• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Curious question for the British

Marble

Marble

Rolling Marble
I saw a documentary this evening about your queen and suddenly a curious question poped up in my mind: What if the Queen commits a crime?
Is she subject to justice then?

dqku94.jpg
 
Last edited:
CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
Sovereign immunity.

United Kingdom
Immunity in proceedings
Historically, the general rule in the United Kingdom has been that the Crown has never been able to be prosecuted or proceeded against in either criminal or civil cases. The only means by which civil proceedings could be brought were:
by way of petition of right, which was dependent on the grant of the royal fiat (i.e. permission);
by suits against the Attorney-General for a declaration; or
by actions against ministers or government departments where an Act of Parliament had specifically provided that immunity be waived.
The position was drastically altered by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 which made the Crown (when acting as the government) liable as of right in proceedings where it was previously only liable by virtue of a grant of a fiat. With limited exceptions, this had the effect of allowing proceedings for tort and contract to be brought against the Crown. Proceedings to bring writs of mandamus and prohibition were always available against ministers, because their actions derive from the royal prerogative.
Criminal proceedings are still prohibited from being brought unless expressly permitted by statute.
As the Crown Proceedings Act only affected the law in respect of acts carried on by or on behalf of the UK government, the monarch remains personally immune from criminal and civil actions. However, civil proceedings can, in theory, still be brought using the two original mechanisms outlined above - by petition of right or by suit against the Attorney-General for a declaration.

Other immunities
The monarch is immune from arrest in all cases, and members of the royal household are also immune from arrest in civil proceedings. No arrest can be made "in the monarch's presence", or within the "verges" of a royal palace. When a royal palace is used as a residence (regardless of whether the monarch is actually living there at the time), judicial processes cannot be executed within that palace.
The monarch's goods cannot be taken under a writ of execution, nor can distress be levied on land in their possession. Chattels owned by the Crown, but present on another's land, cannot be taken in execution or for distress. The Crown is not subject to foreclosure.
Click to expand...

Sovereign immunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
ForeverFaithful

ForeverFaithful

Son Worshiper
Seeing as when the Crown defaulted its land to the Parliament it still kept the rights to be the lawfully owners, and that land produces more money then the Royal Family alone, not to mention the Tourism, the fact that the Queen serves an apolitical role in uniting the nation and the common wealth and the religious roles she plays in the Church of England, what possible reason could you have for dissolving the Queen,
 
Yerda

Yerda

Veteran Member
ForeverFaithful said:
Seeing as when the Crown defaulted its land to the Parliament it still kept the rights to be the lawfully owners, and that land produces more money then the Royal Family alone, not to mention the Tourism, the fact that the Queen serves an apolitical role in uniting the nation and the common wealth and the religious roles she plays in the Church of England, what possible reason could you have for dissolving the Queen,
Click to expand...
Dissolving the Queen...that's an interesting idea.
 
9Westy9

9Westy9

Sceptic, Libertarian, Egalitarian
Premium Member
Father Heathen said:
I'm surprised that they still humor the notion of "royalty" without a sense of embarrassment.
Click to expand...

She doesn't seem to have much of a say in the countries politics though. Mostly just going around visiting places and making speeches every now and then. At least that's what it appears to be
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Father Heathen said:
I'm surprised that they still humor the notion of "royalty" without a sense of embarrassment.
Click to expand...
She's my queen too (on paper, anyhow). I'm embarrassed.

ForeverFaithful said:
Seeing as when the Crown defaulted its land to the Parliament it still kept the rights to be the lawfully owners, and that land produces more money then the Royal Family alone, not to mention the Tourism, the fact that the Queen serves an apolitical role in uniting the nation and the common wealth and the religious roles she plays in the Church of England, what possible reason could you have for dissolving the Queen,
Click to expand...

- the royal family had no right to that land. In many cases (e.g. the dissolution of the monasteries) it was actually stolen, and even in the best of cases, using one's official position to enrich onesself personally is normally seen as an abuse of public trust.

- you don't need to have a monarchy to have tourists come and see castles. Look how many people visit Versailles every year.

- the religious role she plays is a big part of why the monarchy should be dissolved. Church and state should be separate.

- I question how much the Queen unites the nation. I don't see it.

- I don't know about you, but I value equality and democracy. The monarchy is a symbolic affront to both.

But if the Brits want to keep her as queen, that's their business. I just don't want there to be a monarch of Canada any more.
 
Marble

Marble

Rolling Marble
As for the Queen owning land: In the documentary they said that she owns Windsor chastle, but cannot sell it.
So when it was damaged by fire, she had to pay for the repair.
 
Erebus

Erebus

Well-Known Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
But if the Brits want to keep her as queen, that's their business.
Click to expand...

It's a monarchy, we don't have much of a choice :p

Personally I'm not a fan of the aristocracy. I don't see much reason to like them, let alone be proud of them. If British comedians are anything to go by, it seems this is a fairly common opinion.
 
Octavia156

Octavia156

OTO/EGC
Marble said:
I'm rather impressed by her.
She seems Englands most important diplomat.
Click to expand...


"HEAR HEAR"

I have the deepest love and respect for our Queen and the British Royal family.
I'm am very proud of them, and agree entirely that she is an important diplomat, perhaps not the best anymore, considering her age.

The Royal Family cost each UK citizen 69p a year. Hardly a burden!

yes when you do the Math, it is a lot of money... but simply living on British land costs me hundreds of ££ a month in taxes... being part of a state is burden on the individual, in our case having a soverign is not.

Given the amount of work they do, and the unending love and dedication to their country and its citizens, untainted by the lust for power or politics, I have nothing but admiration for them.

We subsidise a family of philanthropists, who spend their lives, doing positive work for the country, making people happy, and as you say - being international diplomats.

How many 80yr olds have done world tours involving 18hr days... Our Queen is a trooper. War-hardy. Solid as they come. Really reminds me of my grandmother actually :)

But, yeh... sum total is Positive. definitely a Royalist here :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top