Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-07 > 1028101568

Subject: Re: The text of the agreement between Edward II and Thomas de Multon in 1317
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 03:52:13 EDT

In a message dated 7/30/2002 6:37:10 PM Mountain Daylight Time, Therav3
<< In your post this evening of portions of our dialogue on this issue,
you stated at the end of your message that
' Joan was above age twelve at her death,... '>>

If Joan died in 1325, and as heir of Piers and Margaret was thus born by his
death in 1312, I would conclude I am correct in assuming she was at least 12
at her death. She would therefore have been at least the minimal age to
marry if she so chose. That was an important consideration in what I was

<< I take it from your statements concerning both the 1317 agreement and
the 1325 inquisition record for Joan de Gaveston, that you are convinced she
was the child recorded as being born in 1312? The 1325 inquisition recod
does not support this. Simply indicating the fact that other <inquisitiones
ad quod damnum> have been shown to have flaws does not prove such a flaw
exists in this case.
What other contemporaneous evidence is there to support this position?


I've done nothing else for the last twenty years than work in this period of
English genealogy. This has been my sole support. It has not been an
avocation or hobby or diversion (though posting to this newsgroup *is* my
diversion when I need a break). When I eat lunch, dinner, or whatever when
I'm alone, I read books like Maitland, articles by Brundage, what have you.
Like John Carmi Parsons, Hamilton, and others (did not even that venerable
specialist in diplomatic practice, Chaplais conclude that Joan was the
daughter born in 1312?), the weight of the evidence leads me conclude that I
am comfortable believing Joan was the daughter born in 1312 - unless
something more than the age in the inquisition ad quod damnum surfaces.
Little things, like asking me to believe that there was a child and first
heir born to Piers some time before 1312, but that Edward sent no gifts, made
no celebration, etc. (whereas we have record of great celebration at the 1312
birth) leads me to doubt the incongruous age, and having had a great deal of
experience which IPMs and inquisitions ad quod damnum, I feel there is a
sufficient basis to believe it could easily be off by two years.

I've read through inquisitions ad quod damnum and inquisitions post mortem on
a weekly basis (not quite daily) for the last twenty years. You learn what
is typical, or what weight of trust to give the information, in light of
other things. As it is,

the discrepancy in the age given in the inquisition ad quod damnum IS THE
ONLY thing that would cast any doubt on Joan being the daughter born in 1312
(and note that we know that 1312 child was a female).

As she was definitely under age sixteen, she would have not held her own
lands at her death (hence no IPM). As she was not married to Multon before
her death, they held none of her lands. In fact, the OLDER one makes Joan in
1325 (15 instead of barely 13 by a week or so), it makes it the MORE
incredible that Joan was not married to Multon before her death.

Nothing in the marriage contract indicates the parties were of an age to be
betrothed or marry at that time (in fact, as it was not make public and
stipulated, one might think Joan was not yet seven when the contract was
drawn up). But if Joan were the *daughter* born in 1312, she would have been
old enough to be betrothed in 1319, or at least some time before 1325.
Though Joan could not legally marry until age 12, she was of an age "to
deserve dower" at age 9 [Maitland 2:439, note 3]. Joan would have been nine
by 1321. Thus she would have had an interest in the dower lands that were
promised her in the marriage contract (the King had paid a considerable sum
for her part).

Throughout this discussion we have seen misinterpretation on almost every
important point. It took a great deal of time and effort to straighten these
things out. You have a right to believe what makes sense to your mind, and
others have the same right.

If another contrary document were to surface, I believe John Carmi Parsons,
Hamilton, myself, and others would all take note of it, and if it should
warrant sufficient weight to accept the evidence, I believe we would all move
to that new position. As it is, I think we've discussed every important
facet quite thoroughly.


This thread: