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:
ginasevern · 19/02/2026 18:33

@MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack The King (or the current reigning monarch in the UK) has sovereign immunity and cannot be arrested or prosecuted for any crime whatsoever. Wonder how many people are aware of that.

Original poster
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 18:33

Clavinova · 19/02/2026 18:27

If Charles had died before having children then Andrew may never have even met Epstein. William and Harry were born in the early 1980s - Andrew claims he first met Epstein in 1999.

Show quote history

This is true. But Andrew would still have been Andrew. Epstein didn't make him do anything.

OP posts:
LifeisLemons · 19/02/2026 18:30

Did you not study British History at school? How are you only realising this now? 😳

Needspaceforlego · 19/02/2026 18:28

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

Yip a bit of fortune in who was born first.

But Charles and Edward always seem fairly straightforward as does Ann.
The Queens sister Margaret was a tad wild too. But maybe being the Spare is a tough place to be.

Mcdhotchoc · 19/02/2026 18:28

If there was sufficient public will, the Government could get rid of the monarchy.

ginasevern · 19/02/2026 18:28

@Frenchfrychic "Oh cmon, they were hardly Bessie’s and if you’re trying to suggest h3 as friends with saville knowing then it’s laughable the man has his faults, but paedo sympathiser is not one of tnem."

Couple of points here. Charles was actually very, very good friends with Saville and their close relationship lasted over 20 years. Read up on it. Secondly, Charles wrote a glowing letter of support for the paedophile Bishop of Gloucester (calling the victim a dreadful little man) and subsequently offered the Bishop a free house on his estate. Thirdly, Charles' uncle, Lord Mountbatten (who Charles saw as a second father and mentor) was a prolific paedophile procurring orphaned boys from children's homes. It was all known about as far back as the 1970's and was the main reason the IRA blew him to pieces.

Clavinova · 19/02/2026 18:27

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

If Charles had died before having children then Andrew may never have even met Epstein. William and Harry were born in the early 1980s - Andrew claims he first met Epstein in 1999.

Original poster
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 18:26

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

That's also a very good point.

We would end up in a massive constitutional crisis if the monarch refused to "do the right thing".

OP posts:
Needspaceforlego · 19/02/2026 18:25

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 18:23

That makes sense. Reassuring.

Show quote history

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

MoiraPlunkett · 19/02/2026 18:25

There'd be an act of parliament to force abdication, I should think, if it came to that.

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.

Original poster
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 18:23

Untailored · 19/02/2026 18:22

As we don’t have a written constitution, parliament can pass any law it wants. Just need the votes!

So it could pass a law to remove the king.

Show quote history

That makes sense. Reassuring.

OP posts:
Simplelobsterhat · 19/02/2026 18:23

Exactly, it's things like this that show how absurd inherited monarchy is. If Charles had died young before having children Andrew would be king now. And yes of course you could say he'd have behaved differently if he wasn't stuck being the spare, but nevertheless plenty of kings have been pretty unsuited to the job.

It's absurd we still accept it, especially their above the law status. All that taking his titles from him business just annoyed me because it suggested the titles were only for those who deserved them, whereas on reality that's not true at all.

Needspaceforlego · 19/02/2026 18:22

Op its a very good question.
I think there must be a line somewhere between the individual and the office they hold. Failing that it would be Abdicate or else face a revolution

Notarealblonde · 19/02/2026 18:22

Great question!

Original poster
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 18:22

Playingvideogames · 19/02/2026 18:17

What if the Prime Minister refused to leave 10 Downing Street? What if Trump refuses to leave the White House as I suspect he might. I guess Parliament would legislate to enable the police to remove them - although the Monarch (in theory) has to give Royal assent to all new legislation..!

Show quote history

I don't know much about the US constitution. But surely if KS refused to leave Downing St, he could be forcibly removed? I'm not sure exactly what crime he would be committing, but surely there would be something?! And certainly, the PM is not above the law.

Trump? God knows, and yes, I can imagine this happening as well.

OP posts:
Untailored · 19/02/2026 18:22

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 18:18

That's interesting. Parliament could remove the monarch if they refused to abdicate? I didn't know that. I hope you're right!

Show quote history

As we don’t have a written constitution, parliament can pass any law it wants. Just need the votes!

So it could pass a law to remove the king.

CarlStoleMyUnderpants · 19/02/2026 18:21

Playingvideogames · 19/02/2026 17:56

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

Show quote history

Jimmy Nail?

Whatacircus · 19/02/2026 18:21

Charles, let's see - Peter Bell, Mountbatten , not forgetting Laurens van der Post......

Needspaceforlego · 19/02/2026 18:19

JacknDiane · 19/02/2026 18:11

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

Well its not exactly something that he's going to brag about to his much older brother or his mother who was a devoute Christian and Head of CoE.

She must be spinning in her grave. Because I don't think they knew the half of it. When it came out I'll bet they'll have been told the girls were happily up for it.

Untailored · 19/02/2026 18:19

Mischance · 19/02/2026 18:17

I think the point the OP is making is that the king has sovereign immunity. Should he have? - interesting question.

It’s a theoretical thing, in the sense that our laws are enforced in the name of the crown. So the monarch can’t prosecute himself. It’s not so much about avoiding personal liability, though of course that is the result.

Thepeopleversuswork · 19/02/2026 18:18

JacknDiane · 19/02/2026 18:11

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

I’m sure he knew. But when his mother was on the throne his hands were tied. Hence why I think he’s probably relieved that he can stop covering up for Andrew and is being robust about the police needing to do their job etc.

Original poster
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 18:18

RustyBear · 19/02/2026 18:16

If there was reasonable cause, the Prime Minister could advise him to abdicate. If he refused, Parliament could remove him, as they have done before. Once he had abdicated, he could be prosecuted

That's interesting. Parliament could remove the monarch if they refused to abdicate? I didn't know that. I hope you're right!

OP posts:
Playingvideogames · 19/02/2026 18:17

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 18:14

And if the monarch chose not to bow to any pressure?

It's a hypothetical situation and I know that, in the absence of a written constitution, perhaps nobody can say for sure. But I'm interested to hear what others think about it.

Show quote history

What if the Prime Minister refused to leave 10 Downing Street? What if Trump refuses to leave the White House as I suspect he might. I guess Parliament would legislate to enable the police to remove them - although the Monarch (in theory) has to give Royal assent to all new legislation..!

Mischance · 19/02/2026 18:17

I think the point the OP is making is that the king has sovereign immunity. Should he have? - interesting question.

Swipe left for the next trending thread