Only Richard III ever broke the law…(apparently)
This post is provoked by a comment I came across the other day that claimed that the tens of thousands of people killed by the Tudor dynasty somehow don’t count as it was all done within the law. Albeit the rough-and-ready version of the law as it was at that time.
Snags with this argument:
- A number of highly unpleasant 20th century dictatorships and war criminals would have offered a similar defence. This does not make them moral or admirable.
- Henry VIII, certainly, was not above changing the law after the offence was committed and then applying the change to the offence. Examples, the Bishop of Rochester’s unfortunate cook; Lady Rochford – in the latter case the law was changed to permit the execution of insane people! If this is ‘legality’ it stinks.
- What about people disposed of via Acts of Attainder? Examples Katherine Howard, Lady Rochford, Margaret Countess of Salisbury. These people were not even given a drum-head court martial, let alone a trial, and absolutely no opportunity was given to them to mount a defence. Legal? After a fashion.
- Tyrants make their own laws as they go along. Anyone can stay within the law if they can amend it as they choose.