I just did; I quoted the OED’s statement that it was “frequently used” in that sense by the time of Henry VIII. In the same entry it goes on to say that the term was “in general use in this sense” by 1603.
No it isn’t; anyone who is English is also British. One term is simply more general than the other. The authors you read either more closely identified with the specific nationality, or were referring to specifically English rights (Scotland being under a different legal system whose law didn’t apply to most colonies). If they did self-identify preferentially as English, that doesn’t mean that they rejected any narrower or wider identity.
Quite, the case was R v R [1992] 1 AC 599. In it the parties were separated. Even before this case, there were authorities that held a rape charge could be brought where a separation had been effected.
Certainly most successful case of prosecution for spousal rape i have seem are those where the parties were separated.
It is intereting that there was obiter dicta in Victorian (!) times that Hale was full of shit.
