Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
King can do no wrong
English answer:
Roi est au-dessus des lois
Added to glossary by
Yolanda Broad
Aug 6, 2003 16:44
20 yrs ago
English term
Raj
see sentence
Non-PRO
English
Art/Literary
Please suggest an enquivalent idiom for the following expression:
King can do no wrong.
Explanation in English please.
King can do no wrong.
Explanation in English please.
Responses
+2
3 mins
Selected
maxim
The "King Can Do No Wrong!" maxim evolved from the concept that Kings and their counterpart "judges" believe they are infallible. The "King Can Do No Wrong!" maxim translates into American Courts as an oppressive and prejudicial lawyering monopoly. Judges as "Judicial activists" perpetuate a court system infinitely more tyrannical and oppressive that the King of England in 1776. Judicial decisions are replete with references to the old common law of England - the same law that caused the American Revolution.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-08-06 17:04:33 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Le Roi est au-dessus des lois
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-08-06 17:04:33 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Le Roi est au-dessus des lois
Reference:
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thank you very much!"
+3
9 mins
Pierre POUSSIN
France
France
France
Fast and accurate.
Native in: French (Variant: Standard-France) 
Works in: English to French, French to English, Latin to French, and 2 more.
Un roi n'a jamais tort!
ou "Le seigneur (le maître, le patron) a toujours raison"
Since he has been intronized by God, a King can do no wrong. His will is law!
Since he has been intronized by God, a King can do no wrong. His will is law!
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
cjohnstone
30 mins
|
|
Merci!
|
|
| agree |
Pascale Dahan
: with 'a toujours raison'
3 hrs
|
|
Merci! Mais c'est la Reine, comme toute femme qui a toujours raison!!;-)
|
|
| agree |
DGK T-I
: if french phrase needed(if accidentally misposted)then'Un roi n'a jamais tort!'(BUTwrong to read it as'the king's will is law'(too dicatorial for Eng.meaning meant)but'king is never in the wrong'meanings alright:-)NOT'Le seigneur a toujours raison'though
3 days 14 hrs
|
|
Da!Spassiba...But it is a French equivalent that was asked! And, in France we have not the English "precautions"!
|
+2
41 mins
cjohnstone
France
France
Native in English
&
English
France
Experience and feel
Native in: French , English (Variant: British)
Works in: English to French, French to English
la raison du roi est toujours la plus forte, prime toujours
NA
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Pierre POUSSIN
42 mins
|
|
sweet, thks
|
|
| agree |
Sylvain Leray
: est toujours la plus forte" is very fine
1 hr
|
|
sweet thks
|
+1
3 hrs
The Crown is above the law (or where'the crown'is not'the executive'is above...)utive isabove above
In modern times, this term relates to the constitutional law question of 'Crown immunity' (in the UK and other Commonwealth monarchies) or 'executive immunity' in all countries - the idea that those that govern (the executive, in some countries called 'the crown' because they theoretically govern in the name of the King).
To a greater or lesser degree the law allows the executive immunity from laws which would normally apply to private individuals and companies - in restricted circumstances and depending on the law of the country concerned.
In the Britain and other constitutional monarchies in the Commonwealth the executive government and judicial system is carried out in the name of the Crown (the King).This does not mean the system is oppressive or dictatorial, quite the contrary - it is just constitutional theory which has evolved from medieval times when these functions were carried out personally by the King - now the actual decisions and power lie with the executive goverment (prime minister & other cabinet ministers, etc), but in constitutional theory their power is that of 'the crown' and the King (or Queen) is said to be 'acting on the advice of their ministers' - although (within the law) they are deciding (not her).
The axiom 'the king can do no wrong' is however an ancient one, and historically is entertwined in the argument over the balance that there shpuld be between executive power (in England & Britain 'the Crown') and the rights of the citizen.
One of the issues of the English Civil war of the 1600's was the pronouncement that "be he so high [ie: however powerful anyone is], the law is above him", ie: the law should apply equally to everyone, including the executive. "The King can do no wrong" is the opposite of this - saying that the law that applies to the public, does not apply to the executive.
(The American Revolution or American War of Independence was not an overturning of the English Common law, but from the Whig perspective an assertion of some of the principles of the Common law relating to individual rights, and which at that time individuals were not always able to attain in England - sometimes not in America or anywhere either, alas)
'The King can do no wrong' can (in a monarchy) apply to the much more limited situation of the King or Queen as an individual person - rather than the executive government exercizing power (theoretically in the King's name). Here it would mean that, because the courts are the king's courts (in Britain the judges are, theoretically the Queen's judges, and public prosecutions brought in the name of the Crown), it may be constitutionally impossible in some circumatances to require the King or Queen to come before a (theoretically, their own) court of law, or be (personally) prosecuted - that sort of idea.
In most circumatances the wider constitutional idea of executive government immunity from normal laws, encapsulated by the phrase 'the king can do no wrong' is more important - eg: if a worker is injured working in a goverment military shipyard, will they be able to take the goverment department ot court for negligence causing the accident, as they would a civilian employer - sometimes (this is just an imaginary example, not based on fact) - if the answer is 'No' because of executive immunity from prosecution, it could be said in that situation, 'the king can do no wrong'.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs 16 mins (2003-08-06 20:01:11 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
typo.error in title :-)
should be:
\"The Crown is above the law (or where\'the crown\'is not\'the executive\', then \'the executive is above the law\'
It is not unusual for executive goverment in any modern country to be granted a degree of immunity - in specific circumstances, from specific laws - which would apply to private citizens or companies. How far the law should allow this is an important constitutional question - in limited circumstances it is necessary so that goverments can carry out their (special) functions on behalf of the public, but the danger is loss of rights of members of the same public. This issue applies just as much in the USA as the United Kingdom or elsewhere, whether the executive is called \'the Crown\' or something else.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs 22 mins (2003-08-06 20:06:46 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry - typo.error para 1.
\"the idea that those that govern (the executive, in some countries called \'the crown\' because they theoretically govern in the name of the King) - should not be subject to laws which apply to private citizens & companies (in modern times, certain laws in certain circumstances)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs 28 mins (2003-08-06 20:12:27 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
(The ancient principle of justice, enshrined I believe in Magna Carta (or somewhere like that) is \"Let right be done!\" and in all systems, let us hope that that is ultimately attained :-))
Giuli
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs 37 mins (2003-08-06 20:21:56 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Historically, it has it\'s roots in the \'devine right of Kings\' or medieval belief that kings were appointed by God to rule for the benefit of their subjects (hopefully), and therefore none of their decisions or actions could be challenged legally.
In both the historic and modern context \'the King is above the law\' (or in a republic, the executive is above the law) is appropriate.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs 41 mins (2003-08-06 20:26:11 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
(Si vous desirez les mots en Francaise, je regret mon Francaise n\'est pas tres bien :-)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs 51 mins (2003-08-06 20:35:24 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
(but question in English monolingual?)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 14 hrs 32 mins (2003-08-07 07:16:58 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Reference:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_501527.html?menu=news.l...
\"Ananova - Judgment paves way for armed forces compensation claims
The High Court has paved the way for compensation claims by members of the armed forces who have previously been blocked from suing the government for death or injury. ... War, legal proceedings could not be brought against the Crown as of right on the basis that \"the King can do no wrong\". ...
\"The judge said that until the end of the Second World War, legal proceedings could not be brought against the Crown as of right on the basis that \"the King can do no wrong\".
That immunity of action was brought to an end in 1947 with the Crown Proceedings Act. But members of the armed forces were treated exceptionally.\" [ie: immunity continued in specific circumstances]
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 14 hrs 47 mins (2003-08-07 07:31:36 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
the maxim doesn\'t mean that the executive or judiciary are infallible(never wrong),but that their decisions/actions can\'t be challenged by legal action/especially compensation/(redress) can\'t be claimed for\'wrongs\'(injuries,injustice)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 hrs 10 mins (2003-08-07 09:54:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
in the English, British, Commonwealth & US legal tradition, the maxim doesn\'t mean \'the king\'s word is law\' or (colloquial modern English) \'anything the kings says, goes\' (typo.error above - \'divine\')
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 18 hrs 55 mins (2003-08-07 11:40:06 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
(No offence intended to Isabil, but the article used as a ref. in her answer is an appallingly slanted and inaccurate description of the English Common law (history or present) and the causes of the American war.)
To a greater or lesser degree the law allows the executive immunity from laws which would normally apply to private individuals and companies - in restricted circumstances and depending on the law of the country concerned.
In the Britain and other constitutional monarchies in the Commonwealth the executive government and judicial system is carried out in the name of the Crown (the King).This does not mean the system is oppressive or dictatorial, quite the contrary - it is just constitutional theory which has evolved from medieval times when these functions were carried out personally by the King - now the actual decisions and power lie with the executive goverment (prime minister & other cabinet ministers, etc), but in constitutional theory their power is that of 'the crown' and the King (or Queen) is said to be 'acting on the advice of their ministers' - although (within the law) they are deciding (not her).
The axiom 'the king can do no wrong' is however an ancient one, and historically is entertwined in the argument over the balance that there shpuld be between executive power (in England & Britain 'the Crown') and the rights of the citizen.
One of the issues of the English Civil war of the 1600's was the pronouncement that "be he so high [ie: however powerful anyone is], the law is above him", ie: the law should apply equally to everyone, including the executive. "The King can do no wrong" is the opposite of this - saying that the law that applies to the public, does not apply to the executive.
(The American Revolution or American War of Independence was not an overturning of the English Common law, but from the Whig perspective an assertion of some of the principles of the Common law relating to individual rights, and which at that time individuals were not always able to attain in England - sometimes not in America or anywhere either, alas)
'The King can do no wrong' can (in a monarchy) apply to the much more limited situation of the King or Queen as an individual person - rather than the executive government exercizing power (theoretically in the King's name). Here it would mean that, because the courts are the king's courts (in Britain the judges are, theoretically the Queen's judges, and public prosecutions brought in the name of the Crown), it may be constitutionally impossible in some circumatances to require the King or Queen to come before a (theoretically, their own) court of law, or be (personally) prosecuted - that sort of idea.
In most circumatances the wider constitutional idea of executive government immunity from normal laws, encapsulated by the phrase 'the king can do no wrong' is more important - eg: if a worker is injured working in a goverment military shipyard, will they be able to take the goverment department ot court for negligence causing the accident, as they would a civilian employer - sometimes (this is just an imaginary example, not based on fact) - if the answer is 'No' because of executive immunity from prosecution, it could be said in that situation, 'the king can do no wrong'.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs 16 mins (2003-08-06 20:01:11 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
typo.error in title :-)
should be:
\"The Crown is above the law (or where\'the crown\'is not\'the executive\', then \'the executive is above the law\'
It is not unusual for executive goverment in any modern country to be granted a degree of immunity - in specific circumstances, from specific laws - which would apply to private citizens or companies. How far the law should allow this is an important constitutional question - in limited circumstances it is necessary so that goverments can carry out their (special) functions on behalf of the public, but the danger is loss of rights of members of the same public. This issue applies just as much in the USA as the United Kingdom or elsewhere, whether the executive is called \'the Crown\' or something else.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs 22 mins (2003-08-06 20:06:46 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry - typo.error para 1.
\"the idea that those that govern (the executive, in some countries called \'the crown\' because they theoretically govern in the name of the King) - should not be subject to laws which apply to private citizens & companies (in modern times, certain laws in certain circumstances)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs 28 mins (2003-08-06 20:12:27 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
(The ancient principle of justice, enshrined I believe in Magna Carta (or somewhere like that) is \"Let right be done!\" and in all systems, let us hope that that is ultimately attained :-))
Giuli
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs 37 mins (2003-08-06 20:21:56 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Historically, it has it\'s roots in the \'devine right of Kings\' or medieval belief that kings were appointed by God to rule for the benefit of their subjects (hopefully), and therefore none of their decisions or actions could be challenged legally.
In both the historic and modern context \'the King is above the law\' (or in a republic, the executive is above the law) is appropriate.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs 41 mins (2003-08-06 20:26:11 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
(Si vous desirez les mots en Francaise, je regret mon Francaise n\'est pas tres bien :-)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs 51 mins (2003-08-06 20:35:24 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
(but question in English monolingual?)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 14 hrs 32 mins (2003-08-07 07:16:58 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Reference:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_501527.html?menu=news.l...
\"Ananova - Judgment paves way for armed forces compensation claims
The High Court has paved the way for compensation claims by members of the armed forces who have previously been blocked from suing the government for death or injury. ... War, legal proceedings could not be brought against the Crown as of right on the basis that \"the King can do no wrong\". ...
\"The judge said that until the end of the Second World War, legal proceedings could not be brought against the Crown as of right on the basis that \"the King can do no wrong\".
That immunity of action was brought to an end in 1947 with the Crown Proceedings Act. But members of the armed forces were treated exceptionally.\" [ie: immunity continued in specific circumstances]
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 14 hrs 47 mins (2003-08-07 07:31:36 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
the maxim doesn\'t mean that the executive or judiciary are infallible(never wrong),but that their decisions/actions can\'t be challenged by legal action/especially compensation/(redress) can\'t be claimed for\'wrongs\'(injuries,injustice)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 hrs 10 mins (2003-08-07 09:54:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
in the English, British, Commonwealth & US legal tradition, the maxim doesn\'t mean \'the king\'s word is law\' or (colloquial modern English) \'anything the kings says, goes\' (typo.error above - \'divine\')
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 18 hrs 55 mins (2003-08-07 11:40:06 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
(No offence intended to Isabil, but the article used as a ref. in her answer is an appallingly slanted and inaccurate description of the English Common law (history or present) and the causes of the American war.)
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
cjohnstone
: why make it so complicated, though nothing wrong in what you say
2 hrs
|
|
If the asker wants a simple phrase, Raj has that at the beginning. The rest discuddes the meanings the old legal maxim catchphrase has in different situations,old or new -not told what asker wants to know for-thanks for 'nothing wrong' :-)
|
|
| agree |
Syeda Tanbira Zaman
13 hrs
|
|
Thank you Syeda :-)
|
1 day 3 hrs
The king is above the law
In support of my explaination above, it may also be of interest to read answer to the Latin > English question about what this phrase means (and if the asker would like it in Latin).
It says much the same as I do above.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 3 hrs 26 mins (2003-08-07 20:10:50 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry, the internet reference in red, below is wrong - this one leads to the Latin>English answer (with thanks to Ulmit Alt. the answerer)
http://www.proz.com/?sp=h&id=101818&keyword=the king can do ...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 3 hrs 43 mins (2003-08-07 20:27:38 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
the answerer says (as I do:) \"It is considered as the idea at the origin of sovereign and governmental immunity. Mostly a medieval English concept. In a general sense, it means the King (or Crown) can never be claimed to have something legally wrong.\" (although government immunity is not just a medieval concept).
This is different (less extreme) than the idea of the king(goverment, etc) being all powerful and autocratic (so it does NOT mean \'the king\'s word is law\', \'the kings will always prevails\', or \'what the king says, goes - Okay\').
It means something more like: \'there is nothing legally you can do about the goverment\'s action\' or \'there is nothing legally you can do about the king\'s action\' (usually just in certain circumstances, in modern times).
The \'wrong\' refers to injustices or injuries which the goverment has caused someone, which (because of the concept we are talking about) the law denies them \"seeking redress\" or \"seeking a remedy\" (claiming compensation, putting it right, etc throught the legal system)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 3 hrs 44 mins (2003-08-07 20:28:19 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry, the internet reference in red, below is wrong - this one leads to the Latin>English answer (with thanks to Ulmit Alt. the answerer)
http://www.proz.com/?sp=h&id=101818&keyword=the king can do ...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 14 hrs 58 mins (2003-08-08 07:42:13 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Although I say an extreme \'king rules,okay\' meaning to the maxim is wrong, if Raj.needs a French idiomatic phrase (even though it was posted for Eng.answers:-) he should happily use one of the French phrases offered by other answerers here - their writers are very skillful and they are nice phrases. If you need advice about making sure the French meaning isn\'t confused with more extreme meanings (which they might be from their English descriptions, but I\'m not qualified to say), they may be happy to help.
I\'m sorry I didn\'t write all this in fewer words :-(
Giuli
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days 14 hrs 21 mins (2003-08-10 07:05:19 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry, the internet reference in red, below is wrong - this one leads to the Latin>English answer (with thanks to Ulmit Alt. the answerer)
http://www.proz.com/?sp=h&id=101818&keyword=the king can do ...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 days (2003-08-11 13:22:06 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
In answer to Irat\'s reply (to my comment on Irat\'s answer, above):
Raj needs to be sure how he wants to use the answer. If he needs an English answer about what the maxim means, then as I have described. If he needs an equivalent French idiom, does he want a French idiom that has the meaning that the English maxim has when it is used in England (see my comment to Irat), or just a literal translation (withuout worryimg about what it means). The phrase does have a special significance in the history of the English speaking peoples, and this is likely to be the point of it being used.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 days (2003-08-11 13:30:50 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I believe Irat\'s \"Un roi n\'a jamais tort!\" covers both meanings, and so is acceptable if a French meaning is needed :-)
It says much the same as I do above.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 3 hrs 26 mins (2003-08-07 20:10:50 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry, the internet reference in red, below is wrong - this one leads to the Latin>English answer (with thanks to Ulmit Alt. the answerer)
http://www.proz.com/?sp=h&id=101818&keyword=the king can do ...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 3 hrs 43 mins (2003-08-07 20:27:38 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
the answerer says (as I do:) \"It is considered as the idea at the origin of sovereign and governmental immunity. Mostly a medieval English concept. In a general sense, it means the King (or Crown) can never be claimed to have something legally wrong.\" (although government immunity is not just a medieval concept).
This is different (less extreme) than the idea of the king(goverment, etc) being all powerful and autocratic (so it does NOT mean \'the king\'s word is law\', \'the kings will always prevails\', or \'what the king says, goes - Okay\').
It means something more like: \'there is nothing legally you can do about the goverment\'s action\' or \'there is nothing legally you can do about the king\'s action\' (usually just in certain circumstances, in modern times).
The \'wrong\' refers to injustices or injuries which the goverment has caused someone, which (because of the concept we are talking about) the law denies them \"seeking redress\" or \"seeking a remedy\" (claiming compensation, putting it right, etc throught the legal system)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 3 hrs 44 mins (2003-08-07 20:28:19 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry, the internet reference in red, below is wrong - this one leads to the Latin>English answer (with thanks to Ulmit Alt. the answerer)
http://www.proz.com/?sp=h&id=101818&keyword=the king can do ...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 14 hrs 58 mins (2003-08-08 07:42:13 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Although I say an extreme \'king rules,okay\' meaning to the maxim is wrong, if Raj.needs a French idiomatic phrase (even though it was posted for Eng.answers:-) he should happily use one of the French phrases offered by other answerers here - their writers are very skillful and they are nice phrases. If you need advice about making sure the French meaning isn\'t confused with more extreme meanings (which they might be from their English descriptions, but I\'m not qualified to say), they may be happy to help.
I\'m sorry I didn\'t write all this in fewer words :-(
Giuli
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days 14 hrs 21 mins (2003-08-10 07:05:19 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry, the internet reference in red, below is wrong - this one leads to the Latin>English answer (with thanks to Ulmit Alt. the answerer)
http://www.proz.com/?sp=h&id=101818&keyword=the king can do ...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 days (2003-08-11 13:22:06 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
In answer to Irat\'s reply (to my comment on Irat\'s answer, above):
Raj needs to be sure how he wants to use the answer. If he needs an English answer about what the maxim means, then as I have described. If he needs an equivalent French idiom, does he want a French idiom that has the meaning that the English maxim has when it is used in England (see my comment to Irat), or just a literal translation (withuout worryimg about what it means). The phrase does have a special significance in the history of the English speaking peoples, and this is likely to be the point of it being used.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 days (2003-08-11 13:30:50 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I believe Irat\'s \"Un roi n\'a jamais tort!\" covers both meanings, and so is acceptable if a French meaning is needed :-)
Something went wrong...