Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-07 > 1028085379

From: "brad verity" <>
Subject: Re: The text of the agreement between Edward II and Thomas de Multon in 1317
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:22:26 -0400

I'll also send this through Google, so that it appears on sgm as well.


>Hello Paul, et al.,
> * Google has finally begun to process my posts once
> again; I am sending a cc: of my most recent
> message to any who are also in a 'disembodied' state
> in re: SGM... *
> In your post this evening of portions of our dialogue on this issue,
>stated at the end of your message that
> ' Joan was above age twelve at her death,... '
> I take it from your statements concerning both the 1317 agreement and
>1325 inquisition record for Joan de Gaveston, that you are convinced she
>the child recorded as being born in 1312?

I can't answer for Paul, John, but I am convinced Joan was the daughter born
to Piers and Margaret in 1312.

>The 1325 inquisition recod does
>not support this.

Please note: this inquisition was undertaken by Justices Roger de
Bavent and William Peverel in Amesbury on Monday, 9 March 1332, seven years
after Joan's death. Not in 1325, the year of her death.

>Simply indicating the fact that other <inquisitiones ad
>quod damnum> have been shown to have flaws does not prove such a flaw
>in this case.

No, it doesn't PROVE there was a flaw in Joan's age. The straightforward
reading of the inquisition would be that Joan Gaveston was 15 when she died
in January 1325, and thus born in either 1309 (assuming she would've turned
16 in 1325), or Jan. 1310.

But her age of death given in the inquisition has the POSSIBILITY to be
incorrect because ages in many other inquisitions of this type have
subsequently been proven to be incorrect.

Looking at this inquisition primary document in complete isolation, the
argument that the age was accurate carries more weight.

> What other contemporaneous evidence is there to support this position?

Now comes the part where the inquisition cannot be looked at in complete

What primary evidence do we have regarding birth of children to Gaveston and
Margaret de Clare?

1) The Bridlington chronicle, which says a daughter was born to them shortly
after the Epiphany [Jan. 1312].
2) Household records of Edward II [looked at by J.S. Hamilton] that describe
expenses surrounding the celebration of the birth in York in 1312.

That's it. What primary evidence exists of a birth to Gaveston and Margaret
prior to 1312? None.

Could there be some record in Edward II's unpublished household accounts
that might prove a birth prior to 1312? Possible, but not likely. Hamilton
and Pierre Chaplais (another biographer of Gaveston) seem to have done a
thorough check into all records pertaining to Gaveston, and would likely
have noticed if there was a birth prior to 1312. But it might be productive
for someone wanting to prove Joan was born prior to 1312 (specifically in
1309-10) to look themselves.

Could there have been a birth prior to 1312 and no one bothered to record
it? Again, possible but not likely. Edward II paid for Gaveston and
Margaret's wedding in 1307, Gaveston's funeral in 1315, and the celebration
of the 1312 birth. The LACK of any record of a prior birth - when the
expectation given the above would be there should be a contemporaneous
record - supports the position that a prior birth did not occur. Also, not
only is there no record of a birth prior to 1312, there is no record of Joan
existing before 1312 either. And given all of the political importance and
physical movement of Gaveston and Margaret, it would be expected that some
record of Joan's whereabouts would occur if she was alive between 1309/10
and 1312.

Is there any record that tells us the 1312 daughter died young? No. We
know the child survived birth, as there was a celebration for it. If it
died in infancy, would there be a record of burial? Probably. The children
of the King's sister Elizabeth who died in infancy were buried in
Westminster Abbey, at the expense of the King. The King paid for Gaveston's
burial, wouldn't he pay for the burial of Gaveston's daughter, especially
when he paid for the celebration of her birth? Did Margaret provide for any
prayers for the soul of her young deceased daughter? Again, someone wishing
to prove the 1312 daughter was not Joan Gaveston might want to look closely
at any expenses, wills, etc. of Margaret de Clare, Margaret d'Audley, Hugh
d'Audley, and Ralph Stafford to see if there was any provision for the soul
of Joan Gaveston or possible other issue of Margaret de Clare.

Who are the known Gavestons that might be the child born in 1312? We know
of only two individuals who appear in the Calendar Rolls with the surname of
Gaveston. Are there any others? Again, someone wishing to prove Joan
wasn't the daughter born in 1312 might want to check and see. The two we
know of are:

1) Joan de Gaveston. Patent and Close Roll entries of 1316 and 1317 prove
Joan was Pier's daughter by Margaret because they say explicitly she was
Piers' daughter and describe her as the KIng's niece (and thus Margaret's
2) Amie de Gaveston. Amie does not appear in the Calendar Rolls until 1332,
and none of the entries that pertain to her state who her parents were.
However, a fine of 1334 that pertains to property of the Driby family in
Leicestershire has survived as well, and in that fine she is identified as
"Amie, daughter of Petrus de Gaveston." The Driby connection proves it was
the same Amie as in the Calendar rolls, and the lack of any other known
Petrus de Gaveston can make it highly likely her father was Piers, Earl of
Cornwall. Because Amie and her daughter Alice de Driby did not inherit half
of Margaret de Clare's lands at her death in 1342 (as would be their right),
we know Amie cannot have been a legitimate daughter of Gaveston and
Margaret, and thus could not be the daughter born in 1312.

So, back to the 1332 inquisition quod damnum pertaining to Joan Gaveston.

Was determining Joan's age at her death as accurately as possible an
important factor to the jurors? No, because if it was Margaret de Clare,
Joan's mother, could have given them the most accurate age for her daughter
and she wasn't asked. Was Joan's aunt Mary, a nun at Amesbury, asked? We
don't know who was questioned regarding Joan in 1332. Perhaps those wishing
to prove the jurors were accurate about Joan's age of death can check and
see who the jurors were.

Any other evidence to support the accuracy of the given age of 15 for Joan
at her death? Not in the primary records. There's no recorded birth and no
recorded daughter prior to 1312.

Is there any evidence to support the inaccuracy of the given age of 15 for
Joan at her death? Yes, there's a recorded birth for Jan. 1312 and Joan is
the only recorded daughter who can result from that birth. Plus, it is
known that many other contemporary inquisitions were not accurate when it
came to giving ages of individuals.

That is all the known primary evidence on this matter laid out. Everyone
can come to their own conclusions. Mine is the 1332 inquisition was wrong
about Joan's age and that she was the daughter born in York in 1312.

Cheers, --------Brad

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:

This thread: