Treason
Well, dur… Trying to destroy the country and its people would, in most people’s books, count as treason, I’d imagine. But then again, it’s a fairly tricky crime these days.
Until 1998, the penalty for treason was death. Under the Treason Act of 1351, anyone who “do violate the king’s companion, or the king’s eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the king’s eldest son” is committing treason. So James Hewitt and Will Carling, plus whoever else got lucky with her, should have been burned at the stake (the required punishment) for shagging Princess Di.
It was also, until 1998, treason to kill one of the Queen’s swans – and the majority of these vicious, hissing white brutes in the country technically belong to Her Majesty thanks to a statute dating from 1186 (reaffirmed by the Act of Swans of 1482 and the Wild Creatures and Forest Law Act of 1971). Only the Dyers’ Company and Vintners’ Company of the City of London have any other claim to ownership, and this only to specific birds on the River Thames. So, a swan attacks your dog on a gentle stroll by the river, you hit it with a stick and it dies, you should technically have been executed.
Oh, and speaking of animals, thanks to an Act from the reign of George I, if your faithful mutt shags one of the Queen’s corgis, technically you are again committing treason, and the “severest Penaltys will be suffered by any commoner who doth permit his animal to have carnal knowledge of a pet of the Royal House.”
More amusingly – and perhaps appropriately for our current situation – in 1663 a group of apprentices stood trial at the Old Bailey for high treason. For attempting to knock down a brothel. Over to Chief Justice Sir John Kelynge, presiding (the same man who sent John Bunyan down for twelve years for preaching without a license):
“The prisoners are indicted for levying war against the King. By ‘levying war’ is not only meant when a body is gathered together as an army, but if a company of people will go about any public reformation, this is high treason. These people do pretend their design was against brothels; now for men to go about to pull down brothels, with a captain and an ensign, and weapons – if this thing is to be endured, who is safe?”
There was a repeat performance during the reign of Queen Anne, when some High Church rioters demolished a brothel. At their trial, Chief Justice Sir Thomas Parker, presiding, stated that
“A brothel is a nuisance and may be punished as such, and being a particular nuisance to anyone, if he enters to abate it may only be guilty of a riot; but if he will presume to pull down all brothels, he has taken the Queen’s right out of her hand, he has committed high treason, by compassing her death, and levying war against her in her realm.”
In both cases, those responsible were sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered, although the latter group were later reprieved and pardoned.
Now call me stupid, but if treason can apply to killing an upleasant (if pretty) bird, letting Fido have some fun with a corgi, shagging the Princess of Wales, or pulling down a whore house, I’m pretty damn certain it can be applied to blowing or planning to blow the living fuck out of a bunch of commuters.
But then again, I’m no lawyer…
Was it treason for Toni to take us into an illegal war against Serbia on behalf of a bunch of Muslim terrorists in Kosovo?
Can’t we say that the terrorist suspects tried to have sex with swans as part of their foul plot? I’m just thinking that we can reclassify them as bestiality fundamentalists rather than Islamic ones, it’ll make the whole clash-of-civilisations thing a whole lot easier to manage.
“…should have been burned at the stake (the required punishment) for shagging Princess Di.”
“…those responsible were sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered….”
Well which was it? I thought burning at the stake was for witches and suchlike.
Kevin – different methods of execution for different types of treason, though some were left to the discretion of the judge. Burning at the stake was specified for shagging the wrong royals, I gather.
Guy Fawkes, if I recall, also had his genitals torn off one by one and burned in front of his face before he was hanged, had his still-beaing heart ripped from his chest, and was then drawn and quartered.
Hugh Le Despenser was put to death in quite a colourful way, when Edward II was overthrown, and Roger Mortimer became the effective ruler of England.
Usually though, at any rate for well-born prisoners, beheading was regarded as adequate punishment for treason.
“Now call me stupid, but if treason can apply to killing an upleasant (if pretty) bird, letting Fido have some fun with a corgi, shagging the Princess of Wales, or pulling down a whore house, I’m pretty damn certain it can be applied to blowing or planning to blow the living fuck out of a bunch of commuters.”
Perhaps it can, but the plan is to charge with treason those who have ‘preached’ violence, rather than those who have planned or attempted to carry out bombings.
“…different methods of execution for different types of treason, though some were left to the discretion of the judge. Burning at the stake was specified for shagging the wrong royals, I gather.”
Burning was for petty treason, which in practice meant a woman killing her Lord, ie her husband, or shagging somone else behind his back. Though the last bit may just have been a tort.
Except under Cromwell, I doubt if adultery has been a criminal offence in England, as opposed to a civil offence, since medieval times. Certainly, (royals excepted) I can’t think of anyone ever having been put to death for adultery.
AFAIK, adultery was a civil offence until well into the nineteenth century, referred to as “criminal conversation.”
Though the last bit may just have been a tort
Raspberry or chocolate?
Seriously, I think it notable that Jamie reminds us of the penalties women were subject to for “misbehaviour” back in the day. One of the major issues in the integration effort that appears to start with hazel Blears’ rebranding of ethnic minorities is going to be the treatment of women.
Women have been considered vessels for sin and divisive within the Umma since Aisha, the Prophet’s last wife, led the war of the camel against the orthodox caliph of the time. And in the hadith she is generally considered the source of the split between sunni and shiite muslims. To an orthodox muslim, a woman is very very dangerous and must be contained.
Not exactly a value compatible with mainstream british liberal/democratic society, is it?
Generalisations about civil, criminal and ecclesiastical offences before the C19th are pretty meaningless. Trust me.
Anyhow, what’s all this about ‘treason’? What Tony is referring to smells like sedition to me.
You have to be a British citizen to face a charge of treason.
In other words, not brilliant fact-checking by the Telegraph.
Actually, you don’t. William Joyce was not a British citizen, but was still found guilty of treason. Possessing a British passport would be sufficient to be convicted of treason.
Surely the point about the brothel-burning party was the (very good and very pertinent) one that vigilantes and mob justice cannot be tolerated?
One suggestion I read for the brothel-burning being construed as treason was the likelihood that members of the Royal Family would be inside the establishment in question.
Joyce was found guilty of treason, but that was not really Our Finest Hour. More of a war crime. Now, had he been charged with war crimes, or charged with treason by the Americans, no problem, in legal terms at least.
Hey, there’s another Andy Cooke.
Small world!
(After adding my surname to my comments at politicalbetting.com, I thought that that was all I’d need to do).
With the Joyce case, Wikipedia says “Although Joyce was born in the USA to Irish parents, he had moved to Britain in his teens and applied for a British passport in 1933 which was still valid when he defected to Germany and so technically owed allegiance to Britain when he did so”.
Sean’s point is valid – for treason, you have to “Owe allegiance” to a country, and in the Joyce case, possesion of a passport was sufficient.
For the wider question, the two less comic categories of treason would seem to be appropriate:
“if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King’s enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted of open deed by the people of their condition”; and
“if a man slea the chancellor, treasurer, or the King’s justices of the one bench or the other, justices in eyre, or justices of assise, and all other justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their places, doing their offices”.
“Levying war against … in his realm” and “Giving aid and comfort to the King’s [Queen’s] enemies” should cover a lot of sins. The real question is whether this is:
a. Still valid
b. Likely to stick.
I recall a comment in, i think, The Lives of the Lord Chief Justices. The author noted that until enactment of the Riot Act, it was no crime to, well, riot (until the point when actual damage was done, so riots had to be charged as constructive treason on the theory that a riot (or plot to riot) might conceivably lead to revolution and hence death of the monarch.
He amusingly noted that after the enactment, it was no longer necessary to charge, as had been done, that a plot to pull down all the bawdy houses in London was a conspiracy to bring about the death of the King.
Pingback: 2006 Camaro Concept
Pingback: forex
Pingback: directv
Pingback: direc tv
Pingback: satelite tv
Pingback: satellite dish
Pingback: colocation
Pingback: Bad Credit Personal Loans
Pingback: unsecured personal loans
Pingback: bad credit personal loans
Pingback: unsecured personal loan
Pingback: directv satellite
Pingback: Sprint Ringtones
Pingback: Polyphonic Ringtones
Pingback: personal loans
Pingback: cash loans
Pingback: forex broker
Pingback: forex trading
Pingback: forex charts
Pingback: term life insurance
Pingback: term life insurance quote
Pingback: Gourmet Coffee
Pingback: Espresso
Pingback: Mr Coffee
Pingback: Gevalia Coffee
Pingback: Kona Coffee
Pingback: Coffee Bean
Pingback: Espresso Machines