** Tappi**, that’s why I was trying to find my old post, which goes into this in more detail. Mechanisms evolved to allow suits against HM in her private capacity which got around the lack of jurisdiction. One was a fiat granted by the Crown in a particular case, giving the Courts jurisidiction to sue her. Another method was to allow the Attorney General to represent her. There have also been statutory amendments to allow actions in respect of her private estates, where she appoints representatives to represent her in the action.
Not quite: in legal terms (as opposed to practical terms, as pointed out above), the Queen is the state, and all authority in Britain quite literally comes from her. I know that sounds awfully archaic and all, but in this case Louis XVI’s “L’estat, c’est moi.” is actually true.
Of course, a constitutional framework has built up around the monarchy to effectively prevent it from exercising any power, but in strictly legal terms, the Queen could do anything she wants, becuase the laws are only maintained at her pleasure, and so forth.
Then it’s a good thing she’s so, er [del]boring[/del] phlegmatic and public minded.
I wonder what would happen if they mixed up the mushrooms at a State dinner and she went around, pointing at people and saying, “off with 'er 'ead!”
This beats watching or reading about W’s latest, so please fill me in. Would she be granted a decree of killing? (or would she be quietly put away and Charles in charge from that day on?).
Once again, speaking in purely technical (and therefore divorced-from-real-world) terms: decree of killing. I believe (OK, this is IIRC), that the Queen has the authority to create any law she desires, including one saying “This guy here dies now”. Based on the furore that started the civil law, tax law may be exempt- but remember, without a written constitution, us Brits really don’t have a mechanism for interacting with our governments other than convention and some statute law (both of which the Queen can ignore if she likes).
In real terms, of course, the Queen would be quietly put somewhere else and Charles installed as Regent (based on what happened in the 1800’s, when George III went bonkers.) But there is nothing in the law to prevent her establishing a neo-feudal court system (IIRC, IMO, IANAL, take it or leave it et al).
Or by the Commonwealth (in Virginia, Massachusetts, Kentucky and Pennsylvania). In the Federal system, of course, prosecutions are brought in the name of the United States, which during the Watergate crisis led to the remarkable case of United States v. Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States.
For more on the Princess Royal’s dog-related legal problems, see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/2497531.stm
I suspect that, if the Queen committed a serious offense, Parliament would present her with an Act of Abdication which, under longstanding practice, she would be obliged to sign. No British monarch has vetoed anything since Queen Anne in 1708. Blackstone suggested that the Sovereign must give the Royal Assent even to an Act requiring her or his execution.
Allowing that a Queen who was sufficiently deranged to commit a crime would also be sufficiently deranged to prevent Royal Assent, AFAIK the Parliament could simply name someone else monarch, something they’ve already done a couple of times.
For example, the Bill of Rights 1689 is enacted by “the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation…”, not by the monarch, appropriately as the monarch, James II/VII, had abdicated and the bill provided for William and Mary to assume the throne.
Have you never seen her driving one of her Bentleys. She really does drive it like she stole it.
And when Phillip calls ‘Shotgun’ he really means it.
I hear drive-by grouse hunts are a real plague in the area surrounding Balmoral.
I know that Bentley’s are fine cars and all, but they don’t strike me as “jump in and jam the pedal to the metal” type cars.
The Queen is a reckless driver? Who knew?
This has been very educational–just who would be the one to “put the Queen away”? Tony Blair? A Lord of the Upper House? Keeper of the Abdication Robes?
Now, what if Charles is the guilty one? What happens then? We skip him and go straight to Wills? (many of you wouldn’t mind that a bit, apparently). And despite my taking English history in college, I was never clear on the whole William and Mary thing, so thank you.
Ever seen a Bentley Continental GT?
Princess Anne is the reckless driver in the family, she’s been in court a couple of times for excessive speed.
Probably the Lord Chancellor, he’s one of five people who can appoint a Regent if he feels the monarch is no longer capable (the others are: Sovereign’s spouse, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and the Master of the Rolls).
Charles could be tried in Court. It’s likely then that his position as Heir Apparent would be removed and William would take his place.
The Queen’s driving is mostly a security precaution. Having lived in Windsor, I got plenty of chances to encounter them driving down the ‘Long Walk’ to and from Church on Sundays. Thye like to drive themselves rather than be driven, and they tend to drive quite fast mostly I think to avoid paparazzi, but security must also be an issue.
Also don’t knock Bentleys, they are very fast cars, often supplied with full armour.
James Bond eat your heart out
just to mention that in Canada, if you want to sue the government you have sue the queen and use the terms “Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada” in your claim as the defendent.
Here is a link to an article about Princess Anne becoming the only current royal with a record, due her dog biting two kids in a park in 2002.
It’s probably better to say he had “been declared abdicated”, so to speak. James never voluntarily abdicated and never recognized the Convention Parliament or the Declaration of Right.
Okay, so not even is she the theoretical font of all justice, from whom the laws emanate, but even if she does hit something, her car is armoured, so that she wouldn’t be harmed anyways?
In Canada, land that had not been assigned to a private owner is known as Crown Land, because, legally, it “belongs to” the monarch of Canada. At least I think that’s how it works.
I’ve only ever seen the regal, sedate and sedan (saloon car?) Bentleys.
Now I have *another * luxury item to lust after–thanks ever so much. :rolleyes:
The Bentley could be my second car–with the Jaguar being for special occasions and the Mini for every day.
If only I could make that so.
So, if Chuck decided to go completely off the rails, there is no way [del]the Rotweiler[/del] Camilla would ever rule, right? She is not even to be called Queen, if I remember correctly? But would she be the Queen Mum to Billy and Hank?
And if Bill proves to be in with his Dad on the life o’ crime, then Hank gets a shot, but if HE is also a playuh, then it’s Andy’s turn at bat…
Much more interesting than our power line up.
(sorry, but I love to play with their names-humor me).
Have to disagree with you on these points. Her Majesty does not have any legislative power, except in relation to some prerogatives that do not apply within the United Kingdom. This point was established as far back as 1611, when the judges held that King James I could not enact laws by proclamations.
And no, the laws are not maintained simply at her pleasure. Laws are not passed by the Queen, but by the Queen-in-Parliament - that is, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the Queen, acting collectively to legislate. She cannot repeal a law unilaterally, anymore than the House of Commons or the House of Lords could do so. And the Bill of Rights, cited by matt_mcl, abolished any power that the Crown may have had to suspend the operation of the laws.
And as for the idea that the Queen could just point her finger and say “This guy here dies now” - NO! What do you think the barons were doing when they forced John to agree to Magna Carta? One of their goals was to prevent just this type of arbitrary royal conduct
Chapters 39 and 40 are the foundations of English justice and are still in force today, through subsequent re-issues of Magna Carta by John’s successors.
I agree that the English courts would have jurisdiction over Charles. The courts don’t have jurisdiction over Her Majesty because they are her courts, but that doesn’t give Charles any immunity.
However, even if he were convicted of an offence, it’s not that easy to change the succession. The Statute of Westminster provides that
any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:
So you’d have to get all the Commonwealth realms to agree to the change in the succession - not any easy task, given the number of realms that have the Queen as their head of state.
More likely, Parliament would pass some amendments to the Regency Act to limit the convicted felon’s ability to exercise his royal powers in the U.K. and delegate them to someone else. That type of Act would not require the involvement of the other Commonwealth realms, isince it would not touch the Succession.
I agree that the English courts would have jurisdiction over Charles. The courts don’t have jurisdiction over Her Majesty because they are her courts, but that doesn’t give Charles any immunity.
However, even if he were convicted of an offence, it’s not that easy to change the succession. The Statute of Westminster provides that So you’d have to get all the Commonwealth realms to agree to the change in the succession - not any easy task, given the number of realms that have the Queen as their head of state.
More likely, Parliament would pass some amendments to the Regency Act to limit the convicted felon’s ability to exercise his royal powers in the U.K. and delegate them to someone else. That type of Act would not require the involvement of the other Commonwealth realms, isince it would not touch the Succession.
My impression is, that if one of the Commonwealth Realms changed the succession, the new succession would be in effect only for that Realm. The previous succession would remain in effect for the other Realms by default. So if Canada wanted to change the succession, it could do so without consulting the governments of the other Realms, just the Sovereign.
I did find it funny that the court was charging Anne’s husband with the dog bite offense, until she showed up in court and confessed!