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.

You still haven't explained what she was a victim of.

Diana and I were almost the same age and grew up in the same times, albeit in completely different circumstances. Yes, the age gap was talked about, but not to anything like the same extent it would be now, and not in the same way. Plenty of young girls went out with, and even married, much older men.

Charles was also a victim in that marriage. It was a very poorly matched arranged marriage.

They'd met 6 or 7 times when the engagement was announced and another 6 or 7 before the wedding.
Press chasing her down the street going to work.

There's a reason why Edward, William and Harry all had long term relationships before they got married.

You're massively oversimplifying.

You're right that I don't like having a monarch. I think the monarchy is anachronistic and unmeritocratic. So at heart, I'm definitely a republican. But my head doesn't always agree, because I'm not sure what I would want to put in place instead. I definitely wouldn't be keen on having an elected politician as President.

I can absolutely see the value in having a long-serving apolitical head of state who can rise above the normal political fray. I just dislike the fact that it's based on heredity rather than merit. And I dislike the idea of someone being above the law simply because of an accident of their birth.

If you are happy to have a hereditary monarch who is above the law, then that's your prerogative. I started the thread because I was interested to know what others think about the sovereign immunity aspect in particular. It has been interesting reading the responses.

Bear in mind that Charles is King today because of an Act of Parliament (the Act of Settlement 1701) instead of Franz, Duke of Bavaria, who is the Jacobite heir.

I can absolutely see the value in having a long-serving apolitical head of state who can rise above the normal political fray. I just dislike the fact that it's based on heredity rather than merit.

Which merits would you look for when assigning the job?

Jeez do you always sound so insufferably superior.

She could have said no, Which in mumsnet world, is a complete sentence

Well, I don't know to be honest...like I said, I don't have a perfect alternative to the monarchy that I can offer up, and I think there would probably need to be some sort of national conversation about the sort of qualities we would like to see and the most appropriate way of selecting the head of state etc.

But instinctively, I feel that someone who has in some way earned the title rather than merely having inherited it would be preferable.

Her older sister had the wit to see that getting involved with Charles would be a bad idea.

Dh heard someone on the radio earlier saying that apparently Charles was very much against Andrew being appointed Trade Envoy - it was the Queen who was in favour. Maybe she thought a responsible job would be good for him. Like a good many mothers of ‘favourite’ sons, I dare say she was over indulgent and turned a blind eye to his failings/excesses.

The closest example we have is the Glorious Revolution of 1689 - while the king (James II) had not done anything illegal he was removed (basically for being too catholic but also not such a fan of the rule of law generally).

There are a lot of conventions in our uncodified (not unwritten, a lot of it is written!) constitution.

Yes, parliament can pass any legislation it wants. Royal assent is required and, by convention, would never be refused but of course we’re talking about a situation where that convention isn’t followed. James II never abdicated and those plotting around him manoeuvred so he fled. Parliament wanted to replace him with William and Mary (his nicely Protestant daughter and her husband) but needed to make it look legit and lawful. There was a constitutional convention held by Parliament who declared the crown had passed - they cited his abuse of prerogative powers but in particular his having fled as a vacation of the crown and therefore the throne was empty. In stepped William and Mary.

It was a legal fiction to appear legit because there is no actual mechanism to remove a monarch. The system relies on their knowing their place and acting monarch-like. But they found a way, albeit on that did materially rely on the army and his leaving the country. But it does provide a schema for what might happen if the monarch committed some awful crime - we don’t live in an absolute state and parliament is considered sovereign even if there are constitutional / legal caveats - the intense political and public pressure would do for a monarch in that situation. My suspicion is an act of Parliament they refused to sign would be treated as “constructive abdication” and a failure to fulfil the constitutional function as monarch. And who would be standing up for them if they continued to argue they were really still on the throne after that?

Maybe @AgentLisbon will be able to answer this. If a bad monarch can't be prosecuted, can they be, for instance, sectioned or forcibly hospitalised? I can imagine a situation where a psychiatrist declared them dangerously ill (with or without justification) and forced a regency. Is that plausible?

Find an alternative and plop them on the throne instead.

@ParmaVioletTea

There was a 14-year-age gap between my parents. Mum and Dad met when she was 23 and he was 37.

I realise Diana was a bit younger, but a 12-year age gap between adults is no big deal to me (as long as they're both fully consenting adults, then any age gap is no big deal for me.)

He dumped her because she gave an interview to the press

Wouldn’t it be Anne?

What if it had been aliens? What if it had been a yeti? What if it had been Jesus?

Well.... It wasn't.

In the world of mumsnet any relationship gap of more than 6 months is treated like pxxdophilia 😉

Harking back here to The Madness of George III. He was forcibly treated and his son was made Regent while he was too unwell to rule himself.

No. It's been Andrew because the law wasn't changed to allow female succession until after Charles had children.

No. The law has been changed very recently and currently the succession goes:

William
William's eldest child - George
William's second child - Charlotte
William's youngest child - Louis
Harry

However, the idea that birth order is all that counts and sex is irrelevant is very new indeed. When I was growing up the succession went like this:

Charles - Queen's eldest son, who happened to be her eldest child
Andrew - Queen's second son
Edward - Queen's third son
Anne - Queen's daughter, even though she's older than Andrew and Edward

I think the law was changed before W and K had kids in case their first was a girl.

You're wrong. The reigning king/queen has sovereign immunity. Any criminal case is Regina v Joe Bloggs. You can't have Regina v Regina

@Dollymylove

It seems that way sometimes! I find it a bit ridiculous, especially when you're talking about people who are both out of their teens.

if they were legitimately incapacitated, which being sectioned would suggest they were, then there is a formal statutory mechanism for regency so doesn’t require the same legal figleaf. although of course that doesn’t actually remove them from the position.