The Royal Family

[naomi24]

I read yesterday that, if required to, Prince Phillip has categorically refused to give evidence at the Diana inquest. Are the Royal Family above the law?

[jenstar]

Well, the Queen is, since it's her law. Not sure about the consort, though.

[garner]

I would say they always have been!!!!

[stokeace]

if he is called to give evidence and hes got nothing to hide he should appear in court and say if he knows anything but we all knoe he wont do that.....

[joko]

well they weren't there - so what evidence are they expecting them to be able to give~?

[naomi24]

Joko, because people weren't at the scene of the crash it doesn't mean they might not know something the inquiry needs to consider.

[joko]

naomi - i realise that - and that was my question...what evidence are they expected to give...?

presumably they feel thye have nothing to contribute, so what is it the prosecution feels they can help with...?

given that it is officially considered an accident, i don't see how they can help - like i said they weren't there.

[naomi24]

The inquiry last year concluded the crash was an accident, but this is an inquest being held to determine actual cause of death. It's not a trial and no one is being prosecuted, so there is no 'prosecution'. I have no idea what relevant information members of the royal family might be able to provide, but the question was are the royal family above the law. In other words, is Prince Phillip entitled to refuse to give evidence, or should he, like the rest of us, be subject to the law of the land?

[joko]

like i said, they werent there - how can they have anything to add to the cause of death? they saw nothing, heard nothing etc

if a member of my family died in another country, 10 years ago, and i was at home at the time, and had had no calls or messages from them prior, i don't see what i could contribute to the case regarding the cause of their death, just because i am a relative, so i would also not wish to be called into court about it - because i have no evidence to give!

and especially if i had been over and over it many times already.

she died of injuries she received through a car crash - what can they add to that, that the doctors and coroners dont already know?

i take your point - that why should they appear to get special treatment, but i don't think they are - i don't think you are legally obliged to attend an inquest unless you are somehow involved in the case - merely being a relative does not make you involved

if perhaps it was believed they had some secret knowledge then i could understand calling them - but as far as we all know they don't

perhaps someone else can shed more light on this - i don't know the ins and out of this case so perhaps i am missing something that they have previously added.

[naomi24]

joko, there have been suggestions that the Royal Family have some secret knowledge, which is precisely why some of them may be asked to give evidence.

[casaespana]

I think as the law stands, anyone can refuse to give evidence at a Coroners Inquest, on the grounds that it may incriminate them, in any future criminal proceedings.

[naomi24]

Thanks for that, casaespana. The mind boggles!

[Loosehead]

Nothing to do with being "above the law", anyone can refuse to give evidence. They may be subpoenaed but that's another mechanism entirely.

[naomi24]

Loosehead, my thoughts exactly.

[kwicky]

With our obsession with the rewriting of history I'm surprised Henry VIII has not been put on trial for the state murder of his wives.

[Thicko2006]

I think you'll find kwicky that John Prescott has already apologized on behalf of Henry VIII.