GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-01 > 0980911983
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Re: Amie de Gaveston
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:33:03 -0000
Yes, that's what it looked like _ab initio_ ---- from his frantic posts.
Pure thumb-sucking speculation, web-spinning and conspiracy-mongering.
Speculative suggestions and opining offered up in lieu of historical and
Not a valid substitute for evidence.
Verbum Sat Sapienti Est.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one
by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." -- Edmund
Burke -- Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents [April 23,
"You could not stand five minutes with that man [Burke] beneath a shed
while it rained, but you must be convinced you had been standing with
the greatest man you had ever seen." Samuel Johnson [1709-1784],
_Johnsonian Miscellanies , edited by G.B. Hill, vol. 1, p.290
"On rsiste l'invasion des armes; on ne rsiste pas l'invasion des
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
"Stewart Baldwin" <> wrote in message
| 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
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
|Re: Amie de Gaveston by "D. Spencer Hines" <>|