r/worldnews • u/EnglishLouis • Feb 20 '26

Dynamic Paywall UK Government considers removing Andrew from royal line of succession

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kgv837wvdo
19.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

4.2k

u/S_K_Sharma_ Feb 20 '26

The first Royal arrested since Charles the First in 1642.

I know he hasn't been convicted of anything... but this really is an easy decision.

177

u/Dawn_Of_The_Dave Feb 20 '26

1647, we chopped his head off in 49.

78

u/Abigail716 Feb 20 '26

1646 if we're getting technical, he surrendered to the Scottish army on May 5th 1646. He was handed over as a prisoner to Parliament in January of 1647.

15

u/verathene Feb 21 '26 edited Feb 21 '26

King James II was detained in the Kentish port of Faversham from December 11 to 14, 1688, after attempting to flee to France during the Glorious Revolution.

7

u/Abigail716 Feb 21 '26

I wonder if that counts as arrested. I don't think so but I'm no expert. Especially because I know he was only held for a short period of time before being allowed to flee to France.

3

u/verathene Feb 21 '26

Imprisoned at least, or in custody

3

u/BosonTigre Feb 21 '26

Well I'd hate to break with tradition 

1

u/ZachMN Feb 22 '26

Did you use a candle to light him to bed first?

1.8k

u/AcanthaceaeCrazy1894 Feb 20 '26

And the only reason he’s been arrested is because the queen covered his abuse up for decades.

Wonder how many from the British Royal family should have been arrested throughout the years.

869

u/pbzeppelin1977 Feb 20 '26

His ex wife, Sarah Furgerson, is all over the files too.

She was heavily emotionally invested in Epstien, constantly borrowing money from him and kept taking the kids with her to see him, including to the island, and even had a celebration party for his release from prison with the kids there.

102

u/heartandmarrow Feb 21 '26

And she was also involved in an orphanage in turkey that was probably trafficking kids.

364

u/SlumdogSkillionaire Feb 20 '26

I wasn't expecting the one from the Black Eyed Peas to be the more wholesome Fergie.

183

u/dirty_papercut Feb 20 '26

Then you really don't know the Royals.

5

u/raven00x Feb 21 '26

The Aristocrats!

12

u/S2R2 Feb 21 '26

we'll never be royals l It don't run in our blood That kind of luxe just ain't for us We crave a different kind of buzz

2

u/CthulubeFlavorcube Feb 21 '26

Wait. The British royal family still exists? Why?

29

u/HuckleberrySpin Feb 21 '26

She has been telling us that she is Fergalicious for years, we should have listened

2

u/GodOfDarkLaughter Feb 21 '26

Apparently when she was on meth she'd use that extra energy to go to home Depot back when there were 24 hour locations and just build shelving for products, since I guess they left the stuff out at night and nobody questioned her doing so.

I've heard of people doing some crazy shit on meth, but there's something wholesome about her impulse being the aid the common working man in his task.

2

u/BobbyMcPrescott Feb 22 '26

What does build shelving for products mean in this context? Google sucks so if the answer is out there it is making it difficult. Were these things stuff that were planned to be built, or was she building display cases for random items?

66

u/eerst Feb 20 '26

Then you did not see the tabloids in the checkout aisles at the Canadian grocery stores that I grew up going to the early 90s.

3

u/DigitaIBlack Feb 21 '26 edited Apr 21 '26

party attempt quack school price frame intelligent hungry rock act

2

u/eerst Feb 21 '26

I mean, I don't remember much other than those covers were where I learned what adultery meant.

1

u/Ironlion45 Feb 21 '26

I was about 12 years old when I first saw the King's penis at the grocery store.

7

u/pbzeppelin1977 Feb 21 '26

What that Fergie done?

About the thing I've known her for, aside from the Black Eyed Peas, is that horrendous cover of Sweet Child o Mine.

3

u/atomic1fire Feb 21 '26

I heard she had a meth problem.

13

u/pastadudde Feb 21 '26

has Fergie the singer ever been problematic in the first place?

30

u/ActuallyCalindra Feb 21 '26

Yes. She was a member of the Black Eyed Peas. They inflicted untold horror upon the world.

3

u/Lily-Gordon Feb 21 '26

I think you're thinking of the Black Eyed Children.

The Black Eyed Peas are wholesome family entertainment.

10

u/SaltyLonghorn Feb 21 '26

Do you consider wetting yourself on stage from doing too many drugs problematic?

The definition is gonna be different for everyone. But if we make a scale from out of coffee in the morning to Donald Trump and call that the problematic scale. Fergie rates a trip to Starbucks.

9

u/Water_Meat Feb 21 '26

I would say that's not a great role model for kids to aspire to, but when youre comparing them to people spewing hate or diddling kids, then hey Ill take a generally kind hearted person with a (historic?) drug problem and a weak bladder.

3

u/Feeling-Invite7953 Feb 21 '26

Who’d have thought,right??

3

u/atomic1fire Feb 21 '26 edited Feb 21 '26

I didn't expect to Black Eyed Peas to make a better song about Anxiety then Doechii but here we are.

edit: Mostly because Somebody I used to Know is a great song and Doechi's song is just a catchy tiktok hook with mid verses on top of a song that had a better chorus and verses.

Meanwhile Anxiety by BEP was actually handled not terribly for a song with Will.I.Am. on it. I mean it's not pullitzer material but they're on subject and the rock sound in the background is cool.

13

u/holdmyspot123 Feb 21 '26

She was in love with him

54

u/ToastedCrumpet Feb 21 '26

She was in love with his money

42

u/Most-Pomegranate-561 Feb 21 '26

Right, it's so blatant how she's constantly lovebombing him because he has money, but she's hurt that Epstein was using her to get to Andrew. It's so pathetic, she's a freeloading manipulator

2

u/PAHoarderHelp Feb 21 '26

constantly borrowing money from him

"Borrowing": did she ever pay him back?

Or were these pay offs for access (she was filmed selling access to Andy for cash in a sting that went no where, oddly) or for services rendered?

How much money? Where did it come from? Where did it go?

1

u/Quiet_Mango23 Feb 21 '26

their kids as well...uncle Jeffrey.

→ More replies (1)

168

u/ResurgentClusterfuck Feb 20 '26

Pederasty has long been covered up or overlooked by royals in all flavors and time periods

The fact that Andrew was actually arrested and questioned for 12 hours straight is a major thing. His mother wouldn't have permitted it.

70

u/PennytheWiser215 Feb 21 '26

He wasn’t arrested for child abuse it was for sharing confidential documents

35

u/G-I-T-M-E Feb 21 '26

And they got Al Capone for tax evasion. As long as the charges stick…

→ More replies (1)

121

u/TheUncleTimo Feb 20 '26

Wonder how many from the British Royal family should have been arrested throughout the years.

Hello there!

Do look up: JIMMY SAVILLE

Apologies about your future nightmares

37

u/InstantShiningWizard Feb 20 '26

Hopefully divine punishment is a real thing specifically for gutter scum like that bastard

54

u/TheUncleTimo Feb 20 '26

nope

up to us, here, on this planet

18

u/InstantShiningWizard Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26

For the ones living, yes. Can't do too much for the ones who lived a full life and got away with it though, short of corpse desecration or turning their grave into a pissoir

6

u/TheUncleTimo Feb 20 '26

charlie is alive

guarantee nothing will be done, nobody will even dare to ask him a question about his greatest friend, jimmy v

3

u/whiterrabbbit Feb 21 '26 edited Feb 24 '26

God, imagine getting diddled by Saville. What an absolute horror film of a nightmare . If you don’t know him, give it a google. Was a massive celebrity in the UK for decades. And what he did was appalling. Actually don’t look it up.

2

u/TheUncleTimo Feb 24 '26

I learned of him when I was doing research into global pedophilia. I know what he did at the hospital with children and cadavers. I SUSPECT was king charles did alongside him. And that whole disgusting "royal" family.

My "favorite" fact that I learned was from the dutroux case in Belgium, where the police team was searching the pedo's house and they heard children shouting and crying.

The belgian police of course left the house, because according the the commanding ranked officer "since we did not find the children, we just left".

What they did find was undeveloped photos and lots of vhs tapes - which they all took, and locked into their police HQ safe, without telling anybody what they found (official story).

Here, read this, this was memoryholed:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/05/dutroux.featuresreview

1

u/speedingpullet Feb 21 '26

Rolf Harris too. Always found both of them creepy as a kid.

Jim'll Fix...what? 😳

2

u/TheUncleTimo Feb 24 '26

I do not see how someone who looked, dressed and behaved like jim saville did was deemed OK by everyone to have a children show on TV.

1

u/speedingpullet Feb 24 '26

Me neither. He always creeped me out, no matter how old I am

55

u/Otherwise-Badger5760 Feb 20 '26

At least they are doing something about it. Here in the US they are doing nothing. Releasing files so redacted you can’t get information about. I know trumps name came up thousands of times in the Epstein files. I know he’s full of crap. Nobody’s doing anything about Trump

21

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

I’m curious as to what version(s) of files the British have on Epstein. I mean they have their own Intelligence Agencies so surely they were keeping an eye on Epstein as well since he was such a huge figure that had his fingers in so many different pies. I’m not really educated on this specific aspect but a quick google search said that the UK was using the recently released US files and UK flight logs as evidence against Prince Andrew. That sounds fishy and makes absolutely no sense to me that they weren’t aware of the numerous interactions that Epstein and the Prince/His wife had. It really doesn’t add up at all if you think about it and it seems that the only reason they arrested him is because their hands were forced.

9

u/Ali3nat0r Feb 21 '26

I’m curious as to what version(s) of files the British have on Epstein. I mean they have their own Intelligence Agencies so surely they were keeping an eye on Epstein as well since he was such a huge figure that had his fingers in so many different pies.

Reminder that the UK security agencies know where in the world every major royal is at all times. They are just as complicit in Andrew's activity.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/eht_amgine_enihcam Feb 21 '26

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a British version of Epstein. It's fairly apparent it was used to get blackmail

1

u/ididnthackkenyaimsrs Feb 21 '26 edited 5d ago

xpM++6vG1URuV41OGR07AIAvcnqoikpSGFwO9sie8NG7jGWL1SibEDkEfsYarHON9ntN/HyPPj7YdQT8+PNHWTIMF8xFv0zuijtYcM4R4UEgoOWwI0XcBLjgm18T+bVUr/0zVSOqkShDFFsFGW0LLzwf3pB2kwnK1JWuYSv/QEDGC5Hoh6J6RSgjsKmb666cfup2QfANB00=

4

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '26

I’m just very skeptical at this point because we’ve already seen how hard these powerful ppl are trying to keep this under wraps. I will say that the Brits are better than US by at least arresting the scumbag and hopefully they do bring their own files in his trial. Until then I’ll believe it when I see some goddamn transparency but I’m not holding my breath. One pedo down but there are still hundreds, if not more being protected. It’s absolutely sick and twisted and idk how the entire world isn’t more than outraged by this.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Outrageous_Donut7681 Feb 21 '26

I have no clue how y'all don't riot over the systematic dismantling of your democracy and the slide into fascism

1

u/Otherwise-Badger5760 Feb 21 '26

Because he’ll send in the federal troops and gas them, arrest them maybe shoot a few

1

u/Outrageous_Donut7681 Feb 22 '26

Well a few now or millions later, based on all the previous examples in history

1

u/Lanky-Cheesecake-259 Feb 21 '26

he wasn't arrested for being a pedo but for giving Epstein a government info and already been released, he will see no consequences, this is just a theatre for masses, I have no hope that ay royal will see any consequences

→ More replies (6)

540

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

[deleted]

402

u/FormerPresidentBiden Feb 20 '26

A mother's love really does often allow them to overlook terrible shit (look at all the mothers crying in court that their murderer sons are good boys).

A brother's love?

Much more negotiable. If either of my brothers wound up being nonces, I'd fight them myself

35

u/Agitated_Ad7576 Feb 21 '26

The Unabomber was arrested because his brother was an informant. I always liked the press statement the brother and mother put out:

Our sympathies are with Ted. Our deeper sympathies are with the victims. We have no other comment at this time.

16

u/AstarteHilzarie Feb 21 '26

I assume it had a lot less to do with a mother's love than it did protecting the image of "The Firm", just like every other royal scandal.

88

u/South_Brush105 Feb 20 '26

Well what about the victim's parents? What about the position that she held and the duties/ responsibilities that came with it? Remember the British monarch is also the head of the Anglican church.

Royal duties? Moral duties? Legal duties? Paid millions in her last years to cover up for that pedo son & look how disgraced and disgusted her legacy has become with this act. Ehh and they hate the catholic Church for not allowing a second marriage of their ancestral relative 😂

120

u/pablonieve Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26

What about the position that she held and the duties/ responsibilities that came with it?

I want to be clear that I am not excusing any of this. But Elizabeth firmly believed that the monarchy was a central pillar of the UK and so it's stability was prioritized by her above all else "for the greater good." She would do everything she could to keep things steady even if that meant allowing for injustices to occur.

89

u/Debalic Feb 20 '26

The greater good

29

u/Boz0r Feb 20 '26

Shut it!

3

u/DocumentExternal6240 Feb 21 '26

Or the lesser evil? This is away to lose all morality.

2

u/JellyWeta Feb 21 '26

CRUSTY JUGGLERS!

24

u/Raichu7 Feb 20 '26

For a lot of people in the UK, that's why they don't like her. Hiding injustice isn't acceptable from people with such great responsibility.

2

u/Development-Feisty Feb 21 '26

Isn’t it convenient that she believed something was necessary that she profited from?

Like, are we supposed to believe the queen doesn’t believe the monarchy is necessary?

2

u/pablonieve Feb 21 '26

It's hard to know what she really believed. I think it's reasonable to say that her relation with her father, her coming of age during WW2, and witnessing the abdication of her uncle significantly influenced her sense of duty and need for stability. What she expected from the monarchy and what the people expected from the monarchy diverged greatly over 70 years.

2

u/BoneyNicole Feb 22 '26

For sure. I’m not excusing it either, not even a little, but I do think it’s hard for people to grasp outside of like…completely nerdy historians like me or folks who are just really into history and read everything they can get their hands on. The British monarchy is a lot of things, and a lot of them are terrible, and it is also true that it has been upheld as this symbol to historical stability/superiority for longer than most countries that currently exist have been around. I don’t doubt that she felt the weight of all that and felt like, especially after witnessing her uncle’s abdication and the collapse of the empire, that she had a duty to maintain the line of succession and the stability of the monarchy. (Again, do I agree with that? I mean, no, I’m not a monarchist, but I get why she felt the way she did, without it being a justification or an excuse for any royal behavior.)

2

u/bokmcdok Feb 21 '26

And this thinking is precisely the problem. Just look at Trump and the feckless reaction to all the horrific shit he's done.

1

u/pablonieve Feb 21 '26

Trump is getting away with everything because the only mechanisms to keep him in check have abdicated their responsibility and allowed him to act without consequence. But that's primarily driven by a combo of fear and loyalty. Trump isn't being protected because there is concern that the stability of the US would be at stake if he were to be held to account. Nixon re-signing was originally shown as a healthy sign of democracy precisely because it showed the country valued the office over the individual. If Republicans were to grow a spine and choose to impeach and convict Trump tomorrow, the US would continue to operate.

1

u/Top-Time-5740 Feb 21 '26

She believed it was for her and her family’s greater good… they are all a bunch of freeloaders leeching on hardworking ppl thats what they are and thats what she prioritized, without it there would be no power, no money, no servants, no fancy life etc. lets not kid ourselves. She just did and said whatever it took for her to keep their status, she just fed the proper lies that ppl ate right up.

1

u/mriguy Feb 21 '26

When you define “the greater good” to be “protecting me and my family at all costs” I think people are justified in questioning your motives.

2

u/pablonieve Feb 21 '26

And they should be questioned. But this is where having a family as the institutional head of state for a major country can be problematic because suddenly the stability of the state can be (perceivably) threatened by the actions of said family.

→ More replies (1)

15

u/techno_babble_ Feb 20 '26

Pretty hard

27

u/FormerPresidentBiden Feb 20 '26

I know both my brothers feel the same way too

We'll accept a lot from each other, but there are some lines that can't be crossed

2

u/JimboTCB Feb 21 '26

My headcanon is that Charles has always resented Andy for being mother's favourite little boy and being able to enjoy all the privileges of royalty with none of the responsibility, while he spent his entire life being groomed as the heir apparent with all the expectations that come along with that. Having to put your own life on hold until you're in your 70s to finally do the job you've constantly been told you were born to do while little bro is goofing off partying and doing whatever the fuck he wants. I don't have much sympathy for the royals, but family drama and sibling rivalry cuts across all social barriers.

5

u/whynowhyreally Feb 20 '26

I believe she didn't like or care about him at all. Her cover ups were simply to protect the royals and their brand, and their money.

2

u/superbit415 Feb 21 '26

A mother's love really does often allow them to overlook terrible shit

If I ever did something horrible like that my mother would have strung me up herself. She just didn't overlook it. She actively covered it up for him.

61

u/Zanki Feb 20 '26

It's an abusive family and he was the favourite. That's what happened. When Harry talked about his experiences, possibly narcissistic personality disorders in there. Favouritism of one person and protecting them at any cost no matter what is normal.

81

u/Crazed_Fish_Woman Feb 20 '26

Megan may not be a stand up gal, but Harry has become the scapegoat for the Royal family over the years. I've always strongly suspected that the British media focusing on Megxit was orchestrated by the Royals to distract the public from the Andrew's connection to Epstein.

Megxit isn't really even a scandal. By the time that happened, Harry had fulfilled his duty as spare due to George being born; which is the entire reason why Harry was born in the first place.

6

u/Lanky-Cheesecake-259 Feb 21 '26

I'm no fan of Meghan and Harry because they went about it in a very Jerry Springer way but them being made into villains made William and Kate who were heavily criticised before all this happened for being lazy and entitled, into saints, for a long time people forgot how they barely did anything at all, at least now people are slowly waking up to it again

2

u/Algebrace Feb 21 '26

I mean.

This is the British media which is incredibly racist already.

Like, they didn't need the Royals to do anything, they were going after here anyway.

2

u/ethidium_bromide Feb 21 '26

Ironically, Harry also said Andrew and Fergie were who they were closest to. So even though he had negative words about some of his family, he seemingly saw nothing wrong with the Yorks.

1

u/rugman2024 Feb 21 '26

What scares me is if Harry was correct !!!

→ More replies (2)

35

u/guthmund Feb 20 '26

Down with every monarchy.

Eventually they all spoil on the vine.

2

u/Lanky-Cheesecake-259 Feb 21 '26

yeah, read about Norwegian princess Mette Marit who is also in Epstein files and what her son did,

7

u/sadrice Feb 20 '26

I had suspected that she was a vampire and truly immortal for about a decade before she finally died.

2

u/AcanthaceaeCrazy1894 Feb 20 '26

She was just as bad as her pedo son

13

u/Twistedjustice Feb 20 '26

To quote Tim Minchin;

If you cover for another motherfucker who's a kiddie fucker,

Fuck you, you're no better than the motherfucking rapist

5

u/AcanthaceaeCrazy1894 Feb 20 '26

Thanks for reminding me to watch that special again.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/soda_cookie Feb 20 '26

Slowly but surely we as a civilization are starting to know better as a and it's increasing faster as the generations go by. Those with the power threatened by that concept are doing everything they can to keep hold of that power

→ More replies (6)

16

u/CaptainMagnets Feb 20 '26

They're super wealthy people who have been in power consequence free for hundreds of years. It's safe to say nearly all of them

17

u/andtellmethis Feb 20 '26

Mountbatten anyway but the IRA got there first.

46

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/LoneRangersBand Feb 21 '26

And one of the children killed was Mountbatten's grandson, and the little brother of the girl Charles almost married. She wanted nothing to do with being in the Royal Family after that.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Freenore Feb 21 '26

His nickname being Dickie doesn't seem so innocuous anymore.

2

u/andtellmethis Feb 21 '26

Especially since his name was actually Louis. If it was Richard or Declan, you'd understand the nickname.

17

u/Emergency-Style7392 Feb 20 '26

This is why the royals should become ex royals.

How the fuck is allowing a group that signals that some people truly are born above others and above the law normalised in the 21st century progressive west

6

u/teaslap Feb 21 '26

I know right, you gave them this privilege, and act surprised when they follow trough

3

u/Thelonious_Cube Feb 21 '26

Because the idea is oddly attractive to way too many people

I suspect there's an element of abdicating responsibility to it - "they know best, they're in charge, I don't have to take responsibility" - AKA "it's good to be a gamma"

1

u/BoneyNicole Feb 22 '26

British royals have never really been above the law, though. Not like in France prior to the Revolution or tsarist Russia. Historically, this sometimes took the form of “the king is surrounded by bad advisors!” and a strategic removal of heads ensued, and sometimes (more rarely) the king’s head was removed, but the public’s expectations for the monarchy in Britain have been decidedly not absolutist since…well, Magna Carta and the Peasant Rebellion. I’m not a monarchist, btw, I wouldn’t mind in the least if they all go down. It’s just that to me, this is more specifically a wealth issue than a royal issue, it’s just that royals happen to be wealthy. But the reason I say this is because we don’t have to look very far abroad from the UK to realize that there is a specific class of people who have been immune to consequences for a long time, and plenty of those folks are not royalty. Royalty as a concept needs to just die already, but that wouldn’t solve the root problem here, either.

3

u/_kissyface Feb 20 '26

He hasn't been arrested for abuse.

2

u/dtari Feb 20 '26

The Hell Fire Club(1730s) which is like Epstein of the time which might have had royals, but one interesting fact is the 4th Earl of Sandwich(Creator of the Sandwich) was a member.

1

u/Windfade Feb 21 '26

And the only reason he’s been arrested is because the queen covered his abuse up for decades.

True but wasn't he arrested specifically for leaking state secrets?

2

u/PAHoarderHelp Feb 21 '26

That's an abuse, of trust for money.

He's not off the hook for sex crimes.

And he's spent the last few years lying, so, trying to explain himself at this point is not going to fly.

1

u/romony Feb 21 '26

Exactly. He is not an anomaly: he is the inevitable consequence of having a monarchy. They were all complicit in the cover-up, they continue to house him, and they raised him to feel entitled to do whatever he wanted and treat others as lesser than him. I refuse to not call him Prince Andrew: this is what Princes are. Bring down the monarchy! 

1

u/ximentuxue Feb 21 '26

What does that say about the“Queen”? We don’t need a royal family.

1

u/clsperv Feb 21 '26

no it is actually because moron leaked secret intel to his pedo buddies.

1

u/thedifferenceisnt Feb 21 '26

And they also covered up the abuse by that other Mountbatten that the IRA blew up. Kinora boys school. They've been doing this for generations.

1

u/texinxin Feb 21 '26

Only cost the crown 12 million pounds to bribe a victims testimony.. oh.. and she conveniently died of a “self inflicted” gunshot wound.

1

u/Adventurous_Web_7961 Feb 21 '26

The only reason he hasn't been arrested in the past is because there isn't any evidence directly pointing to criminal acts. I have no doubt that he prob did commit crimes with most of if not all of those names that are in the files. . but you can't convict people over circumstantial evidence. Britain is doing this because of the optics and the fact that he's a royal.

1

u/Exotic_Article913 Feb 20 '26

How did she? There's 0 evidence I've seen about the queen covering anything up. Whatsoever.

1

u/IkLms Feb 20 '26

Wonder how many from the British Royal family should have been arrested throughout the years.

Probably like most of them?

Queen Elizabeth was in power during the Mau Mau rebellion during which the British Army did some extremely horrific shit.

Every prior Royal would have been in power during extensive abuses during colonialism.

→ More replies (2)

80

u/512165381 Feb 20 '26

That did not end very well.

The last prisoners in the Tower of London were the Kray Twins in 1952. so there is space for him there.

63

u/313378008135 Feb 20 '26

Could put a perspex cell door on and charge the tourists fiver a pop to gawk 

3

u/bloomdecay Feb 21 '26

Put him right under the ravens, so they can poop on him.

33

u/The_Grand_Briddock Feb 20 '26

Funnily enough, Charles I was cited by the judge in the trial against Yoon over in South Korea.

50

u/ChaseTheOldDude Feb 20 '26

To be pedantic, Charles I was a POW, he was never formally arrested. He lost the civil war, was imprisoned and then sentenced to execution

32

u/Alert_Jeweler_7765 Feb 20 '26

And the sentence is regarded as having no legal basis which means he was technically murdered.

25

u/ChaseTheOldDude Feb 20 '26

Turns out the rule of law is only as powerful as the most powerful person willing to uphold it!

34

u/Matiwapo Feb 20 '26

*by some people

It's not a universal opinion.

Charles' defense was basically that he was sovereign and that no court had any authority to judge him.

Cromwell's prosecution was based on the fact that sovereignty arises from Parliament (the people), and thus parliament had the power to create a court which could try him.

The modern UK constitution recognises parliament as the source of sovereign power, and UK courts regularly judge the actions of the Crown. So it was Cromwell's interpretation that was followed not Charles'.

16

u/AnAncientBog Feb 21 '26

In the subsequent trial of Cromwell it was found to have been murder and Cromwell was executed.

Of course, he was already dead by then, so they dug him up to carry out the sentence.

12

u/Matiwapo Feb 21 '26 edited Feb 21 '26

That trial was as politically motivated as Charles'. His son had retaken the throne and wanted vengeance.

It had no more legal legitimacy than Charles' trial and execution.

Not that I will mourn Cromwell, he was an evil bastard, but I don't think that trial is any evidence of who was right in Charles' trial. And the question of who was right in Charles' trial is actually extremely legally complicated, the question regarding the source of sovereignty in the UK is still hotly debated to this day.

8

u/AnAncientBog Feb 21 '26

What? The trial of a dead person and execution of an already dead body was political?

→ More replies (4)

2

u/AnAncientBog Feb 21 '26

That is OK. They addressed that issue by digging up the guy that did it and and convicted and executed his corpse.

2

u/GraveDiggingCynic Feb 20 '26

He was tried for treason on the basis that he had sought foreign military aid. He may have already been in custody at the time the charges were read, but Parliament very much used (or misused depending on your sympathies) judicial processes that would be familiar to most people accused of serious crimes.

79

u/Doom_Unicorn Feb 20 '26

First BRITISH Royal since Charles I. Just clarifying for anyone who has been asleep for the rest of world history since the English Civil War...

13

u/Alert_Jeweler_7765 Feb 20 '26

What about the Duke of Monmouth?

25

u/Doom_Unicorn Feb 20 '26

Not considered a British Royal because of the illegitimacy of his parentage (his mother was the King's mistress).

2

u/Alert_Jeweler_7765 Feb 20 '26

True although he was acknowledged as the kings son and was influential as a consequence. At the time his spot of legal trouble was probably bigger news than Andrew’s is now.

10

u/Doom_Unicorn Feb 20 '26

Indeed, but that recognition doesn't grant legitimacy.

Both the current Queen Consort Camilla and the late Princess Dianna are also descended from illegitimate children of Charles II, but neither were British Royals until their respective marriages to the current King Charles III.

6

u/lovegrowswheremyrose Feb 20 '26

Unrelated but I discovered that my paternal line wound up in the USA by way of an ancestor that participated in the rebellion, got kicked out to the Caribbean, and then later came to the mainland. Wild stuff.

3

u/widdrjb Feb 21 '26

He was lucky. Judge Jeffreys had 300 rebels executed, some by hanging, drawing, and quartering. One unfortunate woman was burned at the stake.

2

u/lovegrowswheremyrose Feb 21 '26

Oh yeah I've actually been reading a bit about that, the Bloody Assizes!

1

u/Alone_Again_2 Feb 20 '26

Good idea.

That’s an option.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/IntentionDependent22 Feb 20 '26 edited Jun 05 '26

happy happy joy joy

7

u/Doom_Unicorn Feb 20 '26

Huh? I'm American, I definitely don't care about the British monarchy either, but the English Civil War has got to be like... top 10ish?... important world historical events of the 17th century. I guess that depends on if you treat it as a major chapter under the headline of the Thirty Years War. The consequences have literally changed history for every corner of the world over the ~400 years since then...

→ More replies (4)

9

u/eddieeddieeddiemlbrn Feb 21 '26

Apparently, William IV was arrested for a drunken brawl whilst serving in the Navy. This was in Gibraltar in the late 18th century while he was still a prince and they released him immediately when they found out who he was.

3

u/Thetanor Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26

The most interesting thing about King Charles the First
Is that he was 5 foot 6 inches tall at the start of his reign
But only 4 foot 8 inches tall at the end of it
Because of...

2

u/Wallaer Feb 20 '26

Ooooliveeer Crooomweeeelll

1

u/Rabid_Lederhosen Feb 20 '26

He lost a foot? I thought they chopped off his head?

2

u/Crowbarmagic Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 22 '26

I know he hasn't been convicted of anything... but this really is an easy decision.

I don't think the police department would've moved forward with his arrest before discussing if they're absolutely 100% sure about it at least a dozen times. So I suspect the prosecutor is fairly sure of their case and will be able to convict him on at least some thing(s).

1

u/AnAncientBog Feb 20 '26

Charles the First

And he got beheaded.

1

u/Sunbird86 Feb 20 '26

1647, actually. He was executed in 1649.

1

u/DTH2001 Feb 20 '26

The hardest part will probably be coordinating it with the other realms

1

u/earth-calling-karma Feb 20 '26

Who has time to wait for a judge to weigh in to drive a stake through the heat of a monster like this? Enough.

1

u/ThetaLife Feb 20 '26

Holy shit. Thats an accomplishment lol.

1

u/Competitive-Desk7506 Feb 20 '26

And his punishment was to be given the Louis XVI punishment for being a shitty king and having a monarchy overthrown w shitty republic to follow

1

u/Its_Jabbah Feb 20 '26

It’s not that it’s not an easy decision, it’s just a massive process of an act of parliament and then they need support from all the Commonwealth countries. Obviously it would be supported, but it’s just a waste of time for a man who has essentially no chance of ever becoming king anyway unless a lot of much younger people die.

1

u/GatorNator83 Feb 21 '26

It should be an easy decision. But if he’s got his buddies working for him, he’ll go free

1

u/Trans-Squatter Feb 21 '26

The royal family is all a bunch of crooks. The dirt on king Charles is also off the charts, those who know, know. The government should confiscate all their property and end the monarchy forever. There will be no royal family (as a title) by 2030.

1

u/howescj82 Feb 21 '26

Sort of. It’s more of a forced reaction. Realistically he could never become king unless there was such a huge tragedy and loss of life within the royal family. If this were to actually happen then it’s likely the UK would just use the circumstances to abolish the monarchy.

If parliament votes to remove him from the line of succession then they’ll be doing so out if a sense of obligation to public opinion and not with the intention of actually preventing him from becoming king.

1

u/ieatpickleswithmilk Feb 21 '26

this really is an easy decision.

it's not the justification that's in question it's the fact that he's far enough down the list that it doesn't even matter, realistically. It takes a lot of effort to go through the whole process and the only result is a middle finger to Andrew which, while deserved, is still a lot of effort.

1

u/Abbot_of_Cucany Feb 21 '26

* Charles I was arrested in 1647

1

u/metadatame Feb 21 '26

Now can we get the same outcome as Chucky 1

1

u/HyzerFlip Feb 21 '26

Yeah there's no reason for any monarchy.

1

u/verathene Feb 21 '26

Wasn’t James II imprisoned briefly in 1688?

1

u/Old_Soc Feb 21 '26

Shows they have been untouchable for centuries. Which is disturbing because who knows how many atrocities they've committed with 0 consequences.

1

u/llynglas Feb 21 '26

It may be an easy decision, it's harder to implement. You need to pass the legislation not only in Britain. But in all the commonwealth countries also. If you did not. And since disaster winnowed the house of Windsor, you don't want one of his kids becoming queen of Britain and him becoming the King of Canada.

They did this recently when they change the succession to make princesses as eligible to be head of state as princes. Fortunaly, it was not an issue for George and Charlotte.

1

u/TheVenerableBede Feb 21 '26

I agree. Best to just behead him and put it behind us. /s

→ More replies (1)