Royals and Diplomatic Immunity

[GrandDuchess]

Originally Posted by Martin C at the Scand. Royals MB

In Denmark the politicians - ofcourse -discuss the roýal immunity-law wich dates back from 1665 (Lex Regalia).

A member of the Rightwing Liberals (in the government), Birthe Rønn Hornbech argues that if the immunity for all members of the rf is abolished it is the same as abolishing the monarchy!!

My post at the same board, as a reply to Martin C's post:

Originally Posted by GrandDuchess at the Scand. Royals MB

This politician's way of arguing to me sounds totally ridiculous! I mean of course I understand that Denmark has a lot of old laws that still applies today, which are of course of importance both judicially and historically as a tradition - but to say that removing immunity is the same as abolishing the monarchy is just rubbish to me!

I think the Danish politicians should take a broader look on the rest of Europe - and why not the monarchies of Great Britain, Spain and Sweden - where only the Head of State has immunity. To me this is a perfectly reasonable way of handling it, and so does a lot of other countries who are not monarchies as well, where only the President as Head of State is immune.

[Josefine]

Does anyone know of any royal that have done something really really bad and due to Diplomatic Immunity it has been left alone

[Yennie]

Originally Posted by Josefine

Does anyone know of any royal that have done something really really bad and due to Diplomatic Immunity it has been left alone

Well, its not really really bad, but still :)
In april 2000 king Carl Gustaf drove way to fast in Denmark, nothing happend, even thoug it was very "talked-about" in the press.

I can´t remember how fast he drove but it was many miles over the speed limit. It was on the coast way between Elsinore and Copenhagen.

[Genevieve]

Originally Posted by Yennie

Well, its not really really bad, but still :)
In april 2000 king Carl Gustaf drove way to fast in Denmark, nothing happend, even thoug it was very "talked-about" in the press.

I can´t remember how fast he drove but it was many miles over the speed limit. It was on the coast way between Elsinore and Copenhagen.

I guess speeding is not too bad on the entire scale of things. But if I should be pulled over speeding I would be fined and as royals should set an example, it isn't right that royals who speed (not limited to just the King of Sweden but other royals too) should get away with it.

I guess it's common that traffic violations are overlooked in the name of "diplomatic community."

Whatever happened with Madeline when she drove the wrong way on a one way street? I think that was made quite a big deal of in the Swedish media. Did anything legal ever come about of that?

[ElisaR]

In Britain things seem to be different. The Duke of Gloucester was given a six months driving ban for speed limit last year.
Other royals, as Princess Anne and Prince Andrew, had fines and points added to their driving licence.
Concerning the Queen, if she did something wrong, she would probably be fined, but I don't think they could do anything more, because she doesn't have a licence.

[Lena]

Since in Sweden (after the king´s accident) a discussion on immunity of the king started, I wonder, how your thoughts on this are.
Do you think, it´s right, that Monarchs can´t be punished for breaking the law?
When politicians commit a bigger crime, they are usually asked (forced) to step down. How do you think, would that be with a monarch (in Europe)? When the monarch would kill someone, would he/she be forced to abolish? And would he/she have to accept full responsibility for the crime after the abolishment...so would he/she go to jail

[Idriel]

Originally Posted by Lena

When the monarch would kill someone, would he/she be forced to abolish? And would he/she have to accept full responsibility for the crime after the abolishment...so would he/she go to jail

Definitely. No nation would accept a murderer as a King/Queen. And anyway, it's most probable that the Parliament of this country would strip the King/Queen from its immunity after such a crime (unless it's legitimate defence I guess).
But for minor offences, C'MON...

[tiaraprin]

I don't think a monarch should be immune from obeying the law. They must abide by these laws just as their subjects do. The days of Kings and Queens being above the law are now a thing of the past in Democratic monarchies. The monarch should be a symbol to his/her nation.

[norwegianne]

As a thread already existed on the theme, the two threads have been merged. In the future, please check if there already is an existing thread on the subject before creating a new one. Thank you.

Norwegianne
TRF Super Moderator.

[semisquare]

so the short of it is-royals can go out get drunk and run over people w/o any charges filed aganist them? what if they are the stocking type of person can they do that with immunity?and if they have a problem with snow(the snorting kind) they can travel freely with that on their w/o any problems?
if all of this is true, then it would pay to be a royal if u like to drink n drive, do drugs, stock people and anything else the rest of us wouldnt think of doing.
what happens when these people are in their home land. are there any repercussions for their bad behavior?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by Britters

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]

Originally Posted by EvaH

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]

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams

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]

Originally Posted by Somebody

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....