What if it had been Charles?

Bollocks. And you’re allowed to say paedophilia.

Strange isn’t it that on a forum where people ask if it’s OK to leave an 18 year old alone at home for a week and trust them to walk the dog, another 18 year old is expected simply to say no to the power and control of the whole British establishment….

I think if the revelations were about Charles instead of Andrew then the monarch would be pressured to abdicate, the replacement heir would remove all protection and they could then be tried as anyone else.

If the monarch tried to resist abdication or the replacing heir refused to act there would be enough public outcry to force some sort of instant interregnum and then a fast implementation of a republic.

Your original post said Diana had set her sights on Charles ‘years before’. Which rather suggests you think a young teenager (a child) had agency over a powerful institution interested only in wealth and its own longevity. And had need of a brood mare.

I do hope you are simply being naive in seeing their marriage as a jolly Jilly Cooper-esque romp and not, as many people did at the time, as an horrifically medieval arranged marriage for a well-bred, just about legal, virgin.

Making her look like a 43 year old typist for the engagement photos didn’t fool everybody, you know.

totally this!
plus a clergy member here and there, and the notorious Mountbatten uncle

I haven't read the whole thread, though I am interested, so apologies if this has been said. But ultimately, the power structure surrounding the monarch isn't real. As in, it's all made up by humans and everyone goes along with it. Most of the time, that's for good reasons (maintaining law and order).

The monarch is one person. If he did something completely heinous, and the Prime Minister, head of the Met Police (body that provides him with security) and the head of the armed forces marched into his office and said he needed to go and that he had no choice, what could he actually do? If all the power structures surrounding him were turned against him, he would have to go along with it, surely.

Wasn’t there a 3rd person involved when Charles was married to Diana? And I have read some weird things about Charles habits before.
if you search back in history about previous kings and queens it’s fairly colourful!

Completely agree about the title. It is not something you earn or deserve- also un-princing him lets the RF take a step away, saying: 'Oh no! he's not one of us'.

It's Rex now. Regina was Queen

I think that in that sort of instance he would be required to abdicate.

if they were legitimately incapacitated, which being sectioned would suggest they were, then there is a formal statutory mechanism for regency so doesn’t require the same legal figleaf. although of course that doesn’t actually remove them from the position.

@Dollymylove

It seems that way sometimes! I find it a bit ridiculous, especially when you're talking about people who are both out of their teens.

You're wrong. The reigning king/queen has sovereign immunity. Any criminal case is Regina v Joe Bloggs. You can't have Regina v Regina

I think the law was changed before W and K had kids in case their first was a girl.

No. The law has been changed very recently and currently the succession goes:

William
William's eldest child - George
William's second child - Charlotte
William's youngest child - Louis
Harry

However, the idea that birth order is all that counts and sex is irrelevant is very new indeed. When I was growing up the succession went like this:

Charles - Queen's eldest son, who happened to be her eldest child
Andrew - Queen's second son
Edward - Queen's third son
Anne - Queen's daughter, even though she's older than Andrew and Edward

No. It's been Andrew because the law wasn't changed to allow female succession until after Charles had children.

Harking back here to The Madness of George III. He was forcibly treated and his son was made Regent while he was too unwell to rule himself.

In the world of mumsnet any relationship gap of more than 6 months is treated like pxxdophilia 😉

What if it had been aliens? What if it had been a yeti? What if it had been Jesus?

Well.... It wasn't.

Wouldn’t it be Anne?

He dumped her because she gave an interview to the press

@ParmaVioletTea

There was a 14-year-age gap between my parents. Mum and Dad met when she was 23 and he was 37.

I realise Diana was a bit younger, but a 12-year age gap between adults is no big deal to me (as long as they're both fully consenting adults, then any age gap is no big deal for me.)

Find an alternative and plop them on the throne instead.

Maybe @AgentLisbon will be able to answer this. If a bad monarch can't be prosecuted, can they be, for instance, sectioned or forcibly hospitalised? I can imagine a situation where a psychiatrist declared them dangerously ill (with or without justification) and forced a regency. Is that plausible?