Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

What if it had been Charles?

211 replies

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 17:41

The PM said this morning that nobody is above the law, but is that actually true?

If it had actually been the monarch who was suspected of committing the crimes that Andrew is accused of, rather than his brother, am I right in thinking that, as things stand, there would be no provision under our existing constitution to deal with this? The police and the courts are agents of the crown, so presumably they couldn't act against the monarch?

So what would actually happen in that situation if the rest of the royal family couldn't persuade the monarch to abdicate. Would we have to have a revolution?

ETA Sorry, forgot to add my AIBU. AIBU to think that it isn't quite accurate to say that nobody is above the law.

OP posts:
Dollymylove · 19/02/2026 19:50

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 19/02/2026 18:58

She was 19 when they became engaged and 20 when they married. The age of consent was 16 and the age of majority was 18, as now. He was 12 years older. Different times in 1981. The age difference was not much remarked on.

Show quote history

Diana had her sights set on him for years

dapsnotplimsolls · 19/02/2026 19:48

Pollqueen · 19/02/2026 19:40

Charles has sovereign immunity so theoretically cannot be charged with any crime as it would be HM v HM

PM - Hi Wills, do you fancy being King?
W - Yes, please! But how?
PM - Well, you know everything that's being said. We're worried it could bring down the monarchy. Fancy a spot of usurping?
W - What about the army?
PM - They're not going to support someone who's ...
W - Fair enough. Sign me up and measure my head

Tutorpuzzle · 19/02/2026 19:48

BlueJuniper94 · 19/02/2026 19:30

Plenty of other people are. You just want an elected head of state. Which is silly. Because the people will vote for Nigel Farage.

Show quote history

Do we need a head of state, unelected or otherwise? Can’t the PM do it?
It would save a few (billion) pounds!

Pollqueen · 19/02/2026 19:40

Charles has sovereign immunity so theoretically cannot be charged with any crime as it would be HM v HM

Dollymylove · 19/02/2026 19:39

Charles has known his destiny since he popped out if the Royal Womb and has been trained to know his role and his duty towards his people. He knew he had to behave in the manner of a Monarch- in- waiting, and despite his habit of not keeping it in his pants, it would be strictly consensual with willing partner(s)😉 😄

NeverDropYourMooncup · 19/02/2026 19:37

gototogo · 19/02/2026 18:03

He has integrity as do both his sons (even though son number two has other flawsGrin) and a monarch can step down.

Kinda makes his desperation to live outside the UK with his wife and children somewhat understandable, though, doesn't it? And that, as his uncle was being protected to the extent of paying out millions to try and make it all go away, that this could answer why the pair of them come across as scared, angry and resentful at the now-accused being prioritised over him and his kids.

RustyBear · 19/02/2026 19:33

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 19:21

Can they actually? What about papal infallibility?

Show quote history

It’s been done before, the last time was the Papal Schism at the end of the 14th century, which saw two popes, one in Rome and one in Avignon after a group of cardinals declared the papal election invalid and elected their own pope. A few years later, both the Avignon and Roman popes were declared invalid and a third one was elected at Pisa. Eventually all three were dethroned in 1417 in favour of Pope Martin.

Andouillette · 19/02/2026 19:32

JacknDiane · 19/02/2026 18:11

Are we all pretending Charles knew nothing about what Andrew has been up to all these years???

I am sure he knew some of it but I am also sure he was largely ignored. After all, his concerns about Andrew being a trade envoy way back in 2001 were totally dismissed by HLMQ and T. Blair.

dapsnotplimsolls · 19/02/2026 19:32

Dawnintheageofaquariams · 19/02/2026 19:31

Stephen Yaxley Lennon...

Show quote history

Boris Fucking Johnson.

dapsnotplimsolls · 19/02/2026 19:32

Charles I refused to recognise the authority of the court during his trial. He was still found guilty and executed.

Dawnintheageofaquariams · 19/02/2026 19:31

Playingvideogames · 19/02/2026 17:56

This. What if it was Kier Starmer? Louis Theroux? Owen Jones? Tommy Robinson?

Show quote history

Stephen Yaxley Lennon...

dadtoateen · 19/02/2026 19:30

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 19:28

Missed the point?

Show quote history

Probably 🤣

BlueJuniper94 · 19/02/2026 19:30

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 17:49

I know it wasn't Charles but I don't see why it isn't relevant.

If Charles had died before having children, Andrew would be our monarch now.

Are we OK with the idea of the monarch being above the law and immune to prosecution?

Show quote history

Plenty of other people are. You just want an elected head of state. Which is silly. Because the people will vote for Nigel Farage.

Playingvideogames · 19/02/2026 19:29

RustyBear · 19/02/2026 19:24

Then Parliament passes a law to say the Royal Assent isn’t needed.

Show quote history

This, in theory the highest form of law is an Act of Parliament. The only things an Act of Parliament can’t do are:

  1. Legislate retrospectively (ie to make something illegal from a past date)
  2. Bind future government (‘no government shall legislate to undo this’ sort of thing)

They are able to legislate to subvert a historical constitutional process, but it never really happens as our unwritten constitution is regarded as sacred.

Original poster
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 19:28

dadtoateen · 19/02/2026 19:24

But it wasn’t the king??

Show quote history

Missed the point?

OP posts:
Original poster
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 19:27

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 19/02/2026 19:21

The late Queen's father was the spare, and had to ascend to the throne after his brother abdicated. He turned out all right.

Andrew should have stayed in the military or been trained up for a profession. By the time he was in his early 20s it was perfectly obvious that he was never going to be King.

I can believe that Charles knew something about the Epstein stuff, but I'd be amazed if he knew and had decided to overlook Andrew passing on sensitive information to Epstein. I don't believe even his doting mother could have overlooked this. The entire raison d'etre of the Royal Family is serving the country (in theory) and this is the direct opposite.

We will probably never know.

I do think they have a genuine sense of duty around "serving the country" but I also think they might be more than capable of persuading themselves that preventing revelations that might be damaging to the institution of the monarchy would be in the nation's best interests. So I think they would be more than capable of a grand cover up, but the jury is out for me as to whether or not that is actually what happened. I suspect that they didn't know nothing.

OP posts:
RustyBear · 19/02/2026 19:24

Needspaceforlego · 19/02/2026 18:25

But all acts require the Royal Warrant?
The Monarch isn't exactly going to sign it, like a turkey voting for Christmas

Show quote history

Then Parliament passes a law to say the Royal Assent isn’t needed.

dadtoateen · 19/02/2026 19:24

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 17:41

The PM said this morning that nobody is above the law, but is that actually true?

If it had actually been the monarch who was suspected of committing the crimes that Andrew is accused of, rather than his brother, am I right in thinking that, as things stand, there would be no provision under our existing constitution to deal with this? The police and the courts are agents of the crown, so presumably they couldn't act against the monarch?

So what would actually happen in that situation if the rest of the royal family couldn't persuade the monarch to abdicate. Would we have to have a revolution?

ETA Sorry, forgot to add my AIBU. AIBU to think that it isn't quite accurate to say that nobody is above the law.

But it wasn’t the king??

dapsnotplimsolls · 19/02/2026 19:23

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 19:21

Can they actually? What about papal infallibility?

Show quote history

No idea. Maybe God will smite him?

Original poster
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 19:21

dapsnotplimsolls · 19/02/2026 19:18

The Pope is elected so presumably the cardinals can sack him??

Show quote history

Can they actually? What about papal infallibility?

OP posts:
Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 19/02/2026 19:21

The late Queen's father was the spare, and had to ascend to the throne after his brother abdicated. He turned out all right.

Andrew should have stayed in the military or been trained up for a profession. By the time he was in his early 20s it was perfectly obvious that he was never going to be King.

I can believe that Charles knew something about the Epstein stuff, but I'd be amazed if he knew and had decided to overlook Andrew passing on sensitive information to Epstein. I don't believe even his doting mother could have overlooked this. The entire raison d'etre of the Royal Family is serving the country (in theory) and this is the direct opposite.

dapsnotplimsolls · 19/02/2026 19:18

1dayatatime · 19/02/2026 19:14

But what if it was the Pope?

Show quote history

The Pope is elected so presumably the cardinals can sack him??

RainbowBagels · 19/02/2026 19:15

Vallonette · 19/02/2026 18:24

Tangentially, this makes me realise that we/the Royal Family have been pretty lucky in terms of which sibling was born first.

Andrew is an utter dimbo, much dumber and more unreliable than Charles. Same thing with Harry vs William. Imagining either Andrew or Harry as monarch... that's just a car crash.

I mean, I'm not claiming that either Charles or William are going to be joining Mensa anytime soon. But comparatively speaking, it could have been so much worse. Obviously the eldest sibling is "brought up" to the role, but I think there's a very big difference in natural aptitude as well.

Edited

Its nothing to do with natural aptitude ( to do what? They have little to do apart from line their own pockets) Its all to do with the way the Monarchy works. The eldest is the one with a defined role. They know they will be King. They are brought up to be King. They know the whole thing goes to them- all the money, all the power, everything. The younger one is nothing but a temporary emergency measure. They have no power, no purpose, they just have to sit around getting more and more irrelevant as their older sibling has children and being chucked handouts for the rest of their lives. The system of Monarchy has made Margaret, Andrew and Harry, and all the other disgruntled 'spares'. They willingly subject their own children to this in order to keep the money and the power.

1dayatatime · 19/02/2026 19:14

Seashor · 19/02/2026 17:46

But it wasn’t Charles, so it’s irrelevant.

But what if it was the Pope?

Thepeopleversuswork · 19/02/2026 19:13

@Vallonette

Yes, I see your point.
On the other hand, Edward and Anne seem to be all right.

Anne is a woman, and very few women are entitled bellends on this scale. Or paedophiles.

Edward seems a much gentler sort of person (and you remember there was always speculation that he was gay anyway, roundly dismissed in the papers by his wife but I'm not convinced). He was also the fourth of the children so statistically the chances of him getting to the throne were so remote as to barely merit discussion.

Swipe left for the next trending thread