Similarities Between Cnute And Henry I

Both Cnut and Henry I have a general adultery law (in which the punishment remains undetermined). Neither law mentions which penalty a (married) man(, be he not religious,) is supposed to suffer. But where Henry I 11,5 is merely interested in the man’s marriage status, Cnut 50 has a clause distinguishing between the various types of relationship status the woman could have/ states the relationship status of the woman: either married, unmarried or celibate. On top of this / What’s more, the same clause targets religious men (specifically, while Henry I only cares about the man’s marriage/relationship status).

Although Cnut treats the woman as a passive actor, it seems that Henry I deems the woman equally guilty / responsible / just a guilty/responsible
Moreover, Henry 89a raises the bar ((even) higher)), the trustworthiness/validity of an adultery claim is predominantly determined by the accounts of eye witnesses.
Both kings demand – in Cnut 73 and Henry I 11,13 – that a widow do not remarry for at least a year since her husband’s passing. After that, both allow her to decide whom she prefers as her new husband. The repercussion for disobeying those laws is in both cases loss of the morning-gift and the first husband’s material possessions. Henry I’s 11,13a stops there, Cnut’s 74.73 on the other hand continues to enumerate the losses the woman will suffer, such as the first husband’s land and the goods on this piece of land. Another result of this unlawful marriage involves the second husband’s loss of his wergeld, which Cnut recorded in law 75.1 and Henry determined in his 11,13b. In 76.2 Cnut indicates that the conditions under which the marriage took place do not hold significance. In Cnut 76.2 he has a merciful attitude towards the woman; if she decides to divorce her second husband, she is not required to renounce the possessions she received through her first