The Guardian reported that Prince Charles used a controversial procedure to compel government ministers to secretly change a proposed law to benefit his landed estate.

Official papers discovered in the National Archives show that ministers in John Major's government caved into his demands out of fear of sparking a constitutional crisis as per the report.

Ministers backed down in order to "avoid a major row" with the prince, effectively allowing him to force the elected government's hand.

The documents' release adds to the evidence that the royal family has used the secretive procedure known as Queen's consent to change legislation to benefit their private interests, the report said.

It added that the monarch and her eldest son are given beforehand copies of draft laws so they can assess whether the legislation affects their public powers or private assets, such as his Duchy of Cornwall estate or the privately-owned Sandringham estate.

Before relevant legislation can be approved by parliament, ministers must obtain the approval of the Queen and the Prince of Wales. This procedure differs from the more well-known procedure of royal assent, which is a formality that causes a bill to become law.

The scandal explained

The monarch has used the Queen's consent procedure to privately lobby for changes in recent decades, according to a Guardian investigation.

Furthermore, more than 1,000 parliamentary acts were required to be approved by the Queen or her son before they could be implemented during her reign.

The Queen's consent is a "purely formal" part of the parliamentary process that the monarch grants as a matter of course, as per Buckingham Palace and the British government.

The palace adds that "consent is always granted by the monarch where requested by the government" and "this process does not change the nature of any such bill."

A look back 

The newly disclosed documents, however, concerning a leasehold reform act that became law in 1993, provide detailed evidence of Charles exerting pressure on elected ministers to ensure an exemption that prevents his own tenants from having the right to buy their own homes.

The documents also show Charles writing directly to Major in October 1992, noting that he would be receiving a request for his consent to the leasehold bill soon, and expressing his "special concern" about another aspect of the proposed law, which he feared would allow tenants to buy and redevelop historic properties without preserving their "special character."

As heir to the throne, Charles receives a private annual income - currently around £20 million - from the profits of the Duchy of Cornwall, a property estate. 

Rents are collected on properties spread across 20 counties in England and Wales by the 52,000-hectare estate. However, in some areas, its tenants are not permitted to purchase their homes. These tenants, the number of whom is unknown, continue to pay rent to the duchy, which is then paid to the prince, according to the Guardian.

In 2021, a Guardian investigation unmasked that the Windsors had vetted several leasehold reform acts, and the duchy issued a statement saying that neither it nor the prince had "any involvement in the drafting of legislation relating to any part of leasehold reform," most notably the issue of tenants buying their own homes.

In September 1992, lawyers for the duchy privately informed the government that they were concerned about the proposals in a new leasehold bill, arguing that Newton St Loe tenants should be denied the right to purchase their homes.

The duchy's secretary, David Landale, said the village was "particularly well-liked and valued by His Royal Highness because of its well-balanced mixture of farms and woodland."

JE Roberts, a Whitehall official, warned ministers on September 30 that "the difficulty is that the Prince of Wales takes a close personal interest in the development of this village," adding that Charles saw "no reason why he should now relinquish control. It has been made clear to me that if the government wishes to pursue this issue further, the prince will want to discuss it at the highest levels."

Roberts said: “The Prince of Wales is likely to come back on Newton St Loe. Ministers will then need to decide whether it is worth fighting him on the issue.”

Sir George Young, the housing minister at the time, and another minister, Tony Baldry, believed it was not justified to prevent Newton St Loe tenants from buying their homes when others in the country could, according to the letter.

 It was feared that this would set a precedent for other large landowners.

"No special case can be made beyond the fact that the prince has taken a special interest," Roberts wrote in a memo on October 9. He warned that the most important goal for ministers was to "ensure that the Queen and the Prince of Wales consent to the bill is obtained... their consent is required before the bill may be introduced."

“Ultimately I assume that the will of ministers can prevail over that of monarchy but a constitutional crisis would add a further dimension of controversy to the bill which would be better avoided,” he wrote.

Roberts cautioned the ministers that they had to choose between giving in to the prince and holding firm and "looking for a mechanism to break the deadlock. Unfortunately, I am not aware that our constitution has provided any such mechanism!"

On 22 October, Roberts warned: “On the basis that it is important to avoid a major row with the Prince of Wales … there is a case for letting matters rest … It is open to the minister to fight if he wishes, recognizing that this is likely to have costs on both sides.”

But, Baldry responded: “We have probably got as far as we can with this … we should let the matter rest.” Young agreed: “I could live with this – reluctantly.” On the same day, the prince approved the bill.

The special exemption that prevented Newton St Loe tenants from purchasing their homes was made public only after the passage of a subsequent leasehold act in 2002.

A duchy spokesperson said that “The Duchy of Cornwall estate is exempt from leasehold reform legislation but has agreed to act as if bound in, apart from in a very small number of specifically identified areas including Newton St Loe. As you can imagine, we do not discuss individual leaseholds.”

In practice, the ban affects only a small number of Newton St Loe tenants. They claim, however, that the prince's special rights have caused them severe financial hardship.

Jane Giddins, for example, stated that she and her husband cannot borrow against their home to pay for future social care for themselves. She went on to say that the value of their 99-year-old lease on their home, their main asset, was steadily declining as it approached its end, as per the Guardian’s report.

“It is total injustice, and feudal,” Giddins said. “Because my freehold is owned by someone who is immensely wealthy and powerful, I am not protected by the law that applies to everyone else in this country. I can’t do anything about it.”

She claimed that when she and her husband took the lease in 1996, the duchy informed them of the purchase ban, but she had no idea that the prince had lobbied to keep the village exempt from leasehold reform.

“I took the view that it was so obviously anachronistic and grossly unfair, that by the time I needed to sort it out, the law would have been changed. And I had no idea that the duchy would be able to stop the law being tidied up.”

Read more: Celebrating 70 years of British massacres!