the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 208 The central area of criminalization was to “speak against the King or the Kings Council in a way that attacks their honesty” or to “speak ill of the King or of His Councillors, attacking their honesty or honour.” This was labelled by Becchius as Gross speaking against the King and Government which was punished by death, man as well as woman. That the perpetrator could be a woman and that females were not exempt from prescribed punishment was made clear by the case of Anna Bröms in 1635. Before the District Court of Oppunda, Anna had spoken harshly not only about Queen Christina (1626 – 1689, r. 1644 – 1654) but also about the Council of the Realm and the state administration in general. Since her utterances were noted by the jurors, the bailiff and the judge himself, the requirements of evidence were more than satisfied. She begged for pardon but was sentenced to death by the Court of Appeal according to the regulations in the Chapter on the King of the 1442 Law of King Christopher, chapter nine, article eleven in the privileges of the Nobility576 and the fourth part of the Diet’s decision of 1634577. Pardon had to be requested from the Queen’s Regency Government.578 That the regulations not only protected reigning monarchs but also former ones – either abdicated or deceased – was made clear by practice when Peder Pedersson Gyllenax accused Queen Christina (who abdicated in 1654) in a written document of violating her oath, among other things, in 1655. The Court decided that Gyllenax ought to be sentenced according to the regulations in the Book of the King but referred the case to “His Majesty our most gracious King and Lord who has the highest authority to mitigate and amend.” The court recommended mitigation: Gyllenax’s acts were the results of “lack of judgement and pure stubbornness” and he had addressed the court in several letters, asking for pardon. It seems that the case was put on ice – at least until the court could witness His Majesty’s “blissful and victorious return to our dear fatherland”.579 Here, obvi576 The 1617 privileges of the Nobility, Kongl. stadgar, ed. Schmedeman, pp. 173-181; article 11 regulates the criminal responsibility of noblewomen. 577 The Diet’s decision is printed inAlla riksdagars och mötens beslut 1521–1731, vol. 2,ed. Stiernman, pp. 871-887; part IV regulates the regency. 578 RA, RA:s ämnessamlingar, Juridica I: Becchius-Palmcrantz’ samlingar, Vol. 4, Cap. 2, causa 2. 579 RA, RA:s ämnessamlingar, Juridica I: Becchius-Palmcrantz’ samlingar, Vol. 4, Cap. 2, causa 2.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=