111
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2026
111 points (99.1% liked)
United Kingdom
6535 readers
224 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
From what I recall, they'd most likely have probably needed to ask The King for permission to do so, who would have handed him over.
The kings authority to refuse is not recognised.
If a king or past queen were to be accused. It is technically impossible. As our whole criminal justice system is based on the king Vs the defendent/accused.
But that dose not apply to other royal family members. Other then the purely technical idea that the kings name used against a relative is sorta rude without authority.
But parliament has the full Auth to ignore his opinion. And as we saw under Cromwell. If the king was accused of a crime high enough. Parliament itself can try him. But it's far from uncomplicated,
Other then the king. The only people fully free of the justice system. Are MPs when acting in parliament itself. This is done purely to prevent a majority party making opposition illegal. And even then it only applies to in parliament actions.
IE up till a few days ago. MPs could support PA in the house of commons. But doing so in public would have still be a crime. As dumb as that sounds.
That said. Legal and technical Vs the actual actions of people in a position with the prejudices involved. Are hardly equal.
It's not "The King vs....". It's "The Crown vs...". It might seem a pedantic point, but the crown is a concept similar to "the state", and distinct from any monarch.
A case being "The Crown vs. HRH King Charles III" is perfectly feasible. The monarch being subject to law is a concept that goes back over 800 years.
They are not free of the whole justice system. They have limited parliamentary privileges mainly related to what they can say without consequences, but they couldn't murder their opponents.
Except the concept has not. At no point in that history. Has any UK king or queen ever been tried by anything other then parliament itself.
And the one time parliament did it. It was done in parliament exactly because the constituency of the crown being different from the current monarch is not well defined. It's only separation definition is in the right for ownership and duty to be passed.
Actually no that is not how the sovereignty of parliament in defined.
Yes actions are only free of judicial jurisdiction when acting in parlimentry session. But those actions are in no way related to speech alone.
While no an MP could not murder someone during parliamentary session.
The normal justice system would not be responsible for protecting that person. Parliament will. This is exactly why the tower of London was originally considered the be the kings and then parliaments prison. And not the judiciary.
This is why parliament has a chief Marshall to enforce it's authority. And why the tower of London has it's own guards independent of the UK police and military.
While this all seems to be just of historic interest. And honestly the orders (people involved) are no longer armed or trained in a way that would be official to actually enforce the law. Not to mention the tower is no longer in a position to provide a reasonable or effective prison.
The legal structure has very much not been replaced in any way.
And if (cos I am biased after all.)
N Farrrage was to suddenly jump up and strangle J corbyn during PMs questions.
It would be an odd situation. Likely in 2026 it would involve parliament and the Chief marshall asking the met to actually help out. And quickly passing laws to support it. It would not be automatic.
The trial done by Cromwell wasn't really legal. And Cromwell isn't really the best example of democracy. It was basically a coup. It's also legal for MPs to disclose classified information in parliament.
I think they probably would have asked the King or possibly the prime minister, especially because they entered his property to make the arrest. It would have been courtesy. Although the King stated a while ago he is co-operating, and even if he did say no, it would be an absolute PR disaster, so really he wouldn't have had any choice... Like with most things as a consititional monarch.
It's just the idea he likely was asked by the Police and he handed his brother over.
Although honestly I would have 100% done the same thing, whether I was a king or not.
EDIT: The King was not informed in advance of the arrest, the BBC understands
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czr0vj13ezjo
Guess I was completely wrong, lol
While Cromwell's far from a great example of democracy.
He is the example of parliament creating a law that made killing a king illegal. And the very creation of our current constitutional monarchy. His actions basically created most of the constitution changes the nation now works on.
Hence why the example was made.
You are correct in the fact that telling secrets in parliament is technically legal. It is worth noting that parliament has the power to enforce rules upon itself. Technically to the point made by Cromwell.
IE in the event and MP was to announce secrets in parliament. Without gov approval and more so now it is televised. (This was not the case in my youth. When recording parliament was illegal for that very reason.)
Parliament would technically be able to have the MP imprisoned. Although as of now parliament has no where to store them. It was the tower of London in the past.
But yep it would have to be parliament that enforced such rules. And doing so would require a majority. Hence why bojo tried to close parliament and got prevented.
I don't think a trial by parliament is legal under international law?
International law dose not exist. It is just a collection of treaties signed by different nations that they agree to. IE it is entirely contract law.
And given how little the UK has cared about such agreements. IE openly committing genocide. Against the Geneva convention treaty. Arresting protesters and abusing disabled people against the ECHR treaties.
There is absolutely no way parliament is going to consider any of them to outright override UKparlimentry sovereignty.
And when you remember our constitution literally applies the historical authority of the king. Being passed to parliament. Any agreement we sign. Is very much only down to the current majorities willingness to follow.
A point very important to remember given current polling for the next election.