Stephen de Blois - ONE
Leo van de Pas
I think many will agree that in family trees, displaying
those early Kings of England, Stephen de Blois is hardly mentioned,
probably because he did not continue the royal line. For a long time I
presumed (well twenty years ago)
he did not have children, then I spotted he did have children
but finding grandchildren seemed hard. Now, someone maintains one of his
sons had an illegitimate child....but that aside,
how many American descendants does he have? John Steele Gordon definitely
is one.
In the Ancestor list of King Edward III, Stephen de Blois occupies number 502.
In the Ancestor list of Elizabeth of York (Queen of Henry VII) Stephen de
Blois occupies nr. 4254, 5790, 7318, 8438,
10166, 11510, 19102, 19382, 19814 and 38134.
I would like to present a record of only a few generations, how incomplete
it may be, of his descendants, but first a little bit about him :
When Henry I resolved to settle the crown on his daughter Matilda, Stephen
de Blois with other nobles swore fealty to her, but on Henry's death
claimed the crown. Attempting to strenghten his position with the help of
mercenaries, he made more enemies than friends by the favours he heaped on
some of the great lords. King David of Scotland invaded the north on
Matilda's behalf and retained Cumberland. The first powerful enemy King
Stephen made was Robert, Earl of Gloucester, an illegitimate son of Henry
I; next he quarrelled with the clergy. The realm then fell into sheer
anarchy; the barons plundered and burned at their pleasure.
In 1139 Matilda landed at Arundel; in 1141 she took Stephen prisoner at
Lincoln and was acknowledged queen; but her harshness and greed soon
disgusted England. The men of London rose and she fled to Winchester. In
November 1141 Stephen regained his liberty in exchange for Robert, Earl of
Gloucester, and in 1142 saw him again in the ascendant. In 1148 Matilda
left England, but her son Henry (II) forced Stephen to acknowledge him as
his successor.
Stephen de Blois, King of England 1135-1154
born circa 1096 Blois
died 25 October 1154 Dover
married 1125
Matilda, Countess of Boulogne and Lens, daughter of
Eustace III, Count of Boulogne and Lens, and Mary of Scotland
Children Generation I
------------------------------
Generation I
1.Baudouin de Blois
born circa 1126
died circa 2 December 1135
buried Aldegate, Holy Trinity Church
2.Eustache IV, Comte de Boulogne
born circa 1130/1131
died 10 August 1153
married February 1140 Paris
Constance de France, daughter of Louis VI, King of France,
and Adele de Savoie
born circa 1124/1128
died 16 August 1176 Reims
childless
3.Matilda de Blois
born circa 1133, died circa 1135
buried Aldgate, Holy Trinity Church
4.William II de Blois,
Comte de Boulogne, Earl of Warenne and Surrey
born circa 1134
killed in battle 11 October 1159 Toulouse
married 1149
Isabel de Warenne, daughter of William de Warenne,
3rd Earl of Surrey and Warenne, and Ela de Ponthieu
born circa 1137
died 12 July 1203
buried Lewes, Chapter House
childless
5.Marie de Blois, Comtesse de Boulogne
born circa 1136
married circa 1160, annulled 1169
Matthieu, Comte de Boulogne, son of Thierry d'Alsace,
Count of Flanders, and Sibylla d'Anjou
born circa 1138
died 25 July 1173
child Generation II
-----------------------------------------
Generation II
1.Mathilde de Boulogne
born circa 1161
died circa 1210
buried Louvain, Saint Peter
married before 30 March 1180
Hendrik I, Duke of Brabant 1183-1235, son of
Godfried III, Duke of Lower-Lorraine, and Margaretha
von Limburg
born 1165, died circa 3 September 1235 Koln
buried Louvain, Saint Peter
children Generation III
-----------------------------------------------
Generation III
1.Maria of Brabant
born circa 1191
died 9 March 1260/14 June 1260
married (1) 19 May 1214 Maastricht
Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor 1209-1218, son of
Heinrich 'the Lion', Duke of Saxony and Matilda
of England
born 1177, died 19 May 1218 Harzburg
married (2) July 1220
Willem I, Count of Holland 1203-1222, son of
Floris III, Count of Holland, and Aleida of Scotland
childless
2.Margaretha of Brabant
died 5 May 1231 (or 21 September 1231)
married circa 1206
Gerhard, Count of Gelre, son of Otto I, Count of Gelre,
and Richardis von Scheyern-Wittelsbach
born circa 1185
died 22 October 1229
children Generation IV-1
3.Aleidis of Brabant
died before 1267
married (1) 1206
Arnulf, Count von Loon
died before 6 October 1221
married (2) before 3 February 1225
Guillaume IX, Comte d'Auvergne, son of Guy II,
Comte d'Auvergne, and Pernelle de Chambon,
Dame de Combrailles
died 1246
married (3) before 21 April 1251
Arnold de Wesemaele
died after 1288
children Generation IV-2
4.Machteld of Brabant
died 22 December 1267
married (1) circa 1212 Aachen
Heinrich II, Pfalzgraf bei Rhein
born circa 1195
died 1 May 1214
married (2) before 6 December 1224
Floris IV, Count of Holland 1222-1234, son of Willem I,
Count of Holland, and Aleida of Gelre
born 24 June 1210
killed by jousting 19 July 1234 Noyon or Corbie
children Generation IV-3
5.Hendrik II, Duke of Brabant 1235-1248
born 1207, died 1 February 1248 Louvain
married (1) before 22 August 1215
Maria von Hohenstaufen, daughter of Philipp von
Hohenstaufen, King of The Romans, and Irene Angela
born 1201, died 1235 Louvain
married (2) 1240
Sophia von Thuringen, daughter of St.Ludwig IV,
Landgraf von Thuringen, and St.Elisabeth of Hungary
born 20 March 1224 Wartburg
died 29 May 1275 Marburg an der Lahn
children Generation IV-4
6.Godfried de Louvain
Lord of Baucignies, Leeuwe and Gaesbeek
born 1209, died 21 January 1253
buried Affligem
married before 7 August 1243
Marie van Oudenaerde, Heiress of Herve, Baucignies
and Gaesbeek, daughter of Arnold IV van Oudenaerde,
Heer van Oudenaarde and Pamele, and Alix (Adelheid)
de Rozoy
died after 24 August 1293
children Generation IV-5
----------------------------------------
to be continued
Leo van de Pas
John Carmi Parsons
was that he was, according to official Plantagenet historiography, a base
usurper like Harold Godwinson. He therefore interrupted the legitimate
descent of the throne ("legitimate" in the sense that that was what suited
the later Plantagenets) from Henry I to Henry II.
John Parsons
D. Spencer Hines
This is an excellent *Ahnenreihe.* Thanks for taking the time and
doing all the hard work to produce it and present it to us.
Having done several of these myself, e.g. Eleanor of Aquitaine and
Henri, Comte de Paris, I know how difficult and demanding they are to
create.
Many folks seem to be descended from King Stephen, tens of millions no
doubt. Just as tens of millions are descended from the Empress
Matilda, Henry I and Henry II. Which means that this is a rather
routine royal descent, nothing to write home about.
If the scribes have it right, Stephen is my 25th Great-Grandfather.
The television series on Brother Caedmon has probably enhanced
interest in the reign of King Stephen [1135-1154]. Usurpers who
perjure themselves often don't fare so well in History, particularly
if they don't have very competent scribes of their own to make sure a
favorable view is impressed on the historical record.
D. Spencer Hines
Fortem Posce Animum
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tuo da
gloriam, propter misericordiam Tuam et veritatem Tuam." Henry V,
[1387-1422] King of England --- Ordered it to be sung by his prelates
and chaplains --- after the Battle of Agincourt, 25 Oct 1415, ---
while every able-bodied man in his victorious army knelt, on the
ground. [Psalm CXV, Verse I
D. Spencer Hines
the film star, who was married to Shirley Temple? <g>] was kind enough
to point out that I should have said Brother Cadfael rather than
Brother Caedmon.
Thank you kindly for the correction, Elizabeth.
Pax vobiscum,
Spencer
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tuo da
gloriam, propter misericordiam Tuam et veritatem Tuam." Henry V,
[1387-1422] King of England --- Ordered it to be sung by his prelates
and chaplains --- after the Battle of Agincourt, 25 Oct 1415, ---
while every able-bodied man in his victorious army knelt, on the
ground. [Psalm CXV, Verse I]
MTaHT
For those who like historical fiction, may I recommend:
"When Christ and his Saints Slept",
by Sharon Kay Penman.
It's a fun read and presents a very balanced account of the war between Etienne
and Maud.
Happy New Year,
Mike Talbot
sk...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
To the foregoing, I add the following from my notes on Henry II:
The birth of HENRY assured the succession of the Angevin line. It was
a cause of great joy to his grandfather HENRY I but there is reason to
doubt the joy was universal. The Counts of Anjou had a reputation for
ferocity, arrogance and cruelty. Actually HENRY I was partly mistaken
in his joy: His daughter Matilda despite a long civil war was never
able to enforce her claim to the crown, and the war with Stephen was
settled by an agreement (Treaty of Wallingford, January 1153) that
Stephen would keep the throne for his life and on his death Matilda's
son, Henry II, would succeed. He was the first "Plantagenet" king.
Or was he? Indeed, did Angevin kings ever rule England?
Costain, The Conquering Family marshalls some evidence for the rumor
that HENRY II was in fact the son of Stephen and not of GEOFFREY of
ANJOU.
It was frequently rumored that Matilda was in love with Stephen. Her
hatred of GEOFFREY was notorious. HENRY II must have been conceived
in the summer of 1131 since he was born in March 1132 (Julian). But
by 1131 MATILDA had been in England for some years, having left
GEOFFREY for the fourth time, saying she would never return to him.
Then suddenly, inexplicably, she went back to Anjou. Was she pregnant
by Stephen?
In some of the old descriptions of Wallingford it is said that HENRY
called Stephen "father" in the shouted negotiations across the river's
waters; this may be pure invention, tied in with the invention of
MATILDA's plea to Stephen (see note under William d' Aubigny).
Then, there is an inference arising from the Will of GEOFFREY. This
will gave the counties of Anjou, Touraine and Maine, which GEOFFREY
held by inheritance, to his eldest son (HENRY) unless HENRY should
ever become king of England, in which case the earldoms were to go to
the second son, Geoffrey. Costain op. cit. suggests that this
provision, coupled with the fact that GEOFFREY had left instructions
that he was not to be buried until HENRY had agreed to accept the
unknown terms of his will, supports the surmise that GEOFFREY believed
HENRY not to be his son. But the pig-in-the-poke adds little if
anything to the unsupported inference, which might be explained by a
natural desire to keep the counties out from under English rule.
Still again, when HENRY became king of England and refused to give up
the counties, Geoffrey, Jr. loudly proclaimed that the dishonored will
had been drawn to favor him, whose legitimacy could not be doubted.
Finally, the famous handsomness of the "Angevin" kings could as easily
have been inherited from Stephen as from GEOFFREY. Stephen was "said
to be the handsomest man in Europe ... tall and striking-looking and
debonair." (Costain, op. cit. p. 13.)
To these points I would add: Stephen had a son, Eustace, whose
interests were prejudiced (to say the least) by the Wallingford deal.
History gives no satisfactory reason why Stephen so easily bargained
away his acknowledged son's interests. If he was aware of his being
also the father of HENRY, Wallingford might be more easily understood.
Fun, huh?
Stephen had a pretty good claim to the throne, since he was a grandson
of William the Conqueror, via Adela.
>
I do look forward to the rest of LvdP's promised descendant-tree. I'm
already getting out my calculater to decode those AT numbers!
RIGHT ON!
>
>Leo van de Pas
John Carmi Parsons
On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 sk...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> To the foregoing [Leo van de Pas' posting on Stephen's career and early
> descendants], I add the following from my notes on Henry II:
> The birth of HENRY assured the succession of the Angevin line.
"Assured"? Hardly. If it had "assured" the succession, either Matilda the
Empress or the child Henry of Anjou would have succeeded Henry I directly
and Stephen would have had no chance to seize the throne. All the birth
of Henry of Anjou accomplished in this sense was to give Henry I a male
descendant in the legitimate line.
> It was
> a cause of great joy to his grandfather HENRY I but there is reason to
> doubt the joy was universal. The Counts of Anjou had a reputation for
> ferocity, arrogance and cruelty. Actually HENRY I was partly mistaken
> in his joy: His daughter Matilda despite a long civil war was never
> able to enforce her claim to the crown, and the war with Stephen was
> settled by an agreement (Treaty of Wallingford, January 1153) that
> Stephen would keep the throne for his life and on his death Matilda's
> son, Henry II, would succeed. He was the first "Plantagenet" king.
> Or was he? Indeed, did Angevin kings ever rule England?
> Costain, The Conquering Family marshalls some evidence for the rumor
> that HENRY II was in fact the son of Stephen and not of GEOFFREY of
> ANJOU.
As has been remarked often enough on this list, Costain should not be
considered an authority on this or any other matter. The "rumors" that
Stephen was really Henry II's father are largely of post-medieval origin
and represent romantic writers' fantasizing.
> It was frequently rumored that Matilda was in love with Stephen. Her
> hatred of GEOFFREY was notorious. HENRY II must have been conceived
> in the summer of 1131 since he was born in March 1132 (Julian).
Henry was born in March 1133 according to modern reckoning, so you'll have
to move your story forward a year: he was conceived in the summer of 1132.
True, Matilda did agree to an unexpected reconciliation with Geoffrey at
that time, largely at her father's urging, but again the belief that she
rushed back to Anjou because she was already pregnant by somebody else is
largely the creation of salacious later "historians."
> Then, there is an inference arising from the Will of GEOFFREY. This
> will gave the counties of Anjou, Touraine and Maine, which GEOFFREY
> held by inheritance, to his eldest son (HENRY) unless HENRY should
> ever become king of England, in which case the earldoms were to go to
> the second son, Geoffrey. Costain op. cit. suggests that this
> provision, coupled with the fact that GEOFFREY had left instructions
> that he was not to be buried until HENRY had agreed to accept the
> unknown terms of his will, supports the surmise that GEOFFREY believed
> HENRY not to be his son.
It supports nothing of the kind. If this story about Geoffrey's will were
true, it need mean nothing more than that he was merely trying to ensure
that his own patrimony escaped the Norman net. But Marjorie Chibnall's
authoritative biography of _The Empress Matilda_ (Blackwell's, 1991), p.
155, doubts there is any truth to this story at all: "Henry [II]'s father
most probably intended the family patrimony to pass to his eldest son,
even if he succeeded in making good his claim to the throne of England."
> To these points I would add: Stephen had a son, Eustace, whose
> interests were prejudiced (to say the least) by the Wallingford deal.
> History gives no satisfactory reason why Stephen so easily bargained
> away his acknowledged son's interests. If he was aware of his being
> also the father of HENRY, Wallingford might be more easily understood.
Eustace of Blois died on 10 Aug. 1152. The Treaty of Wallingford was
agreed the following November. Eustace's interests were not compromised,
but those of Stephen's younger son William of Blois remained to be
considered. Henry II in fact showed himself remarkably generous to
William, confirming him in possession of the earldom of Surrey which
William held *jure uxoris* and in other rich possessions in England.
John Parsons
sk...@ix.netcom.com
<shi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Leo et Omnes,
>
>This is an excellent *Ahnenreihe.* Thanks for taking the time and
>doing all the hard work to produce it and present it to us.
>
>Having done several of these myself, e.g. Eleanor of Aquitaine and
>Henri, Comte de Paris, I know how difficult and demanding they are to
>create.
>
>Many folks seem to be descended from King Stephen, tens of millions no
>doubt. Just as tens of millions are descended from the Empress
>Matilda, Henry I and Henry II. Which means that this is a rather
>routine royal descent, nothing to write home about.
>
>If the scribes have it right, Stephen is my 25th Great-Grandfather.
>
>The television series on Brother Caedmon has probably enhanced
>interest in the reign of King Stephen [1135-1154]. Usurpers who
>perjure themselves often don't fare so well in History,
Shh! Quiet! This may not be the best possible time to talk about how
perjurers who won't resign may fare in history!
>particularly
>if they don't have very competent scribes of their own to make sure a
>favorable view is impressed on the historical record.
>
>D. Spencer Hines
>
>Fortem Posce Animum
D. Spencer Hines
D. Spencer Hines
Bene Merentibus
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tuo da
gloriam, propter misericordiam Tuam et veritatem Tuam." Henry V,
[1387-1422] King of England --- Ordered it to be sung by his prelates
and chaplains --- after the Battle of Agincourt, 25 Oct 1415, ---
while every able-bodied man in his victorious army knelt, on the
ground. [Psalm CXV, Verse I]
John Carmi Parsons wrote in message ...
>
>On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 sk...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
<snip>
>> To these points I would add: Stephen had a son, Eustace, whose
>> interests were prejudiced (to say the least) by the Wallingford
deal.
>> History gives no satisfactory reason why Stephen so easily
bargained
>> away his acknowledged son's interests. If he was aware of his
being
>> also the father of HENRY, Wallingford might be more easily
understood.
>
>Eustace of Blois died on 10 Aug. 1152. The Treaty of Wallingford was
>agreed the following November. Eustace's interests were not
compromised,
>but those of Stephen's younger son William of Blois remained to be
>considered. Henry II in fact showed himself remarkably generous to
>William, confirming him in possession of the earldom of Surrey which
>William held *jure uxoris* and in other rich possessions in England.
>
>John Parsons
>
Actually, Eustace of Boulogne, born circa 1130, died in August
1153 --- probably on the 17th. He was killed, some accounts say
struck down by the Wrath of God, while plundering church lands near
Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk. It was HIS death which made possible a
SETTLEMENT of the Civil War between the Empress Matilda, with her son
Henry, on the one side --- and King Stephen --- and the subsequent
succession of that young son Henry as Henry II, when he was 21.
I do have some responsibility to straighten out all the hugger mugger
noted supra --- because Henry II, if the scribes have it right, is my
25th Great-Grandfather, by the shortest descent.
Some historians have styled Eustace as a "nasty piece of work" and
perhaps he was. In any case, he seems to have been respected only as
a soldier, not as a potential monarch. Stephen tried to persuade
Theobald, the Archbishop of Canterbury to crown Eustace on 6 April
1152 in London, in the presence of a group of barons, who paid homage
to Eustace --- but Theobald refused.
There are still a large group of educators who teach History and
allied disciplines, who think that dates are not really all that
important. [N.B. I am not talking about either of the two gentlemen,
supra.] These craven educators have caved in to the demands of
students who are too lazy to be sensitive to accurate dating --- and
yes, "memorize" them on occasion. Yes, the "Doctors of Education" in
the United States bear a heavy share of the burden of blame, as well.
Hence, we often run across incredible mistakes of this sort.
In short, it is vitally important to know that Eustace was DEAD at the
time the Peace of Winchester was concluded on 6 Nov 1153, after a
hard-fought Battle of Wallingford Castle, won by Henry. There seems
to be some hugger mugger confusion about those facts, supra. Battle
at WALLINGFORD. Peace at WINCHESTER.
Quite contrary to somehow being cheated or having his legitimate
interests compromised by his Father, King Stephen, at Winchester,
Eustace's prior DEATH was a principal CAUSAL FACTOR in securing the
Peace.
Dates are damned important --- pay no attention to them and pay the
price of failure, embarrassment and gibberish creation --- when doing
Genealogy or History --- or both. Many of the professional educators
have really botched this one over the past 35 years or so. Good
Attorneys understand the importance of dates.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Bene Merentibus
Elizabeth Agar
Happy New Year to all,
Regards,
Liz, in another time and place (1999 in Melbourne)
On Friday, January 01, 1999 1:54 AM, D. Spencer Hines [SMTP:shi...@worldnet.att.net] wrote:
> Elizabeth Agar, in Melbourne, [who might even be related to John Agar,
> the film star, who was married to Shirley Temple? <g>] snip...
GLAUC...@aol.com
<<Dates are damned important --- pay no attention to them and pay the
price of failure, embarrassment and gibberish creation --- when doing
Genealogy or History --- or both. Many of the professional educators
have really botched this one over the past 35 years or so. Good
Attorneys understand the importance of dates.>>
Spencer,
You are quite correct. One event can only cause another if it precedes it in
time. The sequence of events is therefore of some importance in history. One
shouldn't have to explain this to historians but it seems to be necessary.
Facts seem to get in the way of some historians' main goal: the fashioning of
a foundation myth to support their current political preferences. Come to
think of it, many historians are not much different from those early Scribes
who created foundation myth genealogies for the early house of Wessex and so
on. They simply do it with history.
I have to thank one of my first history professors for impressing upon me the
importance of the objective facts in history. Professor Gottfried Dietze at
Johns Hopkins greatly helped me form my ideas about history. He even gave
objective history tests at the college level. Questions about dates, places,
people and events filled his tests. He didn't allow much scope for rambling
essays describing how each student felt about some event or another. He
recognized that the event was the important thing, not the reaction to it. Of
course, this ran directly counter to teaching orthodoxy.
I think that he also did it so that he could document the grades he gave. As
one of the more unorthodox Professors he was often a target for orthodox
professors and students. He had to make sure he could not be accused of bias
by those who were biased against him.
I had some great conversations with him, including at the National Gallery of
Art in Washington, DC. He told me how his friend Salvador Dali had always
loved the painting of St. George slaying the Dragon.
That in itself was a great lesson.
Lloyd King
Dallas, Texas, USA
D. Spencer Hines
Thank you kindly.
You are certainly a man of parts. I have had some good experiences at
Johns Hopkins University and the National Gallery as well.
Further My Last:
W. L. Warren [sometime Professor of Modern History and Dean of
Theology at the Queen's University of Belfast] makes an interesting
point in his "Henry II" an impressive biography. University of
California Press [1973]; ISBN 0-520-03494-5; fourth paperback printing
1995; p. 51.
"Few had much good to say of Eustace, but he was a determined and
courageous warrior, and it was probably he who had stiffened his
father [Stephen] in his last dogged resistance and refusal to
negotiate. Stephen had a younger son, William, but the death of
Eustace seems to have robbed him of resolution.
The mediators now began to make real headway. The king [Stephen] and
the duke [Henry, Duke of Normandy] were persuaded to meet on 6
November 1153 at Winchester for a reconciliation."
There is a world of learning in those four short sentences, simply
put.
Incidentally, it is a serious error to refer to Eustace as "Eustace of
BLOIS." The title of Comte de Blois passed to Stephen's elder
brother, Theobald, Comte de Blois et Champagne, [Eustace's Uncle] who
died in 1152, and his progeny.
Eustace was Comte de BOULOGNE [his Mother was Matilde de Boulogne]
from circa 1146/7. He married Constance, daughter of Louis VI, Roi de
France, after Feb 1140 --- in Paris --- and died, as noted previously,
on or about 17 Aug 1153 as he raged through Cambridgeshire, destroying
church property. Vide Robert de Torigny's account for particulars ---
referenced in Warren, op. cit.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Bene Merentibus
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tuo da
gloriam, propter misericordiam Tuam et veritatem Tuam." Henry V,
[1387-1422] King of England --- Ordered it to be sung by his prelates
and chaplains --- after the Battle of Agincourt, 25 Oct 1415, ---
while every able-bodied man in his victorious army knelt, on the
ground. [Psalm CXV, Verse I]
GLAUC...@aol.com wrote in message ...