GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-01 > 1042779299


From: (Brad Verity)
Subject: Re: Amie de Gaveston Rebuttal - Part 2: Joan Gaveston
Date: 16 Jan 2003 20:54:59 -0800
References: <8ed1b63.0301091618.3019165f@posting.google.com> <8ed1b63.0301151216.167bf71d@posting.google.com>


> The entry shows that the Thomas Wake/Joan Gaveston match the King was
> attempting to arrange never made it beyond the offer stage to Wake.
> At some point between Piers' execution in June 1312 and Oct. 1316,
> Wake was offered Joan Gaveston in marriage by Edward II, perhaps
> knowing this had been Piers' intention in March 1312 when re-granted
> Wake's marriage. We cannot know if Wake refused the marriage to Joan
> outright, or simply had his act of marriage without licence to another
> woman be his official refusal of Joan.

Actually, the following Calendar Roll entry shows that Wake refused
Joan, then went and married Blanche of Lancaster.

From Patent Rolls: "9 Dec. 1318, York. Pardon to Thomas Wake, son and
heir of John Wake, tenant in chief, for refusing whilst under age and
in the king's custody a suitable marriage offered to him by the king,
and afterwards when he had attained full age, for marrying elsewhere
without licence. For this pardon he made a fine of 1000l., whereof
the king assigned 1000 marks to be paid, as satisfaction, to Thomas de
Multon of Egremund, and directed the remaining 500 marks to be paid to
himself. By K."

What I'm confused about is the wording "for refusing whilst under age
... a suitable marriage..., and afterwards when he had attained full
age, for marrying elsewhere..." What is meant by under age here?
Thomas Wake (he was born March 1298, according to CP) was age 14 when
Piers was executed in June 1312. According to what Doug Richardson
has told us, 14 was the age at which a male could be married. So if
offered Joan by the king immediately after June 1312, was 'under age'
meant to infer he was still in wardship? Then we know he married
Blanche before Oct. 1316, when he was aged 18, but he was still in
wardship, for he didn't receive his lands until the following June
(after turning 19).

But the above entry says "afterwards when he had attained full age,
for marrying elsewhere without licence." So somehow, he had attained
full age before Oct. 1316, yet was still in wardship?

Was "full age" the age of 15 (which Thomas Wake turned in March 1313)?
The King did grant him a manor out of his inheritance in September of
1313.

Or was "full age" the age of 16 (which Thomas Wake turned in March
1314)? And meant to refer to the age a ward could marry, rather than
the age (21) that a male ward had to receive his inheritance?

Or was Edward II just making up the rules pertaining to Thomas Wake
and full age on the spot?

It's all confusing. And also demonstrates the problems that arise
when trying to infer an age from any medieval document.

Cheers, -----Brad


This thread: