However, it has emerged that some last minute changes were made to it in a bid to allay the industry's fears about political control.
They mean any change to the charter would not only need a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament but also the unanimous agreement of the board of the so-called recognition panel which will oversee a press self-regulation committee.
A Coalition source said the change was meant to address the Press's concerns about political interference.
Earlier, the charter, backed by all three main Westminster parties, was passed at a brief meeting of the Privy Council in Buckingham Palace when the Queen set her seal on it.
It was attended by just four ministers, including Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Culture Secretary Maria Miller.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport stressed the charter would "protect freedom of the Press whilst offering real redress when mistakes are made. Importantly, it is the best way of resisting full statutory regulation that others have tried to impose".
But the industry, fearful politicians in future will seek to control and neuter it, had sought to block the charter at the Court of Appeal.
Lord Black of Brentwood, who chairs the industry body due to fund a new regulator, explained the decision to go to court had been made because of the "enormous ramifications for free speech" at home and abroad.
Yet yesterday evening, just 45 minutes before the Privy Council met, Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls, sitting with two other Court of Appeal judges, refused to grant an injunction pending further legal action.
Hacked Off, the lobby group which has led the campaign for tighter regulation, welcomed the charter, saying it would enable the recommendations of the Leveson inquiry into Press standards to be implemented.
It said: "News publishers now have a great opportunity to join a scheme that will not only give the public better protection from Press abuses but will also uphold freedom of expression, protect investigative journalism and benefit papers financially."
Ms Miller acknowledged it was open to the Press not to sign up to a regulator set up under the charter but hoped it would do so.
She said: "Self-regulation is exactly that; it's self-regulation and the Press obviously can choose to be subject to the Royal Charter or not; that is inherent in the process."
Bob Satchwell for the Society of Editors described the granting of the charter as disappointing, saying it was a "pity the Queen has been brought into controversy".
He said: "Royal charters are usually granted to those who ask for one; not forced upon an industry or group that doesn't want it."
Mr Satchwell said the industry had taken on board Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations including £1 million fines, orders to make corrections, investigative powers and an independent board with no serving editors in the regulatory system.