Talk:Treason Act 1351

"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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


 * 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)

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)