GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-06 > 0929046424


From: Reedpcgen< >
Subject: Re: Amy Gaveston
Date: 10 Jun 1999 20:27:04 GMT


>
>Hi Paul:
>
>I don't have the particulars of the Driby ancestry in front of me. However,
>someone informed that there a reference to John de Driby's descent from King
>Henry I in Ancestral Roots. Does someone have Ancestral Roots handy that can
>supply the reference made there to John de Driby's royal line? I'm at a
>friend's home this evening and I don't have my copy of Ancestral Roots
>available to me.
>
>Douglas Richardson
>

The information in Ancestral Roots is in error. The entry, 16A-31, says that
Amy de Gaveston "m. in or bef. 1334, John de Driby, son of Robert of Wokefield,
Berks, d. aft. 30 Nov. 1357. (His desc. from Henry I shown in TAG 37:50)."

Robert was not of Wokefield, Amy was. There was a Robert who had a son named
John, but that was not our John. As I have posted, the male issue of that
Robert died out. And though Amy was a damsel in 1333, I haven't seen evidence
that Amy was married to John until 1338, when he received the right to hold
part of her land in jointure.

So where is this baronial and royal descent of John de Driby that makes him
such a good catch. Where is evidence of the lands he held? We know he had
Breedon as remainder, and his wife had lands in Essex and Berkshire, which she
onlyheld for life. We know from evidence I've already posted that our John was
not son of Robert. We don't know how distant a cousin he might have been,
merely that his father's name was Thomas.

Perhaps you had not seen all of my posts on this subject. Amy's land in Essex
was a gift from the queen, held for life. NONE of her land was inherited.

Hamilton, in his book on Piers gaveston (p. 102, and note), states that "Amy
served as lady of the queen's bedchamber for both Isabella and Philippa...."
The evidence for this is apparently the wardrobe and household accounts of the
royal family, daily expenses returned to the exchequer. Hamilton cites
E.101/347/14ff. 5v, 6. This is the "Accounts, Various" class which includes
the household accounts.

If Amy (who is sometimes called Amicia, and once Avicia, but in only one place
I've seen Anne) was damsel to Isabella as Queen, rather than dowager, that
meant she served in or before 1327, and may therefore have been born before 1
November 1307, when Piers married.

I could see why Queen Philippa might grant one manor in Berkshire and rents in
Essex which had fallen to the crown by escheat. If Amy were in her 30s, the
Queen may have been trying to make her a more palitable marriage prospect, so
she would not be damsel of the chamber for life!

If Amy were illegitimate, it would explain why she had no inheritance of her
own. If she were not, it is strange that Piers would not have at least
enfeoffed land to her during her lifetime. It would also seem strange that as
a legitimate daughter of noble rank she did not marry better. So taking all
things into account, I'm more inclined to believe Amy was illegitimate.

pcr

This thread: