Stephen of Aumale or Blois?
Phil Moody
I am confused on a certain point and I am hoping for some clarity. In "The
Chronicle of John of Worchester", vol III, ed. P. McGurk; I find:
[1095], pg. 77.
"Robert de Mowbray, earl of Northumbria, and William of Eu with many others
attempted to deprive King William of his life and of his kingdom, and to set
up as king the son of his aunt, Stephen of Aumale."
I am going to add the Latin but I don't know where the relevant information
ends; so it will appear to run on due to the lack of a period/stop.
[1095], pg. 76.
"Northymbrensis comes Rotbertus de Mulbrei et Willelmus de Ouue, cum multis
aliis, regum Willelmum regno uitaque priuare, et filium amite illius,
Stephanum de Albamarno, conati sunt regum constituere, sed frustra, nam ea
re cognita, rex exercitum de tota Anglia congregato, castellum predicti
comitis Rotberti, ad ostium Tine fluminis situm, per duos menses obsedit, et
interim, quadum munitiuncula expugnata, ferme omnes meliores comitis milites
cepit, et in custodiam posuit, dein obsessum castellum expugnauit, et
fratrem comitis, et equites, quos intus inueniebat, custodie tradidit."
Now, I have also seen that this rebellion of 1095 was to put the infant
Stephen, son of Stephen Count of Blois and Adela, sister of William II on
the throne and I would like to now what the truth is on this point.
J of W is a contemporary Primary source; so I can't disregard what is
written without some compelling evidence to overturn his assertions. If
someone knows of any, I would love to hear of it.
Best Wishes,
Phil
Chris Phillips
> Now, I have also seen that this rebellion of 1095 was to put the infant
> Stephen, son of Stephen Count of Blois and Adela, sister of William II on
> the throne and I would like to now what the truth is on this point.
Geoffrey H. White, discussing the evidence for the parentage of William the
Conqueror's sister Adelaide (in Complete Peerage vol.12, part 1, app. K,
p.33), cites Florence of Worcester (ed. Thorpe), vol.2, p.38, as saying that
"the object of the conspiracy of 1095 against William II was to depose him
and make Stephen of Aumale King in his stead".
Chris Phillips
Phil Moody
Geoffrey H. White, discussing the evidence for the parentage of William the
Conqueror's sister Adelaide (in Complete Peerage vol.12, part 1, app. K,
p.33), cites Florence of Worcester (ed. Thorpe), vol.2, p.38, as saying that
"the object of the conspiracy of 1095 against William II was to depose him
and make Stephen of Aumale King in his stead".
PLM: Thank you Chris for the additional data, but I should point out to
those who are not cognizant of this bit of trivia, and that is that Florence
of Worcester and John of Worcester are the same work.
In my opinion, it should be called "The Worcester Chronicles", as opposed
to attributing the work to just one man, but such is the absurdity of
academia:-) Florence died in 1118 and was succeeded by John, both of
Worcester. There is a third person who I suspect preceded even Florence in
the work of this Chronicle, but this is still a prepubescent hypothesis, so
I'll not bore you with that. <G>
Best Wishes,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Phillips [mailto:cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk]
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2001 3:17 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Stephen of Aumale or Blois?
Phil Moody wrote:
> Now, I have also seen that this rebellion of 1095 was to put the infant
> Stephen, son of Stephen Count of Blois and Adela, sister of William II on
> the throne and I would like to now what the truth is on this point.
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
> PLM: Thank you Chris for the additional data, but I should point out to
> those who are not cognizant of this bit of trivia, and that is that
Florence
> of Worcester and John of Worcester are the same work.
Oh, I see. I wasn't cognizant of that - or if I once was, I'd forgotten it.
Sorry, that's not much use as confirmation then!
However, looking more closely at that Appendix by Geoffrey White, it does
say that Le Prevost "rejected Robert de Torigny's statement that Adelaide
was William's uterine sister. although his reason for doing so seems to be
an unfortunate confusion between her son Stephen of Aumale and his cousin
Stephen of Blois, afterwards King" [citing Le Prevost's edition of Orderic
Vitalis, vol.3, p.319].
This comes just before White's argument that there would not have been a
conspiracy in favour of Stephen of Aumale unless he was a descendant of Duke
Robert of Normandy. White doesn't say quite what Le Prevost's argument was,
or how he confused the two Stephens (surely he can't have thought King
Stephen was William the Conqueror's nephew?). Anyhow, it's easy to see how
there might in general have been confusion between Stephen, son of Adelaide,
sister of William I, and Stephen, son of Adela, sister of William II...
Chris Phillips
Phil Moody
However, looking more closely at that Appendix by Geoffrey White, it does
say that Le Prevost "rejected Robert de Torigny's statement that Adelaide
was William's uterine sister. although his reason for doing so seems to be
an unfortunate confusion between her son Stephen of Aumale and his cousin
Stephen of Blois, afterwards King" [citing Le Prevost's edition of Orderic
Vitalis, vol.3, p.319].
PLM: Well this is more substantial, Chris; so thanks for the addition! Is
Robert de Torigny's statement found in Orderic Vitalis, or is it an entirely
seperate reference? It would seem to be inconsequential whether William I
and his sister Adelaide were uterine siblings, as there is no doubt that
they shared the same paternity with Duke Robert the Devil.
As Stephen of Aumale and William rufus were the grandsons of Duke Robert,
this would then indirectly shed light on the importance of being a
descendant of Duke Robert was considered to be the pinacle of the house of
Nornady, and not William I. A differate uterine relations between Adelaide
and William I only becomes germain if Adelaide was a Legitimate daughter of
Duke Robert and not a bastard, as in the case of William I, which might
enhance her sons claim to the throne of England or Normandy.
Chris Phillips wrote:
This comes just before White's argument that there would not have been a
conspiracy in favour of Stephen of Aumale unless he was a descendant of Duke
Robert of Normandy. White doesn't say quite what Le Prevost's argument was,
or how he confused the two Stephens (surely he can't have thought King
Stephen was William the Conqueror's nephew?). Anyhow, it's easy to see how
there might in general have been confusion between Stephen, son of Adelaide,
sister of William I, and Stephen, son of Adela, sister of William II...
PLM: I agree, the similiar names do give rise to the possibility of
confusing the two Stephens, but to do so would exhibit a total dsiregard to
the chronilogil differences between the two. This is an error which B. Burke
also made in his Fortibus entry, as he adds that the Stephen which was the
impetus for the rebellion in 1195, later became king, implying Stephen of
Blois and not Aumale. Burke made several errors in this piece, but none as
eggregious as his one, apparently.
Burke does add an antecdote which could be very useful, if the document
from which he found the information could be located and that is
"Holderness, at this perioud being a barren country, producing nought but
oats, so soon as his wife brought him a son, Odo entreated the king to give
him some land which would beat wheat, 'whereby he might better nourish his
nephew', the king granted him therefor the lordship of Bytham, in
Lincolnshire."
The king in question is William I and Odo is Eudes, the dis-possessed Count
of Champagne, which brings me to another curious point. Why on earth would
Eudes help Blois ellevate Stephen to the throne of England, when Blois had
deprived him of Champagne and left him more or less destitute and forced to
beg William I for more land in England? This seems illogical to me, when
Eudes could have benefitted greatly by turning on Robert de Mowbray and
thereby possibly receiving the entire earldom of Northumbria from William
II, after Mowbray was put down; instead of aiding his old adversary, the
Count of Blois. Is there any historical evidense that would suggest Blois
sent any troops to aid in this rebellion to put one of their own on the
throne of England, I am not aware of any?
Considering what I know of it, I believe this rebellion of 1095 was indeed
to raise Stephen of Aumale to the throne of England and not Stephen of
Blois, but I am still open to some compelling evidense to the contrary:-)
Best Wishes,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Phillips [mailto:cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 3:44 AM
To: Phil Moody
Cc: GEN-ME...@RootsWeb.com
Subject: Re: Stephen of Aumale or Blois?
Chris Phillips
> Is Robert de Torigny's statement found in Orderic Vitalis, or is it an
entirely
> seperate reference? It would seem to be inconsequential whether William I
> and his sister Adelaide were uterine siblings, as there is no doubt that
> they shared the same paternity with Duke Robert the Devil.
The reference to Robert de Torigny is "Will. de Jumieges, p. 327 - R. de
Torigny" (from Marx's edition, apparently). White interprets the statement
of Robert de Torigny, "Quae comitissa fuit soror uterina Willelmi regis
Anglorum senioris", to imply that Adelaide was a uterine, not a full,
sister, and that her father was not Duke Robert. But White argues from the
statement of Orderic Vitalis, and the evidence about the 1095 conspiracy,
that Duke Robert _was_ her father.
He also mentions a statement by Robert de Torigny "in his own chronicle" [R.
de Torigny, Chron., Rolls Series, p.24] that Duke Robert had a daughter
"Aeliz" by another concubine (i.e. other than William I's mother Herleve).
He says that "there can be little doubt" that this is Adelaide, and
concludes that Adelaide was Duke Robert's daughter, but that the identity of
her mother is doubtful.
Chris
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Phil Moody wrote:
> > Is Robert de Torigny's statement found in Orderic Vitalis, or is it an
> entirely
> > seperate reference? It would seem to be inconsequential whether William I
> > and his sister Adelaide were uterine siblings, as there is no doubt that
> > they shared the same paternity with Duke Robert the Devil.
>
> The reference to Robert de Torigny is "Will. de Jumieges, p. 327 - R. de
> Torigny" (from Marx's edition, apparently). White interprets the statement
> of Robert de Torigny, "Quae comitissa fuit soror uterina Willelmi regis
> Anglorum senioris", to imply that Adelaide was a uterine, not a full,
> sister, and that her father was not Duke Robert. But White argues from the
> statement of Orderic Vitalis, and the evidence about the 1095 conspiracy,
> that Duke Robert _was_ her father.
It should be pointed out that an occasional use of "uterine
sibling" was to distinguish half-siblings from full when the
paternity was known - in other words, two of Robert's children by
the same mother would be called "uterine" siblings. it's use
implies that they had the same mother, but does not mean that
they necessarily had different fathers.
taf
Phil Moody
The reference to Robert de Torigny is "Will. de Jumieges, p. 327 - R. de
Torigny" (from Marx's edition, apparently). White interprets the statement
of Robert de Torigny, "Quae comitissa fuit soror uterina Willelmi regis
Anglorum senioris", to imply that Adelaide was a uterine, not a full,
sister, and that her father was not Duke Robert. But White argues from the
statement of Orderic Vitalis, and the evidence about the 1095 conspiracy,
that Duke Robert _was_ her father.
PLM: Todd makes a good point concerning Uterine relationship and that is
when there is no doubt of Paternity, then the addition of the uterine
relationship would denote a full blood relationship, ie: same mother and
father.
It appears as White misinterpreted the meaning of the uterine relationship
between William and Adelaide and he then goes on to argue that they had the
same father in Duke Robert, to counter his erromeous conclusion concerning
the uterine relationship.
Chris Phillips wrote:
He also mentions a statement by Robert de Torigny "in his own chronicle" [R.
de Torigny, Chron., Rolls Series, p.24] that Duke Robert had a daughter
"Aeliz" by another concubine (i.e. other than William I's mother Herleve).
He says that "there can be little doubt" that this is Adelaide, and
concludes that Adelaide was Duke Robert's daughter, but that the identity of
her mother is doubtful.
PLM: Yes, I have seen Stephen of Aumale's mother named Adelaide and Adeliza;
so it could be that R. de Torigny was confused or there were two seperate
daughters of Duke Robert's, by different woman, but in either case, it has
little bearing on Stephen's relationship to Duke Robert, which was probably
the basis for his pretense to the throne of England. I don't see how the
concubines of Duke Robert would have added signifigantly enough to their
childrens respective lineages to contest the throne of any country or Duchy.
Antonia Fraser says Stephen, Count of Blois and Champagne, and later King
of England, was born "about 1096"; so if the rebellion did take place in
1095, then he could not possibly be who the rebels were trying to set on the
throne of England.
I have not seen anything to support the Stephen of Blois assertion as yet,
and I strongly suspect it is nothing more than wishful thinking on their
part, Burke, et al. I believe the facts and conjecture support Stephen of
Aumale as being the impetus of the 1095 rebellion at this juncture, and not
Stephen of Blois.
Best Wishes,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Phillips [mailto:cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk]