Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

"Drawing"

Black's Law Dictionary says "drawing" was dragging them to the place of execution, and that originally they were dragged thru the street -- the hurdle came later. -- isis 11 Sep 2002

The original 1911 article called the act of disembowelment "drawing", but I'm quite willing to believe that it was mistaken or just poor scholarship on their part (though one would expect them to be more accurate, being closer to the time of their actual use). The page to which your external link points suggests that the ambiguity of "drawing" was used to soften historical accounts of the deed, and that seems quite plausible to me. Also, the fact that the punishment is often described as "hanged, drawn, and quartered" suggests that specific order of events, and therefore that the drawing was the disembowelment, not the being drawn to the site of execution. --LDC

They were Victorians -- they probably wanted a euphemism for "disemboweling". Thanks for doing the external link: Do I assume correctly that you're not one of the folks who thinks its better to have the URL showing so it'll print, or will it print the way you have it, please? -- isis 11 Sep 2002

"They were Victorians" has me puzzled, as 'Victorian' refers to the people, moral standards, aesthics, etc. in prominence during the reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901); Get your history right...rjb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.17.56 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 7 December 2005

I think that "drawn" means "disemboewlment". otherwise it would have been called "Drawn Hang and Quatering!" The Victorians did not need any euphemism for violence only sex. Emasculation most probably. However William Blackstone (1765-1769) Commentaries on the Laws of England suggest that there are six steps. However as it is popularly known as "Hang, Drawn and Quatered", (victorian prudery?) or for whatever other reason, it is simpler to refer to the Drawn step as the "is entrails be taken out, and burned, while he is yet alive".

[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk4ch6.htm Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England Book the Fourth - Chapter the Sixth : Of High Treason: Page 92 PUBLIC WRONGS] second source see:

THE punifhment of high treafon in general is very folemn and terrible. 1. That the offender be drawn to the gallows, and not be carried or walk; though ufually a fledge or hurdle is allowed, to preferve the offender from the extreme torment of being dragged on the ground or pavement e. 2. That he be hanged by the neck, and then cut down alive. 3. That his entrails be taken out, and burned, while he is yet alive. 4. That his head be cut off. 5. That his body be divided into four parts. 6. That his head and quarters be at the king's difpofal f.

Also the reference already mentioned but on line in the original with S as Fs. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England Book the Fourth - Chapter the Twenty-Ninth : Of Judgment, And its Consequences: Page 370 PUBLIC WRONGS.

But the humanity of the Englifh nation has authorized, by a tacit confent, an almoft general mitigation of fuch part of thefe judgments as favour of torture or cruelty: a fledge or hurdle being ufually allowed to fuch traitors as are condemned to be drawn; and there being very few inftances (and thofe accidental or by negligence) of any perfon's being emboweled or burned, till previoufly deprived of fenfation by ftrangling.

Philip Baird Shearer 17:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Footnotes

Eventually, I'll get around to making sure that the code prints the URLs of external links in the "printable version" of a page regardless of how they are rendered, so yes, I prefer nice text descriptions in hypertext.

I've just added this. I didn't bother to have numbered footnote-URLs be listed separately as footnotes; so far both they and external links with text names simply list the URL in parentheses directly after the link. --Brion 06:28 12 September 2002 (UTC)

Also, I note that Cecil Adams treats the subject in his "Straight Dope" column, and not only supports your view, but specifically doubts the Encyclopedia Britannica reference, citing sentencing documents of the time. I can doubt such pretenders to authority as EB or Black's Law Dictionary, but Cecil has spoken. :-)

EB wrote in, thanked him for the corrections, and advised him that it would be revised in future updates of the encyclopaedia. So I guess that settles that. user:Montrealais 01:18, 12 September 2002 (UTC)

I had actually seen that column when I looked this up on the Internet a couple of weeks back ( http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_239.html for anyone else who's interested), and formed my opinion based partly on it, but I foolishly thought you'd think Black's a more reputable source. Silly me. -- isis 05:12, 11 September 2002 (UTC)

Blackstone says in the Commentaries (at vol. 4, p. 370 of the 1769 facsimile ed.):

"But the humanity of the English nation has authorized, by a tacit consent, an almost general mitigation of such part of these judgments as savour of torture or cruelty: a sledge or hurdle being usually allowed to such traitors as are condemned to be drawn; and there being few instances (and those accidental or by negligence) of any person's being disembowelled or burnt, till previously deprived of sensation by strangling."

Which brings up another subject I've been meaning to broach with you, since you can do anything with software: I have several volumes of facsimiles of legal works from the 1760s, and they need to be scanned in, but they have the fraktur "s"s, and I haven't run across the software to OCR those. Does it exist yet? Is it free? If not, will you please make some that is? -- isis 05:12, 12 September 2002 (UTC)

Emasculation

Does disembowelment involve removing only the intestines or emasculation too as the external link in the article suggests ? Jay 13:55, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Body parts

Someone has added text to the effect that "the four parts of the body would be sent to the four corners of the victim's country and thrown over the border". Is there any source to support this? In the case where the victim's country was England, I'm not too sure where the four corners would be, but I think at least 2 bits of the body would end up in the sea! Also, there would be 5 bits, incuding the head! With regard to another recent edit, is "convict" really an improvement on "victim"? Bluewave 10:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I personally think it is, even though I find the practice revolting (obviously) the word 'victim' is ambiguous and the term 'convict' is not. This is not a POV issue as far as I`m concerned. The edit made by me was solely made for reasons of textual clarity. --Isolani 20:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment was a bit flippant. I just find 'convict' a bit odd when describing someone like William 'Braveheart' Wallace or even Major Harrison. Maybe it is because people convicted of treason are usually, at least partly, political prisoners, and 'convict' doesn't quite fit the bill. However, I agree that 'victim' is not quite right either! Likewise, I'm only keen on accuracy and clarity. I certainly have no axe to grind on this subject! Bluewave 21:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Abolishment date of 1870 disputed

The Encyclopaedi Britannica claims 1867. Other sources (via Google) claim 1821, 1843, 1848, and 1870, to name a few. If anyone here is an expert historian specializ[s]ing in English law, care to clarify? --Benc 08:23, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

(Questioning last date it was carried out, rather than when abolished.) The article states that the last time it was carried out was in 1820. Is this a reference to the case of Arthur Thistlewood and others, who were convicted of treason in that year? If so, 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, at least in this example, the authorities were taking a more lenient approach to carrying out the sentence. The latest example that I can find of the full sentence being carried out was that of Francis Henry De la Motte, who was conviced on 11th July, 1781. Is there a later one that can be cited? Bluewave 11:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Dafydd ap Gruffydd and William Wallace (Braveheart)

It was good to see the article distinguish the two first casualties of Edward I's gruesome punishment as freedom fighters. To describe them as traitors is to imply that they saw their primary allegiance with England and the Anglo-Norman crown. But both were born free in Wales and Scotland respectively.

William Wallace is well known through the movie Braveheart, but Dafydd is not well known at all. The 3rd tallest peak in England and Wales is named after him: Carnedd Dafydd. The second, Carnedd Llywelyn, is named after his brother. The tallest is of course Snowdon, or Yr Wyddfa ("the burial place" - from neolithic chieftains' practice of high burials) in Welsh

Dafydd was a very interesting character and is portrayed as such in books by Sharon Penman "Falls the Shadow" and "The Reckoning" as well as Edith Pargeter's book "The Brothers of Gwynedd" - all highly worth reading. Because he'd been a a hostage from the Welsh Principality in the English court for much of his childhood, growing up with Edward, Edward would have seen him as a traitor. But Dafydd made his peace with his brother, Llywelyn Prince of Wales, in his final years, fighting alongside Llywelyn. Dafydd signed his last official document as "Prince of Wales and Lord of Snowdon" .

The cruelty of Edward was evident not just in the punishment but in having Dafydd's two sons aged 7 and 9 put in prison in Bristol castle for life. One died in adolescence, the other was kept in a cage within the castle, and still known to be there in his 40s. Dafydd's 7 daughters as well as Gwenllian, the baby of Llywelyn and Eleanor, daughter of Simon de Montfort (Eleanor died during the childbirth in the midst of Llywelyn and Dafydd's war with Edward) were all consigned to convents for life. Thus Edward I extinguished the house of Gwynedd, a dynasty that had lasted over 800 years. The one surviving cousin, Owain Lawgoch ("Red Hand") tried to raise an army in France to win back Wales, but was killed by an assasin.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.82.51 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 9 October 2004

I always thought that the second tallest mountain in England and Wales was Crib y Ddysgl at 1065m?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.214.83.213 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 14 April 2005

American war of independence

Two thoughts on this:

• As Franklin said "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately" if the British had won the war then once they had recovered their prisoners of war, they might well have HDQ the most prominent rebels.
• I am not sure what they would have done with ordinary rebels, as they could not be the not sent colonies as a punishment, perhaps they could have been shipped to Britain instead ;-)

--Philip Baird Shearer 13:31, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"During the American war of independence (1775–1783) notable captured colonists such as signers of the Declaration of Independence were subject to being hanged, drawn and quartered as traitors to the King." Any evidence of this happening???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.166.190.13 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 7 September 2006

Guy Fawkes death

It was, according to various sources, Fawkes' co-conspiritor Robert Keyes who leapt from the scaffold ladder in order to procure a swift death. Unfortunately the rope broke and so Keyes was still concious when disembowelled. He was executed on 31 January 1606 in the Old Palace Yard in Westminster along with Ambrose Rookwood, Thomas Wintour and Guy Fawkes. Keyes was the third of the men despatched, and Fawkes was last. Weakened by torture, Fawkes had to be helped up the ladder by his executioner and, according to the Gunpowder Plot society, the drop did indeed break his neck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.170.50 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 31 January 2005

I don't know what to make of the document, but a supposedly contemporary account in the Weekely News for 31 January 1606 details all the deaths as above and seems to speaks of "drawing" the convicts to where they were to be killed as well as "drawing" or "withdrawing" the intestines of some. Myron 28 June 2005 20:04 (UTC)

Why is the victim punished?

It says Until 1870, the full punishment for the crime was to be "hanged, drawn and quartered" in that the victim would be [dragged, haned, disembowelled and beheaded]. Shouldn't it read criminal instead of victim? Or is this article also questioning this method of justice? NPOV? Ewlyahoocom 10:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed the term ' victim' to 'convict' , imo this wording is more precise. --Isolani 16:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

complete list?

About how many people were HD&Q'd in england? Is there a reasonably complete list anywhere? [WMC, un-logged in] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.0.114 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 14 November 2005

Details of the punishment

"the heart was the last to be removed and was then shown to the victim" ...wouldn't removing the heart kill the victim, and thus preclude any possibility of showing it to the victim? Some guy 22:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, removing the heart would have resulted in immediate death. Also, removal of the internal organs from a living victim would have resulted in such massive loss of blood that I doubt anyone was conscious to see his entrails burned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.187.94 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 13 December 2005

History

This says "Many spectators thought that his sentence was too severe. Antonia Fraser writes:....". Am I alone in finding this misleading? Antonia Fraser is a novelist so I don't see that her quotation supports the suggestion that the spectators though the sentence too severe. Bluewave 14:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Antonia Fraser was a Historian first, and only laterly a novelist.

NB see her entry on Wikipedia--Bilbo B 14:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Last Catholic?

Sez the article:

Oliver Plunkett, archbishop of Armagh and the Catholic primate of Ireland, was arrested in 1681 and transported to Newgate Prison, London, where he was convicted of treason. He was hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn, the last Catholic to die for his faith.

Surely there have been Catholics killed for their faith since 1681. Is this sentence supposed to mean that Plunkett was the last person executed by the British government for the crime of being Catholic? In fact, the sentence immediately preceeding says that his crime was treason, not Catholicism per se, so I'm tempted just to strike the clause all together. --Jfruh 02:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The 'treason' charge was for "promoting the Catholic faith" and trumped up charges of rebellion actually http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Oliver_Plunkett "Lord Shaftesbury knew that Oliver would never be convicted in Ireland, and had him moved to Newgate prison, London. The first grand jury found no true bill, but he was not released. The second trial was a kangaroo court; Lord Campbell, writing of the judge, Sir Francis Pemberton, called it a disgrace to himself and his country. Plunkett was found guilty of high treason on June, 1681 "for promoting the Catholic faith," and was condemned to a gruesome death."

Also found this here: http://www.louthonline.com/html/oliver_plunkett.html " On the 6th of December 1679 on his way to a friends house in Dublin he was arrested and detained for six weeks in Dublin Castle under false charges that he had 70,000 Irish Catholics prepared to rise up and murder Protestants in a plot to restore the Romish rule to Ireland. The trial was first set up to be held in Dundalk, where he was held in a gaonoocpied by P.J. Carrolls premises on the main street. No Protestant juror would convict Plunkett on the evidence of the two renegade priests, John McMoyer and Edmund Murphy. Indeed, Murphy fled during the trial sessions in fear of his life and the proceedings were adjourned. Plunkett was then sent to London where he was jailed for six months pending a new trial. At this trial there were three Chief Prosecution witnesses: the Franciscans Hugh Duffy and John McMoyer, and edmund Murphy of Oliver's own diocese. Murphy was imprisoned for contempt of court during the trial. Lord Pemberton, the Lord Chief Justice, pronounced sentence: "Well, however, the judgement which we must give you is that which the law says and speaks. And therefore you must go from hence to the place from whence you came, that is Newgate. And from thence you shall be drawn ( two miles by sledge) through the City of London to Tyburn; there you shall be hanged by the neck but cut down before you are dead, your bowels taken out and burnt bore ur fe, your head shall be cut off, and your body divided into four quarters to be disposed of as his majesty pleases. And I pray God to have mercy on your soul." As to whether Plunkett survived to witness his own disembowellment, the general view is that he died shortly after the procedure started.....The whole incident was recognised as such a travesty of justice that many English Protestants had a change of heart. The Earl of Essex, the former Viceroy of Ireland, petitioned King Charles to pardon Plunkett before the execution, assuring him of Plunketts innocence. The King is said to lost his temper and replied "Why did you not attest this at the trial? It would have done him some good then. I dare not pardon anyone. His blood be upon your head not mine." It was Essex who had Plunkett arrested on the 6th of December. " mango2005

this should read Hung not hanged

I have always believed that the correct term was "hung" which meant "strangulation" so that the unfortunate victem would be semi-conscious when he was then "drawn" I have always thought that "drawn" was used to describe the removal on the guts. One used to speak of "drawing" a carcass such as a sheep or a cow. So, to me, the term is "hung, drawn and quartered" to use the terms that would have descibed managing a carcass in the era when this punishment was used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.12.240 (talk • contribs) 11:19, January 31, 2006 (UTC)

(To the anonymous person who suggested "hung", rather than "hanged".) The OED says (regarding suspension by the neck) "In this sense, hanged is now the specific form of the past tense and past participle; though hung is used by some, especially in the south of England". So it sounds like "hanged" is the better word (except for some people in the south of England). Bluewave 11:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Hanged" is used when referencing execution. "Hung" is used when referencing wardrobes. 66.109.99.18 18:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, "hanged" is the correct form to use when referring to somebody being "Put to death by hanging by the neck" (OED, my italics). I have seen it argued, though, that in the case of hanging, drawing and quartering the hanging is not in itself the means of capital punishment and so the correct form should be "hung" ([1]). This seems wrong to me, on balance, as no doubt the use is derived from the previous punishment of simply being hanged by the neck until dead, but I though I'd throw this into the mix! --Casper Gutman 08:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with the first poster. The proper use of the word hanged is something of a bugbear of mine. Hanged means to be killed directly by suspension by the neck. As this is not the cause of death in this case, hung should be used.

If you look at the online Old Bailey transcripts, cited in the article, the usage is always "hanged". A keyword search on "hung" doesn't show up any instances, that I can find, amongst the sentences. I think the rationale is that a hanging, for hdq, was exactly the same as any other hanging, except the victim was cut down before death. Hence, the same word used. Bluewave 12:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Hanged" is the correct past participle of the verb "to hang" when referring to the punishment of hanging. "Hung" is the correct version when referring to hanging in other terms e.g.hanging a picture.

Hanging articles states that it should be "hung", citinghttp://trackerpress.com/pdf/Page_60.pdf as reference. Bluewave, could you possibly give reference to Old Bailey? Maybe fix the [[hanging] article too. -- Heptor _talk 20:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The Old Bailey transcripts are available at http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/ (see external links section of main article). It is a fascinating source with various search facilities. There are about 17 HDQs and, as noted above, I could only find "hanged" (or "hang'd"), not hung. I referred to the OED as well, above. At that time I had an online account: now, unfortunately, I don't, so I can't re-check what it says. However, I believe that what I wrote, above, was accurate: that, regarding suspension by the neck, hanged is now the specific form of the past tense and past participle. In other words, the distinction is whether it refers to suspension by the neck rather than actually causing death. Next time I'm in a library, I will re-check the full OED wording. I think I'll arm myself with that before going into battle on the hanging article! Bluewave 17:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good! I am no expert in English grammar, I just noticed the inconsistency. Hope you can fix the hanging when you are sure:) -- Heptor _talk 04:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

William Wallace Documents

The article currently reads:

There is confusion among modern historians about whether "drawing" referred to the dragging to the place of execution or the disembowelling, but since two different words are used in the official documents detailing the trial of William Wallace ("detrahatur" for drawing as a method of transport, and "devaletur" for disembowelment), there is no doubt that the victims of this extraordinarily cruel form of punishment were in fact disembowelled.

I have added a {{template:Citation needed}} to this, not only because it could really use such a citation, but because I would like to see this document myself. It could be useful for the Latin wikipedia. However, I'm pretty sure there's a mistake on the second word: devaletur would mean something like "he is devalued" or perhaps "he is unhealthied" (but the verb devalere is, to my knowledge, not attested anyway). Surely this is a mistake for devellatur "let him be torn up." --Iustinus 17:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Biology

The heart is removed and then shown to the victim? The executioner/surgeon would have to accomplish this in about 20 milliseconds, as removal of the heart tends to negatively affect one's ability to see anything. Or is this "showing" metaphorical? Please re-evaluate this section. Osiris thanks you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.39.182.234 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 18 May 2006

Yeah, I don't get that either. How could someone be "disemboweled" and made to watch their organs being "burned before their eyes"? Please...That may have been the idea or intention, but in reality if they didn't die immediately they would've surely gone into shock and passed out (for many reasons, not least of which being the rapid loss of blood.) Drawing and quartering was most likely more for the public spectacle and "deterrence" factor than anything. (It also demonstrates how horribly uncivilized the English nation was.)24.84.21.25 00:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Did the Americans hang, draw and quarter?

The following entry appears in The Freeman's Journal, or North American Intelligencer (published in Philadelphia) for Wed July 18th, 1781. "A knot of tories near Frederick town" were arraigned, tried and found guilty of High Treason. They had been found guilty of enlisting men for service of the King of Great Britain and administering an oath to them, to bear allegiance to the said king. Seven named individuals were sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered. But were they? Pablo39 21:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In future, please sign and date your edits (using four tilde characters). DFH 12:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Henry V

The article refers to Shakespeare's mention of HDQ. I was looking up the exact reference to the warrant on Thomas Grey in Henry V and I can't find any mention of HDQ. Have I just missed it; or is it referred to in some eliptical Shakespearean phrase that I have skipped over? ...and, by the way, I think this article is looking pretty good - maybe approaching the quality for a "Good article" Bluewave 12:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Robert Emmett

After a ludicrous attempt at rebellion in arms, Robert Emmett (forgive me if I've spelt his name incorrectly), the Irish (Protestant) rebel, made famous by the songs of his friend, Thomas Moore, was hanged, drawn and quartered near Saint Catherine's Church, in the Liberties of Dublin in 1803.--PeadarMaguidhir 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Treason Act 1814 - amendment of punishment

G'day from Australia, the Treason Act of 1814, (formal reference being: 54 Geo III, cap. 146) was enacted on 27 July 1814. Its long title is: “An Act to alter the Punishment in certain Cases of High Treason.” This Act mandated that the prisoner was to be hanged until dead; and abolished disembowelling.

I have read a few transcripts of sentences passed for high treason, and it seems clear to me that "drawing" was the process of drawing the prisoner from the place of imprisonment to the place of execution. As an example of a pre-1814 sentence, I cite:

Francis Henry De la Motte, treason, 11th July, 1781. The Proceedings of the Old Bailey Ref: t17810711-1

"... the State requires that you should be made an example of, to deter others from meriting that fate which awaits you. The sentence of the Law in your case is, and this Court doth adjudge, That you be drawn upon a hurdle to the place of execution; that you be there hanged by the neck, but not until you are dead; but that, being alive, you be cut down, and your bowels taken out and burnt before your face; that your head be severed from your body, and your body divided into four parts; and that your head and quarters be disposed of as the King shall think fit: and may the Lord have mercy on your soul! " reference: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/html_units/1780s/t17810711-1.html

I have read one sentence from the post-1814 era (Rex v. COMSTIVE & others, York, 1820), and it was identical to the 1781 example already cited, EXCEPT that the two changes legislated in 1814 were given effect.

It seems to me that "hanged, drawn, and quartered" is just a popular error that has gained currency by mere repetition. If anyone can cite an authoritative and contemporary source for "HDQ", as opposed to "DHBQ", I'd be very interested to know of it.

Pmthomas 15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Pmthomas [end]

Last Beheadings in Britain

G'day from Australia, it is often asserted that the last beheadings for High Treason (as it then was) were five of the Cato Street Conspirators (THISTLEWOOD and others), in London on 01 May 1820. To the best of my knowledge, these were indeed the last beheadings in England. However, three more followed in Scotland: 1. James “Perlie” or “Perley” WILSON (1760-1820), executed 30 August 1820; 2. Andrew HARDIE of Glasgow; and 3. John BAIRD of Condorrat; both executed at Stirling, on 08 September 1820.

I can't give a source for this, but I have read that the heads of the Cato Street Five remained on public display until the 1850s.

Pmthomas 15:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Pmthomas [end]

G'day mate! The Old Bailey online (well worth a visit) has a full transcript.[2] This states:

LORD CHIEF JUSTICE ABBOTT, after a most solemn address to them, passed the following sentence: -

" That they be taken to the place from whence they came, and afterwards be drawn upon a hurdle to the place of execution, where they should be severally hanged by the neck until they were dead; that their heads should then be severed from their bodies, and that their bodies be divided into four quarters, to be at the disposal of His Majesty ."

On Saturday, the learned COMMON SERGEANT (in consequence of the indisposition of the learned RECORDER.) reported their several cases to His Majesty in Council, who ordered Arthur Thistlewood , John Thomas Brunt , James Ings , Richard Tidd , and William Davidson to be executed ; the remaining prisoners His Majesty was most graciously pleased to respite , all of whom, except Gilchrist, are Transported for Life . 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 omittted.)

I take that last sentence to mean that they weren't beheaded. Bluewave 15:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

G'day, if you look at this article: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRthistlewood.htm you will see a contemporary sketch of the execution. You will note that the executioner is holding the severed head aloft, and reciting the traditional words "this is the head of a traitor". My interpretation of the last sentence to which Bluewave refers, above, to mean that the quartering of the deceased traitors was not carried out. Pmthomas 15:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

William Maurice

Several websites and at least one book name William Maurice as the first victim of HDQ. I have added a mention of this and a citation of the book in question. However, I am not totally convinced by the sources and, apart from anything else, 1241 is quite early for a hereditary surname like Maurice. Can anyone quote a better source or a refutation? Bluewave 15:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

At the end of the section entitled Treason in England someone has written the words "Taylor is Sexy". I clicked on edit in an attempt to remove that phrase and was unable to do so. Someone with a greater knowledge of Wikipedia than me needs to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.6 (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorted, thanks. Some kind of hidden text was used. Parrot of Doom 20:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move to "Hanging, drawing and quartering"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hanged, drawn and quartered → Hanging, drawing and quartering – This topic has been brought up sporadically in the past, but I would like to make a formal move request to the noun form. WP:NOUN indicates a strong preference for the noun form, and it is much neater if the titling is consistent with articles such as Hanging. The current title is a major departure from Wikipedia's regular title conventions, and I consider it a blemish on an otherwise excellent (and featured) article. The only argument I have seen for the present past tense verb title (at Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 6#Title) is that "hanged, drawn, and quartered" is more frequent on Google, but I find that argument unconvincing. The purpose of the article title is to give the name of the execution method, and that is the noun form: "Hanging, drawing and quartering". "Hanged, drawn and quartered" is not an alternate name for the execution method but a description of what happened to a person. If we titled articles according to Google hits, Impalement would have been moved to "Impaled". Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No. The article is not just about the execution. The sentence is to be hanged, drawn and quartered. Parrot of Doom 22:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NOUN. Deor (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Brangifer (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, and because as PoD points out this article is mainly about the sentence, which does not use the -ing form. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose it's always referred to as the current title. Hot Stop ^UTC 21:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per CommonName policy. The number of books which list "Hanging, drawing and quartering" at Google books is just over 31,000 whereas the number with this article's title is 111,000. This is a good indicator that the article title is already correct.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I find the COMMONNAME argument to be based on the misconception that the two are different names for the method, when in fact they are just different grammatical tenses. The past tense is used more often than the present tense, but that can be said about a large swathe of possible articles, without that causing us to move the article title to the past tense. None of the people opposing the move have attended to 1) the inconsistency with articles like Hanging, Electrocution, Impalement, and Decapitation (instead of "Hanged", "Electrocuted", "Impaled", and "Decapitated"), and 2) The WP:NOUN guideline policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Each of those articles is in very poor condition. This article is primarily about the sentence, not the execution, and the sentence is to be "hanged, drawn and quartered". It is also the form that most reliable sources on the subject use. Parrot of Doom 11:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per CommonName --Snowded ^TALK 11:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Uncertain My linguistic sixth sense (i.e. pure hunch, I could be wrong) is that if you are going to put this in the "ing" tense, shouldn't it be a "hang, draw and quartering"? Kinda like "bait and switching" rather than "baiting and switching"? Hanging, drawing and quartering are three distinct acts, each of which has its own page, and not all of which are always involved in the punishment for high treason, and neglects to mention other acts that usually are (beheading, impalement, etc.), suggesting that "hang, draw and quarter" is more of a manner of speech, a common phrase, than an accurate description of the execution. Walrasiad (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Opposed per WP:COMMONNAME. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Theological issues ?

Purely as an intuition, I wonder if the practice of separating the parts of the dead body was intended as a reference to the idea of bodily resurrection as the eventual destiny of all ( good) Christians, at the Day of Judgement? Was it meant to add a further level of punishment for abominable crimes by denying this possibility ? This would apply also to execution by burning, eg of "witches" ... FWIW : I believe this issue may have been a factor in opposition to early medical dissection, where people may have feared losing the possibility of final resurrection if they fell into the hands of grave robbers, even in Victorian times...I have to admit, I have never seen any evidence of this notion in any of these cases Feroshki (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Too UK oriented

It happened in France too per example: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Robert-Fran%C3%A7ois_Damiens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.217.237 (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong. This was a specific offence under English law. Parrot of Doom 18:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not consistent with Article about Jeremiah Brandreth

This article has a caption saying "The decapitated [sic] head of Jeremiah Brandreth, one of the last men in England sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered". http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jeremiah_Brandreth however says he was merely beheaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.92.102 (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Executioners sometimes did not carry out the sentence. Parrot of Doom 12:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Hanged, drawn and quartered → Hung, drawn and quartered – Incorrect grammar (incorrect tense used in one of the verbs in the title). — I say, old bean, whoever is ultimately behind this, "you're are either a very funny man, or you're 'avin' a giraffe (laff (laugh))", mate ! This has got to be a "wind-up", a practical joke or a prank, of some sort, or all of the above! — This form of execution of the capital punishment was called, since the days of Samuel Pepys, Esquire, "Hung, drawn and quartered", full stop. There is even a Pub in London that is called as such, with that name! "To be hanged" was, and is, a slightly different form of execution, that is, without disembowelment, or decapitation (usually or intentional), as in "to be hanged by the neck until your are DEAD, [&c., etc.], and may the Lord have mercy upon your soul", or variants thereof with words to that effect. — KC9TV 19:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• The title of the article reflects the consensus of quality sources used in the article. We follow the guidance of reliable sources, not anecdotal knowledge or the names of pubs. --Laser brain (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes! You are in fact correct, after all, because Samuel Pepys probably DID use the word "hanged" instead of the word "hung", but this is NOT modern, current usage and no longer correct English, in England, probably for the last 50 years; and this was also a British, and a largely English, form of punishment, having almost never been put to use in North America. You know, words and usages, &c., that had died out of use in England, but not in North America. For the record, the name of that Pub, at No.s 26 & 27, upon the Great Tower Street, London, EC3R, (EC3R 5AQ), in the City of London, however, does conform to modern, current British usage. Should we, for example, still spell the word "King" on Wikipedia as "Kynge", or should we still be using Edwardian, Victorian or 19th-Century, instead of more modern, English? Even the British Library, at [3], now speaks of "hung, drawn and quartered". — KC9TV 20:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Your rhetorical style is very unusual. --Laser brain (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• The article is primarily concerned with the sentence, which was "[to be] hanged, drawn and quartered". This is the form used by almost all the sources used to construct this article. Meat is hung, people are hanged. Parrot of Doom 23:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – Book n-grams suggest that "hanged" is the traditional and most common form, though it does show "hung" gaining a lead recently. It makes sense for an encyclopedia to stick to the traditional, until the new form clearly displaces it, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - a quick look in Google Scholar supports Dicklyon's point. btw Can you please delete everything from "I say old bean... all of the above!" from the RM proposal. It is distracting and not likely to promote your proposed move. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose preponderance of scholarly sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• This has come up before but shouldn't the title be Hanging, drawing and quartering per WP:NOUN ("Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech")? Cf. hanging and other execution methods. —  AjaxSmack  00:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This article is primarily about the sentence and its history. Nobody was ever sentenced to be "hanging, drawing and quartering". In all the books I have on the subject, the present article title is the form most commonly used. Parrot of Doom 08:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
    • No, nobody was ever sentenced "to be 'hanging, drawing and quartering'" but luckily English is grammatically flexible and we can drop "to be" and convert the passive verbs to gerunds with no loss of clarity. —  AjaxSmack  01:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
      • There's no gain in clarity either, so there's no point. Parrot of Doom 07:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Sure there is (a point). Encyclopedias like Wikipedia have articles on things, i.e. nouns, not on passive verbs (which belong in Wiktionary). For example, we use decapitation, not "decapitated", stoning, not "stoned" (hmmm...), and blowing from a gun, not "blown form a gun" despite the more common usage of the verb form in running text. —  AjaxSmack  16:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• rename to Hanging, drawing and quartering per AjaxSmack or hang, draw and quarter , and it also avoids whether it is "hanged" or "hung" -- 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  Your opinion would be more greatly respected if you used an account to edit, or if your advanced editing didn't occur on an IP that has no depth of editing history to it. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:IPs are human too and WP:Assume good faith for why this IP editor deserves just as much respect as anyone else. Elizium23 (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you bother to look at their edit history? I did. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

So, my opinion is not to be respected just because I know my way around Wikipedia? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is the correct and prevalent common name as shown by sources and illustrated by the ngram graph linked to by Dicklyon above.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 13:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Berean Hunter. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the actual name was hanged, drawn, and quartered - not hung... and definitely not hanging... Hot Stop 15:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support hanging, drawing and quartering per AjaxSmack. WP:COMMONNAME gives us the verbs, and perhaps their order, and then WP:TITLEFORMAT indicates that we use the noun forms of those verbs. All per guidelines. Though, I would advocate use of the serial comma and thus hanging, drawing, and quartering. ENeville (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:COMMONNAME gives you the verbs in their exact and precise tense...any attempt to modify those using other guidelines and policies would move you away from common name policy. Your suggestion falls completely off the map of common names.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a strongly asserted argument. However, I don't see anything to support it in WP:COMMONNAME, or other any WP guidelines that I'm aware of. ENeville (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Look again. It is the 2nd sentence, "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is usually used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." Further, I presented the ngram graph which proves to you that your suggestion has no prevalence in sources.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Is it pure coincidence that this exact issue came up at the help desk two days before this nomination by a different person? Anyway, oppose based on the research I posted when it came up there that the current name is a stock phrase and far more common in the current title's form than for the proposed title.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Drawn"

The confusion over whether "drawn" refers to drawing behind a horse, or to disembowelment, was discussed in Execution of the sentence, where it doesn't really belong. I moved the text to a new Etymology section. Newburyjohn (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree. I'm not a fan of partitioning articles into lots of headings. The section you moved (a move that I have reverted) immediately followed an introduction to the use of drawing. By moving it into its own section you left a jarring gap in the description of how the guity were moved from prison to the place of execution. Parrot of Doom 20:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of the confusion over the meaning of the word "draw" does not belong in the section on the execution of the sentence. That there is confusion seems plain if the OED is uncertain which meaning is used here - even if you personally are certain that it is in the sense of disembowelment. FWIW I tend to agree with you on that, but the reason I looked at the article at all was to see if it clarified which meaning was intended; I didn't expect to find the discussion buried in a paragraph about the mechanics of the execution. And I don't see any "jarring gap" following my edit. However as the article seems to be protected due to edit warring I won't change anything for now. Newburyjohn (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's important it remains where it is because drawing was the method used to fetch traitors from the prison to the place of execution. Drawing likely does not refer to the means of disembowelment, as Ian Mortimer explains in his online essay on the subject. His is the only detailed study I can find on the matter.

As a side note, I cannot stand to see articles compartmentalised by people who are not interested in reading the whole thing. It doesn't happen at the ONDB, for instance, and it shouldn't happen here. Parrot of Doom 12:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"It's important it remains where it is because drawing was the method used ..." is a non sequitur. It is discussion on the meaning of the phrase HD&Q, not on the method of execution. What you personally can or cannot stand is irrelevant. If one wants to find the origin of the term "drawing" in this context, this article is a logical place to look. But it's a longish article, and if one already knows what HD&Q entails, it's a waste of time having to read the whole thing. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference facility, where you look for and find information you are interested in, without having to read stuff you're not interested in. By your logic, Wikipedia should not be compartmentalised into separate articles for the benefit of people who are not interested in reading all of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newburyjohn (talk • contribs) 08:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to anyone who wants to make an article easier to digest but I don't agree with anything you've written. Parrot of Doom 09:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The first sentence reads "To be hanged, drawn and quartered (less commonly "hung, drawn and quartered") was from 1351 a penalty in England..." Should this be "was from a 1351 penalty"? What is there now reads oddly to me. Chris857 (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think your proposed fix is the best wording. The current wording suggests that the penalty was used beginning in 1351, which isn't quite what yours says. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Article protected for 48 hours

I've just fully protected this article for 48 hours to allow for dispute resolution. Please drop me a note on my talk page if agreement on wording is reached within this time, and I'll lift the protection. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Death by horse pulling

I saw this execution being done in a historical movie. Is there any mentions in this article or anywhere on WP of executions by tying up each of the four limbs to a horse, and having the horses run in opposite directions? I don't know if this is related to quartering, but the person's limbs probably gets pulled off... really sick... Here's a source that may be useful. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This might get you started. Parrot of Doom 08:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Except the movie was about historical China. I don't think it was just in France. How about adding this stuff into the main article or this one? - M0rphzone (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the English sentence - what happened in other countries is irrelevant. Parrot of Doom 10:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah it's mentioned at the list of methods of capital punishment under "Tearing apart by horses" or "quartering". Can we create an article at quartering that addresses this method? - M0rphzone (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like there's a dab page at that title already, but if you've enough material for an article on the topic then by all means. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

John Munday

... is mentioned here, but there is also John Munday (mayor). Can the situation be clarified here? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What situation? As the mayor called John Munday died in 1538 he obviously couldn't have the government spy mentioned in 1582. Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Bristol

I think there ought to be mention of Royalists HDQ in Bristol during the Civil War for high treason should be mentioned as they were exceptional (see Declaration of Lex Talionis). -- PBS (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Scotland

At least one Scotsman was HDQ in Scotland under Scottish law, see the biography article on David Hackston (and where there is one there are probably more). -- PBS (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Drawing= dragging or disembowelling?

Ian Morimer is cited by Parrot of Doom in the Guy Fawkes page as a proponent of the 'drawing = dragging to a place of execution' interpretation (see http://www.ianmortimer.com/essays/drawing.pdf). Mortimer cites the chronicle of Henry Machyn for 1554 as his favoured primary source, focussing on the following entries:

"The … day of May was arraigned at the Guildhall Mr. William Thomas, clerk to the council, and cast to suffer death, to be drawn and quartered."

and

"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. "

to support the view that drawing referred to dragging to Tyburn, even though the word 'drawn' followed 'to suffer death'.

However, the same chronicle also contains the following entry:

"The thirteenth day of January there was a man drawn from the Tower through London upon a sled unto unto Tyburn, and there hanged, drawn, and quartered for counterfeiting the Queen's signet."

This entry appears to indicate that there were two usages for 'drawn' in 1554 - the man was drawn (i.e. dragged) to Tyburn and then drawn (i.e. disembowelled) at Tyburn after being hanged. For me, this supports the OED definition of drawing that Mortimer is unhappy with. My understanding is that many prisoners would be humiliated by being 'drawn' to Tyburn for execution - not just those convicted of treason, and therefore sentenced explicitly to "hanging, drawing and quartering". Conversely, it also appears to be the case that many, but not all, of those convicted of treason were disembowelled as part of their sentence, so it should not be a surprise that this element of the punishment would be referred to in the sentencing. Maybe contemporary sources were just inconsistent with their usage of the term 'drawing'?

I'm no historian, or editor, so I'm not going to make edits to the page, but I just flag this for consideration to those better qualified than I am. Gilgamesh4 (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Obsolescence

What, exactly, does it mean for a sentence to become "obsolete"? Is that really the best descriptive term we have for this? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Eric Corbett 23:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe he is talking about the Lede, 3rd paragraph, first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.167.170 (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The punishment was effectively abolished by section 31 of the Forfeiture Act 1870, which repealed the parts of the Treason Act 1790 and the Treason Act 1814 that required the punishment of a person convicted of high treason to "include the drawing of the person on a hurdle to the place of execution, and, after execution, the severing of the head from the body, and the dividing of the body into four quarters".[4] So that just left hanging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.218.215 (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Consensus appears to be in favor of the legal phrase. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hanged, drawn and quartered → Hanging, drawing and quartering – "Hanged, drawn and quartered" appears in the literature more often than "Hanging, drawing and quartering". Our policy on commonly recognizable names states that "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used". However, "Hanged, drawn and quartered" is not a name (ie. it is not a noun, noun phrase, or gerund). For this reason, "Hanged, drawn and quartered" is not a more common name than "Hanging, drawing and quartering" because "Hanged, drawn and quartered" is not a name at all; it is a grammatical conjugation. The relevant policy in this case is our policy on article title format, which states that "nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech". An exception in this policy is made for articles about phrases, such as A rolling stone gathers no moss, but this article is not primarily about the phrase Hanged, drawn and quartered; the vast majority of the content of this article is about the method of execution. As such, this article should be moved to Hanging, drawing and quartering. Neelix (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No. The sentence was "hanged, drawn and quartered", and this article is about the sentence. And before anyone suggests it, I think hanging should be hanged. Or perhaps you'd prefer that murder be moved to murdering? Parrot of Doom 20:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If by "sentence" you mean decree of punishment, then yes, but that proves my point. If you mean the grammatical unit, I disagree. I see very little in the article about the phrase; the vast majority of the article is about the decree of punishment, not the phrase currently employed as the title. Neelix (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The act is hanging, drawing and quartering, which is also the noun version and should therefore be favoured. PoD's argument above doesn't really make sense, as murder is the noun version. We say "a hanging" (and indeed "a drawing" and "a quartering"); we don't say "a murdering". -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  Are you really as dense as you appear to be? Hardly seems possible. Eric Corbett 01:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  Please discuss content and not editors. Neelix (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per Parrot of Doom. What's important here is the legal sentence. Eric Corbett 23:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • But all other similar sentences use the noun form. —  AjaxSmack  03:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NOUN ("Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech"). Cf. hanging and other execution methods. —  AjaxSmack  03:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "normally preferred". What is you take on common usage? -- PBS (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    • "Disembowel" is more common than "disembowelment"; "hang" is more common than "hanging" but we use the noun form for these all other forms of execution because an encyclopedia is a compendium of persons, places, classes, or things not truncated passive verbs. This applies to articles in other realms despite another part of speech being more common (cf. "eating", not "eat"; "running", not "run"). This principle is utterly uncontroversial except here. I also reject that the passive verb should be used because someone was "sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered". People are or were "sentenced to be hanged (not hanging), flayed (not flaying), stoned (not stoning)" but all of these articles are still at their noun forms. What is different here? —  AjaxSmack  00:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the formal was sentence was to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. Also I like the completely unsourced assertion in the nomination statement that the current title isn't commonly used because it's not a name -- someone needs to do their homework before making such arguments. For all those quoting NOUN, note the policy does allow for some leeway (it says normally instead of always). The same move was discussed and rejected in 2011. Calidum Sistere 03:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

To source my assertion that the current title isn't a name, see any dictionary for the definition of the word "name". Wiktionary defines "name" as "any nounal word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing" (bolding mine). If the formal sentence was "to be hanged, drawn, and quartered", as you suggest, then To be hanged, drawn, and quartered is an option, but the current title diverges from all other featured articles. Neelix (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Then why does the current title generate 1,600,000 google hits compared to the 22,000 for your preferred title. Calidum Sistere 14:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Because some parts of speech are more common than others. "Walk" is more common than "walking" but we still put the article at the noun form because this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. —  AjaxSmack  00:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - the -ing form is a gerund. Regardless, this is the common name and it should stay as it is. Victoria (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

"Hanged, drawn and quartered" is not a name at all. Names are nounal words or phrases. Neelix (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• The New Oxford Dictionary says "hanged" is used for the sentence. Which of course is what PoD means above. Victoria (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Of course it does. I am not arguing that "hanged, drawn, and quartered" is bad grammar, but that it is a bad article title, ie. it is not a nounal phrase. Neelix (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:IAR, the commonly used and recognized form is the current one. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Neelix I think you are taking the word "named" too literally, we use in in the article title policy because it is a natural way to describe something, but the reason why the policy was renamed form "Naming conventions" to "Article titles" was to get away from the idea that the article title had to be a "name". So for example the sentence in the policy to which you are referring can just as easily be written as "Wikipedia prefers the name title that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names titles will be the most recognizable and the most natural.", but because of nobility and their "titles", this can be just a confusing as using the word "name", so the original word has been retained in the policy section. In fact "common name" is a hangover from the days when all sources not just reliable sources were assessed for the best article title and has been redefined to exclude non-reliable sources. AFAICT the usual description for the sentence was and is "hanged, drawn and quartered". If it you do not think it is common usage can you please indicate here how you come to that conclusion. -- PBS (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't recommended the move because of a strict reading of policy, but because of a recognition of lacking consistency. All featured articles on Wikipedia (except those on linguistic subjects) employ nounal titles... except this article. That we more commonly write about individuals being hanged, drawn and quartered than we write about hanging, drawing and quartering as a general concept seems to me to be insufficient reason for choosing a non-nounal title for the article. Neelix (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If it is not a strict reading of the policy then you will he happy to strike out the sentence you include in you in your proposal "However, "Hanged, drawn and quartered" is not a name (ie. it is not a noun, noun phrase, or gerund)." Why does there have to be "consistency" in an arbitrary group of article tiles? The obvious thing to do if consistency in the arbitrary group concerns you is to is remove this article from the group so that the group is consistent over just that one aspect that concerns you, problem solved without a name change and within the AT policy parameters. -- PBS (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. The fact that I believe the article title is inappropriate whether or not policy explicitly makes the same argument as me does not mean that I should not quote policy that does, in fact, make my argument. What do you mean by removing the article from the group? The group I referred to is the featured articles; are you suggesting that the article should be demoted from featured status? If the article title does not conform to policy, I would agree with you. Neelix (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - the sentence should appear as used. If it seems not clear, would quotation marks help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Quotation marks would further suggest that the article is about the phrase rather than the execution method, but To be hanged, drawn and quartered is a viable alternative title. Neelix (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't, it's a stupid article title. Eric Corbett 20:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC):

Yes it is a stupid title and if you remove the "to be" it's still stupid. Just stupid as executed, strangled, eaten, or written would be. —  AjaxSmack  22:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"the last real crime"? Clarification please

"The plot was the last real crime for which the sentence was applied". What does this mean? That it was later applied for some unreal, fantasy crime? Or for something we wouldn't consider a crime nowadays? Or for something the executee wasn't really guilty of? Colonies Chris (talk) 09:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Obsolete v abolished

For some reason this article said that the penalty became obsolete in 1870, but obsolete would mean that the penalty was nominally still available but never used, in which case it really became obsolete in the 1830s. The 1870 Act got rid of it altogther and replaced it with hanging (or beheading). So I have substituted "abolished." Richard75 (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth Barton

"Women's heads sometimes adorned the bridge, such as that of Elizabeth Barton, a domestic servant and later nun who forecast the early death of Henry VIII. She was drawn to Tyburn in 1534, and hanged and beheaded." The article about Elizabeth Barton claims that she was the only woman whose head "adorned the bridge", while this article implies that there were others. Which is true? Surtsicna (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Since the claim in this article is sourced, while the claim in Barton's article is not, perhaps you should ask there. Parrot of Doom 12:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it appears that the sourced claim in this article is wrong. The claim is attributed to Abbott, but he quite clearly says that Barton was "the only female whose head was displayed on London Bridge". He confirms this in another book: "Her head then displayed on London Bridge, the only woman believed to have been so exhibited." Surtsicna (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

In which case he appears to contradict himself, since the book I used, written by him, says just what the article says. Parrot of Doom 13:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

PoD I presume that you have only summarised in the Wikipedia article what Abbot wrote (otherwise there is a copyright problem embedded in the article), perhaps you misread what he wrote, can you provide a quote from the book, to show that Abbot has contradict himself? -- PBS (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Search here for Barton, unfortunately Amazon preview isn't working for me at the moment but that's what it says. Parrot of Doom 17:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the quote ""Shocking as it may seem, even the heads of executed women were spiked up on the bridge, one of them being that of Elizabeth Barton, known as the 'Holy Maid of Kent'. (p. 160)". Ealdgyth - Talk 17:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I could easily believe that the problem is down to an attempt by whoever edited that book to make it appear more salacious, but whatever the truth of the matter, it needs to be sorted. I fully intended at some point to write an article on the burning of women but I've just not had the time (nor have I been able to find good quality sources on that subject). I will have a good try at searching Google for other instances of womens heads on London Bridge, I suggest if I (or we) find nothing, we put "believed to be the only woman whose head was piked on London Bridge" in there somewhere. Parrot of Doom 17:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Coming at it from the "bridge" perspective rather than the "execution" perspective, I can find no mention in any of the works on Old London Bridge that mention any woman other than Barton ever being displayed. Despite what tour guides and historical fiction like to say, the traditional place for the display of traitors' heads was Temple Bar (through which almost all traffic between London and Westminster passed), and London Bridge was used only for "the most distinguished or notorious". Given the status of women in Tudor/Stuart England, it's unlikely many women would have been considered distinguished enough to warrant a place, yet simultaneously unimportant enough for their remains to be desecrated in such a way. (Were the remains of Mary Queen of Scots, Anne Boleyn etc to have been dismembered and displayed, it could have provoked a full-scale insurrection.) The only contemporary source even for Barton being displayed on the bridge is John Stow writing decades after the fact; AFAIK all other contemporary accounts of Barton's death just say that she was hanged at Tyburn. – iridescent 18:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case then I'd be tempted to replace most of the Abbot references for better sources. Parrot of Doom 18:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

"decollate"

I see no advantage to using archaic language that very few readers will understand. I changed the term "decollate" to "behead," since the Oxford English dictionary says the former is just an archaic term for the latter, and since the reference cited does not even use the term "decollate" but instead refers simply to separating the head from the body. "Decollate" sounds like separating an assembled set of reports into the parts as they were before collating. It sounds like the victim is butchered beyond beheading. During the process of reviewing articles before they go on the main page, such problems should be corrected. Edison (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I see a very definite advantage - advancing people's understanding and knowledge of the English language. I'm sorry you found that word so confusing but when I'm presented with a similar problem, I solve it by using a dictionary. I have, therefore, reverted your edit. Parrot of Doom 20:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Edison on this. When I actually look up "decollate", it appears to be quite the euphemism, and in an article that uses "beheaded" or "decapitated" throughout. I'm all for well-written articles with varied language (which this clearly is), but this particular choice smacks more of jargon than good prose.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It is definitely an archaism and is not in general use, also it may tend to be confused in some readers' minds with 'decolletage.' Best avoided, but you have never been known to back down on any subject - so why change, Parrot old bean, or perhaps we should call you 'Psittacid' in the circumstances? Urselius (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained reversions

I see my spelling corrections to Oliver Plunkett and Jacobite rising of 1745 were reversed for no apparent reason, and my removal of the unclear sentence which I questioned on the talk page hours before (without receiving any response) was also reversed. What's going on here? Colonies Chris (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

What's going on is that names during the period this article covers were not standardised. For instance, Walter Ralegh personally used various spellings of his own name, so where some sources may say Plunkett, others say Plunket. The sources I used to build this article presumably (I can't remember everything) use the latter. The Jacobite Rising phrase, I will correct as soon as the editing restrictions have been removed. I was away working when this article was TFA so I was unable to keep track of the many incorrect changes made to it until I returned home. The "unclear sentence" has been clarified. Parrot of Doom 20:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware that spelling tended to vary at that period, However, once WP has agreed on a spelling, we should stick to it. Otherwise articles would be full of variant spellings depending on which source any particular fact comes from. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder the same thing. What is wrong with standardising the names of English monarchs? If we have "Henry III", "Edward I", "Edward II", "Edward III", "Henry VIII" and "Mary I", why shouldn't we have "Elizabeth I" and "Charles I" instead of "Queen Elizabeth" and "King Charles I"? I realize that this is a featured article (and congratulations on that), but are all attempts to improve it really so undesirable that they deserve to be reverted without any explanation? In fact, the reverts were accompanied by rather insulting edit summaries. The fact that these explained edits were reverted with an explanation as simple as "more reversions" is itself unnecessarily disrespectful. Surtsicna (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

With edit summaries such as "There has been an Elizabeth II for more than six decades. George W. Bush might misunderstand this if there is no ordinal, if you know what I mean." (only a fool would think that Queen Elizabeth II was alive in 1588) and "Aren't the years enough? Henry III's reign ends in 1272 and Edward I's starts in 1272, so stating that the latter was the former's successor might be stating the obvious." (you are aware, are you not, that some monarchs reigned for less than a year), I hardly think you're in a position to dictate what is and isn't rude. Parrot of Doom 21:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously implying that users you disagree with for some reason are inherently rude? You are obviously aware that your edit summaries were very inappropriate (telling two users to "go away and bother someone else" without bothering to respond to them, for instance), so you are trying to pass mine as such. A fool could see that. For what it's worth, I was referring to a fool's gaffe in my edit summary. You haven't given a single reason for your refusal to standardise the names, i.e. to replace "Queen Elizabeth" and "King Charles I" with "Elizabeth I" and "Charles I". One would at least expect the piping to be standardised, so that we have "Queen Elizabeth" and "King Charles I". Is this really just an unwillingness to see anything changed, even a tiny little bit? Surtsicna (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you answer the point I raised, instead of inventing a position I've never held? If you can't do that then I really couldn't care less what you think. Parrot of Doom 22:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't particularly care whether Edward I is described as Henry III's successor or not. That is why I did not revert your reversion of that edit. Now that I've answered the point you raised, do you care at all what I think? Could you please tell me why you are opposed to an edit that can only improve the article, even if only a little? Surtsicna (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You cared enough to change it without thinking of why it was structured that way in the first place, with a sarcastic edit summary. And then you had the nerve to criticise me for being rude. And I don't believe your removal of King/Queen was an improvement, which, if you think about it, is probably why I reverted it. Not everyone and everything has to conform to some boring standard agreed by three editors in some obscure backwater. Parrot of Doom 07:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

PoD was it this article or the Guy Fawkes Night article or both where you have in the past been accused of taking ownership of the article by other editors? -- PBS (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarcastic? Excuse me for asking this again, but are you serious? Which one was sarcastic? One was a joke referring to Bush's gaffe and the other one was plain and straightforward. And then *I* am the one with the *nerve* to call you rude? It is crystally clear that you are trying to pass my edit summaries off as rude in order to either justify yours or to avoid explaining why you reverted the edits. If you believe that "Queen Elizabeth I" and "King Charles I" is better than the plain "Elizabeth I" and "Charles I", then why don't we have "King Edward I", "King Edward II", "King Edward III", "King Henry VIII" and "Queen Mary I"? I would not mind that at all. And what "boring standard" are you talking about? Surtsicna (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. Continue screeching to yourself if you like, because I won't be listening. And PBS you know full well exactly what I think of you so I suggest you pack it in. Parrot of Doom 11:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I take it that you won't mind if I standardise the names to "King Edward I", "King Edward II", "King Edward III", "King Henry VIII" and "Queen Mary I", right? Surtsicna (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

PoD you write above "And PBS you know full well exactly what I think of you so I suggest you pack it in." That is not a very positive answer to my question. To save you the bother of trawling the archives I have done it for you. PoD you have been accused of ownership over the Hanged, drawn and quartered twice in the archives (99.141.243.84, 02:07, 5 January 2011; and 99.135.168.164 16:16, 4 February 2011) and once when during this article's Featured article candidature. Wouldn't it be better to search for a consensus on this page and then implement that compromise rather than breaking the 3RR as the recent edit history of this article shows that you did (four reverts in less than 24 hours: 20:25, 8 July 2013‎, 08:12, 9 July, 12:06, 9 July, 12:51, 9 July 2013‎)? -- PBS (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Original wording of a sentence - describing the execution

It might be useful to the article to have the precise wording of a sentence of execution for treason, that of Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham, executed on 17 May 1521:

"...laid on a hurdle and so drawn to the place of execution, and there to be hanged, cut down alive, your members to be cut off and cast in the fire, your bowels burnt before you, your head smitten off, and your body quartered and divided at the King's will, and God have mercy on your soul."

Lacey Baldwin Smith, English Treason Trials and Confessions in the Sixteenth Century Journal of the History of Ideas,Vol. 15, No. 4 (Oct., 1954), pp. 471-498 Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press, p. 484.

It is interesting that it uses the phrase drawn to mean transported, but also contains an early, separate, description of evisceration taking place - the bowels would have had to have been removed before being burnt before the victim. Urselius (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Narrow scope

This article is good as far as it goes, but it is almost entirely limited to a discussion of this punishment as applied in England, while the practice was conducted in a number of other countries, notably France. One of the most famous drawings and quarterings in history was of Robert-François Damiens, the would-be assassin of Louis XV. Thus, this article should be expanded to include discussion of D&Q in all the countries that practiced it. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

England was the only country to hang, draw and quarter people. You are talking nonsense. Parrot of Doom 23:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Gotta agree here - the example execution linked above doesn't mention anything at all about hanging, which would rather make that execution beyond the scope of this article. Of course, sources that show that hanging, drawing and quartering happened outside of England/Great Britain would change my view. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The French were much taken with "breaking on a wheel." Urselius (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If there was an article titled only "drawn and quartered", you would have a point: that would be the place for Damiens, etc. However, "Drawn and quartered" redirects here, so anybody looking for the French execution of regicides would wind up with a wholly English article. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Then the solution is to create the article you were searching for. Parrot of Doom 20:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No, no, no, that's not how it works. You've got to create the article Piledhigheranddeeper was looking for. Eric Corbett 20:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The article that treats Damiens and suchlikes already exists; it is called Dismemberment. The French elaborate ritual was quite different from that treated in the quintessential British ritual called HDQ.Arildnordby (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, the HDQ article should include a "See Also"-direct, or similar to Dismemberment?Arildnordby (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Question needs more general treatment, in how to regard standardized templates

Since this is, in principle, relevant to MANY pages, rather than just this one, I have therefore opened up a general discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard, so that a place for those editors generally recently active on execution articles can form a general consensus. I have also asked a highly experienced administrator to come with general advices on how to deal with inclusion of standardized templates.Arildnordby (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have appended the discussion to Template talk:Capital punishment where I believe it is more appropriate!Arildnordby (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"From 1351"

The article states that this punishment was in use in the 13th century. At no point does it say anywhere that the penalty for treason was formalised in 1351, only the definition of treason. It may indeed be the case that the penalty did become the standard sentence from 1351, but at the moment the article does not say that. By all means add that to the article (preferably with a source), but don't just insist on having a sentence that actually means that the penalty was not used before 1351 and then contardict it later in the article. Richard75 (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

And you are now in breach of WP:3RR. Please undo, or else fix the issue as I have suggested above, or I will refer to the 3RR noticeboard for dispute resolution. I note from the block log that you have been blocked before for a 3RR violation. Richard75 (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have only made two reverts. Parrot of Doom made the third. And no, it states quite clearly that from 1351 it was a penalty for those convicted of high treason, although the ritual has earlier 13th century roots.Arildnordby (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If it helps you, I propose this. Richard75 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

All of the examples of the ritual before 1351 are of people being executed for treason, so I don't see the distinction you are making. If you perhaps mean that they had not been convicted, then the article ought to say so, but I doubt it since due process had been required since at least as far back as 1215. Richard75 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No, they weren't convicted of "high treason", since that term was not defined until..1351Arildnordby (talk)

It was not clearly defined, but it already existed. Richard75 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

And because it wasn't defined, that was not how they will have been formally charged and convicted.Arildnordby (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

(1) The fact that before 1351 it meant whatever the judges said it meant did not prevent them from prosecuting people for it. (2) Even the article says that they were hung, drawn and quartered for treason, so if you are really trying to maintain that distinction then why does the article not do so? (3) What is wrong with my alternative solution, which does not contradict anything you have just said? Richard75 (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It is most likely wrong because in all likelihood, penalties in the 13th centuries were nonstandardized, the KERNEL of later HDQ to be sure attested, but likely lots of other grievous punishment structures for other persons thought of as treasonous. HDQ might have been one ritual among many. Saying in the start explicitly that 1351 saw the instituting of the penalty avoids that, but, personally, I would prefer the texxt to include the "formalized penalty"/statutory penalty phrase. I'll leave it to main editor Parrot of Doom to change thatArildnordby (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

But that's what my proposed edit says! Richard75 (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, mea culpa!!! I didn't read your proposed edit, and was only thinking relative to your earlier actual edits. THe new prosal is fine to me, I suggest we let main editor Parrot of Doom have his 2c before doing that edit.Arildnordby (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Richard75 (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the proposed edit is poorly formatted and not an improvement. This article's focus is on the legal sentence, since it was only after 1351 that it was used in earnest; the ritual is secondary. And I am not a fan of wikilinks that redirect readers to articles they may not have expected to see, as was the case with your edit. Parrot of Doom 22:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, how about the line: "The Treason act of 1351 made the penalty of being hanged,drawn and quartered statutory for the crime of high treason, although...". Anyhow, Treason Act 1351 is such a critically important step in the history of this execution ritual, so a direct, explicit link to it would improve the lead section.Arildnordby (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not at all inclined to write anything like what you suggest, but I think you're correct about including a link to the 1351 Act, so I'll do that now. Parrot of Doom 22:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

.Glad you see only important point (link to TA1351), though, my own suggestion can go into the dustbin!Arildnordby (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the article as it is now. Richard75 (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe the main text in first sentence now has been objectively improved, in that it more clearly in its first part focuses on the legalistic side (including link insertion), the next part (unaltered) now highlighting the earlier arbitrary (going customary) practice. One might possibly argue that the word "statutory" is not strictly necessary, but I find the sentence flow better with the word includedArildnordby (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)