# Is Queen Elizabeth above the law? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 9, 2009, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826 "2009-03-09T13:01:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/1 "2009-03-09T13:01:33Z")
Here’s the scene. Both Liz and Phil are young and in their prime and early one morning Liz fancies a bacon sandwich. Not wanting to wake the cook she strolls down to the kitchen and finds Phil giving one of the pantrymaids a damn good rogering. In a fit of pique, Liz grabs the nearest blunt instrument, which just happens to be a meat clever (not all that blunt) and fetches Phil one around the noggin killing him…stone.cold.dead. Could Liz be tried in one of _Her_ courts of law for the crime of murder? ---
**Author:** ![ianzin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ed655f/32.png) [@ianzin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ianzin)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/2 "2009-03-09T13:07:31Z")
Yes. The Monarch is not deemed to be above the law, and is deemed to be subject to the same laws as everyone else. At least, in theory. ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/3 "2009-03-09T13:33:55Z")
> [@ianzin](#): > > Yes. > > The Monarch is not deemed to be above the law, and is deemed to be subject to the same laws as everyone else. At least, in theory. In theory, yes. In practice, how could she be tried in one of her own courts of law? Who would dare prosecute? ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/4 "2009-03-09T13:44:27Z")
Oh, there’d be plenty of Labourites who’d be happy to. There is a small but definite sentiment for ending the monarchy. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/5 "2009-03-09T13:55:43Z")
> [@chowder](#): > > In practice, how could she be tried in one of her own courts of law? She would be tried by Parliament, not the Courts (q.v. Charles I). ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/6 "2009-03-09T13:57:31Z")
Yes, she is above the law and, no, she could not be tried for murder. But with three important caveats - firstly, she is under oath to ‘cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all [her] judgements’ (i.e. the text of her coronation oath); secondly, she can be deemed incapable of ruling and a regency appointed instead; and, thirdly, if not in theory then at least in practice, there is always the 1649 solution. ---
**Author:** ![Rocketeer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocketeer/32/4437_2.png) [@Rocketeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rocketeer)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/7 "2009-03-09T14:38:45Z")
I just want to say that “damned good rogering” is a great, great phrase. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/8 "2009-03-09T14:51:53Z")
> [@APB](#): > > Yes, she is above the law and, no, she could not be tried for murder. T’d be nice to see citations from anyone in this thread, but I’m especially interested in seeing one for this. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![cckerberos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@cckerberos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cckerberos)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/9 "2009-03-09T15:25:34Z")
From the [BBC](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2400003.stm): > [@](#): > > The sovereign not only has immunity from prosecution, it has become accepted that he or she cannot be required to give evidence in court. From the [Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/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. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/10 "2009-03-09T15:39:49Z")
Her sentence would be to be stuck with Philip for the rest of her life (snicker). ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/11 "2009-03-09T15:50:28Z")
If HM allegedly committed such a serious crime, I think Parliament would quickly depose her or at least establish a regency until she could be tried. Parliament could create a special court for the trial, if it chose. Parliament is supreme - the Queen reigns but does not rule. And if she vetoed the bill creating the court that would itself probably suffice for most MPs as a reason to depose her. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/12 "2009-03-09T15:51:37Z")
I accept that HM could not be tried in the courts for any crime – it seems likely to me, and several in this thread have already said so. But she would not have no consequences for the act. If she had committed a serious crime, and knowledge of the crime became public, she would be required by the PM and by Parliament to abdicate. General public opinion (which always wins in a democracy like the UK, if strongly and widely held) would require it, and she would have few defenders in that court. (Her other realms would doubtless also want her to abdicate as head of state as well). ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/13 "2009-03-09T15:52:02Z")
> [@cckerberos](#): > > From the [BBC](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2400003.stm): > From the [Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/may/17/monarchy.stephenbates): Weird! So it sounds like she really could kill somebody, and the worst that could happen would be she would lose her throne. (I assume she couldn’t be prosecuted for acts committed during her reign even after she’d been dethroned.) I’m surprised. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/14 "2009-03-09T15:55:14Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > And if she vetoed the bill creating the court that would itself probably suffice for most MPs as a reason to depose her. By convention, she can only veto a bill on the advice of her government. If she broke that convention, her government (PM and other ministers) would resign, and she would find no one else to commission as government. She knows that, so she would have to accept whatever bill was sent to her by Parliament, whether a bill for abdication, or a bill for some special tribunal. ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/15 "2009-03-09T16:08:56Z")
> [@APB](#): > > Yes, she is above the law and, no, she could not be tried for murder. > > But with three important caveats - firstly, she is under oath to ‘cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all [her] judgements’ (i.e. the text of her coronation oath); secondly, she can be deemed incapable of ruling and a regency appointed instead; and, thirdly, if not in theory then at least in practice, there is always the 1649 solution. Just a minute. 1. Law and Justice to be executed at all times, there are dozens of women out there that would say Phil got what he deserved…poetic justice. 2. Incapable of ruling, why?. Just 'cos she found 'im indoors throwing a length up Doris the pantrymaid hardly makes her incapable. 3. The death sentence no longer applies in the UK. Anyway: As others have said, she _is_ above the law, just as I thought. ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/16 "2009-03-09T16:13:02Z")
> [@Rocketeer](#): > > I just want to say that “damned good rogering” is a great, great phrase. You may use it good sir, as and when required;) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/17 "2009-03-09T16:20:40Z")
[QUOTE=Frylock] [QUOTE=APB] Yes, she is above the law and, no, she could not be tried for murder. [/QUOTE] T’d be nice to see citations from anyone in this thread, but I’m especially interested in seeing one for this. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 8, Constitutional Law, para. 966] **Proceedings against the Sovereign in her private capacity.** At common law no proceeding, civil or criminal, was maintainable against the Sovereign in person, for it was said that as the courts were her own they could have no jurisdiction over her. These rules continue to apply to the Sovereign in her private capacity. [/QUOTE] (citations omitted.) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/18 "2009-03-09T16:40:08Z")
_Halsbury’s_ in turn cites [_Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England_](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch7.asp), Vol I., p. 235 in support of this point: > [@](#): > > Hence it is, that no suit or action can be brought against the king, even in civil matters, because no court can have jurisdiction over him. For all jurisdiction implies superiority of power: authority to try would be vain and idle, without an authority to redress; and the sentence of a court would be contemptible, unless that court had power to command the execution of it; but who, says Finch, shall command the king? (I’ve tidied up the 18th century fonts and omitted one citation.) ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/19 "2009-03-09T16:40:59Z")
> [@chowder](#): > > . . . a meat clever . . . That must really smart. ---
**Author:** ![ClintPhoenix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b9bd4f/32.png) [@ClintPhoenix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ClintPhoenix)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/20 "2009-03-09T16:42:32Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > By convention, she can only veto a bill on the advice of her government. Why would this convention exist? If the government wanted her to veto a bill, why would it even make it to her for assent? I suppose under a minority government it could happen, but wouldn’t parliament dissolving be a more likely outcome? Here in Canada there was recently some talk of the Governor General (The Queen’s representative in Canada) rejecting the government’s advice to prorogue parliament. She didn’t reject that advice, but there was talk about what would happen if she did. The term describing that situation was described as a ‘Constitutional crisis’ - and I’m not sure how that would have been resolved. With the UK’s much longer history, hasn’t there been precedent since the 1689 Bill of Rights? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826.md?page=2)