GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1998-02 > 0887755469


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: Robert de Driby
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 17:44:29 -0500


Allen John Mallory wrote:
>
> Weis mentions that John de Driby m. in or bef. 1334 to Amy de Gaveston.
> Further that John's father was Robert of Wokefield, Berks. Weis then said
> that "His desc. from Henry I shown in TAG 37:50.
> Would anyone be willing to post that line of descent for me? Thank you in
> advance.

I looked at my notes, and two Driby descents have been published,
neither of which agree with the above. In part this is probably due to
an error, and in part bad syntax. "John Driby, son of Robert Driby of
Wokefield" should be read "John Driby (son of Robert Driby) of
Wokefield" - the whole crux of the Gaveston identification is that
Wokefield came to Driby through the marriage of John to Amy de Gaveston,
who had been granted it as a member of the queens's household. I can
find no source which calls John son of Ronert, so either Sheppard
misread the source, or he did not cite his relevant source. The first
Driby descent, that published in TAG, is the following:

i.Henry I
ii.Robert, Earl of Gloucester
iii. Maud, m. Ranulph, Earl of Chester
iv. Hugh Kevelioc, Earl of Chester
v. Mabel m. William d'Aubigny
vi. Mabel (d. by 1243) m. Robert de Tateshale
vii. Robert de Tateshale, d. 1273
viii. Joan de Tateshale (d. 1329) m. Robert de Driby (son Simon) d. 1279
ix. John de Driby, d. 1334
x. John de Driby, m. Amy de Gaveston

There is a problem with John de Driby (ix). According to Hunt, he is
called son by Joan (de Tateshale) de Driby, but her husband's heir was a
daughter Alice, wife of William Barnake. This led Hunt to speculate
that John was perhaps born prior to the marriage of Joan and Robert, and
hence illegitimate. (It should be noted, however, that this does not
affect the descent, since, regardless of the identity of his father,
John was son of Joan, through whom the descent is traced.

In a subsequent note on the family (which I was unable to find, so I
have only some old pedigree charts on which to reconstruct this) Hunt
then provides a different connection between John (x) and Robert (viii):

viii. Joan de T m. Robert de Driby
ix. John de Driby
x. Thomas de Driby, illegitimate son of John
xi. John de Driby m. Amy de Gaveston

I do not know the basis for this descent. Neither one of these makes
John, husband of Amy the son of Robert, nor is it chronologically
likely.

ta

This thread: