Something is definitely going on in Saudi Arabia:
Saudi authorities arrested at least 11 princes, several current ministers and dozens of former ministers in a sweeping move reportedly designed to consolidate power for the son of King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud. According to media reports citing Saudi-owned television network Al Arabiya, an anti-corruption committee ordered the arrests hours after King Salman directed the creation of the committee, headed by his favorite son and adviser, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
The committee was established by the royal decree, The Associated Press reports, "due to the propensity of some people for abuse, putting their personal interest above public interest, and stealing public funds." Billionaire investor Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is among those detained, The Wall Street Journal reports. Alwaleed holds stakes in some of the world's major companies, including Apple and Twitter.
Remember Prince Alwaleed? Bitcoin could outlive him.
It's unclear what those arrested are accused of doing, but Al-Arabiya reported that new investigations into the 2009 Jeddah floods and 2012 MERS virus outbreak have been launched.
Separately, the heads of the Saudi National Guard and Saudi Royal Navy have also been replaced.
BBC notes that the reform faction is in control here:
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says Prince Mohammed is moving to consolidate his growing power while spearheading a reform programme. [...] Prince Mohammed recently said the return of "moderate Islam" was key to his plans to modernise Saudi Arabia. Addressing an economic conference in Riyadh, he vowed to "eradicate the remnants of extremism very soon". Last year, Prince Mohammed unveiled a wide-ranging plan to bring social and economic change to the oil-dependent kingdom.
Some Soylentils have been skeptical of Saudi Arabia's recent moves towards liberalization (some listed below). Has this apparent purge of internal political opposition changed your mind about the viability of these reforms?
Also at NYT and Recode, which notes that the arrest of Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is a potential setback for Saudi Arabia's tech ambitions (Alwaleed has had stakes in Apple, Twitter, and Lyft).
Previously: SoftBank May Sell 25% of ARM to Vision Fund; Chairman Meets With Saudi King
Saudi Arabia, UAE to Donate to Women Entrepreneurs Fund
Saudi Arabia to Lift Ban on Online VoIP and Video Calling Services
Saudi Arabia Will Lift Ban on Women Drivers Next Year
Saudi Arabia Planning $500 Billion Megacity and Business Zone
Robot Granted "Citizenship" in Saudi Arabia, Sparking Backlash
Saudi Arabia Announced Plans to Extract Uranium for Domestic Nuclear Power Program
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday November 08 2017, @04:47AM
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#Other_immunities [wikipedia.org]
Amongst other references, there's also http://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/thequeen/is-the-queen-really-above-the-law-1625 [royalcentral.co.uk] which includes this quote from the official Monarchy website,
You seem to be confusing being above the law and acting as you're above the law. And as you say, the Queens position comes from the law as legislated by Parliament and has since the Tudor times and especially after the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
How the pre-conquest Kings became King seems to be somewhat lost to history as various 19th century historians elevated the rules that were followed to add even more legitimacy to Parliaments supremacy.
William the Conqueror did rule as a absolute monarch along with his descendants though of course they needed the support of the Barony. By Henry VII Parliament had enough power that Henry had to have them back date his accession to the Crown by a day so he could prosecute his rivals as being treasonous but he did become King by basically defeating the King in battle and claiming the Crown and having the power to bully Parliament in to doing what he wanted. His son Henry the 8th also had a lot of power but still had to get Parliament to agree to the execution of some wives and the succession became a matter of legislation, which was why Lady Jane was executed even though Edward had declared her his successor. Then of course the Stuarts, who really did believe in the divine right of kings and suffered for it.