GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-02 > 0919040185
From: John Carmi Parsons < >
Subject: Re: Descendants of King Stephen
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 19:56:25 -0500 (EST)
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
This thread:
| Re: Descendants of King Stephen by John Carmi Parsons < > |