GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-06 > 0928889088
From: Reedpcgen< >
Subject: Re: Amy Gaveston [VERY LONG (part 2)]
Date: 9 Jun 1999 00:44:48 GMT
CPR 1338-40, Edw. III, v. 4:
(p. 96) 18 June 1338. Whereas the king lately granted for life to Amy de
Gaveston the manor of Woghfeld. co. Berks, an escheat by the forfeiture of
Roger de Mortuo Mari, the king's enemy, he has granted it to John de Driby, who
has now married her, and the said Amy license to fell trees in the woods of the
manor at their will, and to apply the moneys arising from the sale of these to
their own use, and in defending the right of the king and Amy in pleas moved
against them touching the manor.
(p. 529) 12 June 1340. Mandate to John de Dryby and Anne [sic, Amy] his wife
to attorn in the usual manner to John Brocas for the services due from lands in
Wokefeld, which they hold for the life of Anne of the king's grant, the king
having granted the reversion of those lands to him in fee.
The main character named John de Driby during this period was son of Robert de
Driby and his wife Joan de Tateshale. Joan was one of three daughters who
eventually became coheirs of Robert de Tateshale, and brought quite a few lands
into the Driby family as her pourparty. But this John died shortly before 20
June 1334, when his heir was stated to be his sister Alice, wife of William
Bernak (the lands were in cos. Norfolk, Suffolk and Lincoln) [CFR 4:406, 417,
CIPM 7:404-5, no. 590]. That John was a tenant in chief, hence the IPM.
Our John de Driby was clearly of the same family (Joan [de Tateshale] de Driby
had granted the manor of Breedon, Leicestershire, to her son John and his heirs
forever eleven days before her death [according to an ipm in 1329], and it was
a fine concerning the manor of Breedon that left the reversion to John de
Driby, son of Thomas de Driby and Anne the daughter of Piers de Gaveston in
1334). But he was apparently not the main representative of the family when he
married Amy, but was merely a king's yeoman. He was lucky to have received the
reversion of Breedon. He was CERTAINLY not of baronial status!
Let's contrast this with the lands Margaret de Clare was found to hold at her
death [CIPM 8:253-5, no. 382]:
She held the manor and advowson of Bradeneysh, Devon, for life, the castle,
borough and advowson of Lydeford, Devon, for life, and the manor of Southtenge,
Devon, for life.
She held land in London of her own right. That jury found that "Her only
daughter Margaret" was aged 18 or more, and is her next heir.
She held the manor of Fordyngton, Dorset, in dower of the king's inheritance.
the king was found to be her next heir in that manor.
She held the castle and manor of Okham, Rutland, with the office of sheriff
jointly with her husband Hugh. Their daughter Margaret was found to be aged 20
and more, and her next heir.
She held the manor and town of Neweport in Essex in dower after the death of
Peter de Gaveston, earl of Cornwall, "Margaret the wife of Ralph de Staford,
daughter of the said Margaret, aged 18 years and more, is her heir in blood."
Another inquisition concerning Neuport came to the same finding. [Thus you see
it was several different juries in different counties who found that Margaret
had only one daughter, not the slip of one document.]
The lands Margaret de Clare held were important and extensive. Again, her only
daughter was found to be named Margaret by several juries.
Amy de Gaveston was given rents in a parish in Essex and the manor of
Wokefield, Berkshire, FOR LIFE, not of her own inheritance, or to her heirs.
That is a vast difference when compared with the land INHERITED by Margaret de
Audley as Margaret de Clare's only daughter and next heir.
Joan de Gaveston, only proven legitimate daughter of Piers de Gaveston by his
wife Margaret de Clare, was favored by gifts and care from the crown. A surety
of 10,000 l. was required towards her marriage (see CCR 1330-4, Edw. III, v. 2,
p. 547). The disparity between the arranged marriages and way Joan was treated
by the royal court compared to how Amy was handled is also striking.
I cannot see how, when presented with this evidence, anyone could possibly
continue to conclude that Amy was a daughter of Margaret de Clare. John and I
are not without a great deal of experience in these types of records. Hunt's
record speaks for itself. I have a difficult time believing that Amy was a
legitimate daughter of the Earl of Cornwall, born prior to his rise to favor in
1306-7, and prior to his marriage to Margaret de Clare in 1307, due to his
young age at that time--though it is possible.
I must finally conclude that though I cannot determine if Amy was legitimate or
not, she was definitely daughter of Piers de Gaveston, but she was not daughter
of Margaret de Clare. If my logic in presenting this has been faulty at any
place, I would GREATLY APPRECIATE it being pointed out (for my own sake).
Paul C. Reed
This thread:
| Re: Amy Gaveston [VERY LONG (part 2)] by Reedpcgen< > |