[dijit]

Same as passports; they're issued in her name, thus she doesn't need one.

It's also true that she cannot be prosecuted for any crime except that of treason against the British people, but that's contestable. Since crimes are prosecuted in her name.

[mhh__]

"Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary."

[manquer]

A passport is document used by other countries, so that really depends on other countries humoring U.K.

She perhaps didn't need one because other countries didn't insist on it when traveling, not because it is issued in her name.

Also the office of Her Majesty is distinct(and all other titles) from the person the queen herself. Monarchs are quite used to that idea, and that is how they award themselves other titles for example.

Same reason why royal name is assumed on ascension and does not have be birth name or her actual birthday is not when royal birthday is celebrated and myriad other things like that .

[SEMW]

Charles I tried that argument, it didn't go well for him.

[dijit]

Sure, but that was overturned 4 years later and caused many people to die.

I wouldn't assume anyone to be as bold as Mr Cromwell was.

[confidantlake]

Ah she is legally above the law. Not that I am criticizing the monarchy. Just curiously pointing it out.

[SEMW]

The monarch is theoretically above the law, yes.

But theory is not practice. In practice, if King Charles shivved someone in Trafalgar Square tomorrow, crowing about how he can't be prosecuted, what would happen would probably be something like:

- parliament would try to pass a law saying that we were a republic now (or that harry becomes king or whatever)

- charles would refuse royal assent

- parliament would amend the bill to remove the requirement for royal assent for primary legislation and then claim they'd pass it using itself

- people would point out that this is clearly invalid and self-referential

- it would go to the UK supreme court, who would twist themselves into knots to conclude that it's actually fine, because they know as well as anyone else that that's the only conclusion that wouldn't result in riots and the collapse of the state as a liberal democracy

- all the institutions who matter would agree that we're a republic now

[confidantlake]

You are taking an extreme example. How about if he sexually assaulted an underage girl a la prince Andrew and denied it happened? The same thing that happened to Prince Andrew would happen, ie nothing. The royalty is above the law unless they do something unbelievably stupidly obviously bad and admit it. And it that case they would just claim that one particular royal is crazy and give the power to the next in line.