Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-01 > 0980910100

From: (Stewart Baldwin)
Subject: Amie de Gaveston
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:01:40 GMT

Yesterday, I reread Paul Reed's article ""Proving" Illegitimacy: Amie,
the Daughter of the King's Favorite, Piers de Gaveston - Not That of
His Wife" [NGSQ 88 (2000): 32-49], and I also read (for the first
time) Robert Todd's article "Amy de Gaveston: A Case Study of her
Parentage" [The Plantagenet Connection 8 (2000): 205-225]. Having now
had the chance to compare the two articles side by side, it is my
opinion that Paul Reed has made his case for Amie being an
illegitimate daughter of Piers de Gaveston, and that Robert Todd's
attempts to argue otherwise are completely and utterly unconvincing.

It seems to me that the two most important points are:

1. A contemporary fine explicitly refers to Amie as a daughter of
"Petrus" (i.e., Peter or Piers) de Gaveston.

2. Amie did not share share in the Clare inheritance, and therefore
was not the daughter of Piers by his wife Margaret de Clare.

These two facts taken together are, in the absence of contrary
evidence, sufficient to make the case, but Paul also gave plenty of
additional supporting evidence, and showed quite clearly why some of
the attempts to make Amie a daughter of Margaret were wrong.

Robert Todd's article attempts to argue that Amie was not a daughter
of Piers, but an illegitimate daughter of Margaret. However, no
direct evidence is ever offered that this was the case. The entire
case comes down to a suggestion (never supported by any reasonable
evidence) that the "truth" was that Amie was Margaret's illegitimate
daughter, and that the account that she was a daughter of Piers was a
deliberately constructed falsehood to hide the truth. In my opinion,
this theory is not worthy of serious consideration.

Stewart Baldwin

This thread: