A ROYAL aide successfully lobbied on the Queen’s behalf to ensure national traffic rules did not apply to her private estates of Balmoral and Sandringham, according to reports.
Research undertaken by The Guardian into archive documents has found more than one thousand laws have been vetted by the Queen.
The newspaper suggests the monarch’s advisers sought changes not only to a transport bill, but laws relating to national monuments and land policy.
The Guardian’s claims stem from documents it has uncovered relating to the use of the Parliamentary procedure known as Queen’s Consent, where the monarch’s approval is sought before legislation – which may affect either the royal prerogative or the sovereign’s private interests – can be passed by Parliament.
In 1968, Richard Marsh, the then transport secretary, wrote to the Queen requesting her consent for amendments to a new transport bill which would see all roads – including those on Crown land – face the same rules.
Matthew Farrer, the Queen’s then private solicitor, telephoned civil servants with an official noting he was “bothered” about roads on the Queen’s private estates,“which he certainly would not wish to see any traffic law applied to”, the Guardian reported.
The Queen granted consent to the bill after an aide wrote to Marsh.
The Guardian has already reported claims the monarch’s private lawyer lobbied the Government to change a draft law to conceal her private wealth, revealed by the documents from the National Archive.
It has tallied the number of parliamentary bills that the Queen gave her consent to and found 1062 instances, from the early years of her reign up to the present day.
Areas covered by the laws ranged from food policy to race relations and rules on car parking charges.
Graham Smith, chief executive officer of the anti-monarchy group Republic, said: “We’ve always suspected that there is a lot of lobbying going on behind closed doors, by the Queen and other royals, to protect their own private interests.
“This is a clear abuse of power for personal gain, and it cannot be ignored. The royal household needs to be held to the same standards as everyone else.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel