Talk:Walter Hungerford, 1st Baron Hungerford of Heytesbury

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Untitled

As far as I know the place is and always has been Heytesbury. I have "corrected" the spelling in a new page, and changed internal links to the page. If I'm right, this page should be deleted. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of homosexuality in body of article

This page is linked to from List of people executed for homosexuality and is categorized under "People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws." If this is the case, there should be some mention of this in the body of the article. Acsenray (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't emphasise the homosexuality because it is a near certainty he wasn't gay... He was executed on trumped up charges because of his association with Thomas Cromwell. The king wanted him out the way. (3 wives and 4 children is a good indicator too...)
And it seems EXTREMELY doubtful he was executed under the buggary act. He was convicted of treason and was executed as a traitor. Think of Anne Boleyn- its fairly similar- she was accused of incest to add to the trumped up charges; but she probably wasn't guilty of incest and she was not executed for it... she was executed for treason. The extra trumped up charges are just to besmirch people's reputations. --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

From the history of the article:

17:04, 8 October 2010 – 17:38, October 2010, LoveActresses made some changes to the article but put in comments into the edit history
04:11, 10 October 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (Reverted most of the recent changes as they were sourced, and the list of grandparents for a wife was unnecessary)
17:39, 11 October 2010 LoveActresses (I added the grandparents of a wife because there are no pages for the parents. The date of execution is publicly documented. The rest is not unsourced material, just correction of the names.)
18:31, 11 October 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (Discuss the changes on the talk page. No sources given for the changes in substance, Wikipedia can not be cited as a reliable source.)

If you are going to add the parents and grandparents then you need to add sources for the changes. Likewise it is no use saying (only on the second time of insertion) that "The date of execution is publicly documented." in the history. No one minds you being bold but if your changes are reverted and you are asked for sources you are in breach of WP:PROVEIT if you reinstate them without providing in-line citations. -- PBS (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article states he was executed on 28 July. I simply added it also to the introduction. LoveActresses (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LoveActresses you wrote in the history of the article you wrote "Satisfied" no not satisfied. You are still adding information to the article without providing inline citations (eg his second wife's name and "or Farleigh House") Further Please see WP:MOS#Stability of articles. You have made several sytle change such as putting as changing "1503–1540" to "1503 – 1540" and replacing "Lord" with "Baron", and instead of discussing those changes on the talk page of this (and other articles where you have done the same) you have simply reverted to those changes again without seeking consensus on the talk page. This is not consensus editing. Please discuss these changes here and on the talk page of other articles where you wish to make similar changes so that you can see if there is a consensus for such changes. -- PBS (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not satisfied? Who cares? They're meaningless changes. The titles appear as Baron, not Lord, on articles. – appears everywhere and I've seen everyone correcting - for that. Other changes, like Thomas Cromwell to Thomas Cromwell, 1st Earl of Essex are just to disambiguate or make it more like the actual title of the article in a manner that doesn't violate anything - does it bother you? You love to attack but not only you don't even know the history and when he was executed, alongside with Thomas Cromwell, whose date of execution is perfectly attested. And please read the article properly: in Biography it states He was beheaded on Tower Hill on 28 July 1540, along with his patron Cromwell. Hungerford is stated before his execution to have "seemed so unquiet that many judged him rather in a frenzy than otherwise."< ref >Harrison, volume 28 p. 260. Cites: A "brief abstract" of his escheated lands appears in Hoare's Modern Wiltshire, ‘Heytesbury Hundred,’ pp. 104–7).< /ref >. All this argument was just because you assumed I was pulling a date out of the hat when it appears clearly on the main body of the article and I was just adding it to the introduction too. Do I have to be more clear about this? LoveActresses (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You replaced "–" with –" but "–" is "–" not "-" which is -. See the same thing without the formatting constraints "–" with "–" but "–" is "–" not "-" which is -. Just as a "-" (hyphen character in HTML) can be written as "-" so "–" (ndash character in HTML) can be written as "–" in the edited text.

Yes I had not noticed that his DOD was already in the article so fine that one is done and dusted. What about the other two changes in substance? You have added that the strangulation may have occurred at the house and his "second wife Lady Anne Grey", sources please.

This leads to the second point of change of style. Yes titles appear as Baron on (English) articles and not Lord, because Lord can refer to several different degrees of nobility and their degree was Baron, but that is no reason to call them "Baron" in the text of an article as they are not normally called as such in text, but are frequently called "Lord". If it were so, that Baron is comment then you would have written "and second wife Baroness Anne Grey" rather than "and second wife Lady Anne Grey".

-- PBS (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You people are just spliting hairs. Generally the titles appear as I did. I'm not violating any rules, you're the ones who are keeping this nonsense dispute. Go... LoveActresses (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buggery

See also this section on User talk:And we drown

The ODNB (a 21 century source) states:

On 22 March 1540 he was attainted for treason. He was accused first of having employed a Wiltshire clergyman, named William Bird, in his house as chaplain despite knowing him to have spoken against the royal supremacy; second of having instructed another chaplain, named Hugh Wood, and one Dr Maudlin to practise conjuring and magic to determine the king's life and his chances of victory over the rebels of the Pilgrimage of Grace; and third of being guilty of buggery. Contemporary writers, including the French ambassador to the court of King Henry VIII, Charles de Marillac, appear to have considered the crime of buggery the principal charge against him. He was beheaded at Tower Hill on 28 July 1540, his execution staged on the same day as that of his patron, Cromwell.

The problem with the assumption of executed for buggery is a synthesis. He is more likely to have been executed for treason, as was his patron Cromwell at the the same time. The second synthesis is that it is being assumed that his act of buggery was sodomy, there is no evidence given in the source that this was the case. For this article to be included in the category "People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws" is easy because it is stated that he was, but to date no reliable source has been provided that he was executed for sodomy and not the more serious charge of high treason, so until such a source is included the category "People executed for sodomy" is inappropriate. To be included one needs a reliable source that joins the dots. The problem there is that the specific primary sources do not seem to exist, so that a good reliable source would probably only be able to state what the ONDB states.

To include the category "People executed for sodomy" we need a source that sates that he was executed for buggery and not for some other offence, and secondly that his offence of buggery was sodomy (It was not clearly defined in the buggery act (that came about thought case law) and this was the first known prosecution so there was no case law). At the moment including this category "People executed for sodomy" is a double double synthesis -- PBS (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. The King wanted him out of the way because of his links to Thomas Cromwell (they were both beheaded on the same day) and his sympathies with the northern rebels. The charges of buggary are almost certainly trumped up to ruin his reputation -the same as those of incest against Anne Boleyn. And remember what Cromwell was charged with: treason, heresy, corruption, and plotting to marry the Princess Mary....
And there is nothing to suggest he was gay- He had 3 wives and 4 children after all.

There is no proof he was executed for buggary either and it is EXTREMELY doubtful. He was convicted and executed for treason on the same day as Cromwell. For confirmation, A traitor's property are forfeit after execution for treason (not so for execution for buggary) and the King took all of his land and property.

But all of that is also making the assumption that he was given a fair trial. The trial and what he was charged with meant nothing. He was just another of the executions of convenience conducted on orders of King Henry VIII. The king wanted him dead- it was going to happen- what he was charged with didn't matter.

Rushton2010 (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]