By Dr George Venturini  

On 5 August 1995 The New York Times published an article by Keith Bradsher, in which he wrote: “In a small Swiss city sits an international organisation so obscure and secretive … Control of the institution, the Bank for International Settlements, lies with some of the world’s most powerful and least visible men: the heads of thirty-two central banks, officials able to shift billions of dollars at the stroke of a pen.”

On  28 June 1998 The Washington Post published an article about the Bank for International Settlements titled: “At Secret Meetings in Switzerland, 13 people shape the world’s economy”, which described these individuals as “this economic cabal…this secretive group … the financial barons who control the world’s supply of money.”

Quigley commented: “Each Central bank sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.”

Another book, Secret records revealed, by Dr. Dennis Lawrence Cuddy complements the story.

This book would almost be better titled, sub-titled maybe, ‘Quotes about conspiracy theories from people in high places.’ It is an excellent reference book for anyone wanting to support a claim for a ‘shadowy cabal’, as it quotes the very men who and the organisation which are implicated, saying just as much. An example may suffice:
“On [15 December 1922] the Council on Foreign Relations’ Journal, Foreign Affairs, published an article…in which it was said that:

“Obviously there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind as long as [the earth] remains divided into 50 or 60 independent states … until some kind of international system is created which will put an end to the diplomatic struggles …”

The book goes to show that whether one thinks that there is a conspiracy under foot or not is really irrelevant, given the fact that the people who have all the power do believe in ‘conspiracy theories’. I highly recommend this book. Cuddy focuses on Cecil Rhodes who in 1890 famously said that  he would start a movement which would in one hundred years bring in a world government in which there would be no war and only one language. One hundred years later on 11 September 1991, President Bush-Senior announced before the United States Congress the arrival of the ‘New World Order’. Since early this century Rhodes Scholars have been involved with the C.F.R, United Nations, International Monetary Fund, international banking, Congress, and federal administrations. Dr. Cuddy reveals the source of the conspiracy which has been dedicated to erasing nationalism and replacing it with a world government. (D.L. Cuddy, Secret Records Revealed: The Men, the Money, and the Methods Behind the New World Order, Hearthstone Publisher, Plantsville, Connecticut 1999).

The authors of War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy commented: “Thanks to the legal privileges she enjoys – such being able to hide her investments behind the screen of the Bank of England Nominees – the Queen’s personal wealth is literally incalculable. There is no information available to enable it to be calculated with certainty, although a recent analysis by the Independent estimated Elizabeth II’s personal fortune to be around £175 million [in 2002]. Of course, the question can fairly be asked why her subjects need to know about her private means, which are quite separate from the government funds intended to pay for her expenses as Head of State. But the distinction is not always clear: for example, although the estates at Balmoral and Sandringham – acquired in Victoria’s reign – are said to be the Queen’s private property, there is evidence that Victoria and Albert acquired them at least partly with money diverted from the Civil List, in which case surely the state has a claim on them? And when these houses are occupied they are paid for by the taxpayer, on the grounds that wherever the Queen is she is always the Head of State. What of the Royal Collection – the works of art that according to one estimate are worth around £7 billion [in 2002], and which contain three times as many paintings as the National Gallery? In theory the Queen holds all these ‘in trust’ for the nation; in practice she alone possesses them, while they remain largely unseen by the rest of us (at any one time, less than a half of a per cent of the collection is on public display). There is also the very vexed question of the ‘grace and favour’ properties, paid for the state.” (L. Picknett, C. Prince, S. Prior, War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy, Mainstream Publishing, Edinburgh, Scotland, 2002).

And what of the Crown Estate?

This is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom, producing £211 million for the Treasury in the financial year 2007-2008, and with holdings of £7.3 billion in 2011. (‘About Us’, Crown Estate, 6 July 2011).

The Crown Estate is not the private property of the Queen. It cannot be sold or owned by the Sovereign in a private capacity, nor do any revenues, or debts, from the estate accrue to her. Instead the Crown Estate is owned by the Crown, a corporation representing the legal embodiment of the State -a most certainly difficult concept and quite removed from understanding by the ordinary subject. It is held in trust and governed by Act of Parliament, to which it makes an annual report. Revenue from the Crown Estate is thought to be due to double in real terms between 2010 and 2020 with additional lease revenues deriving from the development of offshore wind farms within Britain’s Renewable Energy Zone, the rights of which were granted to the Crown Estate by the Energy Act 2004.

A number of State possessions are held in trust by the Sovereign. Among them is the Royal Collection, defined as ‘the art collection of the British royal family’. Humm.

It is one of the largest and most important art collections in the world, containing over 7,000 paintings, 40,000 watercolours and drawings, about 150,000 old master prints, historical photographs, tapestries, furniture, ceramics, books, gold and silver plate, arms and armour, jewellery and other works of art. The collection includes the Crown Jewels in the Tower of London – including the crown, orb and sceptre.

It is physically dispersed between thirteen Royal residences and former residences across Britain. Although the collection belongs to the sovereign, it is not the personal property of Elizabeth II as a private individual. Instead the collection is held in trust by the Queen for her successors and the nation. (‘Royal Special: Sovereign wealth’, The Independent, 31 May 2002).

The Treasury refers to these assets as “vested in the sovereign and cannot be alienated.” Income is generated by the collection from public admissions and other sources. This income is received by the Royal Collection Trust, the collection’s management charity, and not by the Queen.

In addition, the occupied royal palaces in the United Kingdom such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle are held in trust by the sovereign. The Royal Household is expected to use the Sovereign Grant to maintain the palaces. In May 2009 the Queen requested an extra £4 million annually from the government to carry out a backlog of repairs to Buckingham Palace. In 2010 the Royal Household requested an additional grant from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport but the grant was refused on the basis that the scheme was “aimed at schools, hospitals, councils and housing associations for heating programmes which benefit low-income families.” Over a third of the Royal estate was in disrepair by 2012-13 according to a report by the Public Accounts Committee. The cost of restoration was estimated to be £50 million, but the Reserve Fund was at a historic low of £1m. (R. Younger, ‘Royal Estate Overspend Leaves £50m Repair Bill’, Sky News, 28 January 2014).

The Queen is also responsible for using the Sovereign Grant to pay the wages of 431 of the approximately 1,200 Royal Household staff, amounting to £18.2 million in 2014-15. In 2013 The Guardian reported that Buckingham Palace was using zero-hour contract for its summer staff, and in 2015 it was reported that at least four senior officials had been made redundant to reduce costs. (S. Rozina, ‘Buckingham Palace ‘axes at least four’ of the Queen’s senior officials’, The Telegraph, 23 May 2015).

No serious estimate can be made of Queen Elizabeth II’s wealth.

It all began with ‘mad king’ George III, 1769-1815, who – incidentally – became the owner of Australia. No one seems to care. He was not quite as mad when he exchanged some of the Crown Lands with Parliament for extravagant annual payments, of taxpayer money, to fund the ‘Royal Family’ and its palace-pampered-lifestyle of offensive luxury. These annual payments are now called The Sovereign Grant. The royals annual Civil List became an endless supply of money-for-nothing to be used for warmongering-for-profit and Empire money-grubbing-speculation. By 1936 when the Queen’s grandfather, George V, died the royals private – and offshore kept – fortune was estimated at one billion pound Sterling.

It was with George III that the British monarch became the ultimate insider-trader.

A small part of the present Queen’s massive disposable wealth is the tens of billions amassed tax free between her Coronation in 1953 until the public demanded she pay tax in 1992. And for that also 1992 was branded as her annus horribilis.

1992 was also horribilis because it was the year of the Windsor Castle fire. Widespread public outrage erupted when the taxpayers were arbitrarily told they would have to pay approximately £30 million for the fire!

The outcome was a “memorandum of understanding” that the Queen would pay some taxes – at her pleasure, of course. Meaning that the Queen can ignore this memorandum any time she pleases. In 2002 it pleased the Queen to refuse to pay tax on the known £70 million the Queen Mother left to her. Prior to her death the Queen Mother was always said to be broke. Yet it transpired that eight years before she died she had placed £140 million into Swiss Trusts for her grandchildren. British monarchs have illegally avoided taxes and illegally accumulated untold investment wealth in a countless number of countries in addition to the countries of the Commonwealth, the intergovernmental organisation of  53 member states which are mostly former territories of the British Empire.

There the investments are defended with every possible means. And that includes Orders in Council which are left to ‘the care’ of compliant subjects. The monarch and the Privy Council got together in the dark and bloody violent days of the Norman kings.  Each man appointed to the Privy Council had legal and/or local knowledge the monarch could call upon. Down the centuries hardly anything has changed. Advised by her hand-picked Privy Council the Queen signs-off the day-to-day business of running Britain and the Commonwealth through Orders in Council. All powerful Orders in Council control acts of parliament covering every aspect of life, including crime, immigration control and – above all -banking regulations in the dependent territories: for instance, the Cayman Islands, the Virgin Islands, Bermuda, the British Indian Ocean Territory et cetera.

Was that the reason why Kerr desperately wanted to become a Privy Counsellor? And what was such disguised concupiscence, such desire to serve? The still unavailable correspondence could provide the answer.

To establish for certain the Queen’s wealth is almost impossible. She could very well be the richest woman in the world and near enough the most powerful. The combination of a great imperial style, the support of the high protestant hierarchy with even higher and mysterious practice and display of form, the most subservient political structure and system, a still very powerful financial centre – and all of this in that one square mile which is Westminster – and all that surrounded by the most antiquated, arcane and secret process, combines into a pastiche of myth and truth from which it is most difficult to distinguish fact from fiction, and from the fable, which is the substance of a monarchy. Conspiracy theories, suggestive and suggested in the circumstances, do not help to reach a careful analysis. All this makes it easy to understand how highly suppositional certain positions may be, and how attributions may suffer from the secretiveness in which a monarchy like the British thrives. Lacunae and apparent leaps of logic do not help providing real evidence. And often one encounters only nuggets of fact woven into the story by way of deduction, often by very questionable substance and yet deserving consideration.

All this premised most of what follows seems to withstand critical examination.

The Queen’s great grandfather, King Edward VII – Queen Victoria’s heir better known as Dirty Bertie – probably inherited but most certainly reinforced the ‘Royal Family’  love of money, which is in their case money-for-nothing. One of Edward VII’s advisers was the German-born banker Moritz Freiherr von Hirsch auf Gereuth. When Hirsch died in 1896 his position as leading adviser passed on to German-born and Prussian-educated Sir Ernest Joseph Cassel, whose daughter and heiress, Edwina, married Lord Louis Mountbatten – actually Battenberg – who would become a chief influence on Prince Philip first and then on Prince Charles.

Other bankers, such as the Rothschilds, the scheming American financiers J. P. Morgan and E.H. Harriman and the Sassoons were all friends of King Edward VII. Interestingly, the Sassoon family, known as ‘Rothschilds of the East’ due to the great wealth they accumulated in trade, is of Baghdadi  descent and international renown. It was based in Baghdad, Iraq, before moving to Bombay, India, and then spreading to China, England, and other countries. It is said that the family descended from the Shoshans, one of the families of Iberian Peninsula. From the 18th century, the Sassoons were one of the wealthiest families in the world, with a merchant empire spanning the continent of Asia.  The British monarchy never discriminated when dealing with money – much, much money.

There has always been an incestuous relationship between the British monarch and the global money-grubbing oligarchy, especially with the German-originated Barings Bank, once the world’s second oldest merchant bank, dating back before the Opium wars.

Edward VII intensely disliked his cousin Wilhelm II, the eldest grandchild of Queen Victoria, and the Kaiser of Germany, who reciprocated. His son, the present Queen’s grandfather, George V, and the Kaiser were responsible for starting the so-called ‘cousins’ war’ – the first world war. But, while millions were dying in that war, the cousins’ families were enjoying life in Switzerland, surrounded by war-profiteers and their agents.

At the end of the war the royals resumed their usual lifestyle, entertaining German cousins with the usual gold plated banquets after hunting on their various estates, racing their yachts at Cowes and their horses at Ascot, cruising the sunspots in the summer and, of course, the usual winter bash in the Alps – paid for by their bankers.

Edward VII’s heir, George V, continued the ‘good friendship with bankers’ practiced by of his father. George V’s private financial adviser from 1929 onward was Sir Edward Peacock, a partner of Barings Bank. Peacock was also director of the Bank of England. Sir Edward Peacock would continue to advise the monarch until his death, well into Queen Elizabeth II’s reign.

In 1934, for his services to the royals Swiss account, Peacock was knighted and given a Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, which is part of the ‘Sovereign’s Gifts’ in that it does not require consulting the Prime Minister. Incidentally, Kerr was craving and finally received such recognition for services to the Queen.

George V hugely enjoyed the incestuous relationship with ‘the City’. He selected Lord Cromer – more precisely Evelyn Baring, 1st Earl of Cromer – as his Lord Chamberlain. Cromer was a director of Baring Bank and a director of several ‘establishment’ companies.

In 1936, when George V died, he left at least 1 billion pounds, tens of millions of which went directly into Swiss trusts for his ten-year-old granddaughter, Elizabeth, whom he adored.

While ordinary children were dying of starvation because of the Depression the future Queen never missed her morning ride in the heavily guarded Windsor Royal Park.

Continued Saturday – A cast of characters: The Monarchy (part 16)

Previous instalment – A cast of characters: The Monarchy (part 14)

By Dr George Venturini  

At the end of second world war Britain was more or less bankrupt, so it was agreed that instead of paying cash for the shares of the Bank, shareholders would receive 3 per cent Treasury stock instead. With the 1946 Bank of England Act the Bank was ‘nationalised’, and all the Bank shares were transferred into the possession of the Treasury solicitor, and there they are to this day. It remains a corporation, not a government department.

The government of Prime Minister Clement Attlee issued Treasury Notes in the sum of £11,015,100. All the stock was owned by the British Government, although the Bank continued as a ‘Royal Charter Company’ with the absolute protection of confidentiality and security afforded by a Royal Charter and the Official Secrets Act.

Obviously the nationalisation was not welcomed by its shareholders or bankers of the day. Because of the abrupt resignation of Prime Minister Harold Wilson in April 1976 and the fact that the new government of Prime Minister James Callaghan had virtually no majority, ‘U.K. Ltd’ became vulnerable and effectively bankrupt. With double digit annual inflation, 70 per cent over three years, incessant strikes, the £ Sterling frequently suspended on international exchange markets, virtual parity with the United States dollar, it seemed the ideal time for the shareholders to strike back and re-take the Bank of England.

On 6 April 1977 the Bank of England formed the Bank of England Nominees Limited –  B.o.e.n., a wholly owned subsidiary private limited company, under no: 1307478, with two of its 100 £1 shares issued. Its Memorandum and Articles of Association’s objectives provided that B.o.e.n. was: “To act as Nominee or agent or attorney either solely or jointly with others, for any person or persons, partnership, company, corporation, government, state, organisation, sovereign, province, authority, or public body, or any group or association of them….” [Emphasis added]

The origin of B.o.e.n. is mentioned in a work by Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior,  from which comes the following extract: “In early 1973 new legislation governing the ownership of shares [was] proposed by [Prime Minister Edward] Heath Government. This would force stockbroking companies to disclose the names of the individuals on whose behalf they bought shares, to prevent them gaining a controlling interest in a company by buying shares in several different names. The Queen was concerned that this would mean that details of her private investments would be made public, which would allow her personal wealth to be calculated – which the royal family had always strenuously avoided – and asked her Private Secretary, Sir Martin Charteris (who had succeeded Sir Michael Adeane in 1972), to express her anxiety to Edward Heath. [Sir Martin Charteris, officially known as Lieutenant-Colonel Martin Michael Charles Charteris, Baron Charteris of Amisfield, in 1950 had been appointed Private Secretary to Princess Elizabeth, who was then Duchess of Edinburgh and heiress presumptive to the British throne. From her accession in 1952 until 1972, Charteris served as her Assistant Private Secretary under Sir Michael Adeane. On Adeane’s retirement in 1972, he was promoted to Private Secretary. He held this post until his retirement in 1977. Some of his correspondence with Sir John Kerr, at the time when Kerr & Co. were planning the Royal Ambush of the Whitlam Government, is publicly available at the National Archives of Australia. Some other, and probably the most important, including that between Kerr and the Queen, is still unavailable and is the source of litigation by initiative of Professor Jennifer Hocking. On his retirement Sir Martin was granted the honour of being a Permanent Lord in Waiting.] The legislation was delayed, but eventually became law – under Labour in 1976 as the Companies Act. However, a special clause was included which exempted a new shareholding company, Bank of England Nominees. This was established with the purpose of handling investments solely on behalf of heads of state and their immediate families. This allowed the Queen’s investments and those of her family – along with those of other heads of state, such as the Sultan of Brunei, Bhumibol Adulyadej the late king of Thailand, the Kuwaiti royal family, the late King Fahd of Saudi Arabia and his then friend Saddam Hussein and other crowned oligarchs who were quick to take advantage of the exemption – to be effectively concealed. They all became clients of what appeared to be the Queen’s very private bank. B.o.e.n. was only one of the many cut-outs used to hide obscene profits from the sale of arms, oil and nuclear material. Extraordinarily, not even the Chancellor of the Exchequer [was] permitted to know about the Queen’s personal investments. Andrew Morton would write: “The result of this legislation has been to cocoon further the royal finances in a web of mystery. Journalists who delve into dusty share registers find the impenetrable phrase ‘Bank of England Nominees’ staring back at them when they try to find a hint of royal investment in a company. The justification for the clause was that public knowledge about where the Queen invested her money might influence the market. However, that this was just an excuse is revealed by a memo sent from the Palace to the Government saying that it is ‘to be congratulated on a neat and defensible solution’. In other words, the Palace were pleased that the Government had come up with a way of justifying the secrecy.” (L. Picknett, C. Prince, S. Prior, War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy, Mainstream Publishing, Edinburgh, Scotland, 2002).

Questions were asked, and quite frequently, in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The answers were always evasive, vague, inconclusive.

On 21 April 1977, to a question in the House of Commons from  Mr. Blenkinsop, who wanted to know from the Secretary of State for Trade whether B.o.e.n. was “intended to hold shares on behalf of ‘Heads of State’ and certain others” and whether he had granted any exemptions under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976; and if he would make a statement, Mr. Clinton Davis replied: “The Secretary of State has granted one exemption under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976 in favour of Bank of England Nominees Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank of England. Bank of England Nominees Ltd. have given a number of undertakings about the use to be made of the exemption. They will hold securities as nominee only on behalf of Heads of State and their immediate family, Governments, official bodies controlled or closely related to Governments, and international organisations formed by Governments or official bodies. They will in turn seek certain assurances from anyone in the eligible categories who wishes them to hold the securities as that person’s nominee. These assurances are to cover (a) the fact that the person is the beneficial owner of the securities to be held by Bank of England Nominees Ltd.; (b) that the beneficial owner will not use his interest in any securities held by Bank of England Nominees Ltd. to influence the affairs of the company in which shares are held except as shareholders in general meetings of that company; (c) that the beneficial owner is aware of his overriding obligation, under Section 33 of the Companies Act 1967 as amended, to disclose his interest to the company in which shares are held if he is interested in 5 per cent. or more of that company’s share capital.”

Mr. Davies added: “Bank of England Nominees Ltd. has also undertaken to make a report annually to the Secretary of State for Trade of the identity of those for whom it holds securities, and, provided that it holds securities for two or more people, the total value of the securities held. The contents of such reports are to be confidential to the Secretary of State.” (Shareholdings (Disclosure) HC Deb 21 April 1977 vol 930 cc151-2W 151-152W)

On 5 March 2010, replying to a request by Mr. E. Danielyan, as to “What is the “Bank of England Nominees Limited”? Mr. Ben Norman, the Deputy Secretary of the Bank of England explained that: ”The Bank of England Nominees is a wholly-owned, non-trading subsidiary of the Bank of England, with 2 ordinary shares valued at £1 each, as the latest Bank of England Annual Report states (see: Bank of England, Annual Report 2011, p.69).

Furthermore, “BOEN acts as a nominee company to hold securities on behalf of certain customers. It is a private limited company, incorporated in England and Wales in 1977, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank. The shareholders are the Bank and John Footman, who holds his share as nominee on behalf of the Bank. The directors are John Footman and Andrew Bailey. (This letter can be viewed in full and downloaded here).

Both John Footman ( ‘John Footman Executive Director, Central Services and Secretary of the Bank’, and Andrew Bailey (‘Andrew Bailey, Executive Director, Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) – Deputy CEO designate’) were at the time employees of the Bank of England and their biographies were on the Bank’s website.

There followed questions in the House of Lords.

Paul Myners, who was known as Baron Myners, CBE, a member of the House of Lords, and had been a businessman until he became  the Financial Services Secretary – sometimes referred to as City Minister – in Her Majesty’s Treasury, and then the Finance Ministry, during the Labour Government of Prime  Minister Gordon Brown, rose:

“To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the accounts of Bank of England Nominees Limited were last published; when they will next be published; and whether they intend to review whether the company should remain exempt from company law disclosure requirements”. (House of Lords – Hansard https://hansard.parliament.uk/ [HL8302]).

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox) replied: “The most recent accounts of Bank of England Nominees Limited are available via the Companies House website and were published on 14 June 2010. It can be seen from these accounts that the company is currently dormant. The company is due to publish its next set of accounts by 30 November this year. The company is no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements and currently no other persons are exempt from these requirements.”

Later on, when Lord Myners rose:

“To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the accounts of Bank of England Asset Purchases Facility Fund Limited will be published; whether these accounts will take into account an indemnity from HM Treasury; and whether the accounts of the company are exempt from any company law disclosure requirements.” (House of Lords – Hansard https://hansard.parliament.uk/ [HL8303]).

Lord Sassoon, the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, replied: “The Bank of England will publish accounts for the asset purchase facility (APF) for the year ended February 2011 before the Summer Parliamentary Recess. The amount due to or from HM Treasury under its indemnity to the Bank will be identified. The accounts are not exempt from any company law disclosure requirements.

Lord Myners insisted and rose again: “To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the accounts of the Bank of England, Bank of England Nominees Limited and the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility Fund Limited are all audited by the same firm of public accountants.” (House of Lords – Hansard https://hansard.parliament.uk/ [HL8310]).

To which Lord Sassoon replied:” KPMG are the external auditors for the Bank of England and the Bank of England Asset Purchases Facility Fund Limited. As a dormant company, Bank of England Nominees Limited is not required under the Companies Act 2006 to appoint an external auditor”.

In 2011 B.o.e.n. was no long allowed disclosure exemptions  from company law disclosure requirements”, as a written answer from the Lords’ Hansard on 26 April 2011(8) made clear. The consequence of this was that B.o.e.n. was no longer granted an exemption under Sec. 796 of the Companies Act 2006 to the notification provisions required by Sec. 793 – something to which it had been previously authorised.

To summarise: as stated in Hansard, B.o.e.n. was a company set up with the intention of holding shares confidentially on behalf of “Heads of State” – whoever they might be – and certain others.

One is perfectly entitled to presume from that that the Queen and her ‘immediate family’, however defined and certain bodies are included in that broad specification. (A. McConnachie, ‘Investigating the Bank of England Nominees, 11 October 2011, prosperityuk.com).

There had been a statement by Melanie Johnson M.P., Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in 2000 to the effect that “B.o.e.n. is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bank of England, which was granted an exemption by Edmund Dell, Secretary of State for Trade from the disclosure requirements under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976, because: “it was considered undesirable that the disclosure requirements should apply to certain categories of shareholders”. [Emphasis added]

A Freedom of Information request submitted in 2010 provided a similar answer.

Because of the combination of the provisions of the Royal Charter and the Official Secrets Act, the Bank enjoyed unusual confidentiality and security and was even untouched by questions being asked in the House of Commons.

Thus structured and protected, B.o.e.n. became a vehicle for governments and heads of state to invest in United Kingdom companies, subject to approval from the Secretary of State, and providing they undertake “not to influence the affairs of the company.”  Later on, B.o.e.n. was is no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements. It remained as a dormant company, although  dormancy did not preclude it from actively operating as a nominee shareholder. Officially B.o.e.n. had only two shareholders: the Bank of England, and the Secretary of the Bank of England.

A fundamental question remained: why form a wholly owned ‘Nominee company’ which since its establishment in 1977 had never traded and confined itself to lodging ‘Short form’ un-audited accounts?

It was conceivable that sometime after 1977 The Bank of England had been in effect ‘privatised’, its shares being held in B.o.e.n., thereby making a ‘closed loop’: although B.o.e.n. was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bank of England, B.o.e.n. had effective control of the Bank because the shares were in fact owned by the secret shareholders. It seems that only 50 per cent of the shares were sold, but they controlled all voting rights. Considering that shareholders appoint directors, it was legitimately conceivable to conclude that the Bank of England was covertly controlled, if not by the banks, then by a higher banking entity which had the interests of the banks at heart, which justifies the rampant and systemic fraud perpetrated upon their customers with arrogance and impunity.

In 1997, after the Three Rivers District Council had won their action against the Bank of England for failing to control the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (B.C.C.I. would come under the scrutiny of numerous financial regulators and intelligence agencies in the 1980s due to concerns that it was poorly regulated. Subsequent investigations revealed that it was involved in massive money laundering and other financial crimes, and illegally gained the controlling interest in the First American, a major bank), several persons and entities who had fallen casualties of banks made formal complaints against the Bank of England for not enforcing control over their respective high street banks. Yet, contrary to the Bank’s own Statement of Principles and the Banking Acts the complaints were rejected on the ground that the Bank of England does not intervene between bank and customer. Within months the Bank of England complaints staff and department had been transferred to ‘Canary Wharf’ under the guise of the Financial Services Agency who could not act on complaints emanating prior to their formation.

In 1998 the Bank became an independent public entity, wholly owned by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of the government, with independence in setting monetary policy.

The Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee has a devolved responsibility for managing monetary policy. The Bank’s Financial Policy Committee held its first meeting in June 2011 as a macro prudential regulator to oversee regulation of the United Kingdom’s financial sector.

As a regulator and central bank, the Bank has not offered consumer banking services for many years, but it still does manage some public-facing services such as exchanging superseded bank notes. Until 2016 the Bank provided personal banking services as a popular privilege for employees.

B.o.e.n. was quietly dissolved, following liquidation, on 27 July 2017. (Bank of England Nominees Limited – Insolvency, commencement of winding up 13 October 2016, due to be dissolved on 27 July 2017).

Much mystery came to an end, in part anyway, when in a kind of ‘return for fixing the 1997 elections’ and facilitating New Labour into power, Parliament passed  the  Bank of England Act 1998, which gave the Bank’s Court of Directors complete independence with regard to monetary policy. That brought about the operation of a nationally owned institution,  which has the monopoly in the production of the national currency, and places independent control of the country’s monetary policy in the hands of a Court of Directors who serve the private banking system as they have since the Bank was established.

It means private banking control of the United Kingdom’s currency and monetary policy, and all that fully independent of government.

Since 1998 one witnessed the Bank rapidly inflate the money supply, while at the same time relaxing regulation on how banks could lend. No longer were banks required to have cash in reserve for loans they made. Instead the vast majority of currency entering the economy did so as a result of commercial banks entering some numbers into a ledger – money out of thin air, literally.

Working for the private bankers, the Bank of England set things up to maximise the returns for their banking colleagues’ speculative activities, in the full knowledge that as a nationalised institution, it would be the United Kingdom taxpayers who were carrying all the risk, and not, as would have been the case before 1946, the shareholders.

The Court of Directors is working for a kind of ‘combination’: the Anglo/Dutch/Saudi empire – the still-alive-and-kicking hidden hand behind the British Empire of the Victorian age. So it is no surprise that the solution they provide to today’s manufactured monetary financial collapse is to print more money. Their ultimate aim could be that of destroying  the last vestiges of British sovereignty.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who had served as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Blair Government from 1997 to 2007, announced the new financial infrastructure at the 2009 gathering of the G20. Then he announced the possibility of a new global currency – to be issued and managed by the newly reinvigorated International Monetary Fund.

Protected by the Royal Charter and the Official Secrets Act, the B.o.e.n. never told anybody who are the shareholders, who control the company, who are the beneficiaries thereof: the Rothschilds, perhaps? The Queen, maybe?

Nevertheless, one would be surprised on finding out that the Bank of England, which is entitled to issue cash, then lends it and charges interest to the government, acting therefore like a private business.

This kind of operation is very much like that of the Federal Reserve Bank of America, which is a privately owned bank, as all central banks of the world are, including the Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland, which is the Central Banks’ clearing house.

If one day the ‘One World Government’ actually had an address, this would be part of it – the B.I.S, another privately owned bank, the central bankers’ central bank, beyond the control of guaranteed by democratic practice, yet able to influence events secretly from behind the scenes. One thing is certain: in times of financial crisis, these central banking networks become supremely powerful. The people wielding this power see the world’s financial crisis as their moment of opportunity to seize greater power. The scary part of that is that hardly a living soul even knows they exist. Now, that is real power.

What’s all this about?

The late Carroll Quigley, a distinguished American historian and theorist of the evolution of civilizations, noted for his teaching work as a professor at Georgetown University, for his academic publications, wrote a book on who ruled the United States and Great Britain between 1870 and 1960. He called it: Tragedy And Hope: A History Of The World In Our Time, (GSG and Associates San Pedro, California, 2004). The work is the ultimate view of a secret global élite which has impacted nearly every modern historical event. The main thesis is that the Anglo-American banking élites were able secretly to establish and maintain their global power. The book provides a detailed world history beginning with the industrial revolution and imperialism through two world wars, a global depression and the rise of communism. Tragedy and Hope is an important work on the world’s power structure and an essential source material for understanding the history, goals and actions of a possible ‘New World Order’.

The gist of the work is that “the power of the Bank of England and of its governor was admitted by most qualified observers.” In January 1924 Reginald McKenna, who had been Chancellor of The Exchequer in 1915-1916, as Chairman of the Board of The Midland Bank, told its stockholders: “I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create money … And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people.”

Quigley commented: “… the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.”

And again: “Each Central bank sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.”

Continued Wednesday – A cast of characters: The Monarchy (part 15)

Previous instalment – A cast of characters: The Monarchy (part 13)

By Dr George Venturini  

Even to attempt to establish the private wealth of the Queen would be – for all practical purposes – a fruitless exercise.

The Queen has a private income from her personal investment portfolio, (G. Rayner, ‘Queen’s finances are safe from cuts for two years’, The (London) Telegraph, 21 June 2015), but her personal wealth and income are not known. (P. Hall, Royal Fortune, Tax, Money and the Monarchy, Bloomsbury, London, 1992, at xxii).

As early as 1962 estimates were being made on the actual wealth of the Queen. Jock Colville, a former private secretary to Princess Elizabeth, as she was before becoming the Queen, “made a statement reported in The (London) Times in which he said that the Queen was worth 12 million pounds.” In 1971 the same Jock Colville, now Sir John Rupert Colville, as  a director of the Queen’s, Coutts and Co., which  is a private bank and wealth manager, founded in 1692, and the seventh oldest bank in the world, estimated the Queen’s wealth at £2 million in 1971 (the equivalent of about £26 million (AU$46,466,828 as at 30 June 2018)

In 1991 The (London) Sunday Times estimated that the Queen had assets worth US$11 billion (AU$14,910,166,401 as at 30 June 2018).

In 1992 Guinness World Record wrote that the Queen was “asserted by some to be the wealthiest woman,” although “a few of her assets under the perpetual succession of the Crown are either personal or disposable.”

An official statement (by The Earl of Airlie as Lord Chamberlain) from Buckingham Palace in 1993 called estimates of £100 million “grossly overstated”.

In October 2001 The Mail on Sunday ran a two-part Royal Rich Report which estimated the Queen’s wealth at nearly US$ 2 billion (AU$2,712,552,247 as at 30 June 2018), mainly broken down into the following: stocks and shares estimated at US$800 million (AU$1,084,992,961 as at 30 June 2018), jewellery collection worth US$120 million  (AU$162,766,433 as at 30 June 2018), including a diamond brooch worth nearly US$42 million (AU$56,968,495 as at 30 June 2018), stamp collections valued at US$167 million (AU$226,548,593 as at 30 June 2018), and fur coats that she never wears worth at US$1.6 million (AU$2,170,022 as at 30 June 2018). The Queen’s collection does not include horses and a stud farm, wine, medals, a collection of classic cars and land – a lot of land, in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other lesser known domains across the seas.

In 2002 Queen Elizabeth II inherited her mother’s estate, thought to have been worth £70 million (the equivalent of about £105 million (AU$187,441,806 as at 30 June 2018).

In April 2011, on the eve of another ‘royal wedding’ – that of William and Kate – Forbes magazine conservatively estimated Elizabeth II’s  fortune at around US$ 500 million  (AU$ 678,650,490 as at 30 June 2018) . This figure seems to conflict with a total addition of the Queen’s personal holdings.

In 2012 the financial firm Wealth-X, a global financial advisory firm, estimated the Queen to be worth US$510 million (AU$692,322,897 as at 30 June 2018).

In 2012, also, the Sunday Times estimated the Queen’s wealth as being £310 million (AU$ 553,671,928 as at 30 June 2018), and that year the Queen received a Guinness World Record as Wealthiest Queen.

Forbes magazine estimated the Queen’s net worth at around US$500 million (about £325 million in 2011 – AU$ 678,957,191 as at 30 June 2018) (‘Just How Rich Are Queen Elizabeth And Her Family?’, www.forbes.com; (‘Queen Elizabeth has a fortune worth over $500 million’, www.businessinsider.com.au), while an analysis by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index put it at US$425 million (about £275 million in 2015 – AU$577,106,936 as at 30 June 2018) (T. Metcalf, ‘Queen Elizabeth II Isn’t as Rich as You Think’, bloomberg.com, 20 October 2015).

The Sunday Times Rich List 2015 estimated the Queen’s wealth at £340 million (AU$607,314,663 as at 30 June 2018), making her the 302nd richest person in the United Kingdom. For the first time that year the Queen was not among the Sunday Times Rich List’s top 300 most wealthy since the list began in 1989 She was number one on the list when it began in 1989. (H. Nianias, ‘The Queen drops off the top end of the Sunday Times Rich List for the first time since its inception’, The Independent, 26 April 2015).

The Express asked again “What is the Queen’s net worth? How much does the Queen get paid?”

The increase granted in 2018 meant that the amount provided by the Sovereign Grant will have almost doubled in two years since it was set at £42.8 million in 2016-2017 (AU$76,360,938 as at 30 June 2018).

Sir Alan Reid, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, said: “In 2016-17 the Sovereign Grant equated to a cost of 65p per person in the United Kingdom – the price of a first class stamp.”

The Sovereign Grant for the financial year (2017-2018) increased to £76.1 million (AU$135,768,672 as at 30 June 2018), which represents a cost of £1.16 per person. Next year’s £82.2 million (AU$146,660,280 as at 30 June 2018) settlement will be equal to £1.25 a head.

But these are miserable, propagandistic considerations worthy not only of panem et circenses but also of a lot to drink, while treating the subjects as helots!

In the last year alone, the Crown Estate, a property company nominally owned by the sovereign, increased profits by 8.1 per cent to £328.8 million (AU$586,726,069 as at 30June 2018).

In March 2017 the House of Commons had voted to allow the grant paid to the ‘Royal Family’ to be increased from 15 per cent of Estate profits to 25 per cent over the next ten years.

The decision was based on the need to find £369 million (AU$658,328,491 as at 30 June 2018) over the next 10 years to pay for ‘essential works’ to Buckingham Palace.

The Queen’s personal fortune remained unknown, but in 2016 Forbes again guess-timated that her private wealth came to £415 million (AU$742,18740,383,640 as at 30 June 2018).

This estimate included her private real estate portfolio, Sandringham House, Balmoral Castle, real estate in London and agricultural land across the country.

Forbes ranked Elizabeth II as number 29 on its Power Women list in 2016 but her personal wealth is only a fraction of the monarchy’s total fortune. As Queen she is to benefit from assets which are technically owned by the Crown such royal palaces and the crown jewels.

The Crown Estate owns a huge amount of property including Buckingham Palace,  Windsor Castle, Clarence House and most of Regents Street. (J. Tambini, ‘What is the Queen’s net worth? How much does the Queen get paid ?’, 28 June 2017, www.express.co.uk).

The Queen’s personal art collection alone is worth at least 10 billion pounds (AU$17,840,599,397 as at 30 June 2018), but is held ‘in trust for the nation’, and cannot be sold. The Queen also privately owns large amounts of property which have never been valued, including Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House. Furthermore the Queen owns the Duchy of Lancaster, which is valued at 310 million pounds (AU$553,031,995 as at 30 June 2018). The Queen technically owns the Crown Estate with holdings of 6 billion pounds; although the income of this was transferred to the Treasury in return for the Civil List payments.

The Queen also enjoys the income from the Duchy of Lancaster, an ancient estate made up of lands across the country and stock market investments. As at 2012 the Duchy had a market value of US$600 million (AU$810,775,939 as at 30 June 2018).

“Not included are those assets belonging to the Crown Estate,” wrote Forbes, “which she gets to enjoy as Queen, such as $10 billion (AU$13,510,369,082 as at 30 June 2018) worth of real estate, Buckingham Palace – estimated to be worth another $5 billion (AU$6,755,181,866 as at 30 June 2018), the Royal Art collection, and unmarked swans on stretches of the Thames.”

However, the Almanach de Gotha (German: Gothaischer Hofkalender) – a directory of Europe’s royalty and higher nobility first published in 1763 by C.W. Ettinger in Gotha in Thuringia, Germany – is more generous in assessing Elizabeth II’s wealth. As the leading authority when it comes to royalty, the Almanach placed the Queen’s wealth over US$100 billion (AU$135,090,351,750 as at 30 June 2018), claiming that, as sovereign, the Crown Estates, Royal palaces, Crown Jewels, et cetera, are legally hers. This makes her not only the richest monarch, but also the richest person in the world – richest beyond measure if one can only imagine Queen Elizabeth II’s holdings through a myriad of nominee companies.

Most people have heard Winston Churchill’s description of Russia as “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” The dictum applies to the Bank of England.

On 27 July 1694 a private joint-stock association called ‘The Bank Of England’ was formed with a capital of £1.2 million – Bank of England Act 1694. The capital was ‘loaned’ to the government in consideration of a monitory and banking monopoly over the Kingdom of William III (1650-1702).

The Bank was privately owned by stockholders from its foundation in 1694.

The Bank’s headquarters have been in London’s main financial district, the City of London, on Threadneedle Street, since 1734. It is sometimes known by the metonym The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street or The Old Lady.

There is still a view that it is controlled by the Rothchilds. Actually, story of the Bank of England is strictly tied to the history of the British Empire. The British Empire was never a political empire; it was always a monetary financial empire, as much a parasite on the people of Great Britain as on the rest of the world. The myth of the Victorian’s British Empire bringing civilisation to the darkest parts of the world is one which needs real reconsideration.

The Bank of England was originally set up as a core part of the British Empire and for its first concern: making huge profits from loans to the British East India Company and other tendrils of the Great British parasite. The mainstays of the trading activities of these companies were drugs, warfare and the looting of raw materials from poverty stricken places.

As the banker to the Government, the Bank also did quite well from lending to the Treasury. In those days, the profits of the Bank went into the hands of the shareholders.

In 1844 the Rothschild manifested desire to take complete control of the United Kingdom came true with the Bank Charter Act. This Act gave the Bank of England the monopoly on the production of Sterling, and control of Britain’s money supply. In Northern Ireland and Scotland, where to this day commercial banks are allowed to print their own money, they must have one Bank of England note in reserve for every note of their own that they issue.

The Bank of England is now the central bank of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the model on which most modern central banks have been based. It is still the second oldest central bank in operation today, after the Sveriges Riksbank. The Bank of England is the world’s eighth oldest bank.

Continued Saturday – A cast of characters: The Monarchy (part 14)

Previous instalment – A cast of characters: The Monarchy (part 12)

By Grumpy Geezer  

A guide to the Liberal Party. They will sell you the secrets to getting rich for only $9.99. They’ll get rich and you’ll be out a tenner.

The Tory’s broad church embraces a diverse range of sects within its hairy-palmed parliamentary congregations with grifters, lurk merchants, drunkards, hayseeds, suck-holes and seat sniffers making up their number. Despite this diversity they all worship the same deity. Mammon is their god, their common cause and the only thing that unites their fractious tribes. It’s the unifying force across the otherwise disparate coveys of Personality Defects Checklist box-tickers.

It’s a given that Tories are uniformly avaricious; spinning greed as aspiration, selfishness as ambition, wealth as virtue. It’s who their party is, it’s their reason for being, it’s the essence of the Tory cause. We can be disgusted by it but we can understand it – just as a naturalist can understand the behaviour of hyenas squabbling over a carcass. The thing that makes the Tory party intriguing though, adding some interest to their otherwise off-putting pestilence, is the sub-groups that collectively form this foozle of a political party.

The following is a catalogue of toxic Torydom that I thought could provide some insights for those struggling to understand the contents of humanity’s remainder’s bin trading as the Liberal/National Party & Co.

The riders on the sunshine bus

The evolutionary U turners who’ve yet to master an opposable thumb, these dull-eyed remedial readers are an inspiration to underachievers everywhere.

Suffering severe cases of Ability Deficit Disorder these time servers should be serving time for taking wages under false pretences but are instead pulling a motza for simply pushing in stools on the backbenches. These stink-fingered chin-dribblers would be out of their depth in a car park puddle. The standouts are:

Gorgeous George Christensen – The perpetually clammy George is an ovoid Humpty Numpty whose sex appeal is a request for donations rather than a personal attribute.

Malcolm Roberts “the living soul” – Built like a chicken’s instep but with a disproportionately bulbous head he’d be a sniper’s dream. Suitable transport for the living soul would be a bullet-proof convertible.

Michael McCormack – He’s found his niche as head noddy – a dullard of such monumental proportions that people are warned about operating heavy machinery within 2 hours of hearing him speak.

The fully-licensed f-wits

The product recalls of politics, they will nevertheless leave their mark – drool stains on the carpets and teeth marks on the door handles.

Craig Kelly – This is what happens when a giant arse-crack grows arms and legs. A Mr Creosote body double sans the table manners.

Melissa Price – With a face like an interrupted sneeze, Price was listed as Missing In Action during the election campaign, the irrefutable logic being that the less people saw of her the better were her prospects of re-election.

Her genius as Environment Minister was to make her job easier by ensuring there was less environment to look after.

Michaelia Crash – Imagine the ideal of womanhood: a lilting laugh and quick wit, kind, nurturing, self-sacrificing, intelligent and who lifts spirits and brightens a room merely by her presence. Now imagine the opposite.

The pompous, condescending twats

Conservative governments believe their primary task is to keep the Labor Party away from the Treasury benches. From a Tory perspective we all dwell in a profit-making enterprise, Australia Inc, not a society like those lefty bastards would have us believe.

And the environment is to be monetised and not coddled as if it supported all life on the planet. If they could privatise oxygen the Libs would charge us to breathe.

(“Hang on – rampant clearing of oxygen producing forests, rising levels of CO2? I’ve got an idea for a start-up.” Roger Grosse-D’Barkle, Young Liberal Of The Year).

The highest accolade in the Church Of Mammon is to be put in charge of the country’s  finances. Hence the smug, patronising humbug from the brothers grim Frydenberg and Cormann. These two innumerate dunny bungers have over-sighted our worst economic performance since WW2 – still pointing at Labor after six long years of fiscal ineptitude while shovelling the bucks to the big end of town and dangling bribes in front of the already well off.

The best that can be said of these two is that they are not crazies, they are just incompetent munts whose agenda is to Americanise our traditional fair go country into a dog-eat-dog dystopia of ruling, privileged elites.

The holy rollers

These are the brethren who’ve managed to reconcile their devotion to both Jesus and to mammon by upgrading to Jesus V2.0 who comes packaged with an extensive property portfolio and access to franking credits.

And they are creationists yet they preach social Darwinism (“lifters and leaners”, “if you have a go you’ll get a go”). Slogans are their forté, not deep thought.

Scooter Morrison – With Jesus on his team Scooter likes the idea of encouraging an earlier onset of Armageddon by joining his new friend and fellow cockwomble, the orange BLOTUS, in a drive-by bombing of Iran.

Stuart Robert – Brother Stuart’s frequent and lengthy communication with Jesus is apparently via the interwebs if his $38,000 internet bill is any indication.

The Tony Abbott Memorial Sink Holers

A rustic sub-branch characterised by confusion on where they stand with their peculiar brand of capitalist socialism. These self-sufficient, rugged individualists have never refused a government grant, have never turned away a subsidy or knocked back a tax-payer hand-out.

Matt King Coal Canavan – A humble servant for his constituents – dodgy Indian mining billionaires. Matteo wants to use our money to underwrite stranded assets to be milked for profit by filthy rich foreign free-marketeers who will not pay any tax. Matteo’s not been reading Joshie’s copy of Better Economic Management for Dummies.

Black Angus Taylor – The answer to the first question in a proctology exam Angus is a strong believer in tax payer support of family businesses. His own (1).

The sex pests

The Crusty Undies Club members:

Barmy Barney Joyce, aka Barney the dinosaur – the fossil tossle. The purple-headed member on the purple-headed member apparently has a mind of its own. Sure as shit Barmy has got no idea WTF he’s doing.

Jamie Briggs – Fondler of public servants (2). His dad was a banker; Jamie took a different, albeit rhyming path. He’s now returned to a job he’s qualified for – a model for stranger danger posters, but he possibly maintains his name on the Crusty Club mobile app.

Andrew Broad – Randy Andy enjoyed a vigorous sex life but he found himself in strife when he tried to find someone to share it with (3).

* * * * *

So, that’s the nutbags. What I do not understand however are the dickheads who voted for them.

(1) From the time Angus Taylor entered parliament in September 2013, companies & organisations the Taylor family have managed, directed or are directly associated with have benefited from over $93,515,673 in federal & state government funds. (This thread is in no way intended to infer any of the Taylor family have acted in any way inappropriately).

(2) Jamie Briggs Wikipedia

(3) Andrew Broad’s dumb mistake The Guardian

This article was originally published on geezerspot.com.

By Dr George Venturini  

If being poor in Britain in 2012 was brutal, it continued to be brutal in 2018.

If not reading the papers, what were the occupiers doing at the Palace? Counting money, perhaps.

The Queen’s personal fortune has been the subject of speculation for many years. And the personal wealth must be distinguished from the expenses necessary to run the show.

The ‘work’ of the Royal Family is financed by the ‘hereditary revenues of the Crown’. The British Parliament employs a percentage of the Crown Estate, a part of the Crown’s hereditary revenues belonging to the sovereign which is placed at the disposal of the House of Commons, to meet the costs of the sovereign’s official expenditures. It is not an easy operation.

The expenses include the costs of the upkeep of the various royal residences, staffing, travel and state visits, public engagements, and official entertainment.

But there are other sources of income and these include, as will be seen, revenue from the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, a parliamentary annuity, and income from private investments.

It is all enveloped in arcane language. Hence it is for The Keeper of the Privy Purse to be The Head of the Privy Purse and Treasurer’s Office and to carry overall responsibility for the management of the sovereign’s financial affairs. And where there are changes the language becomes rococo. So on the occasion of consideration of the latest reforming arrangement, the Queen would not say a plain ‘thank you’ – She would send a ‘gracious message: ‘The Sovereign’s gracious message to the House of Commons re: The Sovereign Grant Bill’, Buckingham Palace. 29 June 2011 (pdf).

There was in the past what was referred to a as the Civil List. Historically, until 1760 the monarch met all official expenses from hereditary revenues, which included the profits of the Crown Estate – the royal property portfolio. King George III agreed to surrender the hereditary revenues of the Crown in return for the Civil List, and this arrangement persisted from 1760 until 2012.

The Civil List was paid from public funds and was intended to support the exercise of the monarch’s duties as head of state of the United Kingdom. In modern times the Government’s profits from the Crown Estate always significantly exceeded the Civil List. Under the Civil List arrangements the Royal Family faced criticism for the lack of transparency surrounding Royal finances. The National Audit Office was not entitled to audit the Royal Household. (R. Verkaik, ‘First look at royal finances fails to satisfy MPs’. The Independent, 28 June 2002).

Under such arrangements the Queen would receive an annual £7.9 million a year from the Civil List between 2001 and 2012. The total income of the Royal Household from the Treasury was always significantly larger than the Civil List because it included additional income such as Grants-in-Aid from the Treasury and revenues from the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. The total Royal Household income for the financial years 2011-12 and 2012-13 was £30 million (AU$53,726,453.56 at mid-June 2018) per annum, followed by a 14 per cent cut in the following year. However, the Treasury provided an additional £1 million to pay for Diamond Jubilee celebrations in 2012.

Royal expenditure differs from income due to the use of a Reserve Fund, which can be added to or drawn from. The official reported annual expenditure of the Head of State was £41.5 million (AU$74,320,492.93 at mid-June 2018) for the 2008-09 financial year. This figure did not include the cost of security provided by the police and the Army and some other expenses. (‘Cost of Royal Family rises £1.5m,’ BBC News, 29 June 2009).

The way of funding the Royal Household by a mixture of Civil List payments and Grants-in-Aid was amended by the Sovereign Grant Act of 2011. From 1 April 2012 a single annual Sovereign Grant has been paid by the Treasury. The level of funding for the Royal Household is now linked to the Government’s revenue from The Crown Estate.

The Sovereign Grant Annual Report provided that the Sovereign Grant was £31 million (AU$55,357,623, as at 30 June 2018) for 2012-13, £36.1 million (AU$64,477,714) for 2013-14 and £37.9 million (AU$67,689,723 as at 30 June 2018) for 2014-15. The amount of the Sovereign Grant is 15 per cent of the income account net surplus of the Crown Estate for the financial year which began two years previously. The Sovereign Grant Act provided that the arrangements would have been reviewed by 2016 and a mechanism to prevent the amount of the Sovereign Grant increasing beyond what is necessary because of the growth in Crown Estate revenue. Under the Sovereign Grant Act the National Audit Office is now empowered to audit the Royal Household.

On 18 November 2016 a plan was announced to increase the Sovereign Grant from 15 per cent to 25 per cent to renovate and repair Buckingham Palace. The percentage is set to revert to 15 per cent when the project is finished in 2027.

The Duchy of Cornwall is a Crown entity holding land and other assets to produce an income for the monarch’s eldest child. The Duke of Cornwall – Charles, Prince of Wales – receives revenue towards charitable work and official activities, supported by the Queen’s Grant-in-aid funding to provide assistance with official travel and property. These financial arrangements also cover the official expenditure of some members of his immediate family. The Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry all have their official expenses paid from Duchy income, assisted by grants-in aid from the Queen. For the fiscal year 2011-12 – the Diamond Jubilee year – the Duchy was valued at £728 million AU$1,300,075,577 as at 30 June 2018) with an annual profit of £18.3 million (AU$32,678,877 as at 30 June 2018) paid to the Prince.

The Duchy of Lancaster is the private estate of the British Sovereign – that is Queen Elizabeth II – consisting of land holdings and other assets. As it is held in perpetual trust for future generations of Sovereigns, the Sovereign is not entitled to the estate’s capital. The revenue profits of the Duchy are presented to the Sovereign each year and form part of the Privy Purse, providing income for both the official and private expenses of the monarch. In the financial year ending 31 March 2015, the Duchy was valued at £472 million (AU$843,122,237 as at 30 June 2018) , providing £16 million (AU$28,578,541 as at 30 June 2018) in income.

In 2017 the Paradise Papers revealed that the Duchy held investments in two offshore financial centres, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. Both are British Overseas Territories of which Queen Elizabeth II is monarch, and nominally appoints governors. Britain handles foreign policy for both islands to a large extent, but Bermuda has been self-governing since 1620.

The details of the Queen’s offshore dealings come from a leak of 13.4 million files from two offshore service providers and the company registries of 19 tax havens.

The material was obtained by the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and shared by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists with partners including The Guardian, the BBC and The New York Times.

The Duchy’s investments included First Quench Retailing off-licences, Threshers and rent-to-own retailer BrightHouse. (H. Osborne, ‘Revealed: Queen’s private estate invested millions of pounds offshore’. The Guardian, 5 November 2017).

In 2005 the Duchy invested US$ 7.5 million in Dover Street VI Cayman Fund LP, according to files from the offshore law firm Appleby. The fund invested in and profited from a company which developed fingerprint technologies for mobile phones and made investments in other high-tech and pharmaceutical companies. Other investors included British and American universities, a United Arab Emirates bank and charitable foundations. In June 2008, the Queen’s estate received about US$360,000 from its investment.

The Cayman fund also invested in a private equity company which controlled BrightHouse, a U.K. rent-to-own firm which has been criticised by consumer watchdogs and members of Parliament for selling household goods to disadvantaged Britons on payment plans with annual interest rates as high as 99.9 percent. From at least 2004 to 2010 the Duchy also invested in the Bermuda-based Jubilee Absolute Return Fund.

The Queen’s offshore investments have not been disclosed in annual financial reports of the Duchy, which is not obliged to reveal the details of her personal wealth. (Queen Elizabeth II | ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database, The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, offshoreleaks.icij.org).

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists is a global network of more than 190 investigative journalists in more than 65 countries who collaborate on in-depth investigative stories. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists  database contains information on almost 500,000 offshore entities which are part of the Panama Papers, the Offshore Leaks and the Bahamas Leaks and some from politicians featured in the Paradise Papers investigation. The data cover nearly 40 years up to early 2016 and links to people and companies in more than 200 countries and territories.

“The Duchy has an ongoing investment in the Cayman Island fund and was not aware of the investment in BrightHouse”, a spokeswoman for the Queen told The Guardian, an ICIJ media partner. She also confirmed the Duchy’s investments in two additional offshore funds. “The duchy’s investment policy is based on advice and recommendations from our investment consultants and asset allocation rather than tax strategy,” the spokeswoman said.

Though the Duchy characterised its stake in BrightHouse as negligible, it would not disclose the size of its original 2005 investment, which coincided with a boom in the company’s value. BrightHouse has since been accused of overcharging customers, and using hard sell tactics on people with mental health problems and learning disabilities. In October 2017 it was ordered to pay £14.8 million in compensation to 249,000 customers.

The Duchy also disclosed investments in “a few overseas funds”, including one in Ireland, and would be under pressure to give details of where the money is being held.

Although the estate said it received no tax advantages from investing offshore, the revelations about the finances of the Queen, one of the world’s richest women, will likely re-energise campaign groups and some MPs who have demanded greater scrutiny of royal spending. The disclosures also highlight the lack of transparency that has been a concern for critics, who have railed against the moral ambiguities of the offshore sector and demanded major changes. (‘Revealed: Queen’s private estate invested millions of …’, theguardian.com).

The most recent filings by the Duchy show it had assets worth £519 million at the end of March 2017. The Paradise Papers offer an unprecedented glimpse of the way the Duchy invested some of its money, including details of complex offshore arrangements not set out in the royal household’s annual statements.

According to the leak, the Duchy used offshore private equity funds designed to shield United Kingdom investors from having to pay United States tax on their holdings.

Investors who do not pay tax in the U.K. can face a tax bill if they invest in certain types of funds in the United States, although the Duchy said it gained no tax advantage from investing via the Caymans.

The stakes in Threshers and BrightHouse can be traced back to an investment into one of these schemes by the Duchy in 2005. The papers show it committed £7.5 million to Dover Street VI Cayman Fund LP.

The Duchy became a limited partner in the scheme at the same time. Dover Street VI Cayman Fund LP is a “feeder” for another American fund, which invests in venture capital and private equity funds around the world.

Letters in the Paradise Papers show how the Duchy’s money sluiced through various funds, and where it ended up. Managers from Dover Street set out what cash they needed and where they had been putting it on behalf of investors.

In a letter dated September 2007, they explain that they have taken an interest in a private equity vehicle called Vision Capital Partners VI B LP. The Dover Street fund was one of 27 limited partners making an investment.

The letter explains that this was “formed by Vision Capital Partners to acquire a portfolio of two retailers in the United Kingdom.” Two months earlier, Vision Capital Partners VI B LP had bought BrightHouse and Threshers.

The investment in Vision Capital Partners by the Dover Street fund was among several outlined in the managers’ call for funding, to which the duchy was asked to contribute US$450,000 – 6 per cent of its commitment.

The Dover Street VI fund was set up to run until the end of December 2014 and since then has been selling off its holdings and returning funds to investors. It is unclear from the leak what has been returned to the Duchy. The Paradise Papers show only one payout from the fund, a letter from June 2008 explaining the duchy was entitled to US$ 361,367.

It seems to have received the distribution after paying a tiny amount of tax – 0.4 per cent – which it appears to have offset against the next payment into the fund.

BrightHouse, with more than 270 stores across the United Kingdom, had been accused of overcharging customers and using hard-sell tactics. It had previously denied claims as to its conduct and accused critics of misrepresenting the business. But it has been under investigation by the Financial Conduct Authority, which in October 2017 said that it was not a responsible lender.

The company was also forced to change the way it checked customers’ finances before granting them loans, in order to keep its consumer credit licence.

BrightHouse has limited its tax bill through a large loan to a Luxembourg holding company. Between 2007 and 2014, it reported £1.6 billion in revenue and made an operating profit of £191 million, but paid less than £6 million in corporation tax, analysis by Private Eye found. The Duchy’s chief finance officer, Christopher ‘Chris’ Adcock, told The Guardian it had been unaware of the indirect holding in BrightHouse.

“Investors commit to a fund for a given period and are not party to its ongoing investment decisions,” he said.

The Paradise Papers show that through the same indirect investment, the Queen’s money was invested in Threshers before it went into administration in 2009.

When asked what other offshore holdings the Duchy has, Adcock said it “invests in a fund domiciled in Ireland”, but declined to give details. In a second statement, the Duchy admitted it “operates a number of investments and a few of these are with overseas funds. All of our investments are fully audited and legitimised.”

The Duchy would not give details of the size of the original stake in 2005, or what had been taken out since then.

“The Dover Street investment was bought in 2005 and forms only 0.3 per cent of the total value of the Duchy. The duchy investment in Brighthouse is through a third party and equates to £3,208,” it said.

Adcock confirmed that the duchy invested £5 million in the Jubilee Absolute Return Fund, which invests in hedge funds. At the time of the investment in June 2004, the fund was based in Bermuda. In 2006, it moved to Guernsey.

At the outset, the fund’s manager, Fauchier Partners, sought assurance that it would not be taxed in Bermuda on its income or any gains until 2016. The fund, which has been invested in by a string of charities and council pension funds, is now run by a different manager and has been renamed the Permal Absolute Return Fund, one of the world’s largest funds of hedge funds.

The papers do not make clear what money, if any, the Duchy made from this arrangement. Adcock said that the Duchy had redeemed its stake in the fund in 2010, but its investment in the Dover Street fund was expected to last for another two to three years while the fund was wound up.

There are some revelations, several concerning the ‘Royal Family’, from the Paradise Papers:

1) Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate have been invested in a Cayman Islands fund – and some of her money went to a retailer accused of exploiting poor families.

2) Prince Charles’s estate made a big profit on a stake in his friend’s offshore firm.

3) The 6^th Dukes of Westminster, Major General Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor, KG CB CVO OBE TD CD DL (1951 – 2016), a British landowner and businessman had pumped millions into secretive offshore firms.

And, just by way of digression, but equally significant, Cambridge and Oxford universities and top American universities invested offshore, with some of the money going into fossil fuel industries.

‘The Palace’ did not comment on the revelation that the Duchy of Lancaster, which handles the Queen’s private wealth, used offshore investments.

A spokesperson for the Duchy of Lancaster said: “We operate a number of investments and a few of these are with overseas funds. All of our investments are fully audited and legitimate.”  … “The Queen voluntarily pays tax on any income she receives from the Duchy.”

Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn posited whether the Queen should apologise, saying anyone with money offshore for tax avoidance should “not just apologise for it, [but] recognise what it does to our society.” A spokesman for the Duchy said that all of their investments are audited and legitimate and that the Queen voluntarily pays taxes on income she receives from Duchy investments. (‘Paradise Papers: Queen should apologise, suggests Corbyn’, BBC, 6 November 2017).

Prime Minister Theresa May said that the ‘UK [was] already acting’ on offshore tax havens. She insisted that efforts were already under way to obtain revenue from offshore tax vehicles, adding: “We want people to pay the tax that is due.”

Speaking at the CBI Conference Centre, the Prime Minister said that Her Majesty Revenue & Customs had already collected £160 billion by tackling tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance since 2010.

Mrs. May’s spokesperson said: “It is important to point out that holding investments offshore is not an automatic sign of wrongdoing, but H.M.R.C. has requested to see the papers urgently so it can look into any allegations.”

But when asked, Mrs. May did not commit to a public inquiry into tax revenue lost through offshore tax avoidance schemes.

Mr. Jon was Thompson, Chief Executive and Permanent Secretary of H.M. Revenue and Customs vowed “to chase down” anyone trying to hide money offshore and evade tax.

He told the Commons Public Accounts Committee that H.M.R.C. had asked to see the leaked Paradise Papers in order to “look at every case of tax evasion very seriously.”

Mr. Thompson said that there were 66 ongoing criminal investigations into the Panama Papers, which in April 2016 exposed tax avoidance and evasion, saying £100 million could be retrieved. “That gives you some sense about how long quite complicated tax cases take to bring to some sort of fruition,” he added.

The Crown enjoys tax-exemption because certain acts of parliament do not apply to it. Crown bodies such as The Duchy of Lancaster are not subject to legislation concerning income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax. Furthermore, the Queen has no legal liability to pay such taxes. The Duchy of Cornwall has also a Crown exemption and the Prince of Wales is not legally liable to pay income tax on Duchy revenues.

A ‘Memorandum of understanding on Royal Taxation’ was published on 5 February 1993 and amended in 1996, 2009 and 2013. It is understood that the arrangements in the memorandum will be followed by the next monarch. The memorandum describes the arrangements by which the Queen and the Prince of Wales would make voluntary payments to the Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in lieu of tax to compensate for their tax exemption. The details of the payments are secret. The Queen voluntarily pays a sum equivalent to income tax on her private income and income from the Privy Purse – which includes the Duchy of Lancaster – which is not used for official purposes. The Sovereign Grant is exempted. A sum equivalent to capital gains tax is voluntarily paid on any gains from the disposal of private assets made after 5 April 1993. Many of the Sovereign’s assets were acquired before that date but payment is only made on the gains made afterwards. Arrangements also exist for a sum in lieu of inheritance tax to be voluntarily paid on some of the Queen’s private assets. Property passing from monarch to monarch is exempted, as is property passing from the consort of a former monarch to the current monarch.

One can see that everything is private, secret, confidential – away from the eyes of the subjects. Why? No one should dare asking!

Continued Wednesday – A cast of characters: The Monarchy (part 13)

Previous instalment – A cast of characters: The Monarchy (part 11)