Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-07 > 1027905322

Subject: Fwd: The text of the agreement between Edward II and Thomas de Multon in 1317
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 21:20:43 EDT

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sunday, 28 July, 2002

Dear Douglas, Robert, Paul, Renia, Brad, et al.,

I am forwarding this to SGM, and directly to you, as Google is having
some serious problems today..... Including, that I am being told
electronically that *you have posted too many messages through Google* or
%$^%$#%$#@ words to that effect.

Best regards,

John *

* John P. Ravilious

Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <>
Received: from ( []) by (v86_r1.16) with ESMTP id MAILINZA33-0728210209; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 21:02:09 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (v86_r1.15) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINZA13-0728210144; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 21:01:44 -0400
Received: from ( [])
by (8.12.2/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g6T11iX5016011
for <>; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 18:01:44 -0700
Received: from ( [])
by (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA20239
for <>; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 18:01:44 -0700
Received: (from )
by (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12596;
Sun, 28 Jul 2002 18:01:44 -0700
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 18:01:44 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: The text of the agreement between Edward II and Thomas de Multon in 1317
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)

From: (John Ravilious)
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: Re: The text of the agreement between Edward II and Thomas de Multo=
n in 1317
References: <>
Message-ID: <>

Sunday, 28 July, 2002

Hello Robert,

Many thanks to you, and Dr. Cunningham, in locating this document
and posting same to SGM.

Given the language of the document (separated from the text, for
highlighting purposes, below), it does appear that the translations in
the printed calendars do not convey the meaning of the original. My
own rendering would be,

' ... when the said children come to a fitting age
to bring [them] to marriage.......'

This can be taken differently, but it reads to me simply that, in
the case of the female (Joan) involved she had not reached age 12 at
the date of the agreement (1317), i.e. she could be betrothed at the
time of the agreement but could not be 'led into marriage' [duxit in
uxorem]. This is certainly not a problem, as

A. Piers de Gaveston and Margaret de Clare were married on 1 Nov
1307, and

B. Any issue born to the marriage (mid-1308 at the earliest) would
have been no older than 9 at the date of the agreement.

If we interprete the agreement as a betrothal, we would then
identify Joan de Gaveston as being at least aged 7 at that date: this
would indicate that she was born sometime between 1308 and 1310.

If we then take the information from the IPM of Joan de Gaveston,
which states on 14 Jan 1324/5 that she was 15 years of age, her birth
date should lie between 15 Jan 1308/9 and 14 Jan 1309/10.

Therefore, the facts of the IPM agree quite nicely with the
re-interpretation of the 1317 agreement.

~ Interestingly, this also means that Joan de Gaveston was NOT the
child of Piers de Gaveston born in 1312.... that is a separate batch
of bouillabaise...

Good luck, and good hunting.



(Robert Todd) wrote in message news:<=>...
> To clear up the various interpretations of the translations of the
> wording 'of marriageable age' I checked with the PRO.=20
> The following e-mail is the response from Dr. S. Cunningham :
> OUR REF: PR02E 0154
> Dear Mr Todd=20
> Thank you for your message concerning the text of the agreement
> between Edward II and Thomas de Multon in 1317 for the marriage of
> Piers Gaveston's daughter Joan with John de Multon, son and heir of
> Thomas. I have checked the original documents, since this seems to be
> the only way to test the accuracy of the summary translations in the
> calendars of patent and close rolls and of the transcribed text in
> Foedera. I can confirm that the entry in Foedera is entirely accurate.
> This makes it a question of editorial choice in the way the text was
> translated in the patent and close roll versions. Both the entries
> contain essentially the same text. C 54/134, m. 8d is an enrolled copy
> on the dorse of the close roll, essentially creating a formal record
> of the agreement for Thomas de Multon. The C 66/147, m. 12 patent roll
> entry is a formal royal record of the marriage agreement with
> additional Latin text publicidsing the agreement, and recording the
> detail of the recognisance in =A310,000 found on the close roll. The
> meaning of the text=20

'come les ditz enfauntz serront venuz a age
covenable qil poussent estre marietz'=20

seems to be your main problem.
> The CCR entry condenses this to 'as soon as they come to marriageable
> age'. The Complete Peerage, III, 434, note c, follows with something
> similar - 'as soon as they should attain the legal age of marriage'.
> If the Anglo-Norman French meaning of covenable as 'convenient,
> suitable, meet, fitting', etc. - similar to a more modern meaning of
> reasonable - is accepted, then=20

the sentence may be translated as=20

when the said children come to an age suitable=20
for them to be married.=20

> does not imply that there was any canonical date before which marriage
> was inappropriate or unacceptable. A later comparison would be
> Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII, who gave birth to him when
> only thirteen yeas old in 1457 (even contemporaries considered this to
> be an particularly young age for marriage and childbirth). The
> essential factor is that the parents or guardians could decide when a
> marriage was appropriate. I think this implies that Edward II and
> Thomas de Multon could come to an agreement when they felt the time
> was right for the marriage to take place. Since John de Multon, was
> born in October 1308 and Gaveston's daughter Joan was probably born in
> 1310 (she died at Amesbury priory in January 1325, aged 15), it is
> possible that the marriage may have been intended for 1325 or soon
> after. John de Multon went on to marry Alice, who may have been a
> daughter of William de la Zouche. I hope this information is useful to
> you.=20
> Yours sincerely,
> Dr S Cunningham=20
> Reader Information Services Department


This thread: