GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-01 > 0980973914
Subject: Re: Amie de Gaveston
Date: 31 Jan 2001 20:45:14 GMT
>but born out
>of wedlock to Margaret after Piers died.
That would not sill make her a Gaveston after his death, and the fine would
certainly NOT have specified that she was daughter of PIERS de Gaveston. You
need to understand medieval practice concerniong identification and
illegitimacy at that period.
>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.
Again, there is no reason why, if Amie's mother had been a member of the
household, that a poor girl imposed upon would not have had her child cared
for. The Queen would watch out for her damsels (if for nothing else, to avoid
scandalous stories). Piers obviously did not provide for Amie. As I discussed
in my article, it would make sense if Amie's mother had been a member of the
Royal household, and would explain how Piers would have had access to her.
>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.
huh? She married a widowed man who was also a retainer in the King's household
(both parties needed to be married off). She might have been married off to a
better suitor if she were younger and provided for. I think the fact that she
married a King's yeoman who already had a young son who needed a mother, that
she did not marry better, and that she had to be provided for to make her a
suitable match seems to actually indicate that she might be older.
And who said she was the child born in 1312? That was Joan. Piers and Edward
rushed to Yorkshire to join Margaret at the birth, where there was GREAT
celebration (why would Edward lavish a celebration on this child if it were
Margaret's bastard and not his beloved Piers' child?!?). Understand that it
was forbidden at this time for Piers to be there, which was his eventual
undoing. If this child were not his first legitimate heir, why should he throw
folly to the wind and rush to be there at the birth of a child who was NOT his
own, but actually represented both the unfaithfulness of his wife, and his
inability to sire?
>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
What are you talking about? Did you read my article? There were no "houses"
and the three shilings rent may have been inheritance through the
As Margaret's holdings (life interest) there were worth 55,000 shillings, why
would a 3 shillings rent there be enidence that Margaret had provided for her?
Have you tried to live off of 3 shillings per year?
>Amy would have been known as Gaveston if she was born out-of-wedlock after
>Piers death and before Margaret remarried.
No. Why would you think this?
>Isabella and Margaret could easily have forged a common link through
>their mutual hatred of their husbands during the course of their horrid
Holy Blood, Holy Grail was a book much discussed on this forum. Arguments such
as, "the fact that there is no evidence to show that Margaret provided for Amie
proves she was in a deep conspiracy with the queen to provide for her daughter
but not implicate her" is just such faulty reasoning.
We must be careful of flights of fancy and analyze what the facts tell us. We
STILL have to get over the hurdle of the fine. Amie was not the focus of this
fine--others were also involved. It was a relatively obscure record, but one
that had to be proved and entered before the King's justices. I gave
references in my article to show that at this period the judges were not going
to have their rolls defaced be obviously faulty instruments. This cannot be
Parsimony. WHY should not Amie be the illegitimate daughter of Piers? IF
MARGARET DE CLARE had obscure origins, would people be fighting so hard to make
something else out? Swallowing the camel, yet straining at gnats.