# 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:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/41 "2009-03-09T22:26:29Z")
> [@rocking\_chair](#): > > the example cited in the o.p. would constitute treason, if i am reading the “giving one of the pantrymaids a damn good rogering” properly. royal spouses have lost their heads over adultery… Royal adultery is only treason when a _female_ consort does it (her lover also commits treason). This is because it could interfere with the succession by casting doubt about the paternity of the king’s heirs. Prince Phillip can impregnate all the tarts he want and not interfere with the succession. We know damn sure all of the Queen’s children popped out of her (didn’t the Home Secretary have to watch her give birth?). ---
**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, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/42 "2009-03-09T22:29:15Z")
> [@rocking\_chair](#): > > say, the cook gives the queen a ham sandwich instead of the blt she requested. the queen kills the cook. how can you bring charges? the queen can say the cook committed treason for not following her order for a blt. not following the order is an act of treason… the treason defense is good for many occasions. > > now say the queen decides to rob a bank. how can you charge her? the money is hers. technically she isn’t robbing the bank. > > unless you pull off a coup, charging a reigning monarch is a very sticky wicket. Is every command from the queen legally binding? Is disobeying a legally binding command the same as betraying the nation to others? Is everything in England nominally owned by the Monarch? -FrL- ---
**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, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/43 "2009-03-09T22:31:23Z")
> [@rocking\_chair](#): > > the example cited in the o.p. would constitute treason, if i am reading the “giving one of the pantrymaids a damn good rogering” properly. royal spouses have lost their heads over adultery. the queen in the example above is just getting right to the beheading part. This isn’t correct. It is treason for the queen consort of a king to have sexual intercourse with someone other than the king, but it’s not treason for the husband of a queen regnant to have intercourse with someone other than the queen. The difference is that the purpose of the prohibition is to protect the royal bloodline. If the queen consort has it on with someone other than the king, and later gives birth, it may cast suspicion on the legitimacy of that child’s claim to the throne. But that’s not a possibility when the queen’s husband is rogering the chambermaid. > [@rocking\_chair](#): > > say, the cook gives the queen a ham sandwich instead of the blt she requested. the queen kills the cook. how can you bring charges? the queen can say the cook committed treason for not following her order for a blt. not following the order is an act of treason… the treason defense is good for many occasions. Treason is defined by statute, starting with the Treason Act of Edward III’s time. Ham sandwiches are not cited therein. 🙂 More seriously, the Queen is not an absolute dictator whose word is law. First, you would have to establish that she has a legal power to give a particular order, when acting in her personal capacity; then, that the person to whom the order was given was under a legal duty to obey that order; and third that Parliament had made it an offence in those circumstances to disobey that order. I can’t think of anything that meets those requirements; maybe **APB** can comment. > [@rocking\_chair](#): > > now say the queen decides to rob a bank. how can you charge her? the money is hers. technically she isn’t robbing the bank. just because her picture is on the money doesn’t mean she owns it. ---
**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, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/44 "2009-03-09T22:34:54Z")
> [@rocking\_chair](#): > > say, the cook gives the queen a ham sandwich instead of the blt she requested. the queen kills the cook. how can you bring charges? the queen can say the cook committed treason for not following her order for a blt. not following the order is an act of treason… the treason defense is good for many occasions. No, it’s not treason. In any case, the UK no longer has the death penalty for treason, and any penalty can only be imposed by the courts after a trial, not summarily by the monarch. > [@rocking\_chair](#): > > now say the queen decides to rob a bank. how can you charge her? the money is hers. technically she isn’t robbing the bank. No, it’s not her money personally, and probably not hers in right of the Duchy of Lancaster or of the Crown (unless the bank is owned by the Duchy or the Crown). Money in the form of notes and coins is generally owned by the bank, and not even by the people with deposits there. > [@rocking\_chair](#): > > unless you pull off a coup, charging a reigning monarch is a very sticky wicket. No, it could probably done by an ordinary act of parliament, the only problem being that such an at would need the royal assent. ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/45 "2009-03-10T08:14:28Z")
This treason thing. I understand that treason is a crime against the state so how on earth can the rogering by either male or female be in this category? Methinks it’s more a case of “WTF does one think ones doing, you bastard?” Sour grapes maybe or perhaps a woman scorned and a man totally pissed off ---
**Author:** ![Illuminatiprimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/illuminatiprimus/32/11520_2.png) [@Illuminatiprimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Illuminatiprimus)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/46 "2009-03-10T11:13:00Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > No, Charles I was tried by a [High Court of Justice](http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/glossary/high-court-justice.htm), created by the House of Commons without the consent of either the Lords or (obviously) the King. It is a political precedent, but not a legal one, since the actions of the Commonwealth period were not considered legal, after the Restoration. Late I know, but glad someone picked this up. Calling something that happened once, 350 years ago, for 11 years\* a constitutional precedent is very tenuous. If there were ever such a situation again I very much doubt the current government of the day and Parliament would take out the history books and feel obliged to re-enact either the method or proceedings of Charles I’s trial and deposal. \*I’ve always wanted to do that. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/47 "2009-03-10T11:41:53Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Just to follow up on this point: in 1660, Charles II issued the [Declaration of Breda](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Breda), setting out the terms on which he would accept the throne, left vacant since the execution of his father, Charles I. One of his terms was that he would give an amnesty to any opponents of his father or himself who pledged allegiance to him, subject to one exception: he would not promise any indemnity to the [regicides](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Breda#Background) who had sat in judgment on his father. After his Restoration, several of the [surviving regicides](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regicides_of_Charles_I) were caught and executed, while some who had died before the Restoration, such as Oliver Cromwell and Ireton, were disinterred and posthumously hanged, drawn and quartered, then beheaded. > > So to sum up, under the legal regime set in place by the Restoration, the Commons does not have the authority at present to authorise the trial of the sovereign, and doing so may be considered high treason. And, just to reinforce this point, the 1660 Convention Parliament placed Charles’s promise in the Declaration of Breda on a statutory basis in the [Act of Indemnity](http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=47259#s34) and in the [Act of Attainder against the Regicides](http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=47278). Also, the [1660 Act for the Confirmation of Judicial Proceedings](http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=47260#s4) explicitly excluded the proceedings of all the High Courts of Justice, the most famous of which had been the one which had tried Charles I. This might have been victors’ justice, but it is victors’ justice that is still on the statute book. As for treason and the ham sandwich, there is one further, very obscure complication! If this happened within one of the royal palaces, the inquest would be heard by the Queen’s own coroner, the Coroner of the Household, sitting with a jury comprising senior members of the Royal Household. Which would create all the same complications that arose when the Coroner of the Household was appointed to hear the inquest into the death of Princess Diana. Seriously, there is a hierarchy of royal commands. What the Queen can do depends on how she does it, whether it is by signing a document, authorising the use of the Great Seal, by meeting with the Privy Council or giving her assent to legislation. A verbal order from her has almost no legal authority, even if, for all sorts of reasons, people do tend to do what she says. Especially if they are being employed by her as one of her servants. Another way of thinking about this is that her powers are theoretically so extensive that the ways in which she can exercise them have developed so that everyone can be extra sure that she means what she is commanding. However, she needs no special monarchical superpowers to ask for a sandwich. So there would be no question of there being some legal loophole to justify her actions in killing a servant. But that does not mean that she could then be prosecuted. ---
**Author:** ![No\_Wikipedia\_Cites](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@No\_Wikipedia\_Cites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/No_Wikipedia_Cites)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/48 "2009-03-10T14:14:02Z")
“Rex non potest peccare” ---
**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 10, 2009, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/49 "2009-03-10T15:29:14Z")
> [@chowder](#): > > This treason thing. > > I understand that treason is a crime against the state so how on earth can the rogering by either male or female be in this category? “L’état, c’est moi.” The king is the embodiment of the state, and since the Crown descends by hereditary principles, interfering in the royal bloodline is treason against the state. A queen who commits adultery is potentially fouling up the royal bloodline. That was a serious issue, because if there was a question about the parentage of an apparent child of the king, who stood in the line of succession, it might become the pretext for treasons, stratagems, and spoils - not to mention civil war. This aspect of the law of treason was set out in the [Treason Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Act_1351#Content) of 1351, which is still in force. ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/50 "2009-03-10T18:50:43Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > “L’état, c’est moi.” > > The king is the embodiment of the state, and since the Crown descends by hereditary principles, interfering in the royal bloodline is treason against the state. A queen who commits adultery is potentially fouling up the royal bloodline. That was a serious issue, because if there was a question about the parentage of an apparent child of the king, who stood in the line of succession, it might become the pretext for treasons, stratagems, and spoils - not to mention civil war. > > This aspect of the law of treason was set out in the [Treason Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Act_1351#Content) of 1351, which is still in force. In this link it quite clearly states _violated_. Supposing the “guilty” party was quite willing? I know that Henry VIII had several of his wives naffed off for tarrying with the riff-raff, Jane Seymour springs to mind. So in this day and age what would the effect be if, for arguments sake,Liz\* had had a liaison with one of her footmen?. \*I mean no disrespect towards HRH ---
**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 10, 2009, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/51 "2009-03-10T19:22:56Z")
> [@chowder](#): > > In this link it quite clearly states _violated_. > > Supposing the “guilty” party was quite willing? > > I know that Henry VIII had several of his wives naffed off for tarrying with the riff-raff, Jane Seymour springs to mind. From the Wiki article on [High Treason in the United Kingdom](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason_in_the_United_Kingdom#History:_England_and_Wales): > [@](#): > > If the intercourse is not consensual, only the rapist is liable, but if it is consensual, then both parties are liable (as Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, wives of Henry VIII, discovered to their cost). The jurist Sir William Blackstone writes that “the plain intention of this law is to guard the Blood Royal from any suspicion of bastardy, whereby the succession to the Crown might be rendered dubious.” Thus, only women are covered in the statute; it is not, for example, high treason to rape a Queen-Regnant’s husband. Similarly, it is not high treason to rape a widow of the Sovereign or of the heir-apparent. Diana, Princess of Wales admitted that she had an affair with her riding instructor, James Hewitt, between 1987 and 1992. As she was then the wife of the Prince of Wales, heir to the throne, this fitted the definition of high treason, and a national newspaper briefly attempted to have Hewitt prosecuted for what was then still a capital offence. > [@chowder](#): > > So in this day and age what would the effect be if, for arguments sake,Liz\* had had a liaison with one of her footmen?. No offence would have been committed, since the Treason Act doesn’t include the Queen regnant. A child of a Queen regnant is clearly within the Royal bloodline. Also, by the legal presumption of paternity of a child born during a marriage, the child would be presumed to be the child of the Duke of Edinburgh, and therefore legitimate. [QUOTE=chowder] \*I mean no disrespect towards HRH[/SIZE [/QUOTE] [size=“1”]Her honorific is “Her Majesty”, and hence “HM”, not “HRH”. ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/52 "2009-03-10T19:37:07Z")
Just a minute here. A child of the Queen is clearly within the Royal bloodline? Let’s assume that Phil disputes that the/any sprog is of his loins and insists on a DNA test,the test results show that he isn’t the father **gasp** What then While we’re at it, I’ve always had my doubts about Wills and Harry being Charlies kids ---
**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 10, 2009, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/53 "2009-03-10T20:00:12Z")
Yes, because Queen Elizabeth is a Queen regnant - she ascended to the throne in her own right, and is the reigning monarch, as the eldest daughter of the previous monarch. Therefore, her children are in the royal bloodline, regardless who their father was. Prince Charles is the heir apparent because he is the eldest son of Queen Elizabeth, not because he is the eldest son of Prince Philip. But there is the issue of legitimacy, in the hypothetical we’re considering. Only legitimate children of the monarch are in the line of succession. So if Elizabeth had had a child out of wedlock prior to her marriage, that child wouldn’t have been in the line of succession. However, there is a legal presumption that any child born during the time of a marriage is the child of the husband, and therefore legitimate. I don’t know if there is any mechanism in law by which Prince Philip could insist on a paternity test. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/54 "2009-03-10T21:42:00Z")
> [@chowder](#): > > …I know that Henry VIII had several of his wives naffed off for tarrying with the riff-raff, Jane Seymour springs to mind… He only had Anne Boylen and Catherine Howard beheaded. Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves got off just being divorced. Jane Seymour died shortly after giving birth to the future Edward VI (Henry mourned her for 3 years and was buried next to her). Catherine Parr outlived him. Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived. ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/55 "2009-03-10T22:06:01Z")
yes, the queen now is not the absolute monarch that once ruled the earth… so a major crime would be looked at differently these days than it was in, say, the last time an elizabeth ruled. as i remember she had some men disposed of under and above ground for consorting with women she did not approve of. elizabeth daughterofhenry didn’t marry but did have men court her that were held to certain standards. if they didn’t, well, things didn’t go too well with them. the fact that most monarchies have male regents throw the weight of the law onto the wives. also “the you know beyond a doubt who the mother is” thing makes the line of decent rather clear. i do think that if there were more reigning queens there would be more law thrown on the husband’s side. ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/56 "2009-03-10T22:21:11Z")
> [@chowder](#): > > Just a minute here. > > A child of the Queen is clearly within the Royal bloodline? > > Let’s assume that Phil disputes that the/any sprog is of his loins and insists on a DNA test,the test results show that he isn’t the father **gasp** > > What then > > While we’re at it, I’ve always had my doubts about Wills and Harry being Charlies kids philip would just have to take it on the chin. although he is related to the queen via queen victoria, he is quite a bit removed from the ruling line. he is not the regent, the regent’s genes trumps all. now, the wales thing could create quite the incident. charles is the next in line, he is very high up on the ruling line as mum is regent. should his children not be his genetically this would be a very, very, big deal. the kids would be stripped of all titles, land, and whatever else is held in the hereditary titles of charles. they would have nothing more than what they would be due under their mother’s side (remember that mum is from an old family, but as a girl and youngest girl; not in line for anything) or whoever dad turned out to be. ---
**Author:** ![PaulParkhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@PaulParkhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulParkhead)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/57 "2009-03-10T23:21:47Z")
> [@rocking\_chair](#): > > philip would just have to take it on the chin. although he is related to the queen via queen victoria, he is quite a bit removed from the ruling line. he is not the regent, the regent’s genes trumps all. Just a small aside - Queen Elizabeth is Queen regnant. A regent is someone appointed by Parliament to stand in for a monarch who is unable to rule. I suspect the most likely reason for this would be in cases where the new monarch is clearly too young. Philip is not a regent, but a consort. ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2009, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/58 "2009-03-10T23:27:31Z")
sorry, i knew there was another word for it but the wee sorry american english (shorthand) dictionary i have didn’t have regnant in it. got it locked in the brain now. ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826/59 "2009-03-11T08:06:15Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > He only had Anne Boylen and Catherine Howard beheaded. Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves got off just being divorced. Jane Seymour died shortly after giving birth to the future Edward VI (Henry mourned her for 3 years and was buried next to her). Catherine Parr outlived him. Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived. You’re quite right and me, an Englishman, got it bloody wrong:smack:. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-queen-elizabeth-above-the-law/488826.md?page=2)