Amy de Gavaston: A fresh look at an old problem
Leo van de Pas
What blatant commercialism----
"I have developed a new theory, I am not
going to tell what. Buy my book if you
want to know". How nice to know he knows
John G. Hunt personally. Talking about
grandstanding. When certain books come out,
yes, it is a great service to let people
know it is available (I have never done
this about my books, how many titles? I think
about ten) but for how many months
have we now been told this book is coming out?
Still we don't know when it is available.
However, keep up the sales pitch, even if
commercialism is off topic. By the way, where
is our self-appointed 'off-topic' guardian?
Leo van de Pas
PS. How many theories have been discussed?
1.Amy is the legitimate daughter of Pierre
and Margaret de Clare,
2.Amy is Pierre's daughter by a prior marriage
3.Amy is Pierre's illegitimate daughter
4.Amy's Pierre is not the Pierre who married
Margaret de Clare
Under those circumstances, yes, I am curious
what the 'new theory' is. And, yes, instead
of playing the 'clever merchant' it should
have been mentioned, instead of this 'clever
dick' action : if you want to know, you have
to buy the book.
PPS. Jan Keus, I agree, every now and again
criticism is warranted, but not when questions
are asked. I don't believe there are 'stupid
questions', only stupid or nasty answers.
If the person asking knew, they wouldn't ask.
At 05:31 AM 6/18/99 GMT, you wrote:
>Just a brief note to state that I worked on the Amy de Gavaston problem this
>past week and came up with a suitable theory which I think solves the
matter of
>Amy's identity. I set out to prove or disprove the existing theories under
>discussion. However, after I reviewed the evidence and the findings of my
own
>research, I ended up developing an all new theory which is not among any
of the
>ones previously discussed on the board. I've since discussed the matter with
>John G. Hunt (who I know personally) and David Faris. Both men think I could
>be right. David Faris has decided to publish my theory in the 2nd
edition of
>his book, Plantagenet Ancestry, which is scheduled to go off to the
printers in
>a matter of one or two days. As such, I encourage all those interested in
>the Amy de Gavaston matter to get a copy of the book when it comes out. I
>still have not had a chance to review the ancestry of Amy's husband, John de
>Driby. However, I can say that the evidence is clear that John de Driby was
>not a legitimate descendant of Joan (de Tateshall) de Driby. As such, John
>loses any legitimate link he might have possessed to baronial, comital and
>royal ancestry, which ancestry is alleged in Ancestral Roots by
Weis-Sheppard.
>If anyone wishes to discuss the Gavaston-Driby matter on the phone, please
feel
>free to call me at (480) 814-0221. All for now. Best always, Douglas
>Richardson
>
>
Dcrdcr4
Francisco Antonio Doria
>"I have developed a new theory, I am not
>going to tell what. Buy my book if you
>want to know". How nice to know he knows
>John G. Hunt personally. Talking about
>grandstanding. When certain books come out,
>yes, it is a great service to let people
>know it is available (I have never done
>this about my books, how many titles? I think
>about ten) but for how many months
>have we now been told this book is coming out?
>Still we don't know when it is available.
I do fully agree with you. This is not the Advertising Channel for
Genealogy Addicts. We are here to share information, not to lurk behind
the mail barrage and then step out, `huh, huh, I've got what you're
looking for - but you'll have to pay for it.'
Sorry, I'm not conversant with the world of American genealogy - but is
Mr. Richardson serious? I'm asking that because of this last - casual -
remark/offer of his and because of that - weird? absurd? - discussion on
`Alice' vs `Adelais' or whatever...
chico
Francisco Antonio Doria
Leo van de Pas
>
>I wished you'd quit beating the bush
-------As I have said before, and no doubt
need to say again "Douglas Richardson doesn't
know his own language", it is my second, and
even I know the saying is "beat about the bush",
look it up in a dictionary, mine tells the
meaning is 'to go round about anything, to evade
coming to the point'.
and say what you really mean. If you
>recall, I posted my phone number so ANYONE who wanted could talk to me about
>Amy de Gavaston. That includes you.
Oh dear,
Douglas Richardson lives in Arizona,
Chico in Brazil, and I live in Australia.
When we communicate by e-mail, why give
the phone as only option?
I am neither weird nor absurd if I choose
>not to publish original research on the board which is in the process of
being
>published elsewhere. That's fairly standard procedure in this business,
Chico.
Do I understand the book is called
"Amy de Gaveston, all is revealed"?
Or is Amy de Gaveston a last minute
addition? This I understand from your
previous 'commercial'. If you want to
be effectively 'commercial' you should
have given us a 'teaser', for instance
reveal all about Amy de Gaveston. If that
is good, then so should be the other 478
or how many pages your book has. As you play
so coy about Amy de Gaveston/Gavaston,
are we in for a disappointment? And is it
therefor you only 'entice/advertise'?
>
>
>Yes, I know Mr. Hunt personally and have visited him in his home in Florida.
>Rather than criticize Mr. Hunt on the internet, I did what no one else was
>willing to do. I went straight to the horse's mouth. I asked him about his
>earlier Amy de Gavaston articles and how he felt about the information which
>had been presented on the internet.
>
>Mr. Hunt who is ever the gentleman was extremely gracious to me. He
patiently
>explained how the original series of articles were developed. For one thing,
>Mr Hunt shared how keenly Donald Jacobus, the former editor of TAG, was
>involved in the original Amy de Gavaston articles. Mr. Jacobus offered his
>professional advice to Mr. Hunt throughout the course of his research.
>
>As for when Dr. Faris' book, Plantagenet Ancestry is going to appear, that is
>up to the publisher, New England Historic Genealogical Society, in Boston.
------Exactly! Why you keep on repeating
'the book is going to be published', that
is advertising. When you want to do 'hidden
advertising' make it palatable by telling
us a fact. Either when it is being made
available or, even better, "this problem
that no-one could solve, is going to be
part of this book" and then "this is how
I have solved it". If you do not intend to
do either, publishing date or problem solving,
you have nothing to say, in which case,
say nothing.
>Dr. Faris is mailing them a camera ready copy of the final draft in
tomorrow's
>mail. The final draft was delayed by last minute changes which were sent to
>him by people such as Don Stone, David Kelley, and Gary Boyd Roberts. As for
>our Magna Carta book, we should be finished with the final draft by summer's
>end, at which point a camera ready copy will be shipped to the publisher. As
>soon as the books are out, you are free to purchase a copy for your personal
>library.
>One last comment: For Michelle Murphy's information, Mr. Hunt is not married
>but he is not a homosexual.
........How do you know? You make a statement
about another person, what if he is? By
your statement you have created question marks.
I'm married with six kids. I'm not a
>homosexual.
======What did Shakespeare say? "My lady
protests too much"? Why have this dig at
Michelle Murphy? Yet another one, she has
had quite a few already. You only added
another stone when the others, quite a
while ago, stopped throwing.
Darid Faris is married and has a large family as well. He is not
>a homosexual. Regardless, I fail to see what relevance our sexual
preferences
>should have to ANYONE on the board. If anyone is weird or absurb, it is
>posters like
+++++you and Michelle++++++
I have queried your command of the English/
American language before. Read your segment
again, it is addressed to Michelle,
who is you if it is not Michelle?
who indulge in making silly inane comments in the
>name of genealogy. Genealogy or not, your comments are still silly and still
>inane. I encourage
you both
=========again addressed to two people, since when is Michelle Murphy two
persons? Dear oh dear, I suggested once to Michelle that an expensive
education had been wasted, now it seems
there are two.
Dear Douglas,
I'd rather assist and, if possible, advise
(and I do both quite frequently)then criticise.
But you deserve criticism from several angles,
in our previous encounter I expressed my
opinion that you owed me an apology, this was
translated by you that I was grandstanding
"because I demanded an apology". Do you see,
you don't know the meaning of words, why should
we have fate in your work? In my opinion,
again I express only an opinion, you do Faris
more harm than good.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Dcrdcr4
I wished you'd quit beating the bush and say what you really mean. If you
recall, I posted my phone number so ANYONE who wanted could talk to me about
Amy de Gavaston. That includes you. I am neither weird nor absurd if I choose
not to publish original research on the board which is in the process of being
published elsewhere. That's fairly standard procedure in this business, Chico.
Yes, I know Mr. Hunt personally and have visited him in his home in Florida.
Rather than criticize Mr. Hunt on the internet, I did what no one else was
willing to do. I went straight to the horse's mouth. I asked him about his
earlier Amy de Gavaston articles and how he felt about the information which
had been presented on the internet.
Mr. Hunt who is ever the gentleman was extremely gracious to me. He patiently
explained how the original series of articles were developed. For one thing,
Mr Hunt shared how keenly Donald Jacobus, the former editor of TAG, was
involved in the original Amy de Gavaston articles. Mr. Jacobus offered his
professional advice to Mr. Hunt throughout the course of his research.
As for when Dr. Faris' book, Plantagenet Ancestry is going to appear, that is
up to the publisher, New England Historic Genealogical Society, in Boston.
Dr. Faris is mailing them a camera ready copy of the final draft in tomorrow's
mail. The final draft was delayed by last minute changes which were sent to
him by people such as Don Stone, David Kelley, and Gary Boyd Roberts. As for
our Magna Carta book, we should be finished with the final draft by summer's
end, at which point a camera ready copy will be shipped to the publisher. As
soon as the books are out, you are free to purchase a copy for your personal
library.
One last comment: For Michelle Murphy's information, Mr. Hunt is not married
but he is not a homosexual. I'm married with six kids. I'm not a
homosexual. Darid Faris is married and has a large family as well. He is not
a homosexual. Regardless, I fail to see what relevance our sexual preferences
should have to ANYONE on the board. If anyone is weird or absurb, it is
posters like you and Michelle who indulge in making silly inane comments in the
name of genealogy. Genealogy or not, your comments are still silly and still
inane. I encourage you both to get a life. Best always, Douglas Richardson
Reedpcgen
[Doug Richardson wrote:]
>The final draft was delayed by last minute changes which were sent to
>him by people such as Don Stone, David Kelley, and Gary Boyd Roberts. >>
In a long discussion Gary just had with me, he said you were going to include
the connection and ancestry of Walter Aston, EVEN THOUGH it has been well
publicized that I have found disproof of this connection. I even specifically
told Gary that probate records prove that the Walter Aston they picked on died
in England without issue years before Col. Walter Aston of Virginia died.
Have you now, from recent information sent by Gary, taken the Walter Aston line
out of your books?
I will gladly publish the proof for all here to see, without asking them to
purchase the information first (you may think me a fool for this attitude).
pcr
Vickie Elam White
>Just a brief note to state that I worked on the Amy de Gavaston
>problem this past week and came up with a suitable theory which
>I think solves the matter of Amy's identity. I set out to prove or
>disprove the existing theories under discussion. However, after
>I reviewed the evidence and the findings of my own research, I
>ended up developing an all new theory which is not among any
>of the ones previously discussed on the board. I've since
>discussed the matter with John G. Hunt (who I know personally)
>and David Faris. Both men think I could be right.
Am I correct in assuming that the recent discussion here is what
prompted you to look into the matter? If so, then I think it only fair
to tell us your theory. Also, since the other authors think only that
you COULD be right rather than that you ARE right, will you be
including our theories too? I believe it is standard practice to at
least mention alternative theories. And if you will be mentioning
our theories, then again, I think it is only fair to tell us your theory.
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
Vickie Elam White
>As for when Dr. Faris' book, Plantagenet Ancestry is going to appear, that
is
>up to the publisher, New England Historic Genealogical Society, in Boston.
>Dr. Faris is mailing them a camera ready copy of the final draft in
tomorrow's
>mail. The final draft was delayed by last minute changes which were sent
to
>him by people such as Don Stone, David Kelley, and Gary Boyd Roberts. As
for
>our Magna Carta book, we should be finished with the final draft by
summer's
>end, at which point a camera ready copy will be shipped to the publisher.
As
>soon as the books are out, you are free to purchase a copy for your
personal
>library.
Yes, and Don Stone told us that he had copied all our messages about
Amy de GAVESTON and sent them to Dr. Faris for inclusion in his book.
That is great, I'm thrilled to know that our discussions have helped. But
if the Amy de GAVESTON line is one that has been changed, then I
think that we are entitled to some credit. I also think we are entitled
to some two-way discussion if you or Dr. Faris do not agree with our
findings or have added to them.
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
John Carmi Parsons
I must strongly second Vickie's remarks here, if only in the interests of
simple courtesy or, if you will, scholarly etiquette. To my mind, the
exchange of views on Amie Gaveston's parentage has been one of the high
points that demonstrates the real value of lists such as this one, and it
is high time that such worthwhile exchanges and contributions received due
notice in the print medium.
John Parsons
Francisco Antonio Doria
>exchange of views on Amie Gaveston's parentage has been one of the high
>points that demonstrates the real value of lists such as this one,
I do fully agree. While I'm not specifically interested in that matter,
I'm interested in those subtle points of genealogical technique that
surface in discussions like that, so I usually follow similar threads.
Chico
Francisco Antonio Doria
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 6/19/1999 6:46:17 AM, jpar...@chass.utoronto.ca writes:
<<To my mind, the exchange of views on Amie Gaveston's parentage has been one
of the high points that demonstrates the real value of lists such as this
one, and it
is high time that such worthwhile exchanges and contributions received due
notice in the print medium.>>
I agree fully with John Parsons and Vickie Elam White. The exchange began in
this forum and needs be fully explored in this forum. As it was left, the
logic seemed quite conclusive. Any additional theories should be explored on
this forum as well ... to avoid the embarrassment, if for no other reason, of
committing a personal theory to print that will not hold up with further
review.
This should in no way detract from the sales of books -- being just one of
many items within this proprosed revision. On the contrary, if Douglas
Richardson's new theories have actual merit, it should enhance the sales of
the book. Forum members may then purchase it to see what else is new. If
they do not, there is still time to delete the idea from the work before it
goes to press.
Don Stone has already sent me some revisions for a shortened version of this
exchange that we are considering for publication in the October 1999
_Plantagenet Connection_. I still await Paul Reed's response to this.
- Ken
cc: Paul Reed
Douglas Richardson
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor/ Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
_____________________HT COMMUNICATIONS____________________
PO Box 1401 Arvada, CO 80001 USA
Voice: 303-420-4888 Fax: 303-420-4845 e-mail: K...@AOL.com
Homepage: http://members.aol.com/TPConnect/Page2.html
Vickie Elam White
>This should in no way detract from the sales of books -- being just one of
>many items within this proprosed revision. On the contrary, if Douglas
>Richardson's new theories have actual merit, it should enhance the sales
of
>the book. Forum members may then purchase it to see what else is new. If
>they do not, there is still time to delete the idea from the work before
it
>goes to press.
I would hazard a guess that the majority of the list members already
planned to buy the books long before Doug joined the list himself.
Discussion on lists won't hinder sales, unless list members start
thinking they can't post to the lists because their ideas will appear
in print somewhere down the road, unacknowledged and unappreciated.
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
Reedpcgen
> Any additional theories should be explored on
>this forum as well ... to avoid the embarrassment, if for no other reason, of
>
>committing a personal theory to print that will not hold up with further
>review.
>
I think this extremely valuable advice that ought to be heeded by any
intelligent person. This forum is a great place to air things out. It is one
thing to try to get something in print under your name. But if that something
is an erroneous or unproven theory, you can be certain it will receive scrutiny
and harsh review IN PRINT elsewhere.
And as I have said before, credit should ALWAYS be given where it is due.
I recall one specific instance that really bothered me. In reviewing the 4th
edition of Magna Charta Sureties for the Genealogical Journal, I found that
line 90A, done by Douglas Richardson, happened to omit the very evidence that
might have proved that the Maryland Baynard family was connected to the ones in
England, and there were several points that brought question on the matter.
Some time later, Doug walked up to me in the FHL, presented an issue of the
National Genealogical Society Quarterly, and said, there is the proof.
I had been aware of the article when I wrote the review. It was an excellent
article, the work of Peter Wilson Coldham. Yet any mention of it or Coldham was
completely omitted in Doug's account in MCS--he omitted the very source that
connected the whole thing, even though he was aware of the source. Why?
So I STRONGLY suggest, Doug, that if you use theories and evidence that has
been presented here, you give full and due credit. Just my humble opinion, but
I think it's the right one. If you put it in print, it will be scrutinized,
and error eventually found out. That's the way our field is (and a good thing
too, for all of us).
pcr
Dcrdcr4
I don't know anything about the Aston line. If this is a matter of concern to
you, however, I recommend you contact Dr. Faris about it directly. I believe
you have his address. Dr. Faris welcomes any and all contributions of
information. Best always, DR
Reedpcgen
John]. I find the article well written and referenced, except for the typo
which says that Amie received a grant of land in 1321 [sic (p. 183, corrected
to 1331 on p. 185)] and his final errant suggestion that Amie's husband died by
1364, leaving a sister Alice who was his heir.
Also, I wanted to point out one important sentence that bears on our problem:
"As [John Carmi] Parsons points out [citing to _Eleanor of Castile: Queen and
Society in Thirteenth-century England_ (New York), 1995), p. 89], of the women
attached to Queen Eleanor's chamber in 1289-90, two were widows whose husbands
the queen had chosen, and the rest were either wives or daughters of knights or
squires of either her household or the king's."
So it is not surprising that Amy would marry one of the king's yeomen (but note
that he was not even a squire or knight).
Where Hamilton shows sloppiness in analysis and reasoning is on p. 185, at the
conclusion of his article:
"Since Amie de Gaveston had apparently died by 1340, it is not clear that the
Alice de Driby who died in 1412 and is discussed by Hunt is in fact the
daughter of Amie de Gaveston and John de Driby. Such a conclusion is
especially dubious in consideration of the fact that when Driby died (prior to
1364), his sister Alice (deceased by July 1364) was found to be his heir, as
attested in an inquisition taken in Lincolnshire by Gilbert de Umfraville, the
earl of Angus [citing CPR 1361-1364, pp. 519-20.]."
Had Hamilton taken a clear look at the Driby descent, he would have noticed
that Alice de Driby inherited Breedon and other manors/lands that had belonged
to John and Amy (de Gaveston) de Driby at their deaths. Also, he should have
realized that the John de Driby who died with lands in Lincoln leaving a sister
named Alice was the son of Robert de Driby, not our John, who was the son of
Thomas de Driby:
Simon de Driby died shortly before 25 April 16 Edward II [1323 (the date the
inquisition in Norfolk was held)]. He died seised of land in Old Bukenham,
Norfolk, land in Baston, Wynthorp, Bernolby, and Laisseby, co. Lincoln, and the
manor of Dribi, co. Lincoln, some of which was held jointly with his wife
Margery. Simon's heir was his brother, Robert de Driby, aged 40 or more [born
in or before 1283]. [CIPM 6:234, no. 397.]
Robert de Driby's last male descendant, John de Dryby, died shortly before 20
June 8 Edward III [1334 (the date of the inquisition taken in Norfolk)]. He
held land in Bokenham, Babbingeleye and Denton, co. Norfolk, 1/3 of the manor
of Schelleye, co. Suffolk, and Baston ["which were sometime of Simon de Driby,
Margery, late the wife of the said Simon, holds as dower"]. His heir was
"Alice his sister," "daughter of Robert de Dribi, whom William de Bernak,
knight, took to wife," who was found to be aged 50 and more [twice], or 40 and
more [once] [born in or before 1284/94]. [CIPM 7:404-5, no. 590.]
The [Sussex] inquisition post mortem of William de Bernak, husband of "Alice
his wife, who still survives," was dated 1 May 13 Edward III [1339 (the writ
was dated 23 April)]. He held rent in Walderton, Sussex, land in New Bokenham,
Old Bokenham, Atilbourgh and Elyngham, co. Norfolk, the manors of Hedersete and
Besthorp, co. Norfolk, and land in several other places in co. Sussex [CIPM
8:163-4, no. 221]. His heir was his son John, aged 33 or 34 years and more
[born in or before 1305].
If John de Bernak, son and heir of William de Bernake and his wife Alice de
Driby, were born about 1305, she would likely have been born before 1285
(rather than 1294). The year 1284 would match the earlier inquisition cited
(above). BUT if Alice were born by 1284, her father, Robert, would most likely
be born sometime before 1263, not 1283 (but THAT Robert (born 1283) could be
son of another Robert, depending on conflicting documents, so she could be
daughter of a Robert, who was father of the Robert who was father of John,
which would make the chronology fit better).
The writ for the inquisition post mortem of Alice, late the wife of William
Bernak, was dated 30 April 15 Edward III [1341]. She held land in Bukenham,
Besthorpe, hedersete, etc., co. Norfolk, and Walderton, etc., co. Sussex. Her
heir was her son John Bernak, aged 32 years and more [born in or before 1309
(apparently 1305)], [CIPM 8:229-30, nos. 332-3.]
But John was not William and Alice (de Driby) de Bernak's eldest son, though he
was eventually their heir. "Robert son of William de Bernak is of full age"
was one of the coheirs of Eve, late the wife of Robert de Tatershale, knight,
including the manors of Toft and Tidde St. Mary, co. Lincoln, and manors and
lands in Berkshire, Suffolk, and Norfolk [CIPM 9:396-7, no. 573].
If Amy de Gaveston was born in or before (a few years before) 1307, her husband
John de Driby, son of Thomas, might have been born about 1300-5. Thomas de
Driby might therefore have been born about 1270-85. If Alice, daughter and
eventual heir of Robert de Driby (son of Simon de Driby) was born about 1284,
her father Robert might have been born about 1263. If Thomas de Driby was born
before 1285, he could have been son of a younger brother of Robert de Driby,
but I have yet to see evidence of such a brother, so he could just as well be
cousin, missing the descent from Simon de Driby [Sr.].
As Elizabeth Basset, daughter and heir of Ralph Basset by his second wife Alice
de Driby was born 1 August 1372, her mother would have likely been born in or
before about 1352. As Amy de Gaveston was dead by 1340 (the lands granted to
her for life were granted by the king to John Brocas in that year [CPR 1338-40,
p. 522]), Alice would have had to be about age thirty at the birth of her
surviving daughter and heir Elizabeth. But this is not beyond belief, and the
descent of lands confirms this scenario. So there is no good reason to doubt
that Amy de Gaveston left a daughter and heir by John de Driby, King's yeoman,
and that she inherited their lands (which were not held in chief, hence no
IPM).
Lastly, I would like to again remind the list that "Joan, daughter of Peter de
gaveston, late earl of Cornwall," died while still a young woman (aged under
fifteen) in the priory of Ambresbury, endowed with lands [CIM2:325-6, no.
1329]. She, born in 1312, was undoubted legitimate daughter of Piers de
Gaveston by his wife, Margaret de Clare. If Amy were the elder legitimate
daughter of the Earl of Cornwall, why was she not endowed with lands of her own
(save those granted much later by the Queen)? This seems to me to indicate
that Hamilton was correct in concluding that Amy was illegitimate.
________________________________________
I'd like to state that had I my choice, I would not approve that KHF publish
the various queries and replies (including mine) in the format they appeared in
this list. My reasoning is that it would be better to start with the
conclusions we learned at the end, discussing point by point with evidence and
rationale, in a concise and direct manner. But I can see the value for readers
of seeing how arguments developed (though I would have been more careful of my
statements and conclusions, had I intended an article be published). As it is,
what he has runs twenty-seven pages. Also, there are some typos, and Doug is
at least twice called "David" Richardson.
I approach writing an article in a completely different way than I do my posts
on this group. On this group, I make statements to air out possible divergent
hypotheses that I would not include in an article--leaving things for people to
follow up on. And when I write an article, I try to think and weigh out every
conceivable possibility, not just present things for someone else to follow up
with.
But that said, it would be difficult to publish what was posted on this group
without including my comments, so I reluctantly give my permission for KHF to
publish the material as is (in this case).
pcr
Reedpcgen
It has been believed that Walter Aston, son of Walter Aston (of Longdon, co.
Stafford), son of Sir Edward Aston's second son, Leonard, was the Virginia
immigrant,
Col. Walter Aston, of Charles City County, who immigrated to Virginia about
1628, and was buried at Westover (d. 6 Apr. 1656, aged 49), where there is a
large monumental inscription. This has been published in many sources (the M.
I. is described in VMHB_ 3[Richmond, 1896]:401-2; and 24[Richmond, 1916]:66-8).
The Visitation of London in 1634 stated that Walter, fourth son of Walter Aston
of Longdon, was then in the "West Indies" (The Visitation of London,...1633...
[HS 15] 1[London, 1880]:29). The identification seemed reasonable, but it is
false. The eldest son, Thomas Aston, settled at Kilberry, co. Waterford,
Ireland, where he was living when his administration was granted to his son,
Edward, on 5 Sep. 1642 (PCC, p. 159 [FHL #93,253]). The second son, Symon
Aston, a citizen and grocer of London, of St. Peter Westcheap, left a will
proved 15 Aug. 1638 by his relict, Elizabeth (PCC 99 Lee [FHL #92,141]). The
third son, Robert Aston, also citizen and grocer of London, was buried at St.
Mary Magdalen Milkestreet on 22 Dec. 1643 (FHL #374,489). His original will
was proved in the Commissary Court of London in 1644, but the executor
renounced.
The administration of Walter Aston, Sr. [the father (b. ca. 1579)], of Longdon,
was granted 25 Jan. 1646/7 in the Peculiar Court of the Prebend of Longdon (FHL
#173,020). The Latin account of the administration order, dated at
Barton-sub-Needwood, states it was granted to Walter Aston, only son [filiu'
unicu'] of the said deceased, but this is crossed out, and 'non adm'straton' is
written above, with a postscript stating that the administration was granted to
Zacharie Kirke, son-in-law, of the City of Lichfield, "lymmer." The bond
explains in English that as "Walter Aston the younger naturall sonne of the
s[ai]d deceased dyinge before hee had taken his Ad[ministrat]ion of his said
fathers goods deceased", the administration was granted to Zachary Kyrke,
son-in-law of Walter Aston the elder, late of Longdon. The younger Walter
therefore died almost ten years before the Virginia immigrant of the same name
died.
The Virginia immigrant cannot be a descendant of Leonard's elder brother, Sir
Walter Aston (1530-1589), as his male ancestry has been traced out (Scots
Peerage, 1:399ff [Sir Walter's grandson became Lord Walter Aston of Forfar]).
The identity of the Virginia man is therefore uncertain.
If David Faris wants to publish this line as it has beenj printed in the past,
it is his business and on his head. I was simply amazed at Gary's remarlk that
in spite of it being well known that I had found disproof of the
identification, Faris was still going to publish the line as it was[!]. I
think everyone on this list knows I don't make definitive statements without
definitive proof. I will look forward to seeing what appears in print, and am
surprised that if this is a "Faris-Richardson" project that you are unaware of
what it contains. Are you coauthor, or a contrbutor?
pcr
Renia Simmonds
politeness do not seem to apply, presumably because, from the outset, anything
anyone writes on the internet is automatically and immediately in the public
domain.
Without getting into copyright arguments, I find it utterly ill-mannered that
anyone should seek to use newsgroup (or other) postings as any portion of a
published work by which that author expects to make a profit, either financially,
or intellectually, without first seeking permission from the various posters to use
their postings, as one would do when quoting or using any other media source.
As Paul says, one utilises the newsgroups from a completely different standpoint
from any other form of academic writing, for such postings are not written with a
view to formal publication. We are perhaps a bit more slapdash, either
grammatically and with typing errors, or by not completely referring to our sources
and perhaps even making the odd, unintentional slip-up.
Renia
D. Spencer Hines
Does the former baseball manager, Walter Aston, descend from this
line, or is there no connection?
Perhaps it was the Dodgers that he managed some years ago.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace
is fast enough." --- Theodore Roosevelt (1888)
Reedpcgen <reed...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990620070437...@ng38.aol.com...
D. Spencer Hines
From what I've seen here from this con-artist and flimflam
manipulator, Richardson, the decision is quite simple to make.
Buy the second edition of 'Plantagenet Ancestry', because David Faris
is the sole author and he appears to be an honest man.
Wait for the reviews and word-of-mouth here on SGM concerning 'Magna
Carta Ancestry' and 'Baronial Ancestry.'
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Genealogy is an infinite binary series --- both
regressively and progressively --- propagated by means of a
terminal --- sexually transmitted disease --- producing a 100% death
rate, which we call Life." [DSH] --- 4 June 1997
Dcrdcr4 <dcr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990621012959...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
> Hi Paul:
>
> Thank you for posting the interesting information regarding Walter
Aston. I
> had no previous knowledge of the Aston issue. Dr. Faris welcomes
any and all
> corrections to his Plantagenet book. I recommend you contact him
personally if
> this is a matter of concern for you.
>
> Dr. Faris is the sole author of the book, Plantagenet Ancestry. We
are
> co-authors of the upcoming Magna Carta Ancestry and Baronial
Ancestry books.
> I hope this clarifies things. Best always, Doug R.
>
>
>
Dcrdcr4
Thanks for the other posts regarding the Gavaston-Driby families. One quick
comment. The Patent Rolls show that Amy de Gavaston was very much alive in
1340, AFTER the King granted Wokefield in Stratfield Mortimer, Berkshire to
John Brocas. This is refelected in the original records as well as in the
account of Wokefield in the Victoria County History of Berkshire. So it would
appear that Amy de Gavaston's death date is unknown. All for now. Best
always, Doug Richardson (aka David Richardson in some circles).
Dcrdcr4
>Subject: Re: Amy de Gavaston: A fresh look at an old problem
>From: leov...@iinet.net.au (Leo van de Pas)
>Date: Fri, 18 June 1999 01:44 AM EDT
>Message-id: <3.0.2.32.1999061...@mail.iinet.net.au>
>
>
>What blatant commercialism----
>"I have developed a new theory, I am not
>going to tell what. Buy my book if you
>want to know". How nice to know he knows
>John G. Hunt personally. Talking about
>grandstanding. When certain books come out,
>yes, it is a great service to let people
>know it is available (I have never done
>this about my books, how many titles? I think
>about ten) but for how many months
>have we now been told this book is coming out?
>Still we don't know when it is available.
>
Dcrdcr4
Reedpcgen
You are right. I had erred by following Hamilton, and I should not have.
Hamilton says (p. 177) that Amie de Gaveston "appears in the record sources
between 1332 and 1340 as a damsel of the chamber of Queen Philippa...." And
(p. 183), "By 1340 Amie de Gaveston had apparently died, for in May of that
year both her lands in Essex and the manor of Wokefield were granted by the
king to the knight John Brocas [citing CPR 1338-1340, p. 522]." And finally,
on p. 185, "Since Amie de Gaveston had apparently died by 1340,...."
The actual CPR reads: "Grant to John Brocas that the lands in Donemowe, co.
Essex ..., and the lands in Wokefeld held for life by Amy de Gaveston of the
king's grant, shall remain to him in fee, to wit the lands in Essex as of the
value of 10l. 5s. yearly and those in Wokefeld as of the value of 11l. 2s.
yearly, as appears by the extents...." [dated 18 may 1340]
So the lands were actually to remain to him in fee, after her death. That Amy
was still alive at that time seems apparent from the only other entry for her
in 1340 [the last specific mention of her], dated 12 June 1340:
Mandate to John de Dryby and Anne [sic, Amie] his wife to attorn in the usual
manner to John Brocas for the services due from lands in Wokefeld, which they
hold for the life of Anne of the king's grant, the king having granted the
reversion of those lands to him in fee.
But if Amy disappears in records listing the Queen's damsels after 1340, it
makes one wonder is she long survived. The 12 June 1340 mention of Amy is the
last mention of her in record that I am aware of. The important point of this
is that IF Amy survived a few years after 1340, it would reduce the age of her
daughter and heir Alice. Therefore Alice might have not been near forty-five
years old at the death of her last Mallory child.
As to the Evers/Eure descendants, Farnham (p. 18) cites de banco roll 807 for a
suit involving Robert Evers, the elder, over land, etc., in Breedon. "Robert
Evers comes and says that he long ago took to wife Elizabeth Malory and he and
Elizabeth were seised, as in right of Elizabeth, of the said tenements, the
reversion of which should descend to Robert, son of the said Robert and
Elizabeth [dated Hilary 2 Edward IV (1463)]. The IPM of Robert Evere, taken at
Leicester on 20 April 1480, found he died 3 Feb. 19 Edward IV, seised of Bredon
by the courtesy of England after the death of Elizabeth, his wife. His
granddaughters, Anne Constable, aged 17, Isabel Constable, aged 15 1/2, and
Elena Thwaites, aged 13, are his next heirs, daughters of Robert Evere,
deceased, son and heir of the said Robert Evere named in this writ.
The printed transcript of Alice Basset's will [Alfred Gibbons, _Early Lincoln
wills..._ (Lincoln, 1888), pp. 110-111], reads in part:
[dated] Thursday before Feast of St. Alphage, 1412.
Masses for my soul, and the souls of Sir Ralph Basset, Sir Robert Tochet, and
Sir Anketin Malores, my former husbands; of John Dryby and Anne his wife, my
late parents; and for all my ancestors & c.
My daughter Elizabeth, wife of Lord de Grey....
My daughter Margery, wife of Rob. Moton knight.
My daughter Beatrice, wife of Sir John Bagot knight.
My son William Maloree.
Elizabeth dau. of Sir Thos. Maloree knt.
So Alice de Driby definitely had two sons and two daughters by her husband Sir
Anketil Malory. The daughter named Elizabeth attributed to the couple in the
1619 visitation is probably an error for her daughter Elizabeth, daughter by
her husband Ralph Basset.
DRIBY DESCENT
The following summarizes what I know about the Driby family from primary
sources.
I. de Driby
CHILDREN:
1. Sir Simon de Driby [see below].
2. Hugh de Driby [liv. 32 Edw. I], who with his brother Ralph was called
brother of Simon in a fine dated 6 Edw. I.
3. Sir Ralph de Driby, of Lavington, father of Hugh de Driby who was liv. 1318.
Ralph apparently also had two daughters, Audrina and Isabel, who were
mentioned in a fine dated 8 Edw. II.
II. Sir Simon de Driby married Alice, daughter of Hugh Fitz Ralph [apparently
by Agnes de Greasley]. She is specifically called his daughter in an assize
record abstracted in _Lincolnshire Notes & Queries_ 3:239-40. Alice's brother,
Ralph FitzHugh, son and heir apparent of Hugh FitzRalph by Agnes, daughter and
heir of Ralph de Greasley [of Greasley, co. Notts.], left one daughter and
heir, Eustache, her grandfather's heir, who married (1) Sir Nicholas de
Cauntelo, and (2) Sir William de Ros, of Ingmanthorpe [CP 11:117-18]. This
William de Ros also had interests in the manor of Lavynton, which was held of
him by Simon de Driby in 1286.
CHILDREN:
1. Robert de Driby [see below].
2. Beatrix de Driby, m. Robert de Kyrketon, son of William.
III. Robert de Driby, called son of Simon in a fine dated 8 Edw. I, married
the coheiress Joan de Tatteshale. At their marriage, Robert was given 1/3 part
of the manor of Lavington. She survived him, and I have already posted
information about her. Court records state this couple had three sons, who
died without issue, and a daughter, Alice, who became their heir.
CHILDREN:
1. Simon de Driby, who died without issue [writ dated 8 Aug. 1322], leaving his
wife Margery as relict.
2. Robert de Driby, aged 40 in 1322, heir to his brother Simon, d. s. p.
3. John de Driby, aged 40 in 1329, heir to his mother, d. s. p. 1334, his wife
"Hugelina" apparently having predeceased him. John, son of Simon, and his wife
Hugelina, were mentioned in a fine dated 13 Edw. II.
4. Alice de Driby, aged 50 in 1334, m. Sir William Bernake, who died in 1339.
Their son and heir John was aged 32 in 1341, d. 1349, m. Joan Marmion, daughter
of John [Lord Marmion], and sister and coheir of Robert Marmion. She
afterwards married Sir John Folville, of Ashby Folville, Leics. (d. ca. 1363).
John and Joan had three children: (1) John Bernake, who died in his minority,
(2) William, aged 28 in 1349, d.s.p. 1360, and (3) Maud, heir of her brothers,
aged 23 in 1360, d. 10 April 1419, m. Ralph Cromwell, Lord Cromwell.
We know our John de Driby, husband of Amy de Gaveston, was son of Thomas de
Driby. I estimate Thomas's birth to be sometime about 1270-85, about the time
Robert de Driby's chidren were born.
As Simon de Driby had two younger brothers, both of whom qualified for
knighthood [Ralph was knighted with Edward, Prince of Wales, 22 May 1306, Hugh
qualified for knighthood, but may have died first.], I see no reason to believe
Thomas was a younger son of Simon. He could just as easily have been a more
distant cousin. John, son of Thomas, received the manor of Breedon as a
remainder. As he did not inherit Abkettleby, as it was Tatershall land, he
probably received it in the same manner.
pcr
Dcrdcr4
more time on the board. That's very thoughtful of you. Best always, Douglas
Richardson
>Subject: Re: Amy de Gavaston: A fresh look at an old problem
>From: "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
>Date: Mon, 21 June 1999 01:41 AM EDT
>Message-id: <7kkjci$4hq$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
>
>Yes, Quite.
>
>From what I've seen here from this con-artist and flimflam
>manipulator, Richardson, the decision is quite simple to make.
>
>Buy the second edition of 'Plantagenet Ancestry', because David Faris
>is the sole author and he appears to be an honest man.
>
>Wait for the reviews and word-of-mouth here on SGM concerning 'Magna
>Carta Ancestry' and 'Baronial Ancestry.'
>
>Quod Erat Demonstrandum
>
>D. Spencer Hines
>
>Lux et Veritas
>--
>
>D. Spencer Hines --- "Genealogy is an infinite binary series --- both
>regressively and progressively --- propagated by means of a
>terminal --- sexually transmitted disease --- producing a 100% death
>rate, which we call Life." [DSH] --- 4 June 1997
>
>Dcrdcr4 <dcr...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:19990621012959...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
Scot Austin
>
> Vide infra.
>
> Does the former baseball manager, Walter Aston, descend from this
> line, or is there no connection?
>
> Perhaps it was the Dodgers that he managed some years ago.
>
>
> Lux et Veritas
Scot Austin (not Aston, but could be)