Amy Gaveston
John Carmi Parsons
the Hunt articles on Amy Gaveston that Robert Bowman kindly provided me
earlier today. I was not able to check the Farnham "Leicestershire
Pedigrees 1925" reference, however, as I was unable to identify the
publication based on the information provided. In addition to the cites
from Hunt, I also looked at the studies of Piers Gaveston's career by Jeff
Hamilton and Pierre Chaplais, and delved into the Fine Rolls and the Cal.
Inqs. Post Mortem. The results:
Hamilton's *Piers Gaveston*, p. 102, knows of Amy's existence and her
marriage to John Driby, but suggests she was a sister or niece of Piers.
Chaplais never mentions Amy. Neither includes Hunt's article in his
bibliography or citations. Therefore I assume neither of them knew of the
fine Hunt cited that claims Amy was Piers' daughter--but on the other
hand, neither of these two reputable scholars (in Chaplais' case,
exceptionally reputable) found anything in their thorough researches in
the materials for Piers' life to suggest that Amy was his daughter.
The Hunt reference to the life of Edward II by the anonymous of Bridlington
(Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II, Rolls Series [i.e., Rerum
Brittanicarum Scriptores Medii Aevi] vol. 76.ii, pp. 41-42, merely records
the birth of Piers Gaveston's daughter by Margaret de Clare, shortly after
the feast of the Epiphany A.D. 1312. This apparently was Hunt's source for
stating that Amy was born "after January 1312." Since for aught yet seen,
Amy was not Margaret de Clare's daughter, however, the birth of Margaret's
daughter could not have had anything to do with the date of Amy's birth.]
The reference is, therefore, useless.
The Patent Roll grants to Amy as Queen Philippa's damsel and the wife of
John Driby or de Driby, king's yeoman, establish only that she was the
queen's householder and John Driby's wife. Nothing is said there about
her parentage.
I found nothing in Inqs. Post Mortem about this John Driby or Amy his wife
(or widow). Of the volumes of Fine Rolls I was able to search, likewise
nothing. Two volumes of Fine Rolls were not available to me today since
the main Toronto University library does not hold them, and the Pontifical
Institute library, which does have them, is closed on summer Friday
afternoons. I will be able to search them next week, but I'm fairly sure
the matter is entirely academic (!) at this point.
In other words, I have seen nothing to alter my earlier position: if Amy was
Piers Gaveston's daughter, all but certainly she was not by Margaret de Clare.
John Parsons
Leo van de Pas
>> Even more damning, to my mind, is the fact that had Amy been a legitimate
>> daughter of Margaret and Piers, she would inescapably have participated in
>her
>> mother's share of the Clare inheritance, as would Joan had she outlived
>her
>> mother (regardless of Piers' unpopularity and the manner of his death,
>Joan
>> was Margaret's legitimate daughter and could not have been excluded from
>her
>> inheritance). Margaret's entire share of the Clare inheritance, however,
>> passed to her only daughter by her second marriage. No surviving daughter
>or
>> descendants of the first marriage were ever mentioned. So I cannot accept
>Amy
>> as a legitimate child of Piers Gaveston and Margaret de Clare.
>
>See the Complete Peerage entry on Piers de Gaveston, under Cornwall, for
>information (in a footnote) about the petition of his widow Margaret (after
>she had married Hugh de Audley) concerning lands that had been seized by the
>crown. Going by memory, since I don’t have CP in front of me: Parliament
>refused the application of Margaret and Hugh, passing a bill stating that
>the issue of Margaret and Piers de Gaveston would be barred from inheriting
>forever. Thus, there would not have been any inheritance for Joan or for Amy
>from either Piers or Margaret. (CP cites Courthope for this information, I
>believe.)
>
>The "smoking gun" in this issue, I think, is the fine dated 1334 (cited by
>Hunt in one of the later TAG articles) in which Amy is called daughter of
>Peter de Gaveston.
>
> -- Don Stone, posting from a temporary email account in Boston;
> after Sunday noon, reply to DonS...@plantagenet.com
Dear Don,
Goodness what a memory you have!
CP Volume III page 434 footnote a.
By a subsequent charter, 5 August 1309,
the county of Cornwall with its appurtenances
was settled upon the said Piers and Margaret his wife, and the heirs of
their bodies, by
reason of which charter Margaret, widow of
Gaveston and wife of Hugh de Audley,
petitioned for restoration of the lands
which had been seized into the hands of the
Crown, and stating that there was issue
of the said Piers by the said Margaret
then living. But the Parliament ordained
that the county should remain to the king, quit of the claim of Hugh and
Margaret and of
the issue of Gaveston and Margaret forever.
In another footnote (c) is mention of Joan
"His (Piers) only daughter and heir, Joan, was by him destined to have
married Thomas Wake,
but the said Thomas having married elsewhere,
King Edward II, in May 1317, granted her marriage to John, son and heir
apparent of Thomas de Multon, Lord of Egremont, as soon as they should
attain to the legal age of marriage.
In the Complete Peerage Volume IX page 404
there is another footnote: In 1317 his
father had agreed that John should marry Joan, daughter of Piers de
Gaveston, the King
dowering her with 1,000 marks, but she died,
aged 15, in Amesbury Priory, 14 January 1324/5.
Now it would be great if someone had access
to those compelling reasons why Amy should
be accepted as Joan's full sister. CP XIV
accepts her on those basis.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
>
>
>
>
Don Stone
John Carmi Parsons
which Don Stone refers below dealt not with Margaret's share of the Clare
inheritance but with the earldom of Cornwall, which was granted to Piers by
Edward II with limitation to his issue by Margaret. Therefore parliament, in
ruling upon the inheritance of the earldom only, was well within existing
lawful parameters. I was speaking with reference to the Clare lands only,
which did not fall within the limitation on the grant of the earldom of
Cornwall. Piers and Margaret married, and Piers received the earldom, well
before the death of Margaret's only brother made her a coheir to the Clare
lands, so there could have been no anticipation of her tenure of those lands
involved in either Piers' creation as earl or the limitation of that earldom to
his issue by Margaret.
Therefore the fact that Amy did not share in the Clare inheritance stands as an
almost insurmountable argument against her having been Piers' daughter by a
Clare. I can't comment much further at this point until I have the opportunity
to track down the fine cited by Hunt that identifies Amy as Piers' daughter,
except to say that even that fine, assuming that it is genuine and that Hunt's
quote from it is accurate, would not prove that Amy was Pier's daughter by
Margaret de Clare. It appears to state merely that she was Piers' daughter and
she would seem likely to have been illegitimate. Even so it is intriguing to
think that Piers might have descendants today, but they almost certainly are
not Margaret de Clare's descendants.
John Parsons
G . EDWARD ALLEN
The citation is Farnham's Leicestershire Pedigrees, p. 18. Fine, Trinity
1334. Farnham's Leicestershire Medieval Pedigrees has been filmed by the
FHL. Perhaps Paul Reed could take a look and see to what Farnham's
citation refers.
Kay Allen AG
Reedpcgen
1925) [FHL #Q942.54 D2fa], p. 18, contains transcripts [in English] of original
sources relating to the descent of Breedon on the Hill, which happened to
concern the Driby family. Farnham seems thoroughly competent in rendering the
records (the book is replete with them, and the book very well done).
In this section, he cites two inquisitions post mortem, de banco roll 807, and
a fine (which is our key document):
Fine. trinity, 8 Edward III, 1334. between John de Driby of Tatershale,
parson of a mediety of the church of Hedersete, PLAINTIFF, and Roger de
Estbriggeforde, chaplain, and John Cleymond, of Kirketon, DEFENDANTS of the
manor of Breedon, etc. The manor is declared to be the right of Roger who
granted it to John de Dryby for life, the reversion to John son of Thomas de
Dryby and ANNE THE DAUGHTER of Peter de Gaveston and the heirs of John.
To his credit, Farnham does not go further than calling her "Anne, dau. of
Peter de Gaveston" in the accompanying pedigree.
I can see how this information might have remained buried in feet of fines for
Leicestershire, but I still fault the scholars for being unaware of Farnham.
Chronology may indicate that this 'Peter' is the same as the Piers who married
Margaret de Clare, but it does not indicate that Amy was legitimate. One would
need clear evidence to explain how Amy was excluded from the de Clare
inheritance. She would either have to be daughter of an otherwise unknown
wife, or illegitimate.
pcr
Don Stone
> Goodness what a memory you have!
Actually, I had looked at the CP article earlier the same day; I just didn't
have it in front of me when posting.
> CP Volume III page 434 footnote a.
> By a subsequent charter, 5 August 1309,
> the county of Cornwall with its appurtenances
> was settled upon the said Piers and Margaret
> his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, by
> reason of which charter Margaret, widow of
> Gaveston and wife of Hugh de Audley,
> petitioned for restoration of the lands
> which had been seized into the hands of the
> Crown, and stating that there was issue
> of the said Piers by the said Margaret
> then living. But the Parliament ordained
> that the county should remain to the king,
> quit of the claim of Hugh and Margaret and of
> the issue of Gaveston and Margaret forever.
The third from last line includes an "etc.":
that the county, etc., should remain to the king...
Whether the "etc." means just the appurtenances of the county of Cornwall or
is broader isn't clear. The source of this footnote is Courthope's
_Historic Peerage of England_, 1857, p. 126, footnote q. The footnote in
Courthope is essentially identical to the footnote in CP, and no source for
this information is supplied by Courthope.
It might be worth trying to get the exact Latin text of this act of
Parliament. Even if it turns out literally to concern Cornwall only, it is
possible that the intent and even the implementation of it might have been
broader. Parliament's rather severe response to Margaret's petition shows
that there was still quite a substantial amount of resentment and ill will
toward Gaveston and by extension his heirs. Alternatively, the wording of
the act might be somewhat ambiguous, but Margaret may have decided that she
and Amy would be better off if the matter of Amy's inheritance was not
pursued any further. There probably wasn't anyone in a position of power
who would have been willing to go very far in advocating Amy's possible
rights. Margaret was probably happy to see that Amy was eventually married
to a decent fellow and may have been hopeful that the Gaveston connection
would gradually be forgotten.
These ideas are not only from me but also from discussions with David Kelley
and Marshall Kirk, with whom I am currently working on other projects.
Here is Donald L. Jacobus's summary of the situation, printed as an editor's
note following Hunt's third article in TAG:
Quite aside from the Bulkeley connection, for which evidence has been
presented, we feel that Mr. Hunt, with an assist from Mr. Sheppard, has made
an important historical discovery in proving that the unfortunate Piers de
Gavaston left descendants by his near-royal wife, Margaret de Clare,
granddaughter of Edward I, especially in view of the unanimity of English
historians and peerage writers in asserting that their only daughter was
Joan who died at the age of fifteen. Since the evidences and proofs have
been split between three articles over the course of more than four years, I
feel that they should briefly be summed up here for the benefit of all who
may be interested. Mr. Hunt originally was able to present only
circumstantial evidence for his conclusion that Amy (or Anne) de Gavaston,
wife of John de Dryby, was daughter of Piers de Gavaston and Margaret de
Clare. The chief items of evidence were:
(1) An early chronicle in Latin states that Piers de Gavaston had a
daughter born soon after the feast of the Epiphany [6 Jan.,] 1312 [supra,
35:100-1].
(2) The Patent Rolls show that Amy or Anne de Gavaston [the name is
variously read], a damsel of the chamber of Edward III's queen, was granted
a manor for life in 1332, and had lands in Essex released to her 25 Feb.
1333 when she will have attained her 21st year, and by 1338 was wife of John
de Driby. The age perfectly fits the nameless daughter of Piers.
(3) Her proved daughter Alice, lady Basset, made William, lord Ros,
supervisor of her will. He was a first cousin once removed of Alice if Amy
(or Anne) was daughter of Piers and Margaret.
To this circumstantial evidence, the present article adds one item of
direct proof:
(4) Amy (or Anne) was definitely called daughter of Peter [i.e., Piers]
de Gavaston in the Dryby Fine of 1334.
The conclusion therefore seems to be unassailable. Her date of birth
makes it certain that Margaret de Clare must have been her mother. If it be
objected that she might have been illegitimate, that is easily answered.
She is not called a "base" daughter in the Dryby Fine. The downfall of
Piers de Gavaston was so catastrophic, and the hatred of the leading barons
for him so great, that no tenderness would have been shown towards an
illegitimate child. Only the fact that her mother was own cousin of King
Edward III can explain her position in court, the grant of a manor to her
for life, and her marriage into a gentry family of standing. I feel that
future writers on the peerage and of this period in English history will
have to give due consideration to the facts presented in Mr. Hunt's
articles.
Note to John Parsons: I appreciate your skeptical approach, because if the
case for Amy's parentage is defective or weak, we should certainly be aware
of that.
Reedpcgen
>objected that she might have been illegitimate, that is easily answered.
>She is not called a "base" daughter in the Dryby Fine.
I've never taken exception to much of anything Jacobus has said before, but I
do here. Amy was mentioned in a reversion of the manor in a fine, and the last
reversion at that. I see no reason a document of that period should have to
have stipulated that she was a 'base' daughter. It may simply have been
identifying her. I await John's reaction.
Second, we don't know the name of the daughter mentioned as being born in the
chronicle. We know that Margaret de Clare had one legitimate daughter. As
John pointed out, this could have been her only known legitimate daughter Joan.
Do we have any other birthdate for Joan, or reason to believe this was Amy?
I do whole heartendly admit, however, that the Parliament had great dislike of
Piers, and may have well tried to displace his lands. The question is now
about the de Clare inheritance, not the Gaveston inheritance. That is what has
to be explained to retain the maternal parentage.
pcr
John Carmi Parsons
On Sun, 6 Jun 1999, Don Stone wrote:
>> CP Volume III page 434 footnote a:
>> By a subsequent charter, 5 August 1309, the county of Cornwall with its
>> appurtenances was settled upon the said Piers and Margaret his wife, and
>> the heirs of their bodies, by reason of which charter Margaret, widow of
>> Gaveston and wife of Hugh de Audley, petitioned for restoration of the lands
>> which had been seized into the hands of the Crown, and stating that there
>> was issue of the said Piers by the said Margaret then living. But the
>> Parliament ordained that the county should remain to the king, quit of the
>> claim of Hugh and Margaret and of the issue of Gaveston and Margaret
>> forever.
> The third from last line includes an "etc.": that the county, etc., should
> remain to the king...
> Whether the "etc." means just the appurtenances of the county of Cornwall or
> is broader isn't clear. The source of this footnote is Courthope's
> _Historic Peerage of England_, 1857, p. 126, footnote q. The footnote in
> Courthope is essentially identical to the footnote in CP, and no source for
> this information is supplied by Courthope.
>
> It might be worth trying to get the exact Latin text of this act of
> Parliament. Even if it turns out literally to concern Cornwall only, it is
> possible that the intent and even the implementation of it might have been
> broader. Parliament's rather severe response to Margaret's petition shows
> that there was still quite a substantial amount of resentment and ill will
> toward Gaveston and by extension his heirs.
I cannot emphasize strongly enough that this refusal by Parliament can only
have involved the earldom of Cornwall. No matter how much resentment toward
Piers remained, Parliament (effectively at this date meaning the magnates of
the realm) would never have wished to interfere in the proper operation of the
laws of inheritance, upon which their own tenure of, and peaceful transmission
of, their estates to their heirs depended. Margaret was an English-born coheir
to the greatest estates in the realm, and on her father's side she was related
to many of the greatest houses in the kingdom. None of that would have been
altered by her marriage to Gaveston, however much he was hated. For the
magnates to have denied her and her lawful issue the right to hold and inherit
her lawful share of the paternal lands, and for the king to have approved and
even to have benefited from it himself, would have been an act of tyranny
identical to those later perpetrated by Hugh Despenser the Younger, husband of
the eldest of the 3 Clare sisters, who with Edward II's tacit approval and
connivance brutally deprived the other 2 sisters--including Margaret--of their
shares of the Clare inheritance. It was largely for just this reason that
Despenser and the king were at last brought down: the other magnates became
terrified that they might stand in danger of losing their estates if Despenser
cast a covetous eye on them, as he had done with his sisters-in-laws'
purparties. I am afraid it is impossible to reconcile the idea that the same
men who in 1326 brought down Despenser for such actions would themselves have
assented to much the same thing in Margaret's case years earlier by denying her
and her issue her share of the Clare lands.
I would have thought it fairly obvious that, since Piers' Cornwall estates
were no longer a factor, Margaret's purparty of the Clare estates was the
only thing that made her daughter Joan an attractive marriage party for
the Wakes and the Multons. If parliament had denied Joan her right to
those lands, and if Piers were so hated that his issue were also loathed,
how to explain those two baronial houses' willingness to accept Joan?
> Alternatively, the wording of
> the act might be somewhat ambiguous, but Margaret may have decided that she
> and Amy would be better off if the matter of Amy's inheritance was not
> pursued any further. There probably wasn't anyone in a position of power
> who would have been willing to go very far in advocating Amy's possible
> rights. Margaret was probably happy to see that Amy was eventually married
> to a decent fellow and may have been hopeful that the Gaveston connection
> would gradually be forgotten.
This theory runs quite against the grain of what one would expect from a
medieval mother in Margaret's position, which would more than likely have
been to defend her daughter's right to the death. One would also expect
Amy herself eventually to have made some attempt to recover right in Piers'
lands, particularly if she knew she enjoyed the favor of Edward III and
Queen Philippa. The few grants they did make to Amy in no way constituted
equal compensation for the extensive estates Piers had held, nor for the
share of the Clare lands that Amy, if legitimate, would have enjoyed as her
mother's coheir (with Margaret's daughter by Hugh Audley).
> These ideas are not only from me but also from discussions with David Kelley
> and Marshall Kirk, with whom I am currently working on other projects.
>
> Here is Donald L. Jacobus's summary of the situation, printed as an editor's
> note following Hunt's third article in TAG:
>
> Quite aside from the Bulkeley connection, for which evidence has been
> presented, we feel that Mr. Hunt, with an assist from Mr. Sheppard, has made
> an important historical discovery in proving that the unfortunate Piers de
> Gavaston left descendants by his near-royal wife, Margaret de Clare,
> granddaughter of Edward I, especially in view of the unanimity of English
> historians and peerage writers in asserting that their only daughter was
> Joan who died at the age of fifteen. Since the evidences and proofs have
> been split between three articles over the course of more than four years, I
> feel that they should briefly be summed up here for the benefit of all who
> may be interested. Mr. Hunt originally was able to present only
> circumstantial evidence for his conclusion that Amy (or Anne) de Gavaston,
> wife of John de Dryby, was daughter of Piers de Gavaston and Margaret de
> Clare. The chief items of evidence were:
> (1) An early chronicle in Latin states that Piers de Gavaston had a
> daughter born soon after the feast of the Epiphany [6 Jan.,] 1312 [supra,
> 35:100-1].
This refers to the life of Edward II by the anonymous canon of Bridlington, and
(supported by evidence from Edward II's wardrobe accounts) it records the
birth of JOAN Gaveston, as I recall I stated yesterday or the day before.
I will have to check the chronology of Piers' marriage to Margaret, to see
whether they might have had another child before January 1312. If so it
did not survive. At Piers' death he was clearly stated to have left only
one daughter, Joan, and no reference is made to Margaret's pregnancy at
that time so it is unlikely there could have been a posthumous child.
> (2) The Patent Rolls show that Amy or Anne de Gavaston [the name is
> variously read], a damsel of the chamber of Edward III's queen, was granted
> a manor for life in 1332, and had lands in Essex released to her 25 Feb.
> 1333 when she will have attained her 21st year, and by 1338 was wife of John
> de Driby. The age perfectly fits the nameless daughter of Piers.
Except that the daughter born in 1312, whose name is not stated in the
chronicle cited above, was really Joan, who had died in 1325. We don't know
when Amy was born, but Piers being the sort of person he was I would not see it
as beyond the long arm of coincidence that he--or any medieval lord, for that
matter--could have had two children by different mothers born around the same
time. (I know a man today who has two such children, born six weeks apart.) The
chronicle cited above does not record twin daughters born in Jan. 1312.
> (3) Her proved daughter Alice, lady Basset, made William, lord Ros,
> supervisor of her will. He was a first cousin once removed of Alice if Amy
> (or Anne) was daughter of Piers and Margaret.
This proves nothing. Executors were not invariably relatives.
> To this circumstantial evidence, the present article adds one item of
> direct proof:
> (4) Amy (or Anne) was definitely called daughter of Peter [i.e., Piers]
> de Gavaston in the Dryby Fine of 1334.
I don't dispute this, but she could have been Piers' daughter without having
been Margaret's daughter.
> The conclusion therefore seems to be unassailable. Her date of birth
> makes it certain that Margaret de Clare must have been her mother.
It has not been established IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM that the 1312 chronicle
reference cited above refers to Amy, and other evidence makes it just as
"unassailable" that the daughter born early in 1312 was Joan.
> If it be
> objected that she might have been illegitimate, that is easily answered.
> She is not called a "base" daughter in the Dryby Fine.
One would not expect that to be stated. The fine in no way involved lands that
might have descended to Amy from Piers, so there was no reason to specify there
whether she was legitimate or not.
> The downfall of
> Piers de Gavaston was so catastrophic, and the hatred of the leading barons
> for him so great, that no tenderness would have been shown towards an
> illegitimate child.
To the contrary, it would have been a praiseworthy act of charity to assist a
helpless young woman orphaned by her father's death. I am assuming that Amy's
mother was English, a situation that might have worked to her benefit in this
regard.
> Only the fact that her mother was own cousin of King
> Edward III can explain her position in court, the grant of a manor to her
> for life, and her marriage into a gentry family of standing.
Amy's position at court was not consistent with that of a royal relative, and
nor were her marriage nor the grants the king and queen made to her.
> I feel that
> future writers on the peerage and of this period in English history will
> have to give due consideration to the facts presented in Mr. Hunt's
> articles.
They will have a damned hard time explaining Amy's exclusion from the Clare
inheritance. I repeat, whatever hatred built up against Piers would not have
been allowed to strike at the cherished principles of inheritance by a
legitimate child. How else to explain the fact that two ranking baronial
houses, Wake and Multon, were willing to accept Joan Gaveston as a potential
wife for their sons AFTER PIERS' DOWNFALL and the loss of the earldom of
Cornwall? More to the point, if Amy were also legitimate, why was she not
simply substituted for her sister after Joan died in 1325, and why did she
not ultimately marry Multon? Does not compute.
> Note to John Parsons: I appreciate your skeptical approach, because if the
> case for Amy's parentage is defective or weak, we should certainly be aware
> of that.
It isn't defective or weak. For aught yet seen, it doesn't exist.
John Parsons
John Carmi Parsons
On 6 Jun 1999, Reedpcgen wrote:
> >If it be
> >objected that she might have been illegitimate, that is easily answered.
> >She is not called a "base" daughter in the Dryby Fine.
>
> I've never taken exception to much of anything Jacobus has said before, but I
> do here. Amy was mentioned in a reversion of the manor in a fine, and the last
> reversion at that. I see no reason a document of that period should have to
> have stipulated that she was a 'base' daughter. It may simply have been
> identifying her. I await John's reaction.
Amen to this. Repeating my earlier post this morning, the property with which
this fine is concerned had not come to Amy from Piers, so the fine in no way
implies her legitimacy, nor was there any reason it should have specified
either her legitimacy or her illegitimacy.
> Second, we don't know the name of the daughter mentioned as being born in the
> chronicle. We know that Margaret de Clare had one legitimate daughter. As
> John pointed out, this could have been her only known legitimate daughter Joan.
> Do we have any other birthdate for Joan, or reason to believe this was Amy?
Both Piers' living biographers, Jeff Hamilton and Pierre Chaplais, concur with
*CP* and every other authority I have ever read on the matter that the daughter
born in January 1312 was Joan. Again as I stated in an earlier posting this
a.m., there is no reason at all to insist that Piers could not have had two
children by different women born at nearly the same time.
> I do whole heartendly admit, however, that Parliament had great dislike of
> Piers, and may have well tried to displace his lands. The question is now
> about the de Clare inheritance, not the Gaveston inheritance. That is what has
> to be explained to retain the maternal parentage.
But Parliament, in the early 14th century still effectively consisting of
magnates who depended on the principles of lawful inheritance to maintain them
and their heirs in their lands, wealth and influence, would have hated trifling
with those principles even more than they hated Gaveston. Refusing the
earldom of Cornwall, granted to Piers by a clearly infatuated Edward II, was
one thing. Denying a legitimate child her lawful claims on her mother's
inheritance was quite another matter. Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier
this morning, Joan Gaveston was clearly anticipated as an heir to her mother's
share of the Clare estates; once the earldom of Cornwall had been denied her
and her mother, the Clare lands alone explain the willingness of the Wake and
Multon families to accept Joan as wife for their sons. If Amy were legitimate,
why was she not also acceptable to those families? Why was she not substituted
for her sister after Joan died in 1325?
Repeat message: does not compute.
John Parsons
John Carmi Parsons
Comment below. JP
[lengthy snip]
> > (2) The Patent Rolls show that Amy or Anne de Gavaston [the name is
> > variously read], a damsel of the chamber of Edward III's queen, was granted
> > a manor for life in 1332, and had lands in Essex released to her 25 Feb.
> > 1333 when she will have attained her 21st year, and by 1338 was wife of John
> > de Driby. The age perfectly fits the nameless daughter of Piers.
I must point out that the wording of this comment does not state that Amy HAD
attained, nor that she actually DID attain, her 21st year in Feb. 1333; rather,
in a veddy British and unfortunately rather vague locution it reads that in
Feb. 1333 "she WILL HAVE attained her 21st year." If this is a verbatim quote
from Hunt, it needs refinement. English males could take seisin of their lands
at 21, but a woman could claim her lands at 14. Obviously, since Gaveston was
executed in the spring of 1312, Amy must have been much older than 14 in Feb.
1333, but until the uncertainty over Hunt's vs Jacobus' wording is cleared up,
the above statement cannot stand as proof that Amy was aged 21 in Feb. 1333 and
hence is not proof that she was born in 1312. Thus her identification with the
daughter known to have been born to Piers in Jan. 1312 is even more suspect.
John Parsons
Don Stone
> > Note to John Parsons: I appreciate your skeptical approach, because if the
> > case for Amy's parentage is defective or weak, we should certainly be aware
> > of that.
>
> It isn't defective or weak. For aught yet seen, it doesn't exist.
Five points:
(1) John Parsons said:
> it is intriguing to
> think that Piers might have descendants today, but they almost certainly are
> not Margaret de Clare's descendants.
It seems to me, on the other hand, unlikely that Piers Gaveston was the
father of an illegitimate child.
I believe Piers was primarily homosexual, though able and willing to do
what was necessary to produce heirs. I think this is essentially
Hamilton's picture of Piers; he says (p. 16) "At least in the case of
Gaveston, there is no question that the king and his favorite were
lovers." Chaplais tries to make a case that the relationship between
Piers and Edward II was not homosexual, but I didn't find his arguments
convincing.
So, assuming Piers was primarily homosexual, what motivation would he
have for engaging in behavior which would result in illegitimate issue?
I can't think of any. (If he wanted sex outside of his marriage, he
would probably head in a different direction from that which would
result in illegitimate issue.)
I am aware, though, of the counter-argument that Edward II (whose sexual
proclivities were probably similar to Piers's) had an illegitimate son.
One might perhaps respond, re fathering illegitimate children, that
motivation, opportunity, and consequences are somewhat different for
royalty than nobility???
(2) On a related issue, John Parsons said:
> I must point out that the wording of this comment does not state that Amy HAD
> attained, nor that she actually DID attain, her 21st year in Feb. 1333; rather,
> in a veddy British and unfortunately rather vague locution it reads that in
> Feb. 1333 "she WILL HAVE attained her 21st year." If this is a verbatim quote
> from Hunt, it needs refinement. English males could take seisin of their lands
> at 21, but a woman could claim her lands at 14. Obviously, since Gaveston was
> executed in the spring of 1312, Amy must have been much older than 14 in Feb.
> 1333, but until the uncertainty over Hunt's vs Jacobus' wording is cleared up,
> the above statement cannot stand as proof that Amy was aged 21 in Feb. 1333 and
> hence is not proof that she was born in 1312.
(Note that the question of why this document refers to Amy's 21st rather
than 14th year is a somewhat separate issue.)
I have not yet seen the exact wording from the Patent Rolls. Hunt's
summary of this was that "lands in Essex were released to her 25 Feb.
1333, when she will have attained her 21st year." Donald Jacobus felt
that this meant that Amy would become 21 on 25 Feb. 1333, and David
Kelley concurs with that interpretation. Interpreting it as a vague
statement that she will have become 21 at some point on or before 25
Feb. 1333 seems strained. A related issue is that Joan Gaveston is
recorded as having died 14 Jan. 1324/5, aged 15 (Calendar of
Inquisitions, Misc., vol. II, p. 326, No. 1329), which if correct gives
her a birth date of ca. 1309. Thus to say that Joan is the daughter of
Piers and Margaret born shortly after Epiphany (6 Jan.) 1312 requires
the moderate contortion of assuming that the statement of Joan's age at
death is incorrect by at least two years. On the other hand, to say
that Piers and Margaret had two daughters
i. Joan, b. ca. 1309,
ii. Amy, b. shortly after Epiphany (6 Jan.) 1312, perhaps 25 Feb.
1312,
allows the more natural interpretation of "will have become 21 on 25
Feb. 1333" and also allows acceptance of Joan's age of 15 at death as
accurate.
Not included in Jacobus's summary (which I supplied a couple of days
ago) are three additional pieces of somewhat suggestive circumstantial
evidence brought up by Hunt:
(3) Woghfield (Wokefield), granted to Amy in 1332, was forfeited
property of Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore, and Amy's step-father (if she
was a daughter of Margaret), Hugh Audley, was the son of Isolde de
Mortimer.
(4) Margaret de Clare's daughter and heiress (by her second husband Hugh
de Audley) Margaret (b. ca. 1317) married ca. 1335 Ralf, lord Stafford
(1299-1372), and had daughters named Elizabeth, Margaret and Beatrix
(the last married Thomas, lord Ros, and was the mother of the William,
lord Ros, who was appointed as supervisor in the will of Amy's daughter
Alice). These Stafford ladies would be first cousins of the half blood
of Alice de Driby, who named her three daughters Elizabeth, Margery, and
Beatrix.
(5) (Quoting from TAG, vol. 35, p. 102) Margaret de Clare was lady for
life of Oakham and Egelton, Rutland. Feudal Aids, vol. 4, p. 207, gives
"A D 1316, Ocham, Rutlands., held by Margreta de Gavaston, com.
Cornwall, lady of Okham & Egelton." When Amy's daughter Alice (nee de
Driby) lost her first husband, Sir Ralf Basset, in 1378, she as his
widow obtained possession of lands he had held in her right: of Bredon,
co. Leicester, of a carucate of land in West Keal, co. Lincs., and of a
rent of 3 shillings in Oakham, Rutland [G. W. Watson in Misc. Gen. et
Her., 5th series, vol. 8, pp. 202-6]. Bredon had come from the Driby
family. Did the small Oakham right come in some way from her
grandmother, Margaret de Gavaston?
None of the above five arguments (re illegitimate issue, dates,
Wokefield, daughters' names, and Oakham) is exceptionally strong by
itself, but together they contribute to making me reluctant to say that
Amy definitely can't be a daughter of Margaret. I might point out here
that I am not (that I know of) a descendant of Amy, though I thought I
was at one point (through the Bulkeleys) and thus was gathering
information about Gaveston and his family. My involvement in this
dialogue is because I want to be sure that the various somewhat
conflicting or contradictory pieces of evidence are appropriately
weighed and balanced (and I believe I would take this position
independent of whether or not Amy was my ancestor).
-- Don Stone, back home in Philadelphia after a marvelous week of
genealogy in Boston (and, unfortunately, with several pressing
non-genealogical responsibilities to attend to)
Leo van de Pas
>(1) John Parsons said:
>> it is intriguing to
>> think that Piers might have descendants today, but they almost certainly
are
>> not Margaret de Clare's descendants.
>
>It seems to me, on the other hand, unlikely that Piers Gaveston was the
>father of an illegitimate child.
Gaveston and she is not illegitimate, she
must be legitimate and the daughter of
Margaret de Clare
>
>I believe Piers was primarily homosexual,
========What is this based upon?
though able and willing to do
>what was necessary to produce heirs.
========You remind me of an effeminate
British noble who was told by his
mother "Close your eyes and think of Britain".
I think this is essentially
>Hamilton's picture of Piers; he says (p. 16) "At least in the case of
>Gaveston, there is no question that the king and his favorite were
>lovers."
=========There is no question? I have ever only found speculation, never a
confirmative either
way. They may have been close emotionally,
but does this necessarily mean physical as well?
Rogers and Hammerstein, Lerner and Lowe,
Abbot and Costello, there are so many male
'couples' who were close and may have 'loved'
each other without having expressed that
physically.
Chaplais tries to make a case that the relationship between
>Piers and Edward II was not homosexual, but I didn't find his arguments
>convincing.
========What historical documents support
or refute their homosexual involvement?
Forget Shakespeare.
>
>So, assuming Piers was primarily homosexual,
=========This is not established, having a
sharp tongue doesn't make him homsexual,
just think of Barry Humphries.
what motivation would he
>have for engaging in behavior which would result in illegitimate issue?
>I can't think of any. (If he wanted sex outside of his marriage, he
>would probably head in a different direction from that which would
>result in illegitimate issue.)
=======As far as I understand, in medieval
times homosexuals were different then today.
It was something that had to be hidden and
covered up. In those days to say 'He (Edward II)
has an illegitimate son and so he cannot be
homosexual' is nonsense. If he did not have
illegitimate children is no pointer either.
I understand the Duke of Orleans (brother of Louis XIV) was effeminate and
had male and female lovers as well as illegitimate and legitimate children.
>
>I am aware, though, of the counter-argument that Edward II (whose sexual
>proclivities were probably similar to Piers's) had an illegitimate son.
>One might perhaps respond, re fathering illegitimate children, that
>motivation, opportunity, and consequences are somewhat different for
>royalty than nobility???
======Quite a few nobles produced illegitimate
offspring. If Edward II and Piers de Gaveston
were homosexual, both have proven they were
capable of fathering children, Edward II
fathered four children over a nine year period.
I think we should return to the original
question : who are the parents of Amy?
Another thought, her father Piers de Gaveston
could he have been a relative of 'our' Piers?
Even though Piers de Gaveston is not a common
name, is it unlikely there were two?
Leo van de Pas
Don Stone
>
> Regardless of who Amy's mother was, you are still arguing that Piers, in your
> eyes a confirmed homosexual, fathered two children.
I wouldn't label Piers as a confirmed homosexual. I would label him as
a bisexual who was on the whole more homosexual than heterosexual but
whose experiences covered a fairly wide part of the spectrum of sexual
behavior. Yes, I think it likely that he fathered two children, and I
think it quite possible (but not yet definitively determined one way or
the other) that his wife was the mother of both of them for the reasons
I itemized.
And, yes, I know that applying today's terminology and categories,
especially in areas such as this, to medieval times is a very risky
business. And I am quite conscious of the fact that it is basically
impossible for us to put ourselves in the shoes of someone of that time
and really understand the motivations for their sexual behavior. We can
try to guess, but it's just a guess.
> And the status of one's birth has absolutely no
> bearing on one's sexual orientation, nor on the way one expresses it.
If you're refering to the royal vs. noble distinction I was making, I
agree that this has no bearing on one's sexual orientation (and I didn't
say it did). However, I think it might have some bearing on the
expression of this orientation (perhaps not a lot but certainly not
absolutely none); I think at least some royals might be less likely than
a noble to worry about norms and more likely to feel they could do
whatever they wanted.
> > (Note that the question of why this document refers to Amy's 21st rather
> > than 14th year is a somewhat separate issue.)
>
> No, it isn't. Hunt argued that the 1333 entry proved that Amy was 21 and
> linked this to the Bridlington chronicler's record of the birth of a daughter
> to Piers in 1312. Unfortunately Hunt based this interpretation on a flawed
> understanding of English law and custom. As the entry, regardless of its
> wording, would not necessarily mean she was then 21, Hunt's entire argument
> identifying Amy with the daughter born in 1312 collapses.
Perhaps the key question is whether the 1333 entry literally says 21st
year. Hunt says "Lands in Essex were released to her 25 Feb. 1333, when
she will have attained her 21st year [ibid. {i.e., Patent Rolls}]." I
assumed that the "when she will have atttained her 21st year" was
probably in the document in essentially that form, but it sounds like
you are arguing that it probably was made up by Hunt and that he should
have said 14th year instead of 21st year. If this is where we differ,
then I expect we'll have to see a literal transcript of the document to
resolve it, as I went on to imply:
> > I have not yet seen the exact wording from the Patent Rolls.
You continued:
> As any English medieval historian who is sufficiently experienced in the use
> and interpretation of the public records can tell you, the ages reported in
> inquisitions can be considerably wide of the mark. Finding a 13-year-old
> referred to as a 15-year-old, particularly when the individual was dead and
> his or her actual inheritance or seisin of land was no longer an issue, is not
> at all uncommon. In any number of cases in which we possess more than one
> inquisition for an individual, we are likely to have just as many different
> ages reported for that individual as we have inquisitions.
Yes, I agree with this. I think what I was trying to say is basically
that if you have two different hypotheses, one of which requires a
number of minor but not unusual adjustments in ages, etc., while the
other works without any adjustments at all, i.e., accepting ages as
literally correct, etc., I'd view the second hypothesis as being more
likely, all other things being equal.
> > (3) Woghfield (Wokefield), granted to Amy in 1332, was forfeited
> > property of Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore, and Amy's step-father (if she
> > was a daughter of Margaret), Hugh Audley, was the son of Isolde de
> > Mortimer.
>
> This is mere coincidence, and it neither indicates nor proves anything.
Yes, could be.
> > (4) Margaret de Clare's daughter and heiress (by her second husband Hugh
> > de Audley) Margaret (b. ca. 1317) married ca. 1335 Ralf, lord Stafford
> > (1299-1372), and had daughters named Elizabeth, Margaret and Beatrix
> > (the last married Thomas, lord Ros, and was the mother of the William,
> > lord Ros, who was appointed as supervisor in the will of Amy's daughter
> > Alice). These Stafford ladies would be first cousins of the half blood
> > of Alice de Driby, who named her three daughters Elizabeth, Margery, and
> > Beatrix.
>
> The pool of names from which medieval parents named their children was small.
> Such parallel name choices are run of the mill, and prove nothing.
Yes, proves nothing by itself.
> > (5) (Quoting from TAG, vol. 35, p. 102) Margaret de Clare was lady for
> > life of Oakham and Egelton, Rutland. Feudal Aids, vol. 4, p. 207, gives
> > "A D 1316, Ocham, Rutlands., held by Margreta de Gavaston, com.
> > Cornwall, lady of Okham & Egelton." When Amy's daughter Alice (nee de
> > Driby) lost her first husband, Sir Ralf Basset, in 1378, she as his
> > widow obtained possession of lands he had held in her right: of Bredon,
> > co. Leicester, of a carucate of land in West Keal, co. Lincs., and of a
> > rent of 3 shillings in Oakham, Rutland [G. W. Watson in Misc. Gen. et
> > Her., 5th series, vol. 8, pp. 202-6]. Bredon had come from the Driby
> > family. Did the small Oakham right come in some way from her
> > grandmother, Margaret de Gavaston?
>
> There could have been, and probably were, more than one tenure in Oakham--i.e.,
> more than one family usually did hold right in each parish and even in a single
> manor. So the Bassets and Margaret Gaveston could easily both have held some
> right there. On the other hand, it would by no means have been impossible for
> Margaret de Clare to have made some small settlement in Oakham on her husband's
> illegitimate daughter as an act of charity.
>
> And bear in mind that we no longer accept that William the Conqueror had a
> daughter named Gundred. Why must it still be argued that Margaret de Clare had
> a daughter named Amy or Anne?
Do you think that the case is completely closed and that the five points
that I listed carry cumulatively absolutely no weight against the
massive fact that Amy de Driby did not share in the Clare inheritance?
Do the other professional (or at least experienced) historians and
genealogists on this list agree?
-- Don Stone
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace
is fast enough." --- Theodore Roosevelt (1888)
Don Stone <DonS...@plantagenet.com> wrote in message
news:375C8490...@plantagenet.com...
> John Parsons said:
> > > Note to John Parsons: I appreciate your skeptical approach,
because if the
> > > case for Amy's parentage is defective or weak, we should
certainly be aware
> > > of that.
> >
> > It isn't defective or weak. For aught yet seen, it doesn't exist.
>
> Five points:
>
> (1) John Parsons said:
> > it is intriguing to
> > think that Piers might have descendants today, but they almost
certainly are
> > not Margaret de Clare's descendants.
>
> It seems to me, on the other hand, unlikely that Piers Gaveston was
the
> father of an illegitimate child.
>
> I believe Piers was primarily homosexual, though able and willing to
do
> what was necessary to produce heirs.
That may well be true, Don, but "I believe" is no sort of genealogical
or historical truth, as you well know --- it's just a firmly held
opinion, sans evidence.
> I think this is essentially
> Hamilton's picture of Piers; he says (p. 16) "At least in the case
of
> Gaveston, there is no question that the king and his favorite were
> lovers." Chaplais tries to make a case that the relationship
between
> Piers and Edward II was not homosexual, but I didn't find his
arguments
> convincing.
Hamilton, Yes.
Could we have a citation please and some further explication of the
evidence?
>
> So, assuming Piers was primarily homosexual,
Not proven. Perhaps he was bi-sexual and "randy" to use the British
expression --- any port in a storm, as it were. Checking portholes
all over the realm, as his opportunities permitted.
> what motivation would he
> have for engaging in behavior which would result in illegitimate
issue?
Vide supra.
> I can't think of any. (If he wanted sex outside of his marriage, he
> would probably head in a different direction from that which would
> result in illegitimate issue.)
"If he wanted... he would probably head in a different direction..."
is not any sort of proof either.
>
> I am aware, though, of the counter-argument that Edward II (whose
sexual
> proclivities were probably similar to Piers's) had an illegitimate
son.
YES. Worthy of note.
> One might perhaps respond, re fathering illegitimate children, that
> motivation, opportunity, and consequences are somewhat different for
> royalty than nobility???
<snip>
Is this really intended to be a serious argument?
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Leo van de Pas
>John Carmi Parsons wrote:
>>
>> Regardless of who Amy's mother was, you are still arguing that Piers, in
your
>> eyes a confirmed homosexual, fathered two children.
>
>I wouldn't label Piers as a confirmed homosexual. I would label him as
>a bisexual who was on the whole more homosexual than heterosexual but
>whose experiences covered a fairly wide part of the spectrum of sexual
>behavior.
is still speculation, and speculation based on what? Character
assassination, especially after
the death of unpleasant people, happens to the
present.
Yes, I think it likely that he fathered two children, and I
>think it quite possible (but not yet definitively determined one way or
>the other) that his wife was the mother of both of them for the reasons
>I itemized.
=========If he was homosexual, that would be
one more reason for Amy to be legitimate,
'keeping his wife happy' instead of
'enjoying' himself outside wedlock.
>
>And, yes, I know that applying today's terminology and categories,
>especially in areas such as this, to medieval times is a very risky
>business. And I am quite conscious of the fact that it is basically
>impossible for us to put ourselves in the shoes of someone of that time
>and really understand the motivations for their sexual behavior. We can
>try to guess, but it's just a guess.
>
>> And the status of one's birth has absolutely no
>> bearing on one's sexual orientation, nor on the way one expresses it.
>
>If you're refering to the royal vs. noble distinction I was making, I
>agree that this has no bearing on one's sexual orientation (and I didn't
>say it did). However, I think it might have some bearing on the
>expression of this orientation (perhaps not a lot but certainly not
>absolutely none); I think at least some royals might be less likely than
>a noble to worry about norms and more likely to feel they could do
>whatever they wanted.
>
>> > (Note that the question of why this document refers to Amy's 21st rather
>> > than 14th year is a somewhat separate issue.)
>>
>> No, it isn't. Hunt argued that the 1333 entry proved that Amy was 21 and
>> linked this to the Bridlington chronicler's record of the birth of a
daughter
>> to Piers in 1312.
========On that date, unlikely to be her
birthday, she could have been just 21 but also
almost 22?
======Having them in the same order is 'peculiar'
if it was only because there were so few names
to choose from. There were more than just a few
christian names at that time.
========In my opinion this is not a valid point,
just because it did not apply around 1066
that does not mean it could not have applied
300 years later.
>Do you think that the case is completely closed and that the five points
>that I listed carry cumulatively absolutely no weight against the
>massive fact that Amy de Driby did not share in the Clare inheritance?
>
>Do the other professional (or at least experienced) historians and
>genealogists on this list agree?
>--Don Stone
I think the jury is out and may well be out
forever, unless something substantial is
found. Also, I believe, we should be more
careful when applying sexual tags to people,
especially when they lived so many hundreds
of years ago, with so little or no proof surviving.
Leo van de Pas
D. Spencer Hines
Well argued, Leo.
D'accord.
Good points all. Especially this one:
> I think the jury is out and may well be out
> forever, unless something substantial is
> found. Also, I believe, we should be more
> careful when applying sexual tags to people,
> especially when they lived so many hundreds
> of years ago, with so little or no proof surviving.
> Leo van de Pas
We should listen to them.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace
is fast enough." --- Theodore Roosevelt (1888)
Leo van de Pas <leov...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:3.0.2.32.1999060...@mail.iinet.net.au...
Reedpcgen
>
One minor point. If Piers did marry Margaret de Clare in 1309 [by 5 August],
and she gave birth to Joan after a full term, Joan may well not have been born
until 1310.
Another minor point, we are assuming the child born in 1312 survived [in order
to fit an interpretation of evidence]. Margaret de Clare had only one known
daughter by her second marriage, though she would only have been about
twenty-four when she married Hugh (m. 1317).
I wonder about the wording of the grant to Piers of the lordship of the Isle of
Wight in 1307: to him, "his wife and the heirs of his body." I wonder if this
might possibly indicate a marriage for Piers before that to Margaret de Clare.
(For those not familiar with the situation, Piers was captured by the nobles
after the King's refusal to banish him and beheaded without any form of trial
on 19 June 1312.)
As to his homosexuality, I could conceive that a man as reportedly grandiose as
Piers might have wanted to produce some male heir to inherit lands and titles
he was certain would be granted to him by his familiar, Edward II, and thus
would have continued to try to produce a male heir even after the birth of one
or two daughters. I seriously doubt he was trying to 'do his duty' for
England. On the other hand, Piers might have been one of those who were
willing to have sex with anybody. Historical psychology has always been very
dangerous.
[!] The point that NO good share of Margaret de Clare's lands ended up among
any of the descendants of Amy de Gaveston is a FORMIDABLE point of evidence.
Margaret was daughter of Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, by
his wife Joan of Acre (and thus granddaughter of Edward I). Margaret's second
husband Hugh de Audley was created Earl of Gloucester. His only daughter and
heir, Margaret, married Ralph, 1st Earl of Stafford.
It always struck me as odd that Amy de Gaveston would marry so far below what
her status would have been as a close relative of the king (if she were, as was
reported, Piers' daughter by Margaret). If her real mother, however, were
herself closely associated with the court, it would explain why Amy might have
been there, but not married into the peerage (and not put into a nunnery after
the downfall of Piers).
At the death of Margaret de Clare on 9 April 1342, her daughter and heir was
found to be Margaret, wife of Ralph de Stafford, aged 18 or 20 [note the
discrepancy of two years]. It would be incredible if Margaret had another
daughter--in fact an OLDER daughter--who was not mentioned in SOME way. Amy
would have been eldest surviving daughter, with right to the better selection
of lands.
This MUST be explained (before other circumstantial theories are considered
further) as it is hard factual DIRECT evidence. [When Hugh de Audley died 10
Nov. 1347, his daughter and heir Margaret, was found to be aged 30 or 33 (note
a three year discrepancy, and then compare the calculated birth year with the
prevous inquisition).]
For instance, when Ralph, Lord Basset of Sapcote, Leicestershire, died without
male issue on 17 July 1378, his TWO daughters and heirs were found to be (1)
Alice, daughter by the first wife [Sibyl Astley], wife of Sir Laurence Dutton,
and afterwards wife of Sir Robert Moton, then aged 30, and (2) Elizabeth,
daughter of the second wife [Alice Driby], born at Castle Bytham 1 August 1372,
aged 7 (sic).
If Alice de Driby had right to the senior moiety of Margaret de Clare's
portion, one would think Lord Basset or Lord Grey would have at least attempted
to sue to reclaim the lands or get a better settlement. If one theorizes that
some type of private settlement was made which no longer survives (to explain
why Amy did not receive the de Clare lands), such a settlement would still have
had to be as valuable as what was given the younger daughter and her heirs,
representing a sizable amount of lands which should have been brought into the
Driby family by Amy. And one would still have expected that such a settlement
would have been mentioned by the jury at Margaret de Clare's death in order to
explain the holding and succession of lands by a younger daughter and coheir,
rather than by the senior representative (the jury was charged to determine how
and why the lands were held, not just what they were).
The flat out conclusion must be that Margaret de Clare had one daughter and
heir at her death. Is there ANY other possible conclusion?
pcr
GARYBIGDOG
I agree with your position that Amy (or Anne) de Gavaston, wife of John de
Driby, was the daughter of Peter de Gavaston, Earl of Cornwall, by his wife,
Margaret de Clare.
However, I do wish to make a couple of points. If Amy or Anne was
illegitimate, it seems doubtful to me that she would ever have become damsel to
Queen Philippa, wife of King Edward III. The only possible explanation for her
becoming Queen Philippa's damsel was if she was the King's own kinswoman.
This one fact if nothing else I think proves Amy (or Anne)'s legitimacy. In
fact, I think it is preposterous to suggest that an illegitimate daughter of
Peter de Gavaston would ever have been considered for the position of damsel to
the Queen.
Next, Hunt shows that Amy (or Anne) had lands released to her in Essex. Has
anyone attempted to identify these lands? Even if Amy (or Anne) was deprived
of Cornwall and her share in the Clare inheritance, it seems to me likely that
she would have still obtained her mother's maritagium which was settled on her
mother when she married Peter de Gavaston. As a general rule, the crown didn't
interfere with the inheritance of maritagiums. If so, that might explain the
release of lands in Essex to Amy (or Anne) when she turned 21.
Amy (or Anne) de Gavaston is in a similar position to the hitherto unknown
child which the infamous Fawkes de Breaute appears to have had by his wife,
the Countess of Devonshire. Fawkes was a mercenary soldier who lived during
the turbulent reign of King John. He was despised by the English nobles and
died in exile. His son who is named in his will appears to be all but unknown
in English sources. John Carmi Parsons had no knowledge of this child's
existence either until I pointed it out to him. Unlike Amy (or Anne) de
Gavaston, however, I doubt the Breaute child left surviving descendants.
For those interested in such things, an all new descent from Amy (or Anne) de
Gavaston has been worked out for Governor Thomas Dudley by Dr. David Faris.
The line will appear in the forthcoming 2nd edition of Plantagenet Ancestry.
Best regards, Douglas Richardson
P.S. I am using a friend's e-mail service tonight. My own e-mail service is
temporarily down.
Reedpcgen
variously read], a damsel of the chamber of Edward III's queen, was granted a
when she will have attained her 21st year, and by 1338 was wife of John de
Driby. >>>
Does the ACTUAL patent roll state "when she will have attained her 21st year"
or was that Hunt's wording, based upon the assumption that she was born in
1312, and upon the mistaken notion that she could not have received her lands
before marriage or her twenty-first year?
pcr
P. S. The Latin word that 'damsel' was rendered from would also give us some
clue to determining her range of age.
Reedpcgen
>order
>to fit an interpretation of evidence].
What I didn't say [far more goes through my head that I could possibly post]
was that the most logical interpretation is that if the chronicle records the
birth of ONLY one child, a daughter born in 1312, and mentiones no other birth,
it would be the heir Joan. The above statement was only an aside to take into
account, the other conclusions having already been thoroughly discussed.
pcr
John Carmi Parsons
On 8 Jun 1999, GARYBIGDOG wrote:
> Dear Don:
>
> I agree with your position that Amy (or Anne) de Gavaston, wife of John de
> Driby, was the daughter of Peter de Gavaston, Earl of Cornwall, by his wife,
> Margaret de Clare.
>
> However, I do wish to make a couple of points. If Amy or Anne was
> illegitimate, it seems doubtful to me that she would ever have become damsel to
> Queen Philippa, wife of King Edward III. The only possible explanation for her
> becoming Queen Philippa's damsel was if she was the King's own kinswoman.
> This one fact if nothing else I think proves Amy (or Anne)'s legitimacy. In
> fact, I think it is preposterous to suggest that an illegitimate daughter of
> Peter de Gavaston would ever have been considered for the position of damsel to
> the Queen.
It might seem so to 20th-century eyes, since the wide swath of Victorian
morality lies between us and what went on in the medieval period [though
I note with interest that the latest edition of *Burke's Peerage* has for
the first time begun to carry illegitimate children]. People born out of
wedlock in the Middle Ages were, it is true, penalized legally in that they
could not inherit from their parents. Socially, however, they were not
necessarily so penalized as long as their families recognized their descent.
The makeup of the English court in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries
was not exactly what might be expected if we consider "court" to mean what
it meant under Queen Victoria or her successors. Those who were in daily
attendance on the king and his family were generally from very modest
backgrounds. We know today that Piers Gaveston's family was part of the
minor nobility in Gascony, and their status there coincides pretty much
with the simple knightly families who were chosen to see to the mundane
needs of the English royal family at this period. And to give her her
due, Amy Gaveston was the daughter of an earl. I suggested yesterday that
Piers' wife Margaret de Clare might well have settled a small rent at Oakham on
Amy, and I wouldn't see anything particularly shocking, according to 14th-
century mores, if Margaret had personally asked Edward III or Philippa to give
Amy a place at court.
> Next, Hunt shows that Amy (or Anne) had lands released to her in Essex. Has
> anyone attempted to identify these lands? Even if Amy (or Anne) was deprived
> of Cornwall and her share in the Clare inheritance, it seems to me likely that
> she would have still obtained her mother's maritagium which was settled on her
> mother when she married Peter de Gavaston. As a general rule, the crown didn't
> interfere with the inheritance of maritagiums. If so, that might explain the
> release of lands in Essex to Amy (or Anne) when she turned 21.
An Inq. p.m. might help here, but I haven't turned one up at this point. The
deprivation of the Clare inheritance, if Amy ever had any right to it (and I
obviously don't think she did), remains however the critical point here.
John P.
John Carmi Parsons
On 8 Jun 1999, Reedpcgen wrote:
> ><<< (2) The Patent Rolls show that Amy or Anne de Gavaston [the name is
> variously read], a damsel of the chamber of Edward III's queen, was granted a
> manor for life in 1332, and had lands in Essex released to her 25 Feb. 1333
> when she will have attained her 21st year, and by 1338 was wife of John de
> Driby. >>>
>
> Does the ACTUAL patent roll state "when she will have attained her 21st year"
> or was that Hunt's wording, based upon the assumption that she was born in
> 1312, and upon the mistaken notion that she could not have received her lands
> before marriage or her twenty-first year?
> P. S. The Latin word that 'damsel' was rendered from would also give us some
> clue to determining her range of age.
"Damsel" was a status that derived not from a woman's age but from her marital
status or that of her husband. A damsel was either unmarried or the wife of a
man who had not yet been knighted. She became *domina*, a lady, when he was
knighted and assumed the honorific *dominus*. Thus some women remained damsels
(*domicella*) all their lives.
Two examples. Robert de Haustede of Isley Walton in Kegworth, Leics., was
associated with the household of Eleanor of Castile from around 1266, though he
was not knighted by Edward I until Christmas Day 1290. Always before that
date, Queen Eleanor's wardrobe clerks referred to Robert's wife Margerie, the
queen's attendant, as *domicella* even though she was old enough to bear
children by around 1270 (two of her sons were ordained priests in 1295 and 1296
respectively). Immediately Robert was knighted, however, Margerie begins to
appear in the queen's accounts as *domina*. (This couple were parents of
John, first Lord Haustede.)
The same is true for William and Iseult le Bruyn, parents of Maurice, first
lord Bruyn--they too served Edward I and Eleanor of Castile for decades before
William was knighted in 1295. Before that time, Iseult, clearly a mature
woman and the mother of quite a number of children, of whom at least one
daughter was married by 1290, always appears in the royal accounts as
*domicella*. After William was knighted, she at once appears as *domina*.
John Parsons
John Carmi Parsons
On 8 Jun 1999, Reedpcgen wrote:
>> i. Joan, b. ca. 1309,
> One minor point. If Piers did marry Margaret de Clare in 1309 [by 5 August],
> and she gave birth to Joan after a full term, Joan may well not have been born
> until 1310.
>
> Another minor point, we are assuming the child born in 1312 survived [in order
> to fit an interpretation of evidence]. Margaret de Clare had only one known
> daughter by her second marriage, though she would only have been about
> twenty-four when she married Hugh (m. 1317).
>
> I wonder about the wording of the grant to Piers of the lordship of the Isle of
> Wight in 1307: to him, "his wife and the heirs of his body." I wonder if this
> might possibly indicate a marriage for Piers before that to Margaret de Clare.
This is an interesting possibility, though neither Jeff Hamilton nor Pierre
Chaplais found any reason to suggest an earlier marriage. And such a grant
could easily be construed as implying an eventual wife and any heirs he might
father. Such conditional remainders are not unknown.
> (For those not familiar with the situation, Piers was captured by the nobles
> after the King's refusal to banish him and beheaded without any form of trial
> on 19 June 1312.)
>
> As to his homosexuality, I could conceive that a man as reportedly grandiose as
> Piers might have wanted to produce some male heir to inherit lands and titles
> he was certain would be granted to him by his familiar, Edward II, and thus
> would have continued to try to produce a male heir even after the birth of one
> or two daughters. I seriously doubt he was trying to 'do his duty' for
> England. On the other hand, Piers might have been one of those who were
> willing to have sex with anybody. Historical psychology has always been very
> dangerous.
> [!] The point that NO good share of Margaret de Clare's lands ended up among
> any of the descendants of Amy de Gaveston is a FORMIDABLE point of evidence.
It is, in fact, the unavoidable crux of the matter. Explaining Amy's
supposed exclusion from the Clare inheritance, to borrow Don Stone's
terminology, requires altogether too many adjustments to what is really a
very straightforward body of evidence.
> Margaret was daughter of Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, by
> his wife Joan of Acre (and thus granddaughter of Edward I). Margaret's second
> husband Hugh de Audley was created Earl of Gloucester. His only daughter and
> heir, Margaret, married Ralph, 1st Earl of Stafford.
>
> It always struck me as odd that Amy de Gaveston would marry so far below what
> her status would have been as a close relative of the king (if she were, as was
> reported, Piers' daughter by Margaret). If her real mother, however, were
> herself closely associated with the court, it would explain why Amy might have
> been there, but not married into the peerage (and not put into a nunnery after
> the downfall of Piers).
Good point. Piers would have been likely to have found such a woman in the
environment of the court, possibly even among his wife's female attendants.
That could well account for any generosity Margaret might later have shown
Amy.
None whatever. Had some such arrangement been effected by which Amy was
excluded, we would almost certainly have some record of it. May McKisack was
of the opinion that the division of the vast Clare inheritance lay behind much
of the political turmoil of Edward II's later reign, and if Amy had any claim
at all to participate in that division, with its political importance, her
exclusion therefrom would unquestionably have had to be ratified by the
highest authority in the realm.
John Parsons
Vickie Elam White
<< Does the ACTUAL patent roll state "when she will have attained her 21st
year"
or was that Hunt's wording, based upon the assumption that she was born in
1312, and upon the mistaken notion that she could not have received her
lands
before marriage or her twenty-first year? >>
I have the Hunt articles in front of me now. He does not use quotation
marks, as
he does for some citations. It appears that it wasn't a direct quote, but
it
was probably a very close paraphrase. This is a very maddening habit of
Hunt's --
he quotes a passage nearly verbatim, but because he leaves out an "and" or
a "therefore" he can't use quotation marks. But what's done is done...
This is what TAG 35:101 (1959) says (quotation marks are mine):
"II. Amy de Gavestonis believed to be this second daughter of Piers to whom
his
countess gave birth not long after Epiphany (6 Jan.) 1312. The first
recorded of
the dozen or so damsels of the chamber of Queen Philippa [wife of Edward
III],
Amy de Gavaston, was on 16 June 1332 granted for life the manor
ofWoghfield,
Berks [Patent Rolls]. Lands in Essex were released to her 25 Feb 1333,
when
she will have attained her 21st year [ibid]."
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
GARYBIGDOG
>what
>> her status would have been as a close relative of the king (if she were, as
>was
>> reported, Piers' daughter by Margaret).
Amy (or Anne) de Gavaston's husband, John de Driby, was of baronial and royal
descent. As such, she didn't marry THAT far below her status. This is all
the more true when we realize that all she brought her husband was some lands
in Essex. Actually she did quite well! Best always, Douglas Richardson
Vickie Elam White
> One minor point. If Piers did marry Margaret de Clare in 1309 [by 5
August],
> and she gave birth to Joan after a full term, Joan may well not have been
born
> until 1310.
TAG 37:46 (1961) says the following (quotation marks are mine):
"The __Complete Peerage__ claims that Margaret de Clare married Piers de
Gavaston in 1309; however, note that Walter Phelps Dodge, __Piers
Gavaston__,
and Stow's __Survey of London__, Everyman ed., p. 322, confirm that the
marriage actually took place 1 Nov 1307."
> I wonder about the wording of the grant to Piers of the lordship of the
Isle of
> Wight in 1307: to him, "his wife and the heirs of his body." I wonder if
this
> might possibly indicate a marriage for Piers before that to Margaret de
Clare.
Probably granted to him in anticipation of, or soon after, his marriage to
Margaret.
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
John Steele Gordon
> I think this is essentially
> >Hamilton's picture of Piers; he says (p. 16) "At least in the case of
> >Gaveston, there is no question that the king and his favorite were
> >lovers."
> =========There is no question? I have ever only found speculation, never a
> confirmative either
> way. They may have been close emotionally,
> but does this necessarily mean physical as well?
> Rogers and Hammerstein, Lerner and Lowe,
> Abbot and Costello, there are so many male
> 'couples' who were close and may have 'loved'
> each other without having expressed that
> physically.
Rodgers and Hammerstein were extremely close business partners and as a
creative team, but they didn't much like each other personally. They
communicated mostly by phone except when a show was actually in
production. (And both were utterly heterosexual. Hammerstein was
hopelessly in love with his wife, Dorothy, throughout their 30 year
marriage. Rodgers, however, could go through a chorus line like Sherman
through Georgia.)
Alan Jay Lerner was married seven times (some people never learn, I
guess.)
As for Abbott and Costello, that's Hollywood, not Broadway, and
therefore not my department.
JSG
John Carmi Parsons
On Tue, 8 Jun 1999, Vickie Elam White wrote:
> I have the Hunt articles in front of me now. He does not use quotation marks,
> as he does for some citations. It appears that it wasn't a direct quote, but
> it was probably a very close paraphrase. This is a very maddening habit of
> Hunt's -- he quotes a passage nearly verbatim, but because he leaves out an
> "and" or a "therefore" he can't use quotation marks. But what's done is
> done...
> This is what TAG 35:101 (1959) says (quotation marks are mine):
> "II. Amy de Gaveston is believed to be this second daughter of Piers to whom
> his countess gave birth not long after Epiphany (6 Jan.) 1312. The first
> recorded of the dozen or so damsels of the chamber of Queen Philippa [wife of
> Edward III], Amy de Gavaston, was on 16 June 1332 granted for life the manor
> of Woghfield, Berks [Patent Rolls]. Lands in Essex were released to her 25
> Feb 1333, when she will have attained her 21st year [ibid]."
I cannot be sure from Hunt's wording here just how much importance he may have
been attaching to the assumption that Amy was "the first recorded of the dozen
or so damsels of... Queen Philippa," but for the record, there is an earlier
list of the women of the queen's chamber in the calendared Memoranda Roll for
1326-27. Amy Gaveston does not appear there, so while she may be the first
of those women whose name appears in the Patent Rolls, she is not the first of
the queen's damsels known to us.
As I suspected, Hunt's wording here ("... when she will have attained her 21st
year....") is vague and misinformed. Amy need only have been 14 at this stage,
though clearly she must have been much older than that since her father died in
June 1312. Just how much older we will probably never know, but the important
thing here is that the evidence as Hunt handles it does not, and cannot, prove
that she was exactly 21 in Feb. 1333, nor necessarily anywhere near that age.
Let me clarify here one other matter. I referred in an earlier posting to
William the Conqueror's long-alleged daughter Gundred, whose lack of true
royal filiation is now long accepted. I in no way intended to imply that
Gundred's case proves that Amy too was not of royal descent. I only meant
to suggest that if we can accept without undue trauma that Gundred was not
William's daughter, we ought to be able to countenance with equanimity the
possibility that Amy may not have been Margaret de Clare's child.
John Parsons
John Carmi Parsons
marriage, since both are more recent than the works cited below and may
have turned up more reliable sources. JCP
On Tue, 8 Jun 1999, Vickie Elam White wrote:
Vickie Elam White
> At the death of Margaret de Clare on 9 April 1342, her
> daughter and heir was found to be Margaret, wife of Ralph
> de Stafford, aged 18 or 20 [note the > discrepancy of two
> years]. It would be incredible if Margaret had another
> daughter--in fact an OLDER daughter--who was not
> mentioned in SOME way. Amy would have been eldest
> surviving daughter, with right to the better selection
> of lands.
>
> This MUST be explained (before other circumstantial theories
> are considered further) as it is hard factual DIRECT evidence.
> [When Hugh de Audley died 10 Nov. 1347, his daughter and
> heir Margaret, was found to be aged 30 or 33 (note a three year
> discrepancy, and then compare the calculated birth year with the
> prevous inquisition).]
Well, do we know when Amy died?
Hunt, in TAG 37:46-47 (1961), says
"...indeed, she may well have died before her mother, Margaret,
who died in 1342."
Could Amy have died before her mother? If so, then this
may be used to explain why Amy herself didn't share in the
CLARE inheritance with Margaret's daughter by her second
marriage. However, none of Amy's descendants had any shares,
either. If Any was Margaret's daughter, wouldn't her descendants
have been co-heirs if she had died?
I'm not too worried about the two or three year discrepancy
in daughter Joan's birthdate. After all, as someone has
already pointed out, the deposition stating her age at death was
taken years after the fact. But I do have a nagging doubt --
if Piers and Margaret married in 1307, was Joan really their
only daughter, born almost 5 years after they married? I suppose
Piers' possible sexual orientation may have a bit to do with that,
but I would think that he'd have "done his duty" and produced an
heir sooner rather than later. Or perhaps Margaret had gynecological
problems or even a few miscarriages. We'll never know, but...
Still, given all this, I think that it just isn't possible that Amy was
Margaret de CLARE's daughter.
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
I think that it is more likely that, if Amy was Piers'
daughter, that her mother was probably a well-born
woman herself and that Amy wasn't mentioned in Piers'
IPM because she was illegitimate.
Vickie Elam White
> As I suspected, Hunt's wording here ("... when she will have
> attained her 21st year....") is vague and misinformed. Amy
> need only have been 14 at this stage, though clearly she must
> have been much older than that since her father died in June 1312.
> Just how much older we will probably never know, but the important
> thing here is that the evidence as Hunt handles it does not, and
> cannot, prove that she was exactly 21 in Feb. 1333, nor necessarily
> anywhere near that age.
You'll not see me defending Hunt. I don't know what was going on with
him at the time, but this is the same series of articles in which he
absolutely botched the CORBET-MALLORY business. Needless to
say, I don't trust anything the man wrote in them, and my opinion of
his work went down a few notches.
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
John Carmi Parsons
Prosopography* article a thorough read. For those interested, the title
is: "Another Daughter for Piers Gaveston? Amie de Gaveston, damsel of the
Queen's Chamber," *Medieval Prosopography*, 19 (1998), 177-86.
Herewith a precis.
Hamilton acknowledges that at the time he wrote his study of Piers Gaveston,
first published in 1988, he was unaware of J.G. Hunt's articles, but several
colleagues directed him to these articles. Hamilton begins by stating
straightforwardly that Hunt "certainly provides considerable circumstantial
evidence," but "in the end his argument remains unproved and unconvincing" (pp.
177-78) in so far as Amy's Clare descent is concerned.
Hamilton accepts the date 1 Nov. 1307 for Piers' marriage to Margaret de
Clare, and in fact notes from the vivid Clare heraldic illuminations on the
royal charter creating Piers earl of Cornwall, three months earlier, that
the couple may already have been betrothed by then. Hamilton then also notes
that during the 4 and 1/2 years of their marriage, Piers and Margaret were
often separated; she evidently did not accompany him when he went to
Ireland between June 1308 and June 1309, nor did she go with him on his
last period of exile to the Continent in 1311-12. This would have obvious
effects on the chronology of her childbearing (p. 178).
Hamilton acknowledges that it is not possible to insist definitively the
possibility that Margaret did conceive and bear at least one child prior
to the birth of her daughter Joan in January 1312. He emphasizes, however,
that "the important occasions of Gaveston's life... were all celebrated,
generally to excess, by the king...." (several examples follow). This was
also true of Margaret's delivery at York in 1312, which Hamilton dates to
12 January, but we hear nothing of any similar observance by the king of
the births of any other children to Margaret and Piers (pp. 178-79). In
Hamilton's words, "it is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine that
Margaret de Clare could have given birth at any point between 1307 and
1313 without some record of the birth surviving, particularly in the royal
wardrobe books or other exchequer accounts, or in contemporary
chroniclers' accounts" (p. 179).
Edward provided generously for Margaret and her daughter Joan in the years
after Piers' death, again as attested by the king's wardrobe accounts--but
we never hear of Amy in this connection in those accounts. Margaret was
in fact given a landed settlement by the king, equal in value to the
earldom of Cornwall, which she was to hold for life in compensation for
the loss of that earldom, and the king had Joan educated in the royal
convent at Amesbury and arranged her marriage to Thomas de Multon of Egremont.
Hamilton then asks, "If a second, legitimate, daughter existed, why was her
education not attended to? Why was no thought given to her marriage?" (p. 180).
Joan's intended marriage to Multon of Egremont was "incomparably better than
the actual marriage that took place between Amie de Gaveston and John de Driby,
a mere king's yeoman" (p. 180).
Hamilton notes that the inq. taken after Joan's death that gives her age
at death as 15 was in fact made seven years after she died, and suggests
(what is probably true) that in that connection the difference between the
age of 13 (her true age at death) and 15 "would have been insignificant to
the impanelled jurors" who probably had never even seen her since she had
lived in seclusion at Amesbury (pp. 180-81). Hamilton also cites the
disparate ages reported in two different sets of Inqs. post mortem for
Margaret's suriving legitimate daughter Margaret Audley, as Paul Reed has
already posted to the list (p. 181).
Hamilton has little trouble in demolishing Hunt's interpretation of the
passage in the Bridlington life of Edward II. Hunt took the words "cum tota
familia sua," used by the chronicler to describe Piers' arrival at York, to
mean "a family of man, wife, and two or more children, far better than a family
of man, wife and only child." This is an inexcusable lapse. Any medieval
historian with the slightest knowledge of medieval Latin usages should know
that the word "familia" was not used in the Middle Ages to denote "family" in
the modern sense; it meant "household," "retinue," "train" or the like. In
fact, Hamilton points out, Margaret de Clare had reached York long before
Piers himself arrived, so he was not traveling with his wife in any event.
Hamilton also suggests, very plausibly, that it was the imminent birth of his
first and only child by Margaret that fatally lured Piers back to England from
his exile--a far more potent lure than if the child born at York in Jan.
1312 was a second-born child (p. 181).
Hamilton admits the fine of 1334 as proving Amie was a daughter of Piers
Gaveston, but sees it as important that the fine does not also identify
her as Margaret de Clare's daughter. He feels that Amie was probably born
before Piers married Margaret, and may even have been brought up in
Margaret's household after they married (p. 132).
The rest of the article merely discusses the evidence for Amie's life after
Piers' death. She occurs in Queen Philippa's household late in 1331 (I think
this is right; what actually appears on the page is 1321, but this may be a
misprint), and received the grants from the queen and king of which we are
already aware. She apparently did not marry John de Driby until 1338, and
she may well have been dead by May 1340 (p. 183). That her marriage was of
such short duration leads Hamilton to question (p. 185) whether Amie was really
the mother of Alice de Driby [though I would certainly think it possible
that her early death was the result of childbirth, particularly if she had
not married until she was in her 30s as would have been the case if she
was indeed born before Piers' marriage in 1307]. However Hamilton notes
that when John de Driby died, the jurors returned as his heir not a daughter,
but his sister Alice (p. 185). Hamilton notes, however, the existence of
an Alexander de Gaveston, clerk, living in 1313, who might have been yet
another illegitimate child of the notorious Piers (p. 185).
I have nothing further to add to this account nor to my earlier remarks on
the matter, which I would think has been well enough discussed here. We are
all now aware of each others' views, and it seems clear enough that not many of
will be persuaded to any different beliefs than we already harbor.
John Parsons
Reedpcgen
>Well, do we know when Amy died?
>
It would make ABSOLUTELY no difference. Her heirs (a daughter) would have to
have been represented, and she STILL would have represented the senior moiety
of the purparty.
pcr
Vickie Elam White
> It would make ABSOLUTELY no difference. Her heirs
> (a daughter) would have to have been represented
Yes. Please read what I wrote. I was being rhetorical
when I wrote the following:
> Could Amy have died before her mother? If so, then this
> may be used to explain why Amy herself didn't share in the
> CLARE inheritance with Margaret's daughter by her second
> marriage. However, none of Amy's descendants had any shares,
> either. If Any was Margaret's daughter, wouldn't her descendants
> have been co-heirs if she had died?
I apologize if it was not obvious. I also notice I called her "Any"
rather than "Amy", but I thought it was fairly clear what I meant.
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
Brian Austin
Fawkes de Breaute's son:
"His ( Fawkes de Breaute's) son was given the English name of Thomas and
became an Oxfordshire county knight, a respectability his father, for all
his fame and wealth, never quite achieved."
Brian Austin
GARYBIGDOG wrote in message
<19990608051835...@ng-fa1.aol.com>...
D. Spencer Hines
It was classic 'coulda-shoulda-woulda' genealogical and historical
analysis, confounded and conflated with a congealed pablum of sticky
factoids --- not worth the powder to blow it to Hell --- and in fact
very messy, if one tried.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace
is fast enough." --- Theodore Roosevelt (1888)
Vickie Elam White <10265...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:199906081820_...@compuserve.com...
Vickie Elam White
<< It was classic 'coulda-shoulda-woulda' genealogical and historical
analysis, confounded and conflated with a congealed pablum of sticky
factoids --- not worth the powder to blow it to Hell --- and in fact
very messy, if one tried. >>
What happened, computer on the blink? I expected your usual
immediate carping on my posts, but I had to wait all day for you.
I was beginning to think that you'd taken me off your blacklist,
but I'm happy to see you didn't.
I may not have been as clear as I should have been, but at least
I am willing to participate in the discussion and attempt to move
the matter forward. What have you done?
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
D. Spencer Hines
Yes, a classic case of Garbage In, Garbage Out [GIGO]
Think first, long and hard, only then post --- if you really must.
Idle rhetoric about what Piers Gaveston 'coulda-shoulda-woulda' done
is not helpful in the least.
"Musta" --- "Mighta" --- and "I thinka" opinings are not helpful
either.
You did not "move the matter forward" on any front --- you simply
threw some garbage into the sausage grinder.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Exitus Acta Probat
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace
is fast enough." --- Theodore Roosevelt (1888)
Vickie Elam White <10265...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:199906082012_...@compuserve.com...
Don Stone
evidence!
I will send a set of printouts of this thread to David Faris, since his
forthcoming second edition of Plantagenet Ancestry currently includes
four lines from Amy de Gaveston to American colonists.
-- Don Stone
Don Stone
>
[snip of an interesting summary of Hamilton's 1998 article]
> I have nothing further to add to this account nor to my earlier remarks on
> the matter, which I would think has been well enough discussed here. We are
> all now aware of each others' views, and it seems clear enough that not many of
> will be persuaded to any different beliefs than we already harbor.
I have been persuaded, and I suspect a number of others have too. Thank
you for the effort you put into reviewing and summarizing the evidence.
The Margaret de Clare / Amy de Gaveston saga has been an interesting
roller-coaster ride, but the cars have now come to a stop at the
platform, and it's probably time to get out and move on to other things.
-- Don Stone
Leo van de Pas
so convinced she isn't and there are those who think she is. I think
there is the possibility (rather large for both positions) but no proof.
Thanks for your contribution.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Reedpcgen
when questions were raised about various points (don't you hate not having the
library attached to your house?), I make what I anticipate will be my last
major post on this matter.
There is no question that Amy de Gaveston was daughter of Piers. The debate
has been over whether she was daughter of Margaret de Clare, another wife, or
illegitimate.
There is NO evidence that she was born in 1312. The release of lands in 1333
did not state her age (see text below). That was a mistaken interpretation
made by Hunt and followed by others.
SO, tossing aside the false assumption that Amy was aged 21 in 1333, the most
likely interpretation of the daughter born in 1312 as mentioned in the
chronicle is that she was the daughter who was Piers' only heir by his wife,
Margaret de Clare (granddaughter of Edward I). Margaret was Edward II's niece,
and her daughter represented a blood tie between himself and Piers. Wardrobe
and household accounts mentioned by John show the daughter received attention
and gifts (as would be expected). Amy did not.
John has also put forth evidence that 'damsel' did not mean Amy was necessarily
young, though we know she was unmarried (I had been thinking of arguments that
had been put forth about Robert de Grey concerning similar verbiage). The
examples John put forth are directly relevant to our situation.
Piers de Gaveston is believed to have been born about 1284. He was knighted by
the prince of Wales 22 May 1306 and rose extremely rapidly in favor (directly
after the accession of Edward II). He was married to Margaret de Clare, the
King's niece and a great heiress, in 1307. I guess it might be possible that
Piers was married before that union, but he would only have been about
twenty-three when married to Margaret (who survived him), and given his
proclivities, it does not bode well for the argument towards Amy's legitimacy.
(It is not beyond belief that in a drunken stupor, he may have impregnated a
lady at court.)
Now to actual evidence.
CPR 1330-4, Edw. III, v. 2:
(p. 224) 28 Jan. 1332. Ratification of a grant, for life, by queen Philippa to
Amicia de Gaveston, her damsel, of the lands in Havering atte Boure and
elsewhere in the county of Essex, which escheated to the queen by the
forfeiture of Robert William.
(p. 306) 16 June 1332. Grant, for life, to Amy de Gaveston, damsel of the
chamber of queen Philippa, for service to the queen, of the manor of Woghfeld,
co. Berks, an escheat by the forfeiture of Roger de Mortuo Mari, late earl of
March.
(p. 414) 25 Feb. 1333. Inspeximus and confirmation of letters patent of queen
Philippa, dated Windsor 17 Nov. 5 Edward III., being a release to Amice de
Gaveston, her damsel, of the rents and services due from the escheated lands of
Robert William in Averyng atte Boure and elsewhere in the county of Essex,
lately granted to her for life, and a grant of the waste due to the queen by
reason of the forfeiture.
[concluded in part 2]
Reedpcgen
CPR 1338-40, Edw. III, v. 4:
(p. 96) 18 June 1338. Whereas the king lately granted for life to Amy de
Gaveston the manor of Woghfeld. co. Berks, an escheat by the forfeiture of
Roger de Mortuo Mari, the king's enemy, he has granted it to John de Driby, who
has now married her, and the said Amy license to fell trees in the woods of the
manor at their will, and to apply the moneys arising from the sale of these to
their own use, and in defending the right of the king and Amy in pleas moved
against them touching the manor.
(p. 529) 12 June 1340. Mandate to John de Dryby and Anne [sic, Amy] his wife
to attorn in the usual manner to John Brocas for the services due from lands in
Wokefeld, which they hold for the life of Anne of the king's grant, the king
having granted the reversion of those lands to him in fee.
The main character named John de Driby during this period was son of Robert de
Driby and his wife Joan de Tateshale. Joan was one of three daughters who
eventually became coheirs of Robert de Tateshale, and brought quite a few lands
into the Driby family as her pourparty. But this John died shortly before 20
June 1334, when his heir was stated to be his sister Alice, wife of William
Bernak (the lands were in cos. Norfolk, Suffolk and Lincoln) [CFR 4:406, 417,
CIPM 7:404-5, no. 590]. That John was a tenant in chief, hence the IPM.
Our John de Driby was clearly of the same family (Joan [de Tateshale] de Driby
had granted the manor of Breedon, Leicestershire, to her son John and his heirs
forever eleven days before her death [according to an ipm in 1329], and it was
a fine concerning the manor of Breedon that left the reversion to John de
Driby, son of Thomas de Driby and Anne the daughter of Piers de Gaveston in
1334). But he was apparently not the main representative of the family when he
married Amy, but was merely a king's yeoman. He was lucky to have received the
reversion of Breedon. He was CERTAINLY not of baronial status!
Let's contrast this with the lands Margaret de Clare was found to hold at her
death [CIPM 8:253-5, no. 382]:
She held the manor and advowson of Bradeneysh, Devon, for life, the castle,
borough and advowson of Lydeford, Devon, for life, and the manor of Southtenge,
Devon, for life.
She held land in London of her own right. That jury found that "Her only
daughter Margaret" was aged 18 or more, and is her next heir.
She held the manor of Fordyngton, Dorset, in dower of the king's inheritance.
the king was found to be her next heir in that manor.
She held the castle and manor of Okham, Rutland, with the office of sheriff
jointly with her husband Hugh. Their daughter Margaret was found to be aged 20
and more, and her next heir.
She held the manor and town of Neweport in Essex in dower after the death of
Peter de Gaveston, earl of Cornwall, "Margaret the wife of Ralph de Staford,
daughter of the said Margaret, aged 18 years and more, is her heir in blood."
Another inquisition concerning Neuport came to the same finding. [Thus you see
it was several different juries in different counties who found that Margaret
had only one daughter, not the slip of one document.]
The lands Margaret de Clare held were important and extensive. Again, her only
daughter was found to be named Margaret by several juries.
Amy de Gaveston was given rents in a parish in Essex and the manor of
Wokefield, Berkshire, FOR LIFE, not of her own inheritance, or to her heirs.
That is a vast difference when compared with the land INHERITED by Margaret de
Audley as Margaret de Clare's only daughter and next heir.
Joan de Gaveston, only proven legitimate daughter of Piers de Gaveston by his
wife Margaret de Clare, was favored by gifts and care from the crown. A surety
of 10,000 l. was required towards her marriage (see CCR 1330-4, Edw. III, v. 2,
p. 547). The disparity between the arranged marriages and way Joan was treated
by the royal court compared to how Amy was handled is also striking.
I cannot see how, when presented with this evidence, anyone could possibly
continue to conclude that Amy was a daughter of Margaret de Clare. John and I
are not without a great deal of experience in these types of records. Hunt's
record speaks for itself. I have a difficult time believing that Amy was a
legitimate daughter of the Earl of Cornwall, born prior to his rise to favor in
1306-7, and prior to his marriage to Margaret de Clare in 1307, due to his
young age at that time--though it is possible.
I must finally conclude that though I cannot determine if Amy was legitimate or
not, she was definitely daughter of Piers de Gaveston, but she was not daughter
of Margaret de Clare. If my logic in presenting this has been faulty at any
place, I would GREATLY APPRECIATE it being pointed out (for my own sake).
Paul C. Reed
Wayne Baylor
John Carmi Parsons wrote in message ...
<snip>
>already aware. She apparently did not marry John de Driby until 1338, and
>she may well have been dead by May 1340 (p. 183). That her marriage was of
>such short duration leads Hamilton to question (p. 185) whether Amie was
really
>the mother of Alice de Driby [though I would certainly think it possible
>that her early death was the result of childbirth, particularly if she had
>not married until she was in her 30s as would have been the case if she
>was indeed born before Piers' marriage in 1307]. However Hamilton notes
>that when John de Driby died, the jurors returned as his heir not a
daughter,
>but his sister Alice (p. 185).
<snip>
If the above is true, wouldn't it explain why Amy wasn't mentioned when
Margaret de Clare died on April 09, 1342?
1. Amy was already dead
2. Alice was Amy's sister-in-law, not her child & heir
Wayne Baylor
John Carmi Parsons
Edward II's gestures of concern for Joan Gaveston and the fact that he is not
recorded to have done anything for Amie. Likewise, Piers' widow Margaret
lived until 1342, but there is no evidence that she assigned any *maritagium*
to Amie when the latter married Driby ca 1338, unless we assume that the tiny
rent at Oakham, mentioned earlier on this thread, was such a grant. Even so,
the insignificance of that grant in contrast with Margaret's vast property and
wealth is telling. For a woman of Margaret's stature and wealth to have settled
no more than that on her (alleged) daughter and coheir is inexplicable.
John Parsons
Reedpcgen
>>that when John de Driby died, the jurors returned as his heir not a
>daughter,
>>but his sister Alice (p. 185).
>
><snip>
>
>If the above is true, wouldn't it explain why Amy wasn't mentioned when
>Margaret de Clare died on April 09, 1342?
>1. Amy was already dead
>2. Alice was Amy's sister-in-law, not her child & heir
>
>Wayne Baylor
>
I have not seen Hamilton's article yet, but was going to check this point.
If you will notice from my previous posts, Hamilton seems to be confused and in
error on this point. The John de Driby who died leaving his sister Alice as
his heir died in 1334 holding land in at least three counties [CIPM 7:404-5,
CFR 4:406, 417].
Our John de Driby was still very much alive in 1338 (hence the conclusion that
they were two different men). So the evidence stands as it is. I will be
interested to see if Hamilton did make such a mistake.
Also, Doug posted that Amy's husband, John de Driby was of "baronial and royal
descent." What is this descent, Doug?
pcr
John Carmi Parsons
On 9 Jun 1999, Reedpcgen wrote:
> > However Hamilton notes
>>>that when John de Driby died, the jurors returned as his heir not a
>>daughter,
>>>but his sister Alice (p. 185).
>>If the above is true, wouldn't it explain why Amy wasn't mentioned when
>>Margaret de Clare died on April 09, 1342?
>>1. Amy was already dead
>>2. Alice was Amy's sister-in-law, not her child & heir
> >Wayne Baylor
> I have not seen Hamilton's article yet, but was going to check this point.
>
> If you will notice from my previous posts, Hamilton seems to be confused and in
> error on this point. The John de Driby who died leaving his sister Alice as
> his heir died in 1334 holding land in at least three counties [CIPM 7:404-5,
> CFR 4:406, 417].
>
> Our John de Driby was still very much alive in 1338 (hence the conclusion that
> they were two different men). So the evidence stands as it is. I will be
> interested to see if Hamilton did make such a mistake.
I did notice this discrepancy after Paul's last major post on the topic,
though it does not affect his reasoning on Amy herself. It is something
that requires further attention.
> Also, Doug posted that Amy's husband, John de Driby was of "baronial and royal
> descent." What is this descent, Doug?
I was hoping to have seen some more on this after I made a similar request
yesterday....
John P.
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> > Also, Doug posted that Amy's husband, John de Driby was of "baronial and royal
> > descent." What is this descent, Doug?
>
> I was hoping to have seen some more on this after I made a similar request
> yesterday....
The earlier John de Driby was descended from Henry I (as reported in one
of the Hunt articles). However, the nature of the relationship between
the younger John (Amy's husband) and the older (the brother of Alice) is
problematic. If I recall correctly (it's been several years since I
read the articles) Hunt speculated that Thomas, father of the younger
John, might have been illegitimate son of the older John, but this was
not supported by any evidence.
taf
G . EDWARD ALLEN
>
> > However Hamilton notes
> >>that when John de Driby died, the jurors returned as his heir not a
> >daughter,
> >>but his sister Alice (p. 185).
> >
> >
> >If the above is true, wouldn't it explain why Amy wasn't mentioned when
> >Margaret de Clare died on April 09, 1342?
> >1. Amy was already dead
> >2. Alice was Amy's sister-in-law, not her child & heir
> >
> >Wayne Baylor
> >
>
> I have not seen Hamilton's article yet, but was going to check this point.
>
> If you will notice from my previous posts, Hamilton seems to be confused and in
> error on this point. The John de Driby who died leaving his sister Alice as
> his heir died in 1334 holding land in at least three counties [CIPM 7:404-5,
> CFR 4:406, 417].
>
> Our John de Driby was still very much alive in 1338 (hence the conclusion that
> they were two different men). So the evidence stands as it is. I will be
> interested to see if Hamilton did make such a mistake.
>
> descent." What is this descent, Doug?
>
The Dribys were fairly inconsequential. However, for being so
inconsequential, they made some extremely advantageous marriages.
1. Alice de Driby = William Bernake; probable aunt of the John who
married Anne/Amy Gaveston.
2. Robert Driby; d. by 1279.
3. Joan Tateshall, b. ca. 1250; d. Oct. 1329.
4. Simon Driby; d. before 1289.
5. Alice Greasley.
6. Robert Tateshall.
7. Nichole.
10. Hugh FitzRalph.
11. Agnes Greasley.
12. Robert Tateshall.
13. Mabel Aubigny.
22. Ralph Greasley.
23. Isabel or Agnes Muschamps.
24. William Tateshall.
25. Isolde Pantulf of Breedon, Leics.
26. William Aubigny, Earl of Arundel. Grandson of A. of Louvaine, second
wife of King Henry.
27. Mabel of Chester.
If I went further back, I might find royal; but there is the baronial.
Kay Allen AG
G . EDWARD ALLEN
>
> John Carmi Parsons wrote:
> >
> > > Also, Doug posted that Amy's husband, John de Driby was of "baronial and royal
> > > descent." What is this descent, Doug?
> >
> > yesterday....
>
> The earlier John de Driby was descended from Henry I (as reported in one
> of the Hunt articles). However, the nature of the relationship between
> the younger John (Amy's husband) and the older (the brother of Alice) is
> problematic. If I recall correctly (it's been several years since I
> read the articles) Hunt speculated that Thomas, father of the younger
> John, might have been illegitimate son of the older John, but this was
> not supported by any evidence.
>
> taf
I believe that in one of the later articles, Hunt changed it to John,
husband of Amy, was son of John, brother of Alice. There was also
another reason for the disinheritance. If I can find the material, I
will post it.
Kay Allen AG
Kay Allen AG
>
> >2. Robert Driby; d. by 1279.
> >3. Joan Tateshall, b. ca. 1250; d. Oct. 1329.
> >4. Simon Driby; d. before 1289.
> >5. Alice Greasley.
>
> Driby and Joan Tateshall. And there is no evidence that he was grandson of
> Simon de Driby by Alice de Gresley. As a king's yeoman, he may have become
> associated with Amy through association in his official capacity.
>
> Since the Tateshall line is out, is there any other "baronial or royal"
> descent?
>
> pcr
Could he be grandson of Robert and Joan?
Kay Allen AG
Kay Allen AG
PS What does Farnham have to say about the Dribys?
Kay Allen AG
Kay Allen AG
>
> >2. Robert Driby; d. by 1279.
> >3. Joan Tateshall, b. ca. 1250; d. Oct. 1329.
> >4. Simon Driby; d. before 1289.
> >5. Alice Greasley.
>
> Well, we know from primary sources that our Thomas was not son of Robert de
> Driby and Joan Tateshall. And there is no evidence that he was grandson of
> Simon de Driby by Alice de Gresley. As a king's yeoman, he may have become
> associated with Amy through association in his official capacity.
>
> Since the Tateshall line is out, is there any other "baronial or royal"
> descent?
>
> pcr
Could he be grandson of Robert and Joan?
Reedpcgen
Reedpcgen
>Could he be grandson of Robert and Joan?
>
The Joan's inquisition [1329] and the de banco suits stated that they had three
sons, "all of whom died without leaving issue, and one daughter Alice, the wife
of Sir William Bernake, kt." All the male issue was caput. So no Robert and
Joan. Simon himself appeared in records for a time.
Farnham does not trace the line earlier than Thomas, or state where Thomas
might fit into an earlier family.
I theorize that by leaving the reversion of Breedon to our John de Driby, who
was son of Thomas, they were keeping one manor in the male issue of the family
[all the Driby estates would have passed with Alice into the Bernake family],
even if he were a distant cousin. It was almost all our John was left with.
Amy's lands would have reverted to the crown on her death.
Ironically, Breedon was earlier Tateshall land. But that does not keep one
from granting it out of the family during one's lifetime.
pcr
Dcrdcr4
Gavaston in Medieval Prosopograhy. If I read the synopsis of the Hamilton
article correctly, Hamilton ignores John Hunt's claim that Amy de Gavaston was
the daughter of Peter de Gavaston whose birth is recorded to have taken place
in 1312. Instead, he alleges that the child born at that time was Amy's better
known sister, Joan. I assume he makes no comment on why Hunt identified the
1312 child as Amy not Joan.
First question: Did Jeff Hamilton dodge the entire issue of Amy being born in
1312? I ask that question because that seems to be an issue central to Amy's
identification as the legitimate daughter of Peter de Gavaston.
I see that Mr. Hamilton accepts the fine which identifies Amy de Driby as the
daughter of Peter de Gavaston. But is he really suggesting that she was born
prior to Peter's known marriage to Margaret de Clare in 1307? If so, it would
seem odd for a woman in those days born prior to 1307 to marry so late as 1338
as he purports. As best I can tell, he does not suggest that Amy was
illegitimate.
Next, I'm puzzled by the information he gives which states that John de Driby's
heir was his sister, Alice. Surely the descent of John de Driby's lands can be
examined to see if they fell to his sister Alice or to his daughter Alice. I
suspect this information is presented in Farnham's book on Medievial
Leciestershire Pedigrees. Can someone check that source for particulars of
the descent of John de Driby's lands?
Speaking of which, is is possible that the IPM in question might be for a John
de Driby, Jr.? If so, his heir would be a sister Alice rather than a daughter
Alice. Can someone address that question?
Next, I suspect that the lands in Essex which the King allowed to Amy de
Gavaston in 1333 can be identified if someone has a mind to do so. They
appear to have been part of Amy's inheritance and they likely descended to her
subsequent Driby heirs. When I have a chance tomorrow, I'll examine the Essex
Feet of Fines to see if they shed any light on this matter.
Lastly, Hamilton's comment that John de Driby was a "mere" king's yeoman
obscures the fact that he was of baronial, comital and royal descent.
Hamilton needs to do his background research better.
Thanks John for providing us with the synopsis of Mr. Hamilton's article. All
for now. Best always, Douglas Richardson
Dcrdcr4
I don't have the particulars of the Driby ancestry in front of me. However,
someone informed that there a reference to John de Driby's descent from King
Henry I in Ancestral Roots. Does someone have Ancestral Roots handy that can
supply the reference made there to John de Driby's royal line? I'm at a
friend's home this evening and I don't have my copy of Ancestral Roots
available to me.
Douglas Richardson
John Carmi Parsons
On 10 Jun 1999, Dcrdcr4 wrote:
> I read John Parsons' interesting account of Jeff Hamilton's article on Amy de
> Gavaston in Medieval Prosopograhy. If I read the synopsis of the Hamilton
> article correctly, Hamilton ignores John Hunt's claim that Amy de Gavaston was
> the daughter of Peter de Gavaston whose birth is recorded to have taken place
> in 1312. Instead, he alleges that the child born at that time was Amy's better
> known sister, Joan. I assume he makes no comment on why Hunt identified the
> 1312 child as Amy not Joan.
>
> First question: Did Jeff Hamilton dodge the entire issue of Amy being born in
> 1312? I ask that question because that seems to be an issue central to Amy's
> identification as the legitimate daughter of Peter de Gavaston.
No, Hamilton does not dodge the issue. He points out what is perfectly
obvious: like many other events in Gaveston's life, Edward II marked the
1312 birth of Gaveston's daughter with tremendous festivities. But that is the
ONLY time we hear in Edward's copious wardrobe records that Gaveston had become
a father. Hamilton poses the unanswerable question why one daughter's birth
would have been celebrated in such lavish fashion and another daughter's birth
went unremarked by Gaveston's patron. Hamilton also notes that in the years
after Gaveston's death, Edward was generous to Margaret and Joan, but his
accounts do not mention a single such gesture to Amy, or indeed to any
daughter of Piers other than Joan.
> I see that Mr. Hamilton accepts the fine which identifies Amy de Driby as the
> daughter of Peter de Gavaston. But is he really suggesting that she was born
> prior to Peter's known marriage to Margaret de Clare in 1307? If so, it would
> seem odd for a woman in those days born prior to 1307 to marry so late as 1338
> as he purports. As best I can tell, he does not suggest that Amy was
> illegitimate.
Hamilton is willing to consider the possibility that Amy's mother might have
been a prior wife of Piers, a woman who would have to be assumed to have died
before his marriage to Margaret de Clare. Given the fact that Piers was
probably at most only a few years older than Edward II (b. 1284), however,
Hamilton thinks that a scenario calling for Gaveston to be married, become
a father and become a widower by the age of 23 is unlikely (note: not
impossible, but unlikely). Hamilton's most direct statement on this point
is (p. 182) that "It is certainly possible that he fathered Amie de Gaveston
prior to his wedding to Margaret de Clare, and probable that he fathered her
out of wedlock."
It would by no means be an impossibility that Amie was born before 1307
and waited to marry until 1338. Such situations were not unknown, and she
may have preferred to wait to marry until she had amassed enough largesse
from Edw. III and Queen Philippa through their grants to her. Before that
time, too, she might simply not have been considered a good enough catch
by the unattached men at court of John Driby's rank and (probably limited)
wealth. Most of those fellows were definitely on the prowl for a wife whose
possessions could help them along in life.
> Next, I'm puzzled by the information he gives which states that John de Driby's
> heir was his sister, Alice. Surely the descent of John de Driby's lands can be
> examined to see if they fell to his sister Alice or to his daughter Alice. I
> suspect this information is presented in Farnham's book on Medievial
> Leciestershire Pedigrees. Can someone check that source for particulars of
> the descent of John de Driby's lands?
> Speaking of which, is is possible that the IPM in question might be for a John
> de Driby, Jr.? If so, his heir would be a sister Alice rather than a daughter
> Alice. Can someone address that question?
As noted in posts yesterday, it does appear that Hamilton is confused on
this point. It emphatically does not, however, have any bearing on his
cogent reasoning about Amie's legitimacy, only on the identity of her
husband and the possibility that she might have left issue.
> Next, I suspect that the lands in Essex which the King allowed to Amy de
> Gavaston in 1333 can be identified if someone has a mind to do so. They
> appear to have been part of Amy's inheritance and they likely descended to her
> subsequent Driby heirs. When I have a chance tomorrow, I'll examine the Essex
> Feet of Fines to see if they shed any light on this matter.
Barring further information, which I hope you do turn up, I don't think we can
be sure that Amie inherited these lands. They could have been settled on
her either by Edw III or Queen Philippa, by Margaret de Clare, or even by
Amie's mother's family if they belonged to the landed class. Possibly if
these lands can be identified, they might offer a clue to that nameless
lady's identity.
> Lastly, Hamilton's comment that John de Driby was a "mere" king's yeoman
> obscures the fact that he was of baronial, comital and royal descent.
> Hamilton needs to do his background research better.
To judge from other posts on this topic, I'd have to say the jury's still
out on this one. In any event, his descent would not necessarily have had
any impact on his immediate position at court--that is, he might have had
plenty of illustrious ancestors way back there, but still have been a mere
yeoman at court.
John P.
Vickie Elam White
> Hamilton is willing to consider the possibility that Amy's mother
> might have been a prior wife of Piers, a woman who would have
> to be assumed to have died before his marriage to Margaret de
> Clare. Given the fact that Piers was probably at most only a
> few years older than Edward II (b. 1284), however, Hamilton
> thinks that a scenario calling for Gaveston to be married, become
> a father and become a widower by the age of 23 is unlikely (note:
> not impossible, but unlikely). Hamilton's most direct statement
> on this point is (p. 182) that "It is certainly possible that he
> fathered Amie de Gaveston prior to his wedding to Margaret de
> Clare, and probable that he fathered her out of wedlock."
Well, Piers was banished three times so maybe he just consoled
himself in the company of some well-born lady and produced Amy.
How much do we know of Piers' days just prior to his association
with Edward II?
Also, I don't see that anyone commented on Leo van de Pas'
question -- are we sure that Amy GAVESTON's father Piers was
*that* Piers, favorite of King Edward II? Was there a younger Piers
floating around, someone who might have fathered Amy after 1312
and out of the spotlight because of the hatred toward *the* Piers?
I'd certainly keep a low profile after that. <G> Perhaps Amy was not
really so "old" when she married (and we don't know the actual date
of her marriage, only that she married by 1334, so she may have
married a few years before then). I only know about the one Piers,
but is anyone here aware of another one?
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
John Carmi Parsons
On Thu, 10 Jun 1999, Vickie Elam White wrote:
> John Carmi Parsons wrote --
>> Hamilton is willing to consider the possibility that Amy's mother
>> might have been a prior wife of Piers, a woman who would have
>> to be assumed to have died before his marriage to Margaret de
>> Clare. Given the fact that Piers was probably at most only a
>> few years older than Edward II (b. 1284), however, Hamilton
>> thinks that a scenario calling for Gaveston to be married, become
>> a father and become a widower by the age of 23 is unlikely (note:
>> not impossible, but unlikely). Hamilton's most direct statement
>> on this point is (p. 182) that "It is certainly possible that he
>> fathered Amie de Gaveston prior to his wedding to Margaret de
>> Clare, and probable that he fathered her out of wedlock."
> Well, Piers was banished three times so maybe he just consoled
> himself in the company of some well-born lady and produced Amy.
Actually, I am very much drawn to the belief that Amie's mother might have
been one of Margaret de Clare's ladies or damsels, even though this would
involve disagreeing with Hamilton's theory that Amie was born before Piers
married Margaret. I'm already on record with my feelings that Margaret might
well have looked out for Amie along the way, possibly granted her the rent at
Oakham in Essex, and perhaps even asked Edward III or Queen Philippa to give
her a modest place at court. This would all be more readily understandable if
Margaret felt some sense of responsibility for Amie's birth--i.e., if Piers had
tumbled into bed with one of Margaret's household women.
> How much do we know of Piers' days just prior to his association with Edward
> II?
I would suspect very little; the Hamilton and Chaplais books probably set forth
everything that has been brought to light. Initially it was Piers' father,
Arnaud de Gabaston, who attracted the favor of Edward I, and it seems Piers was
first installed in young Edward's entourage as a mark of favor to Arnaud--a
very common procedure in the royal households in those days. But Arnaud's
family, though nobly born, were not especially prominent in Gascony before
that time, and I doubt very much that we'd know anything about Piers' life
before he entered young Edward's household around 1300. Piers wasn't even
the eldest son in the family, so he wouldn't have come in even for the
limited references in records that an eldest son would receive.
> Also, I don't see that anyone commented on Leo van de Pas'
> question -- are we sure that Amy GAVESTON's father Piers was
> *that* Piers, favorite of King Edward II? Was there a younger Piers
> floating around, someone who might have fathered Amy after 1312
> and out of the spotlight because of the hatred toward *the* Piers?
> I'd certainly keep a low profile after that. <G> Perhaps Amy was not
> really so "old" when she married (and we don't know the actual date
> of her marriage, only that she married by 1334, so she may have
> married a few years before then). I only know about the one Piers,
> but is anyone here aware of another one?
Hamilton provides a detailed genealogical table of Piers' relatives in the
first chapter of his book. No other Piers appears there, at least none known as
Gabaston or Gaveston. (The family held more than one estate and its members
were variously identified--Piers' own elder brother was not called "Gaveston,"
though I can't at the moment remember just what designation was given him.)
The deduction that Amie married in 1338 (not 1334) seems to me a fairly
sound one, based on two consecutive grants in that year regarding the same
piece of property. In the first of these, she is mentioned alone; in the
second, additional privileges in the same manor are extended to John Driby,
"who has now married her." As above, I think there may be reason to suspect
that Amie was born after 1307, though exactly when we are unlikely ever to
know.
John Parsons
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Hamilton provides a detailed genealogical table of Piers' relatives in the
> first chapter of his book. No other Piers appears there, at least none known as
> Gabaston or Gaveston. (The family held more than one estate and its members
> were variously identified--Piers' own elder brother was not called "Gaveston,"
> though I can't at the moment remember just what designation was given him.)
As long as we are on the topic, has anyone done any serious study of
Piers' ancestry. I know one of the recent books identifies his maternal
family as being of Marsan. While I never made the direct connection
with Piers' grandfather, Jaurgain derives the lords of Marsan from an
illegitimate son of Guillaume Sancho, Duke of Gascony. Jaurgain is not
to be trusted in this, since he derived pretty much every Gascon family
from the old Dukes, and them from the Merovingians. Mussot, in his
recent history of the medieval Gascon Dukes, names two lords of Marsan,
Guillaume Loup and his father Loup Aner. Presumably, Guillaume Loup
occupies the position in the Marsan descent in which Jaurgain tried to
place Guillaume Sancho. Since we appear to still have a descent from
Gaveston, then this is perhaps relevant.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
Henry I, as Douglas Richardson has suggested.
Line 16A, page 20. "John de Driby, son of Robert of Wokefield, Berks,
d. aft. 30 Nov 1357. (His desc. from Henry I shown in TAG 37:50).
Hopefully someone will be kind enough to take a look at that piece.
Weis, Sheppard and Faris have Amy de Gaveston as a daughter of Piers
de Gaveston and Margaret de Clare, "damsel of the Chamber to Queen
Philippa, b. soon aft. 6 Jan 1312; m. in or before 1334, John de
Driby..."
Of course, this book may soon be supplanted by a new work, as we have
been led to understand.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
James C. Woodard
Vickie Elam White
> Hamilton provides a detailed genealogical table
> of Piers' relatives in the first chapter of his book.
> No other Piers appears there, at least none known
> as Gabaston or Gaveston. (The family held more
> than one estate and its members were variously
> identified--Piers' own elder brother was not called
> "Gaveston," though I can't at the moment remember
> just what designation was given him.)
Ah, ok. Thanks for this information.
> The deduction that Amie married in 1338 (not 1334)
> seems to me a fairly sound one, based on two consecutive
> grants in that year regarding the same piece of property.
> In the first of these, she is mentioned alone; in the second,
> additional privileges in the same manor are extended to
> John Driby, "who has now married her."
Yes, that interpretation does make a lot of sense.
> As above, I think there may be reason to suspect that Amie
> was born after 1307, though exactly when we are unlikely
> ever to know.
Well, there is always a chance. <G>
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
Vickie Elam White
> Ancestral Roots 7 does imply that John de Driby has
> a descent from Henry I, as Douglas Richardson has
> suggested.
>
> Line 16A, page 20. "John de Driby, son of Robert of
> Wokefield, Berks, d. aft. 30 Nov 1357. (His desc. from
> Henry I shown in TAG 37:50). Hopefully someone will
> be kind enough to take a look at that piece.
TAG 37:50 lists his ancestry as this:
Mabel of Chester & William d'Aubigny
Mabel d'Aubigny & Robert de Tateshale
Robert de Tateshale
Joan de Tateshale & Robert de Driby
John de Driby & Amy de Gaveston
Various messages in this thread over the last
few days show this is incorrect.
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
Kay Allen AG
>
> Ancestral Roots 7 does imply that John de Driby has a descent from
> Henry I, as Douglas Richardson has suggested.
>
> Line 16A, page 20. "John de Driby, son of Robert of Wokefield, Berks,
> d. aft. 30 Nov 1357. (His desc. from Henry I shown in TAG 37:50).
> Hopefully someone will be kind enough to take a look at that piece.
Which it isn't. 37:50 begins with Mabel of Chester,"great-grandaughter
of a natural son of King Henry I.." It then continues with the line
essentially as I gave it earlier. Hunt says of John who d. in 1334 that
he was apparently born before his parents marriage, "for he did not
receive his father's lands." He d. 1334. It claims he married and had
the John who d. 1357 and who was married to the Gaveston chit, whoever
she was :-)
If he was a parson, he couldn't have married. And if John was his son,
he could not be legitimate. And the fine does mention Thomas as father
of the John who married the Gaveston girl. In TAG 40:96, Hunt makes
Thomas the illegitimate son of John the parson.
Eleven days before her death, Joan Tateshall Driby granted Bredon,
Somerby, Holewell and Ketalby to her son John. However, in an inq. ad
quod damnum of 1323, which Hunt does not adequately cite, he claims that
Joan was dead-set that "the reversions would be to her right heirs."
However,it appears that she enfeoffed feoffees to uses, which, as I
nderstand it, would contravene the usual mode of inheritance, so that
Alice Driby took the jackpot. In any case, she would have had it as
none of her brothers had legitimate issue. Perhaps this is why the
jurors said that the brothers all died without issue as an illegitimate
child legally has no father and as such cannot be called issue.
Convoluted but possible. And this is why John the parson would settle
Breedon on his putative grandson as he could not bequeath the property
to him as the child of his illegitimate son.
Kay Allen AG
would be her sole heir
Also Robert Driby was never of Wokefield as the was Amy's for life. It
reverted to the Mortimers.
Kay Allen AG
>
> D. Spencer Hines wrote --
>
> > a descent from Henry I, as Douglas Richardson has
> > suggested.
> >
> > Line 16A, page 20. "John de Driby, son of Robert of
> > Wokefield, Berks, d. aft. 30 Nov 1357. (His desc. from
> > Henry I shown in TAG 37:50). Hopefully someone will
> > be kind enough to take a look at that piece.
>
>
> Mabel of Chester & William d'Aubigny
> Mabel d'Aubigny & Robert de Tateshale
> Robert de Tateshale
> Joan de Tateshale & Robert de Driby
> John de Driby & Amy de Gaveston
>
> Various messages in this thread over the last
> few days show this is incorrect.
>
> Vickie Elam White
> 10265...@compuserve.com
No, it shows Joan, John, John. Then in TAG 40, Hunt makes it Joan, John,
Thomas, John and Amy.
Kay Allen AG
Vickie Elam White
> No, it shows Joan, John, John.
You are right, I was wrong. Sorry 'bout that.
> Then in TAG 40, Hunt makes it Joan, John,
> Thomas, John and Amy.
Yes, but I was merely supplying the details (or
trying to <G>) in the AR7 citation.
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
D. Spencer Hines
Douglas Richardson [GARYBIGDOG] obliquely gave us this reference to
AR7 [TAG 37:50]; perhaps he will speak to it.
He has said that John de Driby has a 'comital, baronial and royal
descent' --- in several formulations and iterations.
"Amy (or Anne) de Gavaston's husband, John de Driby, was of baronial
and royal descent. As such, she didn't marry THAT far below her
status. This is all the more true when we realize that all she
brought her husband was some lands in Essex. Actually she did quite
well! Best always, Douglas Richardson"
and:
"Lastly, Hamilton's comment that John de Driby was a "mere" king's
yeoman obscures the fact that he was of baronial, comital and royal
descent. Hamilton needs to do his background research better.
Thanks John for providing us with the synopsis of Mr. Hamilton's
article. All for now. Best always, Douglas Richardson"
He also pointed out that:
"Dear Don:
I agree with your position that Amy (or Anne) de Gaveston, wife of
John de Driby, was the daughter of Peter de Gavaston, Earl of
Cornwall, by his wife, Margaret de Clare."
----------------------------------------------------------
So, since the second edition of _Plantagenet Ancestry_ is soon to
appear [allegedly with four lines from Amie/Amy de Gaveston to
American colonists] and a new edition of Ancestral Roots is also
allegedly in the works [which may have the same, possibly erroneous,
data] where is the truth of these matters, insofar as we are able to
determine?
Perhaps Douglas will have something to tell us about all this and
where it stands.
We, my colleagues here and I, look forward to what he has to say.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Exitus Acta Probat
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace
is fast enough." --- Theodore Roosevelt (1888)
Vickie Elam White <10265...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:199906101358_...@compuserve.com...
> D. Spencer Hines wrote --
>
> > Ancestral Roots 7 does imply that John de Driby has
> > a descent from Henry I, as Douglas Richardson has
> > suggested.
> >
> > Line 16A, page 20. "John de Driby, son of Robert of
> > Wokefield, Berks, d. aft. 30 Nov 1357. (His desc. from
> > Henry I shown in TAG 37:50). Hopefully someone will
> > be kind enough to take a look at that piece.
>
> TAG 37:50 lists his ancestry as this:
>
> Mabel of Chester & William d'Aubigny
> Mabel d'Aubigny & Robert de Tateshale
> Robert de Tateshale
> Joan de Tateshale & Robert de Driby
> John de Driby & Amy de Gaveston
>
>
> Various messages in this thread over the last
> few days show this is incorrect.
We need something more than just "[v]arious messages in this thread"
to constitute genealogical proof, either pro or con.
It is quite absurd and completely unprofessional to suggest otherwise.
>
> Vickie Elam White
> 10265...@compuserve.com
>
Vickie Elam White
> We need something more than just "[v]arious
> messages in this thread" to constitute genealogical
> proof, either pro or con.
> It is quite absurd and completely unprofessional to
> suggest otherwise.
Ah, you do so love to attack me, don't you?
As you yourself have written many times, do you want
to be spoonfed? Read all the messages over the last
few days. They do go into quite a bit of detail.
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
D. Spencer Hines
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace
is fast enough." --- Theodore Roosevelt (1888)
Vickie Elam White <10265...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:199906101454_...@compuserve.com...
> D. Spencer Hines wrote --
>
> > We need something more than just "[v]arious
> > messages in this thread" to constitute genealogical
> > proof, either pro or con.
>
> > It is quite absurd and completely unprofessional to
> > suggest otherwise.
>
> Ah, you do so love to attack me, don't you?
Not in the least. A _critique of a post_ or a genealogical
methodology is not an "attack."
>
> As you yourself have written many times, do you want
> to be spoonfed? Read all the messages over the last
> few days. They do go into quite a bit of detail.
>
Oh, I have. I understand them quite well. Paul C. Reed's was the
best of the lot --- and the only really professional one.
No, I just want you to grow up and leave behind the Impulsive Amateur
Genealogical Persona [IAGP] which you have fallen into, over the
years, and be more logical and rigorous in both your logic and your
proofs.
You:
1. Continully chase after factoids and half-truths.
2. Seem to be absolutely enthralled with the last piece you've read on
a given genealogical issue, or the one you have in front of you at the
moment, and tend to ignore other credible perspectives.
3. Shoot from the hip.
4. Are too quick to condemn a genealogist for stupidity, venality or
sloth [laziness] --- without a complete fair-minded analysis of all
the data.
5. Eschew Prudence and Gravitas in your Genealogical posts --- many
of which fall under the category of hasty, poorly-executed, squib
fragments, as we've recently seen on the Mallory/Corbet matter.
Perhaps I'm on on a fool's errand, in that you are too old to learn
new tricks --- perhaps not.
We shall see.
Pace,
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Exitus Acta Probat
>
> Vickie Elam White
> 10265...@compuserve.com
>
Reedpcgen
>Hi Paul:
>
>I don't have the particulars of the Driby ancestry in front of me. However,
>someone informed that there a reference to John de Driby's descent from King
>Henry I in Ancestral Roots. Does someone have Ancestral Roots handy that can
>supply the reference made there to John de Driby's royal line? I'm at a
>friend's home this evening and I don't have my copy of Ancestral Roots
>available to me.
>
>Douglas Richardson
>
The information in Ancestral Roots is in error. The entry, 16A-31, says that
Amy de Gaveston "m. in or bef. 1334, John de Driby, son of Robert of Wokefield,
Berks, d. aft. 30 Nov. 1357. (His desc. from Henry I shown in TAG 37:50)."
Robert was not of Wokefield, Amy was. There was a Robert who had a son named
John, but that was not our John. As I have posted, the male issue of that
Robert died out. And though Amy was a damsel in 1333, I haven't seen evidence
that Amy was married to John until 1338, when he received the right to hold
part of her land in jointure.
So where is this baronial and royal descent of John de Driby that makes him
such a good catch. Where is evidence of the lands he held? We know he had
Breedon as remainder, and his wife had lands in Essex and Berkshire, which she
onlyheld for life. We know from evidence I've already posted that our John was
not son of Robert. We don't know how distant a cousin he might have been,
merely that his father's name was Thomas.
Perhaps you had not seen all of my posts on this subject. Amy's land in Essex
was a gift from the queen, held for life. NONE of her land was inherited.
Hamilton, in his book on Piers gaveston (p. 102, and note), states that "Amy
served as lady of the queen's bedchamber for both Isabella and Philippa...."
The evidence for this is apparently the wardrobe and household accounts of the
royal family, daily expenses returned to the exchequer. Hamilton cites
E.101/347/14ff. 5v, 6. This is the "Accounts, Various" class which includes
the household accounts.
If Amy (who is sometimes called Amicia, and once Avicia, but in only one place
I've seen Anne) was damsel to Isabella as Queen, rather than dowager, that
meant she served in or before 1327, and may therefore have been born before 1
November 1307, when Piers married.
I could see why Queen Philippa might grant one manor in Berkshire and rents in
Essex which had fallen to the crown by escheat. If Amy were in her 30s, the
Queen may have been trying to make her a more palitable marriage prospect, so
she would not be damsel of the chamber for life!
If Amy were illegitimate, it would explain why she had no inheritance of her
own. If she were not, it is strange that Piers would not have at least
enfeoffed land to her during her lifetime. It would also seem strange that as
a legitimate daughter of noble rank she did not marry better. So taking all
things into account, I'm more inclined to believe Amy was illegitimate.
pcr
Reedpcgen
As to Hunt's conclusions here, all I can say is ARGGGHH!
All of Hunt's conclusions are misconstrued from evidence I have actually seen
(I've looked at everything he's cited). Hunt has muddled everything together.
Farnham does not support his theories in the slightest either. Farnham was a
careful and accurate researcher.
One has to disregard Hunt and build the family connections from the actual
evidence. Hunt has made so many ignorant conclusions based on a lack of
knowledge of how to properly interpret the documents in front of him.
I don't have time to spell out each instance now. It really turns my stomach
(and I rarely have that reaction).
pcr
D. Spencer Hines
Some of us seem really to be beating up on Hunt.
Perhaps he made a number of mistakes, I'm not denying that.
But, by the same token, we have now been told that Line 16A in AR7 is
irremediably flawed.
Well, David Faris is alleged to have done a great deal of the detailed
work on that one --- and his name is on the book.
Walter Lee Sheppard, Jr. was his supervisor.
So, why aren't we criticizing Faris and Sheppard in the same manner
that we're criticizing Hunt?
Faris is very much alive --- and we were told, some time ago, that
Sheppard in his 80's I believe, is too.
Is Hunt still alive?
I'm just asking that we be fair here. What's sauce for the goose is
sauce for the gander.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Exitus Acta Probat
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace
is fast enough." --- Theodore Roosevelt (1888)
Reedpcgen <reed...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990610164313...@ng-fz1.aol.com...
MWelch8442
this. At least he has ommited that he has blown all the clues and botched it
very badly. Would anyone on this board knock anyone who was a member of
fellows for some of there earlier article's. No I don't think so. Mr. Hines I
just wanted to let you know Mr. Hunt is still alive in Virginia and I have talk
to him about a year ago.
Thank You,
Mike Welch
D. Spencer Hines
Can we affirm the 'core fact' that Mr. Hunt wrote the article at TAG
37:50? Or do we have another genealogical player there?
If so, that alleged bum dope was _perhaps_ picked up by Mr. Sheppard
and Mr. Faris and published in AR7.
If this _hypothetical_ line of reasoning is correct why didn't they
check it out more thoroughly and will Messrs. Faris and Richardson
correct it in their new edition or continue to promulgate bum dope to
the genealogical masses?
This is, perhaps, an excellent example of why _scrupulous attention to
detail_ is so important in Genealogy and eschewing the habits, methods
and modalities of the Impulsive Amateur Genealogical Persona [IAGP] is
so critical.
Evidence + Logic + Hard Work + Triple and Quadruple Checking =
(Sometimes) Good Genealogy.
Some folks just don't have the Patience, the Prudence or the
Discipline for it.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Exitus Acta Probat
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace
is fast enough." --- Theodore Roosevelt (1888)
MWelch8442 <mwelc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990610181407...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
Vickie Elam White
> Can we affirm the 'core fact' that Mr. Hunt wrote the
> article at TAG 37:50? Or do we have another genealogical
> player there?
Hunt's name is the only one on the byline for all three
articles. *If* he had another collaborator, that person was
not credited.
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
MWelch8442
that there is some new information on this line. I have talked to Mr.
Richardson about this line. I can't say for sure what new source's they found
but they have found some and they will publish the sources in the book so
everyone can see and beable to check them out for themselves. I was upset when
I learned this line was destroyed but my other lines through Olive Welby are
much better so I win some lose some. I know the Plantagnet book should be out
in a few months as it is already to get printed some people have seen the
camera ready proof.
Thank You
Mike Welch
D. Spencer Hines
Hopefully, Douglas Richardson will now answer the questions posed by
both Paul C. Reed and myself.
DSH
Britannicus Traductus.
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace
is fast enough." --- Theodore Roosevelt (1888)
Vickie Elam White <10265...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:199906101852_...@compuserve.com...
D. Spencer Hines
to Edward I, Edward III and other worthies.
Cheers,
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace
is fast enough." --- Theodore Roosevelt (1888)
MWelch8442 <mwelc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990610185633...@ng34.aol.com...
Kay Allen AG
>
> Thank you kindly, Mr. Welch.
>
> 37:50? Or do we have another genealogical player there?
>
> and Mr. Faris and published in AR7.
Mr. Sheppard specifically states that he has trusted the submitters,
which should be a real red flag caveat to the reader that (s)he should
do a bunch of checking that the citations do say what they are supposed
to say and that it hangs together. Unfortunately, the majority of the
readers can not or do not do it.
I am sure that Messers. Faris and Richardson are going to do their bests
to weed out the problems, but they too are only human and, therefore,
not infallible. That is one reason is should be a pox on GPC for
publishing a "5th" edition with little or no correction.
Kay Allen AG
>
> If this _hypothetical_ line of reasoning is correct why didn't they
> check it out more thoroughly and will Messrs. Faris and Richardson
> correct it in their new edition or continue to promulgate bum dope to
> the genealogical masses?
>
> This is, perhaps, an excellent example of why _scrupulous attention to
> detail_ is so important in Genealogy and eschewing the habits, methods
> and modalities of the Impulsive Amateur Genealogical Persona [IAGP] is
> so critical.
>
> Evidence + Logic + Hard Work + Triple and Quadruple Checking =
> (Sometimes) Good Genealogy.
>
> Some folks just don't have the Patience, the Prudence or the
> Discipline for it.
>
> D. Spencer Hines
>
> Lux et Veritas
> Exitus Acta Probat
> --
>
> D. Spencer Hines --- "Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace
> is fast enough." --- Theodore Roosevelt (1888)
>
> MWelch8442 <mwelc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19990610181407...@ng-fa1.aol.com..
Kay Allen AG
>
> D. Spencer Hines wrote --
>
> > article at TAG 37:50? Or do we have another genealogical
> > player there?
>
> articles. *If* he had another collaborator, that person was
> not credited.
>
> Vickie Elam White
> 10265...@compuserve.com
The only assistance mentioned was the fine found by Walter Lee Sheppard.
Unfortuantely the TAG editor at the time, whom I believe was Dr. George
McCracken never twigged either. I'm not sure if my idol, Donald Lines
Jacobus, ever doubted either.
Kay Allen AG
John Carmi Parsons
he suggested in his book that Amy was either Piers' sister or niece, but that
he made those suggestions when unaware of the 1959 Hunt articles and the 1925
Farnham *Leicestershire Medieval Pedigrees*. He returned to the question of
Amy's parentage after colleagues drew his attention to the Farnham and Hunt
publications.
John Parsons
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, William Addams Reitwiesner wrote:
> jpar...@chass.utoronto.ca (John Carmi Parsons) wrote:
>
> >Hamilton provides a detailed genealogical table of Piers' relatives in the
> >first chapter of his book. No other Piers appears there, at least none known as
> >Gabaston or Gaveston. (The family held more than one estate and its members
> >were variously identified--Piers' own elder brother was not called "Gaveston,"
> >though I can't at the moment remember just what designation was given him.)
>
> "Arnaud-Guillaume de Marsan".
>
> By the way, Amy, wife of John de Driby, is mentioned on that chart as being
> a *sister* of the famous Piers, though later in the text Hamilton is more
> vague about where she fits in relation to Piers. I presume this is
> straightened out in the *Medieval Prosopography* article (which I have not
> seen).
>
> Another by the way: my copy of Volume XIV of the *Complete Peerage*
> arrived today, so of course I flipped to page 208, where it says, in
> correcting vol III, p. 434, note (c):
>
> For persuasive evidence that Gaveston had two das., the
> second, Amy, being b. after 6 Jan. 1312, see J.G. Hunt,
> Amer Geneal.,
>
> and gives the TAG citations. Oh, well, I guess someone will tell the
> editors before volume XV goes to press :)
>
>
> William Addams Reitwiesner
> wr...@erols.com
>
> "Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc."
>
>
Vickie Elam White
> The only assistance mentioned was the fine found by
> Walter Lee Sheppard. Unfortuantely the TAG editor at
> the time, whom I believe was Dr. George McCracken
> never twigged either. I'm not sure if my idol, Donald Lines
> Jacobus, ever doubted either.
I think Hunt et al were blinded by the excitement of finding
out that Piers GAVESTON, rather than dying without issue,
actually had two daughters.
I'm not sure why no one has written about the problem of
Hunt's identification of Margaret de CLARE as Amy's mother
and the de DRIBY line before now. I think that those of us
who have been examining the CORBETs, MALLORYs,
CHARLTONs etc. were simply not focused on that particular
branch of the family tree until now.
And there is the matter of unanswered mail when an attempt
*was* made to contact some of the people involved in the
GAVESTON research.
All in all, it does prove once again that "even the best of them
make mistakes." I just wish this one wasn't such a colossally
obvious one! <G>
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
D. Spencer Hines
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Exitus Acta Probat
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace
is fast enough." --- Theodore Roosevelt (1888)
Vickie Elam White <10265...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:199906102156_...@compuserve.com...
> Kay Allen wrote --
>
> > The only assistance mentioned was the fine found by
> > Walter Lee Sheppard. Unfortuantely the TAG editor at
> > the time, whom I believe was Dr. George McCracken
> > never twigged either. I'm not sure if my idol, Donald Lines
> > Jacobus, ever doubted either.
>
> I think Hunt et al were blinded by the excitement of finding
> out that Piers GAVESTON, rather than dying without issue,
> actually had two daughters.
This is a sensitive question, but one that simply _must_ be asked.
When examining any scholarly work, one needs to know the pertinent
details about the _lives_ of the scholars.
Piers de Gaveston is something of a cult figure among homosexuals.
I've talked to some good friends who are genealogists and also
homosexual and they find him _fascinating_. --- It's a fantasy thing I
suppose --- and they are certainly entitled to their fantasies, like
anyone else --- it's a non-problem.
I have _absolutely_ no axe of any sort to grind here.
But if someone who is homosexual could _prove_ that he is descended
from Piers de Gaveston --- that might be quite a rush. Three good
friends who are homosexual have told me just that. Three people
certainly do not constitute a statistically significant sample and I'm
not implying that they do --- but it is interesting anecdotal
evidence.
Are any of the key player genealogists who have endorsed this descent
from Amy de Gaveston and John de Driby [with or without the legitimate
extension through Margaret de Clare to Edward I] homosexual?
_If_ that were the case --- could their judgment on Piers de Gaveston
and his progeny have perhaps been clouded by their sexual
orientations?
I suppose that would include Hunt, Jacobus, Sheppard, Hamilton,
Faris --- and other key players? Have I forgotten someone?
AGAIN, before someone accuses me of gay-bashing, or whatever absurd
charge --- which is clearly not the case --- I am not drawing _any_
sort of conclusion, because I don't know the facts. But one does have
to ask tough questions, if one ever wants to get to the truth.
I've previously stated on _many_ occasions here and on SHM that I've
never even seen _definitive_ proof [and I don't expect to see it] that
Edward II and Piers de Gaveston _definitely_ had a _physical sexual_
relationship.
>
> I'm not sure why no one has written about the problem of
> Hunt's identification of Margaret de CLARE as Amy's mother
> and the de DRIBY line before now. I think that those of us
> who have been examining the CORBETs, MALLORYs,
> CHARLTONs etc. were simply not focused on that particular
> branch of the family tree until now.
Fair enough.
>
> And there is the matter of unanswered mail when an attempt
> *was* made to contact some of the people involved in the
> GAVESTON research.
Yes, indeed. That is a continuing problem to the current date and
needs to be rectified.
>
> All in all, it does prove once again that "even the best of them
> make mistakes." I just wish this one wasn't such a colossally
> obvious one! <G>
Well, I suppose it seems 'obvious' to some. But, I still would want
to see a full-throated genealogical journal article that really shreds
out all the facts and associated issues --- _before_ I make a final
judgment on these matters. --- And, there is actually a _cluster_ of
genealogical issues --- not just one.
Perhaps Paul C. Reed will write it.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Fortem Posce Animum
D. Spencer Hines
> I've talked to some good friends who are genealogists and also
> homosexual and they find him _fascinating_. --- It's a fantasy thing
> I suppose --- and they are certainly entitled to their fantasies,
> like anyone else --- it's a non-problem.
>
1999]
I would have done better to have said, "Piers de Gaveston is something
of a cult figure among some homosexuals, who know who he is."
_Many_ folks who are homosexual and heterosexual haven't the foggiest
_notion_ of who he is.
Mel Gibson's 1995 film, 'Braveheart' was the first exposure that many
folks had to the 'characters' Edward II and Piers de Gaveston.
Subsequent explication in the _popular media_ reached the eyes and
ears of many people who would doubtless have gone to their graves not
knowing about the alleged relationship between Edward II and Piers de
Gaveston --- two quite remote early 14th Century historical figures.
The defenestration of the Piers de Gaveston 'character' in
'Braveheart', by King Edward I 'Longshanks', was perceived by many as
brutal, homophobic, and totally unjustified. It made Mel Gibson
_many_ new enemies and confirmed the corrosive hatred that many old
enemies have for him.
In many quarters of Hollywood, Gibson is simply condemned and
dismissed out of hand as 'Atilla The Hun' --- without further ado.
There were several angry demonstrations against the film.
After 'Braveheart' won the Academy Award for Best Picture and Mel
Gibson won for Best Director these folks were furious.
All of these events made many people aware of who Piers de Gaveston
was, who had never known before.
But, the genealogical, historical and scholarly issues remain. Do/Did
some genealogists have a soft spot for Piers de Gaveston because of
their own sexual orientation and possible resultant fantasies, which
clouded both their judgments and their due care and diligence, or not?
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Exitus Acta Probat
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace
is fast enough." --- Theodore Roosevelt (1888)
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:...
I personally hope he will.
Leo van de Pas
I don't know about the USA but I can say
about Australia and The Netherlands, but
Piers de Gaveston is NOT a cult-figure.
Hardly anyone knows of him---and quite right
so. I still would like to see confirmed
that he WAS a homosexual. His sharp tongue
does not define him as a homosexual, it is
political character assasination that have tagged
Edward II and Piers de Gaveston. It will not
take me much convincing to say 'they could be',
but a lot more to say they ARE. Be fair how
many heterosexual men in puberty have succumbed
to homosexual activity without actually being
homosexual?
If I dislike Shakespeare's historical portrayals
(because they are so inaccurate) 'Braveheart'
is even worse. It may be a rollicking good
story, it definitely is not a reliable portrayal
of historical events.
Australia has a 'love-affaire' with the American born Mel Gibson because he
grew up
here and made his first movies here.
However, whether I like or dislike him,
to call him 'Attila the Hun' is far from
fair. Who has seen his electrifying portrayal
of Hamlet? In my opinion that was a great
movie, and not to forget the performance
of Glenn Close.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
William Addams Reitwiesner
Diana Allen
Don Stone wrote:
> John Carmi Parsons wrote:
> >
> > Regardless of who Amy's mother was, you are still arguing that Piers, in your
> > eyes a confirmed homosexual, fathered two children.
>
> I wouldn't label Piers as a confirmed homosexual. I would label him as
> a bisexual who was on the whole more homosexual than heterosexual but
> whose experiences covered a fairly wide part of the spectrum of sexual
> behavior. Yes, I think it likely that he fathered two children, and I
> think it quite possible (but not yet definitively determined one way or
> the other) that his wife was the mother of both of them for the reasons
> I itemized.
>
> A> > (3) Woghfield (Wokefield), granted to Amy in 1332, was forfeited
> > > property of Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore, and Amy's step-father (if she
> > > was a daughter of Margaret), Hugh Audley, was the son of Isolde de
> > > Mortimer.
As I have constructed a family Tree of the Mortimers, Earls of March, from Dictionary
of Biography and found that
ROGER 1V (Mortimer) 8th Baron Wigmore and 1st Earl of March ~1287-1330 who m. Joan
de Genville.
When under age, was placed in the wardship of Gaveston by Edward 1..
..does anyone know more about Gaveston's 'role' here?
Gaveston was portrayed rather sympathetically in the unusual film 'Edward 1' a few
years ago..
Mortimer's paramour of course became Queen Isabella whose husband was enamoured of
Gaveston.
He virtually ruled England prior to her son Edward 111 executing him.
Regards
Di Allen
Renia Simmonds
> Mel Gibson's 1995 film, 'Braveheart' was the first exposure that many
> folks had to the 'characters' Edward II and Piers de Gaveston.
I'm not sure about this. Piers Gaveston, in England, at least, has long
been one of those almost mythical figures whose homosexualtiy has long
been the subject of sniggers in history classrooms. In the vein of - Henry
VIII was fat and had loads of wives, Charles I had his head chopped off,
Cromwell had warts, Elizabeth I wore topless dresses. That is to say, that
when history "was taught properly" (don't ask for a definition) in this
country, certain characters came alive to youngsters, inciting them to
find out more, often with a view to the seamier side.
> The defenestration of the Piers de Gaveston 'character' in 'Braveheart',
> by King Edward I 'Longshanks', was perceived by many as brutal,
> homophobic, and totally unjustified. It made Mel Gibson _many_ new
> enemies and confirmed the corrosive hatred that many old enemies have
> for him.
I haven't seen the film, precisely because it is Hollywood, I'm afraid!
I'm all for historical action films, but not where the facts are distorted
to suit the box office, which seems to be the case with many Holywood
efforts. I prefer discussions of possibilities to take place off the
romantic screen, because too often, viewers (especially of British
historical events) in other countries tend to take what they see on screen
as fact, without realising that the film simply delves into possibilities,
or the imaginations of the producers. (Viz the new films on Shakespeare
and Elizabeth.)
> But, the genealogical, historical and scholarly issues remain. Do/Did
> some genealogists have a soft spot for Piers de Gaveston because of
> their own sexual orientation and possible resultant fantasies, which
> clouded both their judgments and their due care and diligence, or not?
I don't know about other people, but as a historian and a genealogist, an
approach from the point of view of sexuality has never entered my head,
valid though it might be. Primary sources is what I go for (and in lieu of
them, then secondaries), that is to say, whatever was written or painted
(or whatever) at the time. Sexual orientation is, now, as diverse as it
has always been, but has only lately "come out" or become fashionable (or
however you want to define it.). A good historian knows not to use the
20th perspective in studying the past. The modern feeling of war being a
useless means of solving anything cannot be used in discussing wars in the
past, for those wars were fought from totally different perspectives to
our own. Things must be taken in context. Different approaches are useful,
but they must be viable.
Modern homosexuality (not bisexuality) is exclusively homosexual.
Homosexuals in the past had to remain in the closet, first because it was
not so tolerated as today, and second, because heirs were to be begotten.
In other words, homosexuals (of the higher order, at any rate) in the past
did not have today's perspective where anything goes, but knew the
expectations of their station, and followed them much more than we would
today. That known or suspected homosexuals had children should not,
therefore, be surprising.
Renia
Renia Simmonds
Allen Andrews, Marshall Cavendish, London 1976, says of Edward II and Piers
Gaveston:
"Edward's social perspective was filled by Gaveston, and while Gaveston was
availble he wanted nothing but a social life. No relible sugestion of any
homosexual inclinations has been advanced by the calumniators of these
laughing idlers, in spite of the deep enmity which the relationship inspired
among the English nobility."
Renia
Renia Simmonds wrote:
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> > Mel Gibson's 1995 film, 'Braveheart' was the first exposure that many
> > folks had to the 'characters' Edward II and Piers de Gaveston.
>
> I'm not sure about this. Piers Gaveston, in England, at least, has long
> been one of those almost mythical figures whose homosexualtiy has long
> been the subject of sniggers in history classrooms. In the vein of - Henry
> VIII was fat and had loads of wives, Charles I had his head chopped off,
> Cromwell had warts, Elizabeth I wore topless dresses. That is to say, that
> when history "was taught properly" (don't ask for a definition) in this
> country, certain characters came alive to youngsters, inciting them to
> find out more, often with a view to the seamier side.
>
> > The defenestration of the Piers de Gaveston 'character' in 'Braveheart',
> > by King Edward I 'Longshanks', was perceived by many as brutal,
> > homophobic, and totally unjustified. It made Mel Gibson _many_ new
> > enemies and confirmed the corrosive hatred that many old enemies have
> > for him.
>
> I haven't seen the film, precisely because it is Hollywood, I'm afraid!
> I'm all for historical action films, but not where the facts are distorted
> to suit the box office, which seems to be the case with many Holywood
> efforts. I prefer discussions of possibilities to take place off the
> romantic screen, because too often, viewers (especially of British
> historical events) in other countries tend to take what they see on screen
> as fact, without realising that the film simply delves into possibilities,
> or the imaginations of the producers. (Viz the new films on Shakespeare
> and Elizabeth.)
>
> > But, the genealogical, historical and scholarly issues remain. Do/Did
> > some genealogists have a soft spot for Piers de Gaveston because of
> > their own sexual orientation and possible resultant fantasies, which
> > clouded both their judgments and their due care and diligence, or not?
>
Kay Allen AG
>
> Vide infra.
>
> D. Spencer Hines
>
> Lux et Veritas
> Exitus Acta Probat
> --
>
> D. Spencer Hines --- "Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace
> is fast enough." --- Theodore Roosevelt (1888)
>
> Vickie Elam White <10265...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:199906102156_...@compuserve.com..
>
Spencer, This work was done in the 1950s. I don't think you can apply
the thought processes of some gays in the 1990s to homosexuals in the
1950s.
Also alhough some of the people involved were male batchelors, I do not
think that it is safe to assume that they were gay or are gay in the
cases of those still living and I doubt that anyone who knows for sure
would "out" them, if they were, because of respect for privacy.
Kay Allen AG
> out all the facts and associated issues --- _before_ I make a final
> judgment on these matters. --- And, there is actually a _cluster_ of
> genealogical issues --- not just one.
>
> Perhaps Paul C. Reed will write it.
>
Diana Trenchard
purported tomb of the father of Piers Gaveston in an article _King
Edward I and Melcombe Regis_ by Vere Oliver, F.S.A., in _Proc Dorset
Natural History & Archaelogical Society_, vol LV, 1933, pp 32-40.
"In Winchester Cathedral is a mutilated effigy of a knight and on the
front slab of the stately tomb are five armorial shields of which the
third bears the arms of Edward I, the fourth France ancient, and the
fifth Castile quartering Leon for Queen Alianor. The knight is thought
to be Sir Arnald Gaveston, who was buried there May 1302, was perhaps of
the royal household and probably father of Piers de Gaveston, the foster
brother and unworthy favourite of Edward II, (_Winchester Cathedral_ by
Canon Vaughan, 163, and D.N.B.)."
Is this still a probability, a possibility, or has it since been disproved?
Diana
D. Spencer Hines
Harold F. Hutchison has a picture of this tomb in his _Edward II_
[facing p. 39] and indicates that it is the reputed tomb of _Arnaud de
Gabaston_ [sic].
Further, he states that Arnaud's "family came from the Gascon village
now called Gabaston, which is a few miles north-east of Pau in Bearn,
and they were of old knightly stock." Arnaud supposedly fought for
Edward I in the early part of his reign and was captured and
imprisoned by the French. He supposedly escaped and rejoined the King
in England, "possibly with his young son." [op. cit., pp. 30, 72]
Hutchison provides no concrete evidence concerning the tomb in
Winchester Cathedral --- but he does not challenge what you have said,
infra --- quoting Vere Oliver and referencing Canon Vaughn.
Perhaps the recent biography of Piers de Gaveston has more to say on
this subject and someone will quote it.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace
is fast enough." --- Theodore Roosevelt (1888)
Diana Trenchard <di...@trenchar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:37618EFB...@trenchar.demon.co.uk...
GARYBIGDOG
Thank you for posting the information about Fawkes de Breaute's son, Thomas.
I was fairly sure that Fawkes' son was named Thomas as a Thomas de Breaute,
knight, later showed up as a witness for a later Countess of Devonshire,
presumably Thomas' kinswoman.
Standard historical and genealogical sources give NO issue whatsoever for
Fawkes de Breaute. I found a reference to Fawkes de Breaute's will in a book
published by Pierre Chaplais. Fawkes' son is mentioned in the will but not
named. I'll check to see what else I can learn about Sir Thomas de Breaute.
Many American connect to the Breaute family through Fawkes' sister, Avice, who
married first a Martin and second a Bonville. One immigrant who has the
Breaute connection is Olive (Welby) Farwell through her Bonville ancestry All
for now. Best always, Douglas Richardson