Talk:Hugh Despenser the Younger

Hugh on the list of gay, lesbian and bisexual people

Hugh appears on the list of Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual people, and the link to that list appears at the bottom of the article, but no mention is made of his being Gay or Bisexual in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekedunn (talk • contribs)

This entry was not signed or dated so it's not clear when it was written. Also, I do not see the need of capitalizing of several keywords (this is not the German Wikipedia). The list mentioned above does not exist as of July of 2021.

ICE77 (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

English Voodoo?

The article claims that "There was even a bizarre plot to kill Hugh by sticking pins in a wax likeness of him". Sounds a lot like voodoo, an African tradition clearly out of place in England of the 14th century.

Top.Squark (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find pin-sticking magic goes way back before, and further afield, than voodoo. It needs refing though. Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Title of the article

What an odd title. Shouldn't it be Hugh Despenser the Younger? john k (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well his name was Hugh le Despenser, not Hugh Despenser. In historically literature he is often called "the younger Despenser". Why? Because historians are an idiosyncratic bunch. Dsmdgold (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Then Hugh le Despenser the Younger. That he is called "the younger Despenser" in running text does not mean he is ever called "Hugh the younger Despenser," which is very strange. One might call John Quincy Adams "the younger Adams" in certain contexts, but that doesn't mean our article on him should be called John the younger Adams. Furthermore, "Despenser the Younger" gets nearly as many google hits as "younger Despenser", and none of the latter include his given name, while many of the former do. john k (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Google Scholar gives 40 hits for "Hugh le Despenser the Younger" and none for "Hugh the younger Despenser". Google Books shows 386 to seven. I think a change of title may be justified. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 17:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't the page name "Hugh le Despenser the Younger"? It would appear his forebears and offspring were known as le Despencer. Hack (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought by now the article title would be Hugh_le_Despenser_the_Younger.24.11.170.191 (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The title debate started in 2008 and went on until 2015. As of now, 2021, the title is "Hugh Despenser the Younger" and the introduction says "Hugh le Despenser ... also referred to as "the Younger Despenser"". It doesn't make any sense and it's inconsistent. Robert de Brus or Robert de Bruys (Norman French) was warped into an idiotic Robert the Bruce (English) which does not make any sense. Hugh le Despenser has a similar issue. I think the title should be "Hugh le Despenser (Younger)" or "Hugh Despenser (Younger)". The additional "the Younger" was not part of his name. It just happened to be the younger of the two Hugh le Despenser.

ICE77 (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Worst Britons List

In 2006, he was selected by BBC History Magazine as the 14th century's worst Briton.[4] Inclusion of this information seems non-encyclopedic to me. St Thomas a Becket also made this list but no one (quite rightly) added that fact to his article.Nitpyck (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You can either say "Thomas Becket" or "Thomas à Becket" but not "Thomas a Becket". Phonetic signs are not an option given to the discretion of the writer. Yes: whether Despenser or Becket made the list really does not matter and it's totally irrelevant to this article. Similarly, we could say that nobody cares about a list of fastest or slowest cars either.

ICE77 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Too Violent for Children

The raw violence of Hugh's death is not suitable reading material for children. The vivid description should be softened for the general audience of an encyclopedia.67.185.161.127 (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a pity. I had a lot of fun describing De Spenser's execution in graphic detail. In my experience, children love that sort of thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.56.109 (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's crazy, don't change facts and history for wiki. Why would Froissart lie about the execution? The softer version of the execution might well be made to soften the story, for same purposes you describe here. --Dude0853 (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Buggery Act 1533

This post is just for information on why the trial for treason probably would not have included charges of sodomy. Before the passing of the Buggery Act 1533 sodomites were dealt with in the ecclesiastical courts. So it is quite possible that "his genitals sliced off and burned" but it would not have been as legal part of the punishment for alleged sodomy. -- PBS (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Although some writers, such as Alison Weir, have speculated that De Spenser was castrated because of his "orientation", in fact, castration was usually practised on convicted tratiors, such as William Wallace. It was not mentioned in the judgement of Sir William Trussell, but it would have been assumed that it would be carried out. In this case, we can be reasonably sure that Froissart was correct.

As an aside, "sodomy", in medieval England, did not have exclusively homosexual connotations. It meant any form of illict sexual intercourse. At this stage, it would have been unusual for a homosexual to be executed or castrated, and more likely, he would have been required to perform a penance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.56.109 (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There is also little evidence that the relationship was sexual, and there is nothing in Edward II life to assume that he was homosexual, he fathered a number of children outside of marriage. John lilburne (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Is Julie Frusher a reliable source

From the article

Despenser expert Julie Frusher has identified another source for the castration, and writes that although castration was not listed as an official punishment, it had been used on earlier traitors such as Simon de Montfort and was a plausible punishment for Despenser, even absent the charges of sexual or amorous deviancy.

Citing: Frusher, J. (2010). "Hanging, Drawing and Quartering: the Anatomy of an Execution". Retrieved 2010-06-30.

What makes Julie Frusher a reliable source? What makes the website www.hughdespenser.com a reliable publisher? -- PBS (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"Gay lover" headline from the Telegraph

If this claim is going to stick, it needs a real academic source. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Considering the fact this article provides two distinct descriptions of the execution, I would say that Laura Clout's article from 2008 is inconsistent with what is in this article, primarily because she merges two modes of execution by saying "He was hanged and, still conscious, castrated, disembowelled and then quartered before his head was displayed on London Bridge". In addition I must say Laura Clout does not qualify herself by saying what her title or specialty is and what is the source that would label Hugh as a gay person. All I see is "Miss Lewis, a biological anthropologist at the University of Reading" which is not even related to Hugh's sexual orientation but just to the way Hugh was beheaded and cut into pieces. The argument of the Telegraph sounds similar to the story of Edward II and Piers Gaveston, another friend of the king that did not end up so well. Compare "Abbey body identified as gay lover of Edward II" and "A mutilated body found in an abbey graveyard has been identified as that of a notorious medieval villain rumoured to have been the gay lover of Edward II". You can clearly conclude that the second sentence, just a rumor, turned into the proof Hugh was the gay lover of Edward (this is how history is distorted and fabricated, just like for the way Edward II was killed (a story that emerged decades after his death and that is likely invented to disparage the king for the convenience of somebody).

ICE77 (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hugh Despenser the Younger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928130346/http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/Despencer1295.htm to http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/Despencer1295.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303173959/http://patp.us/genealogy/bio/spencer.aspx to http://patp.us/genealogy/bio/spencer.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Despenser/Spencer?

If this is the same family as the famous Spencers, could this be detailed? Valetude (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 18 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Hugh Despenser the Younger → Hugh le Despenser the Younger – Per other le Despencers Staszek Lem (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. His father's article is titled Hugh Despenser the Elder, so the nominator's argument for consistency in titles isn't very strong. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, of 12 le Dispencers I saw only one named insonsistently. I missed another one, sorry, but the consistency argument is still strong. It terms of name usage, to my uneducated search it seems that the frequencies of both versions are about the same. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Hugh le Despenser is certainly how I know him and come across him, and I assume it is commonname. But looking around, there seems to be an uptick in recent books that opt to drop the "le", so I am not sure how dominant it is anymore (but I think that's across all Despensers). I'm sticking with support out of consistency. Walrasiad (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. No "le" in the ODNB for any of them that I can see. Our coverage looks like a mess: we have Despencer and also Despenser and the use of "le" is very inconsistent. Do not trust the links as presented on the dab pages. Srnec (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Do we care about ODNB? We have our own naming system. If you want to make them match, you are very welcome to request hundreds of page moves. :-) Yes it is a mess. And my suggestion is to decrease it at least in one surname. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • We care about using the name scholarship uses. As for consistency, we are much further form it than you think. See here. Srnec (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes we care what scholarsip uses, but in Wikipedia we have other criteria, such as the most common use. Please start the discussion about "le" in the appropriate forum to see whether we have to get rid of it. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources for the execution

This article mentions "contemporary accounts" that do not include castration, unlike the account of Jean Froissart who, apparently, as explained in this article, if I interpreted correctly, relied on the account of Jean le Bel (Froissart's Chronicles include the execution of Hugh le Despenser (younger) of 1326 in Book I (years 1322–1377) and I assume they are based on Jean le Bel's account which Jean Froissart likely copied). Hence, there are X plus 1 accounts.

How many X accounts are we talking about?

Should the box on the top right mention both modes of execution, including the castration which is equally plausible and the one typically used in narrated documentaries?

ICE77 (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Execution

The article states that the method of hanging, drawing, and quartering usually did not involve castration, which is incorrect. Even Wikipedia’s own page on that method of execution specifically mentions emasculation as part of the process. 2601:805:600:DA50:0:0:0:2A15 (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)