"Reports that Royal courtiers privately put pressure on the Welsh Government to ensure that King Charles could no be prosecuted for rural crimes..."

[DewinDwl]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-68788510

A clear explanation of the current situation with regards to the law and monarch.

Oh gawd that's going to stir up some of us in Wales. 🙄

Have you read it? It's just about conventions which already exist. The King owns some land in Wales through the Duchy of Lancaster. There is no suggestion that he has broken any law or intends to.

From the article:

Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show the palace contacted the Welsh government's lawyers for an assurance ministers "will take into account conventions" regarding prosecuting the Crown when rules were drawn up on how the bill would work.
Buckingham Palace confirmed it had sought the assurance, and the Welsh government later confirmed the exemption in a letter to the palace dated 6 June 2023.

“Take into account conventions” means asking for confirmation that the usual legal principles will apply. It is perfectly standard for heads of state to have immunity from prosecution in all countries, republics or monarchies, across the world.

This is a giant nothing burger.

There have been some very interesting discussions on this board about constitutional issues regarding the monarchy and I always like to hear other people's opinions. But going from the number of posts on this board it seems the focus is on things like dissecting what Meghan Markle wore years ago.

The king has immunity from prosecution

https://www.law.ac.uk/resources/blog/what-would-happen-if-the-king-went-on-a-crime-spree/

But going from the number of posts on this board it seems the focus is on things like dissecting what Meghan Markle wore years ago

I'm sure that if people find your thread topic of interest, they'll contribute.

I assume it would take an Act of Parliament to prosecute a monarch? And I guess that would only ever be for something like treason to the country, or a very provable murder.

Must go refresh my memory on how it all went down with Charles I.

Charles I was put on trial for treason but I can't recall the grounds. Can a monarch actually commit treason? and hasn't the crime of treason been abolished anyway?

I’m not sure why there isn’t more public interest in this. I’m of the opinion that laws should not be changed to protect the monarch’s interests and nor should the monarch be breaking laws that other citizens have to uphold!

The lack of interest in this particular case is probably because neither of those two things have happened.

I don't see anything worth reporting as news here tbh.

It's just a reminder of long-held and well-established conventions.

I am wondering if this has become less well-understood, and so it's being presented as something newsworthy simply because the information is new to some?

They finally realized that Charles was that illicit cow-tipper in Wales? 😝

From your link you posted, it is blatantly clear that it WAS the WELSH gov that allowed these privileges. Why are you not having a go and the incompetent and useless Welsh gov?

Leave our King alone""

If I was "not happy" with something, trust me my dear friend I'd not votte in favour of it and that is a massive fact

Here, a quote from your link

Documents released by the Welsh government show a government minister was "not happy" but agreed to the move.

All equal under the law.......makes you proud doesn't it.

Yes.

Those who are under the law are all equal.

But the monarch is the law, and I think that's a point that often overlooked. Still doesn't make it particularly newsworthy - it's been like this since the 1600s? (Awaits one of the constitutional history experts to pop up with a more exact account)

It maybe convention that monarchs can't be prosecuted, but remembering the public anger over the Downing Street covid parties, I don't think C3 would get away with much.

The public wouldn't accept it and he knows it.

The wealthy and influential can afford top legal counsel. Who'd go up against that.

"The exemption means the monarchy cannot be prosecuted for breaching rules on agricultural product standards, the classification of carcasses or the sharing of data, and that his properties cannot be entered by force."

Gross.

Whats your point??

Well we'll bear that in mind the next time the King decides to classify a carcass.

Since 1967 Elizabeth II petitioned parliament for immunity from 160 laws ranging from animal welfare to workers' rights including race and sex discrimation against employees. She succeeded in all cases.