Are the British Royal Family above the law?

NIMAN

Was just thinking about this whole Prince Andrew scandal, and how he is able to continue on with his life with what looks like no interest from the law.

If any other person was accused of having sex with an underage girl from the girl involved, and you were a friend of a convicted paedo, you'd at least expect to be questioned or contacted by the authorities. Sure recently they have even be ruining peoples reputations with no evidence (thinking Cliff Richard).

So is the Prince above the law?

dpofloinn

Yes

NIMAN

Thought so. \thread.

dimsumss

of course

MadsL

Not really since limitations on the power of the Crown have been in place since Magna Carta

There is precedent for a member of the Royal Family to be charged for civil offemces; Princess Anne faced court charges in March 2001, when she pleaded guilty to speeding while on her way to Hartpury College in Gloucestershire. She was fined £400 by Cheltenham Magistrate’s Court, and had five points added to her driving licence. Allegedly, she saw a police car and assumed she was being given an escort.

The Sovereign however is diffferent, since civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law, however the relationship between Parliament and Sovereign has evoled to the point of simple formality. I doubt very much if she could order an execution for instance without Parliament moving to dissolve the Monachy.

Saralee4

I remember something a couple of years ago about prince harry shooting some rare birds.

Two birds were shot and Prince Harry and his pal were the only two people out shooting that day.

Police questioned them but nothing came of it.

You could normally be fined up to 5000 for such an offence.

SEPT 23 1989

Saralee4 wrote: »

I remember something a couple of years ago about prince harry shooting some rare birds.

Two birds were shot and Prince Harry and his pal were the only two people out shooting that day.

Police questioned them but nothing came of it.

You could normally be fined up to 5000 for such an offence.

did they ever find the bodies of the officers that questioned them?

Holsten

Alan Dershowitz has the perfect response to this and I cannot wait to see the outcome.

Harry Palmr

NIMAN wrote: »

Was just thinking about this whole Prince Andrew scandal, and how he is able to continue on with his life with what looks like no interest from the law.

If any other person was accused of having sex with an underage girl from the girl involved, and you were a friend of a convicted paedo, you'd at least expect to be questioned or contacted by the authorities. Sure recently they have even be ruining peoples reputations with no evidence (thinking Cliff Richard).

So is the Prince above the law?

Maybe you should make yourself familiar with the case in question before shooting an opinion off. He lives beyond the arm of the American law and contrary to popular opinion the UK does not just hand over its people to foreign courts upon the accusation of some random person (though it does happen from time to time with actual evidence supplied).

A lawyer writes (from the guardian)

Because the attorneys’ request relates to a civil lawsuit in the US courts, and Andrew is not facing any criminal action, issues around whether Andrew is protected by diplomatic immunity, and the extradition treaty between the US and UK, are irrelevant at this stage.

SaveOurLyric

Post/title question mismatch.

Andy isnt. The royal family isnt.

Only The Queen is. She is annointed by God, and as such above temporal laws.

RobertKK

seven in the bed and the little one said, roll over, roll over, so they all rolled over and that is kinda linked to what I read about Andrew.

MadsL

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Post/title question mismatch.

Andy isnt. The royal family isnt.

Only The Queen is. She is annointed by God, and as such above temporal laws.

Weirdly I read a US headline describing the Queen as a feminist the other day, I nearly choked on my Earl Grey.

My name is URL

Are the British Royal Family above the law?

Well prince Charlie has been getting away with promoting and profiteering off sham science for years.

His lobby groups even managed to have homeopathic hospitals opened and the costs covered by the NHS / taxpayers.

Homeopathy is not available on the NHS in all areas of the country, but there are several NHS homeopathic hospitals and some GP practices also offer homeopathic treatment.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx#available

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/hes-at-it-again-prince-charles-accused-of-lobbying-health-secretary-over-homeopathy-8723145.html

I don't know if there are laws against having royalty lobbying public services but there probably should be. There aren't many people who would be allowed to get away with that **** given the levels of conflict of interest involved.

NIMAN

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Maybe you should make yourself familiar with the case in question before shooting an opinion off. He lives beyond the arm of the American law and contrary to popular opinion the UK does not just hand over its people to foreign courts upon the accusation of some random person (though it does happen from time to time with actual evidence supplied).

A lawyer writes (from the guardian)

Forums are for shooting your opinion off. :rolleyes:

I can guarantee you that if you or I were named in a case of potential underage sex with a minor in the US and we now live in the UK or Ireland, we'd be getting a visit from our police at some stage.

corner of hells

NIMAN wrote: »

Forums are for shooting your opinion off. :rolleyes:

I can guarantee you that if you or I were named in a case of potential underage sex with a minor in the US and we now live in the UK or Ireland, we'd be getting a visit from our police at some stage.

You may very well get a visit from the authorities but I don't think in a situation like the described one an extradition cant happen just for the purpose of an investigation.

plasteritup

NIMAN wrote: »

Was just thinking about this whole Prince Andrew scandal, and how he is able to continue on with his life with what looks like no interest from the law.

If any other person was accused of having sex with an underage girl from the girl involved, and you were a friend of a convicted paedo, you'd at least expect to be questioned or contacted by the authorities. Sure recently they have even be ruining peoples reputations with no evidence (thinking Cliff Richard).

So is the Prince above the law?

yes they are.

Yiikes

I think I read that when a speeding ticket /drink driving case is taken to court it's issued as "The Crown Vs Defendants Name" so they are above a lot of laws.

Edit: royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/is-the-queen-really-above-the-law-1625

porsche959

NIMAN wrote: »

Sure recently they have even be ruining peoples reputations with no evidence (thinking Cliff Richard).

Just to point out that a complaint of sexual assault was made against Cliff Richard, so it's not entirely correct to state that 'they are ruining people's reputations with no evidence'.

toastedpickles

rolliepoley

You can take it that Andrew wont be going on any holiday soon.

scudzilla

Of course they are, when was the last time you seen Queenie, Prince Philip, Charlie or Wills up in court for Bestiality or Incest?

corner of hells

scudzilla wrote: »

Of course they are, when was the last time you seen Queenie, Prince Philip, Charlie or Wills up in court for Bestiality or Incest?

As c'mon , just cause Charlie's married to a horse.

porsche959

Anthony Blunt

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1195881/Last-secrets-Queen-Mothers-favourite-traitor-Memoirs-society-spy-Anthony-Blunt-rock-Royals.html

DEFTLEFTHAND

John Bindon the London gangster who had an affair with Princess Margaret said "they're the biggest firm in the country." He most famously holidayed with the princess at her villa in Martinique, this made the tabloids and was deeply embarrassed for her family. Bindon never went into depth but he was obviously strongly warned off further pursuing the relationship, especially considering that he himself was a connected individual in the underworld. Not somebody that could be easily pushed around.

porsche959

^ Indeed, and Anthony Blunt was outed as a spy by Margaret Thatcher on the floor of the House of Commons in 1979, but she didn't 'out' him as a child abuser and he continued to live in grace and favour, untroubled by the security authorities, until his death in 1983, arguably due to his royal connections.

He had confessed to being a spy many years before it was publicly revealed but was protected by the system and arguably his connections to the House of Windsor.

sabat

Yes, it was only last week that Charles had a documentary about the shakeup in their PR following Diana's death pulled from the BBC schedule. Apparently two former senior advisers to him didn't like how they were going to be represented in the program and threatened to make some embarrassing revelations unless he ordered it to be bumped.

SpaceTime

It'd be "The Crown" vs "Prince/Princess..." So, basically "mummy's VERY cross!"

If he queen did anything she'd technically be prosecuting herself!

blinding

NIMAN wrote: »

Was just thinking about this whole Prince Andrew scandal, and how he is able to continue on with his life with what looks like no interest from the law.

If any other person was accused of having sex with an underage girl from the girl involved, and you were a friend of a convicted paedo, you'd at least expect to be questioned or contacted by the authorities. Sure recently they have even be ruining peoples reputations with no evidence (thinking Cliff Richard).

So is the Prince above the law?

The law(in all its forms) in Brittan will be doing their level best to put him in the clear.

Its cringeworthy how so many in the media are trying to put him in the clear.

The only reason that p Andrew looks so worried is that he knows that if he becomes too much of an embarrassment they will throw him under or into a fast moving high quality car before it crashes.

He looks so terrified that he must know that he pushed his luck. Some "tragic accident" for Andrew would be so much better than the kind of embarrassment that further revelations may bring.

kowloon

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Maybe you should make yourself familiar with the case in question before shooting an opinion off. He lives beyond the arm of the American law and contrary to popular opinion the UK does not just hand over its people to foreign courts upon the accusation of some random person (though it does happen from time to time with actual evidence supplied).

I believe you can be sent to trial in the UK for a crime committed abroad as a British citizen, but I think it only applies for murder and the likes.

evo2000

If the royal family wanted to get out of some trouble i doubt they d have any problems despite all these people claiming theres all these laws and stuff, they d definitly be able to bend the rules, outside of being caught red handed id imagine they can get away with whatever!

porsche959

blinding wrote: »

The law(in all its forms) in Brittan will be doing their level best to put him in the clear.

Freudian slip given revelations about a cabinet minister?

FloatingVoter

Charles I had his head lopped off. I'm sure his final thoughts were along the lines of "I wish I had half the power those idiots on AH think I do".

blinding

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Charles I had his head lopped off. I'm sure his final thoughts were along the lines of "I wish I had half the power those idiots on AH think I do".

He was the exception that proves the rule.

The establishment has looked after its pedophiles extremely well over the last thirty years.

Its funny how we cannot even trust these people with our children but they rule over us in law and economically.

Capt'n Midnight

MadsL wrote: »

The Sovereign however is diffferent, since civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law, however the relationship between Parliament and Sovereign has evoled to the point of simple formality. I doubt very much if she could order an execution for instance without Parliament moving to dissolve the Monachy.

The old English constitution was three words long. "Parliament is God."

What's changed since is that the parliament acts passed mean that now the House of Commons can't even be vetoed by the House of Lords. They can delay laws but if the House of Commons wanted to dissolve them there's no legal impediment except the delay.


Also you only need 40 people out of 650 in the House of Commons to form a quorum. (30 in the House of Lords )

So if you timed it right, like when the next Royal pops their clogs, 20 MP's and 15 Lords could rail-road through any legislation you want. And as pointed out before signing a King's death warrant would not be anything new.


This is why having a written constitution that can only be changed by a referendum of the people like we do is kinda important.

Zebra3

Prince Louis of Battenberg had a fondness for young boys. All covered up and accommodated.

Makes you wonder if MI5 were happy enough that he was taken out.

conorh91

The King can do no wrong.

There's some doubt over whether that expression means the British monarch has absolute immunity, or whether it means the monarch's powers must be constrained to the point where she is neither a danger to Parliament or British subjects going about their business.

Probably a bit of both.

We really do live beside one hell of an eccentric statelet, but they're charming in their own way. I can't say I have much time for Anglophobia or Anglophilia.

Just take them as they are and let them do as they please within their own four walls, like good neighbours.

vienne86

I think only the Queen is above the law, but I'd say Andy might think he is too, and will wriggle out of this one.

Fratton Fred

Zebra3 wrote: »

Prince Louis of Battenberg had a fondness for young boys. All covered up and accommodated.

Makes you wonder if MI5 were happy enough that he was taken out.

nothing like a bit of good old fashioned victim blaming.

K4t

conorh91 wrote: »

We really do live beside one hell of an eccentric statelet, but they're charming in their own way. I can't say I have much time for Anglophobia or Anglophilia.

The monarchy is simply embarrassing to be honest. Nothing more, nothing less. Obviously they will have connections and so on but then so will a lot of rich and powerful families in any western country.


I don't think about the royal family at all myself but I do find it perturbing how extensively they are covered by Irish media at times. (e.g. William's marriage)

Zebra3

Fratton Fred wrote: »

nothing like a bit of good old fashioned victim blaming.

Ah yes, the imperialist white man who ruled over millions of darker skinned people.

He's the victim all right. :rolleyes:

porsche959

Fratton Fred wrote: »

nothing like a bit of good old fashioned victim blaming.

Oddest use of the phrase 'victim blaming' I've ever heard.

FWIW, Robin Bryams said he didn't think Mountbatten was a child abuser.

https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/ebay-the-dust-has-never-settled-by-robin-bryans/

porsche959

K4t wrote: »

The monarchy is simply embarrassing to be honest. Nothing more, nothing less. Obviously they will have connections and so on but then so will a lot of rich and powerful families in any western country.


I don't think about the royal family at all myself but I do find it perturbing how extensively they are covered by Irish media at times. (e.g. William's marriage)

And there was John Unionist Bruton's embarrassing grovelling at the feet of Charles Windsor a few years back. I see that awful man is back in the news recently dissing the 1916 Volunteers.

Fratton Fred

Zebra3 wrote: »

Ah yes, the imperialist white man who ruled over millions of darker skinned people.

He's the victim all right. :rolleyes:

poor excuses for the cowardly murder of an old man, an old lady and two kids.

When the ira realised they'd made a massive pr blunder, they had to come up with all sorts of reasons why he was a bad person.

and of course, their apologists lap it up.

Zebra3

Fratton Fred wrote: »

poor excuses for the cowardly murder of an old man, an old lady and two kids.

When the ira realised they'd made a massive pr blunder, they had to come up with all sorts of reasons why he was a bad person.

and of course, their apologists lap it up.

I have no sympathy for imperialist killers.

Fratton Fred

Zebra3 wrote: »

I have no sympathy for imperialist killers.

??

porsche959

Fratton Fred wrote: »

poor excuses for the cowardly murder of an old man, an old lady and two kids.

When the ira realised they'd made a massive pr blunder, they had to come up with all sorts of reasons why he was a bad person.

and of course, their apologists lap it up.

My understanding is, the rumours had been around for a while and came from within UK establishment circles, from people that were enemies of Mountbatten for whatever reason.

Kevin Myers, not exactly a fan of the Provos, claimed that Mountbatten was reckless in his leadership during the war to a criminal degree.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-mountbatten-a-vile-psycho-killed-by-thugs-26788852.html

That, of course, does not justify the murders or indeed prove that the rumours were true. But my understanding is that the Provos didn't come up with those rumours (even though they may have cynically exploited them, having realised, as you say, that they made a massive PR blunder.)

Fratton Fred

porsche959 wrote: »

My understanding is, the rumours had been around for a while and came from within UK establishment circles, from people that were enemies of Mountbatten for whatever reason.

Kevin Myers, not exactly a fan of the Provos, claimed that Mountbatten was reckless in his leadership during the war to a criminal degree.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-mountbatten-a-vile-psycho-killed-by-thugs-26788852.html

That, of course, does not justify the murders or indeed prove that the rumours were true. But my understanding is that the Provos didn't come up with those rumours (even though they may have cynically exploited them, having realised, as you say, that they made a massive PR blunder.)

He's not well liked in Canada either, but the usual suspects just want to justify a cold, callous and particularly unpopular murder.

Egginacup

NIMAN wrote: »

Was just thinking about this whole Prince Andrew scandal, and how he is able to continue on with his life with what looks like no interest from the law.

If any other person was accused of having sex with an underage girl from the girl involved, and you were a friend of a convicted paedo, you'd at least expect to be questioned or contacted by the authorities. Sure recently they have even be ruining peoples reputations with no evidence (thinking Cliff Richard).

So is the Prince above the law?

Yes.
A rather rhetorical question, wouldn't you say?

Banjoxed

porsche959 wrote: »

And there was John Unionist Bruton's embarrassing grovelling at the feet of Charles Windsor a few years back. I see that awful man is back in the news recently dissing the 1916 Volunteers.

Little lad of the tricks, anyone?

porsche959

Banjoxed wrote: »

Little lad of the tricks, anyone?

The British establishment protected monstrous child abusers of the most evil and debased kind for many decades - and still continue do.

Writing a poem is nothing compared to that.

Banjoxed

porsche959 wrote: »

The British establishment protected monstrous child abusers of the most evil and debased kind for many decades - and still continue do.

Writing a poem is nothing compared to that.

Pearse was a pederast. No hero of mine and the culture of silence inculcated by the Church lead to generations of institutional abuse. And I haven't said anything about the IRA's grubby sectarian war yet.