Talk:Treason Act 1695
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Low | This article has been assessed as Low-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
"When in the 1990s a British newspaper attempted to have James Hewitt prosecuted under the Treason Act 1351 for an alleged affair with Diana, Princess of Wales, no charges were brought"
What was he being prosecuted for? I understanding that "violating" a princess constitutes treason under the 1351 Act, but I would interpret "violating" as meaning rape rather than a consensual affair. Is the legal definition of "violate" different? -86.136.27.212 00:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Violating did not necessarily mean rape. Anne Boleyn was executed as an accessory or accomplice to the man she consensually had sex with. Of course, the outcome of her trial was a foregone conclusion since the king required a conviciton (see her article), so it might be the case that in 1351 Parliament meant rape, but Boleyn's judges in 1536 had to stretch the meaning of "violate" to include consensual sex to give the king what he wanted. Whether the courts would continue to apply such a wide definition of the word in a modern trial remains to be seen, since Hewitt's case never got to court. Richard75 00:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
