What Happens If the Queen Commits a Crime?

This is just a random question that crossed my mind:

What would happen if the Queen or King of the UK committed a crime? I know the royals probably break the law all the tiime but it's probably able to be covered up. But let's say the Queen pulled out a handgun and shot a random person in a crowd on live television? Can she tried, dethroned, put in jail yet remain Queen, get away with it, or what?

edit:

I think in the U.S. the President would have to go through the impeachment process first, then would go through the regular criminal courts.

[edit on 10/6/2006 by djohnsto77]

Parliament can overthrow her and have her replaced.

Its happened many times in our history.

*edit

to note, we dont have a King currently (that position would be higher than the Queen, Prince Phillip isn't King....thank God)

[edit on 6-10-2006 by infinite]

The Magna Carta of 1215 was the instrument that finally placed the Monarch under the law.

Now as to what would really happen in practise?

Well, I don't think you have to confine this to the British Royals; what tends to happen to any of the world's super wealthy and ultra powerful when they're caught breaking the law?

A quiet mild slap on the wrist?
The case lost in a sea of stretched out and forever on-going legal manoeuvring?
An eventual pardon?

It's one thing to say all people are subject to the law but quite another to imagine the full rigor of the law applies equally.

i would assume that she would be dethroned immediatly and replaced with charles but as to her eventual punishment im not sure

as sminkey said i think it would probably go into a hugely drawn out legal case that would result in a pardon on a technicallity

There are examples in history of the Monarch being deposed or, as happened once, beheaded. One would expect she would be tried to the fullest extent of the law, especially if she was publicly witnessed in committing a crime. I doubt Parliament could afford to let that one go without some sort of backlash. After all, isn't that how civil wars and rebellions get started?

An interesting thought just occured to me. In court, it is You Vs The Crown. Now, if the Queen was hauled up for murder, would it be The Crown Vs The Crown? Perplexing....

Originally posted by stumason
The Crown Vs The Crown? Perplexing....

Yeah, well that's a problem here too...we say UNITED STATES of AMERICA vs. So and So

but that really means the President vs. So and So, so he really needs to be removed from office by the Congress before going to court.

I suppose it's worth considering that - given the circles she/they move in - it's very unlikely that any actual crime would or even could be witnessed by 'the public'.

(unless it was a televised public occasion - maybe something like the Queen caught by the TV spotlights and cameras at a Royal gala with blood-dripping knife in hand and Prince Phillip slumped in his chair with several obvious and visible stab wounds as she screamed "die you unfaithful b@*%@rd!" - oh, what a giveaway - repeatedly?)

Anyhoo, unlikely scenarios aside, it's not likely that (m)any would get anything but 2nd or 3rd or 4th hand media accounts (and many would be by that vilely creepy oily supine creature the 'Royal correspondent').....and they'd probably be heavily self-censored.

My bet is there'd be a huge chunk of the public simply refuse to believe it (cos they'd be encouraged to take this view by every Monarchist in the Establishment going.....and when it comes down to it there area ton of them in our media).

If it was something really serious like an abusive crime to a person there'd likely be a 'caring' tack taken and the Monarch would be given sympathy for an uncharacteristic and unusual behavior and shut away for 'rest and treatment'.

If it were a property or financial crime I have no doubt it'd be sorted with a wave of the cheque-book and a few dozen public heart-felt 'sorrys' for the oversight.

Obviously if the Queen were to turn the armed forces on the people and ended up losing then something like a rerun of Charlie 1 might be on (depending on the damage and death caused) but other than that kind of thing I can't see much beyond a quiet retirement and replacement by the next one in line.

They might not be the sort of thing people enthuse about but there does seem to be a sullen acceptance of them for now (but when QE2 goes all bets are off IMO).

It's also worth bearing in mind (for those that might think my comments about the subservience of the British media a tad harsh) that there are even today books about the British Monarchy that are actually banned in the UK.

(so things like Prince Phillip's old 'solo' Greek holiday days are pretty much an unknown to many of the general public in the UK)

Not a word is said about this in the 'mainstream media', so much so that few know that this is true.


[edit on 8-10-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Right, here is your answer. I have questioned a knowledgable bloke on this..

Apparently, due to the fact that I posted above, ie "Bloggs Vs The Crown", she cannot technically be prosecuted, as she would prosecute herself. So, in theory, she can get away with murder.

One thing to note is that, according to the Maastricht treaty, she is a Citizen of the EU, so is subject to EU law. We, the people, are not citizens of the UK, but rather Subjects of the Crown. You could try to get her prosecuted in the EU courts, but you still have to get the case referred by the UK courts.

A very interesting question which I will come back with more detail.

I think the subject/citizen debate finally got settled with the 1998 incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights into British law stu.

In the 'immediate term' you are, to all practical intents and purposes, a subject of the British Crown; mere Royal property.
But that legal status is subordinate to the now agreed European aspect of our law and if pursued (beyond the 'immediate appearance') this will come into play stating clearly that we are in fact citizens.

There's a fairly legalese-free article about it here.

They seem to agree although as per under our flexible and unwritten 'constitution' there is plenty of room for fudge and wriggle.

Nothing will happen, the Monarch is the supreme judiciary authority.

And BTW, why do you ask that question?

Last time I was in your lovely land of England was in 1999, just a few years after Princess Diana's death. I talked to taxi drivers, museum employees, people on the street and in book shops about her death and every last one of the people I talked to, without me asking, came right out and said they thought that the Royal family had murdered Diana. I thought that was interesting but the point is, whether it's true or not, it was never investigated and was swept under the carpet. I would imagine that if the Queen committed murder, even by a proxy assasin, that that's the way it would be handled. Just simply denied and glossed over by the mainstream media.
Thoughts?

Originally posted by forestlady
they thought that the Royal family had murdered Diana.

- Well, just to be accurate I'd say it likely they thought they (or one or two senior and well known members of the Royal family) maybe had had Diana murdered, I doubt anyone really thinks there's one of them would have actually soiled their own hands with her murder.

But yes, it's true, it's certainly not exactly an uncommon view here.

Proving it is quite another matter.

it was never investigated and was swept under the carpet.

- Well there have been investigations but things like the speedy cremation of Diana and the general destruction of evidence (of her pregnancy?) etc kind of makes that difficult now.

I would imagine that if the Queen committed murder, even by a proxy assasin, that that's the way it would be handled. Just simply denied and glossed over by the mainstream media.

- I agree but I'm sure nothing would ever be done or actually articulated outright by the Queen.

As we could see with Thomas ABeckett so long ago all it takes is a series of hints and the mere expression of strong disapproval or dislike and that may well be enough for certain parties to believe they know 'what must be done' to protect the Monarchy or carry out its' obvious desires.

But like I said finding anyone to believe it or investigate it properly (along with gathering a jury prepared to accept their role and openly look at the evidence) would probably be a very very tall order.

It's also probably quite true that the bulk of the British press would simply not run with the story (until - if ever - it became undeniable).