uckingham Palace has said it is “simply incorrect” to counsel the Queen “blocked laws” that would have needed her to conceal her private prosperity .

The Guardian described that the monarch’s private lawyer had correctly lobbied Edward Heath’s authorities in the 1970s to change the draft law.

According to the paper, a clause was sooner or later incorporated in the regulation granting the ability to exempt corporations used by “heads of state” from new transparency actions.

The Guardian mentioned it experienced uncovered the lobbying for the duration of an investigation into the royal family’s use of a parliamentary process recognised as Queen’s consent.

But on Monday a spokeswoman for Buckingham Palace rejected recommendations that the monarch had intervened in lawmaking.

She explained: “Queen’s Consent is a parliamentary course of action, with the function of sovereign purely official. Consent is normally granted by the monarch where asked for by federal government. Any assertion that the sovereign has blocked laws is merely incorrect.

“Whether Queen’s Consent is needed is determined by Parliament, independently from the Royal House, in matters that would have an effect on Crown passions, which includes own property and individual interests of the monarch.

“If consent is needed, draft laws is, by convention, put to the sovereign to grant solely on assistance of ministers and as a matter of general public document.”

The Queen’s consent differs from the effectively-recognised procedure of royal assent, a formality that marks the instant when a monthly bill gets to be law, due to the fact it must be sought prior to legislation can be accepted by parliament.

The Guardian reported paperwork in the Countrywide Archives display that, in November 1973, the head of point out feared a bill all around bringing transparency to firm shareholdings could outcome in the public getting equipped to scrutinise her funds.

They documented that her attorney had spoken with civil servants at the then Office of Trade and Sector about the Corporations Monthly bill and proposed the Queen be exempted.

In accordance to the newspaper, a civil servant wrote at the time that the lawyer’s customers were “concerned” that there was a threat of disclosure to administrators of a company, shareholders and the basic general public, and that “disclosure to any particular person would be embarrassing”.

The Guardian reported the proposal became regulation in 1976 and applied right up until at least 2011.