GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-01 > 0980985492
Subject: Re: Amie de Gaveston
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 23:58:12 GMT
References: <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> That would not sill make her a Gaveston after his death, and the fine
> certainly NOT have specified that she was daughter of PIERS de
> need to understand medieval practice concerniong identification and
> illegitimacy at that period.
After considering all the evidence that has been presented on this board
on this topic, I agree completely with your conclusion that Amie was NOT
the daughter of Margaret de Clare.
I do understand how Robert Todd felt there was a red flag when he
counted backwards from Jan 1312, and realized the conception of Piers
and Margaret's daughter (which I agree with you was almost certainly
Joan de Gaveston, the one documented legitimate daughter of the couple)
took place while Piers was on campaign in Scotland in the spring of
1311. Certainly that's an unusual time to conceive a child and warrants
But when you take into consideration that Edward II (with Queen
Isabella) intentionally kept the court over the border in Scotland at
that time (in order to avoid dealing with the Ordainers, the magnates
who were opposed to him and asserting their authority), it becomes very
plausible that Margaret de Clare was also with them. And since Margaret
was now aged about 17, and the growing opposition to Piers would make it
politically advantageous for them both to have a legitimate male heir as
soon as possible, conjugal visits while Piers was on campaign would be
On a side note, the conception of Edward III, the firstborn child of
Edward II and Queen Isabella, must've taken place while the royal couple
was celebrating the birth of Piers and Margaret's daughter at York.
Apparently the example of his favorite and the celebratory mood had an
effect on the King!
I have been unable to track down your article on the topic published
last year. Since I haven't had the advantage of reading it, I do have a
Is the fine the only surviving document that establishes the link
between Amie de Gaveston and Piers?
From what I understand, the fine states that Amie was the daughter of
"Petrus de Gaveston." Is it common for the wording of fines in that
period to leave out the fact that "Petrus" was Earl of Cornwall, or even
a knight? Would a daughter of a knight or magnate be described in legal
documents of the time, only by the name of her father, and not the
father's title? For example, would Margaret de Clare's daughter by her
second husband be described in a fine of the time as "Margaret, daughter
of Hugh d'Audley"? Or as "Margaret, daughter of Hugh, Earl of
Gloucester" or "Margaret, daughter of Hugh d'Audley, Knight"?
What I'm getting at, of course, is how can we be so sure that Amie's
father "Petrus de Gaveston" was actually Piers, Earl of Cornwall, and
not a namesake or cousin, etc.? Because it seems strange to me that if
she was Piers' illegitimate daughter, that neither he or the King (after
Piers' untimely death) made any provision for her.
As I also am at a complete loss when it comes to the medieval practice
of identification and illegitimacy, I'm hoping to learn more!
Best regards, --------Brad Verity
Sent via Deja.com