GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-06 > 0928889027
From: Reedpcgen< >
Subject: Re: Amy Gaveston [VERY LONG, part 1]
Date: 9 Jun 1999 00:43:47 GMT
Having finally had a chance to check things I didn't have at home last night,
when questions were raised about various points (don't you hate not having the
library attached to your house?), I make what I anticipate will be my last
major post on this matter.
There is no question that Amy de Gaveston was daughter of Piers. The debate
has been over whether she was daughter of Margaret de Clare, another wife, or
illegitimate.
There is NO evidence that she was born in 1312. The release of lands in 1333
did not state her age (see text below). That was a mistaken interpretation
made by Hunt and followed by others.
SO, tossing aside the false assumption that Amy was aged 21 in 1333, the most
likely interpretation of the daughter born in 1312 as mentioned in the
chronicle is that she was the daughter who was Piers' only heir by his wife,
Margaret de Clare (granddaughter of Edward I). Margaret was Edward II's niece,
and her daughter represented a blood tie between himself and Piers. Wardrobe
and household accounts mentioned by John show the daughter received attention
and gifts (as would be expected). Amy did not.
John has also put forth evidence that 'damsel' did not mean Amy was necessarily
young, though we know she was unmarried (I had been thinking of arguments that
had been put forth about Robert de Grey concerning similar verbiage). The
examples John put forth are directly relevant to our situation.
Piers de Gaveston is believed to have been born about 1284. He was knighted by
the prince of Wales 22 May 1306 and rose extremely rapidly in favor (directly
after the accession of Edward II). He was married to Margaret de Clare, the
King's niece and a great heiress, in 1307. I guess it might be possible that
Piers was married before that union, but he would only have been about
twenty-three when married to Margaret (who survived him), and given his
proclivities, it does not bode well for the argument towards Amy's legitimacy.
(It is not beyond belief that in a drunken stupor, he may have impregnated a
lady at court.)
Now to actual evidence.
CPR 1330-4, Edw. III, v. 2:
(p. 224) 28 Jan. 1332. Ratification of a grant, for life, by queen Philippa to
Amicia de Gaveston, her damsel, of the lands in Havering atte Boure and
elsewhere in the county of Essex, which escheated to the queen by the
forfeiture of Robert William.
(p. 306) 16 June 1332. Grant, for life, to Amy de Gaveston, damsel of the
chamber of queen Philippa, for service to the queen, of the manor of Woghfeld,
co. Berks, an escheat by the forfeiture of Roger de Mortuo Mari, late earl of
March.
(p. 414) 25 Feb. 1333. Inspeximus and confirmation of letters patent of queen
Philippa, dated Windsor 17 Nov. 5 Edward III., being a release to Amice de
Gaveston, her damsel, of the rents and services due from the escheated lands of
Robert William in Averyng atte Boure and elsewhere in the county of Essex,
lately granted to her for life, and a grant of the waste due to the queen by
reason of the forfeiture.
[concluded in part 2]
This thread:
| Re: Amy Gaveston [VERY LONG, part 1] by Reedpcgen< > |