The rules for succession to the British throne have been discussed pretty thoroughly in another thread recently, but I don’t think I’ve seen any information on what happens if the ruling monarch is murdered by someon in line for the crown.
If a catastrophe similar to the one that befell Nepal’s royal house were to occur to the House of Windsor, what are the rules of succession?
For example, if Prince Charles were to murder Queen Elizabeth, does he still become King? (And while we’re on the subject, how would he be prosecuted for such a murder? Special act of parliament, or just a normal trial?)
The obvious example is surely Richard III having been killed, reputedly accidently, by his grandson Edmund, the second-in-line to the throne. The latter subsequently certainly attempted to murder his father, Richard IV, though I can’t recall the exact circumstances of the eventual death. The issue of prosecution did not arise given Edmund’s own death shortly thereafter. The standard contemporary reference is Curtis, Series Roll I, 6.
To take the rather silly OP seriously for a moment: what would happen is Charles would instantly become King. He would shortly after be arrested for murder and treason. No new laws required. Upon conviction he would be deposed (or forced to abdicate) and Prince William would become King.
Then Prince Harry would sneak up on him one night in the nursery while nanny slept, dispatching him with a blow from a hammer. He would then arm himself with a uzi and lay waste to the entire House of Winsor, pausing only to pick up a rocket launcher from the Buckingham Palace armoury, he would then raze the building to the ground, before turning the uzi on…
er…
Sorry, got a bit carried away there. We can but dream.
Well, James III was killed in battle against his 15 year old son, who promptly became James IV (and a very good king he was). Does that count for anything?
“Rather silly”? How so? I asked the question in all seriousness.
I’m pretty sure that if a member of the British royal family committed regicide it would constitute the most serious constitutional crisis in several hundred years. A royal marrying a divorcee is one thing, but killing a reigning monarch is quite another.
I’m sure the possibility of a murder within the House of Windsor is vanishingly small, but I don’t think it’s zero. Have their been no murders within the British royal family in the past? More broadly, is parricide unknown in British society? And isn’t there some past history of insanity (or at least mental instability) in the royal line?
Given that there’s a possibility (however small) of such an awful occurrence, it would seem prudent that the rules of succession under such circumstances be clear. With a monarch murdered and the heir accused of the killing, I’m guessing that Britain would have enough to worry about without debating the rules of succession or determining how to remove a traitor from the throne.
I’m surprised no one has brought up Nepal and what happened last year. If you don’t remember, Google on +Nepal +“royal family” for all the gory (and I do mean gory) details.
Of course, Nepal is not England and the crown prince didn’t survive for more than a couple days, so I guess it’s not especially relevant to this question.
[sub][sup]Pssst…Edmund was third in line…Richard IV, Then RIV’s eldest son, Harry, THEN Edmund. And he was RIII’s great-nephew, not his Grandson. RIV was RIII’s nephew…y’know, the ones he supposeldly killed in the tower?[/sup][/sub]
How does the monarch’s immunity from criminal and civil liability (under the Crown Proceedings Act) affect this?
If Charles was to kill his mother, he would automatically become King. Wouldn’t the immunities then fall to him, thus saving him from prosecution*? (I suppose that Parliament could always convene to declare William King - thus stripping Charles of the immunity - though I imagine this would cause all sorts of headaches in the other 15 or so nations where Charles would still be King.)
*[sub]I am thinking along the lines that Charles would not be guilty of murder until the moment that his mother dies - at which point he is instantly King.[/sub]
Both the position of monarch and her immunity would indeed automatically pass to Prince Charles. (Any actions taken by him in advance to cause his mother’s death would count as treason but the immunity would still be enjoyed by him from the moment his mother died.) What would then happen rather depends on the precise circumstances. If the Queen had, say, just instigated a military coup, everyone might welcome Charles’s actions. If, on the other hand, we’re talking about a Nepalese-type scenario, Parliament would simply depose him in favour of the closest member of the Royal Family willing to support such a move. It is not as if Parliament has never done so before.
He might not be guilty of the murder (though I wouldn’t like to bet on it) but he would certainly be guilty of high treason (plotting the death of the reigning monarch falls under that category, especially if you successfully carry out the plot), and that carries the same penalties as murder.
Basically, English law is not sufficiently stupid that the heir to the throne can get away with this sort of thing. Having said which, there is one possible case of regicide in English history, namely the murder of the Princes in the tower, ostensibly by Richard III, but more likely by Henry VII.
Brief summary: to cement a dynastic alliance, Henry VII married Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV. However, for this to be any use to him, Elizabeth had to be the legitimate daughter of Edward IV, so he had to repeal the act of Titulus Regius which had declared her illegitimate (Edward IV, er, got around a bit). Unfortunately, this also made all of Edward IV’s other children legitimate, including his son Edward V (one of said Princes in the Tower), who would, therefore, be the rightful King of England. Except Edward V turned out to be conveniently dead, and the blame for this could safely be assigned to Richard III, who was also conveniently dead at this time. Someone certainly got away with murder there…
I’m mainly adding to what others have said, but the problem with historical analysis is that most precedents were in olden times, when the monarch had far more power than today. Today, the monarch rules because Parliament says so; thus, an act of Parliament could unseat a monarch or change the succession rules or whatever was deemed necessary.
Thus, in the dim past, the king could get away with a lot more than today (hence the Princes in the Tower.) There was no investigative arm, and while Parliament could oppose the king, it would be extremely difficult to have done. There was still some vague notion of the “divine right of kings” in those balmy days.
Today, the legal situation is pretty much as described. Charles would become king (with immunity) immediately upon the death of his mother. Parliament would then either depose him or remove the immunity or some such, and he would be tried for murder.
Of course, some of this depends on how stupid Charles is (in the scenario.) I mean, if there a dozens of eye-witnesses and he’s holding the smoking gun, etc. that’s one thing. If it’s a more subtle Agatha-Christie type whodunit, where guilt is not evident, the whole thing becomes a political game.
Which, I guess it would be under any circs, anyway.
Actually, English history is generally fairly keen on the legal authority of the monarch, as recognised by the other authorities of the country (whatever those might be at the time). Titulus regius, which disinherited Edward V and made Richard III king, was an act of Parliament, drawn up after formal legal proceedings; even Henry VII presented a formal claim to the throne, de jure bello et de jure Lancastriae (“by right of conquest and Lancastrian blood”). There have been a few cases of outright grabs for the throne (my lamentable namesake King Stephen springs to mind), but even those were followed by attempts to establish the legality of the claim. I suppose, ultimately, it dates back to the accession of King Egbert, who was, after all, elected as Bretwalda by his peers.
The “divine right of kings” has never really been a popular idea in England - it’s a fairly late mediaeval concept, and it wouldn’t have been considered applicable to any monarch between John and Henry VIII (during this time, the king of England was, formally, a vassal of the Pope). In fact, I think the king who made the biggest noise about his “divine right” was Charles I, and we all know what happened to him…
(Guinastasia, have you read Josephine Tey’s The Daughter of Time? If not, you should - if you have, you know why you should!)
Steve Wright, a beautiful summary of the Richard III case-in-point, which I was going to post until I saw you had done so. (Yes, I’ve read Tey; Guin., he’s right – it starts as a detective novel, with the detective hospitalized and given some history to read – he pursues the question Steve posted about, through research, as though he were investigating a modern-day murder, and comes to the conclusion that Henry VII should have been charged.
BTW, our modern understanding of Richard III is said to have largely come from the work of St. Thomas More, who got his information from Bishop Morton of Ely, who in turn had political irons in the fire in 1485 that benefited from getting R-3 eliminated.
