Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

History Section

Why does the text read, "It is interesting to note that more people were hanged, drawn, and quartered for ::quote:: 'treason' ::end quote:: during Elizabeth's reign than those burned at the stake by Mary I?"

This is biased, the quote marks cast into doubt the validity of the sentence of "treason" issued by Elizabeth, without similarly doubting the validity of the sentence of "Heresy" issued by Mary. Without sources explaining why we can a priori trust Mary but not Elizabeth, either both charges or neither should be listed.

I agree. There are several things that could be improved about this section. Firstly, it says "One of the most savage uses of this method of execution was carried out....": is there any evidence that this particular administration of HD&Q was more "savage" than usual and, if so, in what way? Secondly, it speaks of "the first seven conspirators....being butchered on the scaffold": again, "butchered" implies some particular cruelty. Thirdly it speaks the "rather disturbing fact" that more were executed by Elizabeth than Mary: I don't see why this should be "disturbing". Also, can anyone quantify the facts. I always understood that Mary and d Elizabeth had executed roughly equal numbers for political/religious reasons (about 300 in each case), but that Elizabeth's reign had lasted about 9 times the length of Mary's. Anyone care to give some definitive evidence? Bluewave 08:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the historical details of the war for Wales fought by Edward I don't have much to do with this section. The page is about an execution device. 87.20.228.97 10:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Quartering

Just noticed there was no details on how the body was divided (except for the beheading part). How was this done? Was there a "typical" division they'd go with? Obviously you have the four limbs, but what about the torso, was this cut through the middle, and if so which way? Looked in the articles for gibbeting and for dismemberment but this information isn't anywhere that I can find. Or was it done by horses and the torso just went with whatever? Should be included if it's documentable, right? Theredcomet2000 18:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In the Old Bailey online site (actually in the schools section) there is a picture of Sir Thomas Armstrong undergoing this punishment. It looks like the body is being chopped into 4 parts with a limb and a bit of the body attached to each. Much like a butcher might quarter an animal carcass. See [1]. Bluewave 20:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Boiling of quarters

The Cassell Dictionary of Slang has an entry for Jack Ketch's kitchen, saying that in the eighteenth century it meant "that room in Newgate prison where the hangman boiled the quarters of those dismembered for high treason". Are there any other references for this practice? William Avery (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I was a bit sceptical about the boiling, but the picture on the main page (of the Gunpowder Plot people being executed) does seem to show some boiling in progress.Bluewave (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Debate over drawn

See Archive 1: Hang Drawn and Quartering

I hate to bring up an old debate, but looking through the archived one only confused me. Encyclopedia Britannica apparently changed their article to agree with Cecil Adams's and his sources that drawn in this context means the act of drawing the person to be hanged. The 2002 section of the argument ended with what seemed to be consensus to agree with Cecil Adams and the revised EB, and the 2004 one seemed to have ignored this altogether, raising circumstantial evidence to support Blackstone as a lone source. What refutes Mr. Adams, his cited sources, and EB? Or is this a case of a single source being worth mentioning? Furthermore, on Mr. Adams' page, EB states that Oxford English Dictionary supports their view, and that it is The Oxford Companion to Law that holds the other. Can someone verify? ---PrescitedEntity (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine, as most people speak words in orderly fashion, the English too gave the punishment a name in order of the steps taken. Hanged, drawn and quartered would then be to say they were first hanged, then drawn and then quartered. Drawn here would then mean being disemboweled, else it would be drawn, hanged and quartered as to say they were first dragged there, then hanged and quartered. however If it were drawn, hanged and quartered then there is no mention of the disembowelment in the name of the punishment so clearly using deductive logic and reasoning we can reason that drawn indeed meant the disembowelment of the criminal. It is in the order of words that we can determine this. 71.112.197.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC).

Was William Maurice the first victim of drawing/quartering??

I think not. This is an EXTREMELY anglo-centric article that pretends that drawing and quartering is a uniquely English invention that was first used in 1241.

In Hungary, it is common knowledge that the pagan rebel leader Koppany (on whom Wikipedia has an article) was drawn and quartered (or at least quartered and gibbeted, if not drawn, but that's the least interesting and memorable part of the process anyway) as early as the first half of the 11th century. Not only that, I'm sure that OTHER PEOPLE BESIDES THE ENGLISH have thought of this method thousands of years before. The English didn't do everything, people, and sadly, I'm noticing that many MANY wiki-articles are written from an extremely anglo-centric POV and discuss things only from an English perspective, or will have things like "The largest widget in the world is in Bangladesh, weighing in at 1000000 pounds. The largest widget in England/Great Briatin is...", but no mention of widgets in any other countries (this is only an example, of course). WHO GIVES A RATS ASS?? This is English-LANGUAGE wikipedia, not English wikipedia as in we only care about England. I love England, but other places exist too, and Wikipedia owes it to itself and the rest of the world to have neutral, unbiased articles. Don't make the same mistake the Guiness book of "world" records makes... !

acsady

Confusion about drawing

The article has now got into some confusion about whether there is confusion about drawing! It says there is "confusion among modern historians about whether "drawing" referred to the dragging to the place of execution or the disembowelling" but also states that the dragging on a hurdle is the drawing and that disembowelling is "often mistaken for drawing". I think the drawing can refer to either the dragging or the disembowelling, but I'm happy to be proved wrong, if there is a good source. Can anyone help resolve the confusion please? Bluewave 17:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Foucault - Discipline and Punish

...opens with a description of the french style quatering method of execution and does not feature any hanging. I propose that it be limited to its mention in the subsequent paragraph on french quatering and be removed from 'mentions in fiction.' Not only is it misleading as it is not an example of hanging, drawing and quatering: Foucault's Discipline and Punish is NOT a work of fiction.

Last Use

The article says that the last use was in 1782. I have visited St. Michans' in Dublin where in the vaults (the vaults are famous for preserving the bodies buried there) the Sheare brothers are buried. The Sheare's joined the triumverate governing the United Irishmen in Ireland which was set up when Wolfe Tone went to France. With the failure of the rebellion the Sheare's were arrested, tried for high treason and condemned to be 'Hanged, Drawn and Quartered'. When the vault was restored the bodies were re-coffined and it was observed that the punishment had all been carried out. The execution warrant is on display in the vault, the date 1801. Whilst well after 1782 I cannot attest that his was the last case - any suggestions on how I should edit the article? --Rain Again 21:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Debate over hung or hanged

See Archive 1 this should read Hung not hanged

It has also been suggested that drawing a person prior to quartering them would entail roping all four limbs and suspending the person in such a way as to quarter them while in this suspended position. They were "drawn up". It was also used to literally pull a person apart, coining the phrase, To rip limb from limb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.128.74 (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It is surely "Hung, drawn and quartered" - there wouldn't be much point in torturing a hanged man (who would already be dead). Hung means suspended not hanged!!--86.163.176.22 (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If you read the article again, you will see that he was indeed hanged prior to disembowelment, but not for the purpose of killing him; see Hanged, drawn and quartered#Details, item 2 "Hanged by the neck for a short time or until almost dead". --Redrose64 (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Dates

The article seems to contradict itself:

After 1814 the convict would be hanged until dead and the mutilation would be performed after death. Gibbeting was abolished in England in 1843. Drawing and quartering was abolished in 1870.

but

The penultimate use of the sentence in England was against the French spy François Henri de la Motte, who was convicted of treason on 23 July 1781. The last occasion was on 24 August 1782 against Scottish spy David Tyrie in Portsmouth for carrying on a treasonable correspondence with the French

This doesn't seem to be recent vandalism, so someone should check this out. --Slashme (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A possible interpretation is:

• The last HDQ was performed in 1782.
• The next time the sentence was handed down by a judge (about 1814), the practice was established of performing the mutilation after death.
• For a time, judges continued to sentence men to hdq but the sentence was carried out in this modified form by the executioner.
• Gibbeting of the quarters was abolished in 1843.
• The sentence itself was abolished in 1870.

I cannot vouch for all the dates (some refs would be good) but I think the sequence of events is correct, with a period in which the sentence was still used by courts but was not fully enacted by the executioner. Bluewave (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with that interpretation. If you hang someone to death and then do the drawing and quartering and gibbet the quarters, that's still hanging drawing and quartering. That definitely didn't happen any more by 1814, and to suggest that quarters were still being gibbeted in 1843 stretches my credulity somewhat.

By the way, who is the JFX O'Brien referred to here:

Google Books: Vacant Thrones P.199

He is referenced by a red link at William O'Brien. --Slashme (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As I say, I don't vouch for the dates: I am merely saying that there is not necessarily an inconsistency in what is written in the article. But I agree we should get the facts straight! One example, from 1820, was the case of Arthur Thistlewood and others, who were convicted of treason. The court record states that "The execution of Thistlewood and the others took place on the Monday following (that part of the sentence with respect to their being drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution and the division of their bodies, being omitted.)" So, by 1820, judges were still handing down the sentence, but it was not being fully enacted. Bluewave (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The article Treason Act 1814 says that this act "modified the penalty for treason for male convicts. Originally the mandatory sentence for a man convicted of treason was hanging, drawing and quartering. The 1814 Act changed this punishment and replaced it with death by hanging, followed by posthumous quartering. In 1870 the Act was amended so that the penalty became simply hanging." I think the 1870 act referred to was the Forfeiture Act. Bluewave (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks for the explanation! --Slashme (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I see at Gibbet that entire corpses (not quartered) were still gibbeted in 1832. Wow. Apparently the locals didn't much care for it. --Slashme (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Clean up; "Hung Drawn and Quartered"

Would it be a good idea to start cleaning up articles which use "hung drawn and quartered"?--THobern 00:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

Three past participles?

I was not aware that Wikipedia allowed the titles of its articles to be past participles, much less three of them. Mamarazzi (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity

"It was applied only to male criminals, except on the Isle of Man"

Was it applied to women as well there, or it was not applied at all? Thanks. 122.26.121.72 (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Dafydd ap Gruffydd

I have added something to the talk page of Dafydd ap Gruffydd which may be relevant in this article. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

from Brewer's 1910

"Hanged, drawn, and quartered, or Drawn, hanged, and quartered. The question turns on the meaning of drawn. The evidence seems to be that traitors were drawn to the place of execution, then hanged, then "drawn" or disembowelled, and then quartered. Thus the sentence on Sir William Wallace was that he should be drawn (detrahatur) from the Palace of Westminster to the Tower, etc., then hanged (suspendatur), then disembowelled or drawn (devaletur), then beheaded and quartered (decollectur et decapitetur). (See Notes and Queries, August 15th, 1891.)" MacGilvennehy (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

More from Brewer's 1910 (out of copyright now) ... If by "drawn" is meant conveyed to the place of execution, the phrase should be "Drawn, hanged, and quartered;" but if the word is used as a synonym of disembowelled, the phrase should be "Hanged, drawn, and quartered." "Lord Ellenborough used to say to those condemned. 'You are drawn on hurdles to the place of execution, where you are to be hanged, but not till you are dead; for, while still living, your body is to be taken down, your bowels torn out and burnt before your face; your head is then cut off, and your body divided into four quarters." - Gentleman's Magazine, 1803, part i. pp. 177,275. MacGilvennehy (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary quote

I have fixed the vandalism of the Oxford Dictionary quote (from over a year ago.) But I'd like to draw attention to the quote: The Oxford English Dictionary notes both meanings of drawn: "To draw out the viscera or intestines of ... a traitor or other criminal after hanging" and "To drag (a criminal) at a horse's tail, or on a hurdle or the like, to the place of execution". It states that "In many cases of executions it is uncertain [which of these senses of drawn] is meant. The presumption is that where drawn is mentioned after hanged, the sense is [the second meaning].

Common sense tells me that when "drawn" is mentioned after "hanged", it refers to disembowelling, not to transportation (and vice versa) - also see above. (What's the full quote?) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Follow-up - found an accidental reference to it at Google Books (annotation to Shakespeare's Richard III), and I am changing "second meaning" to "first meaning". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Drawn" absolutly didn't refer to disembowelling?

For now, I am removing this paragraph, added by 82.152.179.226 (talk · contribs), for contradicting the rest of the article.

For the early modern period there is equally no doubt that 'drawn' referred to the process of drawing to the gallows on a hurdle. Henry Machyn's chronicle or diary (written between 1550 and 1563) repeatedly mentions the process of drawing on a hurdle following the sentence of 'hanging, drawing and quartering'. For example, Machyn states on folio 32r that Mr. William Thomas, clerk to the council, was arraigned at the Guildhall in May 1554 and was sentenced to 'ssuffer deth to be drau & qtered' (suffer death, to be drawn and quartered). Machyn then states on folio 32v that, 'The xviij day of may waſ draue a pone a sled a proper man namyd wylliā thomaſ from ye towre vnto tyborne yepretense of treason he waſ clarke to ye conssell & he waſ hangyd & after yſ head strykyn of & then quartered & ye morow aft- yſ hed waſ set on london bryge & iij qt- set over crepull gate' (The eighteenth day of May was drawn upon a sled a particular man named William Thomas, from the Tower unto Tyburn, the allegation of treason. He was clerk to the council. And he was hanged and after his head struck off and then quartered. And the morrow after his head was set on London Bridge and three quarters set over Cripplegate). Therefore the sentence of 'drawing' had resulted in the man being 'drawn', publicly, to the place of execution on a sled. He was only quartered after his head had been cut off. For further examples see [2].

The rest of the article says that there was "confusion" among judges which part of the sentence was referred to as "drawn", and that "some" sentences were summarized as "drawn, hanged and quartered"; the above text categorically claims that "drawn" didn't refer to disembowelling. (Are there any early references where it clearly did?)

As for "he was only quartered after his head had been cut off" - okay, this was the standard procedure for the sentence (see the verdict of Thomas Wallcot & co.); but when was he disembowelled? Or was this part ommitted? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can ever come up with a definitive answer to whether "drawn" refers to the dragging on hurdles or the drawing of intestines. There are verifiable sources that mention "hanging, drawing and quartering" others say "drawing, hanging and quartering", which suggests that different people had different understandings of what they are talking about. What is not in doubt is what actually happened when the sentence was carried out: both types of drawing were involved. I haven't seen anything that suggests that sometimes the disembowelling was omitted. Surely this is the more notable point. I think it would be inappropriate to devote a large part of the article to various historical instances of what people meant by the particular words, when they were in fact describing exactly the same punishment. We should certainly mention (as the article does at present) that there were two interpretations of the word "drawn" and that there was, and still is, some confusion about which "drawn" is being referred to, but it should be a minor part of the article. Bluewave (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In the English language, since the demise of most Anglo-Saxon inflexions, word order is central to syntax. Therefore, the positioning of the word 'drawn' after 'hanged' is a definite indication that the drawing followed the hanging in the procedure. Both hanging and quartering refer to acts of brutal violence against the person, it is reasonable to infer that the term 'drawing,' as part of a triplet with the other terms, implies a similar level of violence. However, mere public dragging on a frame behind a horse, which might be mildly unpleasant, is hardly on a par with hanging by the neck and cutting the body into quarters.Urselius (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes

It is worth mentioning that Guy Fawkes was not actually hung, drawn and quartered, he was hung, but jumped from the scaffold and died of the hanging before the drawing and quartering could be properly carried out... thus technically he was just hung and the picture of the wax sculpture of his hanging is sort of redundant. Amphetachronism 04:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems this article does not jive with the one on Henry Garnet, which suggests that the king ordered his sentence to be a typical execution instead of hanged, drawn... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.248.55 (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

New version

I'm working on a new version of this article here. Its a long way from being finished and I'm waiting for more sources to arrive, but any comments would be welcome. Parrot of Doom 15:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost ready with this. There's still a bit of work but if nobody minds, I'll copy it across later this evening. Parrot of Doom 15:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well nobody replied so I'm presuming nobody objects. The old version is here. I've nominated this new version for GAN. Parrot of Doom 19:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

William Maurice

I'm having trouble corroborating the claim that Maurice was the first to be hanged, drawn and quartered. Also, while this book is certainly quite old, page 134 mentions that Dafydd ap Gruffydd was the first. Can anyone help? Parrot of Doom 11:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Some problems with the article text

Problems with the text:

• "Many notable figures incurred their sovereign's ire," -- It implies that people were executed on a wim, not after due process, that is a POV that is not supported with a source.
  • That's a fair point and I'll change that. Parrot of Doom 07:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• "They were then disembowelled, and sometimes emasculated." -- no source given as to always and sometimes.
  • Not all sources mention that subjects were emasculated and I haven't assumed they always were. I'll change to "normally". Parrot of Doom 07:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Better to say "disembowelled, and emasculated" and footnote that the sources are not clear on whether emasculation always took place, because unless there is a source that explicitly says that sometime/often or whatever, one can not draw the inference that it was not done, as the author may just not have bothered to mention it as most readers would have been familiar with what happens when a creature is disembowelled. -- PBS (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
      • That works for me, however I'll do this tomorrow as I've just finished work and am a bit tired. Parrot of Doom 23:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• "Before they were hanged, prisoners sometimes gave a public speech, expressing their remorse and asking for forgiveness." Sometimes implies not often, that needs a source, as it seems to me that the witness accounts from the middle C17th always report on their speaking out if they so wished, so in needs a source that it was only sometimes. Also the wording implies that the were only allowed to speak if they showed remorse. Yet there are plenty recorded where the officials tried to prevent people from speaking either by drowning out their their speech by ordering the guards to make a cacophony of sound or by continually interrupting them.
  • I can only go from the sources I've used, not all of which mention such speeches. Hence sometimes, but again I'll change to normally as its a good point. Parrot of Doom 07:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• "According to history student Maeve Jones's essay on high treason ..." is not a reliable source and all her speculation should be removed especially the quote. It is not that I disagree with most of it, although I think it it overplays the symbolic over the practical (for example being drawn through the medival streets of London was a very nasty business -- hence the indulgence of using a hurdle. Also once a punishment is established its continued use may be because of presidents (we do it this way because that is how its done) rather than because the act still has the initial symbolic meaning it had at first.
  • I don't agree, for the reasons in the discussion above, and your point of view on precedents is, I'm afraid, just that. Parrot of Doom 07:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes! and I am not putting my POV into the article. You have two people who now consider a undergrad essay not to be a reliable source. Please remove the citation and the material backed up by it -- PBS (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
      • No I won't remove it, I'm happy that its a reliable source, and if this is a numbers game (not that consensus is), its 2 v 2. I also find it odd that you defend a version of the article that was frankly a mess, and mostly uncited. You'll excuse me if I don't mourn its passing, but if you feel that important items are missing then you're more than welcome to add them - provided of course they're not followed by [citation needed] tags.
        • What have I said in defence of this version of the article? Who is the other person who thinks that Maeve Jones is a reliable source? -- PBS (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• "English Catholic" is POV it should be "English Roman Catholic" (according to Anglicans Charles I was a martyr and the Anglican church is part of the catholic church).
  • I have plenty of sources which use English Catholic when discussing religion in England. If they see fit to use it, so do I. Parrot of Doom 07:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
    • There are plenty of sources that state that the IRA were terrorists. We tend not to use it because it is has non neutral connotations. --PBS (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I wondered if there was some Irish background to this. I'm not getting involved in that argument. Numerous reliable sources call them English Catholics, so will I.
• "The 1351 treason act applied to all British subjects," There was not such thing as a British subject until the Act of Union, and it was not until the second Act of Union that the Irish became British subjects. The colonies were not other countries they were colonies. Even after the Act of Union the jurisdictions of England, Ireland and Scotland were not unified.
  • My intention was to cover all people living in the British Isles. What noun would you suggest instead? Parrot of Doom 07:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The 1351 treason act applied to all British subjects" -- it only applied to English and Welsh subjects not Scottish or Irish subjects (the Scots being in a totally separate nation until the personal union of James I (note my bais not using VI!)). Also the colonies I have no idea but at a guess it would depend on which jurisdiction the founding charter was granted. -- PBS (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I've modified the text slightly, see what you think. Parrot of Doom 23:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Some general comments and questions. The removal an insertion of text in the most recent rewrite seems to me to be rather random:

• Why the removal of mention of the English Civil War declared lex talionis and Connor Maguire?
• Why the removal of Thomas Venner and his merry men? It is not clear to me why the names regicides have been removed, but the details of the execution of just one of them is much larger than the original paragraph (IMHO the pepys diary quote is superior to the one that replaced it as it mentions the demeanour of the man rather than the mechanics of his exection).
• Why so much on John Southworth?
  • The only person hd&q under Cromwell, and the only person whose body has survived, seemed to me to warrant more than a passing mention. Parrot of Doom 08:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• The original text included "In Lower Canada (now Quebec), David McLane was hanged, drawn and quartered on 21 July 1797 for treason;..." why was it removed and a brief mention of the 13 colonies put in its place?
• Why use the ODNB for which one needs a subscription (or a British Library card) when most of the same information is available in the DNB? eg:
  • T.F.H. (1886), "Brandreth, Jeremiah", in Stephen (ed.), [[Dictionary of National Biography]], vol. 6, pp. 224, 225 {{citation}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)

  instead of

  • Belchem, John (2008) [2004], Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, hosted at oxforddnb.com, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/3270 http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/3270, retrieved 19 August 2010 {{citation}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)?

Last but not least where has all the information on other counties quartering gone? -- PBS (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• I removed nothing from the article text; I completely re-wrote the article (a disaster zone tbh) from scratch. I've attempted to construct some kind of historical narrative by the use of examples of the sentence through history, but its obviously not going to be perfect on the first pass. Many of the examples you list were either cited to unreliable sources, or not cited at all.

You did remove information from the article. That you replaced it with other text does not mean that you did not remove information. Which part of the civil war paragraph was not cited or did not have citations covering the information in the links. Did you look for any secondary sources for Thomas Venner and the Fifth Monarchists, as from your answer you do not consider the primary sources given reliable? Would an essay by an undergraduate suffice?-- PBS (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So a bunch of people could have been executed but weren't. I have no idea how that is relevant in a section about people who were executed. And no I didn't go looking for bits on Thomas Venner, I'm not here to do the bidding of others.

• Also, I don't see what relevance similar techniques in other countries have to this method of execution, unless of course sources exist which link them explicitly? Those punishments should otherwise be listed on their own pages. Parrot of Doom 07:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The stuff on other countries should be moved out into a separate article. Quartering is not suitable as the name has more than one meaning but something like execution by dismemberment would do. I suggest that we pick a name, put the information into it because a move to a more suitable name can be made. If not then I grantee that the section "other countries" will grow to contain the same information again.

"Overseas" should be renamed "Colonies" or "English colonies" (Ireland is overseas from an English perspective and England "over [there]" as the Irish say). BTW I am not sure what the 13 colonies have to do with anything, it is an arbitrary number who happened to rebel, for example why exclude Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Quebec? -- PBS (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it to British colonization of the Americas. Parrot of Doom 23:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Mortimer

The Mortimer online essay used for reference does not conform to suitable sources for use in Wikipedia articles, as it is unpublished and is not written in a scholarly manner with references.

In particular it suffers from a huge logical hole. It gives a list of contemporary writings mentioning hanging and drawing, saying that they do not mention evisceration:

"Significantly, none of the other execution-related examples mention evisceration either. • c 1320 Sir Tristr. 1797 Sche swore bi godes rode ai schuld ben hong a nd drain. • 1375 BARBOUR Bruce, I. 278 Sum thai hangyt, and sum thai drew. • 1465 Paston Lett. I. No. 99. 135, I was arestyd..and was thretenyd t o have ben hongyd, drawen, and quarteryd. • 1556 Chron. Gr. Friars in Monumenta Franciscana (Rolls) II. 152 Thys yere was Roger Mortemer erle of March hangyd and drawne at Tyborne for tresoun. • 1682 S. PORDAGE Medal Rev. 178 Those men, whom they can neither hang nor draw ."

This is nonsense because, if as Mortimer concedes "to draw" can mean "to eviscerate", the fact that these quotations do not separately mention evisceration is neither here nor there - the quotations do not support his argument. Without this support his argument becomes rather specious, except in cases where 'drawn' is mentioned before 'hanged' in the sentence or description. Two of the quotations Mortimer uses in fact make his argument ridiculous, to whit: "Sum thai hangyt, and sum thai drew" and "Those men, whom they can neither hang nor draw." These two passages make it clear that hanging and drawing could be separate events, and it implies that the two fates were equal. As far as I'm concerned you can drag me on a hurdle behind a horse as far as you like, but I would strongly object to being either hanged or eviscerated. Urselius (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the 16th century chronicle by John Stow, as well as Bishop Chaloner, you have entries like these:

• "The 18th of February, Harrington, a Seminary Priest, was drawn from. "Newgate to Tyburn, and there hanged, CUT DOWN ALIVE, struggled with "the hangman, but was BOWELLED and QUARTERED."
• being made a priest as aforesaid, and coming into this realm, was likewise con"demned of treason—and both drawn to Tyburn, and there HANGED, BOWELLED, AND QUARTERED, on the 21st of January.
• remaining here con"trary to the statute, were both condemned, and on the 20th day of April, drawn "to Tyburn, and there HANGED, BOWELLED, and QUARTERED."
• October 8. I. Law, I. Adams, and Richard Dibdale, being befofe "condemned for treason, in being made priests by order of the bishop of "Rome, were drawn to Tyburn, and there HANGED, BOWELLED, and "QUARTERED. "

All of these cited on page 33 here: http://books.google.no/books?id=GzdGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA34&dq=drawn+hanged+bowelled+quartered&hl=no&sa=X&ei=cc8cU-bBA-TQygOkjIGoBw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=drawn%20hanged%20bowelled%20quartered&f=false

That is, BOWELLED was the word used for eviscerated.Arildnordby (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I would ask anyone who thinks "to draw" means to eviscerate, what is implied by the penalty of being drawn and burned? Parrot of Doom 21:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As for Mortimer's suitability for inclusion here, his essay is used to highlight a difference of opinion. It isn't used to state fact. I don't see why it cannot be used (FYI, many Featured Articles contain similar content). Parrot of Doom 21:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, in Raphael Holinshed's chronicle, we find:

• p.19: drawen, hanged and quartered
• p.204: drawne to Tiborne...hanged and quartered
• p.211: drawen to Tiborne...hanged, bowelled and quartered
• p.239 hanged, drawne and quartered
• p. 253 hanged and quartered
• p. 258 drawen, hanged and quartered
• p.515: hanged, drawne and quartered
• p.623: drawne, hanged and quartered
• p.662: drawne to the place of execution,..hanged,.. bowels burnt, etc."
• p.693 "hanged, drawne and quartered"
• p. 775 drawne to Tiburne..hanged and quartered
• p.793: drawne, hanged and quartered
• p.803: drawne, hanged and quartered
• p.804 drawne to Tiburne, hanged and quartered
• p.804 hanged&quartered
• p.807 drawn to Tiburne, hanged and quartered
• p.810 hanged and quartered
• p.811, drawne, hanged and quartered
• p.815 drawne hanged and quartered
• p.819 drawne to the gallowes, hanged, beheaded and quartered
• p.822 hanged and quartered
• p.832, drawne to Tiburne, hanged and quartered
• p.932 drawne into Smithfield, ..hanged and quartered
• p.983 drawne, hanged and quartered
• p.1023 hanged and quartered

http://books.google.no/books?id=xI4hAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA19&dq=%22drawen,+hanged+and+quartered%22+stow&hl=no&sa=X&ei=P-ccU9uHGMKBywPYp4LoCg&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=quartered&f=false

Note that in MANY cases "drawne" means unambiguously dragged, but in NO cases can we found any unambiguous evidence of the possible meaning "drawne=eviscerated". Furthermore, by far the most common order of the words are "drawn, hanged and quartered", not the other way around.Arildnordby (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You both miss the point entirely. I do not doubt that sometimes drawn meant 'dragged to the place of execution', BUT how do you explain BARBOUR Bruce, I. 278 "Sum thai hangyt, and sum thai drew"? How can dragging on a hurdle be a similar fate to being hanged? Also, if you have better sources than the essay, then strike the essay and use the better sources. Urselius (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant, since you miss the MAIN point: MOST of the time, it is perfectly clear that "drawn" meant "dragged". That's on basis of MAIN BODY OF EVIDENCE, and your Barbour simply becomes..anecdotal, and hence, utterly irrelevant. Besides, the article DOES include the statement of a historian saying that "drawn" might mean "eviscerated", and that's how far Wikipedia should go.Arildnordby (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, Barbour can perfectly well be read as "hangyt" (simple hanging), "drew" (the whole package, beginning with drawing). Unless you can come up with UNAMBIGUOUS use of "drawn" for evisceration, say as in "he was hanged, his bowels drawn out and then quartered", you haven't got a case, since there are PLENTY of unambiguous cases for draw=dragArildnordby (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

AS for what directly precedes what you cited from Ian Mortimer, that is HIGHLY relevant, for the interpretation showing it is not at all nonsensical what he wrote: " Roger Mortimer may

have been ‘hanged and drawn’ for treason in 1330 but the drawing was done on an ox hide. Afterwards he was left hanging on the gallows for two days. No one cut his guts open afterwards, so this was an incorrect interpretation by the OED editors, based solely on the order of the words."

That is: We KNOW Roger Mortimer was NOT eviscerated, but he most definitely was "hanged and drawn". That is, to be DRAWN to the execution-place, say upon a hurdle or an ox-hide was an aggravating curcumstance in SOME hangings, and when Barbour makes a distinction, it might perfectly well mean some were given just simple hangings, others the fully aggravated ritual, designated by its initial feature, namely the humiliating dragging element.Arildnordby (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Mortimer

The Mortimer online essay used for reference does not conform to suitable sources for use in Wikipedia articles, as it is unpublished and is not written in a scholarly manner with references.

In particular it suffers from a huge logical hole. It gives a list of contemporary writings mentioning hanging and drawing, saying that they do not mention evisceration:

"Significantly, none of the other execution-related examples mention evisceration either. • c 1320 Sir Tristr. 1797 Sche swore bi godes rode ai schuld ben hong a nd drain. • 1375 BARBOUR Bruce, I. 278 Sum thai hangyt, and sum thai drew. • 1465 Paston Lett. I. No. 99. 135, I was arestyd..and was thretenyd t o have ben hongyd, drawen, and quarteryd. • 1556 Chron. Gr. Friars in Monumenta Franciscana (Rolls) II. 152 Thys yere was Roger Mortemer erle of March hangyd and drawne at Tyborne for tresoun. • 1682 S. PORDAGE Medal Rev. 178 Those men, whom they can neither hang nor draw ."

This is nonsense because, if as Mortimer concedes "to draw" can mean "to eviscerate", the fact that these quotations do not separately mention evisceration is neither here nor there - the quotations do not support his argument. Without this support his argument becomes rather specious, except in cases where 'drawn' is mentioned before 'hanged' in the sentence or description. Two of the quotations Mortimer uses in fact make his argument ridiculous, to whit: "Sum thai hangyt, and sum thai drew" and "Those men, whom they can neither hang nor draw." These two passages make it clear that hanging and drawing could be separate events, and it implies that the two fates were equal. As far as I'm concerned you can drag me on a hurdle behind a horse as far as you like, but I would strongly object to being either hanged or eviscerated. Urselius (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the 16th century chronicle by John Stow, as well as Bishop Chaloner, you have entries like these:

• "The 18th of February, Harrington, a Seminary Priest, was drawn from. "Newgate to Tyburn, and there hanged, CUT DOWN ALIVE, struggled with "the hangman, but was BOWELLED and QUARTERED."
• being made a priest as aforesaid, and coming into this realm, was likewise con"demned of treason—and both drawn to Tyburn, and there HANGED, BOWELLED, AND QUARTERED, on the 21st of January.
• remaining here con"trary to the statute, were both condemned, and on the 20th day of April, drawn "to Tyburn, and there HANGED, BOWELLED, and QUARTERED."
• October 8. I. Law, I. Adams, and Richard Dibdale, being befofe "condemned for treason, in being made priests by order of the bishop of "Rome, were drawn to Tyburn, and there HANGED, BOWELLED, and "QUARTERED. "

All of these cited on page 33 here: http://books.google.no/books?id=GzdGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA34&dq=drawn+hanged+bowelled+quartered&hl=no&sa=X&ei=cc8cU-bBA-TQygOkjIGoBw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=drawn%20hanged%20bowelled%20quartered&f=false

That is, BOWELLED was the word used for eviscerated.Arildnordby (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I would ask anyone who thinks "to draw" means to eviscerate, what is implied by the penalty of being drawn and burned? Parrot of Doom 21:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As for Mortimer's suitability for inclusion here, his essay is used to highlight a difference of opinion. It isn't used to state fact. I don't see why it cannot be used (FYI, many Featured Articles contain similar content). Parrot of Doom 21:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, in Raphael Holinshed's chronicle, we find:

• p.19: drawen, hanged and quartered
• p.204: drawne to Tiborne...hanged and quartered
• p.211: drawen to Tiborne...hanged, bowelled and quartered
• p.239 hanged, drawne and quartered
• p. 253 hanged and quartered
• p. 258 drawen, hanged and quartered
• p.515: hanged, drawne and quartered
• p.623: drawne, hanged and quartered
• p.662: drawne to the place of execution,..hanged,.. bowels burnt, etc."
• p.693 "hanged, drawne and quartered"
• p. 775 drawne to Tiburne..hanged and quartered
• p.793: drawne, hanged and quartered
• p.803: drawne, hanged and quartered
• p.804 drawne to Tiburne, hanged and quartered
• p.804 hanged&quartered
• p.807 drawn to Tiburne, hanged and quartered
• p.810 hanged and quartered
• p.811, drawne, hanged and quartered
• p.815 drawne hanged and quartered
• p.819 drawne to the gallowes, hanged, beheaded and quartered
• p.822 hanged and quartered
• p.832, drawne to Tiburne, hanged and quartered
• p.932 drawne into Smithfield, ..hanged and quartered
• p.983 drawne, hanged and quartered
• p.1023 hanged and quartered

http://books.google.no/books?id=xI4hAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA19&dq=%22drawen,+hanged+and+quartered%22+stow&hl=no&sa=X&ei=P-ccU9uHGMKBywPYp4LoCg&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=quartered&f=false

Note that in MANY cases "drawne" means unambiguously dragged, but in NO cases can we found any unambiguous evidence of the possible meaning "drawne=eviscerated". Furthermore, by far the most common order of the words are "drawn, hanged and quartered", not the other way around.Arildnordby (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You both miss the point entirely. I do not doubt that sometimes drawn meant 'dragged to the place of execution', BUT how do you explain BARBOUR Bruce, I. 278 "Sum thai hangyt, and sum thai drew"? How can dragging on a hurdle be a similar fate to being hanged? Also, if you have better sources than the essay, then strike the essay and use the better sources. Urselius (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant, since you miss the MAIN point: MOST of the time, it is perfectly clear that "drawn" meant "dragged". That's on basis of MAIN BODY OF EVIDENCE, and your Barbour simply becomes..anecdotal, and hence, utterly irrelevant. Besides, the article DOES include the statement of a historian saying that "drawn" might mean "eviscerated", and that's how far Wikipedia should go.Arildnordby (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, Barbour can perfectly well be read as "hangyt" (simple hanging), "drew" (the whole package, beginning with drawing). Unless you can come up with UNAMBIGUOUS use of "drawn" for evisceration, say as in "he was hanged, his bowels drawn out and then quartered", you haven't got a case, since there are PLENTY of unambiguous cases for draw=dragArildnordby (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

AS for what directly precedes what you cited from Ian Mortimer, that is HIGHLY relevant, for the interpretation showing it is not at all nonsensical what he wrote: " Roger Mortimer may

have been ‘hanged and drawn’ for treason in 1330 but the drawing was done on an ox hide. Afterwards he was left hanging on the gallows for two days. No one cut his guts open afterwards, so this was an incorrect interpretation by the OED editors, based solely on the order of the words."

That is: We KNOW Roger Mortimer was NOT eviscerated, but he most definitely was "hanged and drawn". That is, to be DRAWN to the execution-place, say upon a hurdle or an ox-hide was an aggravating curcumstance in SOME hangings, and when Barbour makes a distinction, it might perfectly well mean some were given just simple hangings, others the fully aggravated ritual, designated by its initial feature, namely the humiliating dragging element.Arildnordby (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hanged, drawn and quartered: Should it be in Category:Violence against men?

I removed the category "Violence against men" from the bottom of the page, as that suggests that this is a specifically male issue, when in fact any person could go through the process. I do not believe there is any notion of Misandry in this particular topic. I also think a mod should be involved concerning the edits of 'Taco Viva', which are unfounded, unsourced, and wrongly attribute my edits to vandalism. --Jamesmullard1 (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well it was a punishment reserved for men. Women were burned. I expect it was a good faith edit. Richard75 (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand to a degree, although the focus of the 'Violence against men' category seems mostly to be one that undermines serious feminist issues for the sake of having both. It feels pretty tangent to include 'Hanged, drawn and quartered' alongside issues that people face today. It isn't exactly a contemporary issue --Jamesmullard1 (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that it needs to be a contemporary issue, but to me the point is more that this wasn't a punishment applied to men because they were men, or with their maleness playing a significant aspect. It was more that they were executed for unrelated issues (i.e. high treason), and this particular punishment was specified for the crime. The fact that it was male-exclusive was more that they just didn't think it was proper/modest/whatever to put women to the same punishment. The male-oriented nature of HD&Q can't be said to be a essential—defining—characteristic of a topic, which is what the categorization policy says categories are for. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I must have misunderstood the 'Violence against men' category. It is a list of any form of violence that has ever happened explicitly against men and not women? In that it seems to differ from the 'Violence against women' category, which is more focused on contemporary issues. I think that maybe it needs to be better defined, especially as it was originally an offshoot from the 'Violence against women' category. --Jamesmullard1 (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is about violence motivated (at least in some part) by misandry, just as the violence against women cat should be violence motivated in some part by misogyny. Neither category has to restrict itself based on how recent the issue is, but neither category should include "violence that just happened to be executed only against men/women". For example, saying that to a vast extent the people who died in the invasion of Normandy on D-Day in World War 2 were male doesn't qualify those articles for the "violence against men" category, since the fact that the violence was nearly or totally exclusively against men was not a defining characteristic of the event itself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with WritKeeper. Richard75 (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that makes more sense. Based on that definition, this article wouldn't fit the category then, but if there had, hypothetically, been a history of men being hung, drawn and quartered because of their gender, it would fit? Thank you for clearing that up. --Jamesmullard1 (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It baffles me that HDQ should in anyway be perceived as a worse (or more lenient?) punishment than being burned alive (punishment for female traitors). That ALL pre-modern have differentiated fashions, speech manners, expected roles and YES, punishments as well along the gender line does not, as such, make such a differentiated treatment into a question of this or that gender's rights. It is anachronistic. In early modern Germany, male thieves were typically hanged, while female thieves were drowned. What gender can say which gender's mode of being executed is a relevant topic for gender rights??Arildnordby (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Concerning the inclusion in the article, it's worth noting that none of these people were hung, drawn and quartered because they were male. They would have been burned and killed just the same if they were female. It isn't a gendered related execution, more a way of deciding which of the two executions a person was going to be put through, like the difference between a male or female prison. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Quite so.Arildnordby (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Taco Viva is clearly a sock account, as are the numerous IPs editing on his behalf. Parrot of Doom 22:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there any way to report this? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably. I do not trouble myself with such places, they're occupied by people I'd rather not deal with. Parrot of Doom 22:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand, it's just frustrating when they are used to push a political bias that can hurt others. I mean, there is no white rights or straight pride navigation portal. I don't understand the sudden push for this and it's apparently acceptance in the general Wikipedia community when it pushes a sexist agenda. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note, semi-protection of the article has been requested and is likely to be granted imminently. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep in category I disagree. While defining is important, this was a method of death only applied to men . As such, it is relevant to the violence-against-men category, because the society at that time decided that only men could be subject to this extremely violent form of execution. Most other execution types have not been gendered in the same way. Topic categories are generally more inclusive than set categories, this is an example of that reasoning.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You're projecting backwards into history modern day values though. If the category was "male only punishments" that would apply - but the category implies that the punishment was applied because they were male, not that it was only applied to males because of societal norms. There is a difference. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Gender differentiations in execution procedures were perfectly common; for example drowning or burial alive were on the Continent typical ways to execute female criminals (for example thieves), for which male criminals were hanged. (The idea was that in virtue of "decency", people shouldn't see the woman dangling in her skirt..). In old Islamic law, men should strip before being bastinadoed, whereas for sake of decency, women should have their clothes on. It is just silly to use anachronistic categories like "violence against men/women" here for the penal procedure; you CAN (with care!!!) use it for punishable offences, though.Arildnordby (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

While on the other hand, you are forcing this category to only apply to the current understanding of the gendered nature of violence. If this category grows, which it likely will, we could start to separate it by time period - e.g. Category:Violence against men in the Middle ages, Category:Violence against men in Ancient Greece, etc, but until that time, the head topic category will be a bit of a mish-mash - this is quite natural with topic categories, and in general, especially with categories like this, it is better to be more inclusive than less as the category is developed, and further subcategories could be developed over time. I simply point you to Category:Violence against women so you see the potential scope of this category over time. This particular article is special, and cannot be compared to Drowning or Burning at the stake because while, at certain periods of time or in certain areas these punishments were reserved for women, in the broad sweep of history and in the articles in question, they are not specific to women. This one, however, was specific to men, and I reckon you'd have a hard time finding an instance of it being applied to a woman. If you can find execution methods that were only applied to women, then those should certainly be in Category:Violence against women. I reject the notion that this is anachronistic, any more than adding Androcide or Rape in war to appropriate categories would be anachronistic, even those these are practices thousands of years old. Ealdgyths distinction is a false one - what is the difference between something that happens because of societal norms around "male" vs "happens because someone has a penis"? There are plenty of instances of violence against women that exist and are sanctioned BECAUSE of societal norms around women's roles. Societal norms around men's roles also play a role in what sort of violence they are subjected to, and this is one example of same.

Writkeeper writes: "saying that to a vast extent the people who died in the invasion of Normandy on D-Day in World War 2 were male doesn't qualify those articles for the "violence against men" category, since the fact that the violence was nearly or totally exclusively against men was not a defining characteristic of the event itself" - I would agree with this, we don't need to start adding articles about battles to this category. However, if we had an article about Men and war or articles which explained why soldiers have traditionally been men and compared death rates of soldiers vs civilians in war, etc, that would be valid for this category as well. In the same way, I don't think the individual hanging/drawing/quartering of a man should be in the "violence against men" category, but the topic article should be.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

John Houghton's alleged epitaph

The quotation reads "Good Jesu, what will you do with my heart?". I think there's a letter missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradewindx (talk • contribs) 15:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

There isn't. Parrot of Doom 16:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Tradewindx 10:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Scottish rebel leader

• 12:52, 23 August 2014‎ Parrot of Doom (59,259 bytes) (Reverted 1 pending edit by 86.179.87.126 to revision 622164259 by Cassianto: It was a rebellion)
• 12:41, 23 August 2014‎ 86.179.87.126 (→‎Treason in England: William Wallace was not a rebel leader as he was not English nor "Rebelling" against England he was fighting against English invasion of the Sovereign nation of Scotland and lead the Scottish military)

"the Scottish rebel leader Sir William Wallace"

Against whom was the Scotsman rebelling? -- PBS (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Modern historians do use terms like rebellion and revolt around Wallace, albeit carefully. Marc Morris, no particular friend of Wallace's opponent Edward I, describes the 1297 conflict in Scotland as a "revolt", and describes Bruce, Wallace and the others as "rebels" in his Edward I. Whether Edward, Bruce or any others were in the legal "right" over their various claims of dominance in Scotland, of course, is another matter, and is unlikely (IMHO) to be sorted out by 21st century historians... But the problem of how terms like "rebels" and "traitors" are used is underlined by Michael Prestwich, a relatively "pro-" Edward historian, for example, in his Edward I. He observes that, after Wallace was captured by Scottish troops and taken to London, "the heart of the accusation made in court [against Wallace] was the fact that Wallace had rebelled against Edward, his feudal lord..." but that "no account was taken of the the fact that Wallace did not regard Edward in this light." Morris similarly emphasises the irony that "Wallace was probably the only Scottish leader who had not sworn allegiance to the English king". Hchc2009 (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes I know some scholars describe the war as rebellion, but a search of Google scholar of ["William Wallace" -rebellion hanged] and ["William Wallace" rebellion hanged] shows that this is by no means close to universal, and of course most are writing within their own canon and have certainly not written it with the current political climate in Scotland foremost in their minds (too recent). I think it better that the definitive article "the" is dropped for "a" and the adjective is either dropped completely "a Scottish leader WW." or replaced with a more neutral descriptive adjective such as "a Scottish military leader WW." -- PBS (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If there are no objections I will make changes to this sentence. -- PBS (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"a Scottish leader" sounds sensible enough to me (I'd prefer us to avoid "military leader", as there weren't really "civilian leaders" during this period to contrast them with). Hchc2009 (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"A Scottish leader" sounds ridiculous. If people don't like "rebel" then it's better just to begin the sentence with "Sir William Wallace". Parrot of Doom 21:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

As far back as Athelstan most Scottish kings admitted some measure of dependence on the King of England. As the feudal superior of the Scottish crown, Edward I was consulted by the Scottish aristocracy when the succession to the Scottish throne was in dispute. Wallace could therefore be interpreted as being in rebellion against legitimate authority, but a more neutral use of wording would be better. Of course Wallace literally meant "Welshman" from the Anglo-Saxon wylisc, pronounced "weullush" - Strathclyde being a Brittonic kingdom before 1018, when its last native king Owen the Bald died. Urselius (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"Hanged, drawn and quartered" or "Drawn, hanged, and quartered"

This term in this order refers to a punishment specifically described in several texts and on the walls of several buildings in England as being hanged by pulling the neck enough to break it on a rack, then "drawing" or stretching the body out on the rack until joints break, and then removing the genitals and or intestines and either laying them out for the victim to see or burning them for the victim to see and then cutting the body, before or after beheading, in quarters. This is actually much worse than the attempted description in the article.

---

FerdieMagellan — Preceding unsigned comment added by FerdieMagellan (talk • contribs) 21:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

While I understand that it seems natural to preserve the more well-known "drawn and quartered" phrase within this title, "Hanged, drawn and quartered" is not representative of the underlying sequence of the act, and I do not believe that it properly signals the event that is the article's subject.

In this case, I believe the misnomer is material enough to warrant a change, because in its current state, the article's title is misleading to the reader. In my research (which, I admit, is not exhaustive), I have found no identical or similar transposition of "drawn" and "hanged" in the original statute or secondary materials that would support insistence on the continued use of the current title. Unless there is an objection other than status quo, I would like to see the title updated to "Drawn, hanged, and quartered".

(Aside: the use of the "Oxford comma" in the proposed revision is simply personal preference, and is not part of my objection.) Rossemo (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Rossie

You need to show lots and lots of sources to show that your preference actually is the preponderance of the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. For example, as noted in an earlier, unrelated debate on this article in Archive 2, user Arildnordby cites Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles (published c. 1577) in pointing out that “by far the most common order of the words are 'drawn, hanged and quartered', not the other way around.” Arildnordby then lists the instances of each version, with variations of "drawn, hanged and quartered" showing up seventeen times, while variations of “hanged, drawn and quartered” appear only eight times. Further, each variation appears to be directly tied to the chronology of the acts being referenced. There are several other discussions in Archive 2 that hint at this change, but only as ancillary to (and dependent on) the outcome of the "meaning of 'drawn'" discussion (e.g. §§ 4, 15, 17). For the sake of brevity, I am incorporating these sources by reference. Given the preceding, because the sequence of being drawn, then hanged, then quartered is the subject of this article, this change to the title would be an improvement.

Rossemo (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

In all my research while writing this article I found nothing that suggested the article's current use of the term is incorrect. And I certainly wouldn't base any such decision on what's written in a 400+ year old document. Parrot of Doom 11:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rossemo You write 'the more well-known "drawn and quartered"' the article titling policy was retitled from "naming conventions" to help explain that article titles are not name "correctly" but instead follow frequency of use in reliable English language sources no matter how "correct" editors think another name would be (to do anything else is original research and a breach of a second important policy).

@Parrot unless you are claiming ownership of this article, I think you mean "In all my research while contributing to this article". -- PBS (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Parrot of Doom @PBS @Ealdgyth Assuming that Parrot's research led to his selection of the title in its current form because it does, in fact, reflect the "frequency of use in reliable English language sources," then I suppose that settles the argument. I was arguing for correctness under the wrong set of rules. New guy mistake. I hate it when I didn't know what I didn't know. Rossemo (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

"Drawn" can either mean "dragged" or "disemboweled". "Hanged, drawn and quartered" means choked, disemboweled and chopped in four pieces while "drawn, hanged and quartered" could mean dragged, then choked, then chopped. In cookbooks, when chickens are drawn, they are gutted. Perhaps this usage isn't as common as it used to be, but I think "gutted" is more common than dragged by a horse. It fits the context better as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.151.2.10 (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Similar Punishments in Other Countries

The page on Robert-François Damiens links here with a note about him being "the last person to be executed in France by drawing and quartering". It seems that this page was rewritten some 5 years ago to reflect purely the British/English punishment and the section on "French Quartering" was removed. Trouble is I can't find where the details for French quartering were removed to in order to fix the link. Possibly just the page on Dismemberment which is perhaps a more general punishment of which he perhaps wasn't the last. So can someone more knowledgeable please fix that link. Opk (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The article imples that drawing and quartering was exclusively done in England, whereas it was also a punishment in France, reserved for cases of regicide. A famous example was François Ravaillac, who killed King Henri IV in 1610. The article should at least include a section on French instances. 153.103.130.11 (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the English sentence. I am aware of no other country that had a legal punishment like this. Parrot of Doom 14:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The French quartered people, but did not hang them first. The Scots passed HDQ sentences on occasion see the article David Hackston for an example. -- PBS (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hanged, drawn and quartered. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for https://books.google.com/books?id=R3fK0ewDbOcC

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hanged, drawn and quartered. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140321053412/http://www.smithscastle.org/whats_new/Castle_chron/castle_chron_w01.pdf to http://www.smithscastle.org/whats_new/Castle_chron/castle_chron_w01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Bloody Assize of 1814

Somewhere it is wrongfully stated: "Later sentences resulted either in a pardon or a hanging." This statement is about the British Colonies in the Americas. The Bloody Assize of 1814 is an event proving that this is not fully true, because here the heads of the convicted were still chopped off and displayed.Amand Keultjes (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Why hanged?

I've never heard it phrased as "Hanged, drawn and quartered", in standard English it's always been "Hung, drawn and quartered". Bopalula (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

"Hanged" is what the contemporary sources use, and the language that was used in the actual sentencing ("That you be led to the place from whence you came, and from thence be drawn upon a hurdle to the place of execution, and then you shall be hanged by the neck and, being alive, shall be cut down, and your privy members to be cut off, and your entrails be taken out of your body and, you living, the same to be burnt before your eyes, and your head to be cut off, your body to be divided into four quarters, and head and quarters to be disposed of at the pleasure of the King's majesty"). Right up to the abolition of the death penalty in the 20th century, criminals in England were invariably sentenced to be hanged, not hung. ‑ Iridescent 09:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I am very skeptical of this explanation. I came to this page purely because I too was puzzled at the strange use of language here. When I was taught history at school, the phrase was "hung, drawn and quartered". "Hung" is the correct English past tense here, not "hanged". I'm not convinced that the editor here fully understands English tenses. In my view this is evidence of why Wikipedia should never be considered a reliable source. John2o2o2o (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

It is a matter of English usage rather than grammar as such. I was always told, "A picture is hung, a man is hanged". The death sentence in England/UK was pronounced, "... you will be taken hence to the prison in which you were last confined and from there to a place of execution where you will be hanged by the neck until you are dead ...". From a purely grammatical viewpoint the word 'hanged' is a more active word than 'hung', and therefore more expressive of the physical action of execution. Urselius (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this. "Hanged" is correct when you're talking about hanging a person from a gallows. See Merriam-Webster, OED, Grammarist, the New York Times in 2006, etc. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of my edits 17 October 2017

OK, if the statute listed included a provision that isn't in its Wiki article, update that article.

But why reverse my improvement to the wording of the article in general just to re-add the reference to that statute? IAmNitpicking (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)