Discussion:
Last king of Nepal
(too old to reply)
c***@yahoo.com
2018-09-10 08:41:20 UTC
Permalink
My understanding is that it was the law in Nepal that the sovereign could not be prosecuted for any crime. The last king became king immediately upon the death of his father. The royal family members were killed by the Crown Prince while he was still the Crown Prince. If the Crown Prince has lived after he killed his father and become king, could he have been charged with murder?

I don't know if the whether the immunity of the king dated from the instant that he became sovereign.
Windemere
2018-09-11 20:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
My understanding is that it was the law in Nepal that the sovereign could not be prosecuted for any crime. The last king became king immediately upon the death of his father. The royal family members were killed by the Crown Prince while he was still the Crown Prince. If the Crown Prince has lived after he killed his father and become king, could he have been charged with murder?
I don't know if the whether the immunity of the king dated from the instant that he became sovereign.
I think that Crown Prince Dipendra remained alive on life support for several days after the massacre, and was actually proclaimed king. According to the Wikipedia account of the massacre, Gyanendra (the assassinated King's younger brother, and Crown Prince's uncle) initially stated that the killing was accidental. After Gyanendra had become King himself, following Dipendra's removal from life-support, he said that he'd made his initial statement about the massacre being an accident because Dipendra (the comatose newly-proclaimed King) was still alive on life-support, and it was indeed true that the King could not be prosecuted for any crime.
Loading...