Talk:Buggery Act 1533

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
⚖
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been assessed as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Call for Early Citations

We have one person who was charged with buggery & treason & hanged, and one person who was charged solely with buggery, but the sentence was commuted. Is it known who or when the first person was hanged solely for violation of this Act? Who was the last, prior to 1861? -FZ 18:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archaic Spelling

"sufficient and condigne punyshment"

Was a quote - so spelling error intentional?

16th century spelling was much more variable than today. It wouldn't've been a misspelling at the time Nik42 06:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oscar Wilde

Wasn't Buggery the charge against Oscar Wilde, for which he was sentenced to the then maximum penalty of 2 years hard labour?--PeadarMaguidhir 18:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article on Oscar Wilde: "He was arrested for "gross indecency" under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 In British legislation of the time, this term implied 'homosexual acts not amounting to buggery', according to the scholar H. Montgomery Hyde.[1]
  1. ^ H. Montgomery Hyde, The Love That Dared not Speak its Name; p.5
That sounds right from memory. It would be hard to charge him with buggery unless there was some credible evidence he had engaged in anal intercourse. Even if he had been charged with buggery, it would have been under the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 which had replaced the Bugger Act 1533 by Wilde's lifetime. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edward ii

How about the punishment for Buggery in Elizabethan times: the insertion of a red-hot poker into the area in question, or is this merely legend? In any event, legend has it that Edward ii, known for his gay preferences, suffered death in this manner.--PeadarMaguidhir 18:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knights Templar

Wasn't the "medieval Bulgarian sect of the Bogomils," as well as the practice to which they gave their name, associated with the Knights Templar? In any event several of them confessed to this "crime," at least under torture!--PeadarMaguidhir 18:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unusual anatomy

"the first to be charged for violation of the Act alone " Edison 20:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely missed that and strongly suspect it was accedental. 68.39.174.238 01:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology?

The Buggery Act was passed in 1533. The breach with Rome, according to the entries "Church of England" and "Henry VIII", was in 1534. So how exactly did the 1533 act *follow* the 1534 breach?134.58.253.113

Well spotted, that reader. Paragraph chopped around a bit. Shimgray | talk | 20:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No!! If you look at the Journal of the House of Lords [1] you'll see this article is grossly mistaken. It is the Buggery Act of 1534. It was introduced in the House of Lords in January 1534, and expedited (passed) on 7 February 1534. It would have been published sometime after 30 March 1534. I suspect your confusion is that the Tudors took the first day of the year to be in March, whereas we use 1 January, making for confusingly dated documents. Future confusion could be avoided if you use the Handbook of British Chronology by FM Powicke. Historical works regularly refer to this as the Buggery Statute of 1534, and this act did indeed "follow" (more accurately, coincide, since it was the same session of parliament) the Break with Rome. Since this requires major editing, I didn't want to just jump in. Feel free to look up my references or seek out more, but I assure you: 1534. 66.188.125.248 00:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Meredith

If this is so, can we fix this? -- SECisek 16:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced it should be 1534. Until 1751 the legal year began on the 25 March instead of 1 January. So up until the 24th March, the year would have remained 1533. It depends on whether you take the date of the Act being expedited as its 'adoption' or the date of it being published. The catalogue of the Parliamentary Archives here gives the date as 1533 as does an article in the Times for Tuesday, Jan 14, 1958; pg. 9; Issue 54048; col F discussing "Homosexual laws in history" and virtually every on-line source I could find. I think a citation from one or two of the historical works is needed before the article is redirected or renamed. Mighty Antar (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense Removal

I removed: "– and in case that was probably a politically motivated –" from the sentence about Udall, since it's obviously a grammatical mistake... however I cannot tell whether the mistake was in inserting the article "a", for a correction of: "– and in case that was probably politically motivated –"; or in inserting a spurious space, for: "– and in case that was probably apolitically motivated –". The article on Nicholas Udall mentions nothing about the motivations of his prosecution. --Storkk (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)