"Civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law."
in theory, she wouldn't have any punishment whatsoever.
"So I was walking down the street and the queen bloody pants me and she saidโฆ"
Random member of parliament,"What is that?!" Court laughs for a minute labour loses
I know it isn't abused on a regular basis, but it seems like this principle ought to bother people whether the royal family ever abuses it or not.
If a person is capable of infringing on the rights of others, they should be capable of being prosecuted.
Now, Is this an urgent problem? Hell no. The queen strikes me as a pretty ordinary old lady, who probably can be trusted to behave well. But the principle of this is incompatible with democracy. And there are no guarantees that future monarchs will always behave well.
If a queen or king stole a single pound without justification and faced no repercussions, that would be a gross failure of democracy. I don't care who their parents were and nobody else should either. They have broken the law and must face justice as much as anyone who didn't have ancestors who kept the common people in perpetual serfdom, ignorance, and poverty.
Not an urgent problem, and not one that is ever likely to cause serious issues, but it is irritating that anyone still believes some people should be above common law, especially for a ridiculous reason like heredity. The monarch may be a symbol that many people like, but why should they actually be treated differently under the law?
Believe it or not, not everybody wants full and total democracy. It's not a perfect system, even if it is the best model for government that we have. But democracy has its dark sides as well. The wishes of the majority can go far beyond fairness in some cases, and democracy alone would do nothing to discourage abuse of any or all minority groups. This is why using "democracy" as a solution to replace the governments of tyrants has frequently turned out so poorly. When the majority of citizens want to kill or oppress a minority of citizens, democracy won't do anything to stop them, in fact it will very effectively support them and legitimize them.
Supporters of the monarchy often view the monarch's legal role and powers as an important check and balance against pure democracy in its raw form. It provides a stabilizing and moralizing force while allowing democracy to perform the great bulk of decisionmaking without any interference as long as it remains reasonably fair to all. It's not the only way of doing it, and perhaps not the method you would choose, but for some people it is a perfectly reasonable system, and it works pretty well in practice. Mostly symbolic, yes, but symbols are important.
I have similar feelings about the House of Lords - my democratic instincts say it's a terrible idea, but in practice they seem to serve the good.
I mean, back when membership was made up of high-ranking clergy and aristocrats holding hereditary titles... that was a bit shit. Thankfully we have at least managed to reform away from that (mostly - there are still some bishops and hereditary peers) to the current system of appointment by the Prime Minister based on some notional merit.
All the same, if you asked me whether I thought it was right that unelected appointees get a significant hand in our legislative decision-making, I would not be in favour. But it happens often enough that the elected Commons tries to push through something horrible and finds themselves opposed by the Lords and forced to amend and delay...
As a body they seem to take their job of reviewing and amending proposed legislation very seriously, and have some very sharp legal minds amongst them to do that job. Being appointed for life, they don't need to bend to every turn of public opinion and can't be overrun by a populist surge.
I think we'd have to be in truly dire straits before the Queen would step in because "raw democracy" had taken us off-track, but the House of Lords does seem to fill that same moderating role.
I agree with you that the House of Lords is an excellent form of checks and balances, a lot of people don't seem to understand that. I disagree about the PM appointments though, I actually find that quite scary. The PM has a veto on the votes, so could feasibly attempt to fill the Lords with their own cronies.
I don't mind the Lords being hereditary so much, it keeps it filled with somewhat random personalities (not those with a will-to-power), and as a lot will be 'old money' they're harder to influence in that regard.
It's always worth having a legislative body that's not running for anything. They stop overreactions and generally tend to put a thumb on the national scales towards maintaining stability in either direction.
While the upside is that it stops you making quick changes, the downside is it stops you making quick changes. I think the proper reform for the Lords would be for it to be a single term body with an elected proportion as in you get elected once and then never have to run for your seat, whether it's a life appointment or a long term (4 or 5 parliaments say) that would make it feel more democratic without losing its advantage.
I believe it. And that's more than fair. I guess I was using "democracy" as shorthand for "democracy as it is now thought of". Tyranny of the majority is something we should all be afraid of.
The constitutional monarchy is an interesting solution. It is hard for me, as an American, to emphasize with, because I come from a society in which monarchy is not held in very high regard. Our national mythology holds anti-monarchism as a virtue. I recognize that this is due to unique historical circumstances, and isn't true everywhere. While the British system would never work in America, I can see that it might work just fine across the pond. Those in the UK, I understand, hold monarchs in a different regard. Symbols are of course good to have.
I was more narrowly focused on the idea of royalty being above the law. This to me seems to harken back to the bad old days of monarchy. But, if the UK doesn't find it troubling, there's little I can say. It seems incompatible with the rule of law as a matter of principle to me, but perhaps I just have a narrow viewpoint. Either way, it seems unlikely to cause real harm. The monarch is such a public figure that most of them would feel embarrassed to be caught commuting a crime.
It seems bad in principle to me for a monarch to be enshrined in writing as above the law, even if they are a unique and important symbol. But I of course have no vote in the UK. I'll leave it at that.
I'm Canadian, so I can kind of understand both sides of the argument. In this case, the reason the monarch cannot be prosecuted for breaking a law is because the monarch IS the law. They are nothing less than the definition of moral and legal behavior, that is their role in society. The law is in large part derived from the intents of the monarch, at least in spirit, so if the monarch does something that deviates from the law as it currently stands, what that would be telling you is that the law is apparently out of date with the standards of the time.
Now, realistically if something we would recognize as "illegal" happened they could be, and almost certainly would be, SEVERELY criticized and possibly forced to abdicate -- a monarch is not immune to consequences for doing illegal or immoral things -- but it would not be directly because they broke the law. In this case, it would be because they had failed at their role. Which is to provide the nation with a visible and acceptable moral compass.
A semi-recent example (which may not help much in understanding due to our far progressed acceptance of divorce in modern society) is Edward VIII who was forced into abdication and effectively exiled for marrying a twice-divorced woman. This was in conflict with the King's role as head of the Church of England, which sternly disapproved of divorce and remarriages. While not illegal in the sense of being sent to jail, it was completely unacceptable to society at that time. The monarch is certainly not free to do as they please simply because they are immune to prosecution. Society as a collective still holds ultimate power.
On the subject of the queen committing murder, years ago when I was at uni in Aberdeen (early 00s), there was this crazy guy who used to hand out pro-Scottish Independence leaflets on campus with the following amazing line in huge letters at the top:
"'SHUT UP, SCOTS, OR I'LL MURDER YOU' - The Queen"
I sincerely regret not keeping one of those leaflets. Maybe it was a real quote. Who knows? Probably not, but still, y'know?
Like I said, power ultimately resides with society itself. If the society decides they want to change their form of government into a republic by and for the people, they have the power and authority to do that. As it stands in the current system, she is immune to prosecution. But like all things, that rule was written by people, it can be changed by people, if they collectively desire it to be changed.
In the words of Darth Vader, "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further."
hilburn ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 10:41:47 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I believe the solution to this is just that if the Queen is forced to abdicate, then she is no longer the Sovereign, and can be prosecuted for her crime.
I'm sure they'd find a way to discipline her, very unlikely to happen, but if it did.
Anyway, once she's been forced to abdicate, she becomes a normal person, so she can be prosecuted, however i'm not sure if she can be prosecuted for a crime she committed during her reign as Sovereign.
She'd probably be tried by The House of Lords, once abdicated.
Nulono ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:00:35 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
If breaking the law means the monarch failed to provide a moral compass, then the monarch was never the source of the moral compass to begin with. The Queen doesn't make laws; Parliament does.
blabgasm ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:23:55 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
The constitutional monarchy is an interesting solution. It is hard for me, as an American, to emphasize with, because I come from a society in which monarchy is not held in very high regard.
Sure it is. The British monarchy is, which is our monarchy. They don't rule us, but they don't really 'rule' their own subjects either, so that's a wash. Americans are obsessed with the British monarchy. I can't check out at the grocery store without getting face blasted by either the royal toddlers, their impeccable parents, or Harry and his actress girlfriend. I don't even want to know that Harry is dating an American actress, but I can't avoid it. Because people eat that shit up with a spoon. Because Americans love the British monarchy. Americans will mourn when the Queen passes.
I mean i'm sure if the queen murdered someone, they'd find a way to punish her or something, and if she hit someone they'd do something about it.
Also worst case scenario, the Sovereign could be forced to abdicate, once they abdicate, they are a normal person with royal blood, so can be in theory prosecuted to the fullest of the law, and they can replace them with their eldest male heir or a sibling etc.
farox ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 10:06:12 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
That's why we have representative Democracies. We vote for someone that shares our values and leave it to them to also think about minorities, people not respresented by us personally, "fairness" etc.
Cronyx ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 12:36:55 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
This is why using "democracy" as a solution to replace the governments of tyrants has frequently turned out so poorly. When the majority of citizens want to kill or oppress a minority of citizens, democracy won't do anything to stop them, in fact it will very effectively support them and legitimize them.
This is precisely why America has the 2nd Amendment.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." โ Benjamin Franklin
It's how we "bug patched" a user exploit in Democracy.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." โ Benjamin Franklin
I'm pretty certain he never said that (it's widely attributed to him on the Internet, but not in anywhere respectable. The language is off, and the word "lunch" is a relatively modern word that would have been considered vulgar, if heard at all, during Franklin's time.)
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:33:07 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Cronyx ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:57:01 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
That's because blacks weren't allowed to have firearms. Either through law, or through corrupt bureaucracy exuding them from licenses, or through gunshop owners simply refusing to sell to negros. As a comparison, that only serves to galvanize my point, as there you had a population of Franklin's allegorical lambs, sans the "well armed" portion of the story.
But it means that in practice it's possible for the wolves to vote for a lamb gun ban.
goat200 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:19:36 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
Tonamel ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 06:19:42 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I imagine if they ever got a monarch that exploits their non-prosecutable status, Parliament would be quick to change things. As it stands, they have better things to do than fix loopholes that aren't in danger of being abused.
Fnhatic ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 10:47:53 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
If a queen or king stole a single pound without justification and faced no repercussions, that would be a gross failure of democracy.
Well there's your problem.
5225225 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:03:20 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Honestly, the queen of England doesn't have any power. I don't think she has actually blocked anything that was agreed upon by the government.
aykcak ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 11:18:06 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Aren't senators and the president covered under something similar?
Namika ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 15:33:26 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Yes. You can't sue or put the President on trial until he leaves office. If he commits serious offenses he has to be impeached and removed from power before he can be arrested.
In a way that makes sense, the conflicts of interest would be immense if you tried to arrest the standing head of the executive branch. Let him be properly removed from power, then do it.
That's absolutely not true (the lawsuit part). Bill Clinton got sued for sexual harassment. He actually decided not to settle and fight it instead, and that's how he ended up perjuring himself, when he said under oath he didn't have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. You're right about the arresting part. (Well, kind of, IIRC the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is the only one legally allowed to arrest him. Of course if Obama suddenly decides to snatch a Secret Service agent's gun and shoot someone I'm betting the SS could detain him unofficially until the Sergeant at Arms deals with it.)
Oddly enough every democracy has an element of sovereign immunity. In the US you cannot sue your state or the federal government unless there's a specific law saying you can. Mostly we have several for Torts and whatnot.
The president cannot be prosecuted for anything while in office. If I read the Clintin precident correctly the president can only be sued civilly for things he/she did before coming into office.
The Queen has a less important and urgent job, I agree with that, but we have it too. It ensures the government doesn't decend into petty squabbles between Prosecutors and officials.
I can't speak for the English monarchy but here in Belgium we've got the office that the monarch can't be sued while he or she is in office.
We had this entire thing with the previous kind possibly having an illegitimate daughter which he didn't recognize. While he was on the throne, they never got anywhere with the case because he couldn't be brought to court. Now that his son has taken over, the case is being brought up and I think he has to do a paternity test.
(all of this is vaguely remembered from snippets I picked up here and there. I don't really care about the monarchy one way or another so what I said might not be entirely accurate)
Delphine Boรซl, who originally tried to get around the law shielding King Albert II by summonsing his two eldest marital children to court for DNA tests to prove she was their half-sister. After the king abdicated, she was able to proceed against him directly.
According to this article, "Under Belgian law a man cannot be forced to take a paternity test, but a judge could take his refusal to do so into account."
Interestingly, Delphine Boรซl has given up quite a lot of money in trying to gain the recognition of the man she believes to be her father. The process involved proving she was not the daughter of multi-millionaire Jacques Boรซl, who consequently disinherited her.
Borax ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:00:05 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
If you think regular old ladies can be trusted to follow the law you've obviously never seen me nan bun a zoot
Zsashas ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:55:26 on January 17, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It only applies to the monarch, not to the whole royal family.
In theory if Prince Philip were to hit you, he could be prosecuted, as he is not the monarch.
Of course, that doesn't mean they would.
xipheon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:52:09 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
it is irritating that anyone still believes some people should be above common law, especially for a ridiculous reason like heredity. The monarch may be a symbol that many people like, but why should they actually be treated differently under the law?
They're held to a different standard and therefore accountable to a different power. Should emergency personal not be allowed to speed because that holds them to a different standard than everyone else? If they abuse that power and their exception to many sections of the law, then they are held accountable by a different system. The monarchy is the same, they get held accountable through populous revolt, or in modern times the actual government can do something about it.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:01:21 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I think people are more concerned about real issues surrounding the royal family, such as the special tax status they enjoy which means they pay very little tax on a very large estate.
corobo ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 09:57:33 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't the special tax status effectively an 85% income tax? Count me out of that special status
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 12:35:58 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
It is irritating that anyone still believes some people should be above common law, especially for a ridiculous reason like heredity. The monarch may be a symbol that many people like, but why should they actually be treated differently under the law?
I live in another monarchy (Denmark) and wonder about the same thing on a daily basis...
I believe that in Poland, our ministers, and possibly all senators/members of parliament can't be prosecuted either, without something like an impeachment. The government has to strip them of their immunity.
I guess it's to ensure they are prosecuted for political reasons.
Jon_Cake ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 07:34:54 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Suppose she visits another country and punches someone in the face. Does it basically just depend on whether that country has granted her diplomatic immunity or not?
Until you remember that the queen has the power to veto acts of parliament. And has the power to discontinue parliament. And is the only one with the power to summon parliament.
I'm in Canada - so if Trudeau gets his power "from the people" and the Queen gets her power from "the crown" - what happens if one punches the other? "Immovable object vs unstoppable force"?
It does make some difference whether laws are codified. Presidents get away with far more than they should, but there would be a justified outcry if amendment to the constitution were passed exempting them from common law. The blatant disregard for common law would be obvious to everyone, and Americans would be rightly sickened to see that attitude enshrined in writing and formal law.
Principles aren't everything, but they do matter.
Presidents are also not hereditary. They distinguish themselves by virtue of their careers and characters to win the vote of the people (obviously this fails sometimes). Monarchs just had the right parents. In the words of Thomas Paine "A hereditary leader makes as much sense as a hereditary mathematician." If there ever was a bad reason to be exempt from common law, heredity must be recognized as one.
Just for the record, I think I actually agree with all of that. I just took exception to what came across on the part of that other person as "your custom is stupid...that's why we have our somewhat-but-not-all-that-much different custom instead."
The Magna Carta has only 3 bills that are still in effect today.
ignoring the two that back up the rights of the church, and reaffirm the liberties in certain specific places.
the only semi-applicable bill.
"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled . nor will we proceed with force against him . except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. "
You could try to stretch the "proceed with force" part as a protection, but that part is superseded by later laws protecting the queen from prosecution specifically.
I'd probably want to look at the context to be sure but I assume "to no one will we sell" essentially means "no bribery in the judicial system", and "to no one deny or delay right or justice" essentially means "all persons have a civil right to timely access to justice, such as litigation or prosecution".
UglyStru ยท -46 points ยท Posted at 02:40:54 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I dunno, there was that 90 year old dude who was a soldier in a concentration camp for the Nazis in WWII who was recently arrested. Even though he low key helped out a lot of the prisoners, and also wasn't there on his own accord in the first place
Chances are that punching any unarmed 90-year-old woman wouldn't constitute self-defense in England.
The two main reasons:
1) You have to actually be at risk of injury. If she's already punched you, then your risk of injury has already passed. And more importantly...
2) You can only respond with reasonable force. Punching an old woman is almost certainly going to be found unreasonable. You could restrain her less violently.
"Although civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law.
Indeed, Her Majesty has never been in a position where her legal standing is in question, specifically because there can be no question. Regardless of what The Queen does, it canโt be declared illegal."
"Nowadays, the Queen in her personal capacity is considered for legal purposes the Crown as Sovereign and as such immune to prosecution. That's the same as other heads of state, at least during their terms of office - and the Queen holds her office for life. That means that if she found herself without money to buy something and decided to do a runner - an unlikely prospect - she would not get done for shoplifting. There is an alternative possibility, the prosecution of the Crown as Executive, but here the Queen's ministers act on her behalf and would take the rap."
Kitchner ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 01:49:38 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
The key bit to remember is that all powers in the UK exercised by Parliament derive from the Crown.
When you boil it all down where does the US institutions of government get it's power from? The Constitution of course. A super law that is above all other laws that was the very basis for founding the nation. All power derives from an almost holy document above all others.
The UK wasn't formed by some states signing a piece of paper, the UK was formed under the power of a monarch, who claimed the right to rule was the divine will of the gods (AKA god saw fit to give me a huge army, therefore he wants me to rule).
So the powers of the state technically derive from the Crown. Parliament exists because a King made it, the laws exist because the King let Parliament have the power to pass them.
While we have moved on from there (after chopping off a King's head, deciding we didn't like being a republic, and then going back), today Parliament is consider sovereign in all matters. Parliament is more powerful than the Crown, it was established during the civil war (see: chopped off head). That doesn't mean their powers and the powers of the government don't derive from the crown though.
Included in this is the power of the Supreme Court and the judges. They rule on court cases in Her Majesty's name. A delegation of authority from when the monarch was the highest court in the land.
So while it's all very hypothetical, because the situation would never really arise, it's interesting because the Queen could murder a dude and not be prosecuted in theory, but if Parliament then passed a law saying the Queen couldn't be the Queen, and that the Queen didn't need to sign that particular bill, the judges and parliament would claim parliamentary sovereignty, and the Queen would claim divine right to rule, and it would be the civil war all over again.
You can't have a civil war without an opposing side to fight. The Queen would be made not the Queen and would then be arrested.
SakuRedux ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 05:25:48 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, we did that already with Charles I. Then we chopped the guys head off, and decided we wouldn't have a monarch. Then about 11 years later Charles II was restored to the throne and we've had a monarch since then.
So basically the British Civil War was a waste of time.
I've never even heard of the British civil war. Is it not talked about much or do I just have a huge hole in my awareness of the world?
SakuRedux ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 06:54:38 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Basically some guys got fed up of the King at the time (Charles I) being a unilaterally powerful cockring of a person and rebelled. They convicted him of treason, and beheaded him. There was a really good movie made about the main leader of the rebels, Oliver Cromwell, called "Cromwell"
Yep. People weren't very pleased when that happened.
Ydrahs ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 06:27:55 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
It's sort of the reason we have an effective parliament. The war started because Charles I got fed up with parliament and disbanded it, trying to rule as an absolute monarch. This ended up pissing off a lot of people and ultimately resulted in a rebellion lead by Cromwell, which deposed and executed Charles and put Cromwell in charge as Protector. After 11 years, parliament decided they'd rather have a king again and Charles II was invited back, on the condition that parliament was respected. At least I think that's what happened, it's been a while since I did this in school.
Interestingly, the Civil War is also the reason that our army is British, not Royal. We have a Royal Navy and a Royal Air Force, but the Army descends from Cromwell's 'New Model Army' who fought for parliament, not the king.
It's kind of a big deal in British history, when Parliament were properly in charge. It's worth reading up on, though be aware that there is a LOT of royalist maybe propaganda in history depicting Cromwell as basically borderline satanic, covered in warts, evil in every way.
What he actually was like could be different entirely.
Kitchner ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:35:37 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I mean I agree that in reality even though the army swears an oath of allegiance to the monarch and not Parliament, ultimately the reality is the army and the police would be likely to side with the democratic legislature rather than the hereditary monarch. The whole thing is a hypothetical anyway though. It's unlikely we will need to have that discussion any time soon.
denali42 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:18:03 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
From what I've heard it's usually all prearranged by her aides as part of her preparations to travel. Tends to go through the higher channels, so I imagine they'd basically skip the border control part.
True, though at that point it's more of a political decision than a legal one.
drs43821 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:15:39 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Technically she is. She is unprosecutable, but she choose to abide to the law. Her and the royal family's image hinges upon how the people sees the monarchy, and perhaps how the monarchy itself is holding up
Kinda like she can dissolve parliaments in Commonwealth Realm and start war on random countries. But she never does it. All the laws in UK are written and voted in an elected parliament, and then sign off by the Queen.
RPolbro ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:48:25 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
And yet on one notable occasion the king was put on trial, found guilty, and executed. In the final analysis, all that really matters is what parliament wishes. The monarch adapts to the wishes of the Commons.
If someone like Queen Elizabeth thinks you not only deserved a punch to the face but a royal one, there's not much room for argument. Best you can hope for is that the jeweled knuckleduster she was gifted by Nixon doesn't come into play.
CTU ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 06:58:30 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Likely no, but I do think there be some lawyers coming to you looking to quiet things with a bribe...I mean settlement
Pvt_Rosie ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 03:15:22 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Depends on whether or not she's a masochist.
She might get punished with tea and crumpets and corgi kisses.
She might also get punished with blindfolds and ball-gags and corgi kisses.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:21:27 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Significantly so.
She wouldn't be held accountable for practically anything she did. The only binding force she has is ethical (no legal repercussions).
She wouldn't, though. The Royal Family are very particular in the way they carry themselves, so as not to lose face in front of their citizens. They hold their image in extremely high regard.
Depends...is her purse full of jewels and gold and silver?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:06:16 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Let's be honest with ourselves. She'll just say you were harrassing her, and then she'll get off the hook. Being Queen does matter. She's rich, and powerful.
The Queen enjoys Sovereign immunity so she would have immunity. If she was in a foreign country ( that was not a colony) she would have diplomatic immunity as head of state,therefore a protected person.
Also you would most likely be charged if HRH felt the need to smack you in the gob . In Canada the charge of treason includes "alarming Her Majesty"
** Edit and I think it is a moot point since we all know that she would not hit you , instead she would take a step back and growl in a low voice "Sterben Ungeziefer Abschaum" and a dozen corgis would leap from the bushes and maul you to death while she clutched her purse and cackled manically then the corgis would carry your remains away to be gnawed on at their leisure and everyone would over look this "spot of unpleasantness" and carry on.
DBH114 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:46:50 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Nothing would happen to her. The Queens guard would give you a thumping for making the Queen suffer the indignity of actually touching a commoner.
You can't punish someone who doesn't exist, as there is no Queen of England.
That'd be like me saying Obama is the President of Texas.
SakuRedux ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 05:56:44 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Now That's What I Call Pedantry!
On a serious note, she's technically the Queen of England by virtue of being the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of which England is a constituent country.
xKazimirx ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 08:40:30 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
The title Queen of England doesn't exist since the Acts of Union were passed. England, Wales, and Scotland are the United Kingdom, and are constituents in said kingdom, but they are no longer individual kingdoms themselves. So, no, she's not technically the Queen of England.
That being said, I agree that differing between the two in such a context as this is simply being pedantic.
It isn't pedantry really, but there is a persistant American trend of calling her the "Queen of England". It always makes me wince. It is like calling Obama the President of Texas, or maybe the President of "North America" or some other innacurate title.
We get around it as we can just call her "the Queen"...
SakuRedux ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 10:51:54 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I think my favourite, albeit satirical, example of Americans misusing England instead of United Kingdom/Great Britain is a radio line in GTA Vice City where the valley girl-esque announcer introduces a Scottish band as from "Scotland, England".
I suppose you're right. Queen of the *United Kingdom then.
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 08:41:33 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
LZ653 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:51:40 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Just putting this here if anyone wants the full title:
'Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith'
cfvh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:02:50 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
If you're going to try to get it right, please tell me which colonies because Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc, are independent kingdoms/realms and are not subject to some colonial office in London.
Queen of the United Kingdom is perfectly fine. Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is fine as well. In this instance, they mean the same thing where "Queen of England" does not.
Well akchually, she's the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the other Commonwealth realms. Ugh, it's like you're not even a real pedant.
bart2019 ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 12:14:43 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
A more realistic question would be: what if Donald Trump punched you in the face?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:49:09 on January 23, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Saved comment
DwarvenGoblin ยท 1146 points ยท Posted at 00:53:07 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Legally speaking, according to British law; the queen is unprosecutable.
according to the official monarchy website (https://www.royal.uk/queen-and-law
[1])"Civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law."
in theory, she wouldn't have any punishment whatsoever.
[1]
The Queen and Law
[deleted] ยท 250 points ยท Posted at 06:31:55 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
The queen can pants OP in public, point at his tiny ding-a-ling and order everyone in parliament to laugh.
And they would.
evilbrent ยท 178 points ยท Posted at 07:13:11 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
she probably wouldn't have to order that one. Op's dingaling is pretty funny just as it is
CBtheDB ยท 89 points ยท Posted at 18:31:12 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Hello? Police? Yes, I'd like to report a fucking murder.
meme__creep ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 02:05:06 on December 20, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
HE HAD A FAMILY
oh wait not with that thing
InsideYoWife ยท 74 points ยท Posted at 08:37:10 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
But Brits can't really laugh. They'd just chuckle and say something witty in an English accent like "Mhmhmhmhm indeed, Collinsworth."
vibrate ยท 37 points ยท Posted at 10:39:07 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, those English and their rubbish sense of humour...
PlasmaRoar ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 14:40:04 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
/r/britishproblems
PebblesPotatoes ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 20:28:40 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
We can laugh, the real people who can't laugh are the chinese. heheheheheheheheheehhehe
moistowelettes ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 07:52:50 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
"So I was walking down the street and the queen bloody pants me and she saidโฆ"
Random member of parliament,"What is that?!"
Court laughs for a minute
labour loses
LowCharity ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:25:59 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
All but Dennis.
tyguytheshyguy ยท 353 points ยท Posted at 03:52:44 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I know it isn't abused on a regular basis, but it seems like this principle ought to bother people whether the royal family ever abuses it or not.
If a person is capable of infringing on the rights of others, they should be capable of being prosecuted.
Now, Is this an urgent problem? Hell no. The queen strikes me as a pretty ordinary old lady, who probably can be trusted to behave well. But the principle of this is incompatible with democracy. And there are no guarantees that future monarchs will always behave well.
If a queen or king stole a single pound without justification and faced no repercussions, that would be a gross failure of democracy. I don't care who their parents were and nobody else should either. They have broken the law and must face justice as much as anyone who didn't have ancestors who kept the common people in perpetual serfdom, ignorance, and poverty.
Not an urgent problem, and not one that is ever likely to cause serious issues, but it is irritating that anyone still believes some people should be above common law, especially for a ridiculous reason like heredity. The monarch may be a symbol that many people like, but why should they actually be treated differently under the law?
nautilius87 ยท 69 points ยท Posted at 06:25:53 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
The king/queen who commits the crime would be forced to abdicate via Act of Parliament as mentally unfit to rule.
[deleted] ยท 57 points ยท Posted at 06:29:09 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Truand ยท 44 points ยท Posted at 07:30:38 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Nooo, wait!
It can begin with the queen blowing up the Parliament so that nobody can make her abdicate!
You can still make it!
heartiphone ยท 34 points ยท Posted at 09:13:05 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Q for Queendetta
Scherazade ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 10:38:44 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
The Royal Assent.
In a world where the British government has become corrupt and unfit to rule, one ruler decides she has had enough and goes on a one-royal rampage.
With a chainsaw.
The Royal Assent. Coming soon to a speakeasy cinema that allows non-State permitted views to be aired near you!
GuyRomaine ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:31:57 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I think it should start with her refusing to open parliament for a few years.
Nulono ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:03:36 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
That didn't stop the writers of Swing Vote.
cecilkorik ยท 336 points ยท Posted at 04:38:47 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Believe it or not, not everybody wants full and total democracy. It's not a perfect system, even if it is the best model for government that we have. But democracy has its dark sides as well. The wishes of the majority can go far beyond fairness in some cases, and democracy alone would do nothing to discourage abuse of any or all minority groups. This is why using "democracy" as a solution to replace the governments of tyrants has frequently turned out so poorly. When the majority of citizens want to kill or oppress a minority of citizens, democracy won't do anything to stop them, in fact it will very effectively support them and legitimize them.
Supporters of the monarchy often view the monarch's legal role and powers as an important check and balance against pure democracy in its raw form. It provides a stabilizing and moralizing force while allowing democracy to perform the great bulk of decisionmaking without any interference as long as it remains reasonably fair to all. It's not the only way of doing it, and perhaps not the method you would choose, but for some people it is a perfectly reasonable system, and it works pretty well in practice. Mostly symbolic, yes, but symbols are important.
noggin-scratcher ยท 45 points ยท Posted at 10:38:29 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I have similar feelings about the House of Lords - my democratic instincts say it's a terrible idea, but in practice they seem to serve the good.
I mean, back when membership was made up of high-ranking clergy and aristocrats holding hereditary titles... that was a bit shit. Thankfully we have at least managed to reform away from that (mostly - there are still some bishops and hereditary peers) to the current system of appointment by the Prime Minister based on some notional merit.
All the same, if you asked me whether I thought it was right that unelected appointees get a significant hand in our legislative decision-making, I would not be in favour. But it happens often enough that the elected Commons tries to push through something horrible and finds themselves opposed by the Lords and forced to amend and delay...
As a body they seem to take their job of reviewing and amending proposed legislation very seriously, and have some very sharp legal minds amongst them to do that job. Being appointed for life, they don't need to bend to every turn of public opinion and can't be overrun by a populist surge.
I think we'd have to be in truly dire straits before the Queen would step in because "raw democracy" had taken us off-track, but the House of Lords does seem to fill that same moderating role.
Space-Dementia ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 12:59:47 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I agree with you that the House of Lords is an excellent form of checks and balances, a lot of people don't seem to understand that. I disagree about the PM appointments though, I actually find that quite scary. The PM has a veto on the votes, so could feasibly attempt to fill the Lords with their own cronies.
I don't mind the Lords being hereditary so much, it keeps it filled with somewhat random personalities (not those with a will-to-power), and as a lot will be 'old money' they're harder to influence in that regard.
SPACKlick ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 13:29:34 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
It's always worth having a legislative body that's not running for anything. They stop overreactions and generally tend to put a thumb on the national scales towards maintaining stability in either direction.
While the upside is that it stops you making quick changes, the downside is it stops you making quick changes. I think the proper reform for the Lords would be for it to be a single term body with an elected proportion as in you get elected once and then never have to run for your seat, whether it's a life appointment or a long term (4 or 5 parliaments say) that would make it feel more democratic without losing its advantage.
tyguytheshyguy ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 06:01:51 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I believe it. And that's more than fair. I guess I was using "democracy" as shorthand for "democracy as it is now thought of". Tyranny of the majority is something we should all be afraid of.
The constitutional monarchy is an interesting solution. It is hard for me, as an American, to emphasize with, because I come from a society in which monarchy is not held in very high regard. Our national mythology holds anti-monarchism as a virtue. I recognize that this is due to unique historical circumstances, and isn't true everywhere. While the British system would never work in America, I can see that it might work just fine across the pond. Those in the UK, I understand, hold monarchs in a different regard. Symbols are of course good to have.
I was more narrowly focused on the idea of royalty being above the law. This to me seems to harken back to the bad old days of monarchy. But, if the UK doesn't find it troubling, there's little I can say. It seems incompatible with the rule of law as a matter of principle to me, but perhaps I just have a narrow viewpoint. Either way, it seems unlikely to cause real harm. The monarch is such a public figure that most of them would feel embarrassed to be caught commuting a crime.
It seems bad in principle to me for a monarch to be enshrined in writing as above the law, even if they are a unique and important symbol. But I of course have no vote in the UK. I'll leave it at that.
cecilkorik ยท 38 points ยท Posted at 07:11:06 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I'm Canadian, so I can kind of understand both sides of the argument. In this case, the reason the monarch cannot be prosecuted for breaking a law is because the monarch IS the law. They are nothing less than the definition of moral and legal behavior, that is their role in society. The law is in large part derived from the intents of the monarch, at least in spirit, so if the monarch does something that deviates from the law as it currently stands, what that would be telling you is that the law is apparently out of date with the standards of the time.
Now, realistically if something we would recognize as "illegal" happened they could be, and almost certainly would be, SEVERELY criticized and possibly forced to abdicate -- a monarch is not immune to consequences for doing illegal or immoral things -- but it would not be directly because they broke the law. In this case, it would be because they had failed at their role. Which is to provide the nation with a visible and acceptable moral compass.
A semi-recent example (which may not help much in understanding due to our far progressed acceptance of divorce in modern society) is Edward VIII who was forced into abdication and effectively exiled for marrying a twice-divorced woman. This was in conflict with the King's role as head of the Church of England, which sternly disapproved of divorce and remarriages. While not illegal in the sense of being sent to jail, it was completely unacceptable to society at that time. The monarch is certainly not free to do as they please simply because they are immune to prosecution. Society as a collective still holds ultimate power.
droppedforgiveness ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 07:16:49 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
But what if the queen committed murder? I feel like people wouldn't be happy with just an abdication.
i_pewpewpew_you ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 09:11:08 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
On the subject of the queen committing murder, years ago when I was at uni in Aberdeen (early 00s), there was this crazy guy who used to hand out pro-Scottish Independence leaflets on campus with the following amazing line in huge letters at the top:
"'SHUT UP, SCOTS, OR I'LL MURDER YOU' - The Queen"
I sincerely regret not keeping one of those leaflets. Maybe it was a real quote. Who knows? Probably not, but still, y'know?
Scherazade ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 10:36:57 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think Liz II (Liz Harder) is the sort to threaten just about anyone with murder willy nilly.
Not publically anyway.
boomboomk9000 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:36:39 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Nor was Liz I. Willy, nilly, and publicly FTFY are the key words to consider.
Scherazade ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:53:34 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Liz I wasn't big on doing any willies, that's for sure.
i_pewpewpew_you ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:42:57 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
It still makes me chuckle just thinking about it. The guy was so earnest! And insane, obviously.
cecilkorik ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 07:39:41 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Like I said, power ultimately resides with society itself. If the society decides they want to change their form of government into a republic by and for the people, they have the power and authority to do that. As it stands in the current system, she is immune to prosecution. But like all things, that rule was written by people, it can be changed by people, if they collectively desire it to be changed.
In the words of Darth Vader, "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further."
hilburn ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 10:41:47 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I believe the solution to this is just that if the Queen is forced to abdicate, then she is no longer the Sovereign, and can be prosecuted for her crime.
bluthscottgeorge ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:40:29 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I'm sure they'd find a way to discipline her, very unlikely to happen, but if it did.
Anyway, once she's been forced to abdicate, she becomes a normal person, so she can be prosecuted, however i'm not sure if she can be prosecuted for a crime she committed during her reign as Sovereign.
She'd probably be tried by The House of Lords, once abdicated.
Nulono ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:00:35 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
If breaking the law means the monarch failed to provide a moral compass, then the monarch was never the source of the moral compass to begin with. The Queen doesn't make laws; Parliament does.
blabgasm ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:23:55 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Sure it is. The British monarchy is, which is our monarchy. They don't rule us, but they don't really 'rule' their own subjects either, so that's a wash. Americans are obsessed with the British monarchy. I can't check out at the grocery store without getting face blasted by either the royal toddlers, their impeccable parents, or Harry and his actress girlfriend. I don't even want to know that Harry is dating an American actress, but I can't avoid it. Because people eat that shit up with a spoon. Because Americans love the British monarchy. Americans will mourn when the Queen passes.
bluthscottgeorge ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:37:15 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I mean i'm sure if the queen murdered someone, they'd find a way to punish her or something, and if she hit someone they'd do something about it.
Also worst case scenario, the Sovereign could be forced to abdicate, once they abdicate, they are a normal person with royal blood, so can be in theory prosecuted to the fullest of the law, and they can replace them with their eldest male heir or a sibling etc.
farox ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 10:06:12 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
That's why we have representative Democracies. We vote for someone that shares our values and leave it to them to also think about minorities, people not respresented by us personally, "fairness" etc.
Cronyx ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 12:36:55 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
This is precisely why America has the 2nd Amendment.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." โ Benjamin Franklin
It's how we "bug patched" a user exploit in Democracy.
squiggleslash ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:17:12 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I'm pretty certain he never said that (it's widely attributed to him on the Internet, but not in anywhere respectable. The language is off, and the word "lunch" is a relatively modern word that would have been considered vulgar, if heard at all, during Franklin's time.)
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:33:07 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Cronyx ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:57:01 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
That's because blacks weren't allowed to have firearms. Either through law, or through corrupt bureaucracy exuding them from licenses, or through gunshop owners simply refusing to sell to negros. As a comparison, that only serves to galvanize my point, as there you had a population of Franklin's allegorical lambs, sans the "well armed" portion of the story.
UnchainedMundane ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:40:43 on November 30, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
But it means that in practice it's possible for the wolves to vote for a lamb gun ban.
goat200 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:19:36 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
Tonamel ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 06:19:42 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I imagine if they ever got a monarch that exploits their non-prosecutable status, Parliament would be quick to change things. As it stands, they have better things to do than fix loopholes that aren't in danger of being abused.
Fnhatic ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 10:47:53 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Well there's your problem.
5225225 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:03:20 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Honestly, the queen of England doesn't have any power. I don't think she has actually blocked anything that was agreed upon by the government.
SithLord13 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 17:07:01 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
The last time I know of that she used her power was the 70s I believe. She dissolved the parliament of Australia and forced new elections.
ClassyJacket ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:11:42 on December 19, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
It'd be cool if she could go ahead and do that again right now. Things are getting pretty fucked up over here.
Nathannnnnnnn ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 09:34:50 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
LOCK HER UP.
aykcak ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 11:18:06 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Aren't senators and the president covered under something similar?
Namika ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 15:33:26 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Yes. You can't sue or put the President on trial until he leaves office. If he commits serious offenses he has to be impeached and removed from power before he can be arrested.
In a way that makes sense, the conflicts of interest would be immense if you tried to arrest the standing head of the executive branch. Let him be properly removed from power, then do it.
SithLord13 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 17:15:03 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
That's absolutely not true (the lawsuit part). Bill Clinton got sued for sexual harassment. He actually decided not to settle and fight it instead, and that's how he ended up perjuring himself, when he said under oath he didn't have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. You're right about the arresting part. (Well, kind of, IIRC the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is the only one legally allowed to arrest him. Of course if Obama suddenly decides to snatch a Secret Service agent's gun and shoot someone I'm betting the SS could detain him unofficially until the Sergeant at Arms deals with it.)
ikeaEmotional ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:02:13 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Oddly enough every democracy has an element of sovereign immunity. In the US you cannot sue your state or the federal government unless there's a specific law saying you can. Mostly we have several for Torts and whatnot.
The president cannot be prosecuted for anything while in office. If I read the Clintin precident correctly the president can only be sued civilly for things he/she did before coming into office.
The Queen has a less important and urgent job, I agree with that, but we have it too. It ensures the government doesn't decend into petty squabbles between Prosecutors and officials.
PopeBenedictXII ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 09:33:47 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I can't speak for the English monarchy but here in Belgium we've got the office that the monarch can't be sued while he or she is in office.
We had this entire thing with the previous kind possibly having an illegitimate daughter which he didn't recognize. While he was on the throne, they never got anywhere with the case because he couldn't be brought to court. Now that his son has taken over, the case is being brought up and I think he has to do a paternity test.
(all of this is vaguely remembered from snippets I picked up here and there. I don't really care about the monarchy one way or another so what I said might not be entirely accurate)
endlesscartwheels ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 17:41:44 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Delphine Boรซl, who originally tried to get around the law shielding King Albert II by summonsing his two eldest marital children to court for DNA tests to prove she was their half-sister. After the king abdicated, she was able to proceed against him directly.
According to this article, "Under Belgian law a man cannot be forced to take a paternity test, but a judge could take his refusal to do so into account."
Interestingly, Delphine Boรซl has given up quite a lot of money in trying to gain the recognition of the man she believes to be her father. The process involved proving she was not the daughter of multi-millionaire Jacques Boรซl, who consequently disinherited her.
Borax ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:00:05 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
If you think regular old ladies can be trusted to follow the law you've obviously never seen me nan bun a zoot
Zsashas ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:55:26 on January 17, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What?
romulusnr ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:54:26 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
It only applies to the monarch, not to the whole royal family.
In theory if Prince Philip were to hit you, he could be prosecuted, as he is not the monarch.
Of course, that doesn't mean they would.
xipheon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:52:09 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
They're held to a different standard and therefore accountable to a different power. Should emergency personal not be allowed to speed because that holds them to a different standard than everyone else? If they abuse that power and their exception to many sections of the law, then they are held accountable by a different system. The monarchy is the same, they get held accountable through populous revolt, or in modern times the actual government can do something about it.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:01:21 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I think people are more concerned about real issues surrounding the royal family, such as the special tax status they enjoy which means they pay very little tax on a very large estate.
corobo ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 09:57:33 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't the special tax status effectively an 85% income tax? Count me out of that special status
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 12:35:58 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Where did you get that from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Grant_Act_2011
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/18/buckingham-palace-to-undergo-370m-refurbishment
[deleted] ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 14:07:01 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
corobo ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:31:34 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks for grabbing that, yup that's the one I was referring to :)
Gooddayhans ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:04:47 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I live in another monarchy (Denmark) and wonder about the same thing on a daily basis...
HelloYesThisIsDuck ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:53:15 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I believe that in Poland, our ministers, and possibly all senators/members of parliament can't be prosecuted either, without something like an impeachment. The government has to strip them of their immunity.
I guess it's to ensure they are prosecuted for political reasons.
bigboss2014 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:21:01 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Well let me tell you about this thing called a Monarchy...
PebblesPotatoes ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:29:38 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Bu-bu-but magna carta!
Jon_Cake ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 07:34:54 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Suppose she visits another country and punches someone in the face. Does it basically just depend on whether that country has granted her diplomatic immunity or not?
disturbed286 ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 11:27:41 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
it's been revoked
bendanger ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 17:27:19 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Imagine if trump was queen
mynewaccount5 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 05:50:08 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
So she could just walk around with a sword beheading anyone that displeases her and she'd be in the clear?
theunnoanprojec ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 08:24:17 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
She could, but given the fact the UK isn't an absolute monarchy, I would imagine parliament would put a stop to that very quickly
mynewaccount5 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:06:32 on November 30, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Until you remember that the queen has the power to veto acts of parliament. And has the power to discontinue parliament. And is the only one with the power to summon parliament.
theunnoanprojec ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 05:44:36 on November 30, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I'm certain that of parliament got to the point where they no longer wanted the queen, they would stop carrying about her veto
mynewaccount5 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:53:58 on November 30, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
That would be difficult seeing as the British Government derives its power from the crown
theunnoanprojec ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:55:35 on November 30, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
While you're right, that hasn't stopped other governments from turning over their leaders before.
Many a monarchy has been abolished
mynewaccount5 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:00:03 on November 30, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
How? By revolution? With all the surveillance that the UK has? And the extremely strict gun laws?
FullBodyHairnet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:00:18 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Why else would anyone want to be a king or queen? The job sucks, but the benefits and perks are amazing.
Siniroth ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 06:46:59 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Legally yes, assuming there isn't some 'this does not apply if' thing elsewhere
VAPossum ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:04:11 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
And frankly, if the Queen of England punched you in the face, you probably did something to deserve it.
Ikea_Man ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:37:24 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
so what would happen if the Queen cut a man's head off in the street with a sword?
JustaPonder ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:16:36 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
So, "legally speaking" the Queen still enjoys a secular version of the Divine Rights of Kings?
DwarvenGoblin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:36:48 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
well, "legally speaking" its more of a political protection, but, that political protection does stem from the divine rights of kings.
In the same way the united states gets its power "from the people"
England gets it's power from "the crown" which in turn gets it "from divine right"
JustaPonder ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:39:27 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I'm in Canada - so if Trudeau gets his power "from the people" and the Queen gets her power from "the crown" - what happens if one punches the other? "Immovable object vs unstoppable force"?
hangoversmustfall ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:23:58 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Having just watched Braveheart, this irks me.
dirtygremlin ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 05:51:36 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
It shouldn't matter too much. In terms of historical accuracy, Braveheart is a pretty terrible movie. William Wallace, your national hero...
GestaltJungle ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 08:41:53 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Seems pretty accurate to me, after all he's an alcoholic racist so he portrayed it pretty well.
(Scot here btw. I'm allowed to say it dammit)
Ir0nMann ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 12:16:51 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Being an American, this irks me.
hangoversmustfall ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:10:39 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Being of English descent, this irks even me.
[deleted] ยท -30 points ยท Posted at 02:03:47 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
KaineOrAmarov ยท 63 points ยท Posted at 02:08:14 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Stupid monarchs running around punching people...
Murica!
AUGUST_BURNS_REDDIT ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:24:57 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
https://youtu.be/UtxxwcQ20Fw?t=0m50s
farox ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:51:26 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Not in England... Germany on the other hand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Ernst_August_of_Hanover_(born_1954)#Controversy
KaineOrAmarov ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:43:34 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
German prince with a knuckle duster
Nice
doc_daneeka ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 03:09:25 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Yup. It's much better to have a president that effectively can't be prosecuted instead.
(I know that he probably can be, but Ford demonstrated quite clearly that the issue is pretty much academic.)
tyguytheshyguy ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 04:05:32 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
It does make some difference whether laws are codified. Presidents get away with far more than they should, but there would be a justified outcry if amendment to the constitution were passed exempting them from common law. The blatant disregard for common law would be obvious to everyone, and Americans would be rightly sickened to see that attitude enshrined in writing and formal law.
Principles aren't everything, but they do matter.
Presidents are also not hereditary. They distinguish themselves by virtue of their careers and characters to win the vote of the people (obviously this fails sometimes). Monarchs just had the right parents. In the words of Thomas Paine "A hereditary leader makes as much sense as a hereditary mathematician." If there ever was a bad reason to be exempt from common law, heredity must be recognized as one.
doc_daneeka ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 04:16:07 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Just for the record, I think I actually agree with all of that. I just took exception to what came across on the part of that other person as "your custom is stupid...that's why we have our somewhat-but-not-all-that-much different custom instead."
tyguytheshyguy ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 04:21:04 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I assumed as much. Some of us Yanks can be very brazen. My apologies for that.
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 03:38:39 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 03:40:26 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Ausecurity ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:31:30 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
The real question is if the queen struck OP and as a knee jerk reaction op struck the queen would his punishment be a hanging or beheading?
I joke. But I am curious if there would be any punishment for OP defending himself?
Aztecah ยท 241 points ยท Posted at 23:05:08 on November 28, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
In actuality probably nothing much would happen to her but in theory no one is above the law since the Magna Carta
DwarvenGoblin ยท 97 points ยท Posted at 01:05:50 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Actually,
The Magna Carta has only 3 bills that are still in effect today. ignoring the two that back up the rights of the church, and reaffirm the liberties in certain specific places.
the only semi-applicable bill.
"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled . nor will we proceed with force against him . except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. "
You could try to stretch the "proceed with force" part as a protection, but that part is superseded by later laws protecting the queen from prosecution specifically.
CollegeStudent2014 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:44:45 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
["To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice."]
What exactly is this part referring to?
FearFailure ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:02:17 on December 1, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I'd probably want to look at the context to be sure but I assume "to no one will we sell" essentially means "no bribery in the judicial system", and "to no one deny or delay right or justice" essentially means "all persons have a civil right to timely access to justice, such as litigation or prosecution".
UglyStru ยท -46 points ยท Posted at 02:40:54 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
http://i.imgur.com/Ek6jgeF.jpg
Rockonfoo ยท 34 points ยท Posted at 03:46:51 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Good meme bad timing
mynewaccount5 ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 05:49:01 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
The queen is a 90 year old lady. I can't imagine any 90 year old ladies being punished for something like that.
theunnoanprojec ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 08:27:12 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I dunno, there was that 90 year old dude who was a soldier in a concentration camp for the Nazis in WWII who was recently arrested. Even though he low key helped out a lot of the prisoners, and also wasn't there on his own accord in the first place
mynewaccount5 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 13:46:10 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
The queen was never w nazi.
LazyassMenace ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:34:04 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I dunno, she is German.
LiesToYourFace ยท 148 points ยท Posted at 06:31:59 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
As your question has been answered, I'll just add here that if Elizabeth II punched you in the face, you probably deserved it.
AlwaysHopelesslyLost ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 15:30:13 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Now, leave my world and NEVER return!
aesop_fables ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 04:13:43 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Adding to this; let's say the Queen did punch me in the face and I hit her back in self defense. Would I be prosecuted?
Kleatherman ยท 108 points ยท Posted at 05:06:31 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
She's 90. If you punched the queen you would most likely be guilty of regicide.
StrangelyBrown ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 08:17:54 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
If you killed the queen I think you'd quickly become a contender for most hated person alive.
vy_you ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 12:32:06 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
KingPrince Charles, on the other hand...intisun ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:20:15 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Hanged, drawn and quartered.
Fjolsvithr ยท 46 points ยท Posted at 05:32:26 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Chances are that punching any unarmed 90-year-old woman wouldn't constitute self-defense in England.
The two main reasons:
1) You have to actually be at risk of injury. If she's already punched you, then your risk of injury has already passed. And more importantly...
2) You can only respond with reasonable force. Punching an old woman is almost certainly going to be found unreasonable. You could restrain her less violently.
Scherazade ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 10:50:25 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Depends how hardcore the old lady is. Ninja Queen Liz from the Awesome Dimension can punch holes in wood with her fists.
endlesscartwheels ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:46:19 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Liz Ten from Doctor Who was pretty fierce too.
joshred ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:07:40 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
What if I punch-her-back/kill-her while she is vacationing in Florida?
mynewaccount5 ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 05:55:38 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
No you would not be. You have to be alive to be prosecuted and if you punched the queen, you would be beaten to death if you are lucky.
theunnoanprojec ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 08:31:49 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Beaten to death by old Bess herself, I assume?
Because knowing her if you punched her she would probably release all hell on you
moistowelettes ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:54:34 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I think if the queen punched you with her Freddie Mercury punch, you would die
jdb12 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 05:02:49 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Easily
Source: I'm guessing
GnosticGnome ยท 84 points ยท Posted at 22:59:30 on November 28, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
If this took place in England, it would be up to the Queen whether she would like to be punished, and how.
cookie1254 ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 00:52:04 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I hope you're joking
GnosticGnome ยท 57 points ยท Posted at 01:07:41 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not.
http://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/thequeen/is-the-queen-really-above-the-law-1625
"Although civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law.
Indeed, Her Majesty has never been in a position where her legal standing is in question, specifically because there can be no question. Regardless of what The Queen does, it canโt be declared illegal."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/17/monarchy.stephenbates
"Nowadays, the Queen in her personal capacity is considered for legal purposes the Crown as Sovereign and as such immune to prosecution. That's the same as other heads of state, at least during their terms of office - and the Queen holds her office for life. That means that if she found herself without money to buy something and decided to do a runner - an unlikely prospect - she would not get done for shoplifting. There is an alternative possibility, the prosecution of the Crown as Executive, but here the Queen's ministers act on her behalf and would take the rap."
cookie1254 ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 01:20:23 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
TIL
Kitchner ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 01:49:38 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
The key bit to remember is that all powers in the UK exercised by Parliament derive from the Crown.
When you boil it all down where does the US institutions of government get it's power from? The Constitution of course. A super law that is above all other laws that was the very basis for founding the nation. All power derives from an almost holy document above all others.
The UK wasn't formed by some states signing a piece of paper, the UK was formed under the power of a monarch, who claimed the right to rule was the divine will of the gods (AKA god saw fit to give me a huge army, therefore he wants me to rule).
So the powers of the state technically derive from the Crown. Parliament exists because a King made it, the laws exist because the King let Parliament have the power to pass them.
While we have moved on from there (after chopping off a King's head, deciding we didn't like being a republic, and then going back), today Parliament is consider sovereign in all matters. Parliament is more powerful than the Crown, it was established during the civil war (see: chopped off head). That doesn't mean their powers and the powers of the government don't derive from the crown though.
Included in this is the power of the Supreme Court and the judges. They rule on court cases in Her Majesty's name. A delegation of authority from when the monarch was the highest court in the land.
So while it's all very hypothetical, because the situation would never really arise, it's interesting because the Queen could murder a dude and not be prosecuted in theory, but if Parliament then passed a law saying the Queen couldn't be the Queen, and that the Queen didn't need to sign that particular bill, the judges and parliament would claim parliamentary sovereignty, and the Queen would claim divine right to rule, and it would be the civil war all over again.
shadowmask ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 02:20:39 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
You can't have a civil war without an opposing side to fight. The Queen would be made not the Queen and would then be arrested.
SakuRedux ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 05:25:48 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, we did that already with Charles I. Then we chopped the guys head off, and decided we wouldn't have a monarch. Then about 11 years later Charles II was restored to the throne and we've had a monarch since then.
So basically the British Civil War was a waste of time.
CritterTeacher ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 06:04:56 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I've never even heard of the British civil war. Is it not talked about much or do I just have a huge hole in my awareness of the world?
SakuRedux ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 06:54:38 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Basically some guys got fed up of the King at the time (Charles I) being a unilaterally powerful cockring of a person and rebelled. They convicted him of treason, and beheaded him. There was a really good movie made about the main leader of the rebels, Oliver Cromwell, called "Cromwell"
AdamBall1999 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:11:31 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
But didn't Cromwell call himself the "Lord Protector" and was pretty much King with different name?
SakuRedux ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:06:29 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Yep. People weren't very pleased when that happened.
Ydrahs ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 06:27:55 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
It's sort of the reason we have an effective parliament. The war started because Charles I got fed up with parliament and disbanded it, trying to rule as an absolute monarch. This ended up pissing off a lot of people and ultimately resulted in a rebellion lead by Cromwell, which deposed and executed Charles and put Cromwell in charge as Protector. After 11 years, parliament decided they'd rather have a king again and Charles II was invited back, on the condition that parliament was respected. At least I think that's what happened, it's been a while since I did this in school.
Interestingly, the Civil War is also the reason that our army is British, not Royal. We have a Royal Navy and a Royal Air Force, but the Army descends from Cromwell's 'New Model Army' who fought for parliament, not the king.
CritterTeacher ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:11:02 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Ah, good synopsis, thanks!
samalandar ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 06:20:16 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds like a bit of a gap there. Though, does the name Oliver Cromwell ring a bell?
CritterTeacher ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 10:09:45 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, I've heard of him.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 12:26:13 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
You've never heard of the British civil war because it's normally called the English civil war.
Scherazade ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:43:39 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
It's kind of a big deal in British history, when Parliament were properly in charge. It's worth reading up on, though be aware that there is a LOT of royalist maybe propaganda in history depicting Cromwell as basically borderline satanic, covered in warts, evil in every way.
What he actually was like could be different entirely.
Kitchner ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:35:37 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I mean I agree that in reality even though the army swears an oath of allegiance to the monarch and not Parliament, ultimately the reality is the army and the police would be likely to side with the democratic legislature rather than the hereditary monarch. The whole thing is a hypothetical anyway though. It's unlikely we will need to have that discussion any time soon.
denali42 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:18:03 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Welcome to the legal definition of the term "Sovereign Immunity".
tayloryeow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:22:21 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Parliament is traditionally what keeps monarchs honest and acts as a check against excesses of power.
So I would say she is not above the law at all but subject to a different branch of it.
JehovahsNutsack ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:26:29 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Not only in England. Even in the Commonwealth countries, correct?
ms_toy ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:56:39 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Kinky
TheFetchOmi ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 00:27:00 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Nice try but England isn't that kind of monarchy anymore. She'd have to go through the law like anyone else.
GnosticGnome ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 00:34:03 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
The Guardian says she is. What's your precedent that she isn't? Cromwell?
SakuRedux ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 05:43:20 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Except that any actions taken to prosecute someone are done on the Queens behalf. It's the same reason she doesn't hold a passport or drivers licence.
British passports are a request from the Crown to allow passage, and British drivers licences are authorisation from the Crown to drive on the roads.
Prosecutions in the UK are done on behalf of the Queen, so if she decided to commit a crime she could just choose not to prosecute herself.
HelloYesThisIsDuck ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 10:56:43 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
TIL. Glad I don't work for border control somewhere. I'd probably turn her away and get fired.
SakuRedux ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:00:40 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
From what I've heard it's usually all prearranged by her aides as part of her preparations to travel. Tends to go through the higher channels, so I imagine they'd basically skip the border control part.
Blinkskij ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:26:39 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
It'd be a strange day when the Queen visits a foreign state and has to queue for passport control.
SakuRedux ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 11:36:03 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I'd pay for a deck chair and popcorn to watch that mess.
endlesscartwheels ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:51:58 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Prince Charles brings a white leather toilet seat wherever he goes. I'd like to see that go through an airport carry-on scanner.
SakuRedux ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:46:01 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Leather? Imagine pulling yourself off that after a mobile reddit marathon...
nautilius87 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:14:57 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Nope. Her decision would have to countersigned by secretary of state for justice to have any binding power.
SakuRedux ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:00:00 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
True, though at that point it's more of a political decision than a legal one.
drs43821 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:15:39 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Technically she is. She is unprosecutable, but she choose to abide to the law. Her and the royal family's image hinges upon how the people sees the monarchy, and perhaps how the monarchy itself is holding up
Kinda like she can dissolve parliaments in Commonwealth Realm and start war on random countries. But she never does it. All the laws in UK are written and voted in an elected parliament, and then sign off by the Queen.
RPolbro ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:48:25 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I agree with this. Just take a look at the number of coup attempts listed on this Wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_d'รฉtat_and_coup_attempts_by_country
Regardless of the law, the people would never allow something of this nature to go unpunished
doc_daneeka ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:12:09 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
And yet on one notable occasion the king was put on trial, found guilty, and executed. In the final analysis, all that really matters is what parliament wishes. The monarch adapts to the wishes of the Commons.
_NiggyStardust_ ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 09:00:14 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
It'd be meta??
krampus503 ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 06:19:57 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
If someone like Queen Elizabeth thinks you not only deserved a punch to the face but a royal one, there's not much room for argument. Best you can hope for is that the jeweled knuckleduster she was gifted by Nixon doesn't come into play.
CTU ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 06:58:30 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Likely no, but I do think there be some lawyers coming to you looking to quiet things with a bribe...I mean settlement
Pvt_Rosie ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 03:15:22 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Depends on whether or not she's a masochist.
She might get punished with tea and crumpets and corgi kisses.
She might also get punished with blindfolds and ball-gags and corgi kisses.
moistowelettes ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 07:53:32 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
เฒ _เฒ
Pvt_Rosie ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 08:14:38 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Corgi. Kisses.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:21:27 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Significantly so.
She wouldn't be held accountable for practically anything she did. The only binding force she has is ethical (no legal repercussions).
She wouldn't, though. The Royal Family are very particular in the way they carry themselves, so as not to lose face in front of their citizens. They hold their image in extremely high regard.
coatrack68 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:02:40 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Depends...is her purse full of jewels and gold and silver?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:06:16 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Let's be honest with ourselves. She'll just say you were harrassing her, and then she'll get off the hook. Being Queen does matter. She's rich, and powerful.
YongeArcade ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:34:20 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
The Queen enjoys Sovereign immunity so she would have immunity. If she was in a foreign country ( that was not a colony) she would have diplomatic immunity as head of state,therefore a protected person.
Also you would most likely be charged if HRH felt the need to smack you in the gob . In Canada the charge of treason includes "alarming Her Majesty"
** Edit and I think it is a moot point since we all know that she would not hit you , instead she would take a step back and growl in a low voice "Sterben Ungeziefer Abschaum" and a dozen corgis would leap from the bushes and maul you to death while she clutched her purse and cackled manically then the corgis would carry your remains away to be gnawed on at their leisure and everyone would over look this "spot of unpleasantness" and carry on.
DBH114 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:46:50 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Nothing would happen to her. The Queens guard would give you a thumping for making the Queen suffer the indignity of actually touching a commoner.
Magicteapotbeliever ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:57:58 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I'd like to take this opportunity to be the jerk that reminds you there is no queen is England. I'll show myself out.
deschutron ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:18:35 on November 30, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
By "is", did you mean "of"?
TheGentlemanlyMan ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:59:06 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
The fuck are you going on about?
iguessthislldo ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:14:14 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
The Kingdom of England hasn't existed for 300 years. Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
GregorF92 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:23:13 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
You can't punish someone who doesn't exist, as there is no Queen of England.
That'd be like me saying Obama is the President of Texas.
SakuRedux ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 05:56:44 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Now That's What I Call Pedantry!
On a serious note, she's technically the Queen of England by virtue of being the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of which England is a constituent country.
xKazimirx ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 08:40:30 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
The title Queen of England doesn't exist since the Acts of Union were passed. England, Wales, and Scotland are the United Kingdom, and are constituents in said kingdom, but they are no longer individual kingdoms themselves. So, no, she's not technically the Queen of England.
That being said, I agree that differing between the two in such a context as this is simply being pedantic.
iguessthislldo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:25:43 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Early Modern European politics were very specific about this kind of stuff. For example see Kings of Prussia vs. Kings in Prussia.
hoffi_coffi ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 09:52:37 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
It isn't pedantry really, but there is a persistant American trend of calling her the "Queen of England". It always makes me wince. It is like calling Obama the President of Texas, or maybe the President of "North America" or some other innacurate title.
We get around it as we can just call her "the Queen"...
SakuRedux ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 10:51:54 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I think my favourite, albeit satirical, example of Americans misusing England instead of United Kingdom/Great Britain is a radio line in GTA Vice City where the valley girl-esque announcer introduces a Scottish band as from "Scotland, England".
iguessthislldo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:29:37 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
But Rockstar North is based in Scotland. I think thats them making fun of us.
SakuRedux ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:45:14 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, someone was definitely taking the piss. No idea it was the scots though haha
GregorF92 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:10:46 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I'm aware of that, but the "Queen of England" isn't a recognised thing that exists, just as there isn't a President of Texas, as I previously said.
bart2019 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:16:56 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
What about: the President of Washington.
seanl1991 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:40:29 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
theres a football team called president of washington and jefferson
cfvh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:59:59 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
England is a country but not a kingdom. In 1707, England and Scotland formed, and I quote from the Acts of Union (1707):
In 1801, that Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland formed, and I quote from the Acts of Union (1800):
Delts28 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 09:09:22 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
As a Scot thank you for pointing this out and I'm sorry you've been martyred.
flynnsanity3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:55:44 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I love that this same comment was heavily upvoted in the other thread.
๐๏ธ FeelLikeANathan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:22:42 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
I suppose you're right. Queen of the *United Kingdom then.
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 08:41:33 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
LZ653 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:51:40 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Just putting this here if anyone wants the full title:
'Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith'
cfvh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:02:50 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
If you're going to try to get it right, please tell me which colonies because Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc, are independent kingdoms/realms and are not subject to some colonial office in London.
Queen of the United Kingdom is perfectly fine. Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is fine as well. In this instance, they mean the same thing where "Queen of England" does not.
AdamBall1999 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:18:50 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Well akchually, she's the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the other Commonwealth realms. Ugh, it's like you're not even a real pedant.
bart2019 ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 12:14:43 on November 29, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
A more realistic question would be: what if Donald Trump punched you in the face?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:49:09 on January 23, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It would break his tiny orange hands.