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:
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

Original poster
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 18:16

JacknDiane · 19/02/2026 18:11

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

I genuinely don't know what he did and didn't know to be fair.

OP posts:
Untailored · 19/02/2026 18:15

The monarch cannot be prosecuted for a crime nor can they give evidence in court.

I suppose he would abdicate and then he would no longer be monarch and could be prosecuted.

If he refused to abdicate, then god knows. It’s uncharted waters.

Original poster
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 18:15

Thepeopleversuswork · 19/02/2026 18:09

Its a fair question and a nearly unprecedented situation so reasonable to ask…

I think there would be all sorts of constitutional complications with this, not least the fact that all criminal cases are brought technically in the name of the monarch so if it were Charles it would be Rex vs Rex in any lawsuit. Would be interesting to hear from anyone who understands constitutional law.

Much as I respect Charles for his position on Andrew (and I don’t think he had much choice), I suspect that there’s a fair bit of animosity between them and he has been biting his tongue on this for years. Its probably also bit of a relief to not have to cover up for him.

Edited

Yes, I'm sure you're right that this is a bit of a relief for the king.

The Rex vs Rex conundrum was what got me thinking about the question.

OP posts:
Thepeopleversuswork · 19/02/2026 18:14

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 18:08

But that's exactly the point - it doesn't. It applies to everyone except the monarch.

And I wondered how comfortable people feel about that.

Show quote history

Not at all comfortable. Its a barbaric anachronism that the monarch is constitutionally above the law.

It happens that our contemporary monarchs have been morally benign but that’s a happy accident.

This is one of many reasons why I think having a monarchy is unjustifiable, even if a particular monarch is decent.

Original poster
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 18:14

Playingvideogames · 19/02/2026 18:10

Truly, I doubt even a constitutional law specialist could tell you. Our constitution is uncodified so there’s no clear instruction on what to do if the Monarch commits a crime. My best guess is they would be forced to abdicate in the way Edward was during the abdication crisis - through pressure rather than will. They can’t order the army to slaughter Parliament or similar, what could they realistically do to ‘fight back’?

Show quote history

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.

OP posts:
JacknDiane · 19/02/2026 18:11

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

JacknDiane · 19/02/2026 18:10

Frenchfrychic · 19/02/2026 17:46

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.

Show quote history

You wish hope.

Playingvideogames · 19/02/2026 18:10

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 18:05

Well, yes. So I am interested in thinking about how that would play out if it happened now.

Show quote history

Truly, I doubt even a constitutional law specialist could tell you. Our constitution is uncodified so there’s no clear instruction on what to do if the Monarch commits a crime. My best guess is they would be forced to abdicate in the way Edward was during the abdication crisis - through pressure rather than will. They can’t order the army to slaughter Parliament or similar, what could they realistically do to ‘fight back’?

Thepeopleversuswork · 19/02/2026 18:09

Its a fair question and a nearly unprecedented situation so reasonable to ask…

I think there would be all sorts of constitutional complications with this, not least the fact that all criminal cases are brought technically in the name of the monarch so if it were Charles it would be Rex vs Rex in any lawsuit. Would be interesting to hear from anyone who understands constitutional law.

Much as I respect Charles for his position on Andrew (and I don’t think he had much choice), I suspect that there’s a fair bit of animosity between them and he has been biting his tongue on this for years. Its probably also bit of a relief to not have to cover up for him.

Orangesofabed · 19/02/2026 18:08

Thank you for highlighting this, I think it's a really interesting question

Original poster
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 18:08

RudolphTheReindeer · 19/02/2026 18:03

I thought the rule of law applied to all?

But that's exactly the point - it doesn't. It applies to everyone except the monarch.

And I wondered how comfortable people feel about that.

OP posts:
Original poster
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 18:07

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.

Yes, my point is not so much about what Charles (or his sons) would do in those situations, but rather what we could do if the monarch chose not to do the right thing.

If Andrew had been the monarch now, I'm less than convinced that he ^would stand down. Would there be any way to oust him without us actually having a revolution?

OP posts:
olivietolivie · 19/02/2026 18:05

Oooh I think this is such an interesting question.

What would happen if Charles killed someone? Could he not be tried for murder?

Original poster
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 18:05

Playingvideogames · 19/02/2026 18:02

Well the last Monarch to be put on trial was Charles 1st in 1649, but that was for treason (this isn’t too dissimilar in a way). The constitution has evolved since then, we can also no longer behead people for example.

Show quote history

Well, yes. So I am interested in thinking about how that would play out if it happened now.

OP posts:
Original poster
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 18:03

LlynTegid · 19/02/2026 18:02

If it had been the monarch, by now he would have abdicated.

Well, you would hope so. But I'm not sure.

OP posts:
RudolphTheReindeer · 19/02/2026 18:03

I thought the rule of law applied to all?

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.

Playingvideogames · 19/02/2026 18:02

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 18:01

This is true, but elected heads of state can be removed. A monarch is a bit different.

Show quote history

Well the last Monarch to be put on trial was Charles 1st in 1649, but that was for treason (this isn’t too dissimilar in a way). The constitution has evolved since then, we can also no longer behead people for example.

LlynTegid · 19/02/2026 18:02

If it had been the monarch, by now he would have abdicated.

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

LightningMode · 19/02/2026 17:57

Can the monarch be arrested?

The King is subject to ‘sovereign immunity’, protecting him from criminal or civil legal proceedings.

https://consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-explained/the-monarchy/

Thank you, that's what I thought.

OP posts:
Original poster
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 18:01

likelysuspect · 19/02/2026 17:52

I think a monarch is not able to be arrested or prosecuted but many heads of state also have that privilege.

Good job it wasnt

This is true, but elected heads of state can be removed. A monarch is a bit different.

OP posts:
Playingvideogames · 19/02/2026 18:00

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 18:00

Eh? Did you miss the point of the thread?

I'm asking about a constitutional question. Your hypothetical what-ifs are completely irrelevant to that question.

Show quote history

Eh? No.

There’s constitutional queries about a Monarch being arrested, but we’ll never really know until it plays out as it’s uncharted territory.

Original poster
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 18:00

Playingvideogames · 19/02/2026 17:56

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

Show quote history

Eh? Did you miss the point of the thread?

I'm asking about a constitutional question. Your hypothetical what-ifs are completely irrelevant to that question.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread