4 ms·

Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth

33 points by bezout 6y ago

vmception 6y ago
> the Queen’s objection that the law would reveal her private investments in listed companies, as well as their value I mean that seems rational for the function of the markets. I don’t really care how those landowners pulled a wool over that kingdom’s eyes. It is fascinating how they escape any criticism.
- ASalazarMX 6y ago
  "But how would the royal family hide any conflicts of interest from the public?" - The queen, probably
  - vmception 6y ago
    From what I could tell in that article the process is more like MP: "hey would you like the public to look at all your finances" Queen: "ah, hm, no I'm good" Queen's barrister/friend who happens to be in the room for tea: "shrug, also the people would FOMO into everything you invest, have you seen how they fawn over you, horrible idea with this lot" Reporters 50 years later "The Queen devised a scheme using obscure legislative process to lobby for an exemption...."
jdkee 6y ago
It will be interesting to watch the English monarchy (and other monarchies) over the next decade and see if governments can expropriate the sovereign’s wealth.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Charles is the best chance Republicans will get for a while (I honestly wouldn't be surprised if everyone in line for the throne at the moment isn't a royalist at heart) > if governments can expropriate the sovereign’s wealth. It's pocket change, not worth the effort. The thing that needs to be eliminated is The Crown's ability to be used to bypass parliament
zokier 6y ago
The article tries hard to paint the picture that Queen pressurized in a uncouth manner the government to change the (proposed) legislation, but to me it seems the legislators were perfectly happy to accommodate the Queen without any significant pressurization. From my point of view just voicing opinion or preference (which I think happened here) should alone not be considered pressurization. If there was any threat, coercion, or bribery going on then the situation of course would be very different, but I cannot see it being the case here.
- randompwd 6y ago
  > just voicing opinion or preference (which I think happened here) should alone not be considered pressurization This is England. She's the Queen. Pressurisation is exactly what this is.
Kaibeezy 6y ago
Four years ago, the (shell) 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. We mean it, man.

33 points by bezout 6y ago

> the Queen’s objection that the law would reveal her private investments in listed companies, as well as their value I mean that seems rational for the function of the markets. I don’t really care how those landowners pulled a wool over that kingdom’s eyes. It is fascinating how they escape any criticism.

ASalazarMX 6y ago
"But how would the royal family hide any conflicts of interest from the public?" - The queen, probably
- vmception 6y ago
  From what I could tell in that article the process is more like MP: "hey would you like the public to look at all your finances" Queen: "ah, hm, no I'm good" Queen's barrister/friend who happens to be in the room for tea: "shrug, also the people would FOMO into everything you invest, have you seen how they fawn over you, horrible idea with this lot" Reporters 50 years later "The Queen devised a scheme using obscure legislative process to lobby for an exemption...."

jdkee 6y ago

It will be interesting to watch the English monarchy (and other monarchies) over the next decade and see if governments can expropriate the sovereign’s wealth.

mhh__ 6y ago
Charles is the best chance Republicans will get for a while (I honestly wouldn't be surprised if everyone in line for the throne at the moment isn't a royalist at heart) > if governments can expropriate the sovereign’s wealth. It's pocket change, not worth the effort. The thing that needs to be eliminated is The Crown's ability to be used to bypass parliament

zokier 6y ago

The article tries hard to paint the picture that Queen pressurized in a uncouth manner the government to change the (proposed) legislation, but to me it seems the legislators were perfectly happy to accommodate the Queen without any significant pressurization. From my point of view just voicing opinion or preference (which I think happened here) should alone not be considered pressurization. If there was any threat, coercion, or bribery going on then the situation of course would be very different, but I cannot see it being the case here.

randompwd 6y ago
> just voicing opinion or preference (which I think happened here) should alone not be considered pressurization This is England. She's the Queen. Pressurisation is exactly what this is.

Kaibeezy 6y ago

Four years ago, the (shell) 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. We mean it, man.