GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-06 > 0928832356


From: Reedpcgen< >
Subject: Re: Amy Gaveston (still somewhat long)
Date: 8 Jun 1999 08:59:16 GMT


> i. Joan, b. ca. 1309,
>

One minor point. If Piers did marry Margaret de Clare in 1309 [by 5 August],
and she gave birth to Joan after a full term, Joan may well not have been born
until 1310.

Another minor point, we are assuming the child born in 1312 survived [in order
to fit an interpretation of evidence]. Margaret de Clare had only one known
daughter by her second marriage, though she would only have been about
twenty-four when she married Hugh (m. 1317).

I wonder about the wording of the grant to Piers of the lordship of the Isle of
Wight in 1307: to him, "his wife and the heirs of his body." I wonder if this
might possibly indicate a marriage for Piers before that to Margaret de Clare.

(For those not familiar with the situation, Piers was captured by the nobles
after the King's refusal to banish him and beheaded without any form of trial
on 19 June 1312.)

As to his homosexuality, I could conceive that a man as reportedly grandiose as
Piers might have wanted to produce some male heir to inherit lands and titles
he was certain would be granted to him by his familiar, Edward II, and thus
would have continued to try to produce a male heir even after the birth of one
or two daughters. I seriously doubt he was trying to 'do his duty' for
England. On the other hand, Piers might have been one of those who were
willing to have sex with anybody. Historical psychology has always been very
dangerous.

[!] The point that NO good share of Margaret de Clare's lands ended up among
any of the descendants of Amy de Gaveston is a FORMIDABLE point of evidence.

Margaret was daughter of Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, by
his wife Joan of Acre (and thus granddaughter of Edward I). Margaret's second
husband Hugh de Audley was created Earl of Gloucester. His only daughter and
heir, Margaret, married Ralph, 1st Earl of Stafford.

It always struck me as odd that Amy de Gaveston would marry so far below what
her status would have been as a close relative of the king (if she were, as was
reported, Piers' daughter by Margaret). If her real mother, however, were
herself closely associated with the court, it would explain why Amy might have
been there, but not married into the peerage (and not put into a nunnery after
the downfall of Piers).

At the death of Margaret de Clare on 9 April 1342, her daughter and heir was
found to be Margaret, wife of Ralph de Stafford, aged 18 or 20 [note the
discrepancy of two years]. It would be incredible if Margaret had another
daughter--in fact an OLDER daughter--who was not mentioned in SOME way. Amy
would have been eldest surviving daughter, with right to the better selection
of lands.

This MUST be explained (before other circumstantial theories are considered
further) as it is hard factual DIRECT evidence. [When Hugh de Audley died 10
Nov. 1347, his daughter and heir Margaret, was found to be aged 30 or 33 (note
a three year discrepancy, and then compare the calculated birth year with the
prevous inquisition).]

For instance, when Ralph, Lord Basset of Sapcote, Leicestershire, died without
male issue on 17 July 1378, his TWO daughters and heirs were found to be (1)
Alice, daughter by the first wife [Sibyl Astley], wife of Sir Laurence Dutton,
and afterwards wife of Sir Robert Moton, then aged 30, and (2) Elizabeth,
daughter of the second wife [Alice Driby], born at Castle Bytham 1 August 1372,
aged 7 (sic).

If Alice de Driby had right to the senior moiety of Margaret de Clare's
portion, one would think Lord Basset or Lord Grey would have at least attempted
to sue to reclaim the lands or get a better settlement. If one theorizes that
some type of private settlement was made which no longer survives (to explain
why Amy did not receive the de Clare lands), such a settlement would still have
had to be as valuable as what was given the younger daughter and her heirs,
representing a sizable amount of lands which should have been brought into the
Driby family by Amy. And one would still have expected that such a settlement
would have been mentioned by the jury at Margaret de Clare's death in order to
explain the holding and succession of lands by a younger daughter and coheir,
rather than by the senior representative (the jury was charged to determine how
and why the lands were held, not just what they were).

The flat out conclusion must be that Margaret de Clare had one daughter and
heir at her death. Is there ANY other possible conclusion?

pcr

This thread: