GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-06 > 0928642613


From: "Don Stone" < >
Subject: Re: Amy Gaveston (somewhat long)
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 00:16:53 -0400


Leo van de Pas said:
> Goodness what a memory you have!

Actually, I had looked at the CP article earlier the same day; I just didn't
have it in front of me when posting.

> CP Volume III page 434 footnote a.
> By a subsequent charter, 5 August 1309,
> the county of Cornwall with its appurtenances
> was settled upon the said Piers and Margaret
> his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, by
> reason of which charter Margaret, widow of
> Gaveston and wife of Hugh de Audley,
> petitioned for restoration of the lands
> which had been seized into the hands of the
> Crown, and stating that there was issue
> of the said Piers by the said Margaret
> then living. But the Parliament ordained
> that the county should remain to the king,
> quit of the claim of Hugh and Margaret and of
> the issue of Gaveston and Margaret forever.

The third from last line includes an "etc.":
that the county, etc., should remain to the king...

Whether the "etc." means just the appurtenances of the county of Cornwall or
is broader isn't clear. The source of this footnote is Courthope's
_Historic Peerage of England_, 1857, p. 126, footnote q. The footnote in
Courthope is essentially identical to the footnote in CP, and no source for
this information is supplied by Courthope.

It might be worth trying to get the exact Latin text of this act of
Parliament. Even if it turns out literally to concern Cornwall only, it is
possible that the intent and even the implementation of it might have been
broader. Parliament's rather severe response to Margaret's petition shows
that there was still quite a substantial amount of resentment and ill will
toward Gaveston and by extension his heirs. Alternatively, the wording of
the act might be somewhat ambiguous, but Margaret may have decided that she
and Amy would be better off if the matter of Amy's inheritance was not
pursued any further. There probably wasn't anyone in a position of power
who would have been willing to go very far in advocating Amy's possible
rights. Margaret was probably happy to see that Amy was eventually married
to a decent fellow and may have been hopeful that the Gaveston connection
would gradually be forgotten.

These ideas are not only from me but also from discussions with David Kelley
and Marshall Kirk, with whom I am currently working on other projects.

Here is Donald L. Jacobus's summary of the situation, printed as an editor's
note following Hunt's third article in TAG:

Quite aside from the Bulkeley connection, for which evidence has been
presented, we feel that Mr. Hunt, with an assist from Mr. Sheppard, has made
an important historical discovery in proving that the unfortunate Piers de
Gavaston left descendants by his near-royal wife, Margaret de Clare,
granddaughter of Edward I, especially in view of the unanimity of English
historians and peerage writers in asserting that their only daughter was
Joan who died at the age of fifteen. Since the evidences and proofs have
been split between three articles over the course of more than four years, I
feel that they should briefly be summed up here for the benefit of all who
may be interested. Mr. Hunt originally was able to present only
circumstantial evidence for his conclusion that Amy (or Anne) de Gavaston,
wife of John de Dryby, was daughter of Piers de Gavaston and Margaret de
Clare. The chief items of evidence were:
(1) An early chronicle in Latin states that Piers de Gavaston had a
daughter born soon after the feast of the Epiphany [6 Jan.,] 1312 [supra,
35:100-1].
(2) The Patent Rolls show that Amy or Anne de Gavaston [the name is
variously read], a damsel of the chamber of Edward III's queen, was granted
a manor for life in 1332, and had lands in Essex released to her 25 Feb.
1333 when she will have attained her 21st year, and by 1338 was wife of John
de Driby. The age perfectly fits the nameless daughter of Piers.
(3) Her proved daughter Alice, lady Basset, made William, lord Ros,
supervisor of her will. He was a first cousin once removed of Alice if Amy
(or Anne) was daughter of Piers and Margaret.
To this circumstantial evidence, the present article adds one item of
direct proof:
(4) Amy (or Anne) was definitely called daughter of Peter [i.e., Piers]
de Gavaston in the Dryby Fine of 1334.
The conclusion therefore seems to be unassailable. Her date of birth
makes it certain that Margaret de Clare must have been her mother. If it be
objected that she might have been illegitimate, that is easily answered.
She is not called a "base" daughter in the Dryby Fine. The downfall of
Piers de Gavaston was so catastrophic, and the hatred of the leading barons
for him so great, that no tenderness would have been shown towards an
illegitimate child. Only the fact that her mother was own cousin of King
Edward III can explain her position in court, the grant of a manor to her
for life, and her marriage into a gentry family of standing. I feel that
future writers on the peerage and of this period in English history will
have to give due consideration to the facts presented in Mr. Hunt's
articles.

Note to John Parsons: I appreciate your skeptical approach, because if the
case for Amy's parentage is defective or weak, we should certainly be aware
of that.

-- Don Stone, posting from a temporary email account in Boston;
after Sunday noon, reply to

This thread: