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.

Stephen Yaxley Lennon...

Charles I refused to recognise the authority of the court during his trial. He was still found guilty and executed.

Boris Fucking Johnson.

I am sure he knew some of it but I am also sure he was largely ignored. After all, his concerns about Andrew being a trade envoy way back in 2001 were totally dismissed by HLMQ and T. Blair.

It’s been done before, the last time was the Papal Schism at the end of the 14th century, which saw two popes, one in Rome and one in Avignon after a group of cardinals declared the papal election invalid and elected their own pope. A few years later, both the Avignon and Roman popes were declared invalid and a third one was elected at Pisa. Eventually all three were dethroned in 1417 in favour of Pope Martin.

Kinda makes his desperation to live outside the UK with his wife and children somewhat understandable, though, doesn't it? And that, as his uncle was being protected to the extent of paying out millions to try and make it all go away, that this could answer why the pair of them come across as scared, angry and resentful at the now-accused being prioritised over him and his kids.

Charles has known his destiny since he popped out if the Royal Womb and has been trained to know his role and his duty towards his people. He knew he had to behave in the manner of a Monarch- in- waiting, and despite his habit of not keeping it in his pants, it would be strictly consensual with willing partner(s)😉 😄

Charles has sovereign immunity so theoretically cannot be charged with any crime as it would be HM v HM

Do we need a head of state, unelected or otherwise? Can’t the PM do it?
It would save a few (billion) pounds!

PM - Hi Wills, do you fancy being King?
W - Yes, please! But how?
PM - Well, you know everything that's being said. We're worried it could bring down the monarchy. Fancy a spot of usurping?
W - What about the army?
PM - They're not going to support someone who's ...
W - Fair enough. Sign me up and measure my head

Diana had her sights set on him for years

For the person who asked what if it had been the pope:

Papal infallibility only relates to doctrine. He can’t be wrong about that. But he can err or sun as much as anyone else.

But he is the head of a sovereign state which means no one outside Vatican City would have the authority to arrest him.

There is no procedure to remove him for anything other than public heresy, and even that is only theoretical - he can’t be deposed or sacked. Even if he was incapacitated. Technically the pope could commit any crime from his throne in full view of everyone and be absolutely safe.

It’s hypothetical- could the King get arrested? Could the King be sent prison? My guess is “yes”. Nobody is above the law.

Misses the point of OPs question entirely 🙄

Yes, I had a little google. Fascinating. There'd probably have to be something popped into his tea.

Victim blaming at its finest. What a disgusting viewpoint.

These things have a way of sorting themselves out. A PP mentioned George VI, that was obviously dealt with efficiently and without much difficulty. But think about George V, he was a spare too. His elder brother, Albert Victor Duke of Clarence was a huge problem. Having been born 2 months early he was somewhat 'damaged', shall we say? His tutor described him as having an "abnormally dormant" mind and that never improved. He was also bisexual which of course was a great difficulty at the time. He got himself into all sorts of trouble which was constantly having to be hushed up. Eventually he was engaged to Princess Mary of Teck but then (conveniently?) died of pneumonia whereupon, after a decent interval Princess Mary married the Duke of York who became George V. A very happy marriage by all accounts.

Sadly it is the truth. Poor girl. She was 15 when she made that decision. When she was actually old enough the Queen Mother and Diana's maternal grandmother, Ruth Fermoy made damn sure it happened.

Victim blaming? What was she a victim of? The marriage was perfectly legal. Ill-advised, yes. Doomed to failure, almost certainly. But nobody frogmarched Diana into it. She was of age. Plenty of other young women of 19 and 20 were getting married back then, and as I've already said the age difference was nothing like as much commented on as it would be now.

How so? I didnt see her dragged down the aisle in chains!

Probably a very good reason why they shouldn't have got married.

@Andouillette and @Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g , please read the post to which I was responding.

Suggesting that a silly girl had any say in her arranged/constitutional marriage because she had set her sights on a prince as a young teenager (a child) is entirely victim blaming, and extremely distasteful (especially in the present circumstances).

And you are wrong, the age gap was much talked of at the time. I remember because Diana was exactly 10 years older than me and I was very silly young girl too, and much interested in reading about how to marry a prince.

....I have very little idea what my siblings are up to when they're not with me. Have you?

If my mum had paid out millions to protect my sibling I might have been curious to find out what was really going on.

The royals are corrupt to the core.

For lots of us this sort of stuff was brushed over. Teach tons of ancient stuff Egyptians, Romans & Vikings. Great plague and fire of London.

Let's ignore the Great Plague affecting most of Europe. The Reformation etc.

I remember being at work trying not to look like a idiot when historian started talking like this was all common knowledge