GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-01 > 1043357024
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Bastards
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:23:44 EST
I did want to correct one misstatement I made. David Faris did not talk with
me about the Gaveston mater in detail until after my NGSQ article was
Explicit efforts had been made prior to the publication of the 2nd edition of
Plantagenet Ancestry to warn Dr. Faris that the 'Amie as daughter of
Margaret' theory had no basis in fact, that it's publication in the 2nd
edition would only mislead the public, and that a rebuttal article would
appear in response if it were published.
PA 2nd ed. appeared in January 2000. The NGSQ article appeared in the March
2000 issue. A letter was received later by the editor of NGSQ objecting to
the article, and stating that a rebuttal would be forthcoming. A reply was
then sent welcoming corrections or clarification, but all that has eventually
appeared since that time are Robert Todd's articles which have been dissected
ad nauseum on this group and summarized by Brad.
As Brad correctly pointed out, Hunt made Margaret de Clare the mother of
Amie as well, but he assumed Amie was a daughter born during the marriage to
Piers. The correction of that theory itself merits a comment in the new
edition of PA, even if no comment is made about the previous statement of
Doug's theory that Amie was daughter of Margaret, born after the death of
Piers, but not daughter of Piers. One might even suggest a reference be made
to the NGSQ article, as it expends much more space in the article than could
be taken in the 3rd edition on this subject.
I wanted to correct the record, lest it be claimed I was not being accurate.
I apologize for the added bandwidth this took.