GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-03 > 0983693152


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Amy de Gaveston - the 1334 fines
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 01:05:52 -0700


As this discussion is not progressing (the parties involved seem
to be talking past each other), let me try the following -

I have not read the 1334 fines, nor the subsequent documentation,
except those parts that have been quoted in posts to the group.
>From what I have seen here, I would summarize the transactions as
follows:

Breedon was, by fine, entailed by parson John de Driby to John,
son of Thomas de Driby, John de Kirkton being the intermediary in
this transaction (and held the final reversion, which never came
into play). Breedon came to be held by John and his wife Amy
"daughter of Piers de Gaveston", and was never challenged.

The reversion of Tattershall was granted to John de Kirkton, who
came to possess it after the death of parson John de Driby.
Thirty years later, it was challenged by the Bernake heir, Maud
Cromwell and her husband Sir Ralph. The original grant was found
to be wanting, and the Cromwells found to be the legitimate
owners, at which point Kirkton reached an agreement with the
Cromwells to continue to hold it until his death, when it passed
to them.

If this is inaccurate, what are the specific points of error? If
it is an accurate summary, can we then move on to the next stage
of the discussion of Amy (which presumably applies to the
relative accuracy of the statement in the 1334 Breedon fine that
Amy was daughter of Piers), which was the point of all this to
begin with.

taf

This thread: