Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-01 > 1043614378

From: "Leo van de Pas" <>
Subject: Re: Amie de Gaveston Rebuttal
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 19:47:02 +1100
References: <> <> <003801c2c56d$27cb3090$0201a8c0@peirce> <>

Dear Renia,

Between the lines, you may have made a very interesting observation. What if
Piers de Gaveston's father's name is Pierre but Piers took the surname from
his mother, this could change the whole picture.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Renia" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 6:14 AM
Subject: Re: Amie de Gaveston Rebuttal

> 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
> > 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
> > arms of his mother's family. (This is different from impaling or
> > 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
> > 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
> > that there was a second Piers de Gaveston, it follows that we do not
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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.
> Indeed.
> Renia
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Richard Smyth
> >
> >

This thread: