GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-01 > 1043431053


From: (Brad Verity)
Subject: Re: Amie de Gaveston Rebuttal - Part 4: A Damsel's Life
Date: 24 Jan 2003 09:57:33 -0800
References: <165.1a264c25.2b621944@aol.com>


wrote in message news:

> Actually, that is not the only conclusion we can make. The effigy of Piers we
> talked about earlier

Ken,

The Winchester Cathedral effigy identified as Arnaud de Gaveston may
turn out not to be him - though I think it probably was. I think the
two inscriptions of 'Petrus Gauston' found on it - thought to have
been guides for an original inscription - might instead indicate that
Piers had paid for the effigy & tomb, and his untimely execution
prevented it being finished with a full inscription.

At any rate, the compelling evidence for me regarding that tomb is not
the appearance of 'Petrus' on it twice, but rather that the arms of
the knight on the tomb do not match those of Piers. Why would Piers
use completely different arms than his father Arnaud?

Have you heard back from Mr. Hardacre at Winchester Cathedral? I'll
drop him a line and see if he's had a chance to look over those 19th
century articles I faxed him.

> and the contemporary records that states that the father
> of Piers was also named Piers

One record - the Polhistorie of Christ Church Canterbury - does. I'm
still gathering evidence to see if there's any record that contradicts
this. So far, there is not. I have found evidence in the Calendar
Rolls of Arnaud-Guillaume de Marsan specifically referred to as son of
Arnaud de Gaveston, but I haven't found any entry of Piers being
referred to as son of Arnaud, or as brother of Arnaud-Guillaume.

> gives us the distinct possibility that Amy
> could have been the half-sister of Piers instead of his daughter.

We have to prove the existence of a Piers the Elder first, before we
can assign him wives, mistresses, daughters, etc.

And even in the unlikely event that no evidence turns up that says
Piers was son of Arnaud, plus evidence does turn up that Piers the
Elder existed, that still doesn't make Amie the daughter of Piers the
Elder.

> 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.

Perhaps she (and her mother) were among the many members of Piers'
household that Hamilton mentions in his bio of Piers were taken into
the royal household by Edward II after Piers' execution?

Edward II would be expected to do no more for Piers' bastard daughter
than Piers himself did for her.

> Also, Amy
> would have had to have been born quite close to the same time that Joan was
> born to be Piers daughter.

The childbearing of Alice de Driby, Amie's daughter, seems to indicate
so.

> The fact that no one mentions is and no chronicler
> observed it and no record of any kind was made about her existence

The fact that chroniclers didn't observe Amie's birth or mention her
at all is not in the least unusual. We don't hear any mention in the
chronicles of Edward II's bastard son Adam or of the two bastard sons
of Thomas, Earl of Lancaster.

The only mistresses/bastard children that do make record in this time
- and I'm not sure if they made chronicle (as opposed to document)
record or not - were the mistresses and sons of John de Warenne, Earl
of Surrey. And that's because of his long drawn-out attempt to
divorce his wife Joan of Bar, the king's niece.

> makes the
> most sense if she is a half-sister of Piers that came to England at a later
> date.

Why half-sister? But determining the date Amie first appears as a
damsel is very important, as that can help establish her age.

> This cannot be ignored.

I think that the simplest explanation that fits all the evidence we
have so far is that Amie was the bastard daughter of Piers, Earl of
Cornwall. We need much further evidence before we can consider an
alternate possibility.

Cheers, --------Brad


This thread: