One of the judges?

Quite possibly - I'll do some checking. This appears to be a picture of his tomb (and it has some more information on his witch-hunting ways):

http://from-bedroom-to-study.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/judge-not.html

This may be the other judge:

Sir James Altham, MP

I found some bits on him:

> In 1557, one James Altham was Lord Mayor of London. As a judge and MP, in 1599, he tried and convicted the Pendle Witches. Sir James became Lord Chancellor also advised the Government on heretics and blasphemers, signing death warrants which sent many to be burned at the stake this when the penalty for bearing an illegitimate child was two weeks in jail.

http://www.cwherald.com/a/archive/the-altham-dynasty-s-role-in-hist...

> The two Judges charged with hearing the trial were Sir James Altham, a man nearing retirement but who was keen to make amends for having been accused of presiding over a mistrial

> ...

> Of the Judges who presided at the trial, Sir James Altham never truly restored his reputation from the previous mistrial and his reliability and honesty remained suspect for the rest of his life. He died in 1617.

http://www.prisonersofeternity.co.uk/the-pendle-witches/

This would be his Wikipedia page (according to that he was Sheriff of London, not Lord Mayor):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Altham

Great, are you going to update the project with this?

I'm throwing it in to see if anyone can fault the logic, if not then I'll do it or someone else can.

I've now added those two judges to the project (and other relevant ones) as they are clearly the same person. Thanks for adding the links to the project's main page.

I also discovered that Edward Bromley went on to judge the Belvoir Witches in 1618:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witches_of_Belvoir

This time he as with Sir Henry Hobart, 1st Baronet of Intwood

As this is Lincolnshire it clearly falls well out of the remit of this project, but it might be well worth starting one for that too.

It was clearly a time or it and these judges were obviously experienced witch hunters. It is not coincidence that Matthew Hopkins was born only a few years later. It also makes me wonder if we need a "witch hunter" project (although no adding Vin Diesel to it!).

Thanks, yes, would be nice to get them all covered, could you please start that one and add me :) OR once again change the name to Witch Hunts in England and add all.

WDYT?

My Mum sais it was because Henry the 8th wanted to leave the Catholic Church, maybe they got "brownie points" for finding the witches.

Making it a project for all witch trials would get messy quickly (we'd eventually have to drag Ian Fleming into it) so I made one for the Witches of Belvoir:

https://www.geni.com/projects/Belvoir-Witch-Trails/38887

It might be there is a need for a main "witch trials" project and then other profiles could be collected, before getting their own projects.

Anyway, this'll do me for now as there is plenty to keep me busy. I'll get the Flowers' articles started.

Thanks Bill Barnes, just been checking it out, and yes, you a right, specific is better.

I will look to get some images :)

Love the Belvoir Witch project!

And look forward to an umbrella for "witchcraft trials"

Private User there must be many medieval trials to be developed in an umbrella project?

Erica: I count 53 notable ones in the early modern period:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_the_early_modern_period

I will see what i can pull together for you, but the witch trials arent medieval! Early modern phenomenon.

Hi! I'm back.

As I say, the witchcraft trials aren't a medieval obsession. Witchcraft wasn't a capital offense until 1563. However, one could indeed get in trouble for sorcery or witchcraft in the middle ages -- but the problem isn't the witchcraft per se, but an issue of heresy, OR of attempted murder, or such. So. We're in England?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor,_Duchess_of_Gloucester -- most famous English pre-witch trial obsessions case

also:

1301 Walter Langton, Bishop of Coventry, acquitted of diabolism. Which wasn't the point, anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Langton

1290 Adam de Stratton, but really the sorcery wasn't the point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_de_Stratton

1325 Robert Marshal and a bunch of other people, and guess what, the sorcery wasn't the point: https://books.google.com/books?id=BdsoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=...

1330 Edmund, Earl of Kent. Was sorcery really the point? Nope. https://books.google.com/books?id=3mK_SJSZTooC&pg=PA112&lpg...

1382 Robert Berewold, pilloried for minor magic. Which. Wasn't. Really. The. Point. https://books.google.com/books?id=K-4gAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA382&lpg...

1419 Joan of Navarre and her chaplain get imprisoned for sorcery, because they apparently wanted to kill the king. All her property gets confiscated. Later, she's released. Again. the sorcery isn't the point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Navarre,_Queen_of_England

1441: Margery Jourdemayne! Actually burned at the stake! But that was because her witchcraft was treasonous. (Otherwise you mostly just got pilloried.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margery_Jourdemayne

1441: Roger Bolingbroke: too bad the sorcery was treasonous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bolingbroke

I believe my work here is done. I will go have breakfast.

Heaps in Europe also

Norman Cohn's "Europe's Inner Demons" is the classic account of the witchcraft hysteria of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. It has its psychological/socio-economic aspects, of course. But it couldn't have taken off without the use of torture to expose "heretics" (whether real, supposed, or political/economic targets like the Templars) who then made up, or agreed to, all sorts of nonsense which was then regurgitated in the next round of torture. Plenty of people accused their opponents of heresy throughout the Christian period; I do not think there is a single case of a "heretic" being burned until after 1000 (and if memory serves only two cases in that century, in both of which the Bishops who were probably targeting inconvenient opponents are "recorded" as telling the burners not to do it, because it was still thought to be un-Christian). One of St Paul's epistles tells people to accept as Christians others whose beliefs and behaviour would certainly have got them burned thirteen centuries later (and probably tortured into accepting they were "witches" as well; for example, people who did not accept that Sunday was in any way special).

Isn't there a Pole (presumably this one

Elizabeth of York, Duchess of Suffolk

although I thought she was older)

who was accused of sorcery? Although again, of course, that was not the real point.

Mark