Why did John Driby of Tattershall appear in a Fine where the first
reversion was to John son of Thomas de Driby, and Amie the daughter of
Piers de Gaveston and their issue ?
John Driby of Tattershall is known to be the third son of Joan de
Tattershall by her husband Sir Robert Driby.
They had two daughters, but where does a "Thomas Driby" father of John
come in?
It would stand to reason, that for the first reversion to be to him,
possibly on their marriage, he should stand in close relationship to
John Driby of Tattershall.
The chronology, loose as it is, will admit the possibility that Thomas
is a younger brother to John. If so, Thomas would have to be born
exactly between 1287 and 1302, his son John would then be born between
1305 and 1320 making him an OK match for Amy Gaveston who was born Jan
or Feb of 1312. So there is no chronologic problem there.
However, Thomas might also be a younger brother to John Driby of
Tattershall's father Sir Robert Driby who died sometime between 1293
and 1309.
Will Johnson
John Driby / Amy Gaveston
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
John Watson
Re: John Driby / Amy Gaveston
On Dec 12, 1:38 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Hi Will,
Have you considered Hikaru's theory, that the complicated land
transfers were not aimed at John de Driby, who was probably a nobody,
a distant relative of the Dribys perhaps, but at Amy de Gavaston?
Regards,
John
Why did John Driby of Tattershall appear in a Fine where the first
reversion was to John son of Thomas de Driby, and Amie the daughter of
Piers de Gaveston and their issue ?
John Driby of Tattershall is known to be the third son of Joan de
Tattershall by her husband Sir Robert Driby.
They had two daughters, but where does a "Thomas Driby" father of John
come in?
It would stand to reason, that for the first reversion to be to him,
possibly on their marriage, he should stand in close relationship to
John Driby of Tattershall.
The chronology, loose as it is, will admit the possibility that Thomas
is a younger brother to John. If so, Thomas would have to be born
exactly between 1287 and 1302, his son John would then be born between
1305 and 1320 making him an OK match for Amy Gaveston who was born Jan
or Feb of 1312. So there is no chronologic problem there.
However, Thomas might also be a younger brother to John Driby of
Tattershall's father Sir Robert Driby who died sometime between 1293
and 1309.
Will Johnson
Hi Will,
Have you considered Hikaru's theory, that the complicated land
transfers were not aimed at John de Driby, who was probably a nobody,
a distant relative of the Dribys perhaps, but at Amy de Gavaston?
Regards,
John
-
wjhonson
Re: John Driby / Amy Gaveston
Hi Will,
Have you considered Hikaru's theory, that the complicated land
transfers were not aimed at John de Driby, who was probably a nobody,
a distant relative of the Dribys perhaps, but at Amy de Gavaston?
Regards,
John- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If I want *you* to be the beneficiary of something, why would I give
it to someone else with reversion to you? Why not directly *to* you?
The reason is, that these were lands given from x to y, then back to x
again with a reversion. So it was John Driby of Tattershall who was
in control of what to do with the lands. He is the one who was doing
something in favor of John Driby "of Breedon" and Amy Gaveston.
I'm not favoring my idea that Thomas Driby was a younger brother of
John Driby of Tattershall. I think he was probably his uncle. So
that John Driby who married Amy Gaveston was the first cousin of John
Driby of Tattershall. That makes more sense to me.
-
John Watson
Re: John Driby / Amy Gaveston
On Dec 12, 4:54 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Hi Will,
I think that you are probably right, but unfortunately Thomas Driby
seems to have left no written record of his existence, so however we
try to fit him in to the de Driby family it has to be conjecture.
Coming back to your original post - how do you know Amy Gaveston was
born Jan or Feb of 1312?
Regards,
John
Hi Will,
Have you considered Hikaru's theory, that the complicated land
transfers were not aimed at John de Driby, who was probably a nobody,
a distant relative of the Dribys perhaps, but at Amy de Gavaston?
Regards,
John- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If I want *you* to be the beneficiary of something, why would I give
it to someone else with reversion to you? Why not directly *to* you?
The reason is, that these were lands given from x to y, then back to x
again with a reversion. So it was John Driby of Tattershall who was
in control of what to do with the lands. He is the one who was doing
something in favor of John Driby "of Breedon" and Amy Gaveston.
I'm not favoring my idea that Thomas Driby was a younger brother of
John Driby of Tattershall. I think he was probably his uncle. So
that John Driby who married Amy Gaveston was the first cousin of John
Driby of Tattershall. That makes more sense to me.
Hi Will,
I think that you are probably right, but unfortunately Thomas Driby
seems to have left no written record of his existence, so however we
try to fit him in to the de Driby family it has to be conjecture.
Coming back to your original post - how do you know Amy Gaveston was
born Jan or Feb of 1312?
Regards,
John