GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-09 > 1032814604
Subject: Re: Rethinking Amy de Gavaston- br2
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:56:44 EDT
In a message dated 9/21/02 6:34:50 PM, writes:
> If that age was 16, as Paul argues, then for the purposes of the inquest, it
> would only
> be important to determine whether she was older or younger than 16, and
> whether she was 13 or 15 would not be all that important. However, if, as
> Robert is arguing (I think), the appropriate
> age is 14, then there is a world of difference between 13 and 15.
Fifteen in 1325 makes the birth in 1310, not 1312 ... it is really simply.
There is no real reason to doubt that was her age. To be born in 1312, she
would have been 13 in 1325. Physically, it would be noticeable. There may be
a few girls of 12 to 13 that might look 15 to 16, but it is not very common.
I see no reason to doubt her age was 15 in 1325 when a relative who knew said
that was the case.
Thus, neither Joan nor Amie was born in 1312 with Margaret as the mother.
Some other child was born then who must have died without public notice after
the death of Piers. That is no big surprise to me. However, this does not
prove much, except that the chroniclers did not notice the birth and death of
all the de Gaveston children.
|Re: Rethinking Amy de Gavaston- br2 by|