GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-06 > 0928674906


From: John Carmi Parsons < >
Subject: Re: Amy Gaveston (somewhat long)
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 09:15:06 -0400 (EDT)


Comments interspersed below. JP

On Sun, 6 Jun 1999, Don Stone wrote:

>> 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.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough that this refusal by Parliament can only
have involved the earldom of Cornwall. No matter how much resentment toward
Piers remained, Parliament (effectively at this date meaning the magnates of
the realm) would never have wished to interfere in the proper operation of the
laws of inheritance, upon which their own tenure of, and peaceful transmission
of, their estates to their heirs depended. Margaret was an English-born coheir
to the greatest estates in the realm, and on her father's side she was related
to many of the greatest houses in the kingdom. None of that would have been
altered by her marriage to Gaveston, however much he was hated. For the
magnates to have denied her and her lawful issue the right to hold and inherit
her lawful share of the paternal lands, and for the king to have approved and
even to have benefited from it himself, would have been an act of tyranny
identical to those later perpetrated by Hugh Despenser the Younger, husband of
the eldest of the 3 Clare sisters, who with Edward II's tacit approval and
connivance brutally deprived the other 2 sisters--including Margaret--of their
shares of the Clare inheritance. It was largely for just this reason that
Despenser and the king were at last brought down: the other magnates became
terrified that they might stand in danger of losing their estates if Despenser
cast a covetous eye on them, as he had done with his sisters-in-laws'
purparties. I am afraid it is impossible to reconcile the idea that the same
men who in 1326 brought down Despenser for such actions would themselves have
assented to much the same thing in Margaret's case years earlier by denying her
and her issue her share of the Clare lands.

I would have thought it fairly obvious that, since Piers' Cornwall estates
were no longer a factor, Margaret's purparty of the Clare estates was the
only thing that made her daughter Joan an attractive marriage party for
the Wakes and the Multons. If parliament had denied Joan her right to
those lands, and if Piers were so hated that his issue were also loathed,
how to explain those two baronial houses' willingness to accept Joan?

> 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.

This theory runs quite against the grain of what one would expect from a
medieval mother in Margaret's position, which would more than likely have
been to defend her daughter's right to the death. One would also expect
Amy herself eventually to have made some attempt to recover right in Piers'
lands, particularly if she knew she enjoyed the favor of Edward III and
Queen Philippa. The few grants they did make to Amy in no way constituted
equal compensation for the extensive estates Piers had held, nor for the
share of the Clare lands that Amy, if legitimate, would have enjoyed as her
mother's coheir (with Margaret's daughter by Hugh Audley).

> 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].

This refers to the life of Edward II by the anonymous canon of Bridlington, and
(supported by evidence from Edward II's wardrobe accounts) it records the
birth of JOAN Gaveston, as I recall I stated yesterday or the day before.
I will have to check the chronology of Piers' marriage to Margaret, to see
whether they might have had another child before January 1312. If so it
did not survive. At Piers' death he was clearly stated to have left only
one daughter, Joan, and no reference is made to Margaret's pregnancy at
that time so it is unlikely there could have been a posthumous child.

> (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.

Except that the daughter born in 1312, whose name is not stated in the
chronicle cited above, was really Joan, who had died in 1325. We don't know
when Amy was born, but Piers being the sort of person he was I would not see it
as beyond the long arm of coincidence that he--or any medieval lord, for that
matter--could have had two children by different mothers born around the same
time. (I know a man today who has two such children, born six weeks apart.) The
chronicle cited above does not record twin daughters born in Jan. 1312.

> (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.

This proves nothing. Executors were not invariably relatives.

> 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.

I don't dispute this, but she could have been Piers' daughter without having
been Margaret's daughter.

> The conclusion therefore seems to be unassailable. Her date of birth
> makes it certain that Margaret de Clare must have been her mother.

It has not been established IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM that the 1312 chronicle
reference cited above refers to Amy, and other evidence makes it just as
"unassailable" that the daughter born early in 1312 was Joan.

> 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.

One would not expect that to be stated. The fine in no way involved lands that
might have descended to Amy from Piers, so there was no reason to specify there
whether she was legitimate or not.

> 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.

To the contrary, it would have been a praiseworthy act of charity to assist a
helpless young woman orphaned by her father's death. I am assuming that Amy's
mother was English, a situation that might have worked to her benefit in this
regard.

> 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.

Amy's position at court was not consistent with that of a royal relative, and
nor were her marriage nor the grants the king and queen made to her.

> 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.

They will have a damned hard time explaining Amy's exclusion from the Clare
inheritance. I repeat, whatever hatred built up against Piers would not have
been allowed to strike at the cherished principles of inheritance by a
legitimate child. How else to explain the fact that two ranking baronial
houses, Wake and Multon, were willing to accept Joan Gaveston as a potential
wife for their sons AFTER PIERS' DOWNFALL and the loss of the earldom of
Cornwall? More to the point, if Amy were also legitimate, why was she not
simply substituted for her sister after Joan died in 1325, and why did she
not ultimately marry Multon? Does not compute.

> 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.

It isn't defective or weak. For aught yet seen, it doesn't exist.

John Parsons

This thread: