What if it had been Charles?

The closest example we have is the Glorious Revolution of 1689 - while the king (James II) had not done anything illegal he was removed (basically for being too catholic but also not such a fan of the rule of law generally).

There are a lot of conventions in our uncodified (not unwritten, a lot of it is written!) constitution.

Yes, parliament can pass any legislation it wants. Royal assent is required and, by convention, would never be refused but of course we’re talking about a situation where that convention isn’t followed. James II never abdicated and those plotting around him manoeuvred so he fled. Parliament wanted to replace him with William and Mary (his nicely Protestant daughter and her husband) but needed to make it look legit and lawful. There was a constitutional convention held by Parliament who declared the crown had passed - they cited his abuse of prerogative powers but in particular his having fled as a vacation of the crown and therefore the throne was empty. In stepped William and Mary.

It was a legal fiction to appear legit because there is no actual mechanism to remove a monarch. The system relies on their knowing their place and acting monarch-like. But they found a way, albeit on that did materially rely on the army and his leaving the country. But it does provide a schema for what might happen if the monarch committed some awful crime - we don’t live in an absolute state and parliament is considered sovereign even if there are constitutional / legal caveats - the intense political and public pressure would do for a monarch in that situation. My suspicion is an act of Parliament they refused to sign would be treated as “constructive abdication” and a failure to fulfil the constitutional function as monarch. And who would be standing up for them if they continued to argue they were really still on the throne after that?

Dh heard someone on the radio earlier saying that apparently Charles was very much against Andrew being appointed Trade Envoy - it was the Queen who was in favour. Maybe she thought a responsible job would be good for him. Like a good many mothers of ‘favourite’ sons, I dare say she was over indulgent and turned a blind eye to his failings/excesses.

Her older sister had the wit to see that getting involved with Charles would be a bad idea.

She could have said no, Which in mumsnet world, is a complete sentence

Jeez do you always sound so insufferably superior.

I can absolutely see the value in having a long-serving apolitical head of state who can rise above the normal political fray. I just dislike the fact that it's based on heredity rather than merit.

Which merits would you look for when assigning the job?

Bear in mind that Charles is King today because of an Act of Parliament (the Act of Settlement 1701) instead of Franz, Duke of Bavaria, who is the Jacobite heir.

Charles was also a victim in that marriage. It was a very poorly matched arranged marriage.

They'd met 6 or 7 times when the engagement was announced and another 6 or 7 before the wedding.
Press chasing her down the street going to work.

There's a reason why Edward, William and Harry all had long term relationships before they got married.

You still haven't explained what she was a victim of.

Diana and I were almost the same age and grew up in the same times, albeit in completely different circumstances. Yes, the age gap was talked about, but not to anything like the same extent it would be now, and not in the same way. Plenty of young girls went out with, and even married, much older men.

For lots of us this sort of stuff was brushed over. Teach tons of ancient stuff Egyptians, Romans & Vikings. Great plague and fire of London.

Let's ignore the Great Plague affecting most of Europe. The Reformation etc.

I remember being at work trying not to look like a idiot when historian started talking like this was all common knowledge

If my mum had paid out millions to protect my sibling I might have been curious to find out what was really going on.

The royals are corrupt to the core.

....I have very little idea what my siblings are up to when they're not with me. Have you?

@Andouillette and @Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g , please read the post to which I was responding.

Suggesting that a silly girl had any say in her arranged/constitutional marriage because she had set her sights on a prince as a young teenager (a child) is entirely victim blaming, and extremely distasteful (especially in the present circumstances).

And you are wrong, the age gap was much talked of at the time. I remember because Diana was exactly 10 years older than me and I was very silly young girl too, and much interested in reading about how to marry a prince.

Probably a very good reason why they shouldn't have got married.

How so? I didnt see her dragged down the aisle in chains!

Victim blaming? What was she a victim of? The marriage was perfectly legal. Ill-advised, yes. Doomed to failure, almost certainly. But nobody frogmarched Diana into it. She was of age. Plenty of other young women of 19 and 20 were getting married back then, and as I've already said the age difference was nothing like as much commented on as it would be now.

Sadly it is the truth. Poor girl. She was 15 when she made that decision. When she was actually old enough the Queen Mother and Diana's maternal grandmother, Ruth Fermoy made damn sure it happened.

These things have a way of sorting themselves out. A PP mentioned George VI, that was obviously dealt with efficiently and without much difficulty. But think about George V, he was a spare too. His elder brother, Albert Victor Duke of Clarence was a huge problem. Having been born 2 months early he was somewhat 'damaged', shall we say? His tutor described him as having an "abnormally dormant" mind and that never improved. He was also bisexual which of course was a great difficulty at the time. He got himself into all sorts of trouble which was constantly having to be hushed up. Eventually he was engaged to Princess Mary of Teck but then (conveniently?) died of pneumonia whereupon, after a decent interval Princess Mary married the Duke of York who became George V. A very happy marriage by all accounts.

Victim blaming at its finest. What a disgusting viewpoint.

Yes, I had a little google. Fascinating. There'd probably have to be something popped into his tea.

Misses the point of OPs question entirely 🙄

It’s hypothetical- could the King get arrested? Could the King be sent prison? My guess is “yes”. Nobody is above the law.

For the person who asked what if it had been the pope:

Papal infallibility only relates to doctrine. He can’t be wrong about that. But he can err or sun as much as anyone else.

But he is the head of a sovereign state which means no one outside Vatican City would have the authority to arrest him.

There is no procedure to remove him for anything other than public heresy, and even that is only theoretical - he can’t be deposed or sacked. Even if he was incapacitated. Technically the pope could commit any crime from his throne in full view of everyone and be absolutely safe.