Can the QUEEN Murder Somebody and not get sent to Jail?

[Proffessor Pete]

What would happen if she (The Queen) were to Murder somebody in cold blood and get caught. Would she be sent to trial? Would she have a jury? If she was found guilty by the jury or whoever, would she go to some HM Prison (Under her majestys pleasure)?? Kinda make you wonder huh.

[bibliophage]

There is a possible precedent in the case of Charles I. Encyclopædia Britannica says On Jan. 20, 1649, he was brought before a specially constituted high court of justice in Westminster Hall. Charles I was charged with high treason and "other high crimes against the realm of England." He at once refused to recognize the legality of the court because "a king cannot be tried by any superior jurisdiction on earth." He therefore refused to plead but maintained that he stood for "the liberty of the people of England." The sentence of death was read on January 27; his execution was ordered as a tyrant, traitor, murderer, and public enemy. The sentence was carried out on a scaffold erected outside the banqueting hall of Whitehall on the morning of Tuesday, Jan. 30, 1649.

[matt_mcl]

IANAL, but I don't think the queen is above the law (except for certain minor ones, such as that she doesn't need license plates on her car, and conversely, she is not allowed to vote.)

[tcburnett]

If you know the Queen at all I'm sure you recognize that a crime of passion is right out.

For her other assassination wishes she must request assistance from the Prime Minister who tells "M" to assign James Bond.

[ricepad]

I'm having trouble picturing these events happening...what's she gonna do, brain somebody with that ridiculous purse she's always carrying? Or do you suppose she's packing heat in it? What do you suppose the Queen would be packing? A LadySmith, perhaps? Or something more utilitarian, like a Glock?

[Mustapha]

Nah, she'd just set the corgis on whoever pissed her off.

[ricepad]

Originally posted by Mustapha
Nah, she'd just set the corgis on whoever pissed her off.

That make a great obituary...died from rabid anklebites...

[handy]

She would probably have the barrister dream team.

[zev_steinhardt]

I don't know if she'd be liable to criminal prosecution in England.

However, the Queen actually has power, but never uses it. For example, the Queen (IIRC), has the power to overturn any bill that Parliament passes. She will not use this power, however, because she knows that the royal family only exists at the sufference of that very same Parliament. If she overturned a bill, Parliament would pull the plug.

So even if she couldn't be held criminally liable, Parliament would correct that ASAP if it were to happen, possibly be removing the royal house altogether.

Zev Steinhardt

[Guinastasia]

Prince Philip would probably be the one most likely to commit murder...LOL

BTW, did you know that Jack the Ripper was rumored to have been the Duke of Clarence, Prince Albert Victor? He was Queen Victoria's grandson and third in line for the throne, and would've been king instead of George V, only he died in 1892?

-Guin-aka the History Nerd

[TampaFlyer]

OJ told me the queen was the real killer.

[London_Calling]

Zev- you’re pretty much right. The Constitutional role of the Monarch nowadays is as a rubber stamp for the laws passed by Parliament. As those are the elected representative’s, it’s fair to assume they have a mandate.

The Queen does have a crucial role in that she can refuse to sign the order putting a new law into effect. To do so would cause a Constitutional crisis as she’d be setting herself against the elected representatives but there have been times in history when representatives have tried to pass significant legislation contrary to the public good.

It’s extreme (man the barricades time) and she is unlikely to do it unless the nation itself is in danger AND she believes she has the popular support of the people. But it’s there, just in case Parliament loses the plot.


On the OP - I'm also rusty on this but i think the Monarch decides whether or not to let her/himself be subject to the court. Kind of above the law but not a good idea to not be subject to it, either.

Of course, someone could come up with an elaborate frame job or she shoots an unarmed intruder. Life's stranger than fiction.

[PunditLisa]

Where's there's "Bloody Mary" who caused a lot of people to be murdered for their religious beliefs. Then, of course, there's King Hank VIII, who murdered two of his wives with no repercussions.

In modern times, it wouldn't happen for the simple reason that neither Queen Lizzy nor Prince Charles has ever experienced an emotion, so they'd have no motive.

[howardsims]

I remember hearing something awhile back (maybe a decade) that the Queen sent some bill back to Parliment because she wanted some minor phrase changed; they obliged and she signed it.
Course, I could be totally wrong... Bound to happen sometime.

[London_Calling]

This is off the top of my head so I hope it's not off with my head...

Last 'Constitutional Crisis' concerned the Bill that created the Irish Free State (1916 ?). The Monarch, being sovereign of al the lands in the Empire, took exception to some of that Bill's clauses and diplomatically implied it might not be signed in it's present form. It became public knowledge and the fur flew.

[DrMatrix]

Can the QUEEN Murder Somebody and not get sent to Jail? Gee, I don't know. Let's ask Princess Dianna...Oh, that's right. We can't ask her, can we?

[fierra]

Originally posted by PunditLisa
Where's there's "Bloody Mary" who caused a lot of people to be murdered for their religious beliefs. Then, of course, there's King Hank VIII, who murdered two of his wives with no repercussions.

In modern times, it wouldn't happen for the simple reason that neither Queen Lizzy nor Prince Charles has ever experienced an emotion, so they'd have no motive.



But they had laws to the effect that so & so was treason eg lese majesty (can't do the accents!) & that these were capital crimes, so although it was manipulating the law & carrying out their own private agendae to get those people killed, technically speaking it wasn't murder. Doesn't make it right though & I'm not condoning it, but it wasn't murder by the laws of the time.

[labradorian]

Originally posted by DrMatrix
Can the QUEEN Murder Somebody and not get sent to Jail? Gee, I don't know. Let's ask Princess Dianna...Oh, that's right. We can't ask her, can we?

Even if, arguendo, HM did murder Diana, I imagine the crime would be tried in France, non?

[ticker]

Not really relevant but...

Some years back some loony-tune managed to break into Buck House and was sitting on her maj's bed when she retired. He got off prosecution because HM the Q was the primary witness and there was some problem having the Crown give evidence in the Crown vs Fruit-loop.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally posted by bibliophage
There is a possible precedent in the case of Charles I.

When they brought Charles II back, they dug up the judge who had sentenced his Daddy and hanged the corpse.

[mothra]

Originally posted by PunditLisa
In modern times, it wouldn't happen for the simple reason that neither Queen Lizzy nor Prince Charles has ever experienced an emotion, so they'd have no motive.

Come on... that crosses the line. You expect these people to show their emotions in public? That's not what being a Royal is about. I particularly think Princes William and Harry were inspirational in their lack of displayed emotion whilst processing to the funeral of their late mother.

Anyhow, my father-in-law gets a Christmas card from Prince Charles every year and it's signed simply "from Charles, William and Harry". Now that's emotion for you....

[TomH]

The trial of Charles I is an appalling precedent if you’re looking to establish the state of English law today. It was a show trial arranged to justify the execution of the King in the public eye during the course of what was effectively a violent revolution. The Crown cannot be tried in court and the commission which was established for the trial was set up by an “Act of Parliament” which had only been passed by the House of Commons and hence was not valid.

The Queen is regularly consulted about the content of legislation, but most of the consultation takes place in private meetings with the Prime Minister, the contents of which are only ever disclosed under the 30-year rule and sometimes never disclosed at all. There was some suggestion that the Thatcher government backed down from the proposed privatisation of the Post Office because the Queen disapproved.

Parliament requires the Queen’s Consent even to consider certain types of legislation — bills that affect the Queen’s interest personally.

As for what would happen if she actually murdered somebody with her own hands, my guess is that Parliament would make some kind of special provision for the trial, but a top London QC would get her off on the basis that the bloody crown found at the scene didn’t fit. She would then be free to spend the rest of her life hunting down the real killers.

[Guinastasia]

Actually, from what I've heard, the Queen's pretty okay in private. A friend of mine's family was
on staff for the palace, and from what she said, they seem like a normal family in private...as normal as can be.
I just read about the guy coming into Buckingham Palace and trying to talk to the Queen in the middle of the night. What struck me about it was that the same thing almost happened to the last Reigning Queen-Victoria. A boy came into Buckingham, he was a poor illiterate urchin they called Boy Jones, (about 17, I believe), and he found Victoria's rooms when he heard the baby Princess Royal crying. I believe Prince Albert had him sent out to see...because he was a harmless boy, but nevertheless, they didn't need him hanging around. That's what lead the family to purchase and design Osbourne House, so they'd have their own private residence.

Lilibet, however, said she was mostly concerned with what would've happened if Prince Philip had been around...after all, we all know Philip isn't the most tactful of blokes now, is he?