Let's suppose for a moment the reigning monarch of a constitutional kingdom is caught on live TV committing a serious crime, how do you go about bringing them to trial? Can you bring them to trial?
Arrest the Monarch?
- Thread starter Peg Leg Pom
- Start date
Trouble is at least for the Commonwealth the charge sheet generally starts "The Crown Vs whoever". How that works in other monarchies I don't know, but I imagine it's somewhat similar. How do you try the monarch in the monarchs name?
Dolan
Banned
Honestly? Depending on the crime... But generally nothing...
Let's say, Queen Elizabeth was caught snatching ice cream from a random toddler, it would be deemed as an act of a senile old lady, the toddler get a big tub of ice cream as compensation, and it would be quietly shushed under the rug.
Compare that with the Queen accidentally caught shoplifting in front of Camera... Well, the shop also get compensated, the crime was blamed on she going onto dementia, and it would again, shushed under the rug.
Same with the Queen ended up being randomly angry and started beating a person... Her guards will try to get her away, doctors would be called, and it was again blamed on some dementia.
...
Basically it would ended up in minor assault/property damage at best, and it would get quickly shushed under the rug.
Most of the Monarchs are old enough that "Dementia/Senility" becoming a very viable defense.
Let's say, Queen Elizabeth was caught snatching ice cream from a random toddler, it would be deemed as an act of a senile old lady, the toddler get a big tub of ice cream as compensation, and it would be quietly shushed under the rug.
Compare that with the Queen accidentally caught shoplifting in front of Camera... Well, the shop also get compensated, the crime was blamed on she going onto dementia, and it would again, shushed under the rug.
Same with the Queen ended up being randomly angry and started beating a person... Her guards will try to get her away, doctors would be called, and it was again blamed on some dementia.
...
Basically it would ended up in minor assault/property damage at best, and it would get quickly shushed under the rug.
Most of the Monarchs are old enough that "Dementia/Senility" becoming a very viable defense.
The Dutch would object to that statement.
Monarch goes postal on members of the press while out shooting Pheasants?
Are there any monarchs in modern history who were deposed and imprisoned but not executed?
I don't know about other monarchies but in Sweden monarch should commit hellish serious crime like murder or participate to war crimes. Probably in other monarchies too is quiet hard arrest monarch. Probably only way is revolution or government decide turn monarchy as republic but even still if new regime is democratic it would need reason to do that.
Correct. If Liz shot someone, however, she would be forced to immediately abdicate.
(It is unclear if the Queen's Vice-Regal Representatives have the same immunity in their respective states. If the Governor-General of New Zealand mugs someone, is he above the law, considering that he is the Queen's stand-in).
ASUKIRIK
Banned
So, the Queen could basically stroll to some random Park within the United Kingdom and start taking ice cream from children? THIS IS WHY 1776 HAPPENED!
Deleted member 94680
You would like to think so, but technically, she wouldn't have to.
At last! The "Tyranny of King George" finally explained: Theft of Juvenile Frozen Foods!
Skallagrim
Banned
It'll be different in different countries.
In the Netherlands, the Constitution explicitly tells us the Monarch has sovereign immunity, and the relevant minister of government is responsible for any wrong-doing on the Monarch's part. (Which doesn't mean the minister will go to jail in the King's place, but that any liability stemming from wrong-doing will devolve to the King's government, rather than being applicable to the King himself.) Also, every law is drafted, passed and upheld in the name of the Monarch. So you get to the same reason why the King pays no taxes: all taxes are formally paid to him. In the same way, he isn't subject to the law, because he is the one issuing the law.
If the King commits some minor foul-up, the result will be a big media sensation, and the Minister of Justice will probably resign. Any compensation for anyone negatively impacted will be paid by the government. If it's serious enough, the Prime Minister will also resign, either being replaced by another, or prompting unplanned elections. No doubt there will be a bout of the periodic "is Monarchy really fitting in this day and age"-debate, which will however peter out after a while (as it always does), and nothing will really change.
If the King commits a major crime, the entire government will collectively resign, and any compensation will again be handled by the (new) government. The King would be declared mentally unfit before you can say "abdication", and quickly moved into a closed environment for his "mental well-being". The next-in-line would assume the throne. The public debate about the future of the Monarchy would be quite a bit more serious under these circumstances, but unless His Majesty has been found to have raped and killed a bunch of kids or something, the Monarchy still won't be abolished. Nor will sovereign immunity be ended. At most, a more defined list of circumstances under which a Monarch is unfit will be established, and the Monarchy may be reformed to be (even more) ceremonial.
Under no circumstance short of violent revolution (that abrogates the legal order) will the Monarch ever be arrested. Under the very fundamentals of the law, this is impossible.
In the Netherlands, the Constitution explicitly tells us the Monarch has sovereign immunity, and the relevant minister of government is responsible for any wrong-doing on the Monarch's part. (Which doesn't mean the minister will go to jail in the King's place, but that any liability stemming from wrong-doing will devolve to the King's government, rather than being applicable to the King himself.) Also, every law is drafted, passed and upheld in the name of the Monarch. So you get to the same reason why the King pays no taxes: all taxes are formally paid to him. In the same way, he isn't subject to the law, because he is the one issuing the law.
If the King commits some minor foul-up, the result will be a big media sensation, and the Minister of Justice will probably resign. Any compensation for anyone negatively impacted will be paid by the government. If it's serious enough, the Prime Minister will also resign, either being replaced by another, or prompting unplanned elections. No doubt there will be a bout of the periodic "is Monarchy really fitting in this day and age"-debate, which will however peter out after a while (as it always does), and nothing will really change.
If the King commits a major crime, the entire government will collectively resign, and any compensation will again be handled by the (new) government. The King would be declared mentally unfit before you can say "abdication", and quickly moved into a closed environment for his "mental well-being". The next-in-line would assume the throne. The public debate about the future of the Monarchy would be quite a bit more serious under these circumstances, but unless His Majesty has been found to have raped and killed a bunch of kids or something, the Monarchy still won't be abolished. Nor will sovereign immunity be ended. At most, a more defined list of circumstances under which a Monarch is unfit will be established, and the Monarchy may be reformed to be (even more) ceremonial.
Under no circumstance short of violent revolution (that abrogates the legal order) will the Monarch ever be arrested. Under the very fundamentals of the law, this is impossible.
Last edited:
No, she isn't. The Monarch in the UK is decided by Parliament. It has had two revolutions and chopped the head off one Monarch to prove that point. The Queen is just as subject to the Laws of the land as is any other UK citizen.
Deleted member 94680
Nonsense. The Parliament has no say in the choice of Monarch. In fact, it's the other way round - The Monarch chooses the Prime Minister. It may be a technicality, but it's still part of British Law. The Queen (as it is now) can dissolve Parliament and call new elections if she so wishes.
Politics of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
In reality, the Monarch is constrained because Parliament is Sovereign rather than the Monarch. When there is a succession crisis, it is Parliament which decides which heir will become Monarch. This happened in January 1649. It occurred again in 1688 and finally in 1936. The first time, they chopped of Charles the First's head. In the second, they invited a foreign Prostant monarch in to rule England rather than having a Catholic one and finally the King wanted to marry an American divorcee. The Monarch can in practice only dissolve Parliament because the current Prime Minister has advised them to. The Monarch has no power, she only has influence.