Hugh Despenser the Younger, as he is now known, was if anything more ambitious than Gaveston. His marriage to Eleanor de Clare (arranged by the King) ensured his wealth when, at Bannockburn, her brother Gilbert de Clare died without an heir. The Clare estates were subsequently split up and divided between his sisters and their husbands, and Despenser, being favoured by the King, was able to extort those pieces of land he wanted. He was arrogant, determined, and prepared to use violence whenever it suited him.
The Despenser War of 1321, which was precipitated by Despenser’s blatant avarice and during which the Despenser lands were wasted by a loose confederation of Marcher Lords determined to remove this threat to their properties, marked a turning point in King Edward II’s reign. Afterwards the Despensers returned to rule the nation with an iron hand, but for a short time – again – it appeared that wiser counsel would prevail and the King might be better advised.
In 1321, the year of this story, the Despensers were exiled. As with Gaveston it was only a short time before the King allowed them back, and the result was the Despenser tyranny, which lasted for four years before the two Despensers, Older and Younger, were overthrown and executed as traitors.
The Young Despenser is said to have stated that he wanted to be rich. When Gilbert de Clare died, the Younger’s share of the Clare inheritance was some £1,507 each year, mostly from Welsh property; by the time he died in 1326, Despenser was worth more than £7,500 each year, as well as holding over £3,000 worth of moveable goods and, at one time, having nearly £6,000 on deposit with Italian bankers. One can only guess at the level of corruption involved in his government.
However, through all of the madness and mayhem of the civil wars, through the arguments with the King, the disputes between the barons and eventually the war between King Edward II and his Queen, Lord Hugh survived. There is little in any book about someone who was ever on the fringes of power and never made himself hugely rich, but I hope that if he were to read my description of him, Lord Hugh would not be overly upset. I think he has to have been shrewd and capable, to have lived to die of old age!
Other characters have been entirely invented. There was no Sir Gilbert of Carlisle to my knowledge, nor was there a Sir Peregrine of Barnstaple. My merchants, breadmakers, whores, men-at-arms, ratcatchers and others are also the result of my imagination.
For those who wish to learn more of the history of the period, I can recommend Mary Saaler’s book Edward II and May McKisack’s The Fourteenth Century. For more about the Templars, look at John J. Robinson’s Dungeon, Fire and Sword and Edward Burman’s Supremely Abominable Crimes, while for a marvellous summary of the persecution itself, Norman Cohn’s superb book Europe’s Inner Demons shows how the Order was destroyed through malicious propaganda – and how such persecution continues down the ages.
There are some terms and concepts in these pages which might cause readers to think I have not checked my proofs or that my copy-editor missed whole pieces of text. Life was considerably more simple in those days. Justice was more a means of ensuring that revenues to the Crown were protected, rather than ensuring that villeins and other subjects had their interests protected.
It was the duty of the jury in the first instance to report to the justices what crimes had been committed and who they thought was responsible. This was the jury of presentment. They reported by issuing their veredicta, which were their charges, and the miserable felon would then be hauled off to wait for the trial of gaol delivery, which was when he would be tried by the visiting justices. Here again the jurors would present the facts and the justices would make their decision.
As well as the jury presenting their indictments, other folk could appeal a man’s offence. This was a formal accusation of felony which was laid by the victim against the criminal and meant that a jury’s indictment wasn’t necessary – although there were risks. If a felon was found to be innocent, he could then immediately accuse anyone who had appealed against him of ‘conspiracy’ and demand damages.
For those who wish to learn more about criminal trials and the processes, look at J. G. Bellamy’s The Criminal Trial in Later Medieval England.
One last topic may arouse interest and that is the subject of fighting. Throughout history the English have exercised a series of martial arts. At times practitioners have been lauded and given approval by governments and kings; at others they have scared those in authority and have had their rights to practise curtailed.
That does not change the fact that experts in fighting have existed for centuries. The Liber Albus (c. 1180) mentions them, King Edward I tried to ban the teaching of fencing in London (unsuccessfully) and it was King Henry VIII who finally gave a Royal Warrant to ‘Maisters of Defence’, effectively a martial arts commission. This put the group on a professional footing, like lawyers, and gave them monopolistic rights over controlling all aspects of training men in fighting.
The sole remaining sport which provides evidence of those days is boxing. Hundreds of people flock to watch boxers demonstrating their skill, stamina and speed; in the past there were similar exhibitions, but our forbears were rather more sanguine in their approach to life. Their fights were conducted by men with swords, knives, cudgels, or bare fists – and their weapons were not blunted. Savage wounds were inflicted or received, and one must assume that many of the contestants must have died.
In the twentieth century it is hard to imagine anyone being prepared to fight in this way, but that is because we are conditioned to think differently. To gain an insight into how our ancestors’ minds worked, I cannot recommend Terry Jones’s thoroughly accessible book Chaucer’s Knight strongly enough. For evidence of the fighting arts you need look no further than Samuel Pepys’s Diary for 1 June 1663, 9 September 1667 and 12 April 1669. On each of these dates he mentions watching bouts. Other letter-writers and diarists also give us tantalising glimpses into the way professional fighting was organised. And of course there were female fencers, dagger-fighters and bare-knuckle fighters as well; this was not a male preserve.
The British have exercised with a wide variety of weapons over the centuries. Bows and arrows gave way to swords and sabres, pistols and rifles. However, one type of deadly weapon which has been in constant use for defence in this country is the simple stick. Films show us Little John fighting with Robin Hood, both using staffs, but up to the turn of the last century men protected themselves about town with weighted walking sticks. And back in history, we read in Piers the Ploughman that a man would go to protect his wife with his ‘cudgels’, beating off the crowd that beset her.
If you are interested in the history of the English fighting arts, you should read Terry Brown’s English Martial Arts. This shows many methods of fighting which have been painstakingly researched by Terry as well as giving the best history of the ‘Maisters of Defence’ I have read.
For my other readers whose interest lies in the stories themselves, I can only hope that this book will be an enjoyable diversion. I had great fun writing it and I sincerely hope you get as much pleasure out of reading it.
Michael Jecks
Dartmoor
July 1999
Chapter One