
<https://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-biggest-landowners-2011-3>https://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-biggest-landowners-2011-3
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: Englands 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 worlds 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.
<https://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-biggest-landowners-2011-3?r=US&IR=T#meet-the-other-us-land-barons-16>Acreage
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.
<http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/>http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/
Arent 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
See:
<https://adarapress.com/2019/07/06/wholesale-segregation-of-jews-had-been-planned-by-german-monarchists-failure-of-plot-following-relevations-saves-jewish-community-friday-may-14-1926-jta/>German
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
https://www.youtube.com/user/PublicEnquiry/videos
"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
Bormanns 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.'
<http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fspitfirelist.com%2Fbooks%2Fmartin-bormann-nazi-in-exile%2F&h=eAQErj17O>http<http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fspitfirelist.com%2Fbooks%2Fmartin-bormann-nazi-in-exile%2F&h=eAQErj17O>://spitfirelist.com/books/martin-bormann-nazi-in-exile/
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
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://www.thisweek.org.uk
http://www.911forum.org.uk
http://www.bilderberg.org
http://www.tlio.org.uk
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvPbHiqhLtpNWA_cg_1NULw
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMn9GM4atN3t7AHJBbHMR0Q
https://www.twitter.com/TonyGosling
https://www.facebook.com/tony.gosling.16
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