GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-06 > 1024359002
From: Kay Allen AG <>
Subject: Re: More Margaret de Clare/Amy de Gaveston Mess
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:10:02 -0700
You are flagellating a decomposing equine.
Disinheriting a senior co-heiress would require more machinations than for which
there is evidence. You are assuming facts not in evidence.
Many medieval mothers in that class may not have been warm, fuzzy, cuddly, and
But an heiress does have rights which must be overcome in a legal manner. There
is an insufficiency of evidence to assume this.
Stepdaughters were not as entitled to consideration as would be heirs of the
body. Any rights would have been incumbent on her relationship to Piers, not to
Most of the people have been reasoning from the existence of legal custom, which
is acceptable circumstantial evidence, especially since there was nothing to
suggest the upsetting of said legal custom. Things had a set protocol and that
is the way of it, like it or not. Nothing has been presented which would show
that protocol was overturned.
Remember Ockham's Razor and the simplest explanation is the most likely and that
one shouldn't strain at gnats.
> In a message dated 6/16/02 3:17:26 PM, writes:
> << There is more than enough evidence to conclude Margaret de Clare was not
> the mother of Amie de Gaveston. The two do not appear linked in any primary
> source record. >>
> They do not have to be linked. Amie could have been disinherited. She could
> have been a willful child who displeased her parents and played havoc with
> everyone. Besides being disinherited in Margaret's lifetime, she likely died
> in 1340 at the birth of her first child as she was not heard from again. All
> these arguments are ridiculously circular and lead nowhere.
> <<Margaret did not provide anything for this woman Amie. Period. She was
> not the mother.>>
> Sorry, this does not fly. All mothers are not pink and cuddly and warm.
> Margaret got rid of Joan and sent her off to a nunnery. She could have hated
> Amie -- especially if she were born of Piers posthumously. If Margaret was a
> providing kind of soul she would have provided for a step daughter as well.
> Everyone is trying to reason from the absence of evidence to come to a firm
> conclusion and the conclusion must of necessity be flawed because there is
> not enough known to justify a permanent conclusion. Period.
> 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">
|Re: More Margaret de Clare/Amy de Gaveston Mess by Kay Allen AG <>|