Talk:Treason Act 1351

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

Politics of the United Kingdom

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Middle Ages Mid‑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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"imagine"

compassed or imagined the death of the King, his wife or his eldest son and heir

This section appears to use "imagine" in the now-archaic meaning of "to plan". Is this correct? Since the explanation is translated, anyway, should it be updated?

RandomP 19:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's a quote from the Act, but I've made it clearer. Richard75 19:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

What's up with the English version, anyway? Which version is legally binding, when was the (original, AIUI) French version translated? I'd google it, but this sounds like too much of an issue where non-experts will make sensationalist claims about an act in French being legally binding, or a translation changing the meaning of the act without passing through the legislature :)

RandomP 22:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. There was an Act passed (I think in the 19th century) which required everything in court to be said in English instead of Norman French or Latin, but I don't know if that had anything to do with the Treason Act. However the English translation was used in all twentieth century treason trials, including Roger Casement's, and was treated as legally binding. In Casement's appeal his defence rested on the precise meaning of the Act, and the judges even went to look at the original document to check the exact punctuation, so presumably if there was any real difference between the English and French versions his lawyers would have picked up on it. Richard75 11:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The King's Companion

According to the article, "A person was guilty of high treason under the Act if they: ...violated the King's companion..." What is meant by "companion"? Is it the same as "wife"? If so, why the word "companion" is used as opposed to "wife" in the previous section: "...the death of the King, his wife..." Top.Squark (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of the "Realm"

According to the article, "A person was guilty of high treason under the Act if they... levied war against the King in his Realm or adhered to the King's enemies in his Realm" What about levying war against the king outside his realm, or adhering to enemies outside his realm? Is it not treason? What is the logic behind this? Top.Squark (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conterfeit of the Scottish Seal

The article says

However while in England and Ireland forgery of the seal of Great Britain ceased to be treason in 1861, this change did not take place in Scotland until years later...

suggesting that eventually the change _did_ occur. However, the continuation is

...and forging the Scottish seal is still treason in Scotland but not in England or Ireland.

So, is forging the Scottish seal still treason or not? Top.Squark (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two seals, the British seal and the Scottish seal. In Scottish law it is treason to forge the Scottish seal, but not in English law. It is not treason to forge the British seal in either Scotland or England. I will look at how to make this more clear in the article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Richard75 (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the punishment

I've added a paragraph to the "Content" section to say how the punishment for treason has changed to life imprisonment with no seizure of assets, since the sections on crimes tend to mention later revisions. I think this is correct, but I'm not a lawyer, so could easily have missed something.

I have since noticed that more or less everything in this article is covered in the High treason in the United Kingdom one, as well as some other thing which seem relevant to this topic (such as that the act covers the Queen, but not Prince Philip). Is this how things should be, given the age of the Treason Act? Or should the articles be changed to make their scopes clearer? I don't really know how things work here. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]