Royals and Diplomatic Immunity

[Harry's polo shirt]

Who was the Princess who pushed her maid down a flight of stairs in the USA a few years ago? I can't remember. What happened to her, I remember watching it on Dateline or something a long time ago, because people were freaking out that she had dipomatic immunity.

 

[Harry's polo shirt]

Who was the Princess who pushed her maid down a flight of stairs in the USA a few years ago? I can't remember. What happened to her, I remember watching it on Dateline or something a long time ago, because people were freaking out that she had dipomatic immunity.

Never mind I found it:
Saudi Princess Buniah al Saud

http://www.edict.com.hk/wnfiles/Text20225.htm

 

[fee]

IMo the diplomatic immunity was invented to help those who rule the country to do their job, without having to fear they might run into legal problems.
However it cannot (esp today) be interpreted as a carte blanche for reckless or selfish or even foolish behaviour, or worse yet as a criminal endorsement.
The only event in which speeding might be attributed to the exercise of their official duty might be when they are speeding to the hospital after an assassination.
Seriously, none of the minor "gentlemens offense" should be treated as cases for the immunity. They IMO simply show that those men (and increasingly women as well) consider reckless driving a privilege of the powerful and strong. If the kings dog is dangerous enough to bite and injure an innocent bystander, than by God, the owner of the dog must be held accountable for this offense.


If for ex there was a major offense, such as a homicide, I doubt that any higher ranking royal would ever get a trial like you and me: if (just to contrue an example) the crownprince would in a reckless accident (too fast and maybe even under the influence) kill someone, I could imagine that he would be taken off the succession list and would be quietly ushered out of the country. He might live somewhere in relative richness with a hord of people breathing down his neck in case he would ever again open his mouth or set foot into some sort of light.
In any case a huge smokescreen would come to pass. The court would do their utmost to hide the event and keep it well hidden. it is well imaginable that they would even invent some sort of "illness" (brain tumour) to "excuse" the accident or to explain the removal from official duty....

 

[Lady Claire]

I don't think they shouls get rid of diplomatic immunity. I like the rules for Great Britain. I think they are a great example for other royal families.

Does anyone know about the Luxembourg royals? Who in the family enjoys diplomatic immunity?

 

[RoyalistRiley]

Question: Does Britain give their Royal Family diplomatic immunity? I seem to remember something a while back about Princess Anne and her dogs and having to go to court, which would make me think there is no diplomatic immunity for them.

As far as I know, only the Queen has diplomatic immunity and does not need a drivers license or passport because technically she is administering the law and issuing legal documents through her government.

 

[Somebody]

Honestly, given they are actually going to the police about this thus making at least those drone incidents true/factual (didn't see the pictures either but didn't look for them so who knows?), I must say that they truly miscalculated moving to LA. They can sue the British photographers into submission but they cannot do that in LA. They moved to a country where they are regular people: wealthy celebrities yes but no child of a president or an official deserving more privacy than someone else and having the bargaining power to enforce this.

Even though Harry is in some ways an ordinary citizen. I am sure he still has diplomatic status as a member of the British royal family. I'm not sure about Meghan; theoretically I cannot see how she can have any kind of 'diplomatic' status of a country she is not a citizen of while living in their own country. And the same somewhat applies to Archie with the difference that he is both an American and a British citizen; but it would still be weird to be in your 'own country' under 'diplomatic protection' of another country that you are also a citizen of (and haven't been to for the second half of your life ?).

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

None of them have any type of status, diplomatic or otherwise, in the United States.

 

[Somebody]

None of them have any type of status, diplomatic or otherwise, in the United States.

How do you know? Why do you think that Harry has no diplomatic status/protection of some sort? In my experience close family members of heads of states (almost) always do...

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

We know because, frankly, they have nothing that qualifies them for such a status. Can you share your experiences showing that close family members of heads of state who come to live in the United States almost always have diplomatic or some other sort of special status (excepting those, of course, who come in an official capacity, who then have the status in their own right, not deriving it from a familial relationship)?

 

[Denville]

How do you know? Why do you think that Harry has no diplomatic status/protection of some sort? In my experience close family members of heads of states (almost) always do...

Can you give any examples? A visiting member of a head of state might have diplomatic protection durng a short visit, but if they are going ot live in the US I don't believe so. If Harry and M were on an official visit,or even a private visit like when she went for her baby shower, yes they would have police protection, but if they are not now working royals and are living in the US, no....

 

[Somebody]

We know because, frankly, they have nothing that qualifies them for such a status. Can you share your experiences showing that close family members of heads of state who come to live in the United States almost always have diplomatic or some other sort of special status (excepting those, of course, who come in an official capacity, who then have the status in their own right, not deriving it from a familial relationship)?

I don't have experience with the US and am not an expert on this subject either but as far as I am aware it is standard practice - and to some extent it is consistent with other practices in the diplomatic world as family members of for example ambassadors or embassy workers also have protection.

It not only applies to royal families but also for, for example, the children of an African dictator (the only one I have personal knowledge of - but I prefer not to name the specific country). Of course, it is not something that they flaunt but it is happening. This is for example confirmed by this solicitor talking specifically about Harry and Meghan (although at that point they were still living in Canada).

 

[Somebody]

Can you give any examples? A visiting member of a head of state might have diplomatic protection durng a short visit, but if they are going ot live in the US I don't believe so. If Harry and M were on an official visit,or even a private visit like when she went for her baby shower, yes they would have police protection, but if they are not now working royals and are living in the US, no....

Diplomatic status is not the same as having police protection. However, if Harry would be in trouble (for example with the law); the respons from the British embassy would be different than when someone not holding a diplomatic passport would be in trouble...

So, yes, while it might seem strange, in practice also family members have a diplomatic passport and therefore are treated differently than fellow citizens living abroad.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Somebody, thank you for clarifying. I thought you were referring to specific times in the United States where grandchildren of heads of state were given some type of diplomatic protection or status after moving here in no official capacity. That is not our practice here.

Interestingly, the lawyer quoted in the article you linked proved to be incorrect about their status in Canada, as stated by the Prime Minster.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Diplomatic status is not the same as having police protection. However, if Harry would be in trouble (for example with the law); the respons from the British embassy would be different than when someone not holding a diplomatic passport would be in trouble...

So, yes, while it might seem strange, in practice also family members have a diplomatic passport and therefore are treated differently than fellow citizens living abroad.

I'd be surprised if they had diplomatic status. Seeing as they gave up their royal status.

 

[Denville]

Diplomatic status is not the same as having police protection. However, if Harry would be in trouble (for example with the law); the respons from the British embassy would be different than when someone not holding a diplomatic passport would be in trouble...

So, yes, while it might seem strange, in practice also family members have a diplomatic passport and therefore are treated differently than fellow citizens living abroad.

Yes I know..but she had police protection because she was a member of the RF, even though it was a private visit. However she is now living in the US as a citizen.... so, I can't see that she or Harry would be different to any other citizens.

 

[Somebody]

Yes I know..but she had police protection because she was a member of the RF, even though it was a private visit. However she is now living in the US as a citizen.... so, I can't see that she or Harry would be different to any other citizens.

I was NOT talking about police protection. Harry can both have a diplomatic passport (which I am convinced he has - but I am happy to be proven wrong) and not have police protection; as the majority of holders of diplomatic passports do not have police protection.

 

[Denville]

I was NOT talking about police protection. Harry can both have a diplomatic passport (which I am convinced he has - but I am happy to be proven wrong) and not have police protection; as the majority of holders of diplomatic passports do not have police protection.

yes but they are not royals, they are embassy staff etc. Meghan is someone who would need security/police protection and as such when she visited the US for her shower, she was given it, I understand.

 

[Somebody]

I'd be surprised if they had diplomatic status. Seeing as they gave up their royal status.

They are still members of the royal family. They apparently lost their protection - and I still don't really understand Meghan's diplomatic situation as a non-British member of the royal family; but I'd say that both Harry and Archie have a diplomatic British passport as members of the royal family. And Meghan will be somewhat covered by that as well most likely outside of the States but I guess that in the States (if she entered with her American passport) both her and Archie's American citizenship takes precedent.

 

[Somebody]

yes but they are not royals, they are embassy staff etc. Meghan is someone who would need security/police protection and as such when she visited the US for her shower, she was given it, I understand.

I guess we better quit this discussion (or at least I will comment no further), as I don't understand what you are arguing. It seems you are arguing something (Meghan receiving protection when she was a working member of the royal family - yes, makes sense; she no longer receives it as she is no longer a working member of the BRF - also makes sense) that I agree on but wasn't discussing which makes us go around in circles.

I'll leave it at stating that not only embassy personnel and their family members have diplomatic passports. Family members of heads of states do as well (as I explained: by personal experience I know that this does not only apply to family members of royal heads of state) and therefore receive a different treatment by the British embassy and therefore the American government than ordinary citizens.

 

[Osipi]

I'd be surprised if they had diplomatic status. Seeing as they gave up their royal status.

If they had any kind of diplomatic status in the US, Trump wouldn't have come right out and say the US wouldn't pay for their protection. I think its simple as that. Trump's words verbatim are: "I am a great friend and admirer of the Queen & the United Kingdom. It was reported that Harry and Meghan, who left the Kingdom, would reside permanently in Canada. Now they have left Canada for the U.S. however, the U.S. will not pay for their security protection. They must pay!"

The more I look at what the situation is like now for the Sussexes (with a lot perhaps due to the pandemic), it seems to me that for Harry's entire life, he's lived in a secure bubble, protected and housed and fed similar to prize animals kept in a well maintained zoo. Leaving the zoo behind him, Harry finds himself in the wilds where everyone and their grandmothers are Yosemite Sam out "hunting wabbits". I think a lot of things that Harry and Meghan may have taken for granted just aren't there anymore and its a rude awakening of sorts.

Its a sink or swim situation for them and we don't know what the future holds. I do wish them well.

 

[Denville]

If they had any kind of diplomatic status in the US, Trump wouldn't have come right out and say the US wouldn't pay for their protection. I think its simple as that. Trump's words verbatim are: "I am a great friend and admirer of the Queen & the United Kingdom. It was reported that Harry and Meghan, who left the Kingdom, would reside permanently in Canada. Now they have left Canada for the U.S. however, the U.S. will not pay for their security protection. They must pay!"

Th. I think a lot of things that Harry and Meghan may have taken for granted just aren't there anymore and its a rude awakening of sorts.

Its a sink or swim situation for them and we don't know what the future holds. I do wish them well.

well yes TRump has no filter, and he runs off at the mouth a lot....
but if the Sussexes had had diplomatic status I doubt if he would have said anything like that... and if they had diplomatic status the odds are that when they called the LAPD about drones, they would have had more help and notice from the police. As you say, they are just now rich ordinary celebrities and not having any special status.
And yes, Harry is used to being treated as special, and did not realise that he was only special because he was a Prince in the UK, and a working ROyal. That he had privileges like the taxpayers paying for his security, his fathter shelling out for things, living in a secure house in Windsor where he could retreat from the public and thte press,
Now, he's on his own in America and his being a prince does not cut any ice necessarily. It may impress some Americans but the odds are that after a while it wont. And it was probably the same In Canada. They thought that the Can govt would go on payng for their security and they found that no, the Canadaians were n't going to shell out.. so they beat a retreat to the USA...

 

[QueenMathilde]

They are still members of the royal family. They apparently lost their protection - and I still don't really understand Meghan's diplomatic situation as a non-British member of the royal family; but I'd say that both Harry and Archie have a diplomatic British passport as members of the royal family. And Meghan will be somewhat covered by that as well most likely outside of the States but I guess that in the States (if she entered with her American passport) both her and Archie's American citizenship takes precedent.

Meghan insulted Trump so I'd be surprised if he'd let the slight go and let them have diplomatic status. Maybe if there's another president in November that will change. Trump already said they weren't getting US funded protection. I was surprised they came to the US before November.

 

[Osipi]

Its not within the President's power to declare who is a diplomat or not and allow or refuse diplomatic visas. There are strict rules that apply and this part is pertinent.

"To qualify for an A-1 or A-2 visa, you must be traveling to the United States on behalf of your national government to engage solely in official activities for that government. The specific duties or services that will be performed must be governmental in character or nature, as determined by the U.S. Department of State, in accordance with U.S. immigration laws. Government officials traveling to the United States to perform non-governmental functions of a commercial nature, or traveling as tourists, require the appropriate visas and do not qualify for A visas. The fact that there may be government interest or control in a given organization is not in itself the defining factor in determining if you qualify for an A visa."

Neither Harry or Meghan are acting on behalf of *anybody* so there is absolutely no reason to have diplomatic visas in the US. If Harry, for example, was to be issued a diplomatic visa (and along with it, protection), Meghan and Archie would also be covered as family of a diplomat. Once again, none of this apply to the Sussexes so I think this subject is pretty much explained.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/other-visa-categories/visas-diplomats.html

 

[KellyAtLast]

If Harry were sent to another country to represent the Queen at a ceremonial occasion (wedding, funeral, inauguration, etc.) or to do business for the UK government, they could be issued diplomatic passports, as they are legitimate agents of the UK government. In that case, they would receive diplomatic immunity.
Since Harry is no longer representing the Queen or the UK Government. I don't see how he would qualify for Diplomatic status.

 

[Osipi]

If Harry were sent to another country to represent the Queen at a ceremonial occasion (wedding, funeral, inauguration, etc.) or to do business for the UK government, they could be issued diplomatic passports, as they are legitimate agents of the UK government. In that case, they would receive diplomatic immunity.
Since Harry is no longer representing the Queen or the UK Government. I don't see how he would qualify for Diplomatic status.

This debate about diplomatic visas has really hit home to me just why all royal tours that are conducted in foreign countries are planned and approved and executed by both countries governments. In the UK, its all handled by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. When Harry and Meghan traveled on tours to other places as part of the working BRF, it was the FCO that worked with other countries and their governments to make it so. The FCO could even override the Queen on a foreign tour if it came down to that. ?

Yeps. Harry and Meghan are definitely on their own in the US without any kind of a real "safety net" backing them up as in their previous roles in the UK.

 

[Somebody]

So, all of you are convinced that Harry has just an ordinary passport and had to hand in his diplomatic passport? When was he supposed to do that: on the 31st of March (when he had already arrived in the States) or before he left the UK in March?

 

[Osipi]

I would think that once the deadline of March 31st arrived, his diplomatic passport was revoked as he was no longer a working member of the British Royal Family representing the UK in any way, shape or form. This would have been done through Her Majesty's Passport Office which is a division of the Home Office.

The same would happen for any British ambassador to a country that no longer held a diplomatic position.

The gist of it all is that diplomatic passports and visas are issued to those people that are acting as representatives of a country in a specific role. ?

 

[Somebody]

I would think that once the deadline of March 31st arrived, his diplomatic passport was revoked as he was no longer a working member of the British Royal Family representing the UK in any way, shape or form. This would have been done through Her Majesty's Passport Office which is a division of the Home Office.

The same would happen for any British ambassador to a country that no longer held a diplomatic position.

The gist of it all is that diplomatic passports and visas are issued to those people that are acting as representatives of a country in a specific role. ?

I am not so sure about it (in general that is how it works - but in practice there are exemptions); but if that was the case, how would that practically work: as he entered the US on a diplomatic passport but in-between changed it to a different passport; what would that mean for his 'visa status' (for lack of a better word)? Would he need to go to the embassy (is there a British embassy or consulate in Los Angeles)? Or would he be mailed a new passport after turning in his previous passport by mail?

 

[Osipi]

I think for those answers, the only people that really know are Harry and Meghan themselves and the official offices they had to work with. There are probably many "official" things that were required that they do once they entered the US and seemed to indicate that it was a permanent move for them.

Thinking about diplomatic passports, would Harry have been allowed to enter the US at *any* time on that sort of a passport if he was here for personal pleasure or a commercial venture? The information posted earlier states that those kind of visits would require a different visas. A passport is for identification purposes. A visa is defined as: "What is a U.S. Visa? A citizen of a foreign country who seeks to enter the United States generally must first obtain a U.S. visa, which is placed in the traveler's passport, a travel document issued by the traveler's country of citizenship."

For all we know, the time spent in Canada was a waiting period while Harry applied and was waiting for a spousal visa to enter the US. We don't know the ins and outs of what hoops Harry and Meghan had to jump through to be allowed to live in LA. Meghan and Archie - no problem as they're US citizens but Harry is a different ball of wax.

There wouldn't be anything "diplomatic" involved in the processes and being a Prince of the UK wouldn't make a bit of difference to get "special treatment" as being a member of the British royal family really doesn't indicate any kind of preferential treatment according to statutes to reside permanently in the US.

Its interesting to muse over the different ins and outs of things the Sussexes may have had to deal with but as "private" citizens and no longer working members of the monarchy and representing the UK, I can imagine they have had as much red tape as any one of us would have had in this situation.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

There is no reason that Harry would or should have left the United Kingdom for Canada carrying a diplomatic passport, having stepped away from all diplomatic roles with no intention of returning.

It is as simple as this: On the soil of these United States, Harry enjoys no titles,* no privileges, and no immunities. We know this because he holds no status that affords him these privileges or immunities. Whether, if something were to happen and Harry were to flee to his embassy, which is the sovereign soil of the United Kingdom, they were to want or choose to treat him differently than any of their other citizens, I cannot say.

*[Of legal effect.]