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.

Have you not seen the documentaries about Jimmy Saville and Charles asking for his advice on various things ?

She was 19 when they became engaged and 20 when they married. The age of consent was 16 and the age of majority was 18, as now. He was 12 years older. Different times in 1981. The age difference was not much remarked on.

Good reason not to have a monarchy at all. It’s ridiculous in this day and age anyway, and they’re going to have to make big changes if they want to continue to justify the money we pay for them. While an elected head of state would also be expensive, at least they wouldn’t claim it by divine right, and we could boot them out if they were useless at it.

I thought the point of the Magna Carta was to ensure that monarchs were not above the law....

Hmmmm, only just. And remind me, how old was Charles Windsor? a 12 year age gap. 8 years away from being double her age.

One might say masculine entitlement to young barely legal female flesh rather runs in the Windsor family ...

. The age difference was not much remarked on.

It certainly was. I remember the commentary quite clearly.

Maybe the late Queen played a blinder… it was she who extended the already made up Royal House name of Windsor to prefix it with Mountbatten after Pip… just before Andrew was born… a let’s share the blame manoeuvre if ever there was one!

She was 19 and he was (I think) 30. It was a big gap and she was young, although back in 1981 that sort of thing raised fewer eyebrows than now.

It was certainly commented on at the time though.

I think if a Monarch refused to go, it would be up to us to stage a revolution, so he'd probably end up staying there! Parliament refuse ( up to now, Im not sure how long that will hold) to discuss the RF. If they decide they are going to carry on with that rubbish, and the police did what they did with AMW and cover up/participate in the dodgy dealings, we would be reliant on the armed forces I suppose to stage a coup. Im not sure they would either!

Was it even his choice, though? I thought he was pushed into marrying her against his will? It was my understanding that the Palace selected a very young woman because they didn't want anyone with "a past". Horribly misogynistic, of course, but I'm not sure if Charles was free to refuse.

It’s an interesting question. He obviously couldn't have a jury trial because he hasn’t got 12 peers….

@Vallonette

Yes, I see your point.
On the other hand, Edward and Anne seem to be all right.

Anne is a woman, and very few women are entitled bellends on this scale. Or paedophiles.

Edward seems a much gentler sort of person (and you remember there was always speculation that he was gay anyway, roundly dismissed in the papers by his wife but I'm not convinced). He was also the fourth of the children so statistically the chances of him getting to the throne were so remote as to barely merit discussion.

But what if it was the Pope?

Its nothing to do with natural aptitude ( to do what? They have little to do apart from line their own pockets) Its all to do with the way the Monarchy works. The eldest is the one with a defined role. They know they will be King. They are brought up to be King. They know the whole thing goes to them- all the money, all the power, everything. The younger one is nothing but a temporary emergency measure. They have no power, no purpose, they just have to sit around getting more and more irrelevant as their older sibling has children and being chucked handouts for the rest of their lives. The system of Monarchy has made Margaret, Andrew and Harry, and all the other disgruntled 'spares'. They willingly subject their own children to this in order to keep the money and the power.

The Pope is elected so presumably the cardinals can sack him??

The late Queen's father was the spare, and had to ascend to the throne after his brother abdicated. He turned out all right.

Andrew should have stayed in the military or been trained up for a profession. By the time he was in his early 20s it was perfectly obvious that he was never going to be King.

I can believe that Charles knew something about the Epstein stuff, but I'd be amazed if he knew and had decided to overlook Andrew passing on sensitive information to Epstein. I don't believe even his doting mother could have overlooked this. The entire raison d'etre of the Royal Family is serving the country (in theory) and this is the direct opposite.

Can they actually? What about papal infallibility?

No idea. Maybe God will smite him?

But it wasn’t the king??

Then Parliament passes a law to say the Royal Assent isn’t needed.

We will probably never know.

I do think they have a genuine sense of duty around "serving the country" but I also think they might be more than capable of persuading themselves that preventing revelations that might be damaging to the institution of the monarchy would be in the nation's best interests. So I think they would be more than capable of a grand cover up, but the jury is out for me as to whether or not that is actually what happened. I suspect that they didn't know nothing.

Missed the point?

This, in theory the highest form of law is an Act of Parliament. The only things an Act of Parliament can’t do are:

1. Legislate retrospectively (ie to make something illegal from a past date)
2. Bind future government (‘no government shall legislate to undo this’ sort of thing)

They are able to legislate to subvert a historical constitutional process, but it never really happens as our unwritten constitution is regarded as sacred.

Plenty of other people are. You just want an elected head of state. Which is silly. Because the people will vote for Nigel Farage.

Probably 🤣