Queen’s consent and a royal abuse of power | Brief letters

Readers respond to the Guardian's revelations about the monarch's efforts to conceal the extent of her personal wealth

Adam Tucker (The Queen has more power over British law than we ever thought, 8 February) argues that there is no place in a modern democracy for the convention of Queen's consent to legislation before it is agreed by parliament. He has a point. But, as I argued in a report for the UCL Constitution Unit published last autumn, the parliamentary convention muddles up two quite separate issues - interference in the prerogative powers of the crown and effects on the private interests of the current sovereign and heir.

There is an argument for enabling the sovereign and heir to comment on proposed laws affecting their private interests. They have no vote or voice in parliament - as is necessary to preserve their constitutional position. Queen's consent is a somewhat heavy-handed way of achieving this, and can give rise to the kind of concerns expressed by Tucker. But while they may have influence, and some may think it undue, it is misleading to describe it as a veto. If consent were refused, parliament would be free to carry on legislating without it, if it chose to. The rule is self-imposed - parliament is free to ignore it.