Talk:Witchcraft Acts/Archive 1

to say {Edward's successor Bloody Mary was too busy killing Protestant heretics to have much to do with witches.} is not appropriate. This page is about witchcraft. Just say that witches were not persecuted buring the reign of Queen Mary Tudor --ClemMcGann 15:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

escheat
for this guy to say that making the crime of witchcraft led to property being forfeited to the crown says to me he hasnt actuallly read the acts. provisions were made so that spouses were cared for and acts of succession, inheritance etc still stood.Scone ead (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

huh?
If King George II made it so that the act doesn't accknowledge the existence of the supernatural and punished people that pretended to have the power to conjur spirits why was Helen Dunker charged because they thought she might use her powers to reveal D-Day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.241.144 (talk • contribs)
 * Because they were stupid. 4.89.246.23 12:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the reason. The authorities didn't believe she had powers at all.

"The penalty of burning at the stake was prescribed for ecclesiastical offences only because the Church daintily shied away from the shedding of blood." Daintily? Yikes. Serious weasel words alert. Fixing it now.--Smilingman 19:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Increased penalties?
"It was not until the start of the sixteenth century, however, that religious tensions resulted in increased penalties for witchcraft in England" - From the second paragraph after the penalty was described as being one of burning to death prior to this in the first paragraph.

How can you increase the penalties if the offence is already punishable by burning at the stake? Some kind of "fate worse than death"? 87.194.20.172 12:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, but reading both the paragraph you have quoted there and the one immediately after it, the "increased penalties" seems to relate to more offences being punishable by death. For example, it is only with the 1561 act that provoking "any Person to unlawful Love" gains a death sentence. However, that is only my insight from reading this article and a few other sources that would not pass Wikipedia's tests of reliability. It would be useful if someone more familiar with the subject could provide a comment. Road Wizard 01:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1604 or 1605
After searching through manty archives across the internet, I have found many sources saying the Witchcraft Act passed by James I was passes in 1603 were actually passed in 1604. I am really confused and I have no idea which sources I should trust; if someone could show me reliable or irrefutably evidence for either, or it was passed on two different dates, please post them on the discussion board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.226.116 (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It was passed in 1604, absolutely no doubt about that, and it's recorded in the Journal of the House of Lords as such. Here's a fairly recent book on the subject you may find interesting. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Rename section 5 "Witchcraft Act 1735" to "Witchcraft Act 1735 and current legislation"?
Section 5 covers the Act of 1735 as well as legislation in use today - should the sections title reflect that?

Adrian-from-london (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. The section covers the 1735 Act, its repeal in the UK, and its non-repeal in certain ex-British territories. The subject is not current legislation, but the 1735 Act. Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Witchcraft Act 1735 and Scotland
Did the Witchcraft Act 1735 ever apply in Scotland? I suspect something a bit different happened in Scotland, and seem to remember a story of a supposed witch being burnt there (in a barrel of tar) sometime later than 1735 Laurel Bush (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The 1735 Act repealed the earlier Scottish Act and applied throughout the whole of Great Britain, including Scotland. Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I believe now there was a ruling in Scotland prior to 1735 that sucessful prosecution under the Scottish act was legally impossible, but some sheriffs ignored the ruling and continued convicting anyway Laurel Bush (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

..
we need one here..in hindustan..lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.220.144.180 (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)