GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-01 > 1043385272


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: Amie de Gaveston Rebuttal - Part 4: A Damsel's Life
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 22:14:32 -0700
References: <165.1a264c25.2b621944@aol.com>


wrote:

> Actually, that is not the only conclusion we can make. The effigy of Piers we
> talked about earlier and the contemporary records that states that the father
> of Piers was also named Piers gives us the distinct possibility that Amy
> could have been the half-sister of Piers instead of his daughter. To believe
> that Amy was his daughter, we must accept that Edward II did absolutely
> nothing for the daughter of his favorite after his illegal execution. This is
> extremely hard to believe with the closeness of their relationship.

Edward didn't do that much for his own bastard. We have been
over this before. You insist Edward didn't do anything for her,
yet she somehow got into the royal household. How many bastard
daughters of other Earls were so placed?

You have this expectation that a bastard daughter would have
somehow been the beloved representative of her dear departed
father - what makes you think that would be the case? There is a
large social distinction between legitimate and illegitimate
children, except in special circumstances. Of the many royal
bastards, only a handful merit any kind of notice beyond
incidental. (Henry I: Richard and Robert, Henry II: Geoffrey and
William, John: Joan) Now take a step down the social continuum,
and you find how many Earl's bastard sons getting more than a
piece of land or a church posting? How about Earl's bastard
daughters - one would be hard pressed to name any, let alone find
them having lavish gifts piled on them. Excluding Amy, only one
or two come to mind at all, so Earl's daughters could expect,
what . . . ? It looks to me like, in getting a place in the
royal household, Amy didn't make out all that badly.


> Also, Amy
> would have had to have been born quite close to the same time that Joan was
> born to be Piers daughter. The fact that no one mentions is and no chronicler
> observed it

What chronicler observed the birth of Edward Warenne, son of Earl
John? What chronicler noted the birth of Joan de Cornwall,
daughter of Richard, Earl of Cornwall? For that matter, what
chronicler reported the birth of Adam, bastard son of King Edward
II? Name for me one single bastard birth that contemporary
chroniclers reported.

> and no record of any kind was made about her existence makes the
> most sense if she is a half-sister of Piers that came to England at a later
> date.

Again, what notice was made of the existance of Adam, the kings
son, before he was old enough to be recorded fighting in his
father's army? Most children, even legitimate ones, receive
scant notice before adulthood, unless they are heirs or subject
to a marriage negotiation. An illegitimate Amy would have been
neither.Exactly what type of document should have recorded the
existance of Amy before the one that did?


> This cannot be ignored.

Most of it can be dismissed, however, as it is based on
unreasonable expectations.

taf


This thread: