“NO monarch has ever served the country so long and more importantly no monarch has ever served it so well.” Those words, from Prime Minister Boris Johnson, exemplify the blind fervour with which politicians across the UK are hailing the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee.
Any which don’t toe the line – like the Scottish Greens who stood by their republican policy and declined to take part in the litany of repetitive praise termed a “debate” on the Jubilee in Holyrood – are roundly condemned.
Gone as well is any semblance of balance from the BBC – the same broadcaster which on the Silver Jubilee in 1977 banned the Sex Pistols’ God Save the Queen from the airwaves.
But the Queen has often found herself embroiled in scandal and shame, from lobbying for exemptions from laws imposed on everybody else to reports of open discrimination.
But you won’t hear those stories amid the “propaganda on behalf of royalty and aristocracy” – as Alba general secretary Chris McEleny termed it – being pumped out by the public broadcaster. Instead, we’ll tell them.
Banning minorities from certain jobs
In the 1960s, the UK Government was looking at equalities laws. The 1965 Race Relations Act banned racial discrimination in public places, with the 1968 iteration of the act banning discrimination in employment. Buckingham Palace was not happy.
Officials working for the Queen negotiated controversial clauses – that remain in place to this day – exempting the monarch from the laws preventing racial and sexual discrimination.
It also came to light that, around the time that second Race Relations Act was passed, the Queen’s chief financial manager informed civil servants that “it was not, in fact, the practice to appoint coloured immigrants or foreigners” to office roles – though they could work as servants.
Allegations of racism in the royal family were not dampened by Meghan Markle's explosive claim that one of its members had questioned what colour skin her and Prince Harry's baby would have.
Meddling in UK law
Equality laws aren’t the only legislation from which the Queen has used her position to lobby for an exemption. In fact, through the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, documents suggest that the monarch’s meddling in UK laws to exempt herself or her estates was relatively commonplace.
Before a bill becomes a law in the UK it must obtain royal assent. Buckingham Palace has always maintained that this is a formality which the Queen never withholds, but documents revealed by the Guardian imply otherwise.
They show that the monarch had her representatives lobby for a change in proposed transparency law that allowed her to hide her private wealth. Experts suggested the tone of the papers seemed part of a routine procedure.
Buckingham Palace has declined to say how often the Queen had lobbied for law changes.
Alba’s McEleny said the royals had a history of having “opposed every forward move, fought every reform”.
No green laws for the Queen
The Queen’s lobbying for law changes to benefit herself did not end last century however, with the monarch representatives having had foresight of as many as 67 Scottish bills as recently as last year.
The monarch’s lawyers lobbied to ensure she was the only person in the country who did not have to facilitate the construction of new renewable energy pipelines, a major initiative to cut carbon emissions.
Controversy also surrounded the Queen’s Jubilee tree-planting scheme, which accepted “platinum” sponsors which campaigners say are involved in deforestation.
Mark Ruskell MSP, the Scottish Greens environment spokesperson, told The National: "The royal family owns vast tracts of land in Scotland and should be using it to tackle the climate and nature emergencies rather than for grouse shooting.
“It's disappointing that an institution as large and influential as theirs would help corporations that are involved in environmental devastation around the world greenwash their reputations.”
Funding Andrew
Prince Andrew, the Queen’s third child, faced intense scrutiny after two of his close associates, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, were both found guilty on child sex trafficking charges.
The Prince was soon facing his own civil lawsuit, with Virginia Giuffre accusing him of having sexually assaulted her while she was a minor, accusations he has always denied.
Lawyers, reportedly paid for by the Queen, tried all manner of loopholes to get Andrew off the hook, eventually agreeing to an out-of-court settlement worth a reported £12 million. The Queen also allegedly helped foot that bill to prevent her son facing trial for sex crimes.
Arms sales
In 2019, BAE Systems – the arms manufacturer – was accused of being party to alleged war crimes in Yemen in a complaint sent to the International Criminal Court.
For the Jubilee, that company’s chief executive thanked the Queen for her “involvement in our business over the years”.
Reports have also claimed that Prince Charles played a “key role” in facilitating billions of pounds worth of arms exports to repressive regimes in the middle east, with Prince Andrew (before his downfall) also allegedly a central player.
In one US memo sent to Washington in 2008, which ended up on Wikileaks, Andrew was reported as having “railed at British anti-corruption investigators, who had had the ‘idiocy’ of almost scuttling the al-Yamama deal with Saudi Arabia”.
The reference was to a probe into allegations of corruption in a major arms deal between the UK Government, Saudi Arabia, and BAE Systems.
Symon Hill, from the Peace Pledge Union – the pacifist organisation behind the white poppy, said the “reality is that monarchy has always been closely tied to militarism”.
He added: "Some of the historically dubious statements that we have seen in recent days imply that we enjoy the rights and freedoms that we have because of the monarchy and the armed forces. We do not. We have our rights because our ancestors campaigned for them, often in the teeth of resistance from monarchs and the armed forces they employed.”
Unethical investments
The Queen’s private Duchy of Lancaster portfolio had millions invested in offshore accounts. Although officials accepted the monarch had money in “a few overseas funds”, they denied any tax privileges had come from their use.
Those funds were also found to have been invested in firms such as BrightHouse, a company which was ordered to repay customers £14.8m after exploitative loans were given out without assessing if people had the means to repay them.
