Reply To: Sampling Bias (in Royal Marriage Statistics)

but why do you assume she would not have been prosecuted had Diana’s crime been discovered within the statue of limitations?

A. I have not been able to (yet) find an original copy of the Treason Act of 1695 to verify that this actually is a capital crime.

B. Even if it was a capital crime, it is no longer so and has not been so since at least 1948, the year the Treason Act of 1948 was passed which gutted most of the Treason Act of 1695.

C. Even if the law was still on the books, not every law is prosecuted every time. People are generally not tried (and certainly not executed) for adultery anymore. Whether that’s right or wrong is not the issue, the reality is the issue and the reality is that it just isn’t done anymore in Western countries.

D. The choice to bring her to trial would not have been the Queen’s, Charles’ or anyone else in the Royal Family. It would have been up to the legal authorities (or perhaps Parliament). They would not have done so.

E. Even if they might have prosecuted some people, they would not have prosecuted Diana. As it was the Royal Family was going through a horrible time in the 1990s. To execute Diana could well have spelled the end of the monarchy. Imagine the grief that was displayed at her death and change that to rage at her being executed. The people would have revolted and it would have been a revolution.

In short, there is NO WAY Diana would have been tried an executed… and you know it.

The Wolf