Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-01 > 0980837596

From: Roz Griston <>
Subject: RE: Father of Amy de Gaveston
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:53:16 -0800

thank you hines for pointing out gryphon's alter ego. i have been
impressed with his demeanor and knowledge and now that i know he if for
hire, i'll be making contact with him in about 6 months for some
assistance with the utah archives.

-----Original Message-----
From:D. Spencer Hines [SMTP:]
Sent:Monday, January 29, 2001 10:37 AM
Subject:Re: Father of Amy de Gaveston

Silly troll.

Do some genealogy and history first. Post some chains of reasoning and
facts, not wool-spinning.

Your post, infra, is all cotton candy, throat-clearing, chest-pounding
and thumb-sucking speculation.

There's not a dram of genealogical OR historical substance in it.

Silly, ineffective, foolish troll.

He wanted to beard the FASG, Paul Reed ---- who is man enough to use
own name here ---- as does David Greene ---- another FASG. A third
FASG, Neil D. Thompson, who hides behind the foolish pseudonym
"gryphon801" is too cowardly and insecure to do that.

"el_zorro_escoses" is cut from the same cloth ---- perhaps it's

Exitus Acta Probat.

Deus Vult.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.

All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.

Vires et Honor.

<> wrote in message

| To Paul C. Reed, FASG.
| I have suppressed my immediate urge to respond to your second
| dated 01/20/2001, on the above subject until I had read your original
| article in the "NGSQ 88 (March 2000): 32-49".
| From your vague and obtuse remarks to date, I could not even
| your position on the subject at hand, let alone the reasonfor your
| condescension. For the benefit of those of us who are not fortunate
| enough to be part of Mr. Reed's cognasci, Mr. Reed's position,
| absolutely and unequivocally, is that Amy is the daughter of Piers de
| Gaveston. She is definitely NOT the daughter of Margaret de Clare.
| on previously overlooked evidence that other contributors to this
| describe as "convincing" and "plausable", Mr. Todd's position is
| the converse.
| Having read your article, I must admit that I am more confused than
| ever, and ask that you enlighten this forum about the meaning of
| closing remark "Remember that Margaret's mother was Joan "of Acre"".
| only interpretation I can draw is that either this is an example of
| 'looking at information in a too superficial manner', or that you are
| reinforcing Mr. Todd's position.
| I gather that you are trying to make the analogy that 'like mother,
| daughter' in that because Joan was born "in Acre" when her mother
| accompanied Edward I (then Prince Edward) there, then by the same
| prevailing custom Margaret should have accompanied Piers into
| I suggest that you do more than a cursory research. Read the
| of the Templar of Tyre" by Philip of Navare, in "Les Gestes des
| Chiprois" edited by G. Raynaud, Geneva, 1887. The Templar recounts
| in 1271, Prince Edward was attacked in his own bedroom, where he and
| princess were sleeping. When a saracen spy brazenly knocked, Edward
| opened his door wearing only his shirt and drawers, whereupon Edward
| stabbed with a poisoned knife. If it weren't for Edward knocking him
| senseless to the floor and then dispatching him, perhaps "Joan of
| might not have existed. The obvious lesson to be passed down from
| to Margaret would be not to accompany your husband into the enemy's
| backyard - it's too dangerous for your health!
| From the genealogical point of view, this is also a poor example. I
| remind you that the second husband of Joan 'of Acre' was Ralph de
| Monthermer, her 1st husband's household servant. Reportedly, Joan
| married Ralph about one year after Margaret's father died 'because
| was smitten by his charms and personality'!
| Are you implying that by the analogy 'like mother, like daughter',
| Margaret was also smitten? Could it be that while Piers was off
| Robert the Bruce all over the highland marshes that Margaret was
| more than her knitting to pass the time?
| If there is another interpretation to this analogy, please enlighten
| this forum.
| (:)-) "Who was that masked man?"
| In article <>,
| (Reedpcgen) wrote:
| > I have already read a five-page response to your article by John
| Parsons,
| > whom I consider extraordinarily knowledgeable in this specific
| and this
| > case. I agree entirely with his conclusions, but as I understand
| will
| > eventually send this response to KHF, I feel it would be
| of me to
| > reveal his points before they have a chance to be properly
| for
| > publication. I leave it to Ken and John to decide what should be
| before I
| > build on what he points out.
| >
| > I would suggest if there is any further original research to be
| it should
| > be done in royal household accounts and Exchequer records to
| if
| > possible whether Margaret accompanied Peirs and the royal party
| Scotland.
| > Remember that Margaret's mother was Joan "of Acre".
| >
| > Paul C. Reed, FASG

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

This thread: