Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-01 > 0980954905

Subject: Re: Amie de Gaveston
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:28:25 EST

In a message dated 1/31/01 2:35:47 AM,

<< Not a valid substitute for evidence. Case Closed. >>

Not hardly. There is another alternative that makes much more sense. Paul
only proved that Amy was illegitimate, not who her parents were.

One theory that I just shared with John Parsons -- and the one that makes the
most sense to me -- is that Amy was not the child born in 1312, but born out
of wedlock to Margaret after Piers died. That would still make her a
Gaveston, yet she would still be illegitimate and incapable of inheriting
Margaret's estates.

I really think that the fact Amy being in court with Isabella is a very big
hump. Isabella simply would not have permitted a daughter of the hated Piers
to serve in her court.

#1 There is a problem in chronology with Amy's marriage. Her being the child
born in 1312 would make her 22 at marriage and that is really far too old for
a first marriage for that class.

Instead, I think that the child born in 1312 did not survive. I propose that
Amy was born later, out of wedlock, after Piers was dead. That would help the
chronology of her marriage and also explain why she did not inherit the de
Clare estates.

#2. Margaret got the estates of Occam Rutland from Edward II, probably as a
dower. Later, Amy owned some houses on this same estate! Where did she get
them? It makes real sense that she got the from her mother, Margaret. This
is a major piece of evidence, I believe, and my attention was called to it by
Doug Thompson.

#3. Regarding the fine and Amy being referred to as the daughter of Piers:
Amy would have been known as Gaveston if she was born out-of-wedlock after
Piers death and before Margaret remarried. Out of respect for her mother, she
would be referred to as the daughter of Piers, even if he were dead when she
was conceived.

#4. Isabella and Margaret could easily have forged a common link through
their mutual hatred of their husbands during the course of their horrid
marriages. Hugh DeSpencer was a brother-in-law to Margaret (wife of her
sister). Margaret was treated badly by him.

#5. Hugh de Audley, Margaret's 2nd husband was close to Roger Mortimer.

There is much more to this than has yet been explored, I am sure.

I realize that Robert Todd theorized that Amy was the child born in 1314. I
think that is the major error he made with his theory.

- Ken

This thread: