The de Gaveston descendents, a bottomless morass
Doug McDonald
and I am not descended from the parties in question. But I have at least
read every word.
I think that my Subject: line says it all:
"The de Gaveston descendents, a bottomless morass"
The evidence is not proof of anything. It is only suggestive.
I don't object to the use of such evidence, it can be very
convincing if simple and clear.
You will never convince me based on the evidence at hand that
one or the other conclusion is proven to the standards of
evidence that SHOULD be used in genealogy.
Either some killer conclusive piece of evidence is needed,
or we should just admit defeat, saying that the ancestry
of the purported women is in doubt.
Doug McDonald
Nathaniel Taylor
Doug McDonald <mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>I have said little on this affair, as I don't understand the arguments
>and I am not descended from the parties in question. But I have at least
>read every word.
>
>I think that my Subject: line says it all:
>
>"The de Gaveston descendents, a bottomless morass"
>
>
>The evidence is not proof of anything. It is only suggestive.
>I don't object to the use of such evidence, it can be very
>convincing if simple and clear.
>
>You will never convince me based on the evidence at hand that
>one or the other conclusion is proven to the standards of
>evidence that SHOULD be used in genealogy.
Let's look at it this way:
Let Conclusion 1 = "Amy de Gaveston is daughter of Margaret de Clare."
Let Conclusion 2 = "Conclusion 1 cannot be 'proven to the standards of
evidence that should be used in genealogy'."
Let Conclusion 3 = "Amy de Gaveston is daughter of Piers de Gaveston,
Earl of Cornwall, but not by his known wife Margaret de Clare."
Conclusion 2 is the crux. One does not have to endorse (let alone
prove) Conclusion 3 to accept Conclusion 2.
If Mr. McDonald can "never be convinced" of Conclusion 1, then it
appears that he accepts Conclusion 2, which I also accept, and which has
allowed me to serenely stop reading the pseudo-arguments continually
rehashed by the proponents of Conclusion 1.
The fact that I also happen to accept Conclusion 3 (which seems pretty
obvious to me) is irrelevant.
Nat Taylor
Stewart, Peter
> From: Nathaniel Taylor [mailto:nta...@post.harvard.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 August 2002 1:45
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: The de Gaveston descendents, a bottomless morass?
>
<snip>
> If Mr. McDonald can "never be convinced" of Conclusion 1, then it
> appears that he accepts Conclusion 2, which I also accept,
> and which has
> allowed me to serenely stop reading the pseudo-arguments continually
> rehashed by the proponents of Conclusion 1.
>
> The fact that I also happen to accept Conclusion 3 (which
> seems pretty obvious to me) is irrelevant.
Hear, hear, Nat - my serenity is equally untroubled. I have continued to
read Paul Reed's contributions, for enlightenment and from admiration of his
patience, but for too long there was no merit whatsoever on the other side
of this debate.
Peter Stewart
Doug McDonald
>
> > If Mr. McDonald can "never be convinced" of Conclusion 1, then it
> > appears that he accepts Conclusion 2, which I also accept,
> > and which has
> > allowed me to serenely stop reading the pseudo-arguments continually
> > rehashed by the proponents of Conclusion 1.
I didn't say never .... I said "never with the currently available
evidence".
And some, in private email, have misunderstood my point.
I do not accept that Amy was the proven (biological) daughter of Piers.
I do not accept that Amy was proven NOT the (biological) daughter of
Piers.
I do not accept that Amy was the proven (biological) daughter of
Margaret.
I do not accept that Amy was proven NOT the (biological) daughter of
Margaret.
I do accept that the King accepted that she was, legally, taken to be
a daughter of Piers.
What I am saying is that the arguments are so confusing that I simply
have NO IDEA of her real parentage. We simply do no know why she
was accepted by the King.
My arguments are those of logic. Just because I do NOT
ACCEPT that she IS PROVEN the biological daughter of Piers does
NOT mean that I accept that she is proven NOT the biological
daughter of Piers. The Conclusion 1 said "do not accept that
she is proven the daughter". I am convinced that she is NOT PROVEN
the daughter of Piers, but do believe that she indeed MAY BE
his biological daughter.
If this makes you head spin, and you don't understand it, even
though it is perfectly logical, so be it ... you may in any
case actually agree with me.
I too am serene, but I will keep reading.
Doug
Nathaniel Taylor
genealogy (Stewart--care to jump in on this?). I wasn't clear enough
in my earlier post on this. Let me systematically restate the bare
bones as I see them, as logical statements.
-------
1. Amy is [actually, really] daughter of Margaret.
2. Amy is [actually, really] NOT daughter of Margaret.
In the world of genealogy, 1 & 2 are of the genre of absolute truths
which can never be established with absolute certainty. Genealogical
research is about getting as close as one can to such truths, via
evidence. This results in 'conclusions', or statements based on
evidence, which are (we accept by convention) approximations or
surrogates for absolute truths. Here are these approximations relevant
to the two competing truths above:
-------
3. The theory that 'Amy is daughter of Margaret' can be supported to an
acceptable standard of genealogical evidence.
4. The theory that 'Amy is daughter of Margaret' CAN NOT be supported to
an acceptable standard of genealogical evidence.
-------
5. The theory that Amy can not be daughter of Margaret can be supported
to an acceptable standard of genealogical evidence.
6. The theory that Amy can not be daughter of Margaret CAN NOT be
supported to an acceptable standard of genealogical evidence.
-------
In each pair -- 1-2, 3-4, & 5-6 -- the two statements are simply
negations of each other.
In terms of Venn diagrams, 1, 3, and 5 are circles, while 2, 4 and 6
represent everything outside the respective circles (that is, 2 is
everything outside the circle 1; 4 is everything outside the circle 3; 6
is everything outside the circle 5).
But the relationship among the three circles is often misunderstood.
Theoretically, one might establish 3 to everyone's satisfaction, only to
have 2 be the case, not 1. Conversely, holding 4 does not in any way
prejudice the abstract truth of 1 versus 2.
Circle 3 intersects circle 1--that is, there is shared ground, but there
is also plenty of room in 3 which is not in circle 1; and there is
plenty of room in circle 1 which is not in circle 3. Circle 5 also
intersects circle 1 in the same way.
Now, in practical terms circle 1 is irrelevant, because 1 vs. 2 can
never be 'absolutely' established -- we see genealogical 'truths' only
through a glass, darkly. The important thing is the relationship among
3, 4, 5 & 6--i.e. between circle 3 and circle 5. Circle 3 and circle 5
do not intersect, and are mutually exclusive--that is, if 3 can be
established, then 5 cannot be, and vice-versa. Therefore, 5 is a subset
of 4 (which is everything but 3) and 3 is a subset of 6.
One could continue this schema with an infinite number of additional
pairs analogous to 1-2, and quartets analogous to 3-6, for an added six
statements for each specific candidate parent under scrutiny (or three
new circles per parent candidate in our Venn diagram). The relationship
of the circles created by these added parent candidates, with our
initial three circles, is a different, more complex matter.
Back to genealogy: In so many discussion here, we recognize that the
burden of proof lies on the proponent of a specific filiation. That is,
the proponent of a filiation someone must be held to demonstrate
something like 3; our default assumption must be analogous to 4. It is
not necessary for detractors to demonstrate 5 for 3 to fail, although if
5 is demonstrated, 3 has automatically failed (5 is a subset of 4; 4 is
the negation of 3).
Mr. Todd appears to hold tenaciously to belief in 1, and this conviction
has kept him on a quest to establish 3, which has led us all on a
somewhat tortuous path through tangents which do not (in my view) appear
to have supported 3 very well at all. I think we can all (or all but
Mr. Todd) agree that 3 has not been established; therefore we can all
(or all but Mr. Todd) agree on 4.
Messrs. Verity, Reed, et al., hold the default 4 and, furthermore, have
argued for 5, which is a sort of supererogatory support of 4.
Doug McDonald is stating his adherence to 4 and 6 (but not 5). That's
fine. I happen to accept 5.
Now that I have made this as confusing and as pointless as the arguments
themselves, I'm going on vacation. Or, perhaps this HAS helped some of
you think abstractly about the logic of arguments in genealogy.
Comments?
Nat Taylor
Richard Smyth
> 5. The theory that Amy can not be daughter of Margaret can be supported
> to an acceptable standard of genealogical evidence.
>
> 6. The theory that Amy can not be daughter of Margaret CAN NOT be
> supported to an acceptable standard of genealogical evidence.
>
> -------
>
> In each pair -- 1-2, 3-4, & 5-6 -- the two statements are simply
> negations of each other.
It would be clearer if the negation of 5 were expressed as: 6'. It is not
the case that the theory that Amy can not be daughter of Margaret can be
supported to an acceptable standard of genealogical evidence.
6., as is stands, would normally be understood to say "It is not the case
that it is possible (i.e., it is impossible) that the theory that Amy can be
the daughter of Margaret is supported to an acceptable standard of
genealogical evidence."
The problem in negating (5) comes from the fact that the second "can" does
not really express a modal notion at all. It simply serves to abbreviate a
more complicated statement about how much evidence presently exists. What
(5) is probably meant to communicate is that the theory that Amy can be the
daughter of Margaret is supported by the presently available evidence to a
degree that meets a reasonable standard of genealogical evidence.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
sm...@nc.rr.com
PS I agree with a previous comment about the saintly forbearance of some
of the participants in this thread.
Nathaniel Taylor
sm...@email.unc.edu ("Richard Smyth") wrote:
>> 5. The theory that Amy can not be daughter of Margaret can be supported
>> to an acceptable standard of genealogical evidence.
>>
>> 6. The theory that Amy can not be daughter of Margaret CAN NOT be
>> supported to an acceptable standard of genealogical evidence.
>>
>> -------
>>
>> In each pair -- 1-2, 3-4, & 5-6 -- the two statements are simply
>> negations of each other.
>
>It would be clearer if the negation of 5 were expressed as: 6'. It is not
>the case that the theory that Amy can not be daughter of Margaret can be
>supported to an acceptable standard of genealogical evidence.
>
>6., as is stands, would normally be understood to say "It is not the case
>that it is possible (i.e., it is impossible) that the theory that Amy can be
>the daughter of Margaret is supported to an acceptable standard of
>genealogical evidence."
>
>The problem in negating (5) comes from the fact that the second "can" does
>not really express a modal notion at all. It simply serves to abbreviate a
>more complicated statement about how much evidence presently exists. What
>(5) is probably meant to communicate is that the theory that Amy can be the
>daughter of Margaret is supported by the presently available evidence to a
>degree that meets a reasonable standard of genealogical evidence.
Richard, thank you. I see that the uses of 'can' and 'can not' in 3-6,
and especially 5-6, are insufficiently precise or clear. Could you (or
anyone) restate these to say clearly what I'm trying to get at? How
about:
3. The theory 'Amy is daughter of Margaret' meets threshold.
4. The theory 'Amy is daughter of Margaret' does not meet threshold.
5. The theory 'Amy cannot be daughter of Margaret' meets threshold.
6. The theory 'Amy cannot be daughter of Margaret' does not meet
threhold.
where 'threshold' = an established threshold for acceptance of
genealogical argument given preponderance of evidence and deduction.
Nat Taylor
Renia
Amy de Gaveston was stated to be the daughter of Piers Gaveston
Joan de Gaveston was stated to be the only daughter of Piers Gaveston and
Margaret de Clare
Therefore Amy de Gaveston was not the daughter of Margaret de Clare.
Renia
Nathaniel Taylor
Renia <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Or, put more simply:
>
>Amy de Gaveston was stated to be the daughter of Piers Gaveston
>Joan de Gaveston was stated to be the only daughter of Piers Gaveston and
>Margaret de Clare
>Therefore Amy de Gaveston was not the daughter of Margaret de Clare.
Yes, these specific statements appear to support statement number 5 in
my schema. Allocating the various arguments and evidence brought
forward into the logical framework I've tried to sketch may help people
learn from this whole thread, and apply the critical lesson to other
genealogical problems and arguments.
Nat Taylor
Stewart Baldwin
<nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>The Amy - Margaret megathread is an interesting case study in logic &
>genealogy (Stewart--care to jump in on this?).
I suggest that a possibly simpler way to look at something like this
(where the matter under discussion is the truth or falseness of a
single specific statement, such as the claim that Amy was a daughter
of Margaret) is to divide it into three possibilities, namely the two
opposite conclusions along with an "undecided" option in between,
perhaps something like:
Option A: It has been proven to a reasonable degree of certainty that
Amy was the daughter of Margaret.
Option B: The question of whether or not Amy was the daughter of
Margaret has not been proven in either direction to a reasonable
degree of certainty.
Option C: It has been proven to a reasonable degree of certainty that
Amy was not the daughter of Margaret.
The words "It has been proven to a reasonable degree of certainty
that" appearing at the beginning of A and C are a concession to the
fact that absolute certainty is effectively unattainable in questions
of genealogy and history. The statements have been worded in a way so
that exactly one of the above statements would be true at any given
time (regardless of whether we were talking about this specific
question or some other proposition), although different individuals
might have different opinions on which of the three was true, and the
status might change through time with the discovery of new evidence.
Thus, for example, the negation of statement A would be the same as
the statement that either B or C is true (and the same for the other
combinations).
All three options could have many different shades of possibilities,
such as how conclusive the evidence was in cases A and C, or in which
direction (if any) the evidence leaned (and how far) in case B, all
shades subject to the same possible difference of opinion and
variation through time. Also, it is clear that the boundaries between
the three options cannot be regarded as distinctly defined.
If a second clearly defined question is also included (such as the
question of whether or not Amy was a daughter of Piers), then things
get more complicated, because the second question would itself have
the three basic groups (yes, no, undecided) as above (with the various
shades, etc.). If this were then combined with the original question,
you would have nine (three times three) basic possibilities, of which
some may or may not be ruled out by either the logic of the situation
or the evidence at hand, depending on how closely the two questions
are related to each other.
As for this specific case, it is my opinion that the evidence
presented for option C (i.e., that Amy was not a daughter of Margaret)
has been so completely overwhelming that option A is utterly
laughable, and even option B is simply not a reasonable position. Not
only was Amy's status not what one would have expected of a king's
niece, but Amy was absent from documents that would have been legally
required to mention her if she were in fact related as the proponents
of option A claim.
Some people seem to believe that so long as there are people who are
willing to argue both sides, then option B must prevail, but that it
not valid when the arguments given by one side have no merit, and that
is certainly the case here with the arguments given by the proponents
of option A. To show how bad that case is, let me point out a couple
of the pseudo-arguments used by the proponents of A that indicate how
sloppy their logic is:
1. No evidence ties Amy directly to Margaret. The link is indirect,
and comes from the fine that states that Amy was a daughter of Piers,
combined with the marriage of Piers and Margaret. WITHOUT THIS FINE,
THERE IS NO LINK OF ANY KIND BETWEEN AMY AND MARGARET. Thus, when the
proponents of A then argue that Amy was an illegitimate daughter of
Margaret by somebody other than Piers, they are claiming that the
statement of this fine is false, thereby sawing off the branch on
which they were sitting.
2. The whole endless birthdate of Joan matter that has been pressed by
the proponents of A as if it somehow supports their case is a RED
HERRING. The compelling evidence that has been produced showing that
Amy cannot be Margaret's daughter is not affected in any way by Joan's
birthdate.
As for the question of Amy's father, was he THE Piers de Gaveston or
just some other guy who happened to be named Piers de Gaveston? The
lack of a reasonable alternate candidate strongly suggests that he was
THE Piers, although I would consider that conclusion to be not so
strong as the unambiguous evidence that Amy was not Margaret's
daughter.
Stewart Baldwin
Richard Smyth
> (where the matter under discussion is the truth or falseness of a
> single specific statement, such as the claim that Amy was a daughter
> of Margaret) is to divide it into three possibilities, namely the two
> opposite conclusions along with an "undecided" option in between,
> perhaps something like:
>
> Option A: It has been proven to a reasonable degree of certainty that
> Amy was the daughter of Margaret.
>
> Option B: The question of whether or not Amy was the daughter of
> Margaret has not been proven in either direction to a reasonable
> degree of certainty.
>
> Option C: It has been proven to a reasonable degree of certainty that
> Amy was not the daughter of Margaret.
"Option B" is not a single specific claim. It is what a traditional logician would have called an exponible proposition. It is the conjunction of two propositions: "It has not been proven to a reasonable degree of certainty that Amy was the daughter of Margaret" and "It has not been proven to a reasonable degree of certainty that Amy was not the daughter of Margaret." This reflects the fact that, in the language of the traditional square of opposition, Option A and Option C are not contradictories; they are contraries: they cannot both be true but they both can be false.
My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that genealogical questions should not be discussed in a debate or trial format in which people take sides for and against positions and then seek arguments which will buttress their position or will damage their opponent's position. The methodology of debates is antithetical to the methodology of sound family history.
Instead, a proposition such as "Margaret was the mother of Amy" (or, an entirely different hypothesis, suggesting entirely different lines of inquiry: "There is some woman, other than Margaret, who was the mother of Amy") ought to be offered as an hypothesis which is recommended for investigation because (1) there are facts which now known to be true, which are puzzling, and which are such that if the hypothesis were true those facts would be explained by the hypothesis and (2) the hypothesis generates predictions (or retrodictions) suggesting what to look for and such that, if they turn out to be true, they give us reason to believe the hypothesis, but if they turn out to be false, they falsify the hypothesis. Until some such expectation is satisfied, we have reason to proceed on the assumption that the hypothesis works but we have no reason to believe that our working-hypothesis is true. On the other hand, a single novel fact of the right sort typically seems to settle a!
ll reasonable doubts among genealogists. (I doubt that the expression "degree of certainty" will ever be given a useful, literal meaning in genealogy---where a degree is "a grade or a point in the measuring of an action, relation or etc.".)
The fact that an hypothesis which has been created to fit a certain body of facts is in agreement with those facts is absolutely not a reason for believing that the hypothesis is true. Those who suggest that Margaret was the mother of Amy ought to suggest how we can put the hypothesis to the test. In particular, the fact that the hypothesis can be formulated to deal with the fact that Amy does not appear as an heir of Margaret is assuredly not a reason to believe the hypothesis, though it might be a reason to suspect the presence of another woman. Indeed, the natural and obvious explanation of the fact that Amy apparently did not inherit from Margaret is that some other woman was her mother. I am not clear about what otherwise puzzling fact is explained by the hypothesis that Margaret was Amy's mother, but I have not been following the whole debate as closely as one might.
Finally, "Margaret was the mother of Amy" and "Some woman who is not Margaret was the mother of Amy" are distinct hypotheses about distinct subject matters that suggest different lines of inquiry and lead to different sets of expectations about what the records will eventually show . It follows that Option B is not merely exponible, it fits the traditional definition of a complex proposition or a proposition which is a conjunct of propositions about different subjects.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
sm...@nc.rr.com
Stewart Baldwin
("Richard Smyth") wrote:
It is true that Option B is equivalent to a logical combination of
Options A and C (as it is logically equivalent to any one of the
statements "neither A nor B", "[not A] and [not B]", "not [A or B]"),
but that does not change the fact that it is also a single specific
claim. My presentation of the problem is simply another point of view
that is logically equivalent to some of the other alternatives that
were discussed, but states the problem in terms of three statements
that are close to the way that a genealogist might state various
possibilities of the outcome, without getting buried in a bunch of
logical notation.
>My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that genealogical
>questions should not be discussed in a debate or trial format
>in which people take sides for and against positions and then
>seek arguments which will buttress their position or will
>damage their opponent's position. The methodology of debates
>is antithetical to the methodology of sound family history.
[snip]
Any time there is disagreement on an issue, the resulting discussions
are going to resemble debates. Whenever there are two competing
scenarios, it is appropriate (even desirable) that the discussion
include the evidence for and against both scenarios. The better
genealogists will follow the evidence wherever it leads rather than
trying to force the evidence to fit a preconceived opinion (and
perhaps something like that that is what you meant to say above), but
it will often come out looking like a debate when a disagreement is
involved. The important thing is to look at the underlying merit of
the arguments themselves rather than the format (debate or not) in
which the arguments are presented.
Stewart Baldwin
KHF...@aol.com
There are still important missing documents. All these argumentative words
have amounted to a smokescreen that hides the truth of the matter ...
especially, the arguments about the date of birth of Joan.
In a message dated 8/21/02 7:15:20 PM, sba...@mindspring.com writes:
<< As for this specific case, it is my opinion that the evidence presented
for option C (i.e., that Amy was not a daughter of Margaret) has been so
completely overwhelming that option A [Option A: It has been proven to a
reasonable degree of certainty that
Amy was the daughter of Margaret] is utterly laughable ... >>
What are the primary reasons that Amy is not considered a daughter of
Margaret?
1) is that they are not 'linked' in primary records except by inference in
the fine that called her a daughter of Piers Gaveston and thus inferred that
Margaret was the mother or some other woman was her illegitimate mother.
2) The proof of this is held to be that neither Amy nor her daughter was in
line to inherit the de Clare estates and fortune and neither ever did, so
legally she could not have been a child of Margaret at all because she and/or
her daughter would have been mentioned in the inheritance and the only
heiress proved to be Margaret's daughter in her second husband, Hugh D'Audey.
3) And that Amy was not treated like the niece of a king.
The grant that gave the de Clare inheritance back to the de Clare sister's
husbands was quoted and it is reproduced below:
"22 May 1317: Whereas the king lately took homage of Hugh le Despenser the
younger, who married Eleanor the eldest of the sisters ... of Gilbert de
Clare ... and the fealty of Hugh Daudele the younger, who married Margaret,
another sister and co-heiress ... and of Roger Damory, who married Elizabeth
the third sister ... due for all lands and tenements which the said earl
held in chief at the date of his death, and whereas the king has surrendered
to the said Hugh and Eleanor, Hugh and Margaret, and Roger and Elizabeth
those lands [etc.] ... as is customary, and has at their request regranted
them that the said lands ... [to be held in the king's hands until partition
can be made between them.]"
Notice that the later document is missing, the wording of the later legal
grant that partitioned the lands among the de Clare sisters and their spouses
and returned the lands to them has not been quoted in this debate. Notice
also the omissions represented by three dots. Everyone has assumed that there
is no limitations in these documents that limit the inheritance to the
lifetimes of the sisters or specifies which of the children can be the heirs.
Since these lands were very important to the King, the assumption that he
did not limit who could inherit them is unfounded. Certainly, he did not
want them falling into hostile camps.
This argument has always hinged on the de Clare inheritance as proof and the
full documents have never been produced or posted. Posts supporting one
position or anther always have the three dots signifying omission.
The Oakum property was indeed specifically limited to the heirs of the bodies
of Hugh and Margaret. The children of Piers Gaveston were excluded. We still
do not know if there were limitations were imposed on the de Clare heirs. No
primary records have been quoted that detail this. We just have the opinion
that Edward had no power to impose limitations (though he certainly did so
with the Oakum property). If there were no limitations imposed by Edward on
the redistribution of these lands, we need to see the repartition papers.
If Amy were the illegitimate daughter of Margaret born after the death of
Piers, she would not inherit anything and neither would her daughter. The
treatment of the child could depend upon both the circumstances of the
conception and the personality and behavior of the child.
If Amy were the daughter born in 1312 -- and there is reason to believe this
is possible -- then she would be the legal daughter or Margaret and Piers.
There would be some paper record for the reason why she or her daughter did
not benefit from the de Clare inheritance. In other words, it would have to
be limited to the heirs of Hugh and Margaret and exclude the Gavestons.
Since this was done at Oakum, I don't think we can rule this out until we see
the terms of the partition and the wills of Hugh and Margaret.
What about Amie not being treated like the niece of a king? Some nieces and
nephews of kings have been murdered and imprisoned! There are an infinite
number of ways that a king's niece cam be treated. The daughter of the hated
Piers would be better off living anonymously for her own protection. She
seems not to have surfaced until she served in Philippa's court. We know now
that Amy was not in Isabella's court -- though it was previously thought that
she was. By this time there was a new king and a new set of circumstances.
Piers lands had been confiscated and Amie did not get them -- even though she
was legally regarded as his daughter according to the fine. If she could not
get Pier's lands, then why should she get Margaret's? Besides, the
likelihood that Margaret outlived her is very good, as we hear nothing of Amy
after the birth of her daughter.
This is why I conclude that we really cannot make an accurate conclusion at
this time.
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor and Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
__________________________________________
HT Communications / PO Box 1401 / Arvada CO 80001
VOICE: 303-420-4888 FAX: 303-420-4845
<A HREF="http://htcommunications.org/homepage.html">
http://htcommunications.org/homepage.html</A>
KHF...@AOL.com
Todd A. Farmerie
> What are the primary reasons that Amy is not considered a daughter of
> Margaret?
>
> 1) is that they are not 'linked' in primary records except by inference in
> the fine that called her a daughter of Piers Gaveston and thus inferred that
> Margaret was the mother or some other woman was her illegitimate mother.
1) is that there is not a single source which says that Amy was
daughter of Margaret. There is not a single source that shows
any of Margaret's land passed to Amy. There is not a single
piece of evidence that there was any connection whatsoever
between Margaret and Amy. There is simply no basis for this
conclusion.
2) see 1.
> The grant that gave the de Clare inheritance back to the de Clare sister's
> husbands was quoted and it is reproduced below:
>
> "22 May 1317: Whereas the king lately took homage of Hugh le Despenser the
> younger, who married Eleanor the eldest of the sisters ... of Gilbert de
> Clare ... and the fealty of Hugh Daudele the younger, who married Margaret,
> another sister and co-heiress ... and of Roger Damory, who married Elizabeth
> the third sister ... due for all lands and tenements which the said earl
> held in chief at the date of his death, and whereas the king has surrendered
> to the said Hugh and Eleanor, Hugh and Margaret, and Roger and Elizabeth
> those lands [etc.] ... as is customary, and has at their request regranted
> them that the said lands ... [to be held in the king's hands until partition
> can be made between them.]"
>
> Notice that the later document is missing, the wording of the later legal
> grant that partitioned the lands among the de Clare sisters and their spouses
> and returned the lands to them has not been quoted in this debate. Notice
> also the omissions represented by three dots. Everyone has assumed that there
> is no limitations in these documents that limit the inheritance to the
> lifetimes of the sisters or specifies which of the children can be the heirs.
This is a variant of the "God of the Gaps" argument. "There is
no evidence because the record is incomplete, and the evidence
could be in any of the missing documents (or parts of
documents)." It doesn't fly. You actually need evidence to
support this kind of conclusion, not just the fact that the
record is imperfect, so anything goes. Otherwise, we could just
as well posit that a missing document calls Amy daughter of
Edward II, or any other person alive in England at the time.
> If Amy were the illegitimate daughter of Margaret born after the death of
> Piers, she would not inherit anything and neither would her daughter.
What possible evidence do you have for this hypothesis? - NONE!
> If Amy were the daughter born in 1312 -- and there is reason to believe this
> is possible
There is no reason to think this was the case.
> What about Amie not being treated like the niece of a king? Some nieces and
> nephews of kings have been murdered and imprisoned! There are an infinite
> number of ways that a king's niece cam be treated.
Placed in the royal service? Name one.
> The daughter of the hated
> Piers would be better off living anonymously for her own protection.
Except she was not anonymous, as they knew she was daughter of Piers.
> Piers lands had been confiscated and Amie did not get them -- even though she
> was legally regarded as his daughter according to the fine. If she could not
> get Pier's lands, then why should she get Margaret's?
Because Margaret was not a traitor. The land of the two would
have had differing status, legally, based on the fate of Piers.
If Amy was the (legally) legitimate daughter of Margaret, she
would have gotten a share. If she was (legally) legitimate
daughter of Piers, this need not have been the case.
> Besides, the
> likelihood that Margaret outlived her is very good, as we hear nothing of Amy
> after the birth of her daughter.
Then Amy's daughter would have been heir. Amy's death solves
nothing.
> This is why I conclude that we really cannot make an accurate conclusion at
> this time.
It comes down to what one's standard of evidence is. If anyone
can think of a completely unsupported theory that provides an
alternative to the relationship found in the primary documents,
then no conclusion can be reached? In that case, we cannot reach
a conclusion about any relationship.
It is real simple. We have a document that says Amy was daughter
of Piers de Gaveston. We have no reason whatsoever to discount
this relational statement. We know that Amy was not legitimate
daughter of Margaret. If you wish to contradict this primary
record, then the burden of proof is on you, and cannot be based
on what might be in hypothetical missing documents.
taf
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 8/25/02 7:34:50 PM, farm...@interfold.com writes:
<< It is real simple. We have a document that says Amy was daughter
of Piers de Gaveston. We have no reason whatsoever to discount
this relational statement. We know that Amy was not legitimate
daughter of Margaret. If you wish to contradict this primary
record, then the burden of proof is on you, and cannot be based
on what might be in hypothetical missing documents. >>
We have a document that says Amy was Pier's daughter. We do not know if this
means legal daughter because he was married to Margaret and her child would
be his child even if the father were another man, or it means genetic
daughter because she was his genetic daughter, or it means his assumed
daughter.
These documents are not necessarily missing ... they have never been looked
up and quoted. Paul Reed is the primary person looking things up and he
presents enough to prove his point. Todd also has looked some things up and
he does the same. Instead of the whole document we get ... a series of dots
showing an omission that could be important.
<<she was not anonymous, as they knew she was daughter of Piers.>>
You are certainly wrong here. Amy did not surface until Philippa's time ...
her identity and whereabouts could well have been a guarded secret known by a
very trusted few for her own protection. Joan was secluded in a monastery
and that was a safe haven and protection as well. Neither Joan nor Amy was
well known in general. They were not budding socialites.
<<Because Margaret was not a traitor. The land of the two would have had
differing status, legally, based on the fate of Piers. >>
Margaret was a wife of a 'traitor' and his children were children of a
'traitor'. The term traitor is a point of view ... a political label. Two of
the de Clare sisters could be considered traitors by their marriages to hated
men, even though Edward arranged the marriage. Edward, of course, fell and
was executed himself. He was a traitor in the minds of those who killed him.
<<There are an infinite number of ways that a king's niece cam be treated. -
KHF
<<Placed in the royal service? Name one. -TAF >>
You are making the mistake again of believing that Amy was in Isabella's
court when she was not. She was not in royal service until much later in
Phiippa's tenure. The importance of this has obviously been realized by those
who made up their minds long ago.
- Ken
Leo van de Pas
Amy de Gaveston is a daughter of Piers de Gaveston,
is there any documentary proof that his Piers de Gaveston MUST be the same
Piers who married Margaret de Clare?
If there is no such proof we must keep in mind there could be two Piers.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia.
Todd A. Farmerie
> In a message dated 8/25/02 7:34:50 PM, farm...@interfold.com writes:
>
> << It is real simple. We have a document that says Amy was daughter
> of Piers de Gaveston. We have no reason whatsoever to discount
> this relational statement. We know that Amy was not legitimate
> daughter of Margaret. If you wish to contradict this primary
> record, then the burden of proof is on you, and cannot be based
> on what might be in hypothetical missing documents. >>
>
> We have a document that says Amy was Pier's daughter. We do not know if this
> means legal daughter because he was married to Margaret and her child would
> be his child even if the father were another man, or it means genetic
> daughter because she was his genetic daughter, or it means his assumed
> daughter.
Assumed daughter? As in he assumed he was the father because he
was the only one with a key to the chastity belt?
I think, perhaps, you need to take a step back and think about
the implications of the line of argument you are pushing. You
are negating the reliability, not just of this document, but of
every document that names X as father of Y. You are, in fact,
denying the basis for genealogy itself. Genealogy is about the
records, and if, just because in this particular case you have a
'better' solution, you can throw out with no reason at all a
direct statement of relationship, then no document is safe from
your ingenuity.
We have no reason whatsoever not to take the document at face
value. It is a sad cold truth for those who need there to be a
connection to Margaret, but it is truth none the less.
> These documents are not necessarily missing ... they have never been looked
> up and quoted.
That misses the point, which is that you can only draw
conclusions from what evidence you have, not based on what might
hypothetically be (but probably isn't) found in what you don't have.
> <<she was not anonymous, as they knew she was daughter of Piers.>>
>
> You are certainly wrong here. Amy did not surface until Philippa's time ...
Certainly? Why is that? That she did not merit notice in formal
documentation need not certainly entail anonymity, as opposed to
irrelevance. Silence could result from a grand conspiracy to
suppress the truth, or silence could just be silence. Either
way, whether suppressed or just insignificant, she is still not
anonymous. Without any basis, you have chosen the most complex
hypothesis.
> <<Because Margaret was not a traitor. The land of the two would have had
> differing status, legally, based on the fate of Piers. >>
>
> Margaret was a wife of a 'traitor' and his children were children of a
> 'traitor'. The term traitor is a point of view ... a political label.
When traitors' land was forfeit to the crown, AND the person in
question does not live to be reconciled, it was not just a point
of view.
> Two of
> the de Clare sisters could be considered traitors by their marriages to hated
> men, even though Edward arranged the marriage. Edward, of course, fell and
> was executed himself. He was a traitor in the minds of those who killed him.
Umm, you are missing the point, again. Any land that Piers took
into that marriage, in addition to being insignificant by
comparison, would have had a drastically different status after
his death than that of Margaret at the time of hers.
> <<There are an infinite number of ways that a king's niece cam be treated. -
> KHF
> <<Placed in the royal service? Name one. -TAF >>
>
> You are making the mistake again of believing that Amy was in Isabella's
> court when she was not.
Exactly where in my statement do you see the name Isabella? I
never named Isabella at all, nor was my question refering to her.
You are fighting a strawman of your own creation. That being
said, name a niece of a king that ended up in royal service. No,
don't bother. You have not shown any evidence to suggest that
she was a royal niece, so there is no point in pursuing it until
such evidence is presented.
While we are on the subject, the only reason that could be given
for speculating that Amy was not daughter of Piers, but rather of
Margaret, was that Isabella would never take the daughter of
the hated Piers into her household. Whether that argument is
valid or not, it disappears entirely under a scenario in which
Amy never was in Isabella's household. Again, I must ask, on
what basis do you take this one document, of all the medieval
documents that name one person as child of another, and conclude
that it is being metaphorical?
The important question regarding any hypothesis is "What evidence
supports it?", not "Can we explain away all of the evidence so
that we have a blank slate in which to create our own version?"
taf
Renia
I agree. We don't know how wide the Gaveston clan was in England (or France)
at this time. There could have been several cadet branches, or unrelated
families of this name roaming around Europe at the time, and a man called
Piers could have belonged to any one of them. Not all such Gavestons could
have had royal connections, or be noted in the known archives, but one branch
could have produced an Amie in England and disappeared without trace.
Renia
Chris PHILLIPS
Ken Finton wrote:
> This argument has always hinged on the de Clare inheritance as proof and
the
> full documents have never been produced or posted. Posts supporting one
> position or anther always have the three dots signifying omission.
>
> The Oakum property was indeed specifically limited to the heirs of the
bodies
> of Hugh and Margaret. The children of Piers Gaveston were excluded. We
still
> do not know if there were limitations were imposed on the de Clare heirs.
No
> primary records have been quoted that detail this. We just have the
opinion
> that Edward had no power to impose limitations (though he certainly did so
> with the Oakum property). If there were no limitations imposed by Edward
on
> the redistribution of these lands, we need to see the repartition papers.
> If Amy were the daughter born in 1312 -- and there is reason to believe
this
> is possible -- then she would be the legal daughter or Margaret and Piers.
> There would be some paper record for the reason why she or her daughter
did
> not benefit from the de Clare inheritance. In other words, it would have
to
> be limited to the heirs of Hugh and Margaret and exclude the Gavestons.
> Since this was done at Oakum, I don't think we can rule this out until we
see
> the terms of the partition and the wills of Hugh and Margaret.
Sorry, but we've been over this specific point at least twice and probably
more times in the last few months.
Margaret's inquisitions post mortem make it clear that her daughter Margaret
was her sole heir, not only in any lands that may have been entailed, but
also for lands that are simply stated to be "of her inheritance", and for
lands about which the jury specifically states that they do not know of any
entailment.
Chris Phillips
Renia
> There are still important missing documents.
It may be so, but you don't know that. You can only use the evidence you have to
hand. If you are convinced there are other documents, then go and look for them,
or commission someone to do so.
> All these argumentative words
> have amounted to a smokescreen that hides the truth of the matter ...
> especially, the arguments about the date of birth of Joan.
There is no smokescreen. We don't know the truth of the matter. We know that
Piers and Margaret had a daughter born early 1312. We know that their only
daughter, Joan, was born 1311. I would say that one of the documents (viz. the
Inquisition) gives her age incorrectly by a year, and that the two girls are one
and the same. I agree with you, that can't be proven until and if another
document surfices which says so. It does, however, seriously imply that Amie de
Gaveston was not the daughter of this couple, because of the timing (and also
because of the relative insignificance of Amie as a social being).
> In a message dated 8/21/02 7:15:20 PM, sba...@mindspring.com writes:
>
> << As for this specific case, it is my opinion that the evidence presented
> for option C (i.e., that Amy was not a daughter of Margaret) has been so
> completely overwhelming that option A [Option A: It has been proven to a
> reasonable degree of certainty that
> Amy was the daughter of Margaret] is utterly laughable ... >>
>
> What are the primary reasons that Amy is not considered a daughter of
> Margaret?
>
> 1) is that they are not 'linked' in primary records except by inference in
> the fine that called her a daughter of Piers Gaveston and thus inferred that
> Margaret was the mother or some other woman was her illegitimate mother.
No such inference is made in such documents. The inference is made by the person
who thinks of Piers Gaveston as the father (as stated in the document), therefore
his wife Margaret must be the mother. And the inference is that there was only
one Piers Gaveston around at the time, when, as Leo rightly points out, there may
have been others.
> 2) The proof of this is held to be that neither Amy nor her daughter was in
> line to inherit the de Clare estates and fortune and neither ever did, so
> legally she could not have been a child of Margaret at all because she and/or
> her daughter would have been mentioned in the inheritance and the only
> heiress proved to be Margaret's daughter in her second husband, Hugh D'Audey.
The lines of inheritance were very strict. If Amie inherited no de Clare estates,
that is because she was not a de Clare. Either that, or the estates were taken
from her for some reason, for which some evidence would already have sufaced, but
which has not.
> 3) And that Amy was not treated like the niece of a king.
A good marriage would have been arranged for her, unless she was an imbecile. But
if she was an imbecile, she would not have a position at court. There is no known
record of a marriage contract for her. This is not to say that one does not
exist, but it would likely have surfaced by now.
> The grant that gave the de Clare inheritance back to the de Clare sister's
> husbands was quoted and it is reproduced below:
>
> "22 May 1317: Whereas the king lately took homage of Hugh le Despenser the
> younger, who married Eleanor the eldest of the sisters ... of Gilbert de
> Clare ... and the fealty of Hugh Daudele the younger, who married Margaret,
> another sister and co-heiress ... and of Roger Damory, who married Elizabeth
> the third sister ... due for all lands and tenements which the said earl
> held in chief at the date of his death, and whereas the king has surrendered
> to the said Hugh and Eleanor, Hugh and Margaret, and Roger and Elizabeth
> those lands [etc.] ... as is customary, and has at their request regranted
> them that the said lands ... [to be held in the king's hands until partition
> can be made between them.]"
>
> Notice that the later document is missing, the wording of the later legal
> grant that partitioned the lands among the de Clare sisters and their spouses
> and returned the lands to them has not been quoted in this debate. Notice
> also the omissions represented by three dots. Everyone has assumed that there
> is no limitations in these documents that limit the inheritance to the
> lifetimes of the sisters or specifies which of the children can be the heirs.
If you want to speculate about the contents of this missing document, then go and
find it or commission someone to do so. That would be real historical research.
>
> Since these lands were very important to the King, the assumption that he
> did not limit who could inherit them is unfounded. Certainly, he did not
> want them falling into hostile camps.
>
> This argument has always hinged on the de Clare inheritance as proof and the
> full documents have never been produced or posted.
Go and find them, then.
> Posts supporting one
> position or anther always have the three dots signifying omission.
>
> The Oakum property was indeed specifically limited to the heirs of the bodies
> of Hugh and Margaret. The children of Piers Gaveston were excluded. We still
> do not know if there were limitations were imposed on the de Clare heirs. No
> primary records have been quoted that detail this.
Don't just rely on the internet and newsgroups for your genealogical and
historical research. If you are convinced there are other documents in the
archives which would help, then go and find them or commission someone to do so.
> We just have the opinion
> that Edward had no power to impose limitations (though he certainly did so
> with the Oakum property). If there were no limitations imposed by Edward on
> the redistribution of these lands, we need to see the repartition papers.
>
> If Amy were the illegitimate daughter of Margaret born after the death of
> Piers, she would not inherit anything and neither would her daughter.
If that was the case, she would not be the daughter of Piers and she would not be
stated to have been so. Socially, at this time, it would be better for her to be
cast as a bastard daughter of Margaret, than as a daughter of Piers.
> The
> treatment of the child could depend upon both the circumstances of the
> conception and the personality and behavior of the child.
Waft on.
> If Amy were the daughter born in 1312 -- and there is reason to believe this
> is possible -- then she would be the legal daughter or Margaret and Piers
But she was not the legal daughter of Piers AND Margaret, as far as the
documentation tells us. Joan was the only daughter of Piers and Margaret, born
1311, according to her given age of 14 (in her 15th year) at death, or, more
likely in 1312, the year given for the birth of their daughter.
> There would be some paper record for the reason why she or her daughter did
> not benefit from the de Clare inheritance.
There would only be some record for why she did not benefit from the de Clare
inheritance, if she was a de Clare, which she was not. That is quite possibly the
reason no such record has surfaced yet.
> In other words, it would have to
> be limited to the heirs of Hugh and Margaret and exclude the Gavestons.
> Since this was done at Oakum, I don't think we can rule this out until we see
> the terms of the partition and the wills of Hugh and Margaret.
Go and find them if you think that would help.
> What about Amie not being treated like the niece of a king? Some nieces and
> nephews of kings have been murdered and imprisoned!
You read too many romantic novels. But, you are talking politics here. Kings
don't just say, "I fancy murdering my niece today". There are hosts of political
reasons why this should occur. You need to understand such political activity
before you can make such a bland statement as that which you have made.
> There are an infinite
> number of ways that a king's niece cam be treated. The daughter of the hated
> Piers would be better off living anonymously for her own protection.
Only if she was not the daughter of Margaret de Clare. Why would one daughter,
Amie, live anonymously, and not the other, Joan? Particularly if they were only
born a year apart, one in 1311 and one in 1312? This early anonymity serves only
to verify that she was not daughter of Margaret de Clare.
> She
> seems not to have surfaced until she served in Philippa's court. We know now
> that Amy was not in Isabella's court -- though it was previously thought that
> she was. By this time there was a new king and a new set of circumstances.
> Piers lands had been confiscated and Amie did not get them -- even though she
> was legally regarded as his daughter according to the fine. If she could not
> get Pier's lands, then why should she get Margaret's?
Because she was not Margaret's daughter.
> Besides, the
> likelihood that Margaret outlived her is very good, as we hear nothing of Amy
> after the birth of her daughter.
Well, she certainly doesn't surf the internet. Simply, further records for her
have not surfaced. She might be a good case for a full biographical study.
Several months' digging away in the Public Record Office could well produce
further records for her. Why don't you take a look?
> This is why I conclude that we really cannot make an accurate conclusion at
> this time.
Well, that's true. From the evidence, we certainly can say that it is highly
unlikely that Amie de Gaveston was a daughter of Piers Gaveston by his wife
Margaret de Clare. And we are left with the possibility of another Piers de
Gaveston being her father.
Renia
Richard Smyth
> Don't just rely on the internet and newsgroups for your genealogical and
> historical research. If you are convinced there are other documents in the
> archives which would help, then go and find them or commission someone to
do so.
Exactly. If you are not now acting on Renia's dictum, you are not now
engaged in genealogical research.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
sm...@nc.rr.com
Douglas Richardson
> There is no smokescreen. We don't know the truth of the matter. We know that
> Piers and Margaret had a daughter born early 1312. We know that their only
> daughter, Joan, was born 1311. I would say that one of the documents (viz. the
> Inquisition) gives her age incorrectly by a year, and that the two girls are one
> and the same. I agree with you, that can't be proven until and if another
> document surfices which says so. It does, however, seriously imply that Amie de
> Gaveston was not the daughter of this couple, because of the timing (and also
> because of the relative insignificance of Amie as a social being).
>
Renia ~
Please do your math better. Joan de Gavaston was stated to be "of the
age of 15 years" at the time of her death in January 1325. If the
age is correct, that means she was born 1309/1310, not 1311. 1325
less 15 is 1310. Right?
This past week I showed a copy of the inquisition which followed Joan
de Gavaston's death to several reference consultants at the British
desk at the Family History Library here. These people are highly
trained specialists in the field of British research. They all
concurred that Joan's inquisitions states she was 15 years old at her
death, not "in her 15th year" as you alleged.
I recommend you consult with Dr. Cunningham at the PRO regarding the
wording in the original inquisition. I suspect the original
inqusition reads that Joan was "of the age of 15 years and more."
That phraseology including the Latin words "et amplius" ("and more")
is rather standard in inquisitions in this period.
Beyond that, it is important to keep in mind that inquisitions were
not always accurate documents when it comes to reporting age. They
can be off by one to five years. Consequently, I think it is best to
state that Joan de Gavaston was born "about" 1309/10, and leave it at
that. We have no real knowledge of her exact date of birth at this
time. We don't "know" Joan was born in 1311 or any year. We just
have an approximate birth date which has been extrapolated from her
inquisition, which documents are not always trustworthy.
Best always,
Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Douglas Richardson
I don't share your opinion that option A is "utterly laughable." As
a matter of fact, I think several of the options are still quite
viable. I think it best to keep an open mind in this matter. An open
mind is a prerequisite for anyone who aspires to be a good
medievalist. Evidence in medieval genealogy can be quite subtle.
Any one given problem can hinge on a very small piece of evidence.
Since the whole Gavaston debate began, we've learned two things which
we didn't know previously. First, thanks to the historian, F.A.
Underhill, we've learned that Margaret de Clare was in Ireland with
her husband, Peter de Gavaston, during his time of exile there.
Previously it was thought Margaret stayed in England during this
period. This fact is important because their daughter, Joan's
inquisition indicates she was born about 1309/10, part of which time
would fall during her parents' exile in Ireland. If correct, it would
suggest that Joan was NOT the female child born in 1312 to Peter and
Margaret.
Next, thanks to Chris Phillips, we learned last month that Amy de
Gavaston was not a lady in the court of Queen Isabel, as alleged by
Mr. Hamilton in his book on Peter de Gavaston. Rather, it appears
that Amy was only a lady at the court of Queen Isabel's successor,
Queen Philippe. This evidence implies that Amy de Gavaston was
younger than earlier thought.
If new facts like these continue to surface, we'll have to adjust our
views accordingly. As such, I believe it's much too early to dismiss
any option. If we keep an open mind, we may actually learn something
in this process. And that would be a good thing indeed.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
sba...@mindspring.com (Stewart Baldwin) wrote in message news:<3d641b77...@news.mindspring.com>...
> Stewart Baldwin
Renia
> Renia <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<3D69F478...@ntlworld.com>...
>
> > There is no smokescreen. We don't know the truth of the matter. We know that
> > Piers and Margaret had a daughter born early 1312. We know that their only
> > daughter, Joan, was born 1311. I would say that one of the documents (viz. the
> > Inquisition) gives her age incorrectly by a year, and that the two girls are one
> > and the same. I agree with you, that can't be proven until and if another
> > document surfices which says so. It does, however, seriously imply that Amie de
> > Gaveston was not the daughter of this couple, because of the timing (and also
> > because of the relative insignificance of Amie as a social being).
> >
>
> Renia ~
>
> Please do your math better. Joan de Gavaston was stated to be "of the
> age of 15 years" at the time of her death in January 1325. If the
> age is correct, that means she was born 1309/1310, not 1311. 1325
> less 15 is 1310. Right?
No. Not right.
Jan 1311 - Joan Gaveston born
Jan 1312 - 1st birthday, enters her 2nd year
Jan 1313 - 2nd birthday, enters her 3rd year
Jan 1314 - 3rd birthday, enters her 4th year
Jan 1315 - 4th birthday, enters her 5th year
Jan 1316- 5th birthday, enters her 6th year
Jan 1317 - 6th birthday, enters her 7th year
Jan 1318 - 7th birthday, enters her 8th year
Jan 1319 - 8th birthday, enters her 9th year
Jan 1320 - 9th birthday, enters her 10th year
Jan 1321 - 10th birthday, enters her 11th year
Jan 1322- 11th birthday, enters her 12th year
Jan 1323 - 12th birthday, enters her 13th year
Jan 1324 - 13th birthday, enters her 14th year
Jan 1324 - 14th birthday, enters her 15th year
But, as you suggest below, it does depend on the wording of the original document. As I
have been trying to say, there is a difference in meaning between "in her fifteenth year"
and "fifteen years old". The above scale is relevant if she was "in her fifteenth year".
If she was "fifteen years old", then she was born 1310, but that would depend on what time
of the year she was born.
>
> This past week I showed a copy of the inquisition which followed Joan
> de Gavaston's death to several reference consultants at the British
> desk at the Family History Library here. These people are highly
> trained specialists in the field of British research.
So am I.
> They all
> concurred that Joan's inquisitions states she was 15 years old at her
> death, not "in her 15th year" as you alleged.
Fair enough. I have been going on what people have been quoting here.
> I recommend you consult with Dr. Cunningham at the PRO regarding the
> wording in the original inquisition. I suspect the original
> inqusition reads that Joan was "of the age of 15 years and more."
You can't suspect anything. You have to know. Consult Dr Cunningham yourself and find out
EXACTLY the phrase used.
>
> That phraseology including the Latin words "et amplius" ("and more")
> is rather standard in inquisitions in this period.
>
> Beyond that, it is important to keep in mind that inquisitions were
> not always accurate documents when it comes to reporting age.
Exactly.
> They
> can be off by one to five years.
Exactly. As I said.
> Consequently, I think it is best to
> state that Joan de Gavaston was born "about" 1309/10, and leave it at
> that.
No. Going by your above para, you cannot say Joan de Gaveston was born "about" 1309/10. By
your own para (the age could be off by one to five years), she was born "about" 1501/1514,
and leave it at that.
> We have no real knowledge of her exact date of birth at this
> time. We don't "know" Joan was born in 1311 or any year. We just
> have an approximate birth date which has been extrapolated from her
> inquisition, which documents are not always trustworthy.
Absolutely.
But the evidence I am interested in with regard to Joan is this:
Joan was declared to be the only daughter and heir of Piers Gaveston and Margaret de
Clare.
A daughter of Piers Gaveston and Margaret de Clare was born January 1312.
If the couple had only one daughter, then she must be the one born January 1312.
Or else, one or more of the facts is wrong.
Either, they did have more than one daughter, or the age given for Joan in the inquisition
was in error. I plump for the latter, as you have declared in this message, which leaves
us with the only daughter and heir of Piers Gaveston and Margaret de Clare was Joan
Gaveston, born January 1312.
Renia
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 8/26/02 3:34:52 AM, c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
<< Margaret's inquisitions post mortem make it clear that her daughter
Margaret
was her sole heir, not only in any lands that may have been entailed, but
also for lands that are simply stated to be "of her inheritance", and for
lands about which the jury specifically states that they do not know of any
entailment >>
Yes, Chris, I know we know that ... we just do not know why Margaret was the
only inheritor. I am trying to simply clear up the detail that Robert Todd
left hanging about what proof there is that the de Clare inheritance was
limited. Since Any herself could well have been dead before her mother (if
Margaret was the mother) or disinherited by partition terms we have not seen
-- which would prevent her daughter from inheriting --
then Robert Todd needs to show is this proof, does he not? I am simply
throwing the ball back in his court to defend and prove his position that
these lands were limited to the heirs of Hugh and Margaret. That is what is
missing. Without this proof, then Margaret is simply not the mother of Amy.
- Ken
KHF...@aol.com
I agree too We don't know of Amy was born in France of another Petrus either.
It was thought at first that she was a niece of the famous Piers and that
could be the case as well. I am certainly not trying to prove she was the
daughter of Margaret ... let Robert Todd show is the documents that limit the
de Clare inheritance to the heirs of Hugh and Margaret. That is my point.
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 8/25/02 11:35:06 PM, farm...@interfold.com writes:
<< You are negating the reliability, not just of this document, but of
every document that names X as father of Y. You are, in fact,
denying the basis for genealogy itself. Genealogy is about the
records, >>
Not so. You are the one stating that this applies to every document, not me.
If other evidence indicates that there could be a problem with a statement in
a court record, then that particular court record can be suspect.
That is precisely why genealogy is imperfect and will never be a science. It
trusts in records that can be imperfect. We know that many injustices and
untruths are perpetuated in the court systems and the records. The records
tell is what the winners want us to hear, not the mitigating circumstances
that the losers want to understand.
Proving genetics by documents can be done to satisfaction some of the time --
certainly not all the time -- and there is always the chance that a document
is wrong. We find these errors all the time. Like eyewitnesses, whose
testimony is proven to often be unreliable, documents can also be unreliable.
Genealogists now know that only DNA testing is the only actual proof of
genetic paternity. We always need to take proofs and conclusions with a grain
of salt even though the research process is challenging, fun and satisfying.
Chris PHILLIPS
Ken Finton wrote:
> Since Any herself could well have been dead before her mother (if
> Margaret was the mother) or disinherited by partition terms we have not
seen
> -- which would prevent her daughter from inheriting --
> then Robert Todd needs to show is this proof, does he not?
The fact that a jury returned Margaret's daughter Margaret as her sole heir,
while stating that they did not know of any entailment concerning the land
in question, means that they must have believed any other legitimate
daughter was dead without issue.
If there had been another daughter who had died but still had descendants
living, these descendants would have been included as coheirs.
I still don't understand why, on the evidence as we now have it, anyone
thinks there is anything to indicate Amy was Margaret's daughter. If there
is a piece of evidence pointing to that, I'd be interested to hear of it.
Chris Phillips
Brad Verity
> We have a document that says Amy was Pier's daughter.
Yes. "Daughter of Petrus de Gaveston."
> We do not know if this
> means legal daughter because he was married to Margaret and her child would
> be his child even if the father were another man,
My mother (married to my father) may have had an affair with the
postman, which resulted in her getting pregnant with me, but never
told anyone. If my mother never said anything, I'm the child of my
father in the eyes of everyone, including the law.
Someone, either my mother or the postman, would have to step forward
to challenge my paternity status.
Maybe John of Gaunt was the child of Queen Philippa by the King's
cupbearer. Can we prove her conception of him was by her husband?
Please remember, Ken, that the argument that Amie was an illegitimate
daughter of Margaret de Clare was never based on primary evidence but
originally put forward to counter the Clare inheritance factor.
As John Parsons pointed out on this forum back in 1999, the Clare
inheritance is the key to determine if Amie was a legitimate daughter
of Gaveston. To be so, her mother would have to be Margaret de Clare
(unless evidence of a previous wife for Gaveston surfaces someday).
We cannot use inheritance from Gaveston to prove Amie's legitimacy
because the 1319 Parliament annulled all former grants to him of
property and there was nothing of his for his issue to inherit.
Yet Margaret de Clare left an inheritance at her death (the Clare
inheritance, as its been called in these discussions), which allows us
to determine that Amie did not participate in it, and to conclude that
Amie could not have been the legitimate daughter of Margaret, and thus
could not be the legitimate daughter of Gaveston.
Then suddenly, the argument that Amie was the illegitimate daughter of
Margaret appeared. It's primary function seems to be to provide an
explanation for why Amie did not participate in Margaret's
inheritance. It has no backing in any documentary evidence. From
that, elaborate scenarios have been spun, medieval law consulted, and
many other means employed to build a case on a premise that had no
documentary back-up to begin with.
There is a Katherine d'Audley mentioned in a Calendar Roll entry of
1324 or so. She seems to have been some kind of religious recluse (I
won't have a copy of the original entry until I get back to the UCLA
Library). Katherine d'Audley did not particpate in Margaret de
Clare's inheritance at her death. Using the logic employed by the
'Amie was Margaret's daughter' group, we'd have to conclude that
Katherine d'Audley was Margaret's illegitimate daughter and so could
not inherit.
> or it means genetic
> daughter because she was his genetic daughter
This is the explanation with the most straightforward reading of the
evidence. The most straightforward must always be favored until
other, compelling, documented evidence surfaces to alter the
straightforward reading.
> or it means his assumed
> daughter.
Are you saying that the parson John de Driby assumed 'Petrus' was the
first name of his kinsman's intended bride Amie? Because her surname
of "de Gaveston" is verified by the royal Calendar Roll entries and
the original household record at the PRO that Chris Phillips
researched.
Unless another document surfaces to counter the 1334 Driby Fine
information, we have to assume the most straightforward reading of
that document, which is that John de Driby was aware of the
particulars and that his statement that Amie was the "daughter of
Petrus" de Gaveston was accurate.
> These documents are not necessarily missing ... they have never been looked
> up and quoted. Paul Reed is the primary person looking things up and he
> presents enough to prove his point. Todd also has looked some things up and
> he does the same. Instead of the whole document we get ... a series of dots
> showing an omission that could be important.
Which is why the original sources should always be checked when
reading an article, newsgroup post, etc., on a topic of interest to
you.
> You are certainly wrong here. Amy did not surface until Philippa's time ...
> her identity and whereabouts could well have been a guarded secret known by a
> very trusted few for her own protection. Joan was secluded in a monastery
> and that was a safe haven and protection as well. Neither Joan nor Amy was
> well known in general. They were not budding socialites.
All speculation, which is fine if you're writing historocal fiction,
and all wrong if you're seeking historical fact.
> Margaret was a wife of a 'traitor' and his children were children of a
> 'traitor'.
The King (Edward II) never considered Gaveston a traitor. He did
consider Hugh d'Audley a traitor in 1321, and Margaret suffered
accordingly.
> The term traitor is a point of view ... a political label.
Yes.
> Two of
> the de Clare sisters could be considered traitors by their marriages to hated
> men, even though Edward arranged the marriage. Edward, of course, fell and
> was executed himself. He was a traitor in the minds of those who killed him.
Edward II arranged Margaret's marriage to Gaveston. Edward I arranged
Eleanor de Clare's marriage to Hugh Despenser the Younger.
> You are making the mistake again of believing that Amy was in Isabella's
> court when she was not. She was not in royal service until much later in
> Phiippa's tenure. The importance of this has obviously been realized by those
> who made up their minds long ago.
What was the procedure for entering royal service? I imagine if Amie
appeared at the court full-grown and said she was the daughter of
Piers Gaveston, she would need to offer proof. Edward III and Queen
Philippa never knew Gaveston, so how would Amie prove her paternity to
them? Would she have had to?
This is the direction speculation (if you feel the need to do so)
should go in as it uses the evidence as we know it from the primary
documents, and may lead to further insight.
Cheers, ----------Brad
Stewart Baldwin
Richardson) wrote:
[much snipping]
>... If correct, it would suggest that Joan was NOT the
>female child born in 1312 to Peter and Margaret.
As I already pointed out in the message to which you were responding
(and had also been pointed out on a number of other occasions in
arguments on this subject), this is a RED HERRING, and is TOTALLY
IRRELEVANT to the evidence which so clearly proves that Amy was not
Margaret's daughter. The fact that such completely irrelevant
speculation would be presented as the cornerstone of a counterargument
just serves to further emphasize how weak your case is.
>... I think it best to keep an open mind in this matter.
>An open mind is a prerequisite ...
>... If we keep an open mind, ...
I agree that keeping an open mind is important. However, keeping an
open mind means that the evidence should be examined on its own merit,
and does not require us to indefinitely accept all scenarios as
plausible outcomes. One of the purposes of analyzing evidence is to
set aside those scenarios which are inconsistent with the evidence.
In keeping an open mind, one is not required to accept as feasible
those scenarios that have been so thoroughly discredited by solid
evidence that they can no longer be regarded as plausible
alternatives.
Stewart Baldwin
Gryphon801
daughter of "our" Piers de Gaveston unless some proof is adduced that there was
another and contemporary Piers whose daughter she may have been, and that she
was either illegitimate or the product of a prior marriage on the part of
Piers. The fine does not admit of any other interpretation and there would
have been no reason for any participant in the transaction to lie and every
reason to tel the truth to avoid a later action to set aside the transaction
that the fine represented.
Todd A. Farmerie
> In a message dated 8/26/02 3:34:52 AM, c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
>
> << Margaret's inquisitions post mortem make it clear that her daughter
> Margaret
> was her sole heir, not only in any lands that may have been entailed, but
> also for lands that are simply stated to be "of her inheritance", and for
> lands about which the jury specifically states that they do not know of any
> entailment >>
>
> Yes, Chris, I know we know that ... we just do not know why Margaret was the
> only inheritor. I am trying to simply clear up the detail that Robert Todd
> left hanging about what proof there is that the de Clare inheritance was
> limited.
You keep missing the important points.
> Since Any herself could well have been dead before her mother (if
Unless Amy died without issue, which we know she did not, then
Amy's death would not remove Amy's claim - it would simply be
represented by her heir (or heiress in this case). If Amy was
dead, then her daughter would be coheiress with Margaret. Amy's
death solves nothing.
> Margaret was the mother) or disinherited by partition terms we have not seen
> -- which would prevent her daughter from inheriting --
The jurors _specifically_ state that they do not know under what
conditions the land was held. That being the case, they could
not have taken any partition terms into account, as they KNEW OF
NONE. Thus their determination tells us who the natural heirs
were, independent of such restrictions.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> I agree too We don't know of Amy was born in France of another Petrus either.
> It was thought at first that she was a niece of the famous Piers and that
> could be the case as well.
That was suggested before the discovery of a document naming her
father as Piers. Are you suggesting that Piers had a brother
also named Piers? Otherwise, on what basis do you question the
direct testimony of a legal document?
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> In a message dated 8/25/02 11:35:06 PM, farm...@interfold.com writes:
>
> << You are negating the reliability, not just of this document, but of
> every document that names X as father of Y. You are, in fact,
> denying the basis for genealogy itself. Genealogy is about the
> records, >>
>
> Not so. You are the one stating that this applies to every document, not me.
> If other evidence indicates that there could be a problem with a statement in
> a court record, then that particular court record can be suspect.
I am in full agreement, but no reasonable argument has been given
to suspect this specific document. (The only one presented was
"Why would the She-Wolf of France place the daughter of her enemy
in her court?" and since we now have no reason to think that she
did, that argument is removed.) I must ask again, why do you
reject the direct testimony of this document?
taf
Douglas Richardson
Dear Stewart ~
Thoroughly discredited? Actually, the option in question has been
barely discussed, other than to dismiss it out of hand. An open mind
means considering all the options, even those which may seem out of
the ordinary. If we keep an open mind and are collegial, I'm sure we
will find our answers. Also, less logic and more intuition might help
us as well.
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 8/28/02 12:35:49 AM, farm...@interfold.com writes:
<< I must ask again, why do you reject the direct testimony of this document?
>>
Let us be clear. I do not reject the direct testimony of the fine document.
I urge that everyone keeps an open mind about the maternity/paternity of Amy
de Gaveston because it is a complicated affair and several quite different
explanations could well be valid. Occam's razor must certainly be set aside
in such a case, as the complications and contradictions in the original
documents cannot be explained by the simplest explanation. I am not fan of
Mr. Occam anyway, as I seldom see the simplest explanation as being the
correct one in a complex series of events.
Robert Todd's explanation of why Amy (or her daughter, if Amy died before
Margaret) did not receive an inheritance and equal educational and marriage
opportunities was because Amy was Margaret's bastard child. Douglas
Richardson and Dr. Faris has also accepted this explanation in the past.
Simply put, if Amy were a bastard daughter, she would not show up as an heir.
The problem is that she could not be an illegitimate daughter of Margaret and
still not be Pier's legal daughter at the same time because the laws of the
time stated that if a woman had an illegitimate child, it would be considered
a legal and legitimate child of the husband unless the husband specifically
disavowed the child. Thus, she would legally be Pier's daughter.
Should Amy be the daughter born in 1312, then she would have been accepted as
a legal child of Piers by Piers himself -- even if she was another man's
daughter. The child born on 1312 was celebrated by the king along with Piers
himself.
The only other possibility is that she was conceived by another man after
Pier's death.
This kind of illegitimacy (conceived after the death of the husband) would
surely bar Amy and her daughter from an inheritance without any further legal
determinations. Certainly, it would affect her treatment so far as marriage
and educational opportunities are concerned. If she herself knew that she was
an illegitimate daughter -- and she surely would have known in such a case,
as her mother remarried and she was old enough to know that Hugh was not her
father -- then she must have realized that she could not be a legal heir of
her mother, thus she would not pursue recognition as an heir.
The business about Joan's birthdate is completely unrelated to Amy's
legitimacy and maternity. As a matter of fact, should Joan be born before
1312, then one would have to posit another daughter born in the 1312 time
slot, because it could not have been Amy. That girl would have has to die
young. There is no mention of such a death in the records, but that does not
mean that it did not occur. Joan may not have the child born in 1312,
because the chronology of her being aged 15 in 1325 does not add up to a
birth in 1312. We have to be open to the possibility of yet another daughter
born that year, as it was certainly not Amy.
If Amy were Margaret's daughter conceived after the death of Piers, there is
the question of why Amy if called Amy de Gaveston instead of Amy de Clare.
Margaret was known to call herself Margaret de Gaveston after the death of
Piers. She also went by the title Countess of Cornwall. There was no
matriarchal name that Amy could have used other than de Gaveston. It was the
only name available to her if her father was an unknown lover of Margaret de
Gaveston.
One can argue (and Robert Todd does argue this) that the name de Gaveston on
the fine document represents the legal name that Amy carried through life,
leading to her identification in the fine as a daughter of Piers, even though
the immediate royal family knew that she was not his biological daughter.
Each of us can make up out own mind as to whether this stretches the point to
incredulity or not. Remember, tough that contemporary documents such as the
fine have been known to be in error regarding names and relationships.
[Douglas Richardson just posted such an error on Aug 28, 2002 under the
heading: "CP Addition: Edward de Montagu's marriage to Alice of Brotherton."
There Edward de Montagu's name was misrepresented in two legal documents. So
much for the idea that these documents reflect the total reality of the
situation.]
We might remember that Amy's daughter, Alice, held rights at Oakham,
Margaret's dower manor. [This was addressed by John Parsons in THE
PLANTAGENET CONNECTION, Summer 2001, p 41. ] Parsons concludes that Alice's
rights at Oakham in no away implies kinship as it cannot be shown that Amy
herself had any rights there. Alice's rights, John Parsons believes, was
simply an act of charity on the part of Margaret. Since it cannot be shown
that Amy ever had any right there, we might conclude that Amy died before
Margaret and Margaret gave rights to Amy's daughter after her mother's death.
In reality, this grant could have been because of kinship, but kinship is not
necessary to explain Alice's holdings. It could have been given because Amy
was Pier's illegitimate daughter and Amy had nothing to leave to her own
daughter, so Margaret stepped as an act of charity, as John Parsons
speculates. Paul Reed has since discovered that de Dribney family had a 1/12
knight's fee at Oakham and the Oakham rights can be explained as coming
through Amy's husband and not Margaret at all.
To sum up: things may not be as simple as they appear. Amy could have been a
bastard daughter born to Margaret before her remarriage to Hugh. This would
explain her unequal treatment when compared to Joan. This would also explain
why Margaret's daughter with Hugh was Margaret's only legal heir. From
Margaret's IPM, we know that most of the property she held was entailed and
went back to the king. She was not allowed to distribute it to illegitimate
children in her lifetime. That property which was not entailed would not go
to Amy or her daughter is they were illegitimate. We do not know if Amy
received cash of other compensation in her lifetime or whether she even had a
good relationship with Margaret. We only know that she showed up in the
court of Philippa some years later and we can therefore conclude that she was
much younger than we previously thought. Her appointment to the court could
have been how Margaret chose to care for an illegitimate daughter. Upon
whose urging would Philippa appoint Amy to court? I can think of no one
lobbying for such an appointment other than Margaret.
One other point needs to be addressed. If Amy was born after Pier's death,
then why did Margaret not marry the father of the child. So far as I can
determine, the king had to approve of Margaret's marriage if she were to get
her property and stay in the royal fold. If the father were an enemy of the
king, he would certainly not approve of it. As it was, he kept Margaret's
inheritance until she married someone who he did approve. Most such unwanted
children were indeed born in seclusion and then whisked away to a foster home
of a monastery. We simply do not know where Amy was at this point in time.
She did not reappear until she showed up in Philippa's court, so she could
well have been whisked away and brought back to the royal family upon the
insistence of her mother.
This is not a cut and dried and closed case, as I see it. That is why I urge
people to keep an open mind about this and that is why I felt it necessary
and important to publish Robert Todd's articles on the matter.
- Ken
Stewart Baldwin
Richardson) wrote:
>Thoroughly discredited?
Most certainly so. No supporting evidence plus compelling proof for
the opposite certainly adds up to thoroughly discredited.
>Actually, the option in question has been
>barely discussed, ...
Have you been living on Jupiter for the last few years?
[Anyway, thanks for the chuckle.]
>... other than to dismiss it out of hand.
It has not been dismissed "out of hand". It has been dismissed after
a meticulous investigation showed the theory to be ENTIRELY WITHOUT
MERIT.
>An open mind means considering all the options,
>even those which may seem out of the ordinary.
The options HAVE been considered, and the one you espouse had been
quite properly rejected. As I pointed out before, an open mind does
not require one to leave a theory on the table long after it has been
shown to be not worthy of serious consideration.
>If we keep an open mind and are collegial, I'm
>sure we will find our answers.
I'm not sure how to take that sentence, which seems open to
interpretation in various ways. I hope you are not suggesting that
people are being closed-minded and noncollegial simply because your
own pet theory on this matter is not being accepted as a feasible
theory (although I think people could not be blamed for interpreting
your remarks in that way, given the general tone of your comments on
this matter). And, of course, the last phrase in your sentence plants
the false suggestion that we have not yet found answers to the
important questions about Amy. In fact, we know quite a bit about
Amy's parentage. We know for sure that she was NOT Margaret de
Clare's daughter, and we know that she was the daughter of A man named
Piers de Gaveston, who with a very high degree of probability was THE
Piers de Gaveston (no other candidate being known), although the
evidence tying Amy to THE Piers is not so strong as the clear proof
that Amy was not a daughter of Margaret. The main unknown here is
that we don't know the identity of Amy's mother (other than the fact
the it wasn't Margaret).
>Also, less logic and more intuition might help
>us as well.
While I certainly appreciate the value of intuition in genealogy, I
find it appalling that you would suggest that we should use less logic
in genealogical arguments. Less logic is what allows crackpot
theories to get embalmed into the genealogical literature, from which
they then take on a life of their own through continuous dissemination
by the uninformed. Intuition is an important aspect of genealogical
research, because it quite often results in the consideration of
possibilities that had been previously overlooked. However, once
intuition has resulted in a new theory being put upon the table for
examination, good genealogical practice then demands that the theory
be examined in a logical manner, and rejected if the evidence clearly
shows the theory to be unfeasible. As valuable as intuition is, one
of the drawbacks of placing too much reliance on intuition is that one
can sometimes get so attached to a theory that one is reluctant to
abandon it, even after the evidence against it becomes overwhelming.
It takes discipline to let go of an attractive theory to which one has
devoted a considerable amount of time and effort, but it is something
that needs to be done if the logic of the situation demands it.
Stewart Baldwin
Stewart, Peter
> From: royala...@msn.com [mailto:royala...@msn.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2002 3:24
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: The de Gaveston descendents, a bottomless morass?
>
> <snip>
> An open mind means considering all the options, even those
> and are collegial, I'm sure we will find our answers. Also,
> less logic and more intuition might help us as well.
There is surely little logic here - if we all keep our minds open & our
attitudes collegial, there is still no possible guarantee that answers _can_
be found, so there's no basis for certainty about a happy outcome from all
the friendly vacuity you are asking for.
Also, we should be able to share logic since the grounds are objective and
commonly understood (not always in this newsgroup, however); but how are we
to become colleagues in intuition? Does this mean we should all accept one
person's aperçus on the subject? If so, my vote is for Paul Reed, who knows
what he is talking about.
Peter Stewart
Brad Verity
That's good to hear.
> I urge that everyone keeps an open mind about the maternity/paternity of Amy
> de Gaveston because it is a complicated affair and several quite different
> explanations could well be valid.
The fine makes it clear - Amie was daughter of Piers Gaveston. As has
been pointed out, the only Piers we know of who could be her father is
the Earl of Cornwall, Edward II's favorite. She could not be his
legitimate daughter by Margaret de Clare because Amie and/or her
daughter Alice de Driby did not inherit from Margaret on her death.
Thus the explanations are:
1) Amie was illegitimate daughter of Piers Gaveston - likeliest
explanation.
2) Amie was legitimate daughter of Piers Gaveston by a previous wife -
unlikely due to no evidence of a previous wife.
3) Amie was daughter of a different Piers Gaveston - unlikely due to
no evidence of another Piers Gaveston.
4) Amie was not a daughter of a Piers Gaveston at all - unlikely due
to the procedures of entering information in fines.
> Occam's razor must certainly be set aside
This is dangerous thinking and methodology, leading to many errors and
false descents.
> in such a case, as the complications and contradictions in the original
> documents cannot be explained by the simplest explanation.
Which original documents are complicated and contradictory?
> I am not fan of
> Mr. Occam anyway, as I seldom see the simplest explanation as being the
> correct one in a complex series of events.
Not surprising.
> Robert Todd's explanation of why Amy (or her daughter, if Amy died before
> Margaret) did not receive an inheritance and equal educational and marriage
> opportunities was because Amy was Margaret's bastard child.
Without any proof, and using evidence which has been shown on this
newsgroup, point-by-point, does not justify his conclusion.
> Douglas
> Richardson and Dr. Faris has also accepted this explanation in the past.
Plantagenet Ancestry is a publication that is worthwhile in many
respects, and invaluable as a secondary source for information on the
medieval English nobility and gentry, as it consolidates genealogy
from many published sources into a user-friendly format. But it is
not definitive.
> Simply put, if Amy were a bastard daughter, she would not show up as an heir.
Illegitimate children could not inherit property from their parents,
nor (as I recently learned) could the child of an illegitmate
individual inherit property from the illegitimate parent. Instead,
property had to be transfered using alternate methods (fines, deeds,
etc.).
> The problem is that she could not be an illegitimate daughter of Margaret and
> still not be Pier's legal daughter at the same time because the laws of the
> time stated that if a woman had an illegitimate child, it would be considered
> a legal and legitimate child of the husband unless the husband specifically
> disavowed the child. Thus, she would legally be Pier's daughter.
Correct.
> Should Amy be the daughter born in 1312, then she would have been accepted as
> a legal child of Piers by Piers himself -- even if she was another man's
> daughter. The child born on 1312 was celebrated by the king along with Piers
> himself.
Correct.
> The only other possibility is that she was conceived by another man after
> Pier's death.
She would not then have been known as Amie de Gaveston, nor would she
have been called "daughter of Petrus de Gaveston" in the 1334 Fine.
> This kind of illegitimacy (conceived after the death of the husband) would
> surely bar Amy and her daughter from an inheritance without any further legal
> determinations.
ANY illegitimacy barred the individual from inheriting.
> Certainly, it would affect her treatment so far as marriage
> and educational opportunities are concerned.
Not if the parent could help it. There was no law that stated an
illegitimate child could not be educated. And many illegitimate
children of medieval nobles made very advantageous marriages. This
has all been gone over before.
Piers was executed in 1312 in his 30s, which suggests that either Amie
was too young at the time for him to arrange a marriage for her, or
that the non-stop political influences that surrounded him since
Edward II assumed the throne prevented him from doing so.
> If she herself knew that she was
> an illegitimate daughter -- and she surely would have known in such a case,
Yes.
> as her mother remarried and she was old enough to know that Hugh was not her
> father -- then she must have realized that she could not be a legal heir of
> her mother, thus she would not pursue recognition as an heir.
There is no evidence that Margaret bore a child between 1312 and 1317.
We know of the second marriage (without royal license) and birth of a
child of Margaret's widowed sister Elizabeth de Burgh during the same
period, which suggests that a similar record would exist for Margaret.
> The business about Joan's birthdate is completely unrelated to Amy's
> legitimacy and maternity.
It should be, but unfortunately it is not. John G. Hunt, in his
original article in TAG in the '60s, made it a cornerstone of his
'Amie was daughter of Piers and Margaret' theory. It has continued to
be a cornerstone for the proponents of 'Amie is daughter of Margaret.'
> As a matter of fact, should Joan be born before
> 1312, then one would have to posit another daughter born in the 1312 time
> slot, because it could not have been Amy.
Correct.
> That girl would have has to die
> young.
Correct.
> There is no mention of such a death in the records, but that does not
> mean that it did not occur.
True, but it does mean the likeliest explanation is that it did not
occur.
> Joan may not have the child born in 1312,
> because the chronology of her being aged 15 in 1325 does not add up to a
> birth in 1312. We have to be open to the possibility of yet another daughter
> born that year, as it was certainly not Amy.
Until evidence stronger than an age given 20 years after the fact
surfaces (such as a document that demonstrates a daughter of Gaveston
and Margaret was alive prior to Jan. 1312, or evidence that shows a
daughter of the couple died young), the likeliest explanation is that
the age given was incorrect.
> If Amy were Margaret's daughter conceived after the death of Piers, there is
> the question of why Amy if called Amy de Gaveston instead of Amy de Clare.
> Margaret was known to call herself Margaret de Gaveston after the death of
> Piers.
When? In which document do we find her as "Margaret de Gaveston"?
What is your source for this?
> She also went by the title Countess of Cornwall.
Yes.
> There was no
> matriarchal name that Amy could have used other than de Gaveston. It was the
> only name available to her if her father was an unknown lover of Margaret de
> Gaveston.
Simply not true. She could have (and would have) used the name of her
father in this scenario.
> One can argue (and Robert Todd does argue this) that the name de Gaveston on
> the fine document represents the legal name that Amy carried through life,
> leading to her identification in the fine as a daughter of Piers, even though
> the immediate royal family knew that she was not his biological daughter.
This argument is pure speculation, nor does it even necessarily make
her daughter of Margaret de Clare. By this logic Amie de Gaveston
could have been the Anna Anderson of the 14th century. She could have
been a confused woman who decided it was to her benefit to claim to be
Piers Gaveston's daughter. In fact, I argue that my theory just now
is even more plausible than the 'Amie was illegitimate daughter of
Margaret de Clare' theory, as it explains why there is no documented
connection between Amie and Margaret.
> Each of us can make up out own mind as to whether this stretches the point to
> incredulity or not.
Yes, but clinging to an outlandish explanation when a much more
straightforward one exists, makes one lose credibility among your
peers, at the least.
> Remember, tough that contemporary documents such as the
> fine have been known to be in error regarding names and relationships.
Yes. But unless another document that states Amie was daughter of,
say, "William de Gaveston," surfaces, the likeliest explanation is
that the 1334 fine was accurate.
> [Douglas Richardson just posted such an error on Aug 28, 2002 under the
> heading: "CP Addition: Edward de Montagu's marriage to Alice of Brotherton."
> There Edward de Montagu's name was misrepresented in two legal documents. So
> much for the idea that these documents reflect the total reality of the
> situation.]
But it was also explained that Edward de Montagu had two older
brothers with the first names given in the two legal documents. The
matter warrants further research precisely because contradictory
documentation has been found.
Again, unless contradictory documentation surfaces, the likeliest
presumption is that the legal information in a given medieval document
is accurate.
> We might remember that Amy's daughter, Alice, held rights at Oakham,
> Margaret's dower manor. [This was addressed by John Parsons in THE
> PLANTAGENET CONNECTION, Summer 2001, p 41. ] Parsons concludes that Alice's
> rights at Oakham in no away implies kinship as it cannot be shown that Amy
> herself had any rights there.
Correct.
> Alice's rights, John Parsons believes, was
> simply an act of charity on the part of Margaret.
That is Mr. Parsons' speculation.
> Since it cannot be shown
> that Amy ever had any right there, we might conclude that Amy died before
> Margaret and Margaret gave rights to Amy's daughter after her mother's death.
That is your own speculation.
> In reality, this grant could have been because of kinship, but kinship is not
> necessary to explain Alice's holdings. It could have been given because Amy
> was Pier's illegitimate daughter and Amy had nothing to leave to her own
> daughter, so Margaret stepped as an act of charity, as John Parsons
> speculates.
If the known evidence can equally support two or more speculations, it
becomes fairly worthless as evidence of proof.
> Paul Reed has since discovered that de Dribney family had a 1/12
> knight's fee at Oakham and the Oakham rights can be explained as coming
> through Amy's husband and not Margaret at all.
Correct.
> To sum up: things may not be as simple as they appear.
But only hard evidence will ever prove it was less simple.
> Amy could have been a
> bastard daughter born to Margaret before her remarriage to Hugh.
She would not have been called Amie de Gaveston, or daughter of Petrus
in the 1334 fine, if that were the case.
> This would
> explain her unequal treatment when compared to Joan.
The easiest and likeliest explanation for Amie's unequal treatment
compared to Joan is that Joan was a niece of the King and Amie was
not.
> This would also explain
> why Margaret's daughter with Hugh was Margaret's only legal heir.
An illegitimate daughter of Margaret de Clare would not be returned as
an heir. But you cannot use this fact as evidence that an
illegitimate daughter existed. Your only piece of documented evidence
that supports your conclusion that Amie was Margaret's illegitimate
daughter is that Amie had the same surname as Margaret's first
husband.
Your case would be thrown out of medieval and modern courts.
> From
> Margaret's IPM, we know that most of the property she held was entailed and
> went back to the king.
We do? What in the IPM leads you to the conclusion that Margaret's
lands reverted back to Edward III in 1342?
> She was not allowed to distribute it to illegitimate
> children in her lifetime.
Depends on the way she obtained each of the manors and other
properties in her possession.
> That property which was not entailed would not go
> to Amy or her daughter is they were illegitimate.
True. An illegitimate child (and the child's issue) could not
inherit.
> We do not know if Amy
> received cash of other compensation in her lifetime or whether she even had a
> good relationship with Margaret.
From the evidence we have on both women, we have to do determine there
was no relationship at all between the two.
> We only know that she showed up in the
> court of Philippa some years later and we can therefore conclude that she was
> much younger than we previously thought.
Nope, we can't conclude that either. Amie first appears in the
records (so far) in 1332 or so. We do not know the reason for that.
Nor do we have any record concerning Amie that provides an age for
her. However, Piers Gaveston surrendered in May and was executed in
June 1312, so Amie could not be born later than 1312.
> Her appointment to the court could
> have been how Margaret chose to care for an illegitimate daughter.
This was not the practice of caring for illegitimate children of
nobles and near-royals in the 14th century. A damsel was a position
of familiarity and proximity to the Queen, which could lead to royal
patronage as it did in Amie's case with the grants of land to her for
life. However, there was no one in the 1330s who would consider
damsel of the chamber a position of honor.
> Upon
> whose urging would Philippa appoint Amy to court? I can think of no one
> lobbying for such an appointment other than Margaret.
If you are certain Margaret was behind Amie's position in Philippa's
household, provide at least a document that demonstrates Margaret de
Clare and Queen Philippa had any kind of relationship.
> One other point needs to be addressed. If Amy was born after Pier's death,
> then why did Margaret not marry the father of the child. So far as I can
> determine, the king had to approve of Margaret's marriage if she were to get
> her property and stay in the royal fold.
She was granted certain properties to enjoy (after 1314, I believe)
from the Cornwall estates with the provision she did not marry without
royal license. She was an important heiress at that point to the
Clare inheritance. However, Edward II could not prevent Margaret from
obtaining her rightful third of the Clare lands, even if she had
married without royal license. For proof of this, see the example of
the second marriage of Margaret's sister Elizabeth de Burgh to
Theobald de Verdun.
> If the father were an enemy of the
> king, he would certainly not approve of it.
Nor could he prevent it.
> As it was, he kept Margaret's
> inheritance until she married someone who he did approve.
Somewhat true. He did not order the partition of the Clare
inheritance until both Margaret de Clare and Elizabeth de Burgh were
married to knights whom he trusted.
> Most such unwanted
> children were indeed born in seclusion and then whisked away to a foster home
> of a monastery.
Examples?
> We simply do not know where Amy was at this point in time.
True.
> She did not reappear until she showed up in Philippa's court
Reappear? She never appears at all until 1332.
> , so she could
> well have been whisked away and brought back to the royal family upon the
> insistence of her mother.
Or Philippa could have brought her over with her from Hainault, or
Amie's mother could have been a damsel in the royal household
pre-1312-1332, or Gaveston's kinsmen the Caillaus could have brought
her over from Gascony. There are many scenarios, none of which can be
proven with the evidence we have at this time. Though some can be
considered likelier than others.
> This is not a cut and dried and closed case, as I see it. That is why I urge
> people to keep an open mind about this and that is why I felt it necessary
> and important to publish Robert Todd's articles on the matter.
You also have a vested interest in keeping the debate alive.
Cheers, ------Brad
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 8/28/02 7:35:58 PM, bat...@hotmail.com writes:
<< You also have a vested interest in keeping the debate alive. >>
That made me laugh, Brad. Thank you for the levity.
Here are a few more points for you to pick apart.
<<Which original documents are complicated and contradictory? >>
Just who was born in 1312 is a problem in the 'Joan-is the-only-child'
theory. The contemporary source in Latin specifically says she was 15 in
1325, making her born in 1310 -- two years before 1312. Undeniably, there
was a child born in 1312. If this were not Joan, it certainly could not be
Amy, as Amy would have been Piers and Margaret's legal heir.
Either the 1325 document is wrong, or there were more Gaveston children.
Splitting hairs -- splitting heirs ; >) -- about whether her age was an
approximation or whether anyone actually knew the age was a fairly futile
debate, as a relative of Joan's who knew her age was on the investigating
jury. He was there because he did know her age and the law required at least
one person who knew her age to be present.
One cannot argue that Piers only had one daughter. Although only one was
mentioned in the chronicles, the fine mentions Amy as another. Therefore, we
know Piers has at least two daughters. At least one birth was missed and
unheralded by the chroniclers of the time. If they missed one, they can
certainly miss another. If Joan were born in Ireland earlier, then she could
be the one whose birth was missed in the chronicles. If another child was
born in 1312, then her demise would be easy to miss, since de Gaveston was
already dead, disgraced and considered a traitor.
<<If the known evidence can equally support two or more speculations, it
becomes fairly worthless as evidence of proof. >>
Yep, and that is the problem here. The proof is worthless. Two or more
speculations can easily be made. We cannot be certain of Amy's
paternity/maternity because it is not proved. One or more scenarios can
explain the known facts -- thus it is unproved. That is what I have said all
along.
<<The easiest and likeliest explanation for Amie's unequal treatment compared
to Joan is that Joan was a niece of the King and Amie was not. >>
Not so. Gaveston was a favorite of Edward II and his child would be
celebrated by him as long as he was alive. Besides, neither Piers nor Edward
II lived long enough to treat Amy any way at all -- especially if she were
not born until around 1325. After Edward came Isabella -- who hated Gavestons
-- and Edward III was quite a way off.
<<Your case would be thrown out of medieval and modern courts.>>
So would yours. Uncertainty is the only certainty.
Since Paul Reed showed that the Dribneys has a knight's fee in Oakum that was
probably transferred to Amie's daughter, Alice, there would be reason for
Amie to marry a Dribney. Margaret and Piers held Oakham and knew the
Dribneys. The property went back to the king when Piers lands were seized and
was later transferred to Margaret and Hugh and the "heirs of their bodies".
Amy was specifically and purposely left out by this arrangement -- even if
she were Margaret's daughter -- as was Joan.
<<There is no evidence that Margaret bore a child between 1312 and 1317. We
know of the second marriage (without royal license) and birth of a child of
Margaret's widowed sister Elizabeth de Burgh during the same period, which
suggests that a similar record would exist for Margaret.>>
Perhaps Margaret learned from her sister's experience.
You answered this yourself when you said, "She was granted certain properties
to enjoy (after 1314, I believe) from the Cornwall estates with the provision
she did not marry without royal license."
If Margaret wanted to keep her place in society and live the life to which
she had become accustomed, then she had to play ball with the powers that be
at the time -- Edward III, Isabella, Roger Mortimer, Edward III, and
Philippa. She could not bear and raise a bastard child or marry without the
king's permission and keep her wealth and position.
"There was no matriarchal name that Amy could have used other than de
Gaveston. It was the only name available to her if her father was an unknown
lover of Margaret de
Gaveston. " - KHF
<<Simply not true. She could have (and would have) used the name of her
father in this scenario. BV>>
"Amy could have been a bastard daughter born to Margaret before her
remarriage to Hugh." -KHF
<<She would not have been called Amie de Gaveston, or daughter of Petrus in
the 1334 fine, if that were the case. BV>>
You simply cannotugh 23-year-old women do not like to live without sex, if I
remember my youth correctly. Since sex can produce an unwanted child, the
numbers of ways these pregnancies are dealt with are as infinite as there are
occasions. If Amy were Margaret's daughter and the father was not brought
forward, her name would be de Gaveston, just like her mother.
<<Your only piece of documented evidence that supports your conclusion that
Amie was Margaret's illegitimate daughter is that Amie had the same surname
as Margaret's first
husband. >>
I do not have a conclusion. There are simply two explanations for the events
that occurred -- one being that Amy was Pier's illegitimate child, the other
being that she was Margaret's illegitimate daughter who later in life bore
the name de Gaveston.
<<Piers Gaveston surrendered in May and was executed in June 1312, so Amie
could not be born later than 1312. BV>>
That would not be true if Gaveston was not the father. She could have been
born anywhere between mid-1313 and 1317 when she married Hugh. Somewhere in
the middle would be a good estimate -- say 1315.
<<If you are certain Margaret was behind Amie's position in Philippa's
household, provide at least a document that demonstrates Margaret de Clare
and Queen Philippa had any kind of relationship. BV>>
They were related through Edward III by blood. Margaret was one of the
richest women in the realm. They certainly knew who one another were. Did
Margaret Thatcher know Bill Gates personally? Probably not. Could she meet
with him if she wanted? Of course.
If Amy were Pier's illegitimate daughter by another woman than Margaret, then
why did she show up in Philippa's court at all? Piers' memory was not popular
in that court and Margaret would have had no reason to care about her,
assuming she was the fruit of her husband's infidelity. Edward III was
married to Philippa in 1328. If Amy were born around 1315, before Margaret
married Hugh, she would have been 15 when Edward took a queen. That is about
the right age to go into the queen's service, but who cared enough to send
for her? That is a very good question, as only Margaret would lobby Philippa
to bring her into the court and she would probably have no reason to do that
for Pier's bastard daughter.
< ... clinging to an outlandish explanation when a much more straightforward
one exists, makes one lose credibility among your peers, at the least. >>
Honesty is more important that credibility. Honesty is an inward quality;
credibility is a value judgment made by others. What difference does it make
to me if others find me incredible? I think I'm incredible too. ; > )
I do not believe that value judgments are necessary for things that cannot be
proven, or that one needs to accept one idea as better than another. I see
no proof that Amy was the daughter of Piers that cannot be countered by
another scenario making Amy the daughter of Margaret. We are still learning
new facts about this case. Things argued by John Parsons a few years ago
have become passe. New facts and insights have emerged. More will likely
emerge in the future.
This has been fun -- but it is enough, is it not?
- Ken
Todd A. Farmerie
> In a message dated 8/28/02 12:35:49 AM, farm...@interfold.com writes:
>
> << I must ask again, why do you reject the direct testimony of this document?
>
> Let us be clear. I do not reject the direct testimony of the fine document.
You HAVE to reject it to argue that Amy was daughter of anyone
but Piers, which you do.
> I urge that everyone keeps an open mind about the maternity/paternity of Amy
> de Gaveston because it is a complicated affair and several quite different
> explanations could well be valid.
Only one of which has any evidence whatsoever supporting it. All
the others reject the only direct evidence, without reason.
> Occam's razor must certainly be set aside
> in such a case, as the complications and contradictions in the original
> documents cannot be explained by the simplest explanation.
Why can Amy being daughter of Piers not explain the documents?
The sum total of the pertinent documents show several instances
of her being called Amy de Gaveston, one calling her daughter of
Petrus de Gaveston, and several (some the same as above) showing
her a member of Philippa's household? Where is the
contradiction? Where the confusion? For all of your
inventiveness, you have failed to produce any complications or
contradictions with respect to this data, or the obvious
explanation of it.
> I am not fan of
> Mr. Occam anyway, as I seldom see the simplest explanation as being the
> correct one in a complex series of events.
In most cases where a document says X is daughter of Y, X was
actually daughter of Y. It usually _is_ that simple. Any
interpretation that flies in the face of taking a source at face
value requires more than just a whim. You need a specific reason
to doubt the document.
> Robert Todd's explanation of why Amy (or her daughter, if Amy died before
> Margaret) did not receive an inheritance and equal educational and marriage
> opportunities was because Amy was Margaret's bastard child.
Yes. He took a document that says Amy is daughter of Piers, and
used it to conclude that Amy was not daughter of Piers. He
presented no reasoning for this that has withstood critical analysis.
> Douglas
> Richardson and Dr. Faris has also accepted this explanation in the past.
So what? Is that good enough for you? Have these two scholars
never made any errors, such that all any of us need to know is
that they both gave it a 'thumbs up'?
> Simply put, if Amy were a bastard daughter, she would not show up as an heir.
No! Don't start with some other possibility, and try to explain
how it could also be true. Start with the reason the document
saying Amy is daughter of Piers is subject to doubt.
> Remember, tough that contemporary documents such as the
> fine have been known to be in error regarding names and relationships.
> [Douglas Richardson just posted such an error on Aug 28, 2002 under the
> heading: "CP Addition: Edward de Montagu's marriage to Alice of Brotherton."
> There Edward de Montagu's name was misrepresented in two legal documents. So
> much for the idea that these documents reflect the total reality of the
> situation.]
Yes, documents can be wrong, but it is completely inappropriate
to set aside, without reason, a document with nothing to
contradict it, just so you can think up other scenarios which
have no support whatsoever. You might have noticed that Douglas
Richardson presented reasons to think his documents were wrong -
not just another scenarios just in case the documents are wrong.
The truth is that the vast majority of documents are right.
Why do you think this one isn't?
Oh, and the documents DO reflect the total reality of the
situation - even when you think a document is wrong, this
conclusion must be based on other documents. In any kind of
research, the conclusions should flow from the evidence. It is
simply bass ackwards to start with some other scenario, and then
see how one can twist the only evidence so that it doesn't seem
to be as damning.
> To sum up: things may not be as simple as they appear.
And you reach this conclusion solely because 'sometimes documents
are wrong', but you have presented no reason whatsoever to think
that _this specific document_ is wrong, nor, were one to reject
this document, has any source been identified that even suggests
a connection between Margaret and Amy.
> Amy could have been a
> bastard daughter born to Margaret before her remarriage to Hugh. This would
> explain her unequal treatment when compared to Joan.
But if the fine is accurate, and Amy was not daughter of
Margaret, there is nothing to explain, and no reason has been
presented to suggest that the fine is not accurate.
> This would also explain
> why Margaret's daughter with Hugh was Margaret's only legal heir.
But if the fine is accurate, and Amy was not daughter of
Margaret, there is nothing to explain, and no reason has been
presented to suggest that the fine is not accurate.
> From
> Margaret's IPM, we know that most of the property she held was entailed and
> went back to the king. She was not allowed to distribute it to illegitimate
> children in her lifetime. That property which was not entailed would not go
> to Amy or her daughter is they were illegitimate.
But if the fine is accurate, and Amy were not daughter of
Margaret, then there would be no reason for Margaret to give land
to Amy, and no reason has been presented to suggest that the fine
is not accurate.
> We do not know if Amy
> received cash of other compensation in her lifetime or whether she even had a
> good relationship with Margaret.
But if the fine is accurate, and Amy were not daughter of
Margaret, then there would be no reason for Margaret to give
money to Amy, and no reason has been presented to suggest that
the fine is not accurate.
> We only know that she showed up in the
> court of Philippa some years later
Do we know this, though. I mean, it only appears in contemporary
documents, and documents can be wrong. Maybe this document was
wrong, and Amy was actually a fictional invention entered in the
books to hide the embezzlement from the royal treasury. You see,
isn't it fun to just throw out any document you want and come up
with a more juicy alternative. Well, it may be fun, but it ain't
history.
> and we can therefore conclude that she was
> much younger than we previously thought.
We can only conclude that she _need not_ be as old as previously
thought. You go too far (again).
> Her appointment to the court could
> have been how Margaret chose to care for an illegitimate daughter.
Or, it could have had nothing whatsoever to do with Margaret.
> Upon
> whose urging would Philippa appoint Amy to court? I can think of no one
> lobbying for such an appointment other than Margaret.
Oh? You have the inspiration to concoct such a complex and
unlikely scenario, and yet now you can't think of any other way
Amy could have gotten into Philippa's household? Was everyone in
Philippa's court a bastard daughter of Margaret? I suspect that
most weren't, and yet they manages to be accepted there none the
less.
> One other point needs to be addressed. If Amy was born after Pier's death,
> then why did Margaret not marry the father of the child.
You are not satisfied with the house of cards you have
constructed so far, so why not add another layer of fantasy.
OK, so after all this, we are back to the original questions.
Again, here is the evidence:
She is called Amy de Gaveston.
She is called daughter of Petrus de Gaveston
She was a member of Philippa's household.
Her daughter, Alice de Driby held rights in Oakham apparently
formerly held by the Dribys.
As I asked above, what is the conflict, what is the confusion,
what is the contradiction among these items? The simplest
explanation of these is that Amy was actually daughter of a Piers
de Gaveston. Why does this explanation fail to account for the
evidence, or contradict it?
> This is not a cut and dried and closed case, as I see it.
By your criteria, name a relationship that is cut and dried.
(Remember, all documents are possibly wrong, so you will have to
find one supported by something more reliable than contemporary
evidence.)
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> In a message dated 8/28/02 7:35:58 PM, bat...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> <<Which original documents are complicated and contradictory? >>
>
> Just who was born in 1312 is a problem in the 'Joan-is the-only-child'
> theory.
RED HERRING - you yourself conclude -
> If this were not Joan, it certainly could not be
> Amy, as Amy would have been Piers and Margaret's legal heir.
So, what original documents, ACTUALLY RELATING TO AMY, are
complicated and contradictory?
> <<If the known evidence can equally support two or more speculations, it
> becomes fairly worthless as evidence of proof. >>
>
> Yep, and that is the problem here. The proof is worthless. Two or more
> speculations can easily be made. We cannot be certain of Amy's
> paternity/maternity because it is not proved. One or more scenarios can
> explain the known facts -- thus it is unproved. That is what I have said all
> along.
This is a silly distinction. There are ALWAYS alternative
scenarios. Hell, this falls within the 1000+ year time period
that some people suggest did not exist at all - that was forged
in its entirety, and any document that suggests otherwise is also
forged. Does this mean that any event between 400 and 1400 is
unproved, since complete invention can equally explain the whole
period? No, of course not. Scenarios must be evaluated for
their likelihood, and theories which require contradicting
existing documents, without having any documentary support
themselves, are safely rejected.
> <<The easiest and likeliest explanation for Amie's unequal treatment compared
> to Joan is that Joan was a niece of the King and Amie was not. >>
>
> Not so. Gaveston was a favorite of Edward II and his child would be
> celebrated by him as long as he was alive. Besides, neither Piers nor Edward
> II lived long enough to treat Amy any way at all -- especially if she were
> not born until around 1325. After Edward came Isabella -- who hated Gavestons
> -- and Edward III was quite a way off.
In what way, exactly, does any of this contradict the statement
that the easiest explanation is that Joan was the King's niece
(and the next one's cousin) and Amy was not? (By the way, do you
realize you make Amy a damsel of the chamber at the age of 7?)
> Since Paul Reed showed that the Dribneys has a knight's fee in Oakum that was
> probably transferred to Amie's daughter, Alice, there would be reason for
> Amie to marry a Dribney.
Since Driby was at court, there is no reason to suggest an Oakham
connection, nor does Oakham favor your model any more than Occam.
> Margaret and Piers held Oakham and knew the
> Dribneys. The property went back to the king when Piers lands were seized and
> was later transferred to Margaret and Hugh and the "heirs of their bodies".
> Amy was specifically and purposely left out by this arrangement -- even if
> she were Margaret's daughter -- as was Joan.
Please keep your arguments straight. Remember, you are arguing
that Amy was illegitimate daughter of Margaret. Thus it is
pointlessly distracting to suggest reasons other than
illegitimacy for Amy not being an heir, and it is ridiculous to
suggest that an illegitimate daughter would have been
"specifically and purposely left our". An illegitimate child was
already out, by definition, and the only act that would
"specifically and purposely" be directed at her would be to
_include_ her in an entail, and even that would be legally iffy.
This is another red herring.
> "There was no matriarchal name that Amy could have used other than de
> Gaveston. It was the only name available to her if her father was an unknown
> lover of Margaret de
> Gaveston. " - KHF
>
> <<Simply not true. She could have (and would have) used the name of her
> father in this scenario. BV>>
>
> "Amy could have been a bastard daughter born to Margaret before her
> remarriage to Hugh." -KHF
>
> <<She would not have been called Amie de Gaveston, or daughter of Petrus in
> the 1334 fine, if that were the case. BV>>
>
> You simply cannotugh 23-year-old women do not like to live without sex, if I
> remember my youth correctly. Since sex can produce an unwanted child, the
> numbers of ways these pregnancies are dealt with are as infinite as there are
> occasions. If Amy were Margaret's daughter and the father was not brought
> forward, her name would be de Gaveston, just like her mother.
First, you have not provided the requested evidence that Margaret
used this toponym. Second, the sex drive of a 23 year old female
is insufficent evidence to support your statement that an
illegitimate daughter of Margaret would have adopted the Gaveston
name. Yet another red herring (on today's menu, seafood delight).
> I do not have a conclusion. There are simply two explanations for the events
> that occurred -- one being that Amy was Pier's illegitimate child, the other
> being that she was Margaret's illegitimate daughter who later in life bore
> the name de Gaveston.
Don't forget the possibility that she arose, fully formed, from
the head of Queen Philippa. How could you not consider that one,
as it has as much supporting it as your Margaret theory. After
all, they would want to cover up her unnatural genesis, as it
might be considered heretical, so they said she was daughter of
Piers, because no one would admit to being daughter of the hated
man if it weren't really the case, so in so choosing, they were
sure no one would question it. Likewise, it would explain why
Philippa would have admitted her to court.
> If Amy were Pier's illegitimate daughter by another woman than Margaret, then
> why did she show up in Philippa's court at all?
You could ask this of any woman at Philippa's court, and in most
cases, there would not be enough data with which to reach a
conclusion. Does that mean they were all illegitimate daughters
of Margaret.
> Piers' memory was not popular
> in that court and Margaret would have had no reason to care about her,
> assuming she was the fruit of her husband's infidelity.
> . . . but who cared enough to send
> for her? That is a very good question, as only Margaret would lobby Philippa
> to bring her into the court and she would probably have no reason to do that
> for Pier's bastard daughter.
Getting your theories mixed up again, I see. If Amy were
daughter of Piers, then Margaret is out of the picture entirely.
It is ridiculous to argue about Margaret's feelings for Amy
under circumstances that do not involve Margaret AT ALL.
This is the rough equivalent of saying, "Am I rich or not? If I
were rich, I could afford to buy the New York Yankees. If I were
not rich, I couldn't possibly buy the Yankees. Therefor, since
the latter is impossible, I must be rich."
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> In a message dated 8/28/02 7:35:58 PM, bat...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> <<Which original documents are complicated and contradictory? >>
>
> Just who was born in 1312 is a problem in the 'Joan-is
the-only-child'
> theory.
RED HERRING - you yourself conclude -
> If this were not Joan, it certainly could not be
> Amy, as Amy would have been Piers and Margaret's legal heir.
So, which original documents, ACTUALLY RELATING TO AMY, are
complicated and contradictory?
taf
Douglas Richardson
Let's examine your language:
thoroughly discredited
not worthy of serious consideration
ENTIRELY WITHOUT MERIT (cap's even)
Have you been living on Jupiter for the last few years?
appalling
continuous dissemination by the uninformed
the theory to be unfeasible
We know for sure that she was NOT Margaret de Clare's daughter
one is reluctant to abandon it, even after the evidence against it
becomes overwhelming.
End of quotes.
In spite of the perjorative language in your post, good research
methodology demands that we keep all the options on the table. As a
highly trained specialist with many years of research experience under
my belt, I find it best to keep an open mind, especially when it
comes to matters as complex as the Gavaston puzzle.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
sba...@mindspring.com (Stewart Baldwin) wrote in message news:<3d6d4aaf...@news.mindspring.com>...
Reedpcgen
period, in Feudal Aids where she is accounted for Oakham.
There are dozens of references to her, but she is always called Countess of
Cornwall or widow of Piers de Gaveston.
Paul
Douglas Richardson
This is the correct way to calculate Joan de Gavaston's age. She
starts at zero at birth, just as you and I did when we were born.
Joan de Gavaston
born in period Jan. 1309/Jan. 1310
Jan.1310/11 - age 1
Jan.1311/12 - age 2
Jan.1212/3 - age 3
Jan. 1313/4 - age 4
Jan. 1314/5 - age 5
Jan. 1315/6 - age 6
Jan. 1316/7 - age 7
Jan. 1317/8 - age 8
Jan. 1318/9 - age 9
Jan. 1319/20 - age 10
Jan. 1320/21 - age 11
Jan. 1221/2 - age 12
Jan. 1322/3 - age 13
Jan. 1323/4 - age 14
Jan. 1324/5 - age 15
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Renia <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<3D6A54C8...@ntlworld.com>...
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 8/28/02 11:36:14 PM, farm...@interfold.com writes:
<< You are not satisfied with the house of cards you have constructed so far,
so why not add another layer of fantasy. >>
This is not a new layer of fantasy. It has always been a part of the
discussion, though minor because Robert Todd did not truly comprehend that
Amy's daughter Alice would have been returned as an heir had Amy been born in
1312. His intuition told him something was amiss in the facts. He learned and
researched as he argued. That he might have made some mistakes along the way
is not surprising at all. He had to play devil's advocate in a field that
was weighted heavily against him, arguing with half a dozen people at a time
and dealing with an avalanche of information. No working person has the time
to keep up with this flood of criticism and differing opinions.
I have published views on both sides of the fence. John Parson's original
arguments in _The Plantagenet Connection_, Summer 2000, though dated now in
certain parts, was a wonderful and definitive statement on Amy's parentage
and addressed practically all or the information that was later argued.
Unfortunately, John has not kept up with the forum discussions and is far
behind on the new discoveries or observations.
I must still balance the discussion some way and try to present both sides to
keep the readers informed of what has happened recently. The problem is that
the real progress in this discussion is nothing more than dogmatic statements
from people who 'believe' in 'established facts'. Brad Verity's comments,
though he belongs to the Reed/Parsons camp, were the most convincing, but
Brad is now becoming dogmatic as well because everyone is quite tired of
this. I cannot blame him for that. Chris Phillips and Paul Reed were the only
ones that added new and solid documentary materials, as usual.
<<OK, so after all this, we are back to the original questions. Again, here
is the evidence: She is called Amy de Gaveston. She is called daughter of
Petrus de Gaveston She was a member of Philippa's household. As I asked
above, what is the conflict, what is the confusion, what is the contradiction
among these items? The simplest explanation of these is that Amy was
actually daughter of a Piers de Gaveston. Why does this explanation fail to
account for the evidence, or contradict it? >>
Certainly, the simplest explanation is that AMY IS the illegitimate daughter
of Piers de Gaveston. However, the simplest explanation still may not be the
correct one in this case. There are other very REASONABLE possibilities
without visiting the unreasonable, frustrated lines of reasoning from
fantasyland.
Let us assume she was Pier's daughter with a maid in the court -- an
imaginary relationship that most think might be close to the truth. Where was
she until she was in the service of the queen? Did she live in Edward's
court and stay there with her mother through Isabella's reign? That is still
quite doubtful. I still believe that Isabella would never permit it. There
are no records of expenses or mention of such a child being present in court.
This would surely be grist for the rumor mill and the chroniclers. EXTRA,
EXTRA: BASTARD CHILD OF PIERS DE GAVESTON STILL LIVING IN THE ROYAL COURT.
EXTRA, EXTRA. GET YOUR CHRONICLE HERE.
Let us assume that she was brought over from Gaveston or somewhere else to
serve in the court. Who in the world would have brought Piers accidental
daughter into Philippa's court? Why would Philippa want the daughter of a
national disgrace serving her?
Joan was protected by the king with education and placement in a monastery.
Her life would have been in danger had she not had royal protection in those
infant and early childhood years, as a daughter of Piers could easily be the
target of hate and the object of kidnapping and ransom or worse. Since the
king protected Joan, daughter of his favorite, why is there no record of him
protecting Amy, another daughter of his favorite? She would have been in the
same danger as her sister if she were the daughter of Piers -- regardless of
who her mother was. Obviously, Amy was hidden away and protected by
anonymity. Imagining that Piers was the actual biological father raises as
many or more questions than imagining Margaret to be the mother without Piers
as father.
When you have only a few facts to work with, conclusions can be wrong. The
facts are few indeed. They were listed by Todd Farmerie:
1) "She is called Amy de Gaveston."
2) "She is called daughter of Petrus de Gaveston."
3) She was a member of Philippa's household."
The missing fact that Todd left out is the birth in 1312. That became
significant because the contemporary documents did not agree. Either there
was not a daughter born in 1312 (which makes the chronicles wrong) or the age
of Joan was misstated on another contemporary document that checked into
whether lands were misused. When it was pointed out that the law required
someone who knew the age to be present and that person was a relative of
Joan's, the interpretation of the documents was opened to questioning and
speculation. Additional research added quite a bit of valuable information,
but it centered on Amy being the child born on 1312 and was doomed from the
start, as Amy could not be born in 1312. It is essential to know this.
<<But if the fine is accurate, and Amy were not daughter of Margaret, then
there would be no reason for Margaret to give money to Amy, and no reason has
been presented to suggest that the fine is not accurate. >>
Todd Farmerie dogmatically repeats and repeats again the main contention that
one piece of paper filed with the court answers every question and must be
taken literally and at face value. It is the true believer approach. The
Bible says God made the world in seven days, so there is no evolution. No
doubt this is the simplest and easiest reasoning, but it still could be that
it is not correct because we do not know the entire picture.
What we have been doing is to try to reconstruct the larger picture. One
cannot do that if one dogmatically hangs on to a 'fact' that could be
misleading. That, of course, does not mean ALL documents are wrong or ALL
relationships are in error in ALL documents. Farmerie is trying to ridicule
the other possibilities out of existence with ridiculousness, much as Brad
Verity did yesterday. "Maybe this document was wrong, and Amy was actually a
fictional invention entered in the books to hide the embezzlement from the
royal treasury. -TAF "
We have only a few documents with which to deal and they have internal errors
of conflict -- the Chronicles and the document stating Joan's age are in
error. If in the process of reconciling these documents we find that another
document could be in error as well, there should be no surprise there. Amy
was not mentioned by the chronicles. They obviously missed her birth. No
record of her existed until the mid 1330s when she was mentioned as being in
the service of Queen Philippa. Finally, she shows up in a fine identified as
a daughter of Piers de Gaveston, a famous traitor who was extremely unpopular
with the nobility and the people who had been executed many years before.
Amy's total absence from the records is not easily explained if she was a
daughter of the famous Piers. For her to appear many years later as a
daughter if Piers is also suspect.
-Ken
Brad Verity
> Here are a few more points for you to pick apart.
Most of the points require correction, but from the look of it,
they've all been gone over before. So, no, thank you, to the picking
apart offer.
> I do not have a conclusion. There are simply two explanations for the events
> that occurred -- one being that Amy was Pier's illegitimate child, the other
> being that she was Margaret's illegitimate daughter who later in life bore
> the name de Gaveston.
This is where we disagree. By giving both of these equal weight, you
do the truth a disservice. One is based on evidence and historical
facts as we know them. The other is formed from thin air.
> < ... clinging to an outlandish explanation when a much more straightforward
> one exists, makes one lose credibility among your peers, at the least. >>
>
> Honesty is more important that credibility. Honesty is an inward quality;
> credibility is a value judgment made by others. What difference does it make
> to me if others find me incredible? I think I'm incredible too. ; > )
What is your honest belief then, Ken? That the possibility that Amie
was Margaret's daughter is as likely as the possibility that Amie was
Gaveston's daughter? Because the evidence shows that this is not so.
So how honest is it to deny the evidence?
> I do not believe that value judgments are necessary for things that cannot be
> proven, or that one needs to accept one idea as better than another.
And I believe that evidence requires one to favor the most
straightforward scenario. I don't believe that speculating without
supportive evidence is a productive path to truth.
> I see
> no proof that Amy was the daughter of Piers that cannot be countered by
> another scenario making Amy the daughter of Margaret.
Again, I ask why do you choose to see it like this? Because it is
your choice - the facts and evidence have all been discussed and laid
out. My hunch is that you hope the simplest conclusion is wrong,
specifically because it will show that those advocating the simplest
conclusion (and thus arguing against you) will be proven wrong.
> We are still learning
> new facts about this case. Things argued by John Parsons a few years ago
> have become passe. New facts and insights have emerged. More will likely
> emerge in the future.
Yes, I hope so - but primary documents, please. Not theories based on
speculation that is made simply because it can also explain or
discount one of the facts.
> This has been fun -- but it is enough, is it not?
It has sometimes been fun, sometimes been frustrating, and almost
always been educational, for me.
Yes, it is certainly enough for now.
Cheers, -------Brad
Douglas Richardson
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: royala...@msn.com [mailto:royala...@msn.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2002 3:24
> > To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> > Subject: Re: The de Gaveston descendents, a bottomless morass?
> >
> > <snip>
> > An open mind means considering all the options, even those
> > which may seem out of the ordinary. If we keep an open mind
> > and are collegial, I'm sure we will find our answers. Also,
> > less logic and more intuition might help us as well.
>
> There is surely little logic here - if we all keep our minds open & our
> attitudes collegial, there is still no possible guarantee that answers _can_
> be found, so there's no basis for certainty about a happy outcome from all
> the friendly vacuity you are asking for.
>
Dear Peter ~
Having watched the flow of events and discovery in medieval
genealogical circles over several decades, I've observed that the
processes of mutual collaboration, collegiality and free association
foster the kind of environment that leads to better scholarship and a
better understanding of the medieval period. This is a real and
tangible good, not a vacuity.
Reedpcgen
have called herself,
but NOTHING, NOT ONE CITATION that I have seen to a study or case of a real
medieval person.
Before arguments keep flying around about what naming paterns were, based on
intuition,
as there has been a frequent call by Robert Todd, Douglas Richardson and others
for original documents, let's see at least ONE EXAMPLE of a firl who takes the
surname of her mother's former husband (who is not her father).
I only ask for one.
Paul
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 8/28/02 7:35:58 PM, bat...@hotmail.com writes:
<< By this logic Amie de Gaveston could have been the Anna Anderson of the
14th century. She could have been a confused woman who decided it was to her
benefit to claim to be Piers Gaveston's daughter. In fact, I argue that my
theory just now
is even more plausible than the 'Amie was illegitimate daughter of Margaret
de Clare' theory, as it explains why there is no documented connection
between Amie and Margaret. >>
I truly respect original thought and this is certainly an original thought
(though surely off the wall) -- that Amy could have been an impostor trading
in on the name of Piers de Gaveston and claiming that she was his daughter.
The problem is that she is referred to as Amie de Gaveston much earlier in
the household records as damsel of Queen Philippa. Then we are back to why in
the world would the queen infect her court with a known traitor's daughter.
Please, don't tell me it was because of Christian charity or humanitarian
ethics. I would be forced to vomit. An illegitimate of daughter of Piers de
Gaveston in the queen's court would be a bit like a Romanoff son in the
soviet or the son of a famous Tory in the Continental Congress.
Being a de Gaveston daughter in those times was a liability, not an asset.
Joan, at least, was older and the acknowledged daughter of Margaret, an
established, rich relative of the king who arranged the Gaveston marriage. If
Amy were only a de Gaveston and no relation to Margaret, the name and memory
of her father would surely work against her, not for her. If she was born on
Pier's lifetime (and she would have been if he was her father) she would have
been at least 15 when Isabella took power and at least 18 when Edward III
came to power. She could have been even older, as this assumes the very
latest 1312 birth date for Pier's mistress. We may want to add three, four or
five years to that date and then Amy would be in her twenties and single when
she entered the queen's service. As we know, this was not the medieval way.
She was too old not to be married.
If Amy were Margaret's daughter, born around 1315, she would have been about
12 when Isabella took power. She would have been about 15 when Edward III
ended Isabella's influence in 1330. This would be fitting if she were
Margaret's daughter, raised in seclusion in a foster setting, then introduced
to Philippa's court with Margaret's influence. Under these conditions,
Christian charity and humanitarian sympathy can well play a part in her
appointment to the court. She would be the illegitimate daughter of a rich
heiress who could not inherit her mother's property. She would be an
unrefined relative of the new king, Edward III, who was deprived of a proper
education. She would need to learn some royal refinement and a marriage would
have to be made for her.
This makes much better sense than her being the illegitimate daughter of a
loathsome memory. Who would have given a tinker's damn for her if she were
Piers' bastard child?
Her mother probably would have cared, but we do not know who that would be.
If she were a court servant, she could not have stayed long in the court. If
she the child of some anonymous woman, how could she ever prove her father's
was really Piers? Edward II might have cared for a child of his favorite, but
he made no special provisions for her and there is no records that he spend
any money oh her. Margaret would have had no reason to care at all and
plenty of reason to resent her. Isabella would have hated her and might have
burned her on the spot if she has a chance. I doubt that she would have been
Amie-able. : > )
- Ken
Renia
year of my life (even though I am aged only 49.) The terminology for "in the umpteenth year of
his/her life" is common parlance in historical documents. Being "in the umpteenth year of life"
is mathematically not the same as being "age umpteen". There is a year's difference. This is
what I have been at pains to point out in as simple a fashion as possible, but you still don't
understand it. Someone just born is, indeed, age 0, but they are in the first year of life. A
14-year-old is in the 15th year of life.
Now do you understand?
I'm not making this up for the hell of it. It is something you had better get your head round
because you will come across it time and time again and it could muck up your calculations.
Renia
Vickie Elam White
>If
>Amy were only a de Gaveston and no relation to Margaret, the name and
memory
>of her father would surely work against her, not for her. If she was born
on
>Pier's lifetime (and she would have been if he was her father) she would
have
>been at least 15 when Isabella took power and at least 18 when Edward III
>came to power. She could have been even older, as this assumes the very
>latest 1312 birth date for Pier's mistress. We may want to add three, four
or
>five years to that date and then Amy would be in her twenties and single
when
>she entered the queen's service.
Gee, ya think? Aside from the fact that Piers died in 1312, I think we
can safely assume that he did not conceive a daughter on an infant or
toddler. Adding three, four or five years to that date is ridiculous. Try
adding 10 at the very minimum. A woman's body is a wonderful thing,
but it is extremely rare to give birth before then.
I'm not saying I agree with your agrument, by the way. Just come on - at
least be a bit more realistic.
Vickie Elam White
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 8/29/02 11:36:28 AM, bat...@hotmail.com writes:
<< What is your honest belief then, Ken? That the possibility that Amie was
Margaret's daughter is as likely as the possibility that Amie was Gaveston's
daughter? Because the evidence shows that this is not so. So how honest is
it to deny the evidence? >>
Hello Brad,
See my last post for an answer. I have been fence riding on this issue for a
long time. Robert Todd had many things wrong with his arguments and a lot of
time and space went to straighten up his incorrect conclusions. His
insistence that Amy was born in 1312 brought everyone over to the other camp
-- including me. I figured it was surely a lost argument.
Then someone suggested that I look at this imagining that Amy was Piers'
daughter with the same kind of detachment that I used to imagine that she was
Margaret's daughter. I was surprised, frankly, to find that considering her
Pier's daughter has more holes and hard to answer questions that imagining
her to be Amy's daughter.
We have to imagine, as the evidence shows nothing at all. It is our minds
that sort the evidence into conclusions -- and these conclusions have been
premature and based upon convoluted explanations. There are few facts and
lots of conclusions.
Everyone keeps saying we have been over this before, but we have been over
this before with a firm mindset that Todd was wrong and the fine statement
had to be right.
Now I can see that mindset is probably incorrect. I agreed that Amy was not
Margaret's daughter for a very long time. Now that I think about her being
Pier's daughter, I see that does not work. It refreshes my reasoning to be
open and consider -- that is, imagine -- both possibilities, something that
none of the participants in this thread have ever been able to do.
- Ken
Carpenter, Charles
>The problem is that she is referred to as Amie de Gaveston much earlier in
>the household records as damsel of Queen Philippa. Then we are back to why
in
>the world would the queen infect her court with a known traitor's daughter.
>Please, don't tell me it was because of Christian charity or humanitarian
>ethics. I would be forced to vomit. An illegitimate of daughter of Piers de
>Gaveston in the queen's court would be a bit like a Romanoff son in the
>soviet or the son of a famous Tory in the Continental Congress.
The whole point is that we do not know who Amy's mother was. She could very
well have been a close friend of a close friend of the Queen -- and this
would likely be much more relevant to the Queen (or the Queen's director of
personnel -- who's girlfriend she might have been) than the long out-of-date
politics surrounding the father Amy likely never really knew.
Amy's presence in the Queen's household allows us to exclude as possible
mothers most of the then population of the world. We cannot, however,
exclude on this basis virtually any woman with whom Piers might have come in
contact since puberty.
Ken: I'm not sure everyone in the Continental Congress can stand up to this
test either. That, of course, would be an OT line of inquiry . . .
*****************************************************
This electronic mail transmission contains confidential
information intended only for the person(s) named.
Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure
by another person is strictly prohibited.
*****************************************************
CMc...@aol.com
the mother of Amy --- and for good reason.
The sorrow she may have felt is far more important than our own concern over
the mother. Can't we let it go?
Charlie McNett
Brad Verity
I'm encouraged that some progress is being made here.
KHF...@aol.com wrote in message news:
> Certainly, the simplest explanation is that AMY IS the illegitimate daughter
> of Piers de Gaveston.
This is the first I've read you say this. It's really all that I was
hoping to convey, and I'm glad for the acknowledgement.
> However, the simplest explanation still may not be the
> correct one in this case.
Yes, but it is the one that should be given the most weight until new
evidence surfaces to be examined. And it should be the established
one that other scenarios are weighed against.
> There are other very REASONABLE possibilities
> without visiting the unreasonable, frustrated lines of reasoning from
> fantasyland.
Other reasonable possibilities need to be backed up by evidence,
documentation, facts, etc. Otherwise the simplest explanation still
carries the most weight.
> Let us assume she was Pier's daughter with a maid in the court -- an
> imaginary relationship that most think might be close to the truth. Where was
> she until she was in the service of the queen?
Presumably growing up. According to John Parsons' studies into the
structure of medieval royal households (and Eleanor of Castile's in
particular), the children of household staff were often raised in the
household of the royal offspring and entered into service to the
offspring when they reached the appropriate ages for it.
> Did she live in Edward's
> court and stay there with her mother through Isabella's reign? That is still
> quite doubtful. I still believe that Isabella would never permit it.
As I speculated in an earlier post - Queen Isabella may not have had a
choice in the matter, assuming this scenario of Amie's youth is
accurate. And Isabella's fondness for Amie's mother may have
outweighed her dislike of Gaveston.
> There
> are no records of expenses or mention of such a child being present in court.
None have surfaced, so we need to proceed with the facts and records
we do have.
> This would surely be grist for the rumor mill and the chroniclers. EXTRA,
> EXTRA: BASTARD CHILD OF PIERS DE GAVESTON STILL LIVING IN THE ROYAL COURT.
> EXTRA, EXTRA. GET YOUR CHRONICLE HERE.
The knowledge would likely not have spread beyond the court and those
with ties to Gaveston. News did not travel as fast or as widespread
in that time. And really, how much does the average present-day
American (let's say) know or care about the staff of the Governor's
mansion in his/her state? The average 14th century Englishman
(including chroniclers) would not know the names of the members of
Queen Philippa's household unless they were well within the court
circle.
> Let us assume that she was brought over from Gaveston or somewhere else to
> serve in the court. Who in the world would have brought Piers accidental
> daughter into Philippa's court? Why would Philippa want the daughter of a
> national disgrace serving her?
This is a version of the 'Queen Isabella as She-Devil' argument,
except with Philippa. We only know that she did have Amie de Gaveston
as a chamber damsel. Perhaps Amie had some of her father's charm and
endeared herself to the young Queen and King? Perhaps, if she grew up
with her mother serving in the royal household, Edward III knew Amie
from a young age and was fond of her. Edward III and Queen Philippa
were both born after Gaveston's execution and never knew him.
> Joan was protected by the king with education and placement in a monastery.
> Her life would have been in danger had she not had royal protection in those
> infant and early childhood years, as a daughter of Piers could easily be the
> target of hate and the object of kidnapping and ransom or worse.
Possibly, but Joan would have the advantage over Amie of kinship to
the royal family for protection. Amie would have to rely on
Gaveston's relatives and adherents (and the VITA EDWARDI SECUNDI tells
us there were some supporters of his whom the barons feared after his
execution). Among that crowd she could be used as a rallying point
for political mischief, or abducted and married by an ambitious knight
eager to use her to gain Edward II's favor (though she could bring the
knight no lands, being illegitimate). We also know, thanks to
Hamilton's biography, that Edward II was generous and supportive of
Gaveston's household staff (now displaced and out-of-work after his
execution). He took many of them into the royal household, and it
could be at this point that Amie and/or her mother entered the safety
of royal protection, so that an illegitimate daughter of Gaveston was
under control and not at large.
But, again, this is all only speculation. Further research needs to
be done to try and find evidence to support it.
> Imagining that Piers was the actual biological father raises as
> many or more questions than imagining Margaret to be the mother without Piers
> as father.
But it has the invaluable advantage of being supported by a 1334
document.
> When you have only a few facts to work with, conclusions can be wrong. The
> facts are few indeed. They were listed by Todd Farmerie:
>
> 1) "She is called Amy de Gaveston."
> 2) "She is called daughter of Petrus de Gaveston."
> 3) She was a member of Philippa's household."
>
> When it was pointed out that the law required
> someone who knew the age to be present and that person was a relative of
> Joan's, the interpretation of the documents was opened to questioning and
> speculation.
But it has also been pointed out, if I understand correctly, that law
required a relative be on the jury only of an Inquisition Post Mortem
(IPM), in which it was vital to determine exactly who the next heir of
the just deceased individual was, and how old that heir was, in order
for the deceased person's property to be properly inherited.
This 'relative of the individual' law was NOT required of an
Inquisition Ad Quod Damnum (IQD), which was the type undertaken in
1332 regarding Joan de Gaveston.
> Todd Farmerie dogmatically repeats and repeats again the main contention that
> one piece of paper filed with the court answers every question and must be
> taken literally and at face value. It is the true believer approach. The
> Bible says God made the world in seven days, so there is no evolution. No
> doubt this is the simplest and easiest reasoning, but it still could be that
> it is not correct because we do not know the entire picture.
Todd Farmerie is repeating because until this latest post you were
arguing that all possibilities regarding Amie's parentage were equally
valid. Now that you agree that the fact of it as relayed in the 1334
fine is the simplest explanation, he might agree with you that the
fine does not provide every answer (and how can it?), and that we do
not know the entire picture.
> What we have been doing is to try to reconstruct the larger picture. One
> cannot do that if one dogmatically hangs on to a 'fact' that could be
> misleading. That, of course, does not mean ALL documents are wrong or ALL
> relationships are in error in ALL documents. Farmerie is trying to ridicule
> the other possibilities out of existence with ridiculousness, much as Brad
> Verity did yesterday. "Maybe this document was wrong, and Amy was actually a
> fictional invention entered in the books to hide the embezzlement from the
> royal treasury. -TAF "
What I (and, I believe, Todd) was trying to point out is that a
speculative possibility (such as 'Amie was invented to hide
embezzlement' or 'Amie was the illegitimate daughter of Margaret de
Clare') that has no documentation to back it up (and neither one does)
can not, and should not, be given the same weight and consideration as
the explanation(s) that do have documented support.
> We have only a few documents with which to deal and they have internal errors
> of conflict -- the Chronicles and the document stating Joan's age are in
> error. If in the process of reconciling these documents we find that another
> document could be in error as well, there should be no surprise there. Amy
> was not mentioned by the chronicles. They obviously missed her birth. No
> record of her existed until the mid 1330s when she was mentioned as being in
> the service of Queen Philippa. Finally, she shows up in a fine identified as
> a daughter of Piers de Gaveston, a famous traitor who was extremely unpopular
> with the nobility and the people who had been executed many years before.
> Amy's total absence from the records is not easily explained if she was a
> daughter of the famous Piers. For her to appear many years later as a
> daughter if Piers is also suspect.
No one is saying the facts are easily explained (I certainly don't
feel that way). But what I am saying is that discounting the few
documents (or one of them specifically) and replacing them with a
theory that has no other documentation to back it up, is even worse.
Cheers, ------Brad
Renia
> In a message dated 8/29/02 11:36:28 AM, bat...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> << What is your honest belief then, Ken? That the possibility that Amie was
> Margaret's daughter is as likely as the possibility that Amie was Gaveston's
> daughter? Because the evidence shows that this is not so. So how honest is
> it to deny the evidence? >>
>
> Hello Brad,
>
> See my last post for an answer. I have been fence riding on this issue for a
> long time. Robert Todd had many things wrong with his arguments and a lot of
> time and space went to straighten up his incorrect conclusions. His
> insistence that Amy was born in 1312 brought everyone over to the other camp
> -- including me. I figured it was surely a lost argument.
>
> Then someone suggested that I look at this imagining that Amy was Piers'
> daughter with the same kind of detachment that I used to imagine that she was
> Margaret's daughter. I was surprised, frankly, to find that considering her
> Pier's daughter has more holes and hard to answer questions that imagining
> her to be Amy's daughter.
Depends which Piers she was the daughter of. I suspect she was daughter of a
different Piers Gaveston. I don't recall her stated father, Piers Gaveston, being
stated also as (sometime) Earl of Cornwall, which one might expect.
>
> We have to imagine, as the evidence shows nothing at all.
If the evidence shows nothing at all, then we can't start imagining truths. The
evidence shows Amy was daughter of one Piers Gaveston. Full stop. What else is
there to imagine? Save to wonder whether a) that evidence is false or b) whether
there was another Piers Gaveston around. For a) we would have to ask why the
evidence given might be false. For b), we would have to search for another Piers
Gaveston, in England or on the Continent.
> It is our minds
> that sort the evidence into conclusions --
No. It's the evidence which sorts our minds into conclusions, not the other way
around.
> and these conclusions have been
> premature and based upon convoluted explanations. There are few facts and
> lots of conclusions.
Amy was daughter of one Piers Gaveston. Stated fact. See above.
> Everyone keeps saying we have been over this before, but we have been over
> this before with a firm mindset that Todd was wrong and the fine statement
> had to be right.
Never mind mindsets. This has nothing to do with mindsets. Except, perhaps,
yours, which is less that of an historian which one would expect from the editor
of an historical journal.
> Now I can see that mindset is probably incorrect. I agreed that Amy was not
> Margaret's daughter for a very long time. Now that I think about her being
> Pier's daughter, I see that does not work.
Again, it depends wether the Piers concerned is the one which everyone has heard
of, or whether he is an hitherto unknown Piers.
> It refreshes my reasoning to be
> open and consider -- that is, imagine -- both possibilities, something that
> none of the participants in this thread have ever been able to do.
It does do to have an open mind when considering theories. That's what historians
do. But when the theory is blown away by the evidence or by the lack of
supporting evidence, then the mind has to shut to that particular theory.
> - Ken
Renia
Richard Smyth
> >. . . we are back to why in the world would the queen infect her court
with a known traitor's daughter.
I believe some work needs to be done in establishing the facts which this
puzzle presupposes.
You are assuming that if Amy were Piers, the earl of Cornwall's daughter,
then it is unlikely that she held a position at the court after his death:
The assumpition may be true, but it is contradicted by the following
considerations: (1) The father of Piers, Pier's brother and Pier's
half-brother had had positions in the king's court before Pier came to the
attention of anyone at the court. Amy, as niece and granddaughter of
individuals in the king's service, was not at all out of place as damsel to
a queen. (2) Other members of Pier's family retained their standing in the
royal household after Piers' death. I quote from J. S. Hamilton's "Piers
Gaveston: Earl of Cornwall" [p. 102]. "Arnaud-Guillaume de Marsan [Piers'
brother] did return to England at least once, but the bulk of his career was
spent in Gascony, where he supported the king of England faithfully and well
until 1324, when his name last appears in the extant records. Several
members of the Caillau family remained prominent throughout the reign.
Foremost among them was Gaveston's nephew Bertrand, who was dispatched to
the pope soon after the favorite's death and continued to appear in the
records into the reign of Edward III. Arnaud Caillau was admitted into the
king's household as a simple bachelor in March 1313, and in 1316 a
Fort[ander] Caillau is found in the king's service." (3) You suppose that
the favorable treatment of Amy is a puzzle that requires explanation.
Should we be puzzled about the survival of the effigy of Piers's father in
Winchester cathedral?
(4) You suppose that the power to appoint attendants to the queen resided
solely in the queen. Is that assumption supported by evidence? If either
of the kings who---as we know---bestowed favors on Amy's Gaveston relatives
after the death of Piers had wanted to favor her also, do we know that
either queen could or would have prevented it?
Your are assuming that Amy was the daughter of a Piers de Gaveston, and
that that Piers was the earl of Cornwall:
These assumptions may be true, but neither can be accepted without evidence:
(1) Hamilton believes she was a Gaveston (and that would be difficult to
dispute) but in his genealogical chart [p. 26] he shows her as
the sister of Piers and daughter of Arnauld de Gabaston. In remarks
preceeding the passage just quoted [p. 102] Hamilton says she was probably
either Piers' sister or his niece. He does not argue the case in his text,
but, since he has studied the household accounts of Piers de Gavaston and
since someone must have paid for the upbringing of a future damsel to the
queen, Hamilton must not have found evidence there of any direct dependency
on Piers. The fact that Piers is the name given as the father in one
record is probative, but not conclusive. I daresay half the people on this
list can produce a death certificate in which an informant who was a
relative of the deceased gave incorrect information about the name of the
deceased person's parents (or of the age of the deceased). (2) Walter
Phelps Dodge in his "Piers de Gaveston: A Chapter of Early Constitutional
History"[p.13 and appendix] says: ". . . the only document which gives the
full name of [Piers'] father---the "[italics] Polistorie MS. del Eglise de
Christ de Caunterbyre [which Dodge's appendix quotes and references as Harl.
MS 636]---makes the name of father and son identical." I quote Dodge not
because I believe he is reliable, but only to illustrate the point that, if
not with Harl. MS 636 then with Dodge, there is an example of an author who
calls Piers' father Piers. That mistake (I do assume it is a mistake) could
have occurred in the document that is giving rise to the puzzle about the
identity of Amy de Gaveston. Finally, (3) we are dealing with a man who
held in his own person the discretionary power of the king of England and
who was put to death for his abuse of that power. I would not assume that
we know the names of all the relatives whom Piers attracted to England.
Since we know that his family recyled names (he and Arnaud-Guillame had a
half-brother Guillame-Arnauld de Gaveston), I don't believe we can assume
that he did not have an uncle, nephew or cousin named Peter.
Before I undertook to explain a puzzle that depends on these assumptions, I
would seek evidence that the assumptions are true.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
sm...@nc.rr.com
Todd A. Farmerie
> In a message dated 8/28/02 11:36:14 PM, farm...@interfold.com writes:
>
> << You are not satisfied with the house of cards you have constructed so far,
> so why not add another layer of fantasy. >>
>
> This is not a new layer of fantasy.
In supplying a motive for her marriage, you are certainly adding
speculation to your speculation.
> <<OK, so after all this, we are back to the original questions. Again, here
> is the evidence: She is called Amy de Gaveston. She is called daughter of
> Petrus de Gaveston She was a member of Philippa's household. As I asked
> above, what is the conflict, what is the confusion, what is the contradiction
> among these items? The simplest explanation of these is that Amy was
> actually daughter of a Piers de Gaveston. Why does this explanation fail to
> account for the evidence, or contradict it? >>
>
> Certainly, the simplest explanation is that AMY IS the illegitimate daughter
> of Piers de Gaveston.
OK, progress. There is no confusion, contradiction or question
about these documents, and the simplest explanation DOES explain
all of the data.
> However, the simplest explanation still may not be the
> correct one in this case. There are other very REASONABLE possibilities
There are ALWAYS other reasonable possibilities if one is willing
to ignore the actual evidence.
> Joan was protected by the king with education and placement in a monastery.
> Her life would have been in danger had she not had royal protection in those
> infant and early childhood years, as a daughter of Piers could easily be the
> target of hate and the object of kidnapping and ransom or worse.
Making this up as you go along, are you? There is no evidence
whatsoever that she was sent for protection, rather than
education, nor that her life would have been in danger, nor the
object of kidnapping and ransom. You have been reading too much
Walter Scott.
> Since the
> king protected Joan, daughter of his favorite, why is there no record of him
> protecting Amy, another daughter of his favorite?
Setting aside the unsubstantiated claim of protection, this is
smoke and mirrors. We all, every one of us, seem to agree that
Joan was heiress of the marriage of Piers and Margaret, the
King's sister, and Amy was not. Like bad chicken, you keep
bringing this up, again and again.
> Obviously, Amy was hidden away and protected by
> anonymity.
So, based on the fantasy that Edward was protecting Joan, now it
is somehow obvious that Edward was protecting Amy by anonymity,
as if obscurity isn't sufficient enough an explanation. How many
bastard daughters of Plantagenet nobleman can you name? How many
of them appear in any source? Yet you somehow think the
obscurity of Amy must imply enforced anonymity?
> When you have only a few facts to work with, conclusions can be wrong. The
> facts are few indeed. They were listed by Todd Farmerie:
>
> 1) "She is called Amy de Gaveston."
> 2) "She is called daughter of Petrus de Gaveston."
> 3) She was a member of Philippa's household."
>
> The missing fact that Todd left out is the birth in 1312.
This COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AMY. This has been over again and
again. Look, here you go and say -
> as Amy could not be born in 1312. It is essential to know this.
(Actually this is not true - Amy could not be the child born to
Margaret in 1312 - she could, for example, have been born to some
other woman.)
If we are going to now list every historical fact from this time
period, whether they have anything to do with Amy or not, this is
going to take forever.
> <<But if the fine is accurate, and Amy were not daughter of Margaret, then
> there would be no reason for Margaret to give money to Amy, and no reason has
> been presented to suggest that the fine is not accurate. >>
>
> Todd Farmerie dogmatically repeats and repeats again the main contention that
> one piece of paper filed with the court answers every question and must be
> taken literally and at face value.
It is the ONLY piece of paper we have for her parentage, and
there is absolutely no reason not to think it is true. None of
the suggested alternatives have one single shred of evidence to
suggest them as possibilities, let alone sufficint reason to
prefer them to the direct and uncontested statement in a
contemporary legal document.
> It is the true believer approach. The
> Bible says God made the world in seven days, so there is no evolution.
Oh, don't be silly. Darwin did not just sit back and say
"sometimes holy texts are wrong, so I think I will propose an
alternative to Biblical creation" - he had evidence that directly
conflicted with it.
> No
> doubt this is the simplest and easiest reasoning, but it still could be that
> it is not correct because we do not know the entire picture.
We never know the entire picture, for any relationship. Your
pedigree must have one name on it - I can think of numerous
alternative scenarios regarding your birth, so because other
possibilities exist (milkman, kidnapping, accidentally swapped by
the hospital) then you must keep an open mind, and not be
dogmatic about it.
> What we have been doing is to try to reconstruct the larger picture. One
> cannot do that if one dogmatically hangs on to a 'fact' that could be
> misleading.
Every 'fact' could be misleading. Your criteria destroy any
opportunity to reach conclusions.
> That, of course, does not mean ALL documents are wrong or ALL
> relationships are in error in ALL documents.
No, but if you are free at any time to say, "I don't like the
answer found in this document, so I will invent an alternative,
NO RELATIONSHIP IS SAFE from your ingenuity.
> We have only a few documents with which to deal and they have internal errors
> of conflict -- the Chronicles and the document stating Joan's age are in
> error.
Why do you keep mentioning Joan when the argument is about Amy?
The Amy documents have NO internal errors or conflicts. You are
manufacturing conflict by introducing Joan's age, which even you
admit is irrelevant to Amy. It is pure sleight of hand.
> Amy's total absence from the records is not easily explained if she was a
> daughter of the famous Piers. For her to appear many years later as a
> daughter if Piers is also suspect.
Her absence is not easily explained, period. That is the case
for any event or events having no referring documents to provide
evidence. It is a fact that Amy does not appear until 1332 (or
whatever the year is). This fact, though, is neutral, as any
possible scenarios so far mentioned could encompass such a
period. You use it to argue she wasn't daughter of Piers, but
she would be not more likely to pass unnoticed if she was
illegitimate daughter of Margaret.
As we cannot be certain about this relationship because you can
invent an alternative scenario, name for me a relationship that
is certain, for which no alternatives (whether they contradict
the contemporary data or not) can be imagined.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> An illegitimate of daughter of Piers de
> Gaveston in the queen's court would be a bit like a Romanoff son in the
> soviet or the son of a famous Tory in the Continental Congress.
Just to show you where such appeals to incredulity get you, the
brother of the last emperor of China was a member of the Peoples'
Congress, and the (first) Adams administration did have reputed
Tories as members. I guess that makes an illegitimate daughter
of Piers in Queen Philippa's court (a queen with no personal or
political baggage associated with Piers) not that far fetched at all.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> We have to imagine, as the evidence shows nothing at all.
No, the evidence shows her to be daughter of Piers. You are
arguing IN SPITE of the evidence. There is nothing wrong with
this, in principle, but it requires some documentary basis - in
fact, to favor a version in contradiction to the evidence it
requires a higher burden of proof than to favor the version
supported by the evidence. The problem is that all that supports
the alternative is unsupported inuendo.
taf
Douglas Richardson
I believe I've correctly calculated Joan de Gavaston's approximate
birth date from her age at death. I also checked the published
abstract of the original document to make sure of the wording in the
inquisition. The abstract of the inquisition plainly says Joan de
Gavaston was "of the age of 15 years" at the time of her death. I
asked several reputable and highly trained British specialists to
interpret the wording for me here at the Family History Library.
They all agreed with my interpretation, not your's. They say it means
Joan de Gavaston was 15 years old at the time of her death. It does
not mean she was in her 15th year as you allege.
When you have a moment, I suggest you send off a cordial post to Dr.
Cunningham at the PRO and ask him to check the wording of the original
document. I think you'll find that the original document reads that
Joan was of the age of 15 years "and more" ("et amplius" in Latin).
This is standard phraseology in medieval documents. We need to
depend on the original documents, not our opinions for answers.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda doesn't cut it.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Renia <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<3D6E66FF...@ntlworld.com>...
Reedpcgen
>
>Dear Stewart:
[snip]
Doug, then you go on to take many snippets of language out of context. That is
not collegial, and is pejorative. .
When Stewart replied, "Have you been living on Jupiter for the last few years?"
It was to your statement: "Actually, the option in question has been barely
discussed,"
Stewart's amazement, given the number of detailed posts on this matter over th
last few years is completely understandable. You are acting as if we have a
clean slate, that no weighted evidence has been considered, etc. It may not
agree wit hthe initial hypothesis you published, and you may not like it or
agree with it, but discussion has indeed been made. Your use here of the
phrase "barely discussed" does take one's breath away.
Much has actually been accomplished, and set to rest, and if you look at the
number of intelligent participants of this forum who also have had years of
experience who are able to see Stewart's points, you may begin to comprehend
there is a reason for it.
>In spite of the perjorative language in your post, good research>methodology
demands that we keep all the options on the table.
>
This statement, along with the statement that we should rather rely on
intuition than logic, at this point, is absurd, if you actually apply it.
(Whose intuiton MINE?)
Keeping an open mind "demands that we keep all the options on the table"?
So, because the author of the VCH of Oxford concluded that Ada de Chaumont was
a mistress of King Henry, and you followed her suggestion to conclude that Ada
must be Countess Ida (when you were posting that you had determined her
identity), we should STILL keep this "on the table," even though Ray Phair
proved that Countess Ida was the wife of the Earl of Norfolk, and Ada de
Chaumont was still living a widow years after the Countess had married the Earl
of Norfolk?
You say we can put nothing away, or to the side until more documentation
surfaces, and that we are closed-minded and non-collegial if we do not agree
with your position and conlcude something different?
That is indeed not collegial, is perjorative language, and very close-minded,
in my opinion. If you are keeping your mind open, and each side on the table,
you will weigh evenly the stance that Amie was daughter of Piers de Gaveston
with your claim she was illegitimate daughter of Margaret, rather than
dismissing it, won't you?
Paul
Renia
We're talking at cross-purposes here. I don't know the wording of the inquisition, but I was
suggesting that if the wording translated as "in her fifteenth year", then that makes her born in
1311, not 1310, much closer to the 1312 year we know Piers and Margaret's daughter was born.
But if the wording has been translated by specialists as "of the age of 15 years", then I agree that
makes her born in 1310, not 1311, but still not that far out.
The cross-purposes, below, was not because I was trying to explain "in her fifteenth year" as a
general issue, not specifically targeted at Joan or computations of her age.
As a separate argument, however, the inquisition was several years after her death, and whoever
declared her age on the inquisition may have made an error. I have seen more modern death
certificates, for example, where the age given was as much as 15 years out. Today, we live in
close-knit families where we see each other regularly. But I couldn't tell you how old each of my
individual nieces and nephews are. I would have to work it out, either from the year in which I know
they were born, or work it out in relation to when my sons were born. I have calendars, diaries,
computers and FamilyTreeMaker to help me.
Joan would have likely been sent away as a child to live in another household and have very little
contact with some of her relatives. It would not be difficult for Joan's relative to be in error in
ascertaining her age.
Douglas Richardson
I'm fully aware that inquisitions are not always the best indicator of
age. They are often off by a year or two, sometimes more. Joan de
Gavaston's inquisition merely suggests she was born "about" 1309/10.
The operative words here are "suggests" and "about."
Regardless, I wouldn't rely on any one document for anything in this
period. The Edward de Montagu marriage agreement and marriage
settlement documents are proof of that. The clerks didn't get
Edward's name right in either document, although he was marrying the
granddaughter of the king. These documents give us cause for pause,
when considering the overall accuracy of the records in this period.
That is why I urge that any one document has to be viewed in the
context of all available documents relating to any one given person or
historical event. That includes the 1334 fine involving Amy de
Gavaston.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Renia <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<3D6F2B13...@ntlworld.com>...
> Dear Douglas,
Reedpcgen
Piers. Are you suggesting that Piers had a brother >also named Piers?
Otherwise, on what basis do you question the >direct testimony of a legal
document?
Though that was directed to someone else, I'd like to emphasize two points that
may not be entirely clear, but should be taken into consideration.
There is no record of an earlier Piers in the Gabaston family. Piers was the
name of the Earl of Cornwall's MATERNAL uncle, who was more prominent that
those in the Gabaston line. This would make it less likely that there would be
another Piers de Gabaston at that period (cousin or uncle on the father's
side).
The other point is, the 1334 document which names Amie as daughter of Piers de
Gaveston was a
FINAL CONCORD -FEET OF FINES.
There were many ways to convey land, but this was the most secure way, the
reason being, it was a JUDGMENT rendered in court before royal justices. It
tookand extra effort and extra expnse to do it.
Those who compare this to OTHER types of documents, and the testamentary weight
the evidence that this type of document held at that period,
are even more confused than those who have not differentiated between the
process and requirements for an inquisition post mortem and an inquisition ad
quod damnum, or who have confused proofs of age as something done for dead
people.
Paul
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 8/29/02 7:36:25 PM, sm...@email.unc.edu writes:
> Before I undertook to explain a puzzle that depends on these assumptions, I
> would seek evidence that the assumptions are true.
> <<Your are assuming that Amy was the daughter of a Piers de Gaveston, and
that that Piers was the earl of Cornwall:
You are assuming that if Amy were Piers, the earl of Cornwall's daughter,
then it is unlikely that she held a position at the court after his death:>>
Some very good information in this post. Thank you. - Ken
cerber...@gmail.com
> I agree too We don't know of Amy was born in France of another Petrus either.
> It was thought at first that she was a niece of the famous Piers and that
> could be the case as well. I am certainly not trying to prove she was the
> daughter of Margaret ... let Robert Todd show is the documents that limit the
> de Clare inheritance to the heirs of Hugh and Margaret. That is my point.
>
> In a message dated 8/26/02 3:35:15 AM, ren...@ntlworld.com writes:
>
> << I agree. We don't know how wide the Gaveston clan was in England (or
> France)
> at this time. There could have been several cadet branches, or unrelated
> families of this name roaming around Europe at the time, and a man called
> Piers could have belonged to any one of them. Not all such Gavestons could
> have had royal connections, or be noted in the known archives, but one branch
> could have produced an Amie in England and disappeared without trace. >>
Hi
I know this is a very old post but was wondering if there is a specific DNA group or project that is looking at the genetic relatedness (YDNA) of Gaveston descendants. That is the broader family of Piers De Gaveston.
Regards
Cameron
taf
>
> I know this is a very old post but was wondering if there is a specific
> DNA group or project that is looking at the genetic relatedness (YDNA)
> of Gaveston descendants. That is the broader family of Piers De Gaveston.
taf