Official documents found in the National Archives reveal that ministers in John Major’s government have succumbed to his demands amid fears that resistance to the heir to the throne could spark a constitutional crisis. The ministers retreated to “avoid a major dispute” with the prince, effectively allowing him to shake the hand of the elected government. The disclosure of the documents provides further evidence of how the royal family used the secret procedure known as the Queen’s consent to amend the law to the benefit of their private interests. Under the procedure, the monarch and her eldest son receive copies of bills in advance so they can examine whether the law affects public authorities or their private property, such as the Duchy of Cornwall or the privately owned estate. in Sandringham. Ministers must obtain the consent of the queen and the prince before legislation can be passed by parliament. This process is different from the most well-known process of royal consent, a formal process that makes a bill become law. A Guardian investigation has revealed that the Queen’s consent process has been used by the monarch in recent decades to push privately for change. During her reign, ministers were asked to secure the approval of the Queen or her son for more than 1,000 parliamentary acts before they could be implemented. Buckingham Palace and the government say the Queen’s consent is a “purely formal” part of the parliamentary process and is granted by the monarch as a matter of course. The palace said that “consent is always given by the monarch when requested by the government” and that “this process does not change the nature of any such bill”. But recently leaked documents, related to a lease reform act that became law in 1993, provide detailed evidence that Charles pressured elected ministers to secure an exception to prevent his own tenants from having the right to buy their own. their houses. The Windsor family has used the consent process to scrutinize at least four draft acts that changed rent laws since the 1960s. Under these laws, tenants live on rented property for a certain number of years, rather than owning it. fully. The changes have given tenants across the country the legal power in some cases to buy their homes from their landlords. Letters and internal memoirs from September and October 1992 show that Charles showed “close personal interest” in Newton St Loe, a small’s χωριό 1 billion estate in the ου 1 billion estate of the Duchy of Cornwall, and insisted that His properties there should be excluded from the proposed bill. His lobby provided a special exception for the village which to date has left the tenants in a worse financial position. The documents also reveal that Charles wrote directly to the Major in October 1992 stating that he would soon be requesting his consent to the lease bill and expressing his “particular concern” about another aspect of the proposed law – the that it would allow tenants to buy and renovate historic properties without retaining their “special character”.
“It is important to avoid a major dispute with the Prince of Wales”
Charles, as heir to the throne, receives a private annual income – currently about 20 20 million – from the profits of the Duchy of Cornwall, a fortune. The 52,000-hectare estate raises real estate rents in 20 counties in England and Wales. However, in some areas its tenants are prohibited from buying their homes. These tenants, whose number is unknown, continue to pay rent to the duchy – money which in turn is paid to the prince. Last year, after a Guardian inquiry revealed that Windsors had scrutinized various lease reforms, the duchy said in a statement that neither it nor the prince had “any involvement in drafting legislation related to any part of the lease reform.” the issue of tenants buying their homes. In September 1992, lawyers representing the duchy privately told the government they were concerned about the proposals contained in a new lease bill and argued that Newton St Loe tenants should be deprived of the right to buy their homes. David Landale, secretary of the duchy, said the village – one of the duchy’s main holdings – was “especially loved and appreciated by His Royal Highness because of the well-balanced mix of farms and woodlands”. On September 30, a Whitehall official, J.E. Roberts warned the ministers that “the difficulty is that the Prince of Wales is closely interested in the development of this village”, adding that Charles saw “no reason why he should now relinquish control.” “It has become clear to me that if the government wants to move forward on this issue, the prince will want to discuss it at the highest levels.” Roberts stressed: “The Prince of Wales is likely to return to Newton St Loe. “The ministers will then have to decide whether it is worth fighting with him over the issue.” Sir George Young, the housing minister at the time, and another minister, Tony Baldry, believed it was unjustified to prevent Newton St Loe tenants from buying their homes when others in the country had that right, according to a letter. He feared it would set a precedent for other large landowners. In a note on October 9, Roberts noted: “There can be no special case other than the fact that the prince has shown particular interest.” He warned that the most important goal of the ministers was “to ensure that the consent of the Queen and Prince of Wales on the bill is obtained; their consent is required before the bill is introduced”. “Ultimately I suppose the will of the ministers may prevail over the monarchy, but a constitutional crisis would add a further dimension of controversy to the bill that would be better avoided,” he wrote. Roberts warned that ministers would have to choose either to give in to the prince or to remain steadfast and “look for a mechanism to overcome the impasse.” “Unfortunately, I do not know that our constitution has provided for such a mechanism!” On October 22, Roberts advised: “Given that it is important to avoid a major dispute with the Prince of Wales… there is a chance to let things rest… It is open for the minister to fight if he wishes, acknowledging that it has costs on both sides. “ However, Baldry replied: “We have probably gone as far as we can with this; we should let the matter rest.” Young agreed: “I could live with it – reluctantly.” On the same day, the prince gave his consent to the bill. The special exemption forbidding Newton St Loe tenants from buying their homes was only made public when a later lease was enacted in 2002. Subscribe to the First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every morning at 7 p.m. BST A spokesman for the duchy said: “The Duchy of Cornwall estate is exempt from lease reform legislation but has agreed to act as if it were bound, except for a very small number of specific areas, including Newton St Loe. As you can imagine, we are not talking about individual leases “. In practice, only a small number of Newton St Loe tenants are affected by the ban. But they say they have suffered bitter financial hardship as a result of the prince’s special rights. One, Jane Giddins, said she and her husband could not borrow money from their home to pay for future social care. He added that the value of the 99-year lease on their home – their main asset – was steadily declining as it came to an end. “It is utter injustice and feudalism,” Giddins said. “Because my property belongs to someone who is extremely rich and powerful, I am not protected by the law that applies to everyone else in this country. There is nothing that I can do about it. “ She said that when she and her husband received the lease in 1996, the duchy told them about the ban on its purchase – but they were unaware that the prince had pressured the village to stay out of the wage reform. “I was of the opinion that it was so obviously anachronistic and blatantly unfair that by the time I solved it, the law would have changed. “And I had no idea that the duchy could stop settling the law.”
