<html>
<body>
<h1><font size=5><b>Queen Elizabeth II Got 1973 Companies Act Exclusion
Clause To Hide ‘Embarrassing’ Private
Wealth</b></font></h1><font size=5><b>So. What Might Be The Extent Of
Queen Elizabeth II’s Hidden Wealth….? (see bottom)<br>
</b></font>
<a href="http://tlio.org.uk/queen-elizabeth-ii-added-1973-companies-act-exclusion-clause-to-hide-her-embarrassing-private-wealth/" eudora="autourl">
http://tlio.org.uk/queen-elizabeth-ii-added-1973-companies-act-exclusion-clause-to-hide-her-embarrassing-private-wealth/<br>
<br>
</a>
<a href="http://tlio.org.uk/queen-elizabeth-ii-added-1973-companies-act-exclusion-clause-to-hide-her-embarrassing-private-wealth/">
15Feb2021</a> <a href="http://tlio.org.uk/author/tony/">TONY GOSLING</a>
<a href="http://tlio.org.uk/queen-elizabeth-ii-added-1973-companies-act-exclusion-clause-to-hide-her-embarrassing-private-wealth/#respond">
LEAVE A COMMENT</a> <b>SUBSCRIBE TO THE LAND IS OURS' OCCASIONAL EMAILS
HERE</b>
<a href="https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/diggers350" eudora="autourl">
https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/diggers350<br><br>
</a><img src="cid:.0" width=666 height=290 alt="Emacs!"><br><br>
<h1><b>Revealed: Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private
wealth</b></h1><font size=5>
<a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2011/03/land-queen-world-australia">
When the Queen’s territories are added together, the Russian Federation
ceases to be the largest single political entity on earth.</a><br><br>
</font>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<br><br>
Monarch dispatched private solicitor to secure exemption from
transparency law<br><br>
by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/profile/david-pegg">David
Pegg</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/profile/robevans">Rob
Evans</a> Sun 7 Feb 2021
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent">
Queen’s consent</a><br><br>
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth" eudora="autourl">
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth<br>
<br>
</a><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/queen">The Queen</a>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
The true scale of her wealth has never been disclosed, though it has been
estimated to run into the hundreds of millions of pounds.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
It requires ministers to alert the Queen when legislation might affect
either the royal prerogative or the private interests of the
crown.<br><br>
The
<a href="https://www.royal.uk/queen-and-government?ch=2#bio-section-1">
website of the royal family</a> 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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<h2><b>Disclosure would be embarrassing</b></h2>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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Three days later, another civil servant, CW Roberts, summarised the
problem in a second memo.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<h2><b>Secrecy clause</b></h2>By the following month the Heath government
had developed an ingenious proposal through which the Queens dilemma
might be resolved.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
The exemption was
<a href="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</a> 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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
The exemption is believed to have helped conceal the Queens private
fortune until at least 2011, when the government
<a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110426w0001.htm">
disclosed</a> that Bank of England Nominees was no longer covered by
it.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<h2><b>A possible landmine</b></h2>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.<br><br>
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 href="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</a>.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<br>
<h1><b>So. What Might Be The Extent Of Queen Elizabeth II’s Hidden
Wealth….?<br><br>
</b></h1><h3><b>Who owns the world? The Queen, the family of the actress
Nicole Kidman, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and the media
tycoon…</b></h3>
<a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2011/03/land-queen-world-australia">
https://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2011/03/land-queen-world-australia</a>
<br><br>
<b>When the Queen’s territories are added together, the Russian
Federation ceases to be the largest single political entity on earth</b>.
Like the Queen’s realms, the Russian Federation is dramatically
underpopulated and immensely rich in mineral wealth of all
kinds.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<h2><b>#1 Queen Elizabeth II – Queen Elizabeth
UK</b></h2>
<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-biggest-landowners-2011-3">
https://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-biggest-landowners-2011-3</a><br>
<br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<a href="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.</a><br><br>
<h2><b>Queen Elizabeth II owns 10,312,500 square miles of the Earths
surface surpassing the states of Russia, China, and the
U.S.A.</b></h2>
<a href="http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/">
http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/</a><br>
<br>
Aren’t they just so deserving?<br><br>
In fact, the Queen of England is the largest landowner on Earth.<br><br>
Turns out, the Queen of England (of royal German lineage:
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha of the House of Wettin See:
<a href="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 </a>) owns what
amounts to one sixth of the earths non ocean surface. Which makes
her, among other things, the richest person in the world.<br><br>
<h3><b>In fact, She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries,
and who owns countries that are not her own domestic
territory.</b></h3>Interestingly, Queen Elizabeths personal land holdings
are presented in somewhat of a diminished fashion in the article where
this information is found (see below).<br><br>
Using the figures provided, if one divides <b>$33,000,000,000,000</b>
(Thirty three <b>TRILLION</b> dollars) <b>the estimated value of her
private land holdings according to the article</b> by <b>$5,000 </b>(the
estimated value given per acre in the article), one finds<b> the number
of acres personally owned by the Queen is not in the millions. Its in the
<i>BILLIONS</i>.<br><br>
<h3><b>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.<br><br>
<br>
</b></h3><h2><b>Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on
Earth.</b></h2><b>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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<h3><b>The value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000
(approx).</b></h3><b>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).<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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</b> <b>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<br><br>
<i>Largest five personal landowners on Earth<br><br>
</i>Queen Elizabeth II<br>
6,600 million acres<br><br>
</b>King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia<br>
553 million acres<br><br>
King Bhumibol of Thailand<br>
126 million acres<br><br>
King Mohammed IV of Morocco<br>
113 million acres<br><br>
Sultan Quaboos of Oman<br>
76 million acres<br>
</body>
</html>