Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-01 > 1043608452

From: Renia <>
Subject: Re: Amie de Gaveston Rebuttal
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 21:14:12 +0200
References: <> <> <003801c2c56d$27cb3090$0201a8c0@peirce>

Richard Smyth at UNC-CH wrote:
> Renia:
> I gather that you have satisfied yourself that there are no instances in
> either Gascony or England in that time frame in which a son adopted the arms
> of his mother's family.

I would not say that I was satisfied as to this. I don't know.

> Do you happen to know when the first examples of
> that are to be found? Also, I believe there are examples in English
> heraldry in which a son borrowed elements, tincture, for example, from the
> arms of his mother's family. (This is different from impaling or escutcheons
> of pretence.) Are there no examples of this so early either?

I don't know, but adopting a mother's arms is often associated with
inheriting her lands, in which case, her surname was often adopted as
well, but this was particularly in the later period. I do not know about
the earlier period.

> Although Hamilton does not explicitly say that the de Marsans were a more
> important family than the Gavestons, he does imply this when he writes:
> "[Arnauld's] marriage to Claramonde had made Gabaston a substantial
> landholder in various parts of Gascony, as she had shared the inheritance of
> the estates of her father, . . ."[p. 22] Since we do not know for a fact
> that there was a second Piers de Gaveston, it follows that we do not know
> who his wife might have been. But one is still free to wonder what the
> feudal implications of a marriage might have been, particularly if the wife
> were the sole heir. (Claramonde was not the sole heir.)

See above.

>>The arms of Piers Gaveston being so totally different from the arms of
>>the effigy initially implies that Piers Gaveston was not related to the
>>man in the effigy. The question is, why would the son of an armigerous
>>father, adopt totally different arms? Surely, this would only be done if
>>a) the son was not the son of the accepted father or b) the son was in
>>some way distancing himself from his father and wanted to establish
>>himself as armigerous in his own right.
> If one were defending your second explanation, one could construct an
> argument that made use of the first sentence in Hamilton's book: "Walter of
> Guisborough refers to Gaveston as having been "raised up as if from
> nothing," and so it must have seemed to contemporary observers." This
> suggests to me that very little prestige was associated with the arms of the
> Gaveston family.

Perhaps Piers Gaveston did, indeed, adopt his mother's arms. Perhaps he
adopted her name, as well, although surnames were not quite established
at this period.

> On the other hand, were someone to discover that the arms of Piers, the
> earl of Cornwall, had previously been displayed in Gascony or thereabouts, I
> should think that would take the inquiry in a wholly new direction.



> Regards,
> Richard Smyth

This thread: