11

We are seeing cases of people being arrested in UK for holding #NotMyKing signs or something along these lines. My question here is not about the legality of those police actions.

My question is: as a UK citizen opposed to monarchy, do I have any legal obligation of differential treatment towards the king/queen if I stumble upon them on the pavement or can I treat them exactly like any other ordinary citizen? In a purposefully exaggerated way for the sake of clarification, a law that states something like "you must address the king as 'your highness' or you will be arrested", or "thou shalt vacate thy seat if the king enters the bus".

phoog
  • 37,212
  • 5
  • 79
  • 127
Megaptera novaeangliae
  • 423
  • 3
  • 7
  • 9
    "people being arrested in UK for holding #NotMyKing signs" [citation required] –  Sep 14 '22 at 07:14
  • 10
    @Rick Something along those lines: A woman in Edinburgh holding a sign reading “F*** imperialism, abolish the monarchy” was charged with a breach of the peace while another woman in London was moved from the gates of Parliament while carrying a “Not my king” sign. Symon Hill was handcuffed after he shouted “Who elected him?” referring to Charles being proclaimed new king. – User65535 Sep 14 '22 at 07:55
  • 5
    @Rick you can find it on several sources, I believe the Washington Post is a reputable newspaper: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/13/queen-elizabeth-death-protests-arrest-police/ – Megaptera novaeangliae Sep 14 '22 at 09:12
  • 13
    @User65535 being arrested while holding a sign does not imply that they were arrested for holding that sign. – phoog Sep 14 '22 at 09:26
  • 4
    Apparently one sign was a blank piece of paper that attracted the attention of the police. – Weather Vane Sep 14 '22 at 13:48
  • 5
    "differential treatment" -- did you mean "deferential"? – Barmar Sep 14 '22 at 14:27
  • 2
    @phoog if we're being pedantic, it does imply it, it just doesn't prove it. Sure, maybe they were arrested for some unrelated crime that no paper mentioned but that doesn't seem very likely. – terdon Sep 14 '22 at 15:25
  • https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/13/britain-free-speech-heckles-prince-andrew, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/11/republican-protesters-arrested-king-charles-proclamation-events, https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/13/man-threatened-with-arrest-if-he-wrote-not-my-king-on-blank-sign-17362896/ – terdon Sep 14 '22 at 15:36
  • 3
    @terdon if we're being pedantic, being arrested while holding a sign doesn't imply that the sign is a reason for arrest any more than being arrested while wearing a hat implies that the hat is a reason for the arrest. Pedantically speaking, "imply" does not mean "suggest"; it denotes a logical consequence. Further, it is in fact very likely that someone arrested at a protest might be arrested for some reason other than a sign in their possession; they could be arrested for breaching the peace, obstructing the highway, or any of countless other crimes relating to their actions. – phoog Sep 14 '22 at 15:37
  • 3
    OK just read the articles. – terdon Sep 14 '22 at 15:39
  • 1
    @terdon from reading the articles and the Public Order Act I can only conclude that the police need better training on the meaning of "threatening" and "abusive." But, back to the question, it's explicitly not about whether the arrests were legal. It's about laws governing how one acts toward the monarch. – phoog Sep 14 '22 at 15:49
  • 1
    @Barmar as I understand the question, it's "differential," which should probably just be "different," since the secondary statement of the question is "can I treat them exactly like any other ordinary citizen?" – phoog Sep 14 '22 at 15:51
  • 1
    @phoog I suppose. Deferential treatment is a specific kind of differential treatment, where you treat someone more respectfully. – Barmar Sep 14 '22 at 16:00
  • @Barmar I really meant "differential", as in "treating them differently" (from other people). Even not being a lawyer I'm pretty sure no law in UK would make mandatory treating them deferentially. – Megaptera novaeangliae Sep 15 '22 at 01:42
  • @Megapteranovaeangliae but the different treatment contemplated in the question is different because it is deferential. – phoog Sep 15 '22 at 11:39
  • @phoog I see your point: it can be, but not necessarily. For instance, in the case of the bus law (I thank thee for thine edit, by the way) I can vacate my seat while whining or flipping the bird... that's not very deferential. – Megaptera novaeangliae Sep 16 '22 at 02:01

1 Answers1

12

Lèse majesté is not prosecuted in the UK

While it is still technically illegal to advocate the abolition of the monarchy under the Treason Felony Act of 1848, more recent freedom of speech laws means that it is not possible to bring a successful prosecution. The only reason it hasn’t been abolished is that Parliament has better things to do and, since the government doesn’t bring charges under it, the courts can’t quash it.

So, the Monarch has the same legal protections as anyone else.

Dale M
  • 208,266
  • 17
  • 237
  • 460
  • 7
    I agree with your first two paragraphs, but the final one is almost surely not true. At a minimum the monarch has serious immunities from liability and diplomatic type privileges. – ohwilleke Sep 14 '22 at 10:13
  • 2
    @ohwilleke Possibly, yes. But that would apply to the monarch behaving incorrectly (such as insulting people), not the other way round. – PMF Sep 14 '22 at 10:48
  • 10
    @PMF While crimes for insulting or defaming monarchs are no longer enforced in the U.K., I am highly skeptical that all special protections for the monarch in the U.K. are gone. For example, I would expect that, at a minimum, there would be enhanced penalties for threatening the monarch as opposed to merely insulting the monarch. – ohwilleke Sep 14 '22 at 10:54
  • @ohwilleke Possible, indeed. And it is much more probabe you get caught doing so, because of the garrisons of bodyguards he has. – PMF Sep 14 '22 at 10:59
  • Note that if what this answer says is correct then under the principle of implied repeal there is actually no illegal action under the earlier Act (as opposed to it being something that remains illegal but can't be prosecuted). The earlier Act is instead read as if the words making the action illegal are no longer there. – JBentley Sep 14 '22 at 11:53
  • 3
    @ohwilleke: there are indeed. See, for example, Treason Act 1351. – Steve Melnikoff Sep 14 '22 at 12:26
  • 2
    It's not clear to me if the Treason Act 1351 prohibits doing anything to the monarch that would be legal if done to anyone else - it apparently protects the monarch's children in a special way, and other public officials. But while it prevents you from planning to kill the monarch, planning to kill anybody else is also a crime. – Stuart F Sep 14 '22 at 22:29
  • @ohwilleke probably, but these would fall into the same category of threading any government official. – Dale M Sep 15 '22 at 03:17