What if it had been Charles?

[MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack]

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.

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

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.

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’?

You wish hope.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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..!

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Jimmy Nail?

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.

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.

Great question!

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

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.

That makes sense. Reassuring.