Can Your King/Queen Be Judged?

[espejor]

Hello! In Spain the Constitution says that the King can't be judged by his acts. But I don't know if it is referring to political acts or all the acts (for example, if the King murders somebody).

An in your country?

Regards!

 

[BELTRANEJA]

In Spain his inviolability is absolute, it affects his public and private events ... but the Constitution does not speak of the inviolability of consort (Queen) and Prince.
Inviolability is general in all European constitutions, including the republics, where it also enjoys inviolability the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister.
All kings and presidents of the Republic are inviolable .. They can be investigated but not prosecuted ...

 

[susan alicia]

In Holland the ministers are responsable for the Royal Family, the Queen is immunune, can do no wrong and the ministers are respobsible for what she says as head of state.

That is it in a nutshell but it can be elobarorated on with examples in the past

 

[Royal Fan]

What about the UK?

 

[TheTruth]

This may enlighten a few things about the Queen and the British law : Law Spot - The Queen's Law

It's about the Burrell case but it can be applied for any trial:

As well, the Queen is immune from prosecution, and is unlikely to be invited to give evidence in any court proceedings. In part she cannot be allowed to entangle herself in cases that in fact bear her own name.

To complete that, the Queen can, on ministerial advice, pardon or show mercy to those convicted of crimes. In law the Queen as a private person can do no wrong: she is immune from civil or criminal proceedings and cannot be sued in courts of law. This immunity is not shared by other members of the royal family.

 

[Kaatje]

If members of a royal family (other than the king/queen) travel abroad, do they receive diplomatic immunity from prosecution in other countries even if they do not enjoy the same privilege in their own countries?

 

[susan alicia]

depends on the crime and the country in which they are in, I imagine

I could speculate on which countries where nothing would be a problem if a Royal but that would be controversial.

 

[TheTruth]

Members of the Royal Family (at least the British one) don't have the immunity the King/Queen has. For example, Princess Anne has a criminal record because she couldn't keep her dog under control.

If anything happens outside UK, then I believe it's up to the justice of the country where the felony has been committed to decide of an arrangement (or not) and allow a judgement in the UK.

 

[MAfan]

I also remember something about the Princess Royal driving over the speed limit, but she defended herself telling that she was going to attend a royal duty...

 

[BELTRANEJA]

At international level have immunity , the head of the State (King, President of Republic), the head of Government (President of Government and prime minister) and the minister for Foreign Affairs… because it considere that their activities bind to the State....and the ambassadors and Consules. It is into International Conventions
The rest of people with immunity is established by each state in a list, their activities bind to the State, If they will commit a crimes in other country They can not be arrested, charged .... can only be expelled from this country but this state can breaking relation with the State of the Prince or person with immunity .
Internal immunity, ( the crimes committed within their state), is governed by the Constitution or internal laws ...

The dog of Princess Anna was a recidivist, that dog had killed the dog preferred of the Queen of England.

Given that the Princess Anna has no internal immunity, the Queen of England might have denounced her daughter (by the dog) ...But if this had been the reverse, , The Princess Anne not might denounce to her mother

 

[Marsel]

In theory, the Russian Monarch could do 'no wrong' by default (or rather, by Constitution): if something went wrong, his/her Ministers or advisers were to be blamed but never the Monarch.
In practice, that didn't stop Bolsheviks from 'trying' Nicholas II for treason and 'sentencing' him to death.

Same with England/UK: although the British Monarch was and is immune from any prosecution, that didn't stop Charles I from being tried and executed (although he did deny the authority of the Court, and the legality of the 'process' is highly questionable at best).

 

[BELTRANEJA]

The king of Spain has an absolute inviolability, which means he can not be tried or arrested .. but if he would commits a crime, the consequence of his act would be: the abdication ...

The Queen Sofia and Prince aren´t immunity in Spain, they can be tried ...

the Republicans when they try to criticize the monarchy always refer to the privilege of immunity, they forget that in the Republics,the absolute immunity are President and Prime Minister ...

 

[TheTruth]

the Republicans when they try to criticize the monarchy always refer to the privilege of immunity, they forget that in the Republics,the absolute immunity are President and Prime Minister ...

Yet they still can argue that the President and Prime minister have this immunity just during their term. The King has it his whole lifetime.

 

[maria-olivia]

My King Albert II NEVER but Queen Paola may be judged as every women in Belgium.

 

[BELTRANEJA]

It is not exact..The King of Spain has immunity as long as is King, if he voluntarily abdicates in his son because he think that the Prince is ready for it or because the King loses his ability .. he lose his condition of King, the abdication is the end of his condition of King. He isn´t immunity whole his life , he is immunity while he is king. It is as President of Republic while he is President.
the death is not the only cause of lost of the condition of King, it can be lost by:
A-Voluntary Abdication of the King
B-Abdication forced by the parliament
c-Lost of the mental capacity ...

 

[Emperor Roku XIV]

I don't think the Queen of Canada can be judged, but if she committed murder, they would probably disregard that and try her any way, like ol' King Charles I.

But really, Her Majesty has never done anything wrong, a master of self control she is.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Her Majesty as The Queen can't be put on trial but Mrs Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor can be charged like can any normal citizen.

 

[sirericbreheny]

Your a little bit wrong on that, Queen Elizabeth 2nd can be Judged, through abdication. If The Lords Of The Council, The British High Courts decide she has done some crime horrible enough to have abdication passed against her then she has to abdicate the throne infavor of her Heir Apparent, which would be Prince Charles. Of course Queen Elizabeth 2nd hasn't done any crimes and has the support of her peoples around the world including Canada, however Queen Elizabeth 2 is not really my queen of queens. If she contacts me and makes up for my ancestors being forced out of England in 1620AD and makes reparations to me and my family then perhaps I might considering supporting her. She can also send me the sword Excalibur since she has that under lock and key, she can start the reparations by sending me monies for the loss of Scrooby Manor as well as Torrie Manor, we use to own both those estates. One is a parkland and the other is a museum.

 

[sirericbreheny]

The Queen Of Britain and of Canada is one in the same person, if The High Courts Of Britain decided she had committed a crime then she would have to stand trial like any other citizen, however her punishment would be abdication. That stipulation was put into place after a number of Kings and Queens committed crimes and the Lords Of The Council ie The British High Courts became a saftey Valve to stop any crimes the Royals had gotten away with in past times.

The British Parliment would have to make a bill also being included in the Charter Of Rights....though I am not aware of the British name for it but it exists, making the charging of crimes against a King or Queen Legal in Britain which they nearly did a long while ago.

 

[Muhler]

In Denmark the situation is that the Monarch in theory cannot stand trial.

The DRF has immunity, and it's the Monarch who decides whether members of the DRF should stand trial, or what sentence they should have.

However, the Parliament can convene and declare the Monarch unfit to rule, after which the Regent will take over. Then it will be decided what to do. In all probablillity a special court (a Rigsret) will do that.
I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine the Monarch would go to prison.
QMII would more likely be "abdicated" or declared insane and put on a lifelong "palace-arrest".
In both cases the Crown Prince will take over either as the new King or as Regent.

 

[Mbruno]

Hello! In Spain the Constitution says that the King can't be judged by his acts. But I don't know if it is referring to political acts or all the acts (for example, if the King murders somebody).

An in your country?

Regards!

Here is a sample of what the constitution says in different European monarchies.


a) Sweden

"[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
Chapter V, Article 7
The King cannot be prosecuted for his act or omissions. A Regent cannot be prosecuted for his act or omissions as Head of State."


b) Denmark

[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]" Part III, Section 13


The King shall not be answerable for his actions; his person shall be sacrosanct. The Ministers shall be responsible for the conduct of the government; their responsibility shall be determined by Statute."


c) Belgium


"[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica] Chapter III, Section I, Article 88

The King's person is inviolable; his ministers are responsible."


d) Norway

"Sec. A, [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]§ 5
The King's person is sacred; he cannot be censured or accused. The responsibility rests with his Council.[/FONT] "

 

[sirericbreheny]

Muhler, I believe your right; to my understanding it has never happen in Britain that most of the monarchs in Britain have never been impeached by their own Parliment nor Law Courts, though some have come very close to having to Abdicate with the exception of King George whom loved a commoner and stepped down himself, though it could be done in Britain but as I had said before the wheels would have to turn to make it happen.

 

[Ish]

I don't think any British monarch has been charged with something that was a typical crime, but there are a good number of British monarchs who were essentially charged, either by the nobility or the people, with violating their coronation oaths or the rules by which they were allowed to govern.

Henry II, John, Henry III, Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, James I, Charles I, and James II all faced serious opposition, often from Parliament or its predecessors, to their reigns because they ruled in a way that was deemed unfit.

 

[Muhler]

Muhler, I believe your right; to my understanding it has never happen in Britain that most of the monarchs in Britain have never been impeached by their own Parliment nor Law Courts, though some have come very close to having to Abdicate with the exception of King George whom loved a commoner and stepped down himself, though it could be done in Britain but as I had said before the wheels would have to turn to make it happen.

The only thing in DK that has come close to anything like this, was in late 1700's when Christian VII was essentially removed at a coup d'etat. Ans his son was made official Regent.
There was of course a considerable justification for doing that, but that's another story.

 

[QueenJen]

What about Netherlands? If King Willem-Alexander did some heinous crime, could he be forced to abdicate and then stand trial? Is Princess Beatrix still immune since she has now abdicated? Just wondering - interesting topic.

 

[nascarlucy]

Interesting question. Looks like from what Mbruno wrote, a Monarch is basically immune from civil or criminal prosecution. Doesn't really say that they can't be investigated. It would depend on what the monarch did. If it was a minor traffic violation or a non-violent offense they committed, they would probably pay a fine and apologize for what they had done. They wouldn't go to jail over it.

If the offense was a non-violent felony (inside trading or using information to benefit themselves), the same thing would happen, pay back the money and apologize to the nation. They wouldn't go to jail for it.

If it involved a violent felony like Murder or causing the death of another person, the public would demand that they be investigated even if it was self-defense. Whether or not it went to court would be a different matter as the Monarch would say that it was self-defense but I imagine people would question this as the Monarch should be protected enough or have good security so that they wouldn't have to resort to deadly force to protect themselves or their families.

I doubt they would use mental health issues as a defense for murder but then again it's quite possible this would be used.

If it was proven to be First Degree Murder, The Monarch would be at the very least forced to step down or if he/she didn't, new laws would be passed forcing them to do so. The Monarch might not keep their throne even if it were self-defense. If the country had a very strong Monarchy, then they might survive not being forced to step down due to self-defense argument. A weak Monarchy probably wouldn't survive such an incident(this would be its demise) and would end up becoming a Republic.

Regardless of whether it was self-defense or not, the Monarch would be protected by his/her family and by the best lawyers in the world, He/She wouldn't go to a traditional jail.