The 'legislative privilege' of the Queen of England is controversial

by The Commonwealth

Britain was the founder of a constitutional monarchy that regulates the power of monarchs by the Constitution , and the Windsor family is still recognized as the British royal family. The issue that the privileges of the British royal family have a strong influence on legislation has been controversial in 2021.

The Queen has more power over British law than we ever thought | Monarchy | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-power-british-law-queens-consent

The problem pointed out by The Guardian in the British letter lies in the legislative system of ' Queen's Consent .' In the United Kingdom, bills that affect the customary powers of the royal family, such as the royal prerogative and the royal family's personal property, literally require 'queen's consent' and the queen can veto at her own will. .. Furthermore, if you want to affect the Duke of Cornwall, which is the territory of the British royal family, you need the consent of not only the Queen but also the Crown Prince who owns the royal family.

Regarding this 'Queen's Consent' system, The Guardian argues that 'there is a problem with transparency and scope.' According to the newspaper, 'Queen's consent' is a process that is carried out before the bill is finally approved by both houses, but it is unclear whether it was actually rejected by 'Queen's consent'. As a result of an independent investigation into this, the newspaper reported extensively on February 7, 2021, that 'Elizabeth II exercised'Queen's Consent'to hide'embarrassing'private property.'

Revealed: Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth | UK news | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth

The Guardian prefaced that 'it is clear that the system of'queen's consent'is anti-democratic in the first place,' and pointed out that it is a process in which it is not even clear what the origin of 'queen's consent' is. He mentioned that 'Queen's Consent' should be formal, but in reality it may be invoked by the Queen's authority.

The Guardian also mentions the problem of endlessly expanding the scope of 'Queen's Consent'. For example, because the Queen pays taxes, it is possible to argue that 'all financial bills affect the Queen's personal wealth.' In addition, because the Queen employs a variety of personnel, it can be said that the Child Rearing Allowance Law and the Pension Law also affect personal assets.

Regarding a series of problems, The Guardian said, 'Although the King's power is said to have'the right to consult, encourage, and warn', the'Queen's Consent'process goes far beyond these rights. I'm doing it. ' We call for a rethinking of the need for this process in democracy in the 21st century.