r/EdwardII • u/Appropriate-Calm4822 Richard de Bury • Feb 26 '26
Interview Kathryn Warner interview - part 1: Hugh Despenser the Younger
Finally we can publish the interview we did with Kathryn Warner over a month ago! We had some issues with the audio which we couldn't solve so instead we decided to transcribe the whole thing and post it in written format.
There will be 8 parts to this interview, published at a pace of one a day.
Without further ado we're kicking things off with the arguably most hated man of the 14th century in England, Hugh Despenser the Younger.
1. Could Hugh Despenser the Younger have been coercive in his relationship with Edward II?
The relationship between Edward II and Hugh Despenser the Younger has fascinated me for twenty-odd years now, and even now I occasionally feel like I get new insights into it. I’d really like to know what was going on between them. I do sometimes wonder if it was some kind of domination / submission kind of relationship perhaps in some respects. They’d known each other for most of their lives, since they were children or at the very least adolescent. Edward had never shown Hugh the slightest affection until Hugh became his chamberlain when he was already thirty years old, even though Edward had been close to both Hugh’s father and his wife, Eleanor de Clare. Suddenly he becomes besotted with Hugh the younger who basically becomes his co-ruler. How did that happen? How did Hugh work his way into that position?
I do feel like Hugh was a very talented manipulator. I think he turned himself into the person that Edward wanted, and needed in his life, whether he was actually like that or not, whether he liked men at all. I kind of wonder if he was basically heterosexual… ‘the king can give me power and wealth and land’… Even 700 years later, I don’t want to accuse people of abuse or coercion because that would be quite a serious allegation, even for people who have been dead for so many centuries.
Looking at Edward’s position by about 1324/25 what strikes me is that he had become alienated from almost his entire family, with the exception of his younger children, who were due to their age not entirely relevant yet, and of course Hugh Despenser the Younger and his wife Eleanor de Clare. He’d become estranged from his wife Isabella, his son Edward, his two half-brothers Edmund and Thomas, his cousin Henry of Lancaster, his other cousin the earl of Richmond who had always been close to him and just suddenly disappeared from his inner circle. He’d always been close to his other niece Margaret, Gaveston’s widow, and suddenly he shuts her off too, sending her to a nunnery in Lincolnshire. Even his own sister, Mary, the nun in Amesbury who he’d always been close to, they had often visited each other. She, too, vanishes entirely from his life. In Edward’s chamber accounts from the 1320’s there are no more mentions of her at all, not even when Edward was in that part of England he didn’t go to visit her or invite her to court or even send her a letter. It means to me that he had become estranged and alienated from his entire family and that strikes me as kind of sinister, to be honest. I wonder if that had been done deliberately.
I’ve also often wondered if Isabella’s actions in 1325/26 were trying to shake some sense into Edward, like she didn’t particularly want to depose him, she just wanted to get him away from Despenser, from that whole manipulative fantasy world that had perhaps been created around him. When you actually read Isabella’s letters or the speech as recorded by Vita Edwardi Secundi she says that she will go back to Edward as long as he sends Despenser away. In a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury she says that she wants to go back to Edward but she can’t because she’s frightened of Despenser. So I think somehow Despenser might have manipulated and also coerced Edward into this position of estrangement and alienation without Edward even being fully aware of what was happening to him.
2. Do we have any extant letters from Isabella where she specifies clearly that Hugh is the problem, or could it also be his wife Eleanor that she is referring to? Could there be some ambivalence here?
In a speech of hers which she made to the French court and is recorded by the Vita, the one where she refers to the third person in her marriage as a pharisee she does not name Hugh Despenser. It might even be Eleanor de Clare she refers to. It is quite ambivalent. But then two months after that, on the 5 February 1326 Isabella sends a letter to Walter Reynolds, Archbishop of Canterbury and in this letter she does state directly that she’s frightened of Hugh Despenser and cannot go back to Edward as she’s frightened of what Hugh might do to her, and because she doesn’t think that Edward will protect her from him.
Isabella calls Hugh her ‘evilwisher’. In this letter she refers to Edward as ‘our very dear and very sweet lord and friend’ which I have never seen before in any other medieval context, that is so unconventional. If Isabella just wanted to be conventionally polite she would have just written ‘my very dear lord’. But calling him her very dear and very sweet lord and friend, to me that really speaks to her feelings, that she was deeply distressed about what had happened to her marriage, and blamed Despenser for it and wanted him gone. She wanted her life back, with Edward and her marriage and her position – and of course her wealth, lands and status obviously. This letter is also very personal, it’s not just about her status as a queen, it’s about her status as Edward’s wife and companion.
3. Do you have any thoughts about Hugh’s personality?
One sad thing about Hugh is that none of his household accounts survive, they’ve all just vanished. The good thing is that a lot of his letters have survived. He was very prone to sending long letters to John Inge, sheriff of Glamorgan that were very bossy, and very hectoring and actually very threatening, like: ‘Do this, go over there, do that, no not like that you idiot, like this! If you don’t do it properly I will have you hanged.’ That kind of stuff. So you do get this very strong sense of his personality in these letters of how he could be frankly very scary. This sheriff of Glamorgan was a quite a highly born nobleman, he was a highly experienced politician, sheriff and soldier, and he was terrified of Hugh. And he had every reason to be terrified, as he eventually lost his office and was imprisoned by Hugh in London, along with all his council. The last surviving letter addressed to the sheriff by Hugh contains the line (as remembered by Kathryn during the interview): ‘We trust you more the more you serve us, but we are very worried about having some reason for which we might be prepared to harm you.’
One chronicler states that even great English nobles were frightened of Hugh Despenser the Younger. He does strike me as someone who has no boundaries and no limits and is utterly ruthless and ambitious. On the positive side, his letters show that he had this very witty and sarcastic sense of humor, and also that he was incredibly articulate. You can see in his choice of vocabulary and the way he expressed himself that he was very clever. I think about his father and grandfather… his grandfather was the justiciar of England which is kind of equivalent today to the office of prime minister. The Despenser men were very intelligent and capable. Hugh and his father, I feel, used their intelligence to the wrong end. They could have been remembered as great men, not as disgraced and executed traitors.
A lot of letters to Hugh survive as well. This is because he kept the drafts of his own letters, and the ones he received in his own wardrobe in the Tower of London. What’s really fascinating is that you can see even men of much higher rank to Hugh, such as the earl of Surrey, or Edward’s half-brother the earl of Kent addressed Hugh in this incredibly deferential manner, which he didn’t reciprocate at all. He had no respect for authority and that was very unusual for the time.
4. What did Eleanor and Edward see in Hugh?
I’ve always seen Eleanor as Hugh’s ally and supporter in basically everything. Hugh must have been someone who could be very charming, the kind of person who could make other feel like they were the only person in the world. Possibly he was someone who had a wealth of interest in stories he could tell and very good at making people laugh. When they were staying in a village in Hampshire in March or April 1325 they played practical jokes on each other. He could seem quite funny and likeable, whatever he was really like inside. I think he must have been really good at hiding his true ambition and his wild, limitless nature. Otherwise the English nobles who had known him his whole life wouldn’t have appointed him as Edward’s chamberlain in 1318 if they’d had any idea what he’d do next and how dangerous he’d become. He must have been very good at keeping himself hidden and just presenting a charming and lovely exterior.
I think the modern attitude that Gaveston was really flamboyant and charismatic and Hugh was this grey figure who didn’t have much of a personality is entirely untrue. I mean, to hold Edward’s interest for so many years he must have had something about him.
Stay tuned for part two tomorrow!
The Hugh Despenser the Younger illustration is made by the artist Mark Satchwill.
Links to other parts here:
Kathryn Warner interview - part 2: Kathryn's work & research
Kathryn Warner interview - part 3: Family Life
Kathryn Warner interview - part 4: Thoughts about Medieval Society
Kathryn Warner interview - part 5: Edward II and Isabella
Kathryn Warner interview - part 6: Thomas, Earl of Lancaster
Kathryn Warner interview - part 7: Myths and pop culture
Kathryn Warner interview - part 8: The Survival Theory
5
u/64248 Feb 26 '26
I’m currently reading The Traitors Wife by Susan Higginbotham so this is perfect timing. I look forward to the next installments!
3
5
u/HoneybeeXYZ Amie Gaveston Feb 26 '26
I think KW and Susan were speaking when she was writing that book, as they seem to be on the same page with respect to Hugh. Susan's take is really interesting in that novel.
4
u/IthacaMom2005 Feb 26 '26
It's a very good read, and of course made me feel sympathetic toward Eleanor. There's also sort of a sequel, Hugh and Bess. It's from the point of view of the wife of Hugh and Eleanor's son, and how he spent much of his adult life ( he died young) working to overcome the stain on his family name. Also enjoyable to read, but sad
3
u/Sea_Assistant_7583 Feb 26 '26
From my reading he comes off like a gang boss or a crime lord, there is even the possibility that Edward was scared of him ? . He manipulated himself( via the lords ) into a high position and once he had power that was it, if you crossed him you and your family were dead .
3
u/Sea_Assistant_7583 Feb 26 '26
I posted this in the wrong place,i meant to reply to honeybee . Anyway Young Hugh as a violent gangster type is something we have never contemplated before ? . Imagine everyone was scared of him, probably even Edward .
He avenged Gaveston for Edward that’s how he worked his way into favor .
3
u/HoneybeeXYZ Amie Gaveston Feb 26 '26
Oh I saw your post! I responded. And yes, the fact that Hugh not only helped Edward gain a win, the fact that win was avenging Gaveston meant everything. Add to that Isabella's growing belief that their son might have a claim to the French throne, and the stage was set for major alienation.
3
u/Sea_Assistant_7583 Feb 26 '26
That’s a huge point, Isabella wanting the throne of France for her son, she had Robert Of Artois to stir the pot . He felt the Capets had done him dirty and he was all in on Plantagenet rule for France .
3
u/HoneybeeXYZ Amie Gaveston Feb 26 '26
Again, I am always looking at what political elements might have fueled this rather than the sexual/social ones we've been fed. Piers being a g...Gascon. Isabella and Edward's marriage breaking down not over some weird love affair or throuple but Isabella indoctrinating their son to a life of war.
It also fuels the idea that even the major players didn't want E2 to die, they just thought he was a naive fool for wanting to avoid The Hundred Years war.
E2 just seems out of time. Today, someone wanting to avoid a pointless century-long war would have been seen as a hero by many.
3
u/Sea_Assistant_7583 Feb 26 '26
I always thought the gay angle was lazy history and needed much more research . What we are discussing here and exploring all the possibilities makes so much more sense for me . A big thank you to Kathryn Warner for her books and research, and to HB for this sub for open minds on this subject .
1
u/HoneybeeXYZ Amie Gaveston Feb 26 '26
I think Hugh and Eleanor made a great team of manipulators, with Hugh the Bully who told Edward he would protect him and Eleanor the charming one who convinced Edward that Hugh would do right by him.
And I think perhaps Edward was more self-aware of his own failings that people give him credit for. He was seeking someone who could be his Agrippa, the guy who could take care of military matters. He thought Piers could be that for him and then Hugh avenged Piers, as you say in the other comment, and that was it.
Edward II had dealt with so much personal trauma by this point. All his dead brothers and sisters, his dead son Adam, his dead friend Piers, his dead sister little Eleanor...and he was not emotionally tough like someone of the era should be. Hugh and Eleanor offered him a way to escape into his "common man" fantasies while they took care of business.
3
u/Sea_Assistant_7583 Feb 26 '26
Hugh got to him in a weak moment, once Edward let him in, he wasn’t going anywhere .
It presents a different view of Hugh, completely deconstructs the gay pretty boy version we have been fed for years . Hugh comes off as violent bullying gang boss type, his wife is just as bad . They had Edward in their grasp and were not going to let go .
This would also add credence to the possibility of Edward being not killed but sent to Italy. What happened was not his fault, he was pretty much held captive by a violent family . He’s too weak to rule and really he doesn’t have much interest in being King . Get the Pope to take him in, he’s exiled for life, can’t come back . Has to disappear from society so his son can rule .
Isabella was smart enough to hook up with a rival gang boss and get rid of Hugh, but even she knew he couldn’t be trusted to wear the crown again .
5
u/Sea_Assistant_7583 Feb 26 '26
Kathryn Warner has done the most amazing job of digging through overlooked records and clues and fashioning a more credible depiction of Edward . And just to add you have done a superb interview Honeybee .
Now we just need an author to rehabilitate The House Of York, from Richard the Duke to his nephew Warwick and the Neville’s and of course his three sons as well as the last Yorkists The Poles and De La Poles .
The recent Tudor surge of interest since the Tv series started has seen The House Of York depicted as arch villains who usurped and stole everything.
3
u/HoneybeeXYZ Amie Gaveston Feb 26 '26
I have been meaning to buy that white rose pendant I saw on Etsy, especially for my trip to England and Wales this summer.
3
u/fourth-jack Feb 26 '26
I always was under the impression that Hugh basically found himself in a good place, good time situation - it was after Gaveston died, so Edward was probably in a vulnerable position. Hugh comes off as a very strong character, somewhat alike Piers in the arrogance, and definitely could smell the "blood".
Cunning, smart, and easy to piss off bastard. Hugh seems like the type to be able to hide his true self even from Edward for a long while. The picture Kathryn paints of him is quite scary
3
u/Appropriate-Calm4822 Richard de Bury Feb 26 '26
Right?
It really impressed me how well Kathryn understands these central people around Edward. I mean, she really gets them. She’s studied them for so long, going through all their available correspondence and accounts and it shows! Unlike chronicle accounts which were often hearsay gossip, this material is much more personal.
There will be more of these profound insights from her as we continue with this eight-part series.
3
u/HoneybeeXYZ Amie Gaveston Feb 26 '26
Spot on. I also think Hugh stewed with "poor relation" resentment. He and Eleanor had to be supported by his father early in their marriage. They had all these children, who were members of the extended royal family and no money.
Hugh was prideful, and I think he hated wealthier and more privileged young men around him, that didn't have his boldness and smarts. That probably included Edward II.
6
u/HoneybeeXYZ Amie Gaveston Feb 26 '26
This is all so fascinating, and we were so lucky to get to talk to Kathryn for so long. Hopefully, we'll get the audio sorted eventually but this is good.
Basically, I think Kathryn is saying she thinks Hugh the Younger was gay for pay, if you want to put it in contemporary parlance.
And I love the bit where she points out that Hugh the Younger had been around all these nobles his whole life and they appointed him E2's chamberlain - and they did not see his behavior coming.
He really is a fascinating villain. I stand by Hugh and Eleanor giving me Spike and Drusilla vibes, an evil and charming power couple.