Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-01 > 1043545546

From: "brad verity" <>
Subject: Re: Amie de Gaveston Rebuttal - Part 4: A Damsel's Life
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 20:45:46 -0500


>That is most unlikely. One does not put the wrong name on an effigy. The
>effigy was undoubtedly for a Petrus Gaveston, not Arnaud, and was most
>ordered in advance by Piers for his father and remained unfinished because
>Piers fell from power. We know, as you say, from the arms that this is
>Piers the earl portrayed on the effigy.

OK, let's assume what you say is true - the tomb & effigy were meant for
Piers the Elder, father of the famous Piers Gaveston, Edward II's favorite.

My question still remains - why didn't Piers Gaveston bear the same arms as
his father? We're not talking differences in quartering (or whatever its
called) that we find with many younger sons - we're talking completely
different arms. We're talking eagles replacing the belled cows and garbs of
the arms of the knight on the effigy. In either scenario, Arnaud or Piers
the Elder, the effigy is said to be of the father of Piers Gaveston.

So where & why did Piers use eagles as his arms? Eagles had no association
with Cornwall and its heraldry. And these eagle arms were incorporated into
the original charter granting Piers the Cornwall earldom back in Aug. 1307
(BEFORE Piers returned to England from his first exile), so he would have
been bearing these arms back before Edward II became king - unless the new
eagle arms were as much a surprise to Piers as the earldom of Cornwall was.
(Edward II later told the Pope that he had created Piers earl of Cornwall
without Piers present and without Piers' knowledge, which, as Chaplais
showed in his book, the chronology bears out.)

Does anyone know of a heraldry expert/enthusiast that I may consult on this?

>I think his existence is proved by these contemporary records.

Piers the Elder's existence is SUGGESTED by the Polhistoire stating Piers'
father bore the same name of Piers. But there's no direct statement of
activity - the chronicle doesn't say "then Piers Gaveston, the earl's
father, set forth to the Pope to plead his son's innocence", for example.

Arnaud Gaveston's existence, on the other hand, is not proved at all by any
contemporary English chronicle - for none ever make mention of him. But it
is proved by Calendar Rolls, household expenses, military wages, and the
funeral record. All of these are considered more reliable than chronicle
mention because they were record of immediate and direct transactions, as
opposed to narrative "news."

There's yet to be uncovered any record (as opposed to chronicle) evidence of
Piers the Elder existing. Likewise, there's yet to be uncovered (by me -
Jeffrey Hamilton may have uncovered it in unpublished sources) any direct
record evidence that Earl Piers was the son of this recorded Arnaud

So I'm researching the paternity further.

>At the very
>least, we need to be careful in concluding that Piers the earl was the
>meant by the fine document -- thus Amie's parentage is still unproved
>that we know her father was a Petrus Gaveston.

I can live with that last statement, as by saying "a Petrus Gaveston" you do
not exclude Earl Piers as a possibility, which previous statements you've
made did do.

Cheers, ------Brad

MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*

This thread: