GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-01 > 0979528171


From:
Subject: Re: Father of Amy de Gaveston
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 03:09:31 GMT
References: <3A5FB517.6F26E924@atlantic.net>, <x%p86.30990$_I.540789@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>, <93te1k$6tv$1@nnrp1.deja.com>


Dear Brad and Ron:

Thank you for your good posts. Last year, after studying the available
evidence, I proposed that Amy de Gaveston was an illegitimate daughter
of Margaret de Clare. I presumed Amy was born in the five years that
Margaret was a widow after Peter de Gaveston's death. I published my
somewhat radical theory in Plantagenet Ancestry, 2nd edition, by David
Faris.

In the new issue of Ken Finton's periodical, Plantagenet Connection,
there is an interesting new article on Amy de Gaveston by Robert Todd.
Mr. Todd agrees that Amy was an illegitimate child of Margaret de
Clare, but he advances the theory that Amy was the product of an
adulterous relationship which Margaret de Clare had during, not after,
her marriage to Peter de Gaveston. Todd shows rather conclusively that
Peter de Gaveston was out of the country in Scotland when Margaret de
Clare conceived a female child born to her about 12 January 1312.

Having read the Todd article, I think it is a plausible explanation of
the mysteries surrounding Amy de Gaveston. I also found the article
interesting to read, as Todd shares details of Peter de Gaveston's life
and relationship to King Edward II not commonly found in your average
history books.

As for the 1334 fine which Brad mentioned, I don't believe that it
proves that Amy de Gaveston was Peter de Gaveston's daughter. I know
of a case in which a woman was born during the period of her mother's
widowhood as a bastard, yet years later a deed was recorded in which
she is identified as the daughter of mother's prior husband. If the
same thing happened to Amy, it would explain why she might have been
called Peter de Gaveston's daughter without actually having been his
lawful issue. As the French say, "Plus ca change, plus ca meme!"

As for Amy's marriage date, the 1334 fine has all the earmarks of a
marriage settlement which was common in that time period. I have seen
many of these kinds of fines over the years. The 1334 fine was almost
certainly recorded just previous to the marriage of Amy de Graveston to
John de Driby.

I haven't seen the Underhill book which Brad mentions. However, I'm
interested to read it, as the subject of the book, Elizabeth de Burgh,
Lady of Clare, is a distant ancestress of mine. Elizabeth is one of
the more interesting women of the English medieval period.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail:

- - - - - - - - - -

In article <93te1k$6tv$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
wrote:
> "Ron" <> wrote:
>
> > As indicated under the Randolph line in Faris, Douglas Richardson
> believes
> > that she was an illegitimate child of Margaret de Clare by an
unknown
> father
> > (for the reasons stated on page 299).
>
> If you do a search in the archives of this message board for 1999
under
> "Amy de Gaveston," you'll find a wealth of information posted about
her.
>
> From what I've gathered by reading through it (and by reading
Hamilton's
> 1988 biography of Piers Gaveston and Underhill's 1999 biography of
> Elizabeth de Burgh, Lady of Clare, titled "For Her Good Estate"), it
has
> been proven almost absolutely conclusively that Amy was NOT the
> daughter, legitimate or otherwise, of Margaret de Clare.
>
> It's possible Amy was the illegitimate daughter of Piers, but since
the
> only evidence that sheds light on her parentage is a 1334 fine
regarding
> the manor of Breedon that mentions "John son of Thomas de Dryby and
Anne
> the daughter of Peter de Gaveston." Since other evidence in Queen
> Philippa's household records implies that John and Amy didn't marry
> until 1338, I think more research needs to be done on this particular
> 1334 fine.
>
> There is NO OTHER EVIDENCE yet found that connects Amy in any way to
> Piers Gaveston, Earl of Cornwall, the favorite of Edward II.
>
> That said, the rest of the research that has been done on Amy and John
> de Dryby's descendants, seems to hold up. The 14th century couple
> certainly existed and Amy was a documented member of Queen Philippa's
> household.
>
> But the likelihood that she was a descendant of Edward I is
practically
> nil.
>
> Best regards, --------Brad Verity
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/


This thread: