Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-01 > 1043547251

From: "Richard C. Browning, Jr." <>
Subject: RE: Amie de Gaveston Rebuttal - Part 4: A Damsel's Life
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 20:15:04 -0600
In-Reply-To: <>

Brad, Try posing this question on the Groups.Rec.Heraldry newsgroup.
URL is

Good Luck

Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX

> -----Original Message-----
> From: brad verity [mailto:]
> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 19:46
> To:
> Subject: Re: Amie de Gaveston Rebuttal - Part 4: A Damsel's Life
> >From:
> >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
> >likely
> >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
> >not
> >Piers the earl portrayed on the effigy.
> OK, let's assume what you say is true - the tomb & effigy were meant
> 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
> as
> his father? We're not talking differences in quartering (or whatever
> called) that we find with many younger sons - we're talking completely
> different arms. We're talking eagles replacing the belled cows and
> of
> the arms of the knight on the effigy. In either scenario, Arnaud or
> 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
> into
> the original charter granting Piers the Cornwall earldom back in Aug.
> (BEFORE Piers returned to England from his first exile), so he would
> been bearing these arms back before Edward II became king - unless the
> 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
> 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
> father bore the same name of Piers. But there's no direct statement
> 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
> Arnaud Gaveston's existence, on the other hand, is not proved at all
> any
> contemporary English chronicle - for none ever make mention of him.
> it
> is proved by Calendar Rolls, household expenses, military wages, and
> funeral record. All of these are considered more reliable than
> mention because they were record of immediate and direct transactions,
> opposed to narrative "news."
> There's yet to be uncovered any record (as opposed to chronicle)
> of
> Piers the Elder existing. Likewise, there's yet to be uncovered (by
me -
> Jeffrey Hamilton may have uncovered it in unpublished sources) any
> record evidence that Earl Piers was the son of this recorded Arnaud
> Gaveston.
> So I'm researching the paternity further.
> >At the very
> >least, we need to be careful in concluding that Piers the earl was
> >person
> >meant by the fine document -- thus Amie's parentage is still unproved
> >except
> >that we know her father was a Petrus Gaveston.
> I can live with that last statement, as by saying "a Petrus Gaveston"
> do
> not exclude Earl Piers as a possibility, which previous statements
> made did do.
> Cheers, ------Brad
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*

This thread: