header-logo header-logo

24 February 2023 / Michael L Nash
Issue: 8014 / Categories: Features , Constitutional law , Media
printer mail-detail

A metwand for modern monarchy

112054
Equality before the law for all? Michael L Nash navigates the complexity of cases involving royal litigants

In 1923, a century ago, a case came before the Old Bailey in London regarding the murder of an Egyptian aristocrat in the Savoy Hotel. It sounds like something out of Agatha Christie, but in fact it caused anxious ripples in royal circles and beyond, for the person accused of the murder, one Marguerite Al-Fahmy (née Alibert), had been the mistress of the then Prince of Wales, later King Edward VIII and subsequently Duke of Windsor.

He had then been a soldier in Paris in 1917 and 1918. There were compromising letters. It became necessary, in the eyes of the court and the government, for his early liaison with Marguerite to be hushed up. This was conveyed to the judges who were hearing the case. Special treatment being accorded to royal persons came sharply into focus.

But this was not new. In 1911, in the case of R v Mylius, the king,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll