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:
Tutorpuzzle · 19/02/2026 17:56

It’s an interesting question. I suspect this is all just ‘bread and circuses’ (as described on another thread), for the masses, because Andrew’s ultimate ploy could well be to say that Charles knew everything. And I doubt we’d see the king in the witness box in one of his own courts!

Ultimately, the RF (all of them) are more interested in feathering their many nests than dealing with those pesky abuse perpetrators (see Mountbatten, Savile, Epstein/Andrew) so they will do whatever it takes to keep money from the public purse rolling in.

Playingvideogames · 19/02/2026 17:56

Seashor · 19/02/2026 17:46

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

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

Fluffyholeysocks · 19/02/2026 17:55

Charles was heir to the throne, he didn't need a made up job like AMW did. The post of Trade Envoy was given to him because he needed a position after leaving the military.
AMW was ill suited to the role, he didn't have any special talent.

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

Original poster
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 17:50

Those who are voting that I'm BU... I hope you're right, but could you explain please?

OP posts:
Original poster
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 19/02/2026 17:49

Seashor · 19/02/2026 17:46

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

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?

OP posts:
Allseeingallknowing · 19/02/2026 17:48

Jimmy Savile fooled many in high places!

FitAt50 · 19/02/2026 17:48

Raven08 · 19/02/2026 17:45

Charles? Friend of Jimmy Saville?

By that standard, anyone who is friends, child, spouse etc, of an abuser is guilty by association? What a ridiculous thing to say.

Seashor · 19/02/2026 17:46

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

Frenchfrychic · 19/02/2026 17:46

Raven08 · 19/02/2026 17:45

Charles? Friend of Jimmy Saville?

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.

Raven08 · 19/02/2026 17:45

Charles? Friend of Jimmy Saville?

Swipe left for the next trending thread