by Alison Weir
The lords and knights wasted no time in reaching a guilty verdict, and Trussell delivered the dread sentence of death handed down to those convicted of treason: Despenser was to be hanged as a thief, drawn and quartered as a traitor, beheaded for violating his sentence of exile, “and, because you were always disloyal and procured discord between our lord the King and our very honourable lady the Queen, you will be disembowelled and then your entrails will be burnt.” This was the usual penalty for treason, but there was to be another refinement, as yet unrevealed to any.
“Go to meet your fate, traitor, tyrant, renegade!” Trussell concluded vehemently. “Go to receive your own justice, traitor, evil man, criminal!” Did Isabella gloat in triumph, to see her enemy brought so low? Or did she sit there, glacially impassive? We do not know, because no chronicler records her reaction. But the lords and commons present made their feelings apparent, shouting, “Traitor! Renegade! Traitor!”
Immediately after the hearing, the condemned man, wearing a crown of nettles and with his skin roughly tattooed with verses from Scripture on arrogance and retribution,138 was “dragged in a chest through the streets of Hereford, to the sound of trumpets and clarions; then he was taken to the market-place, where all the people were assembled” and baying for his blood. The Queen watched,139 with Mortimer, as Despenser was stripped naked, swung up in the air by a noose round his neck, and, half-hanged, tied to a tall ladder, fifty feet high, “so that all the people could see him; and a large fire was lit. When he was thus bound, they cut off his penis and testicles because he was a heretic and a sodomite, and guilty of unnatural practices, so it was said, even with the King himself, whose affections he had alienated from the Queen. After his private parts had been cut off, they were thrown into the fire and burned.” Despenser, we are told, at first suffered with great patience, asking forgiveness of the bystanders, but then a ghastly, inhuman howl broke from him. The castration of Despenser was perhaps Isabella’s particular revenge, and it was widely regarded as a most apt punishment for his crimes.
“Then his belly was split open and his heart and entrails cut out and thrown on the fire to burn, because his heart had been false and treacherous and he had given treasonable advice to the King, so as to bring shame and disgrace on the country, and had caused the greatest baron in England to be beheaded. And he had encouraged the King not to see his wife. When the other parts of his body had been disposed of, Sir Hugh’s head was cut off and sent to London. His body was then hewn into quarters, which were sent to the four next largest cities in England.”140
With Despenser was hanged, ten feet below him, Simon of Reading.141 After the executions, Isabella and Mortimer held a feast to celebrate their triumph.
Surrey now hastened to make his peace with Isabella; how he achieved this is not recorded. He would be the only one of Edward’s noble supporters to escape with his life. Knighton claims that Isabella had determined upon the destruction of the whole Despenser family, “root and branch,” so that never again would a Despenser rise to power, but he was rather overstating the case, for the lives of Despenser’s two sons were spared; even though the elder, another Hugh, defended Caerphilly Castle against the Queen’s besieging forces, he received a pardon only two months after it fell and would live to be summoned to Parliament as a baron. His younger brother, Edward, became a distinguished soldier. Despenser’s widow, Eleanor de Clare, had been imprisoned in the Tower on 17 November,142 on the Queen’s orders, and spent two years there, after which her lands were returned to her, which proves that Isabella did not long harbor vindictive feelings toward this woman who had caused her so much grief. Despenser’s five daughters were placed in convents while their mother was in the Tower; three later became nuns, one returned to her husband, Arundel’s son, and the other made a good marriage to Lord Berkeley’s heir.143
“So the Queen won back the whole kingdom of England.” Although her company had been initially few in number, they had, for love of her, “acted boldly and bravely” and, reinforced by the multitudes who flocked to her banners, “they conquered as mighty a country as England, in spite of the King and all his men.”144 The success of the enterprise was due also to widespread hatred of the Despensers,145 bitter resentment arising from years of Edward’s misrule, the majority of bishops declaring for the Queen, the support of the City of London for her, and the wholesale desertion of the King by his civil servants. Isabella’s was the first successful invasion of England since the Norman Conquest of 1066, and it was also one of the most successful coups in English history. “Thus ended this bold and noble enterprise; and Queen Isabella reconquered her entire kingdom and destroyed her enemies, at which the whole country rejoiced together.”146
Orleton delivered the Great Seal to the Queen on 26 November at Hereford.147 Once this was in her possession, she began governing in her husband’s name, and many writs were issued “by the King” or “by the King, on the information of the Queen.”148 Furthermore, although the Chancery was with the Queen, its writs were dated at Kenilworth, as if Edward had issued them.149 All of this gave Isabella’s rule a veneer of legality. Not since the time of Eleanor of Aquitaine, who governed in the absence of Richard I in the twelfth century, had an English queen consort exercised such power.
On 27 November, Lancaster was appointed constable of Kenilworth Castle, and soon afterward, on the advice of Orleton, Edward was moved to that luxurious stronghold and placed under armed guard, with Lancaster as his custodian. Kenilworth, which had been formerly a seat of Simon de Montfort and Thomas of Lancaster, seems to have been deliberately chosen because it was indelibly associated in the popular consciousness with the champions of good government. Lancaster proved a considerate jailer, and the King was well and honorably treated, “spending the winter in reasonably comfortable conditions as befits a king in captivity.”150
Isabella was now faced with the perplexing problem of what to do with her husband. There was no doubt that, after twenty years of appalling misgovernment and tyranny, Edward II had to go. Yet he was an anointed king, and it was essential that any proceedings against him were seen to be legal. From the time of the Norman Conquest of 1066, no precedents had been set for deposing an English king, and there was no known process of law through which it might be done. Yet it was clear that most of Edward’s subjects would no longer tolerate his rule and wanted his son to sit in his place, and it was also clear that achieving this was going to require a degree of violation of established constitutional principles. But the alternative—the return of Edward II to power—was unthinkable.
How far was Isabella responsible for the violence and degradation of the executions of the Despensers? Not at all in the case of the Elder Hugh, for she had interceded for him but been overruled by Lancaster. And it is likely that she was obliged to bow also before Mortimer’s dictates, for Murimuth states that the associates of the favorites were executed “at the instance of Mortimer, who hated them, and whose counsel the Queen followed in all things.” In the case of the Younger Despenser, however, she was apparently more than willing to do so. Baker says that “the Queen, whose anger could not be assuaged, was to have her wishes concerning the two Despensers carried out; thus would her goodwill be assured.” Baker is a hostile source, and is demonstrably incorrect in the case of the Elder Despenser, but probably very near the truth with regard to the Younger. In her terrible vengeance on him, Isabella proved herself to be a true daughter of the ruthless Philip the Fair and a pragmatist who did what was necessary, however distasteful.
The fact remains that Hugh was a traitor and suffered the punishment prescribed by the law; no one protested against this or criticized the Queen or her advisers for their severity; no contemporary even censured Isabella, as a woman, for sanctioning such a cruel death, for nothing less would have satisfied the people. The execution was greeted with popular approval as the means of ridding the realm of a dangerous and detested tyrant. And given Despenser’s crimes, it was fully justified.
The
dreadful punishment of drawing, hanging, beheading, and quartering had first been introduced into England by Henry III in 1238, when it was meted out to a man who had tried to murder the King. Edward I had revived its use against Welsh and Scottish rebels, and to punish traitors, with the added refinement of disemboweling. So far, the most famous victims had been Dafydd ap Gruffydd, brother of the last native Prince of Wales, in 1283, and William Wallace, in 1305. During the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, only two English gentlemen had been executed in this way. But until 1326, the penalty for treason had not included castration. Castration by itself had been a routine punishment in Norman times, but it was a practice that had long since fallen into disuse. The Queen, however, would have recalled that, in 1314, the d’Aulnay brothers had been publicly castrated as part of their punishment for having dishonored her sisters-in-law, and it is possible that it was she who suggested that castration was a peculiarly apt penalty for sexual crimes. Certainly, Froissart and other chroniclers viewed Despenser’s punishment as such. That the Queen should sanction such a cruel torture is testimony to the virulence of her loathing of Despenser and perhaps further evidence that he had indeed had a sexual relationship with her husband. In a wider context, the Queen would have intended the ferocity of his punishment to reflect the magnitude of his crimes, and that, in her eyes at least, would have justified it.
It should, however, be emphasized that, apart from the six executions of the Despensers, Arundel, Micheldever, Daniel, and Simon of Reading, and the lynching of Stapledon and others in London (which was none of the Queen’s doing), Isabella’s was a bloodless coup that could easily have been otherwise. Only the guilty were punished, while many associates of the Despensers were left unmolested. Far from being bloodthirsty, as she has often been portrayed,151 the Queen was in fact merciful and anxious to justify her deeds by due legal process. The fact that Mortimer had ordered Arundel and others to be executed without trial undermined this intention, but in the climate of the times, no one was interested in such niceties. Furthermore, during the course of the Queen’s rebellion, only the goods of the Despensers and their associates were plundered—indeed, most of the Younger Despenser’s estates were laid waste; yet the property of others was left unmolested.152
It is unclear how far, or how often, during the invasion and its aftermath, Isabella had taken the initiative in making decisions and shaping policy. The Queen was undoubtedly a formidable woman, a seasoned diplomat who was skilled at wooing people to her cause and making allies, and one who had very definite goals in mind. However, it is likely that she left matters of strategy to Mortimer and the other lords, who were experienced in military matters. Undoubtedly, it was Mortimer who had planned the invasion in Hainault; he had been doing so for a long time before Isabella became his ally. He was one of its commanders and had great experience in the field of warfare and campaigning, and so it is probable, too, that, once in England, he was largely responsible for planning strategy. In this respect, Isabella could only have been a figurehead.153
Clearly, Mortimer exercised tremendous power through Isabella. He could not have done so had it not been for his intimate relationship with her, for he was never accorded an official position in the government and enjoyed great influence solely because he was her lover; this backstairs role seems to have been his choice, for reasons that have been noted. The likelihood is that, in the privacy of the Queen’s chamber, Mortimer made decisions and shaped policy and that Isabella, by virtue of her position as queen, was able to implement those decisions. This suggests that Mortimer’s was the dominant character in the relationship, an assumption borne out by Murimuth.
It has been suggested that the references to Hugh’s ill-treatment of women and children, both in his indictment and in the proclamation issued at Wallingford, reflect the Queen’s personal views, but Mortimer’s own wife and children had been victims of Despenser’s spite, and he may have been keen to underline this.
Nevertheless, the invasion was undertaken in the Queen’s name, and its success left her effectively the ruler of England; her influence and authority can be detected in the orders she issued and inferred from official documents and her own acts, as will be seen. Her status, her popularity, and the acclaim she received would have obliged her male companions to defer to her in many things, but as a woman, she must necessarily have remained at a disadvantage, for Mortimer especially was far more experienced than she in governing and shaping policy, and her sex would always brand her as inferior in such matters. Women, it was held, were born to be ruled by men, not to rule over them. Lancaster’s determination to execute the Elder Despenser in spite of Isabella’s protest, and Mortimer’s decision to execute Arundel without trial, show that the Queen’s opinions were not always taken into account and that the men around her found it relatively easy to overrule her.
But Isabella was nevertheless an intelligent and perspicacious woman whose skills lay in public relations and the subtle manipulation of human beings. It has been claimed that her hitherto hidden talent for plotting, which emerged in the buildup to the invasion, was out of keeping with her earlier career,154 yet this talent had been manifestly evident early on, on several occasions: during her inexperienced efforts to undermine Gaveston’s influence; in the course of several episcopal elections; and most notably, in the Tour de Nesle scandal of 1314, and the Queen’s covert efforts on Edward II’s behalf in his struggle with the Ordainers.
Isabella’s subtlety in successfully concealing her loathing for Despenser and her growing resentment of her husband over a sustained period of time demonstrate great inner strength and tenacity. In Paris, she had built up her party discreetly and with circumspection, capitalizing on her role as a wronged wife to win more support. In England, she had marshaled all her formidable skills in public relations to ensure the success of her cause, and she had won many hearts and minds. In all these things, she was able to demonstrate her considerable ability in statecraft.
Isabella and Mortimer left Hereford for London on 26 or 27 November; traveling “by easy stages,”155 they reached Newent on the twenty-seventh and Gloucester on the twenty-eighth. By now, a great number of lords and ladies were in attendance on the Queen, and at this time, Isabella gave many of them leave “to return to their country seats, except a few nobles whom she kept with her at her council. She expressly ordered them to come back at Christmas, to a great court which she proposed to hold.”156
On 30 November, in a ceremony that took place before the Queen, Prince Edward, and Mortimer at Cirencester, Airmyn was appointed Chancellor in place of Baldock.157 That day, Isabella, Prince Edward, and Airmyn were formally made joint Keepers of the Great Seal, which they were to hold until 20 January, and which the Queen was to keep firmly under her personal supervision.158 From this point, the pretense that the King was personally governing his realm began to be abandoned, and some writs were issued “by the Queen and the King’s first-born son,” “by the council,” or even “by the Queen.”159
At Isabella’s command, Despenser’s treasury in the Tower was broken into and its contents delivered to her;160 she also obtained Arundel’s confiscated goods.161 She doubtless considered it fitting that these ill-gotten gains should come into her possession: they represented financial reparation for all that she had suffered at the hands of Despenser and his followers.
Isabella was anxious to recover everything that had been unjustly taken from her. Between 1 December and 13 January, she awarded herself a series of large grants, amounting to £11,843 13s. 4d.162
Some sources claim that Isabella and Mortimer were at Lichfield on 1 December,163 but as they were at Cirencester the day before, and Witney the day after, this seems highly improbable. On the first, determined to ensure the obedience of the City, the Queen granted the custody of castles surrounding London to her own nominees.164 The court lodged at Witney in Oxfordshire on 2 December, then moved to Woodstock on the third. That day, because the City was not yet quiet, it was decided that the coming
session of Parliament should be postponed, and a new summons was issued for it to meet on 7 January “to treat with the King, if he were present, or else with the Queen Consort and the King’s son, Guardian of the Realm.”165
On 4 December, in the presence of the Mayor and Corporation, the rotting head of Despenser was set up on London Bridge, amid “much tumult and the sound of horns.”166 Around this time, the Queen, “desirous to show that [Stapledon’s] death happened without her liking, and also that she reverenced his calling, commanded his corpse to be removed from the place of its first dishonourable interment under a heap of rubbish, and caused it to be buried in his own cathedral” at Exeter.167
On 6 December, the Queen was busy arranging transport for the returning Hainault mercenaries.168 “The companions of Sir John were anxious to return home, for their task was accomplished and they had won great honour. They took leave of the Queen and the nobles, who begged them to stay a little longer, to consider what ought to be done with the King. They implored Sir John to stay at least until after Christmas. The gallant knight courteously agreed to stay as long as the Queen wanted. And he kept as many of his companions with him as he could, but these were only a few, for the rest refused to stay, which displeased him very much. Even when the Queen and her council saw that nothing would induce his companions to stay, they were still shown every mark of respect, and the Queen ordered a large sum of money to be paid to them for their expenses and for their services, and jewels of great price, to each according to his rank. And she had them all paid in ready money for their horses, which they decided to leave behind, accepting their own estimate of the value without question. Sir John stayed on in England, at the Queen’s earnest request,” enjoying the attentions of her ladies, who were all competing for the favors of this amiable hero.169 Isabella was to reward him handsomely for his services.170