GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-01 > 0979615904
Subject: Re: Father of Amy de Gaveston
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:31:44 GMT
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Answering the questions that you raised in your post below is what
prompted me to write the article for the winter 2000 edition of Ken
Finton's periodical, Plantagenet Connection. Reading the posts on this
newsgroup as well as a collection of posts on the subject reprinted by
Mr. Finton in an earlier edition of his periodical, I was left with the
uneasy feeling that even though the consensus of the evidence presented
pointed to the fact that Piers was the biological father of Amy de
Gaveston, there was something lacking. Answering those questions is
what prompted me to write the article mentioned by Mr. Doug Richardson.
I believe that this article will answer your questions. I have added
some additional comments intersperced with your questions below:
In article <email@example.com>,
> Thank you for your interesting post. I've inserted my comments and
> questions below:
> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> I published my
> > somewhat radical theory in Plantagenet Ancestry, 2nd edition, by
> > Faris.
> I only have the first edition of Plantagenet Ancestry, and have found
> very useful. I understand a third edition is coming out soon, so I'll
> wait for that.
> > In the new issue of Ken Finton's periodical, Plantagenet Connection,
> > there is an interesting new article on Amy de Gaveston by Robert
> > Mr. Todd agrees that Amy was an illegitimate child of Margaret de
> > Clare, but he advances the theory that Amy was the product of an
> > adulterous relationship which Margaret de Clare had during, not
> > her marriage to Peter de Gaveston. Todd shows rather conclusively
> > Peter de Gaveston was out of the country in Scotland when Margaret
> > Clare conceived a female child born to her about 12 January 1312.
> This, to me, seems an even more radical theory, as it requires a
> cover-up on the part of Margaret, Piers, Edward II, and Queen
> who all celebrated the birth of PIERS's daughter in York in Jan. 1312,
> according to contemporary chronicle sources and the household records
> Queen Isabella for that year.
Yes there definitely was a cover up, and it has much to do with
Piers'vanity and pride, as shown in my article. It is also interestin
to note that the chronicle sources mention all sorts of detail as to
the celebrations including the amounts spent on the musicians, but do
not mention the name of the child. - This is the first clue that raised
> Also, if Todd's theory was true, how could the revelation of such a
> scandal not have been reported?
If Edward II had prounounced that Piers was father of the daughter born
to Margaret, (even though all knew the truth), who in his right mind
would challenge him ? Also, in medieval English common law, bastardy
was not a status or condition. In all cases where even if it was
suspected that a married woman had comitted adultry, English common law
maintained that the child was the son of his mothers father. It was
challengable, but given the power of Piers Gaveston at the time, again,
who in his right mind would challenge him ?
> Margaret would have every reason to
> publicly maintain that her daughter was legitimate and Piers', so the
> child [Amy, according to Todd] would have remained so in the records.
> The king, I imagine, would also continue the charade, out of respect
> love for his murdered friend. But there is no mention of Amy de
> Gaveston at all in any surviving records of the time. And as its
> unlikely that either Margaret or Edward II would reveal the daughter
> born in 1312 to Margaret was not Piers', who did? Queen Isabella?
> Rumors in the household? Something like that finally coming to light
> would be bound to have made the chronicles, I feel.
> I'm afraid that this theory needs much further corroboration to back
> up, considering all the other 14th-century evidence existing points to
> it being highly unlikely. If Piers was in Scotland nine months before
> his and Margaret's daughter was born, then the daughter could have
> either premature, or Margaret was with him in Scotland at the time.
It borders on improbable that Margaret accompanied Piers in his forays
into the Scotish Highlands, given their disfunctional relationship and
the perils of the journey - after all Piers left the relative safety of
the border castle where he was quartered, (Hermitage Castle according
to the "Cotton Nero C VIII" chronicle), to chase Robert the Bruce. I
suggest that you read my article, as it fully delves into that problem,
and also visit the excellent web site quoted to check out the brutality
surrounding those circumstances.
As to Margaret's date of conception, Hamilton, in his book "Piers
Gaveston, Earl of Cornwall" page 85, shows Piers chasing Robert the
Bruce around Perth until three weeks after Easter (2nd May 1311, much
beyond the bounds of prematurity for that era.
> Underhill states in *For Her Good Estate* that Margaret accompanied
> Piers during his time in Ireland - do we know for a fact that she
> with him in Scotland in 1311?
> > Having read the Todd article, I think it is a plausible explanation
> > the mysteries surrounding Amy de Gaveston. I also found the article
> > interesting to read, as Todd shares details of Peter de Gaveston's
> life and relationship to King Edward II not commonly found in your
> average history books.
> It sounds like an interesting article - I'm definitely going to track
> down. Thanks for the reference!
> > As for the 1334 fine which Brad mentioned, I don't believe that it
> > proves that Amy de Gaveston was Peter de Gaveston's daughter. I
> > of a case in which a woman was born during the period of her
> > widowhood as a bastard, yet years later a deed was recorded in which
> > she is identified as the daughter of mother's prior husband. If the
> > same thing happened to Amy, it would explain why she might have been
> > called Peter de Gaveston's daughter without actually having been his
> > lawful issue. As the French say, "Plus ca change, plus ca meme!"
> It would also imply that Amy was still publicly presenting herself as
> Piers' daughter, and not as her mother's illegitimate daughter.
By English common law she would use her paternal surname, irregardless
of her status.
> If so,there would have definitely been mention of her in the records
> survive from 1312-34, and she is not mentioned once in this regard.
> John Parsons pointed out in his posts to the board in 1999, it is
> inconceivable that a legitimate daughter of Piers and Margaret de
> (or one pretending to be so) could escape mention or investigation in
> the mounds of legal records regarding the partition of the Clare
> > As for Amy's marriage date, the 1334 fine has all the earmarks of a
> > marriage settlement which was common in that time period. I have
> > many of these kinds of fines over the years. The 1334 fine was
> > certainly recorded just previous to the marriage of Amy de Graveston
> to John de Driby.
> I respectfully bow to your experience in this regard, Doug. This
> like a reasonable and likely explanation.
> > I haven't seen the Underhill book which Brad mentions. However, I'm
> > interested to read it, as the subject of the book, Elizabeth de
> > Lady of Clare, is a distant ancestress of mine. Elizabeth is one of
> > the more interesting women of the English medieval period.
> Yes, it's a very good read! I especially appreciated the additional
> genealogical and biographical info on Joan of Acre's children and
> grandchildren that it contains.
> Best regards, --------Brad Verity
> Sent via Deja.com
Regards for now, Robert W. Todd
Sent via Deja.com