Should any person be rich and powerful enough to be above the law?

@sarabee1995 Well Charles I was tried and executed by a criminal court in the UK so it has happened and there is legal precedent.

Not sure about a royal being sued in civil court though. That being said I do not think there is anything in the law specifically preventing it.

@sarabee1995 I would think so - but I'd rely on @OliRos for a definitive answer

@sarabee1995 @ArtieKat The Monarch enjoys Sovereign Immunity and cannot be prosecuted in Criminal or Civil Law.

@OliRos OK. I didn't know that

@ArtieKat 😂😂 Now you do, so you can forget your scheme to sue the King for scouse abuse.

@sarabee1995 Here lies the neat trick:
[quote]The Monarch enjoys Sovereign Immunity and cannot be prosecuted in Criminal or Civil Law.[/quote]

It's one of the main reasons why it's crazy that monarchies are still around in the XXI century. One could argue that even the president in a republic benefits from similar (and varying, country by country) degrees of immunity, but at least it's temporary and tied to the term, and granted by the people (or representatives elected by the people) through their vote. In a monarchy it's basically a lifelong and hereditary right.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Simply incorrect.

@sarabee1995 There is a doctrine of sovereign immunity, but this is based on the monarch's role as a government official rather than their wealth. It is similar to immunities enjoyed by diplomats (controversially exercised by the wife of a US military contractor to avoid prosecution for manslaughter in the UK last year) and MPs for certain civil actions such as defamation. As
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow observed above, parliament restricts the sovereign's actual sovereignty and has 'removed' law-breaking monarchs in the past (permanently in the case of Edward II, Richard II, and Charles I) 🪓

@OliRos Ummm what? Look it up. The king was beheaded and is one of the most famous events of the English civil war period.

@SunshineGirl The question was if a monarch could be convicted of a criminal offense. The complexities of how was not really the question.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I am not quite sure just how you understand history and constitutional law. It appears you read something on the back of a crisp packet.

@OliRos I am not the one arrogantly claiming a famous historical event didn't happen.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Which event would that be?

@OliRos The conviction and execution of Charles the 1st of England. In 1649.

@OliRos As the case of King Charles in 1649 proves that even if there is a degree of protection from the concept of sovereign immunity it is not absolute by any measure.


I just means that much like in the military just because an enlisted can't arrest an officer doesn't make them above the law. It just means there are extra procedural steps that have to happen for a court to be convened and and a trial to happen.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow And just what historical fact am I denying?

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Knowing how laws work in practice at various stages in history, as opposed to simply in theory, is important in a political system with no written constitution and no bill of rights.

@SunshineGirl That is true but to claim the UK doesn't have a constitution or a bill of rights is misleading.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow [quote]to claim the UK doesn't have a constitution or a bill of rights is misleading.[/quote] How can it be [i][b]misleading [/b][/i]when what @SunshineGirl said is true?

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow That is not what she said. She said there was no [b][i]written[/i][/b] constitution and no bill of rights. This is quite true of the UK.

@sarabee1995 Not really. Sure if you are comparing it exclusively to the USA. The UK founding documents are more several documents instead of a single one (which has lots of loopholes).

Just like a long history of case law is equally as valid and function much the same way as individual statutes,.

It is a bit silly to make an issue of the fact that a country that was founded in 1066 didn't go down the same way as the 1780s.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow [quote]The UK founding documents are more several documents instead of a single one (which has lots of loopholes).

Just like a long history of case law is equally as valid and function much the same way as individual statutes,.[/quote]

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? And just can't accept that @sarabee1995, @OliRos and @SunshineGirl know what they are!

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow You still haven't answered my question. Don't accuse others of evasion when it seems to be your default position.

@OliRos I have answered your question. The fact you don't like the answer changes nothing.