Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:08, 12 September 2010 editCentrepull (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,165 edits →Jones 2007-2008 ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 09:06, 15 February 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk \| contribs)Bots1,373,200 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 2. (BOT)
(712 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{GA\|00:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)\|oldid=381540725\|topic=Law\|page=1}}
	{{talkheader}}		{{talkheader}}
			{{ArticleHistory
	{{WikiProject Death\|class=GA}}
			\|action1=GAN
	{{archive box\|auto=yes}}
			\|action1date=21:57, 2 September 2010
			\|action1link=Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/GA1
			\|action1result=listed
			\|action1oldid=381540725

			\|action2=FAC
			\|action2date=04:14, 14 March 2011
			\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hanged, drawn and quartered/archive1
			\|action2result=promoted
			\|action2oldid=418722764

			\|topic=Law
			\|currentstatus=FA
			\|maindate=July 7, 2013
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|collapsed=no\|class=FA\|1=
			{{WikiProject Death\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Law\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject England\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject History\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject European history\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Middle Ages\|importance=low}}
			}}
			{{archive box\|auto=long}}
	{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis		{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
	\|archiveprefix=Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive		\|archiveprefix=Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive
	\|format=%%i		\|format= %%i
	\|age=~~744~~		\|age=2190
			\|minkeepthreads=5
	\|index=yes
	\|maxarchsize=~~20000~~		\|maxarchsize=100000
	\|numberstart=1		\|numberstart=1
	\|archivebox=yes
	\|box-advert=yes
	}}		}}
			<!--
			Some comments on ClueBot III parameters
			* age=2190 hours which is 24*365/4 (three months)
			* minkeepthreads=3 no matter how old, always leave 3 sections with the most recent postings.
			-->

			==Meaning of "drawn"==

			"drawn" does not refer to being a cart pulled by a horse. It is to have your entrails drawn from your abdomen. That's is why it comes between being hanged and quartered. No, I'm not giving a reference because I'm not wasting my time referencing something so well-known and so obvious.
	== 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. ] 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... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== New version ==

	I'm working on a new version of this article ]. Its a long way from being finished and I'm waiting for more sources to arrive, but any comments would be welcome. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 15:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
	::Well nobody replied so I'm presuming nobody objects. The old version is . I've nominated this new version for GAN. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 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 is certainly quite old, page 134 mentions that ] was the first. Can anyone help? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 11:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

	== Jones 2007-2008 ==

	"According to history student Maeve Jones's essay on high treason," - that sounds like a decidedly inappropriate source to me. —'']''<sup><small>]<font color="#999">•</font>]</small></sup>, 20:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
	:Why? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 20:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
	::Because it's an essay by a student, not someone with expertise, and although it was published in an internal undergraduate journal it has not undergone peer-review. If the information is correct though it shouldn't be difficult to follow the essay's bibliography to things that can legitimately considered "reliable sources". —'']''<sup><small>]<font color="#999">•</font>]</small></sup>, 20:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
	:::Undergraduate essays might not be the ideal source, but it very much depends on the quality of the individual essay. The foreword of ''Historical Discourses: The McGill Undergraduate Journal of History'' Volume XXII (in which the essay is published) says "After over two decades of publication, Historical Discourses has become a veritable institution at McGill University. It showcases the best history essays written by McGill students, provides students with an experience in publishing and helps support our vibrant, intellectual student community." So these are good essays that have been assessed by lecturers, and as such I think Maeve Jones passes ]. With 59 footnotes in what appear to be a 4,000-word essay, ostensibly it certainly seem to be of decent quality, although as I'm not familiar with the subject I would defer to the judgement of McGill University, quite a prestigious institution, and the compilers of the journal. ] (]) 20:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
	::::I believe the journal is compiled by other students, not McGill University itself. —'']''<sup><small>]<font color="#999">•</font>]</small></sup>, 21:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
	:::::A little bit presumptuous of you to suggest that because she's a student, she isn't an expert. For all we know she might be 75 years old with 50 years experience studying history. If you read the essay its actually extremely well written, and very well sourced. I've found nothing that doesn't tally with most of the other sources used. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 21:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
	::::::And just to drive the point home; on this topic I've found quite a few errors in sources that wouldn't usually receive comments, and removed them accordingly. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 21:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

	::::::Well, no, actually I don't think it's presumptuous at all. An undergraduate student is by definition not an expert in the field they are studying: if she had been studying history professionally for fifty years, then she would have a degree, obviously. Age doesn't come into it. If you are trying to imply that she could be an accomplished amateur historian in addition to a student, sure, that's possible, but there's absolutely no reason to suggest it, and that doesn't change the nature of the source. I am not saying that the essay is bad or incorrect, not at all, just that as a source it is not quite up to standard. It is not up to Misplaced Pages editors to judge the quality of the information in a source but the quality of the source itself (]). And that issue hinges on whether you consider an undergraduate journal to be a reliable source. Nev1 has argued that because it is published under the aegis of a university it is. I disagree, because it seems to me that the purpose of the publication is primarily pedagogical: to encourage their students, not to publish scholarly work; and assessment by lecturers and the (student) editorial board of the journal does not qualify it as peer-reviewed.
	::::::As I mentioned though, the essay has a good bibliography of secondary literature that are definitely "reliable sources" according to Misplaced Pages policies, so the issue might easily be side-stepped. I don't want to step on any toes and I've never edited this article so I probably won't comment any further: I've said all I have to say. At the very least, the regular editors of this article should consider the ''phrase'' "According to history student Maeve Jones's essay on high treason" because even if you keep the reference, an idea is being attributed to a history student sounds very odd (and it's not quite accurate). —'']''<sup><small>]<font color="#999">•</font>]</small></sup>, 12:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::That may be the case with your definition of the word expert, but its quite narrow and not one I'm entirely inclined to agree with. What matters to me is the quality of the writing and sources, and I can't find fault with either. I'd already mentioned trying to track down those sources ] but that isn't particularly because I doubt her work, its something I generally try and do anyway.
	::::::::As for "It is not up to Misplaced Pages editors to judge the quality of the information in a source but the quality of the source itself (])" - well, I completely disagree. Authors regularly make mistakes, and part of our responsibility when using those sources is to spot them. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 13:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)<br />

			:No, you're not wasting your time referencing it because you just made it up. {{tq\| 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}} (my emphasis). ‑ ] 10:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
	Considering these comments by users on this issue:
	<blockquote>
	A little bit presumptuous of you to suggest that because she's a student, she isn't an expert. For all we know she might be 75 years old with 50 years experience studying history.</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
	I believe the journal is compiled by other students, not McGill University itself.
	</blockquote><blockquote>
	An undergraduate student is by definition not an expert in the field they are studying
	</blockquote>
	I think this issue needs further discussion. I can't find any clarification elsewhere, so I'm considering referring it to for their opinion. Any further comments? ] (]) 12:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

			::Then again you have Shakespeare's usage - Much Ado About Nothing, Act 3 Scene 2 - there is a certain amount of badinage about a character being hanged for not being truly in love, the character (Benedick) then claims to have the toothache, to which the response is "Draw it", then "Hang it"; then Claudio says '''"You must hang it first, and draw it afterwards"'''. It seems to me that Shakespeare is directly using a reference to a widely known linguistic trope, which if it does not come from the capital punishment for treason, whence does it come? Here 'draw' is used definitively for the removal of a bodily part, albeit a tooth. I think Mortimer is not definitively correct. ] (]) 10:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
	{{Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/GA1}}

			:::Just found this. The problem is that the word "drawn" has two meanings (at least). The specific penalty consisted of '''hanging''' (not contested) and '''quartering''' (not contested) but the word "drawn" has come means "the removal of the entrails from the living body". Very clearly being drawn on a hurdle, which conceded is part of the judicial sentence, without any simultaneous suffering would not be seen as a penalty, although hanging, emasculating and disemboweling clearly would be so seen. {{ping\|Iridescent}} No he did not make it up; that is what the phrase means. ----]<sup>]</sup> 22:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
	== Some problems with the article text ==

			::::The use of the word 'draw/drawn' to mean eviscerate is well attested, for example here:
	Problems with the text:

			::::" Tried on 12 and 13 September, Babington, Tichborne, Ballard and nine others were found guilty of high treason and were condemned to death. The first seven, including Ballard first, Babington second, and Tichborne fifth, were executed on 20 September 1586 by hanging, drawing and quartering. In Tichborne 's case, a contemporary manuscript account of the execution comments that though "he hanged longe, he was yet alive when they ripped him."14 In fact he made a memorable speech, and so impressed the crowd with his eloquence, piety, youth and good looks that they were much roused to pity; the Queen, perhaps worried at this development, mercifully ordered that those to be executed the following day should be '''hanged until dead before being drawn and quartered'''." ''The Works of Chidiock Tichborne (text)''Author(s): RICHARD S. M. HIRSCH and Chidiock Tichborne, English Literary Renaissance, Vol. 16, No. 2 (SPRING 1986), pp. 303-318 Published by: The University of Chicago Press, p. 305
	*"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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 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". <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 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. -- ] (]) 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 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 -- ] (]) 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 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 tags.
	*****What have I said in defence of this ? Who is the other person who thinks that Maeve Jones is a reliable source? -- ] (]) 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 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. --] (]) 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? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 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. -- ] (]) 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
	****I've modified the text slightly, see what you think. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 23:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

			::::The meaning of 'draw/drawn' for being dragged behind a horse is not exclusive, it does not exclude the word also meaning eviscerate in relation to this method of execution. ] (]) 11:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
	Some general comments and questions. The removal an insertion of text in the most recent rewrite seems to me to be rather random:
			:::The same phrase "'''hanged until dead before being drawn and quartered'''" is also used in Capital Punishment: A Reference Handbook, Michael Kronenwetter, ABC-CLIO, 2001, p. 204.
	*Why the removal of mention of the English Civil War ] and ]?
	*Why the removal of ] 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 ]?
	**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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 08:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
	*The original text included "In ] (now ]), 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:
	**{{citation\|author=T.F.H. \|year=1886\|chapter=Brandreth, Jeremiah\|url=http://www.archive.org/stream/dictionaryofnati06stepuoft#page/224/mode/1up/search/Brandreth\|editor=Stephen\|title=]\|volume=6\| pages=224,225}}
	*:instead of
	**{{Citation \| last = Belchem \| first = John \| chapter = Brandreth, Jeremiah (1786/1790–1817) {{subscription}} \| work = Oxford Dictionary of National Biography \| publisher = Oxford University Press, hosted at oxforddnb.com \| origyear = 2004 \| year = 2008 \| url = http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/3270 \| accessdate = 19 August 2010 \| doi = 10.1093/ref:odnb/3270}}?

			==Move==
	Last but not least where has all the information on other counties quartering gone? -- ] (]) 06:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
			Move to "Hanging, drawing, and quartering".
			] (]) 17:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
			:Why? ] (]) 22:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

			== Incorrect link? ==
	*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.

			https://en.m.wikipedia.org/William_de_Marisco
	::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 ] and the ], as from your answer you do not consider the primary sources given reliable? Would an essay by an undergraduate suffice?-- ] (]) 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

			This link leads to a page about Lundy, which is a large island north of the county of Devon, in the UK.
	:::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.

			Is this a mistake?
	*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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 07:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
			:No - there is no article about Marisco, but the page exists as a redirect to a section in the Lundy article. ] (]) 03:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

			== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
	:The stuff on other countries should be moved out into a separate article. ] is not suitable as the name has more than one meaning but something like ] 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.
			The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
			* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion \| 2023-05-30T11:23:48.621064 \| Charles I execution, and execution of regicides.jpg -->
			Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

			== The Last Person to be Hanged, Drawn, and Quartered ==
	:"Overseas" should be renamed "Colonies" or "English colonies" (Ireland is overseas from an English perspective and England "over " 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 ], ] and Quebec? -- ] (]) 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

			The section titled "Later History" mentions the six conspirators of the Despard plot and further down mentions Jerimiah Brandreth. It say the Despard conspirators were sentenced to be "hanged, drawn, and quartered, but then goes on to describe them as merely being hanged and then posthumously beheaded. No mention of either drawing or quartering. The same for Jerimiah Brandreth. It merely describes him being hanged and then posthumously beheaded.
	::I've changed it to ]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 23:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

			The same section also goes on a length about three women; Isabella Condon in 1779, Phoebe Harris in 1786, and Catherine Murphy in 1789; who were burned at the stake, not hanged. And once more, no mention of drawing or quartering. So who was the last person to be hanged, drawn, and quartered.
	== Pepys's account ==

			And no, "drawn" does not mean "drawn to the place of execution." If it did, it would be ''"drawn,'' hanged and quartered. (Medieval and Early Modern England might have been backwards in a figurative sense, but I'm pretty sure they understood the order of events in time.) It is rendered in numerous sentences handed down as "have your bowels torn out." ] (]) 18:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
	I see that with the rewrite, the account from Pepys's diary has been deleted. I thought that was worth including, as it was an eyewitness account. Is there a good reason for deleting it? ] (]) 21:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
	:Not particularly, I just couldn't find a place to insert enough of it to do it justice. I thought that the image and a caption might suffice, but its of rather low quality. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 23:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:06, 15 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hanged, drawn and quartered article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Hanged, drawn and quartered is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 7, 2013.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 2, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
March 14, 2011	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 91.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Meaning of "drawn"

"drawn" does not refer to being a cart pulled by a horse. It is to have your entrails drawn from your abdomen. That's is why it comes between being hanged and quartered. No, I'm not giving a reference because I'm not wasting my time referencing something so well-known and so obvious.

No, you're not wasting your time referencing it because you just made it up. 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 (my emphasis). ‑ Iridescent 2 10:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Then again you have Shakespeare's usage - Much Ado About Nothing, Act 3 Scene 2 - there is a certain amount of badinage about a character being hanged for not being truly in love, the character (Benedick) then claims to have the toothache, to which the response is "Draw it", then "Hang it"; then Claudio says "You must hang it first, and draw it afterwards". It seems to me that Shakespeare is directly using a reference to a widely known linguistic trope, which if it does not come from the capital punishment for treason, whence does it come? Here 'draw' is used definitively for the removal of a bodily part, albeit a tooth. I think Mortimer is not definitively correct. Urselius (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Just found this. The problem is that the word "drawn" has two meanings (at least). The specific penalty consisted of hanging (not contested) and quartering (not contested) but the word "drawn" has come means "the removal of the entrails from the living body". Very clearly being drawn on a hurdle, which conceded is part of the judicial sentence, without any simultaneous suffering would not be seen as a penalty, although hanging, emasculating and disemboweling clearly would be so seen. @Iridescent: No he did not make it up; that is what the phrase means. ----Anthony Bradbury 22:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The use of the word 'draw/drawn' to mean eviscerate is well attested, for example here:

" Tried on 12 and 13 September, Babington, Tichborne, Ballard and nine others were found guilty of high treason and were condemned to death. The first seven, including Ballard first, Babington second, and Tichborne fifth, were executed on 20 September 1586 by hanging, drawing and quartering. In Tichborne 's case, a contemporary manuscript account of the execution comments that though "he hanged longe, he was yet alive when they ripped him."14 In fact he made a memorable speech, and so impressed the crowd with his eloquence, piety, youth and good looks that they were much roused to pity; the Queen, perhaps worried at this development, mercifully ordered that those to be executed the following day should be hanged until dead before being drawn and quartered." The Works of Chidiock Tichborne (text)Author(s): RICHARD S. M. HIRSCH and Chidiock Tichborne, English Literary Renaissance, Vol. 16, No. 2 (SPRING 1986), pp. 303-318 Published by: The University of Chicago Press, p. 305

The meaning of 'draw/drawn' for being dragged behind a horse is not exclusive, it does not exclude the word also meaning eviscerate in relation to this method of execution. Urselius (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The same phrase "hanged until dead before being drawn and quartered" is also used in Capital Punishment: A Reference Handbook, Michael Kronenwetter, ABC-CLIO, 2001, p. 204.

Move

Move to "Hanging, drawing, and quartering". Johnsmith212254 (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect link?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/William_de_Marisco

This link leads to a page about Lundy, which is a large island north of the county of Devon, in the UK.

Is this a mistake?

No - there is no article about Marisco, but the page exists as a redirect to a section in the Lundy article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Charles I execution, and execution of regicides.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The Last Person to be Hanged, Drawn, and Quartered

The section titled "Later History" mentions the six conspirators of the Despard plot and further down mentions Jerimiah Brandreth. It say the Despard conspirators were sentenced to be "hanged, drawn, and quartered, but then goes on to describe them as merely being hanged and then posthumously beheaded. No mention of either drawing or quartering. The same for Jerimiah Brandreth. It merely describes him being hanged and then posthumously beheaded.

The same section also goes on a length about three women; Isabella Condon in 1779, Phoebe Harris in 1786, and Catherine Murphy in 1789; who were burned at the stake, not hanged. And once more, no mention of drawing or quartering. So who was the last person to be hanged, drawn, and quartered.

And no, "drawn" does not mean "drawn to the place of execution." If it did, it would be "drawn, hanged and quartered. (Medieval and Early Modern England might have been backwards in a figurative sense, but I'm pretty sure they understood the order of events in time.) It is rendered in numerous sentences handed down as "have your bowels torn out." Beetfarm Louie (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Categories: