Queen Elizabeth secretly lobbied for exemption from green-energy laws

Day Three of The Royal Windsor Horse Show

Over the past year, legitimate British outlets have done some actual investigative reporting on “the Queen’s consent.” From what I understand, the issue is basically that Queen Elizabeth uses her position as “head of state” to privately lobby lawmakers in all kinds of ways. Two notable stories about the Queen’s consent: the Queen lobbied the government privately in the 1970s in order to hide information about her taxable income, wealth and investments from the general public. The Queen’s consent was also central to the story about how Buckingham Palace was able to avoid adhering to (the British equivalent of) affirmative action laws in the 1960s-1970s too – Buckingham Palace was basically able to get a loophole which meant that they could ban “coloured immigrants and foreigners” from white-collar palace jobs. A ban which is basically still in place today, honestly. So what has the Queen’s consent been used for lately? The Queen didn’t want to adhere to green-energy laws in Scotland. LMAO.

The Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied the Scottish government for her private land to be exempt from a new climate change law, it has been revealed. The monarch, whose Balmoral Estate makes her a major landowner in the country, is the only person not required to use renewable energy to heat her buildings.

In documents unearthed by Lily Humphreys, a researcher for the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the use of a parliamentary process known as Queen’s consent gave the crown prior notice of the upcoming legislation. The procedure, by which the government is required to ask the monarch for permission to debate laws that affect her, happens during the drafting of a bill that is in the stages of going through parliament. It is suggested in the papers, seen by The Guardian, that Nicola Sturgeon’s government failed to divulge the Queen’s lobbying during a parliamentary debate to question why the monarch was obtaining an exemption from the green energy bill.

The Queen’s lawyers are said to have secured the exemption five months ago, which only applies to her private land in the country, namely Balmoral, and not the Crown Estate, which includes Glenlivet.

Former Scottish Liberal Democrats leader Willie Rennie expressed concerns over ‘secret doors’ made available to the Queen to change laws. He said: ‘This research shows that Queen’s consent isn’t just some arcane legacy from parliament’s past. It’s a live process. Laws are secretly being changed behind Scotland’s back as a result. That’s not what people would expect in a democracy. I’m sure people will be shocked to see the Scottish Government’s willingness to pander to the process. Their readiness to hide it from public view shows they have no interest in acting transparently. There should be no secret doors to changing the law. Others who lobby for changes have to declare it. That should be true for everyone. The Scottish Government must come forward and share the full extent to which this process influences the laws we live under.’

[From The Daily Mail]

So there are actually two problems here: the Queen behaves like a regal dictator and threatens to withhold her consent to certain laws unless she gets preferential treatment from lawmakers. And then on top of that, there’s no transparency about what she and her lawyers are actually doing. There are lawmakers and prime ministers and first ministers obfuscating and failing to fully disclose the machinations from the Queen, her lawyers and her henchmen. Maybe the whole garbage system needs to be thrown out? But what do I know.

Queen Elizabeth II speaks to Joe and Jill Biden at the G7 Summit

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

66 Responses to “Queen Elizabeth secretly lobbied for exemption from green-energy laws”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Roo says:

    This will certainly help heir argument that Scotland stays in the fold. 🙄

  2. Seraphina says:

    SOOOOOOOO, the Queen does get political – just behind close doors and when it suits her best interests.
    And this article is hilarious because just a few days ago I read an article (where out there in internet land) about how the palace’s electric bill was so high that even THE queen turns off lights when not in use. LMAO.
    Come to think about it, I have never seen an article about her advocating for minority rights….I guess even the press knows not too push too much fiction.

  3. Pandora says:

    She’s da Queen. She can do whatever she wants!

    • Honey says:

      She isn’t Queen of the world so f her if she doesn’t want to be environmentally because it inconveniences her.

    • Carmen-JamRock says:

      You forgot to put: /s at the end of your statement. Gotta be clear, ya know…..

  4. Steph says:

    It probably only applies to her personal property bc she’d have to front the bill on modernizing the heating systems in these ancient behemoths. Crown Estates would be covered by tax payers.

    • Jais says:

      Well, since Charles is slimming down the monarchy, there should be extra funds to do that without it being a big deal, right?

    • Mac says:

      Heaven forbid she should have to tap into her hundreds of millions of dollars to do the right thing.

      • Sid says:

        I still recall that news story from years ago where the Queen tried to ask the government to help pay the Buckingham Palace heating bill by using money from a special fund that was set up to help low income families, etc. who were struggling with their own heating bills. There is a level of greed to these people that is unmatched.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        A program that helped the differently baked and those with transportation hardships travel to work was gutted to pay for her palace needs AFTER she hadn’t spent years worth of funds allocated specifically for palace needs. Instead the accounts were drained and repurposed to ultimately line private pockets. That’s why BP is literally caving in on itself with rooms shut off because the ceiling is crumbling.

        I remember officers picking up wheel chairs of protesters to remove their peaceful protests.

        It’s all awful.

    • Merricat says:


    • SarahCS says:

      I think it’s more about being exempt from compulsory purchase orders of land.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @SarahCS-it does sound more like that or what is called eminent domain in the US. They are all for “modernizing the monarchy” as long as it doesn’t effect their properties, protocols, courtiers. pretty much everything…

    • Amy Too says:

      But would she really even have to put up her own solar panels? I’m imagining that not every single little cottage in Scotland has its own solar panels or other form of making their own clean energy. Can’t they just buy energy from a utility company that provides clean/renewable energy? The utility company would then be the ones paying for the solar panels or whatever else, and the consumer, just has to pay the utility company. And if every other person/business/property in Scotland has to be using clean energy, wouldn’t that mean that all the utility companies are already switching to clean/renewable? Will it even be possible for the Queen to demand that her utility company only give her electricity/heat that comes from coal or oil or other dirty non renewable sources? Is she STILL shoving coal into stoves and fireplaces to heat balmoral because it’s that outdated? Does she not have central heating there and a utility bill to go with it? It seems like you would have to actually work kind of hard to skirt the clean energy law if all the Scottish utility companies are going green because of the mandate. Does the Queen plan on having trainloads full of coal, or drums full of oil shipped to balmoral every time she goes there just so she doesn’t have to use the clean energy that’s provided in Scotland?

      • Becks1 says:

        So I read a blurb about this last night and it has more to do with the actual land I think. Like the government doesn’t have to right to use balmoral land to run cables or electrical lines or pipes or whatever it might want to in order to help get clean energy to the country. IDK. I know I’m messing that up lol but it seemed less about the house at Balmoral and more about the land use.

      • Steph says:

        I don’t know but I thought it was common knowledge that all these palaces are cold and drafty. I think proper insulation would also be a requirement.

        And others are talking about how the companies would have to run stuff through her land.

      • Amy Too says:

        I feel like that almost makes it worse. So it’s not just “we care about global warming and the environment but not enough to personally use clean energy even though we would like you to,” it’s now “we don’t even care enough about the environment to make it easier for utility companies to provide clean energy to the populace of an entire nation even though we dedicate like 80% of our charitable ‘platform’ to insisting that you peasants aren’t doing enough and don’t care enough.” Like WTAF? William and Charles are out here constantly lecturing everyone about how they need to care about the environment and acting like people are just too lazy and stupid to make the big changes—with William’s huge “legacy project” being a contest to come up with new ways to reverse global warming and help the environment—and yet, they won’t even allow someone to possibly bury a pipe across their land (if needed), even if it’s something like 30 acres away from the actual main house, in order to provide clean heating energy to people: a solution that already exists and that we know is effective? We need a whole contest to come up with innovative new ways to save the environment when they won’t even allow their huge amounts of land to be used for the easier implementation of a solution we already have that would literally convert an entire country to clean energy use for heating?

  5. Jais says:

    Dang, this makes me angry.

  6. Kalana says:

    She’s misusing her unearned public role for private gain. Sell some jewelry and pay your bills.

    And at this point it isn’t just the Queen. Charles is part of this.

  7. Becks1 says:

    The Queen’s Consent is garbage and should be thrown out. If there is a bill being debated that targets her (like, debating the amount of the sovereign grant or something) then she can present her case and lobby openly for her position like anyone else. But the fact that she withholds her consent from laws that affect everyone until she gets an exemption is absolute BS.

    Also, Glenlivet is part of the crown estate? Like Glenlivet the scotch?

    • Golly Gee says:

      “ Like Glenlivet the scotch?”
      That was my first thought too. I only know about areas of Scotland through scotch. LOL. While it’s been years since I’ve drunk it, I hope I wasn’t helping to fund the royal family.

      • Becks1 says:

        my husband’s gotten really into it lately and it’s going to crack me up if he’s funding the royal family since he’s so against them lol.

  8. Mac says:

    Balmoral is only like 50,000 acres. How can the queen be expected to squeeze solar panels on to such a small property?

  9. Amy Bee says:

    This latest exemption for the Queen makes Charles and William frauds when it comes to environmental issues. They stand to inherit the Queen’s properties and land in Scotland.

  10. CJ says:

    So… she is definitely a villain now right? We can agree?

  11. Over it says:

    I am more interested in why Charles looks just as old as his mother in these pictures
    We all know whet Betty wants, Betty gets because these governments are weak and spineless.

    • Sid says:

      I am finding that now that they are both elderly, the resemblance between them is really striking. There have been close up photos of QEII’s face where all I see is Charles, and vice versa.

  12. BusyLizzy says:

    Abolish the monarchy! Qu’on leur coupe la tête!

  13. Jessie Quinton says:

    I wonder how Baldingham and Charles will try to spin this, considering their ongoing “eco-friendly” machinations?

    • Lizzie says:

      Wooten will probably write an entire essay saying ToB is TOO ELEGANT to be bothered with actual environmental work.

    • Chrissy says:

      Well, all of it means little since the all the royals regularly fly around on private helicopters and private planes. Cutting back and making changes to how people live is only for the plebs, it seems. Does Charles really walk the walk? We sure know that Lazy Willy does not and since the Queen doesn’t care either, the whole family appear to be hypocrites of the highest order.

  14. MA says:

    I don’t mean offense to our rational British Celebitchies but I really don’t understand most British people. How is this along with all the other exemptions not top breaking and trending news? It almost seems like they either enjoy being servile to a group of unremarkable people born with “special” blood or are ambivalent about it.

    I see sometimes people bring up Trump and how he’s not representative of America but that’s different. Half of America was constantly and extremely outraged at his corruption and actively mobilized to get him out in 4 years. Brits seem fine with all this. I get there are bigger concerns like Covid and Brexit but they are being robbed.

    • equality says:

      No outrage because they haven’t come up with a way to blame Harry and Meghan.

      • JT says:

        I don’t understand it either. Maybe they’re just too aloof to care? Or is the famous stuff upper lip thing? The queen robbing her country with Brexit and Covid should be a big deal and the fact that it isn’t seen as such is a problem in my opinion. We were kicking and screaming everyday over Trump’s many crimes and his abuses of power. I guess it’s just a difference in culture; maybe Americans are more vocal about that sort of thing. Isn’t that one of the reasons why Meg was hated? Her gauche American ways of being direct and speaking up upset British sensibilities.

      • equality says:

        It seemed like Trump was forever but the Queen really has been so it has been accepted as the way things are. Maybe it’s just seen as normal if you see bowing down to someone as normal.

    • Lady Digby says:

      This Brit was totally unaware of this and is now outraged and backing a republic. Tory government, tabloids and establishment back Monarchy and cite tradition, tourism and Britishness. No one is Magic and In today’s society the Monarchy is an irrelevant relic of the past. I want an elected Head of State to represent us not a kilt wearing feudal posho who represents his own interests!

      • MA says:

        lmao at “kilt wearing feudal posho”. From an outsider’s perspective it really seems like the Tory forces and establishment are too strong. Maybe more people will care when it’s Charles and not someone they think is a kindly grandma.

      • Chrissy says:

        A “kindly grandma” who’s about to celebrate 70 years on the throne and work to save Britain from the Nazi hoard in WWII. I truly believe that the Queen is seen as untouchable because she was seen growing up, “sacrificed” her private happiness to step up and ascend to the throne to live a life o unimaginable luxury, and has outlived most of her own generation. She’s given carte blanche to do whatever she wants, even getting exemptions from the government that will benefit her personally, just because of her almost 100 years in the public eye and no one wants to be accused of “bullying” the Queen.

    • (The OG) Jan90067 says:

      “Pleased to meet you”, MA. Before we begin talking, “where’s the toilet” ?” 🤪 😄

      Guess there’s no outrage because it’s “too American” to voice displeasure or to disparage Ol’ Brenda?

    • Polly says:

      It’s not so much that British people don’t mind, it’s more that they often don’t know because the media in this country doesn’t cover it. Apart from newspapers like the Guardian who broke this story most of the media in the UK stay away from this stuff or make it sound relatively harmless. Even the BBC covered this particular story in the most passive way possible. If people knew they would be furious but no one is telling them. I would also add that support for the monarchy is not as widespread as the tabloid coverage makes it seem, it’s just that getting rid of the Royals seems like such an impossible thing and we all get taught from birth that a republic would be worse so we should be grateful for the status quo. But you’re right that it’s all completely insane.

      • MA says:

        It’s weird though because at least on social media, the Guardian and BBC articles did not get much traction. It is true and crazy how the media can MAKE people care about news. If the Daily Mail and Sun had wall to wall coverage of the real royal scandals, maybe people would care more.

  15. equality says:

    Maybe somebody competing for the Earthshot prize should submit a plan for the palaces.

    • Myjobistoprincess says:

      Maybe somebody so keen about the environment and the earth – William doesnt need an introduction – woud be able to find a green solution for grandmama

    • Lorelei says:

      @Equality I know you’re kidding, but I truly hope this happens, lmao

  16. Chaine says:

    Yuck! How can anyone in Scotland put up with this? “One rule for thee, but not for me.” I would be livid, I mean I am livid for them and I’ve never even been to Scotland.

  17. equality says:

    This makes the bragging on royal.uk about the palaces using renewable energy look like a complete lie. Obviously any measures they might have taken haven’t been sufficient.

  18. SarahCS says:

    This made the BBC top 10 stories yesterday. Specifically (if I read it right), they are exempt from compulsory purchase orders of their land for projects to do with green energy, etc. So it’s not about not having to put energy efficient boilers in or anything like that, it’s more to hold onto their land.

    So glad this is getting coverage!

  19. Water Bearer 💧 says:

    It’s telling that the royal reporters and commentators are not making a bigger deal of this. However her grandson writing a memoir is going too far and has the potential to damage the monarchy. Funny that.

  20. Sofia says:

    The monarchy not being political has always been a myth. I’m glad some people are looking into this.

  21. taris says:

    genuinely surprised that the daily mail actually reported this story.
    but … where’s the outrage?

  22. Space Geek says:

    I can’t believe Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP (Scottish National Party) has allowed this. Worse still, attempted to hide it from the Scottish Parliament and us Scots. I’m still stunned by it all. I read this a couple of days ago and glad you covered it.

    • Lady D says:

      I had a different impression of Nicola myself. I would have thought she would broadcast the Queen’s attempts at subverting Scotland’s will.

  23. Kathy Kack says:


  24. Miss M says:

    Wait. Was this happening when her husband was in the hospital? Tell me more about the Oprah interview being disrespectful to Philip

  25. Theothermia says:

    Actually disgusting that Charles is out here pretending to be some kinda green energy warlock mascot while crown estates are belching greenhouse gasses into the air.

    Of course, it’s the ordinary British people – you know, the kind of person Charles likes to prevent buying their own homes, that will have to accommodate crown energy use. (See Guardian reporting on Duchy of Cornwall residents who can’t buy their homes. Not in Scotland, but another example of the monarchy being shady)

    • Kalana says:

      Another exemption given to a member of the monarchy. These people are parasites.

  26. SenseOfTheAbsurd says:

    Don’t forget the other side of this shitty corrupt coin, where she gets a personal pay-off in the billions for offshore wind turbines, because she owns the seabed.

  27. The Recluse says:

    Time for a Republic in Scotland and then also England.
    No more monarchy. They can keep only those properties they can maintain with their own wealth. The rest can become museums and self-supporting. And if any of these royals need the income they can work at one of their former palaces as docents and tour guides.

  28. russianblue says:

    I hate this woman. I’m sick of being told to treat the Queen lightly just because she’s elderly. I hate her, and I hate everything that she represents.

    Have fun in your castle, Queenie – you’ll be dead before the climate catastrophe sets in, while 19-year-old me and billions of others will feel the full wrath of the planet you helped destroy. The earth is going to get hot, but hopefully Hell is much hotter.

  29. Carmen-JamRock says:

    Wow. This is a strong & strongly made point and such a crucial one in this particular debate abt the RF and the fact tht they are definitively a law unto themselves.

    They are not confined by any law governing any of the islands tht make up the uk. And i hv a strong feeling tht theyre also not bound by & cannot be charged for anything under any of the int’l treaties theyve signed.

    This is one of the reasons tht i believe we hvnt yet heard from Schillings abt their response to defamatory allegations by The Firm against M. Theyre busy trying to pin down their slippery azzes.

    And BTW this song & dance from the #carnivalofclowns abt waiting til 2022 for the palace investigations to be complete is just a red herring tht has nothing to do wth wht Schillings is demanding from The Firm on behalf of their client, M. Its why every so often we hear from royalasslickers like RobertLacey tht M should just say she made a mistake & was under the influence of pre- & post-natal confusion when she behaved like a bully and just let bygones be bygones.
    AS! IF!

  30. Isabella says:

    The idea that fewer and fewer people will use these lands under a slimmed-down monarchy isn’t appealing. No advantage to the public. Better to open them up for public visit use.