9

An issue that somehow got lost in the recent Meghan and Harry allegations is the claim that Meghan had to give up her driver's license and keys. The only reference to legality of this action I found was this article in which several Royal family experts express doubt that The Crown would actually deny her the possessions. However could the Queen act in this manner since she isn't legally accountable?

Probably
  • 161
  • 1
  • 9

4 Answers4

14

She never said that

She said:

When I joined that family, that was the last time, until we came here, that I saw my passport, my driver's licence, my keys. All that gets turned over

With respect to my adult children and their passports, the same is true in my house. I ask them for their passports when they aren’t needed, they give them to me, I store them in a safe place and I give them back to them when they need them. That’s just a sensible precaution against them being lost and in no way illegal.

Now if I took their passports without permission and withheld them when they wanted them, that would be illegal as it would for anyone else including the Queen (who, I’m sure, had absolutely nothing to do with it - that’s the job of the Keeper of the Royal Passports or some such).

Similarly, if you came to my house and I offered to take your coat and you gave it to me and I gave it back when you left, that would be perfectly legal.

When I pull up in my car, I put my keys in a bowl in the laundry (unless I forget and then I can’t find them and it’s really annoying). I would prefer instead to have an employee jump into the car, park it and put the keys in their bowl so that when I want the car latter, it’s their job to remember where they left the keys. But I can’t afford that.

Dale M
  • 237,717
  • 18
  • 273
  • 546
14

The reigning monarch has significantly more authority over members of the royal family, at least those members in a reasonably foreseeable line of succession, than ordinary parents have over their children. The most intrusive of these is the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, although that was toned down in 2015:

The Royal Marriages Act 1772 was an act of the Parliament of Great Britain which prescribed the conditions under which members of the British royal family could contract a valid marriage, in order to guard against marriages that could diminish the status of the royal house. The right of veto vested in the sovereign by this act provoked severe adverse criticism at the time of its passage.

It was repealed as a result of the 2011 Perth Agreement, which came into force on 26 March 2015. Under the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, the first six people in the line of succession need permission to marry if they and their descendants are to remain in the line of succession.

Particularly at the level of royalty in the British Commonwealth, the line between reliably honored custom and binding law gets very fuzzy.

The expectations of titled aristocrats in the British system, let alone members of the Royal family or senior members of the Royal family, that are normally described in the nature of rules of etiquette are very prescriptive and restrictive.

I suspect that some of the tensions and frustration of the situation have arisen from a failure of the royal family (with Harry, of course, being most responsible as her husband, but perhaps least qualified to do so having never known anything else) to effectively communicate the realities of life in the royal family. It is one thing to jump to the bottom line realities of royal life, and quite another to provide context for the unfamiliar practices of royal life (which she surely encountered even if the media has gotten some specific details wrong) in a way that makes sense to Meghan and in a way that shows her respect for her individual autonomy and intelligence. The wife of someone sixth in the line of succession to the throne in a love match made by someone in their 30s who grew up in the U.S., has different expectations and different "common sense" instincts about who life works, than a princess from a more typical background for a royal bride. Practices that seem like common sense for someone who has lived in and around high aristocracy all of their lives and/or married without ever having had much experience as an autonomous non-aristocratic adult could come across as very threatening if not understood in the way they are understood by people familiar with that life. Many ordinary people have a hard time getting used to taking the role of a beneficiary of a substantial trust fund, and this rises to a whole new level of unfamiliar.

From time to time, some individual holding a hereditary title in this system, or marrying into the family, is sufficiently a "force of nature" to defy these rules, either with etiquette styled consequences (e.g. not being invited to a formal occasion where it would be customary to do so), or with impunity. Other times, the consequences for breaching these norms are more grave (e.g. requiring that someone abdicate a place in the line of succession).

One would have to be closer to situation than an American like me who pays passing attention to it, to realistically judge what kind of consequence is likely to flow from what kind of disregard for norms and customs and expectations of the reigning monarch. Enforcement would be a delicate matter akin to high level international diplomatic negotiations, if it is to be done in a manner that avoids a constitutional crisis.

ohwilleke
  • 257,510
  • 16
  • 506
  • 896
4

However could the Queen act in this manner since she isn't legally accountable?

In theory yes, but a swift plausibility check shows that this is unlikely the case since there are many reports that senior Royals (other than the Queen) do (or had) drivers licenses.

However, the assumption that because the Queen does not require a driver's Licence or a Passport does not lead to the conclusion that she is allowed to take them away from others. Which means anyone doing so on her behalf, would be accountable by the law.

Double checking facts should be the standard procedure, not only in law and history, but also in Journalism.

That this was not done in this case (either by the original report or those repeating the original) seems apparent, since a simple Google search result swiftly leads to doubts about the truthfulness of such a claim.

2019-02-09: Prince Philip, 97, gives up driving licence - BBC News
The Duke of Edinburgh is to voluntarily give up his driving licence, Buckingham Palace has said.

It comes after the 97-year-old duke apologised over a car crash near the Sandringham estate in Norfolk, in which his Land Rover Freelander landed on its side after a collision with a Kia.

Two days later Norfolk Police gave him "suitable words of advice" after he was pictured driving without a seat belt.

Buckingham Palace said that he surrendered his licence on Saturday.
...
In 2016, the duke famously drove the Obamas when the then US president and First Lady visited Windsor.

2019-10-29: Express.co.uk
Royal news: The surprising achievement Prince Harry and Prince William both share
THE QUEEN is the only person in the UK who is permitted to drive without a licence, which means the rest of the royal family has been required to undertake the nerve-racking experience of a driving test like most other British 17-year-olds.

The Queen is entitled to certain benefits when it comes to cars and driving. But these do not extend to her family. One key exemption is that the Queen is not required to hold a driving licence to drive, but everyone else in her family is. But why is driving so important to Prince Harry and Prince William?

The royal prince had taken around 20 lessons and passed the test on the first time.

The successful test occurred just 24 hours after a photocall in which he displayed his driving skills.
...
The teenage prince had applied for the practical driving test after he sat his theory examination just one day after his birthday.

The young prince was then able to drive a VW Golf which had been gifted to him as a birthday present from Prince Charles. ...
William’s younger brother Harry also passed his test on the first time.

It is understood that the 17-year-old also had around 20 lessons, but unlike his eager brother, he took 15 weeks to pass his test on New Year’s Eve in 2001.
...
For the royals, driving is seen as a means by which they can add a little normalcy into their lives.

Prince Harry was even seen trying to teach his then-fiancee Meghan Markle how to drive a manual car on the left-hand side of the road, seeing as she was accustomed to driving automatic cars on the right.

Royal news:
Prince Harry taught his fiancee Meghan how to drive in the UK
(Image: GETTY)

Sources:

Mark Johnson
  • 5,976
  • 1
  • 17
  • 32
3

We're reading too much into Meghan's rather rambling discourse on what she likes to present as a loss of empowerment. Members of the Royal family can and do drive themselves. They probably don't carry house keys to the various residences, there is always staff to open the door for them. (I doubt POTUS has a key to the White House.)

Laurence
  • 782
  • 1
  • 4
  • 10