Queen's first complaint to press regulator is upheld
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Queen's first complaint to the press regulator - about a survey which claimed that her personal worth was pounds 2.2bn - has been upheld, the Press Complaints Commission reveals in a report published today.
Charles Anson, the Queen's press secretary, complained that the analysis of her wealth in a survey of "The Rich 500" in Business Age magazine last September was misleading and inaccurate. The magazine had ranked the Queen as the richest person in Britain, despite placing her 72nd with pounds 158m in 1994, after reanalysing the assets it believed she owned personally. Possessions which clearly belonged to her included racehorses, stocks, bonds and bank deposits. But the new additions included some of the art treasures, jewellery and palaces owned by the Crown.
In its judgement, the Press Complaints Commission - whose director, Mark Bolland, is shortly to become the Prince of Wales's press secretary - accepted that there were complicated legal and factual issues which could be the subject of legitimate argument. But the magazine had not clearly explained the financial breakdown of the pounds 2.2bn figure and it should not have presented "purely speculative numbers as established facts".
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments