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.

A grown man asking a child to suck his tongue is NOT innocent or affectionate!!

This is a really interesting question. I wasn’t aware that the law doesn’t apply to the monarch but that makes sense - crown prosecution etc. it makes me very uncomfortable to be honest - not because I think the monarch would necessarily take advantage of this but just the message that sends. We are a society that has a person who was born into enough privilege to be literally above the law. Ethically that is so problematic. I think it’s time to start dismantling the monarchy, it doesn’t have a place in modern society.

Omg the Dalai Lama!! Had no idea!! How disgusting. Who next - Keanu Reeves?!

Nooooo. The world would surely end if Keane Reeves ended up being a bad’un

He also said that the Dalai Lama has always lived in "sanctity and celibacy - well quite. Look what that does to catholic priests!

I was going to point to Glorious Revolution of 1689 but as PP mention James fled - so they could argue oh look here another better person to fill empty slot.

The act of settlement post Queen Ann - made it so parliament said who next monarch was - so have to be a legitimate decentent of Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover (granddaughter of James I) and not catholic.

I did wonder if amending that act to remove anyone with a conviction in UK - if Andrew gets convicted of something in a UK court at certain level of crime - (I think Ann got speeding convcition and having an out of control dog )- would sort the succesion out - but once have the crown on head that is different.

I assume huge pressure to abdicate would be applied and if that didn't work parliament would have to step in and look at our consitution again. I think any consitutional power battle now would involve courts and referendum votes rather than armies and civil war as it did in 1640s.

Princess Anne has been done for speeding. She has also been up in front of the beak for having a dangerous dog 😆

It was the meddling Grandmother's. Including the grandmother who made sure Charles was away for months with the Navy the moment he started to show an intrest in Camilla, who didn't actually know he had the hots for her.

Yes he dated the older sister. But that doesn't mean he knew Diana.

It was a very poor plan. Charles and Diana were failed by both families.

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

Does he drive himself or go in normal shops?

Apparently Sovereign immunity was last tested in 1911, when King George V was accused of bigamy but then the Lord Chief Justice decided that the King could not be ordered to give evidence so it was all dropped - well King didn't have to be witness in his court even though he brought the case.

Now reading it would be the State Immunity Act 1978 that applies which does still make the monarch personally immune from criminal and civil actions.

So no he couldn't be prosecuted - rest of the family can be and have like Princess Anna - but King I think it would have to be a big crime that parliament couldn't ignore and got public opinion firmly against the monarch and they'd have to change the laws and look at our consitution and do something unexpected. Anything else I think would be quietly dealt with behind the scenes.

King Farouk the last King of Egypt before the 1952 revolution, was famously dubbed the pickpocket king due to his notorious kleptomania. He was known to steal valuables, including a pocket watch from Winston Churchill and ceremonial items from foreign dignitaries. It was a bit of a nightmare for the foreign securty services to get the items back apparently.

I think he would feel as if he had to pay the equivalent of whatever a fine would be.

Was Prince Philip not effectively forced to hand in his driving licence after an accident?

I'd be quite worried about Charles mental health or memory issues if he was caught shop lifting hes one of the richest men in the world.

Edward VIII wasn’t removed for his ‘Nazi leanings’ - at the time of the abdication half the Establishment had similar views on the German regime. What they had against him was that he was proving to be a bit of a loose cannon and was apparently prepared to ignore the main principle of constitutional monarchy: that the King cannot act against the advice of his ministers and should only act on that advice.

Yes I think so. Didn't he overturn a Land rover?.

I think AMW if found guilty needs to be taken off of list of succession. I hope parliament would do that. I feel sorry for Charles. He's worked hard to try to give RF a better image and then AMW is like a wrecking ball. I expect William and Catherine are furious too as it's tarnishing their legacy.

While it’s fun to speculate ‘what if’, the boring truth is that everyone, including monarchs, tend to act sensibly and with the stability of the country in mind.

Do you think? I don’t think it tarnishes them, most reasonable people understand that Andrew’s behaviour is nothing to do with any of them.

It’s an interesting question OP.
I’m not sure if someone will have an answer here. I suspect it’s a very expensive legal question.
We definitely need mechanisms when people at the top ( including PM or King/ Queen) can be hold accountable. It’s not an easy system to establish and to guarantee that it’s working, that’s for sure. But I don’t buy these “royal family is so committed to the service”, no, they are not, and checks should be in place for them as well.

Well there is also Stephen Hawkings who was mentioned in court documents released in 2024 during Ghislaine Maxwell's trial.

The documents included an email Epstein sent in 2015, asking friends of Virginia Giuffre to disprove supposed allegations of Giuffre's that Hawking participated in an "underage orgy"

His behaviour isn’t. But the way it was managed most definitely is. Most reasonable people understand that.

And then of course there is also Naomi Campbell :

https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/naomi-campbell-jeffrey-epstein-files-b2921554.html#

Right! The post and the other one speculating about Andrew's dad are pointless

Lots of pics today of Charles and Jimmy saville having lots of laughs together, Balmoral, Sandringham. Well known at the time what JD was.....so Charles has questions 3 answer too

As has been pointed out this is the first time a member of the RF has been arrested since 1647- but what followed then should reassure you that the legal framework exists to deal with this. King Charles l was arrested by officers of Parliament and the army (the New Model) all officially officers of the Crown- it did not stop Charles l being beheaded.

Didn’t someone get their head chopped off by Cromwell’s lot to prove the point that nobody - even the monarch - is above the law?

@Raven08

They met on occasions and Jimmy cultivated him just as he did many others. They were not best friends meeting left right and centre.

Charles has a strong sense of duty and would not and has not done what Andrew has done

They are completely different characters and I firmly believe the have never been close

Charles now just needs to remove him from the line of succession and I think he needs to remove the daughter’s titles and succession as well. Beatrice in particular seems well caught up in it