[FrankWilhoit]

This is how it is done! But it could only have been done with the King's permission. I wonder how he will spin it.

[rsynnott]

The thing about a lot of monarchical powers in the UK is that the monarch gets to keep them, provided of course that they only ever use them as prescribed by the government. As to what happens otherwise, well, Charles III won't want to emulate Charles I.

(I'm kind of amazed he chose that name, tbh; it's not particularly uncommon for British monarchs to rename themselves on taking the throne, and it has... baggage.)

[jfengel]

While Charles I was a disaster, Charles II is remembered as a patron of the arts and sciences. He restored the British navy, which went on to be the foundation of the Empire.

His personal life was rather too colorful, but a lot of people seem to think positively of that.

I doubt he's anybody's favorite monarch, but his well-respected mother seems to have thought the name was OK.

[markx2]

Official statements have been released that clearly state the King was not informed prior to the arrest.

[rich_sasha]

I can't for one minute imagine no one asked "if one were to suspect a member of royal family of [...] and arrested them, what would the King say?"

[gib444]

And there's one thing we've learnt recently is that royals do not lie

[asdefghyk]

I think there is a lot more of this story to play out ...

Still seems to be lots more to play out.

Example - Why all the supposed "...rich and powerful names ...." being seemingly protected ?

What do they have to hide ?

[foldr]

The Police don’t need the King’s permission to arrest members of the royal family.