Obscure law entitles Prince Charles to legally set off a nuclear bomb
Title of Duke of Cornwall excludes the prince from punishment from a number of laws including the Data Protection Act and the Wildlife and Countryside Act
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.An obscure law allows Prince Charles to legally set off nuclear bombs, according to a new study.
The title of Duke of Cornwall excludes the prince from punishment from a number of laws, including the Nuclear Explosions Act, the Data Protection Act and the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
The Prince of Wales also has better legal protection over his properties than other landowners.
Research conducted by John Kirkhope, a fellow at Plymouth University, looked into the Prince of Wales’s legal advantages.
According to The Sunday Times, Dr Kirkhope conducted the research for his paper “Is the Duchy free to break the law without criminal sanction?”
He examined government archives, met with officials and used the Freedom of Information Act to discover the information, which closely analyses Prince Charles’ role as the Duke of Cornwall.
Dr Kirkhope argues the Duchy was given immunity in 1913 because its lands were sometimes held by Britain’s monarch when there was no heir and the Royals should have no rights to its lands or properties now.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments