Alexandria
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,207
- Country
- Canada
Based on the continuing discussion at this thread on Frederik and Mary News, found here: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3811&page=5&pp=20, since the discussion evolved into something about beyond Mary, I thought I would start a seperate thread where we could discuss the matter as it pertains to all royals.
I have transferred some of the comments to this thread.
I have transferred some of the comments to this thread.
Originally posted by Paulette: Even though the Royals have a higher place in any country than the ordinary citizens but they should not be exempted from the consequences of not abiding by the laws of the country over various matters. If they are stopped by the police for overspeeding they should then pay any fine if ever that is what is stated in the law. There should be no exemption because even if they are royals, they are all citizens of a certain country and they are expected to abide by the laws. They should even be examples.
Originally posted by ennyllorac:
I agree with you. Being royal should not exempt you from abiding to laws.
Originally posted by Britters: Paulette-you say they should be exempted from some laws, but not all, what laws do you think they should be exempt from? It seems to me that something as minor as speeding (unless it causes an accident or something of the like for others) ticket should be what they are exempted from, and the major laws (murder, purgery, etc.)* should be the ones they are expected to abide by. Otherwise what is the point of diplomatic immunity?
*These are just examples-I'm not actually saying I think any member of the Royal Family would commit any of these offenses!
Originally posted by Alexandria:
Interesting discussion!
I personally think that as royals are above the fray of so many things (i.e. politics) they shouldn't be above the law, too.
If royals are to be role models for their citizens (and I think most of us would agree that some royals -- no names necessary -- are better role models than others), then what kind of example are they setting if they disregard such "minor" laws as speeding or parking in a no park zone?
From Britters' example (not pointing you out, just using your examples as a starting point!), to say that royals should be held accountable for more "serious" offences such as murder, but not necessarily so for "lesser" offences such as speeding -- where does one draw the line? If you and I would get a $100 fine for speeding then why shouldn't royals, too? Nobody should be above the law, whatever your social status.
And more than anybody, royals should be held accountable for their actions, good or bad.
Originally posted by Britters: Alexandria-I totally agree with you. My question was basically, where do you draw the line. If you are going to give diplomatic immunity where do the lines lay? I don't think Royals should be above the law, it just doesn't make much sense for people in such postions to be allow to get away with things they are suppose to be representing...however if they are going to be "above" the law, then wouldn't it make more sense for those laws that aren't being enforced to be the minors ones?
Originally posted by Napoleon: I agree in such minor matters as paying a fine they can well afford, royal families shouldn't be above the law, but I don't think that means mary should come under criticism just because by quirk of the state she does have such immunity.
Originally posted by Julia: As Alexandria noted: this is a very interesting topic!
I agree that royals should be held responsible for all of their actions and should not be considered as being above the law. They should accept responsibility for their actions and pay their dues accordingly.
Am I correct in remembering that when Frederik and Joachim were caught speeding by the police as teenagers that QM II made them apologise on t.v.???
Originally posted by Carlota: i agree with paulette and alexandria. that's not a good example... also, the fact that mary asked the police not to tell the press about it seems quite hypocritical.
Originally posted by Jasl: Hmm, I suppose. But I suppose if we are going to be strict about it, then I suppose it would also be correct to say that almost nobody respects the traffic laws. Coz at some point, advertently or inadvertently, we have gone over the speed limit (especially when going down some dratted hill or not realising its school time and that school time speed limits apply), or parked illegally, or did a U turn where we weren't supposed to, or crossed a double line etc.
However when we commit traffic infringements, the whole nation doesn't focus on us and what we've done. Pay the fine, or in some cases, do some community work. But it takes much more than one or two traffic infringement for someone to question our respect for traffic laws, and even more for that "disrespectful" tag to be attached to us permanently. Royals on the other hand can be criticised more easily, and the label in most cases always stays with them.
Perhaps the spokesperson should not have said "always". But personally, I think its quite harsh and unrealistic to equate "always respect" with being perfect on the road at all times (even when its not recorded), especially as I don't think anyone here has always and at all times upheld every single traffic law.
I know this is splitting hairs, but sometimes, I choose to breach traffic laws, not because I have less respect for that traffic law, but because the other competing consideration is much more important at that particular time. Does this make sense?