GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-01 > 0980975505


From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Re: Amie de Gaveston
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:11:45 -0000
References: <8c.1c63366.27a9bda3@aol.com>, <20010131154514.06783.00000061@ng-fp1.aol.com>


Right!

They just don't want to give up the postulated descent from Edward I,
even a bastard descent, and they will fight tooth and nail ---- in the
face of the facts ---- to sustain it.
--

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,
1770]

"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 [1897], edited by G.B. Hill, vol. 1, p.290

"On rsiste l'invasion des armes; on ne rsiste pas l'invasion des
ides."

Victor Hugo

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

"Reedpcgen" <> wrote in message
news:...
| KHF wrote:
|
| >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.
|
| [snip]
| >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.
|
| [snip]
| >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?
|
| [snip]
| >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?
|
| 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
| Tatershall/Driby line.
|
| 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
| >marriages.
|
| 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
| lightly dismissed.
|
| 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.
|
| Paul
|




-----= 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! =-----


This thread: