Hugh Despenser's Execution at Hereford 24th November 1326 (republished)

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)

Hanging, Drawing and Quartering: the Anatomy of an Execution (Republished)

I found this an incredibly hard post to write - not just because of its length but also the amount of research into the act of execution. This led me on a very gruesome and depressing journey at times, but I felt it was important to detail what happened at a hanging, drawing and quartering rather than just gloss over it - as many books do. Sometimes I don’t think readers are aware of the full horror of this form of punishment - as well as its implications for family honour and spiritual salvation. 

However, because of the nature of this piece I feel that I must issue a warning:

SOME GRUESOME DETAILS CONTAINED - NOT FOR SENSITIVE SOULS!!!

And for those who do read on… don’t have nightmares!


Hanging, Drawing and Quartering: Anatomy of an Execution

Hanging, drawing and quartering, at its most simple, could be seen as a means to an end: a way of producing the most bloody and visible death possible. And yet, under that first simplistic layer, there are other interpretations which throw a little more light onto the importance of the various acts. It must be remembered that the people of the 14th century were immersed, through the dominance of the church, in a culture of symbolism and ritual: for example, the practice of heraldic display included much symbolism that was tied up with rank and status. The whole process of hanging, drawing and quartering was to remove the criminal’s status and identity bit by bit until there was nothing left.

With relation to Despenser, this had started even before his ‘trial’. He was removed from his horse and, without doubt, disarmed, taking away two of the most important symbols of knighthood (horse and sword). That he was then tied onto a skinny nag further emphasized his fall from the higher ruling order as well as the loss of his freedom. Stripping him of his finery, too, stripped him of another layer of his rank, whilst forcing him to wear a surcoat with his arms reversed, showed that he was no longer deserving of bearing a coat of arms - a potent symbol of identification and family honour. Finally, the crown of nettles placed on his head was, maybe a mocking parody of his baron’s coronet, or even perhaps a dig at his pretensions to rule England. For the full story, see this post here.

Such visual signs of his powerlessness would not have been lost on the crowds that came to see him arrive in Hereford. A man who had previously had complete authority over them was now helpless to their screams, taunts, missiles and the blare of horns and trumpets that accompanied him to judgement. As an object for the people’s wrath, he became a scapegoat for all and any misdeeds that had befallen them - whether at Despenser’s hands or not. This united hostility of the masses therefore made it easier for Isabella and Mortimer to execute him without the king’s consent - after all, who was going to protest? The rest of his sentence can beinterpreted as follows (for a less detailed account of the execution, go to this post):

Drawing
The sentence of being ‘drawn’ is perhaps the one that causes most confusion as to its meaning. There are two basic definitions: that of being drawn or dragged to the place of execution (usually by horses and on a hurdle) or of being cut open and disembowelled. Most hanging victims were drawn to the place of their execution anyway, so I feel it would be a little odd to emphasize this as part of the punishment. Also, the term ‘drawn’ is usually placed after ‘hanged’, implying that the actions also took place in that order (it wouldn’t make sense the other way around). So, in my opinion, whenever you see the sentence as ‘Hanged, drawn and quartered’, the meaning is of being eviscerated. However, there are also examples (much later in history) of the sentence being given as ‘Drawn, Hanged and quartered’, in which case, I think the alternative definition is meant.

Hanging
Hanging was a sentence usually meted out to common thieves in the middle ages. Hugh’s sentence of hanging was most likely because of his acquiring lands by often dishonourable and underhand methods. The hanging process at that time was of the ‘short drop’ - in other words the victim only fell a short way - not enough to break their neck or cause a quick death.

Those sentenced to hang were often made to stand on the back of a cart, a stool or a ladder and the noose was placed around their neck. The cart/stool/ladder was then removed and the noose tightened around the victim’s neck, under their own weight, especially if they struggled (which of course, they did). Death was either caused by asphyxiation or else the cutting off of blood to the brain via the pressure of the rope on the carotid arteries. In either case the hanged person might remain conscious for a few seconds or a few minutes, depending on the noose and the way they dropped. Although this does not sound a lot, it must have felt like an eternity. When semi-consciousness was reached, the body would start to spasm and all control would be lost over the bowel and bladder - in some cases men were also known to ejaculate. If the victim was to be hanged until dead, the person could be left for up to an hour before it could be certain that all life signs had been extinguished. By this point the face would also be blue, the tongue and eyes swollen and protruding.

However, in Hugh’s case he was cut down as he reached the semi-conscious (semi-vivus) stage in order to be revived for the next part of the execution. Most probably, due to his starved and dehydrated state, he would not have soiled himself, thus at least sparing one humiliation. 

I have been trying to picture what a 50-foot high gallows would have looked like. It must have been a great building feat in order for it to be stable. The cross beam that Hugh was hung on might not have been that far off the platform itself (if there was one), and the whole apparatus was reached probably by a ladder. Or maybe it was built against one of the buildings in the market place - which would give the structure more stability. Although some chronicles have said that the fire was on the ground in the marketplace, under the gallows, I suspect that it was more likely to be lit in some sort of cauldron on the platform itself. That way, the burning of Hugh’s entrails would have been easier to accomplish and could have been done in front of him, as was common.

Emasculation
After the noose had been removed from Hugh’s neck, he was tied to a ladder - or maybe a table for the next part of the punishment. Note - Froissart says that he was tied to a ladder and that the executioner climbed a ladder next to him to do the deed (see picture in this post). In practical terms that would be rather tricky (and we know Froissart wasn’t given to being reliable with the facts). On the other hand, after being hung so high, it is unlikely that the rest of the sentence would be carried out where the crowd couldn’t see it. I suspect that there was some sort of ladder type frame that Hugh was fastened to on the gallows platform. Then he would have been brought back to consciousness either by a few slaps or by having cold water thrown on him.

Two records - Froissart and a manuscript held at Cambridge (Cambridge Trinity College R.5.41, f. 123v) are the only accounts that say that Despenser was castrated - a grisly flourish not mentioned in his original sentence. Although Froissart can generally be dismissed when it comes to providing a true account, on this occasion it does seem very plausible that this happened. Froissart claims that Hugh was emasculated because he was a ‘heretic and a sodomite’, and indeed, castration was one of the penalties for anything regarded then as ‘un-natural’ sexual practice (heterosexual as well as homosexual - even using different sexual positions could be regarded as un-natural). However, it would be rash to assume that this is the only interpretation of the act. Castration had also been used at previous executions where there was no intention to punish for sexual deviancy.

Actually it was more commonly a symbol of taking away the victim’s claim to masculinity and power (thereby placing him in a female ‘passive’ role) and was also sometimes seen as metaphorically ending his line and name. Another famous example of castration was Simon de Montfort, who, after being killed at the battle of Evesham in 1265, was beheaded, castrated and quartered by the king’s knights. In their eyes, de Montfort had been a traitor and thus deserved the full range of ‘deaths’ reserved for such a crime, including that of symbolically taking away his masculinity and the means by which he procreated his lineage.

Disembowelling
Hugh was sentenced to be disembowelled because he had ‘procured discord between our lord the king and our very honourable lady the queen, and between other people of the realm’ (TheGreatest Traitor, Ian Mortimer, p.162). Many medieval scholars believed that once a man was corrupt, then that corruption dwelt in his heart and bowels. The heart was also associated with love and passion, so quite possibly the message that was being sent out here was that Despenser’s notions of love for his king - both in the sense of as a subject and as a lover, were corrupt and corrupting - especially to the king’s marriage. Le Bel and Froissart saw it as the place where he contrived his evil schemes. By cutting him open and pulling out his heart and entrails, his corruption was therefore being made visible to the crowd. When they were then thrown into the fire before him, it was so that the corruption could be both destroyed and purified in his sight. In other words it was a rather extreme exorcism of the evil considered to reside within him. It was also, most possibly the last thing he saw.

Beheading
Despenser was beheaded for returning from exile illegally. In other words, his actions made him an outlaw. The head traditionally is the seat of knowledge, honour and is the part which directs the person’s actions. In other words, it is the seat of control as is seen in common expressions such as ‘head of the family’ or ‘head of state’. In a famous inflammatory sermon against Edward II (although later he swore it was actually about Despenser), Bishop Stratford started by saying: ‘My head is sick’, using allegory to infer that if the head of the country (i.e. the king) was weak, then so would be the governance over the people. The solution was to remove the head.

Therefore the action of beheading could be seen symbolically as removing that which is sick or corrupt (as with the entrails) and putting an end to its influence on all around it. The head, an important symbol since Celtic times, was then placed on a pike and sent to London, where it would be paraded up and down to the usual accompaniment of horns and drums before being placed on London Bridge like a macabre trophy of good triumphing against evil.

Quartering
The final act of the assault upon Despenser’s body was that of quartering. His body was hacked into four pieces, each to be displayed in a different town in England.

The integrity of the body at death was very important during the middle ages. It was considered that, at the Last Judgement, the soul would become reunited with the physical remains again and would rise from the dead. Therefore, to have one’s corporeal parts scattered about the country was tantamount to being denied a chance of salvation in the afterlife. It was probably because of this belief that Piers Gaveston’s head was sewn back onto his body again after his beheading at Blacklow Hill.

So, for state criminals such as Despenser, physical obliteration was not enough - they needed to be spiritually obliterated as well. Only then could justice be seen to have been done; only then could it be said that the corrupting influence had been totally and utterly destroyed.

Summary
Although such public and extraordinary executions as Hugh Despenser’s were treated by the watching crowd as an excuse for celebration and festival, in reality the bloody excesses were steeped in the symbolism of church and state. The whole process of humiliation, judgement and execution was designed to ritually strip away all ‘nobility’, title, dignity, power, name and even bodily integrity, so that at the end the individual who used to be known as Sir Hugh Despenser, Lord of Glamorgan ceased to exist - both physically and spiritually. In utterly destroying a person who was seen as an enemy of the established order and ideals of ‘nobility’, the whole community was also cleansed of taint. And yet the traitor’s deeds were not to be forgotten: the mutilated remains on display served as a reminder that even the greatest among them could fall if certain lines were crossed and rules transgressed. 

Sources:

‘Deconstructing Identities on the Scaffold: the Execution of Hugh Despenser the Younger, 1326’, Danielle Westerhof, Journal of Medieval History 33 (2007) 87-106 (really recommended for a deeper look into the symbolism behind aristocratic execution)

The Greatest Traitor - Ian Mortimer, Pimlico, 2004

Edward II - Roy Martin Haines, McGill-Queens University Press, 2006

Chronicles - Froissart, translated by Geoffrey Brereton, Penguin Classics, 1978

Several online articles about the medical effects of hanging.

The Remains of Hugh Despenser the Younger (or were they?) (Republished)

I’m afraid this post is a little later than I would have liked - I wanted to do a bit of extra research first before I put my tuppence in.


In the last few days, reports have appeared that the remains of the younger Hugh Despenser may have been found at Hulton Abbey in Staffordshire. One such report, from the Telegraph, can be seen onlinehere.

To sum up the article, the skeleton showed signs that it had been subject to being hung, drawn and quartered and decapitated - precisely the death that Hugh had suffered. Radio carbon dating put the age of the bones between 1050 and 1385 and tests suggest that the man was over the age of 34 when he died. So far, so good: the cause of death, time period and age all fit (Hugh was between 38 and 40 when he was executed in 1326). Before 1300, execution by being hung drawn and quartered was extremely rare and limited to a few individuals. Even later, in Edward II’s reign, that form of execution was still relatively uncommon - saved only for the worst traitors. On the surface, then, it would seem that Hugh could be a candidate as the owner of the bones.

But other things also need to be considered, not least the location of burial. Hulton Abbey was on land owned by Hugh’s brother-in-law, Hugh Audley. The article suggests that Despenser’s body was brought there because of family connections. In this alone, the argument loses a lot of ground. Audley and Despenser may have been connected through family ties (they were both married to de Clare sisters) but any closeness ended there. In 1317, when Hugh inherited his third of the de Clare estates (through his wife Eleanor), he decided it wasn’t enough and in 1320 also tried to take some of Audley’s lands off him. The two became enemies and it ended up with Audley being exiled from court and joining the anti-Despenser contingent which eventually succeeded in getting the Despensers banished from court and disinherited in 1321. After the battle of Boroughbridge in 1322, Audley then spent the next four years imprisoned, largely because of Despenser.

So, Audley had no love at all for Despenser and I cannot see any reason at all why he would want to bury his brother in law in Abbey Grounds on his land. In fact, if he’d got hold of it I wouldn’t have put it past him to dump it down some disused mineshaft! Anyway, it wasn’t as if Despenser’s body had nowhere else to go.

And that brings me onto a second point to do with his burial. Practically all documentary evidence that exists states that in 1330, after Edward III’s coup over Roger de Mortimer and his mother, Eleanor de Clare was allowed to gather together her late husband’s remains and give them a burial at Tewkesbury Abbey. Tewkesbury Abbey was the traditional burial place of both the de Clares and the Despensers - their tombs and graves surround the High Altar, and Hugh had been a patron of the Abbey too. Eleanor constructed a magnificent tomb for him just to the right of the High Altar and facing out into the south ambulatory. The whole thing is in a bit of a poor state now and an Abbot John’s tomb slab has replaced Hugh’s (as well as his effigy). Nevertheless, at the time, it was a fitting, elaborate and expensive memorial for her husband to be put to rest in. Therefore the question begs to be asked - why on earth would Eleanor go to so much trouble only to have Audley bury Hugh up in Staffordshire - a place with no Despenser connections?

The article also states that ‘only the head, a thigh bone and a few vertebrae were returned to her. These are the bones that are missing from the Hulton Abbey skeleton.’ Despite a lot of searching around I cannot find reference to Eleanor receiving just these bones or of anything so detailed. If such a reference exists and anyone reading this knows of it - please, please let me know so I can eat humble pie! Apart from the earlier chronicles mentioning Hugh’s burial at Tewkesbury, the only other references I can find in connection with this come from a marvellous book: Tewkesbury Abbey: History, Art and Architecture (edited by Richard K Morris and Ron Showsmith, Logaston Press, 2003). The first one reveals that Hugh’s tomb was opened sometime in 1795, a report of the time stating: ‘when on removing the lid there appeared to be nothing remaining in it except some pieces of rich gold tissue, ornamented with the arms of de Clare, probably part of the sacerdotal habits, the gift of one of the Clares.’ Unfortunately these remnants were probably part of Abbot John’s burial and not Despenser’s.

The other reference to Hugh’s burial, also cited in the above book, is from the fourth volume of The Itinery of John Leland in or about the years 1535-43 (L.T. Smith (ed), London 1906-10). It says that: ‘one of the quarters [of Hugh the younger] was buried by the lavatory of the high altare.’ Of course, it is impossible to state that such a report written over two hundred year later is by any means reliable or exact, but it is yet another account that Hugh’s remains (or what was left of them) came to Tewkesbury. Personally, I think that, after transport to (and later from) their places of display, as well as three or four years exposure to the elements, the remains were not in a particularly good condition and were also probably incomplete. I certainly doubt that Eleanor would have wanted to see her former husband in that sorry state.

After reading the article, I contacted Dr Mary Lewis, a biological anthropologist at Reading University who has been studying the skeleton, to ask her about the bones. Although she has put forward the theory that it could be Hugh Despenser the younger, she also says that is in no way certain. After looking at the historical record it is my instinct that the remains at Hulton are not those of Hugh Despenser. However, they are obviously of someone who suffered a dreadful form of execution, and I think that that someone might exist somewhere in historical record. Therefore, if anyone has any other information that may help Dr Lewis with the identification of this skeleton, please either get in touch with her or let me know and I will pass it on.

And finally - I would really like to thank Dr Lewis for bringing Hugh Despenser the younger to greater public attention than he has had for a long time and for provoking several interesting discussions on the net!