Descendants of King Stephen
Michelle.Mu...@ccmail.team400.ie
succession on to Henry of Anjou, the Empress Matilda's son, what was
the subsequent history of Stephen's children? I know that his eldest
son, Baldwin, died young, and that his next son Eustace married
Constance, the younger sister of King Louis VII of France. I assume
they had no issue? What happened to Constance after Eustace's death?
Did Stephen have any descendants through his other children (Mary,
William or any others)?
thanks,
Michelle
Brant Gibbard
Michelle.Murphy%EIH...@ccmail.team400.ie wrote:
>
> Did Stephen have any descendants through his other children (Mary,
> William or any others)?
>
I'm not sure whether William had any children or not, but Mary married
Matthew of Flanders, and had several children. In particular, her
daughter Maud married Henry I, D. of Brabant, thereby becoming an
ancestress of the Dukes of Brabant and Landgraves of Hesse, and
through them, most or all of the royal and noble houses of Europe.
Brant Gibbard
bgib...@inforamp.net
Toronto, Ont.
ED MANN
>
> Given that King Stephen disinherited his own son to pass the
> succession on to Henry of Anjou, the Empress Matilda's son, what was
> the subsequent history of Stephen's children? I know that his eldest
> son, Baldwin, died young, and that his next son Eustace married
> Constance, the younger sister of King Louis VII of France. I assume
> they had no issue? What happened to Constance after Eustace's death?
>
> William or any others)?
Among others:
Direct Descendants of Stephen of England
1 King Stephen of England aka: Stephen de Blois b: Abt. 1095 d: 25
Oct 1154 ref #: Ä169-25
+Mathilda de Boulogne b: Abt. 1105 d: 3 Jul 1151 ref #: Ä158-24
2 Count Eustace IV de Boulogne b: Abt. 1129 d: 10 Aug 1153 ref #:
Ä169A-26
3 [1] Eustachie de Champagne ref #: Ä169A-27
*2nd Husband of [1] Eustachie de Champagne:
+Anselme Candavaine de St. Pol d: 1164 ref #: (Ä109-27)
4 Beatrice de St. Pol aka: Beatrice Candavaine de St. Pol b: Abt.
1160 d: Aft. 1204 ref #: Ä169A-28
+Count Jean I de Ponthieu aka: John I de Ponthieu b: Abt. 1140 d: 30
Jun 1191 ref #: Ä109-27
5 William III Talvas de Ponthieu b: 1179 d: 4 Oct 1221 ref #:
Ä109-28
+Alix de France b: Abt. 1170 d: Aft. 18 Jul 1218 ref #: S243-27
6 Comtesse Marie de Ponthieu aka: Jeanne de Ponthieu b: 17 Apr 1199
d: Sep 1250 ref #: Ä109-29
+Comte Simon II de Dammartin aka: Comte de Aumale b: 1180 d: 1239
ref #: Ä144-27
7 Joan de Dammartin aka: Joan de Dammartin b: Abt. 1214 d: 16 Mar
1278/79 ref #: Ä109-30
+King Fernando III de León-Castile aka: "Fernando the Saint" b: 1191
d: 30 May 1252 ref #: Ä110-29
8 Princess Alianore de Castile b: 1240 d: 28 Nov 1290 ref #: Ä110-30
+King Edward I of England aka: "Longshanks" b: 17 Jun 1239 d: 1307
ref #: BRF:81
9 King Edward II of England b: 25 Apr 1284 d: 21 Sep 1327 ref #:
F228:13
--
FWIW; AFAIK; IMHO; YMMV; yadda, yadda, yadda.
Regards, Ed Mann mailto:edl...@mail2.lcia.com
References:
Ä = Weis, _Ancestral_Roots_, 7th ed.
AACPW = Roberts & Reitwiesner, _American Ancestors and Cousins of
the Princess of Wales_, [page].
AAP = Roberts, _Ancestors_of_American_Presidents_, [page] or
[Pres. # : page].
BP1 = _Burke's_Presidential_Families_, 1st ed. [page].
BPci = _Burke's_Peerage_, 101st ed., [page].
BRF = Weir, _Britain's_Royal_Families_, [page].
BxP = _Burke's_Dormant_&_Extinct_Peerages_, [page].
EC1 = Redlich, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol I, [page].
EC2 = Langston & Buck, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
EC3 = Buck & Beard, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
F = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, [page:para].
NK1 = Roberts, _Notable_Kin_Volume_One_, [page].
Π= Hardy, _Colonial_Families_of_the_Southern_States_of_America_,
[page].
S = Stuart, _Royalty_for_Commoners_, 2d ed. Caveat emptor.
W = Weis, _Magna_Charta_Sureties,_1215_, 4th ed.
WFT = Broderbund's World Family Tree CD, [vol]:[num] Caveat emptor.
WMC = Wurt's Magna Charta, [vol]:[page]
John Carmi Parsons
otherwise. She is known to us only as a kinswoman of King Henry II, and
has generally been assumed to have been a descendant of one of the OOW
children of Henry I. If that is correct, the theory that she belonged to
the Perche-Gouet family may perhaps be the likeliest. But this Eustache
was NOT King Stephen's daughter nor the daughter of his son Eustace. Nor
to my knowledge is there any reason or justification for designating her
"of Champagne."
John Parsons
ED MANN
John Carmi Parsons wrote:
>
> "Eustache de Champagne" was not a child of King Stephen, legitimate or
> otherwise. She is known to us only as a kinswoman of King Henry II, and
> has generally been assumed to have been a descendant of one of the OOW
> children of Henry I. If that is correct, the theory that she belonged to
> the Perche-Gouet family may perhaps be the likeliest. But this Eustache
> was NOT King Stephen's daughter nor the daughter of his son Eustace. Nor
> to my knowledge is there any reason or justification for designating her
> "of Champagne."
> On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, ED MANN wrote:
>
> > Direct Descendants of Stephen of England
> >
> > 1 King Stephen of England aka: Stephen de Blois b: Abt. 1095 d: 25
> > Oct 1154 ref #: Ä169-25
> > +Mathilda de Boulogne b: Abt. 1105 d: 3 Jul 1151 ref #: Ä158-24
> > 2 Count Eustace IV de Boulogne b: Abt. 1129 d: 10 Aug 1153 ref #:
> > Ä169A-26
> > 3 [1] Eustachie de Champagne ref #: Ä169A-27
> > *2nd Husband of [1] Eustachie de Champagne:
> > +Anselme Candavaine de St. Pol d: 1164 ref #: (Ä109-27)
You may be correct, but you've cited no source other than your own
opinion to substantiate this. I double checked Weis, AR7, Line 169A-27,
which I did cite, and it's just as I said.
John Carmi Parsons
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, ED MANN wrote:
> <edited>
>
> John Carmi Parsons wrote:
> >
> > "Eustache de Champagne" was not a child of King Stephen, legitimate or
> > otherwise. She is known to us only as a kinswoman of King Henry II, and
> > has generally been assumed to have been a descendant of one of the OOW
> > children of Henry I. If that is correct, the theory that she belonged to
> > the Perche-Gouet family may perhaps be the likeliest. But this Eustache
> > was NOT King Stephen's daughter nor the daughter of his son Eustace. Nor
> > to my knowledge is there any reason or justification for designating her
> > "of Champagne."
>
> You may be correct, but you've cited no source other than your own
> opinion to substantiate this. I double checked Weis, AR7, Line 169A-27,
> which I did cite, and it's just as I said.
Neither Weis nor any other authority can invariably claim to be 100% correct,
and just because someone has managed to get a certain statement in print does
not mean it's infallible. There was, in fact, a brief thread on this list
about "Eustache of Champagne" a few months ago and the consensus was that she
did not belong to Stephen's family, either as daughter or granddaughter. The
suggested Perche-Gouet filiation was mentioned, though someone expressed some
doubts about it. The entire discussion should be easily recoverable from
dejanews.
John Parsons
ED MANN
I'd have to rate "a brief thread on this list" as interesting, but less
reliable than something that has at least made it into print. I'll
leave Eustachie where she is in my db for the time being.
John Carmi Parsons
he cite, to support Eustache's descent from Stephen? Weis may merely repeat
someone else's speculation. We know only that Eustache was a kinswoman of
Henry II. That she was so described, rather than by reference to her <quite
unproven> descent from Stephen, is in itself significant.
John Parsons
Reedpcgen
>What reasons does Weis give, or what original sources and authorities does >he
cite, to support Eustache's descent from Stephen?
The descent given in AR in line 169A. It shows Eustachie de Champagne as
daughter of Eustace IV, Count of Boulogne, by an unknown mistress, and that she
m. (1) Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, but they were divorced and he
died without issue. She then m. (2) Anselme Candavaine, Count of "Saint-Pol",
d. 1164, by whom she had three sons, Hugh, count of St. Pol, Enguerrand, and
Guy, and a daughter, "Beatrice Candavaine, de St. Pol" given as marrying "John
I" Count of Ponthieu.
The only source for the entire line is _The Genealogists' Magazine_, v. 15, pp.
186-7, which volume I am misisng.
But the addendum et corrigenda of CP 14:309, says, "delete from 'said [to be
kinswoman of Henry II]... and replace by 'probably bastard da. of Eustace IV,
Count of Boulogne (d. 1153). Charles Evans was the author of that article, and
usually dependable in these matters, but not infallible.
pcr
John Carmi Parsons
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999, Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
> Reedpcgen wrote:
>> The only source for the entire line is _The Genealogists' Magazine_, v. 15, pp.
>> 186-7, which volume I am missing.
>> But the addendum et corrigenda of CP 14:309, says, "delete from 'said [to be
>> kinswoman of Henry II]... and replace by 'probably bastard da. of Eustace IV,
>> Count of Boulogne (d. 1153). Charles Evans was the author of that article, and
>> usually dependable in these matters, but not infallible.
> This brief note by Charles Evans basically ran as follows:
>
> 1. We have this kinswoman of Henry II known as Eustache de Champaigne
> who married Mandeville and St. Pol.
>
> 2. If we look at the Champagne family, they didn't use the name Eustace
> or Eustache, with the sole exception being the son of King Stephen, by
> the daughter of Eustace, Count of Boulogne.
>
> 3. The unique concurrance of the name and toponym in this generations
> suggests that she was an illegitimate daughter of Eustace, Stephen's
> son.
>
> Unfortunately, he does not cite anything contemporary for "de
> Champagne", and the entire strength of the argument depends on this name
> being authentic.
It is, in any event, misleading in the last degree. King Stephen himself,
and of course his son Eustace, were not "of Champagne" to begin with; they
were "of Blois," so there is little justification in calling an illegitimate
daughter of Eustace (assuming he ever fathered one) "of Champagne." Indeed
since Eustace was count of Boulogne in his own right, one would expect any
such daughter to be called "of Boulogne" rather than "Blois."
> The Gouet theory was in one of the articles in Family Trees and the Roots of
> Politics, so t is not a choice between a published identification and an
> internet discussion. It is a choice between an older published suggestion
> by Evans, and a more recent one (I forget the author, but it was obviously
> vetted by Katherine Keats-Rohan and Christian Settipani).
The Perche-Gouet theory appears in Kathleen Thompson's article, "The
Formation of the County of Perche," in the Keats-Rohan volume Todd cites;
the relevant genealogical table is on p. 302, where Eustache is shown with a
question mark. The suggested filiation appears to depend on the name of the
wife of William Gouet II d.c. 1120, also Eustachia (no family). William and
Eustachia's son William Gouet III fl. 1120s married Mabel, OOW daughter of
Henry I of England; Thompson suggests Eustachia, countess of Essex and
afterward of St-Pol, as William III and Mabel's daughter, sister of William
Gouet IV d. c. 1168.
I believe, however, that the Perche theory has been around longer than that,
as I have it in a table of Henry I's OOW descendants that I drew up as a grad
student sometime in the late 70s or very early 80s. I will leaf through my
notes to see if I can identify an earlier source.
John Parsons
D. Spencer Hines
>It is, in any event, misleading in the last degree. King Stephen
>himself, and of course his son Eustace, were not
>"of Champagne" to begin with; they were "of Blois," so there
>is little justification in calling an illegitimate daughter of
>Eustace (assuming he ever fathered one) "of Champagne."
>Indeed since Eustace was count of Boulogne in his own
>right, one would expect any such daughter to be called
>"of Boulogne" rather than "Blois."
This is a good point. It has come up before, in another context, and
I'll have more to say on it, at the proper time.
Suffice it to say that we really should be more precise in how we call
medieval people --- or, in fact, historical and genealogical figures,
in general.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "All good things to those who wait." --- Dr.
Hannibal Lecter [Anthony Hopkins] to Agent Clarice Starling [Jodie
Foster] in "The Silence of the Lambs" [1991]
John Carmi Parsons wrote in message ...
John Carmi Parsons
statement says that Eustache was a kinswoman of Henry II, is the tag "of
Champagne" also a contemporary one? Or does it show up only later? I would
thus beg the opportunity to amend the wording of my earlier posting that Dr
Hines repeats below:
"... there is little justification in assuming that Eustace's illegitimate
daughter (if he ever fathered one) would have been called "of Champagne" in
the 12th century."
John Parsons