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.

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.

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

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

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".

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.

@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.

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

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.

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

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

@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.

Not remotely seeking to justify Andrew’s actions but I do think people underestimate how horrible being the “spare” must be. Its basically a license to be an idle, entitled pillock.

Historically it was at least expected that the royals and aristocracy would swagger about doing very little. Nowadays they are expected to play their part in the whole horrific merry go round of being a royal but without any of the constitutional duties, expectations and curbs on their behaviour. And they are constantly under the media lens.

If the royal family is going to survive (and I don’t think it should), they will need to figure this out.

No, this particular question wasn't something that I studied at school. And I have never been a fan of the monarchy, but I haven't given much thought to this particular issue previously.

This hasn’t happened before, or not in the modern era. So how is anyone supposed to have learned about it at school?

Yes, that's the point I'm making. I have never been a monarchist but I hadn't previously given much thought to this aspect of it. And I'm interested in what other people feel about it.

I'm not claiming that either Charles or William are going to be joining Mensa anytime soon. .... you can say that again!

Would he? What if he didn’t?

Starmer is currently being judged by many on MN as guilty by association for hiring the friend of a paedophile. Charles' association is a lot closer than that.

A prosecution might fail if Andrew relies on Charles' evidence. The older ones among us will remember Paul Burrell who went on trial only for him to announce he'd told the Queen he was taking Diana's belongings for safekeeping. She couldn't be called to give evidence in her own court so famously remembered Burrell telling her at the eleventh hour.

but paedo sympathiser is not one of tnem

Erm, it certainly is. Quite apart from the others already mentioned, he was great friends with Peter Ball long after the latter had resigned for being cautioned for sexual abuse in 1993. He called Ball's accuser a 'Ghastly man'. When Ball was finally convicted in 2015, Charles claimed he'd been misled and lied to by Ball.
Now, what other recent paedo apologists great friend, and defender, does that remind me of...

Could Charles be called to give evidence? I assume not?

Well, Diana Spencer was barely legal when Charles Windsor married her. And what was their age gap again???

I think she was 19. So very young but perfectly legal.

I agree that an Act of Parliament could work and/or a spot of usurping by William.

Yes, I see your point.

On the other hand, Edward and Anne seem to be all right.

I can imagine that being one of 3 spares might be considerably easier, psychologically speaking, than being THE spare. You would have others in the same boat with you. Whereas, if you're THE spare, then the contrast between your own position and your sibling's position is just too stark. And the general public is always going to be comparing you in a binary way. Makes me wonder whether William and Catherine had 3 kids (in part) to lessen that dynamic.