The problem with a study of Hugh Despenser’s execution is that although it appears in detail in several secondary sources, the authors often do not reference where they got the details from. Several chronicles mention the execution, including Knighton, Froissart, Jean le Bel, the Annales Paulini, the Brut and a Cambridge, Trinity College manuscript MS R.5.41, with varying amounts of detail and with various anomalies in the record of events. Until I am able to see these primary sources for myself, translate and cross-reference them, I’m afraid this post will echo the books I have already read. However, as usual, I will drop in a few morsels of speculation!
After the judgement had been read out, Hugh was dragged to his place of execution. Most of the sources say that he was dragged by four horses instead of the usual two. Was this maybe to make the point of the importance of his death or perhaps just to provide a greater spectacle for the watching and jeering crowd? How he was dragged - whether wrapped in a hide or on a hurdle of some kind is not known, however I suspect that in his already weakened state, being dragged over the rough roads wrapped in a hide would probably have been more than his body could have taken. And the powers that be (Isabella and Mortimer) certainly would not have wanted him dead before he faced his justice.
His place of execution is also a matter of debate. Some sources say that the gallows were built just outside of the castle walls, and others that they were situated in the town’s large market-place. Either site would have had its benefits. The fact that he was executed outside his own castle would have really hammered home the disenfranchisement of both his lands and his life. As many of the sources say that the trial took place in the market, then it would make sense that he was dragged elsewhere to meet his doom, i.e. the castle. Also - and this is really high speculation once again - if Edward II had been taken to Hereford (as I suggested was possible in the last post), he would most likely have been imprisoned for the duration in the castle. What better way to make a point about despised favourites than to have one hung where he could hear (and perhaps see?) it being done? But, as I said, this is pure speculation and I do not have a shred of evidence to back this up (at this time) other than that Henry of Lancaster, Edward’s captor, was also at the trial.
The market place is the other contender. In some ways I feel that this is the more practical option. After looking at the layout of Hereford castle (as it would have been - there is nothing left now) - it was surrounded on three sides by a moat and on the fourth by the River Wye. I find it hard to see where would have been a good place for the gallows to have been built. Of course there may have been some open ground inside the walls and close to the castle that I am not aware of. Or maybe the execution actually took place outside of the city walls altogether (there is no evidence for this). On the other hand the market place was central and had enough room for a gallows and a large crowd to bear witness. Some of the area of the old market still exists in Hereford but a large extent has now been built on by modern shops such as M&S and Macdonalds.
What does seem to be agreed upon is that the gallows themselves were about 50foot high - extremely tall and again emphasizing the importance of Hugh’s death at the hands of the state. I would imagine that such a structure could not have been put up overnight so maybe Hugh’s trial and execution at Hereford were already a foregone conclusion before he even reached the walls. Underneath the gallows a huge fire was lit, its purpose to be clear all too soon.
Hugh was hung from the cross-beam and slowly strangled until he was semi-conscious. Then he was released from the noose before he could choke to death and most probably revived with slaps or cold water before being stripped and tied to a ladder (or some other kind of frame/table). Then the executioner climbed up beside him and, according to Froissart, cut off his penis and testicles before throwing them into the fire below. Then his belly was cut open, his entrails and heart pulled out and, once again, burnt in the fire below. Probably (and mercifully) by this stage he was now dead. After this he was taken off the ladder, beheaded and his body cut into quarters. The different parts were to be sent to various places: the head (placed on a pike) to London to be displayed on London bridge, and his limbs to Bristol, York, Dover and Newcastle. The crowd, by all accounts, went ecstatic at his demise, with great cheering and celebration. Queen Isabella and Mortimer, also apparently watched the event - even feasting while doing so. Obviously all the blood didn’t put them off their food.
As to how Hugh behaved at his death, according to Weir (who does not state a source for this), Despenser ‘at first suffered with great patience, asking forgiveness of the bystanders, but then a ghastly, inhuman howl broke from him’. This makes for an irresistible image of a man trying to die bravely and it is the sort of sentiment that is likely to be repeated often because of its emotive elements. Unfortunately Weir is not always the most reliable of biographers and without a direct reference to the source I cannot say whether this is part of a chronicle or just an embellishment of the text. Hopefully, when I have studied all the relevant documents I shall be able to either confirm or deny this part. If anyone has any info on this, please let me know.
Hugh was not the only victim of the scaffold that day. His loyal fellow captive, Simon of Reading was also sentenced to hang for having allegedly insulted the Queen (which probably wasn’t a difficult thing to do). However he was hung far below Despenser as his crimes were considered to be less (they could hardly have been more!) and he was hung until dead. Despenser’s colleague, Baldock, being of the church, was handed over to the decidedly unsympathetic Bishop Orleton of Hereford. Orleton imprisoned Baldock in his London residence. However a mob managed to break in and snatch him. Their justification was that only the City itself should have the right to a prison, and so Baldock was taken to Newgate where, it is reported, he died from terrible abuse at the hands of the other prisoners.
Two more issues arise from Hugh’s execution: the symbolism of the manner of his death (especially the castration) and also the aftermath, and what it meant for his family and associates. I shall cover these two issues in the next two posts.
Sources:
King Edward II - Roy Martin Haines
The Tyranny and Fall of Edward II - Natalie Fryde
The Greatest Traitor - Ian Mortimer
Isabella - Alison Weir
"Deconstructing Identities on the Scaffold: the Execution of Hugh Despenser the Younger, 1326" - Danielle Westerhof
Herefordshire County Council website
Image: Illusration of Hugh the younger Despenser's execution from a manuscript of Froissart (Bibliotheque Nationale MS Fr. 2643, folio 197v)
15 comments:
Great post, Lady D! Can't wait for the next two.
Poor Hugh! Whatever terrible things he did, nobody deserves to die like that.
I'm working on your question about Hugh's patience and howling. ;) Paul Doherty's Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II says (p. 106) "according to one chronicle, such a horrid sound came from him as had never been heard before." He doesn't say what chronicle or provide an endnote - agh. When I googled 'despenser suffered with great patience' it brought up the Dictionary of National Biography, on Google Books. Would be interesting to see what their source is.
Forgot to say: poor Simon of Reading didn't even get a mock trial, did he? 'Insulting the queen' indeed! What nonsense, but apparently so serious you could sentence a man to death for it without having to try him first. I'm sure his real crime was loyalty to Hugh Despenser. And I'm equally sure that hardly anoyone who witnessed his 'execution' (murder) had the slightest idea who he was.
I checked Hugh's entry in the ODNB, and it doesn't say anything there about his great patience - in fact, there's very little on his execution.
OK, I'll shut up now. :-)
Alianore - lol! I like how you're boosting my comment figures! Thanks for doing all that searching - I can't find the source either. I think it's the sort of comment (about him suffering patiently that is) that you desperately want to be true - that Hugh should have gone to his death so bravely. I really hope there is a primary source. However, I must admit, I doubt he'd have been up to asking forgiveness - or howling for that matter, in his dehydrated state anyway.
As for Simon of Reading - poor soul. I think he was in the wrong place at the wrong time (i.e. with the public enemy No 1). Both he and Baldock should at least be commended for their loyalty to Hugh and Ed - they didn't bale out like so many others.
I like Isa less and less. There were good reasons to have Hugh condemned to death, for sure, and in a time where symbols played such an important role, the death of a traitor with all the grisly details may have been justified.
But partying while watching the execution? Really.
And if Ed was there and she made him watch, I'll get positivey pissed. Their marriage was not that bad, after all. Look at the time when she tended his wounds - of body and soul - after Bannockburn, for example. She must have been besotten with Roger, and where's the difference to Ed/Piers and Ed/Hugh then? ;)
I think Mortimer was as much to blame as Isa for the barbarity of the execution etc - after all, there had been a blood feud between them for all their lives.
Like I said, Ed being there is speculation - but it should be considered as a possibility. And yes, I think at this stage that Isa probably was besotted by Mort and also on a high from such a great victory. Honest - you couldn't make it up!
Wonderful posts here about history, specifically the more intimate details.
Thankyou Barbara, and welcome. It's always great to have encouraging comments.
I think that sometimes the intimate details in history can get overlooked. I always try to get at the story behind the story which often involves alot of detective work , staring into space thinking and trying (!) to translate documents from the Anglo-Norman or Latin. Luckily I have a very understanding mother and daughter who put up with my strange obsession ;-)
In particular I feel that Hugh gets far more bad press than he deserved (although he certainly deserved some). People (including historians) are often too quick to quote unreliable sources just because they sound 'juicier'. It;s the same with Edward II. My 'job' is to try and right the wrongs.
But please keep reading - there's loads more I want to write about yet!
I guess the manner of Hugh's death shows the vindictive nature of Isabella.
Whether Mortimer played some part in the choice of "method" is open for question.
And as for Isabella "partying" during the execution - time will show that one later monarch is particular adopted the same attitude whilst his wife was being executed - no guesses as to who HE was...
Great posts!
Hi Melisende.
Yes, I think that Isabella did have a vindictive streak in her as far as Despenser was concerned - although, as I shall discuss in the next post, the method had a great more to do with symbolism than just sheer sadism.
The most vindictive act, in my opinion, was the removal of Eleanor's youngest daughters and their forced veiling in separate nunneries. That was extremely cruel - even for the standards of the day.
Hehe - yes, I'm sure I can guess at the monarch in question that you hinted at.
I agree about the young daughters and the forced veiling. Definitely vindictive and so unnecessary.
Hello. I only found this blog today and felt I had to say a few words. I had no idea who Hugh Despenser was: though I had of course heard of Edward II! So: this Despenser was in fact (one of) the lover(s)? of "the gay king"? Actually I found the man and this site referenced on ExecutedToday!
Firstly: gotta pull you up on sth. "Then his belly was cut open, his entrails and heart pulled out..Probably (and mercifully) by this time he was dead." Um, do you know how silly that sounds?? I mean, obviously this is a blog frequented by medieval historians, not doctors, medical students or biologists.. and it shows! "Probably" dead by then? DEFINITELY dead! No-one can live without a heart even a minute: there's no blood flow to the brain; in fact there's a negative flow, bcos the executioner's just ceased all blood pressure by spilling the stuff all over the cobbles! Plus there is a lot of bleeding whenever anything to do with the genitals is cut. He would probably have blacked out a minute or two after the goolies..
Liz,
Thanks for dropping by - now let me take your points one by one. First of all you call Edward "the gay king" - which shows your depth of knowledge, or lack of, of Edward II. Although he is popularly known as being homosexual, there is actually no definitive contemporary accounts which corroborate this - as any professor of medieval history today will tell you. Any oblique references to his sexuality were made just before his deposition and have been shown to be, in all likelihood, propaganda. If you want me to give you academic references to this then I am more than happy to oblige. Edward also fathered four legitimate and one illegitimate child. Hugh Despenser fathered at least nine legitimate children and probably one natural son. This is not to say that there was definitively no sexual relationship of some sort between Edward and his favourites, just that nothing either way can be proved and so to call Edward "the gay king" is a tad simplistic.
Now, to move on to what I wrote about Despenser's execution. In your excitement to find something to pick at, you obviously didn't read it closely enough. I wrote: "Then his belly was cut open, his entrails and heart pulled out..Probably (and mercifully) by this time he was dead." The vital words are - BY THIS TIME. That is, not after the disembowelling, but before it happened. He was already weakened by self-starvation so it is more than likely that he was barely conscious after the hanging stage. However, I do take issue that no-one can live without a heart even a minute - medical science has shown that the brain can survive after the heart stops for up to six minutes because of the oxygenated blood still in the brain tissues (hence the debate as to whether decapitation victims are still able to see, hear and smell things for a brief period after being beheaded). So even if there were no blood flow to the brain (without a heart to pump it there), the blood that is still in the brain would mean that brain death would occur after cardio-respiratory failure. I am no medic but there is plenty of information to this effect on the Internet and in medical textbooks as I'm sure, if you had researched it before making comments, you would have discovered.
As for the emasculation - yes, you are correct that amputation of the penis causes hypovolemia although the amount of blood lost this way would probably not, on its own, cause unconsciousness in the time frame you suggest. On the other hand, shock and pain could easily cause a black-out in these circumstances. As neither I nor you were present at the execution it would be very hard indeed to look at all of the possibilities of what might or might not have happened, especially how long the executioner took to perform all of the actions or what state of health Despenser was in beforehand.
My blog is aimed at providing non-academic readers with an interest in medieval history the chance to share in the years of research I have done into this individual. If all that you can attempt to 'pull me up on', incorrectly, is how I have worded one sentence then I have obviously done pretty well. I'd be interested to know what 'intellectual' (as you have described yourself on your Blogger profile) projects you have been involved in as I would also like to have a look at your work.
Hi Jules
I really enjoyed reading this very detailed account of such an awful execution. Terrible though it is, it brings to life the seemingly unbearable experience that such poor unfortunates have suffered and the attitudes to life in general of the medieaval mind, partying indeed whilst watching another human being's harrowing suffering. I am looking forward to reading your novel on this man, undoubtedly he and Edward are very complex creatures and although I am not greatly educated where hugh is concerned, if I may say, perhaps men ahead of their time. regards Paula
After reading the last two posts, I just want to say a great big thank you, to you Jules, for all your hard work on this site. I am always impressed by your dedication to questioning past events along with your dedication to accuracy. Once again, thank you and by the way I will in the future, with your permission, be referencing you.
Post a Comment