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.

I think that in that sort of instance he would be required to abdicate.

It's Rex now. Regina was Queen

Completely agree about the title. It is not something you earn or deserve- also un-princing him lets the RF take a step away, saying: 'Oh no! he's not one of us'.

Wasn’t there a 3rd person involved when Charles was married to Diana? And I have read some weird things about Charles habits before.
if you search back in history about previous kings and queens it’s fairly colourful!

That's very interesting, thank you.

I haven't read the whole thread, though I am interested, so apologies if this has been said. But ultimately, the power structure surrounding the monarch isn't real. As in, it's all made up by humans and everyone goes along with it. Most of the time, that's for good reasons (maintaining law and order).

The monarch is one person. If he did something completely heinous, and the Prime Minister, head of the Met Police (body that provides him with security) and the head of the armed forces marched into his office and said he needed to go and that he had no choice, what could he actually do? If all the power structures surrounding him were turned against him, he would have to go along with it, surely.

totally this!
plus a clergy member here and there, and the notorious Mountbatten uncle

Your original post said Diana had set her sights on Charles ‘years before’. Which rather suggests you think a young teenager (a child) had agency over a powerful institution interested only in wealth and its own longevity. And had need of a brood mare.

I do hope you are simply being naive in seeing their marriage as a jolly Jilly Cooper-esque romp and not, as many people did at the time, as an horrifically medieval arranged marriage for a well-bred, just about legal, virgin.

Making her look like a 43 year old typist for the engagement photos didn’t fool everybody, you know.

I think if the revelations were about Charles instead of Andrew then the monarch would be pressured to abdicate, the replacement heir would remove all protection and they could then be tried as anyone else.

If the monarch tried to resist abdication or the replacing heir refused to act there would be enough public outcry to force some sort of instant interregnum and then a fast implementation of a republic.

Strange isn’t it that on a forum where people ask if it’s OK to leave an 18 year old alone at home for a week and trust them to walk the dog, another 18 year old is expected simply to say no to the power and control of the whole British establishment….

Bollocks. And you’re allowed to say paedophilia.

Remember her family were encouraging it too. Her sister had already refused.
They met 7 times before engagement and about another 7 before the wedding. By the time she had doubts the engagement had been announced.

It was 100% a very badly matched arranged marriage. It should never have happened. Both families failed them, especially the meddling grandmother's.

He had gone out with her older sister though
And theu may have met only a few times as in dated
But I think they would have known each other ,her family was Aristocracy, so im sure the royal family would have had the any of the daughters in mind as Charles ,s wife
But in reality it was a very poor match as well as the very large age gap they had little in common.

QE and best friend of Saville both paid hush money on behalf of him- how naive of you to think they are all not in it. On x and daily express? there are claims that QE was also client of epstein

You have proof of this?

He’d be forced to abdicate and then would rightfully be arrested. Technically the monarch can murder someone and be immune but of course we wouldn’t allow that to happen as a society.

The role and powers of the monarch ignites a question, for the future. A political party lets call it Re-farm iselected at a general election. The leader, let's call him Herbert Garrige and the party are reviled by many, but a clear win under due process means the leader goes to buck pal. The monarch says No.
There would be interesting hand wringing by anti monarchists, democratic followers and of course supporters of the winning party.
Wanna buy a popcorn franchise?

Yes- I was including her family in “the British establishment”. She had it coming from all directions.

But it wasn’t? And there are checks and balances in the system that are unsaid. Edward 8th was removed for his Nazi leanings. If Charles had committed similar to Andrew, a reason would have been found.

Daft nonsense.

The Dalai Lama is in the Epstein files and no one seems bothered about him.

I thought I remembered a lot of stuff coming out about him and small boys a few years back?

I take it back, its not what I remember

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-65272213

If you google it, it seems he is mentioned in relation to JE trying to contact him to arrange a dinner.

I find this interesting too op.

What about smaller crimes? If KC was shoplifting? Or got caught speeding?