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.
There is a possible precedent in the case of Charles I. Encyclopædia Britannica says
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.)
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.
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?
Nah, she’d just set the corgis on whoever pissed her off.
That make a great obituary…died from rabid anklebites…
She would probably have the barrister dream team.
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
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
OJ told me the queen was the real killer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gee, I don’t know. Let’s ask Princess Dianna…Oh, that’s right. We can’t ask her, can we?
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.
Even if, arguendo, HM did murder Diana, I imagine the crime would be tried in France, non?
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.
When they brought Charles II back, they dug up the judge who had sentenced his Daddy and hanged the corpse.