Queen Elizabeth II, 95, is the head of state and holds a number of constitutional powers through historic royal conventions. While the Queen’s Assent is the process by which the monarch signs off on Parliamentary bills before they are transformed into law, the Queen’s Consent is effectively when the Queen grants “permission” to Parliament to debate a bill before it becomes law.
Prince Charles, 72, also holds the right to exercise Prince’s Consent. In February, a Guardian investigation into the Royal Family’s use of these conventions showed Charles had exercised his law-making powers to prevent tenants on his Duchy of Cornwall estate from being able to buy their homes out right.
In its exposé, the Guardian described the Prince’s Consent as “a secretive procedure” and implied the Royal Family was flexing its influence without the knowledge of the British public.
Express.co.uk spoke to a constitutional expert about the fiddly topic of Queen’s Consent and whether or not it should be abolished.
According to academic Iain MacMarthanne, the problem lies not in the Royal Family’s use of these rights but in the outdated nature of the institution itself which he claims needs a dramatic overhaul.
The Guardian’s ongoing investigation into Queen’s Consent is blinded by “republican zeal” and “misses the real problem”, Mr MacMarthanne argued.
The constitutional expert told Express.co.uk: “Despite the integrity of…