The Prince of Wales website lists the following Royal Households, I have cross-referenced this list of the public register of Data Controllers held by the ICO:

(believe it or not there is an order of precedence for the Households, they are listed here in that order)

The Guardian reported that Prince Charles has been offered a veto over 12 government bills since 2005.

By searching TheyWorkForYou (user friendly version of Hansard) I decided to start a list of all bills and measures for which consent was received (search results).

Consent from Prince Charles (in capacity as Duke of Cornwall etc)

  • Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Bill -15 December 1999 (Scottish Parliament) (source)
  • Charities Bill – 8 November 2005
  • Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Bill – 14 January 2010
  • Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill – 19 November 2001
  • Commons Bill – 18 January 2006
  • Communications Bill – 8 July 2003
  • Company Law Reform Bill – 23 May 2006
  • Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill (14 July 2004)
  • Coroners and Justice Bill – 5 November 2009
  • Countryside and Rights of Way Bill – 23 November 2000
  • Crown Benefices (Parish Representatives) Measure – 13 January 2010
  • Energy Bill – 15 March 2011
  • Finance Bill 2004 – 20 July 2004
  • Gambling Bill – 6 April 2005
  • Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill – 18 November 2003)
  • Housing and Regeneration Bill – 17 July 2008
  • Hunting Bill – 15 November 2004
  • Land Registration Bill – 8 November 2001
  • Licensing Bill – 19 June 2003
  • Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill 29 April 2009
  • Localism Bill – 31 October 2011
  • London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill – 14 March 2006
  • Marine and Coastal Access Bill – 8 June 2009
  • Marine Navigation Aids Bill – 21 January 2011
  • Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill – 27 March 2006
  • Planning Bill – 18 November 2008
  • Powers of Entry etc. Bill – 6 April 2010
  • Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure – 29 October 1993
  • Railways and Transport Safety Bill – 3 July 2003
  • Retail Development Bill – 8 July 2008
  • Road Safety Bill – 10 January 2006
  • Sovereign Grant Bill – 3 October 2011
  • Trustee Bill – 29 June 2000
  • Water Bill – 9 July 2003
  • Wreck Removal Convention – (source: Duchy of Cornwall FOI request page, Parliament website)

Earlier cases of Prince’s consent

  • The West of England and South Wales Drainage Company Incorporation Bill 1848 (the earliest known per Kirkhope)

Cases where legislation specifically refers to Duchy of Cornwall but where consent was not required

  • the Duchy of Cornwall Acts passed in 1844 (per Kirkhope, this might suggest that the practice of requiring Prince’s consent was invented after 1843)

Many people are aware that Acts of Parliament require Royal Assent but Queen’s Consent and Prince’s Consent are less well understood. The extracts from Erskine May, 24th edition below show the wide ranging impact of this obscure provision. The obscurity of Parliamentary procedures is partly hidden from the public due to the exorbitant cost of Erskine May – (see Richard Taylor’s Blog Post: Parliament Blown Open by Hackers)

Prince of Wales’s consent

“The Prince’s consent is required for a bill which affects the rights of the
principality of Wales and earldom of Chester, or which makes specific reference to, or special provision for, the Duchy of Cornwall; and the Prince’s consent may (depending on the circumstances) be required for a bill which amends an Act which does any of those things.”

“The need for consent arises from the Sovereign’s reversionary interest in the Duchy of Cornwall. For that reason, if a bill affects the Duchy of Cornwall in the same way as it affects other Crown land, separate Prince’s consent has not been required, the Queen’s consent being sufficient. The Prince’s consent was not required for provisions amending an Act which did not apply to the Duchy, even though those provisions referred expressly to communications with the heir to the Throne. A bill affecting the Duchy of Cornwall in its capacity as harbour authority for the Isles of Scilly has required the Prince’s consent. For the Duchy of Cornwall’s interest in intestacy and bona vacantia…”

Many people are aware that Acts of Parliament require Royal Assent but Queen’s Consent and Prince’s Consent are less well understood. The extracts from Erskine May, 24th edition below show the wide ranging impact of this obscure provision. The obscurity of Parliamentary procedures is partly hidden from the public due to the exorbitant cost of Erskine May – (see Richard Taylor’s Blog Post: Parliament Blown Open by Hackers)

Queen’s Consent

“Bills affecting the prerogative (being powers exercisable by the Sovereign for the performance of constitutional duties) on the one hand, or hereditary revenues, person al property or interests of the Crown , the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall on the other, require the signification of Queen’s consent in both Houses before they are passed.”

“When the Prince of Wales is of age, his own consent as Duke of Cornwall is given.”

“The Queen’s consent is expressed in terms to the effect that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the bill, has consented to place her prerogative or interest, or both, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the bill.”

Queen’s consent in respect of her interest

“Consent in respect of the Queen’s interest is required for a bill which affects the hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Crown or the Duchies of Lancaster or Cornwall. This includes the Royal Household and the Royal Palaces (including the Palace of Westminster), the Crown Estate and the Crown Estate Commissioners, the Queen’s private estates, and the Queen’s interest as a landlord or an employer.”

“Recent provisions requiring such consent have included:
(a) restrictions on the use that might be made of premises on Duchy
land;
(b) the creation of further statutory nuisances arising from land which
might have exposed the Crown to the risk of legal proceedings;
(c) the express application of data protection legislation to personal data
processed by the Royal Household and the Duchy of Lancaster;
(d) the abolition of the office of coroner of the Queen’s household, so that
deaths of members of the royal family were to be investigated under the
same rules as any other deaths;
(e) the application of legislation about construction contracts to contracts entered into on behalf of the Queen in right of the Duchy of Lancaster or on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall;
(f) the designation of rights in gas importation and storage zones in areas outside the territorial sea as rights belonging to Her Majesty.”

Consent is also required for bills which relate to matters such as intestacy and bona vacantia in which the Crown and the Duchies have a historic interest, unless the effect is remote.

Consent is required if the repeal of a protective provision may have an adverse effect on the Queen’s interest, and is required even if the adverse effect resulting from the bill itself needs consent. Consent is required in respect of substantial consequences for the Queen of changes in the general law, but has not been required for insignificant or remote consequences of such changes. Where consent has already been given in respect of a particular change in the law, it has not been required to be given again in respect of further changes which could not have affected the basis on which the original consent was given. In cases where the effect of a bill is doubtful it is the practice to require the Queen’s consent. A bill relating to the civil service which required consent in respect of the prerogative also required consent in respect of the Queen’s interest because it applied to the Crown Estate Commissioners.”