Bob Juch's Kin

Ancestors of Robert Erwin William Juch

Thirty-First Generation

(Continued)

They had the following children:

610583616

M

i

William (Guillaume) I "The Great" Count of Burgundy and Macon was born about 1024 and died 12 Nov 1087.

They had the following children:

610583617

F

i

Stephanie (Etienette) de Longwy of Barcelona was born 1035 and died 30 Jun 1109.

They had the following children:

610583618

M

i

Alfonso VI "The Brave" King of Castile and Leon was born Jun 1040 and died 29 Jun 1109.

1221167238. Robert I "The Old" Capet Duke of Burgundy is printed as #1221167122.

They had the following children:

	M	i	Henry Capet Duke of Burgundy was born about 1036 in of Bourgogne, Marne, France. He died 27 Jan 1066 in France.
610583619	F	ii	Constance Capet of Burgundy was born 1046 and died 1093.

1221167248. Robert I "The Old" Capet Duke of Burgundy is printed as #1221167122.

1221167249. Helie (Eleanor) de Semur is printed as #1221167239.

They had the following children:

610583624	M	i	Henry Capet Duke of Burgundy was born about 1036 and died 27 Jan 1066.
	F	ii	Constance Capet of Burgundy was born 1046. She died 1093.

1221167250. Ramon Berenger de Barcelona is printed as #1221167234.

They had the following children:

610583625

F

i

Sibylle Countess of Barcelona was born about 1032 and died 1066.

1221167254. William VIII (Guillaume) Duke of Aquitaine, Count of Poitiers is printed as #610583560.

They had the following children:

610583627

F

i

Agnes de Blois was born 1059 and died 1080.

They had the following children:

	F	i	Margaret de Perche was born about 1067 in Morlaign, Normandy, France.
610583639	F	ii	Julienne de Perche was born 1070.
	M	iii	Count Rotrou II "The Great" de Perche was born 1089. He died 8 May 1144 in Siege of Rouen, France.

They had the following children:

610583665

F

i

Helie (Ela) Borel was born 1080 and died 28 Feb 1141/1142.

They had the following children:

610583676	M	i	Stephen Henry II (Etienne Henri) "The Sage" Count of Blois was born about 1045 and died 19 May 1102.
	M	ii	Odo (Eudes) III Count of Blois was born about 1047 in Blois, France. He died after 1090.
	M	iii	Hugo (Hugh) I Count of Blois was born about 1048 in Blois, France. He died 1126.
	M	iv	Philipp Baron von Chalons was born about 1051 in Blois, France. He died 1100.

1221167354. William I "The Conqueror" King of England is printed as #610583556.

1221167355. Matilda of Flanders is printed as #610583557.

They had the following children:

	M	i	Robert II "Curthose" Duke of Normandy was born 1054 in Normandy, France. He died 10 Feb 1133/1134 in Cardiff Castle. CHAPTER II: THE FAMILY OF THE CONQUEROR The Conqueror and His Companions by J.R. Planché, Somerset Herald. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1874........ I introduce here the few observations I have to make on the uncertain and disputed points in the history of William the Conqueror, his queen and family, to which I alluded at the commencement of the former chapter, in lieu of placing them as an appendix at the end of the volume, as they principally turn on questions of date, and those who care to discuss them would naturally desire to do so before passing to other subjects. The less curious reader can "skip and go on." The first and most important date open to controversy is that of the birth of William-most important because it affects all the rest... The latest investigators place it in 1027 or 1028, and one (Mons. Deville) endeavours to fix it exactly to the month of June or of July in the former year. Were it a question of only a few weeks or a few months I should not have thought it necessary to moot it here; but it is one of years, and of much more consequence than it appears at first sight. The calculations of the upholders of the dates 1027-28 are founded on: 1. The contract of marriage of Duke Richard II and Judith, the parents of Robert, said to be dated in 1008. According to this date, Robert being their second son, would hardly have been born before 1010, and could be only seventeen or eighteen at the birth of William, and consequently his passion for Herleve was that of a boy of sixteen or seventeen at the utmost. 2. A charter granted by Robert previous to his departure on pilgrimage to Jerusalem dated in the ides of January, 1035, and as it is agreed on all hands that William was between seven and eight years old when his father left Normandy, that would place his birth in 1027-28. 3. The cartulary recently discovered at Falaise recording William's birth and baptism therein 1027. 4. The statement of Guillaume de Jumièges that William was not quiteeeeee sixty at his death iiin 1087. A sort of collateral substantiation of the date of the pilgrimage I find also in the story told by the author of the "Gesta Consulum Andegavensium," of the meeing of Duke Robert with Fulk Nera, Count of Anjou, at Constantinople in 1035, and their travelling thence to the Holy Land together, escorted by some merchants of Antioch, who had offered to be their guides. Robert becoming fatigued was carried in a litter by four Moors. A Norman pilgrim returning from Jerusalem, meeting his sovereign with this equipage, asked if he had any message to send to his friends. "Tell them," said the Duke, "that thou sawest me borne to Paradise by four devils." But it is to be observed that Fulk was also a pilgrim to the Holy Land in 1028, and that the compiler of "L'Art de Vérifierrr lesssss Dates" remarks that the work I have quoted "ne mérititite ppp papass beaucouppp de créance.""""""""" On the other hand we have also to consider the statement of William himself, who, according to Orderic, declared on his death-bed that he was sixty-four, which would make him born in 1023; that he was eight years old when his father went into what he calls voluntary exile, and that he had ruled the duchy fifty-six years, thus placing the death of Robert in 1031. That date is supported by the perfectly independent testimony of the Saxon Chronicle, which becomes more trustworthy in the eleventh century, wherein we read, "A 1031. . . . and Robert, Earl of Normandy, went to Jerusalem and there died, and William, who was afterwards king in England, succeeded to Normandy, though he was but a child." The words I have printed in italics, however, detract from the value of the evidence; as they must have been written at least thirty-five years after the event, and perhaps much later. The Peterborough and Canterbury chronicles follow the Saxon, and Roger of Wendover and Matthew of Westminster are merely copyists of the earlier writers. I have seen too many errors in the dates of charters and other MSS., arising from clerical or typographical carelessness, to pin my faith upon any copy, printed or other, even when the original document is undoubtedly genuine, and therefore hesitate to accept the date accorded to the contract of marriage of Richard and Judith, particularly as there are several obvious inaccuracies in the copy printed in Martene (Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorum, vol. i.). Judith was the only child of Conan le Tort, Count of Rennes, by his second wife Ermengarde, daughter of Geoffrey Grisegonelle, married according to the "Chroniques de Mont St. Michel" in 9 70. Conan was slain at the battle of Conquereux in 992. Now, if these dates can be at all relied on, what age was Judith likely to be in 1008, if not married till then? At what period of the two-and-twenty years of her parents' married life was she born? If in the ordinary course of nature, she must have been five- or six-and-thirty in 1008! Judith died in 1017, the mother of five children: Richard, Robert, Guillaume, Alix (also called Judith), and Eleanore; and if only married in 1008 her eldest son Richard could scarcely have been born before 1009, and Robert, as already remarked, 1010. Whether Guillaume or Alix was their third child is uncertain, but before 1025 Alix was the wife of Renaud, son of Otto-Guillaume, Count of Burgundy, who, having fallen into the power of Hugues, Bishop of Auxerre and Count of Chalons, was strictly confined in prison by that prelate. Richard II, Duke of Normandy, thereupon sent his sons, Richard and Robert, with an army to relieve their brother-in-law, and Count Hugues was compelled to present himself with a saddle on his back (the usual custom at that period) and crave mercy at the hands of the sons of the Duke of Normandy. Now, doubting that young warriors were mere boys of fifteen and sixteen years of age in 1025 (Richard, the eldest, dying in 1027, and leaving a natural son named Nicholas, who was Abbot of St. Ouen in 1042), I cannot bring myself to believe in the "extreme youth" of Robert, as pointed out by Mons. Deville, and without presuming to fix an exact date, believe that both Richard and Robert were nearly of full age at the death of their father, whether that event occurred in 1026 or 1027. Leaving, therefore, the precise period of the birth of William the Conqueror still undecided, the weight of evidence inclining rather to 1027, let us hasten to the consideration of the equally vexed question concerning the number and ages of his family, consisting undoubtedly of four sons, and presumably of five or six daughters. [Freeman: Nor. Con., vol. v. [. 468, note4.] Notwithstanding the various and conflicting dates suggested for the marriage of William and Matilda, ranging from 1047 to 1053, I think we may consider it sufficiently proved that it was solemnized at the close of 1053 or beginning of 1054, and that Robert, their first child, was born in the course of the latter year. Their second child I take to have been Adeliza, eldest daughter, born apparently in 1055, being seven years old in 1062, when betrothed to Harold, and dead before 1066, as her decease was the undeniable answer of the Saxon king to one of William's charges of broken faith. Cecilia must have been the third child, as she was clearly born in 1056, dedicated to the service of God by her father and mother at the consecration of the Church of the Holy Trinity, Caen, 18th June, 1066, was elected abbess on the death of Matilda, the first abbess, in 1112, and died on the 30th of July, 1125, in the seventieth year of her age. The fourth child appears to have been Richard, born 1057-58, who, with his younger brother, William (fifth child), born 1060, witnessed the consecration of the Church of the Holy Trinity at Caen in 1066. Richard was killed in the New Forest by accident during the reign of his father in England; and his brother William, surnamed Rufus, who succeeded the Conqueror as King of England, met his death, as is well known, A.D. 1100, in the same forest, doomed apparently to be fatal to the progeny of the heartless despot who had sacrificed to his passion for the chase the homes and hearths of thousands of his unfortunate subjects. The sixth child I take to be Constance, born in 1061, married to Alain, Duke of Brittany, in 1086, and who died, poisoned by her own servants, according to some writers, on the 13th of August, 1094, at the early age of thirty-three. Mrs. Green, notwithstanding she places her birth "most likely about 1057," subsequently tells us, upon the authority of no less than four chronicles, that she died in 1094 " when she had scarcely attained her thirty-third year." If the latter statement is to be depended upon, she must have been born in 1061, and the probabilities are all in favour of that date. Miss Strickland, by a curious inadvertency, makes Constance die some years before her mother, "after seven years' unfruitful marriage." The marriage having taken place three years after her mother's death! The seventh child I believe to have been Adela, born circa 1062, married, at Chartres in 1080, to Stephen, Count of Blois and Chartres, and deceased in 1137, in tbe seventy-fourth year of her age. Agatha, believed by Mrs. Green to be also Matilda, whose name appears in Domesday, the eighth and last child born in Normandy, circa 1064, was promised to Edwin, the Saxon Earl of Chester, in 1067, when only three years old, and after his death contracted to Alfonso 1, King of Castile and Galicia. She died on her journey to Spain, having, as the story goes, prayed she might not live to be married, and by unceasing genuflections caused a horny substance to form on her knees. More incredible is the sentimental account of "blighted hopes" and "crushed affections" indulged in by Mrs. Green, as the child was but three years old when she first saw the "fair-haired Saxon," seven when her "lover" was murdered, and scarcely fifteen when she was contracted to Alfonso; for she must have been dead in 1080, as in that year the Castilian monarch married the daughter of the Duke of Burgundy. This is of course according to my calculation, which I by no means presume to be irrefutable, and also applies solely to Agatha, leaving it to others to identify her with Matilda "filiae regis," whose chamberlain (Geoffrey) held lands in Hampshire of the King for service rendered to his said daughter. That there was a Matilda, daughter of King William, is undeniable, not only from the entry in Domesday, but from her being named with her sisters Adelaide and Constance in an encyclical letter to the nuns of the Holy Trinity at Caen in 1112. But as the survey was only begun in 1085, and completed in 1086, it will be difficult, I think, to prove that Agatha, who must have been dead in 1080, was the same daughter as Matilda, supposed to be living five or six years later. Henry, afterwards King Henry 1, the youngest of the whole family, was the only child born in England, and the date of his birth is generally acknowledged to be 1068, his mother having come over from Normandy for her coronation in that year. Now let us see when it would be possible that a tenth child, if not a twin, could have been born to William by his duchess, and of sufficient age to have a chamberlain appointed to her before 1085. Robert, born 1054. Adeliza, born 1055; dead before 1066. Cecilia, born 1058. Richard, born 1057-58. William, born 1060. Constance, born 1061. Adela, born 1062. Agatha, born 1064; dead before 1080. Henry, born 1068. The ingenious theory that Matilda was no other than the mysterious Gundrada, the former name being simply a translation of the latter, is negatived by the fact that Gundrada died wife of William de Warren in 1085, while the survey was in the course of compilation. That one daughter should have been named after her mother is most natural. That the King had a daughter so named, and that she was apparently living in 1085, must be conceded; but that she was the same person as Agatha "the inexorable logic of facts" positively contradicts. There is just the possibility of its being Constance, who survived her mother, and was married to Alain, Duke of Brittany, as before stated, in 1086. She is said to have been the favourite daughter and companion of Queen Matilda, and for nearly six years the only princess at Court. At the period of her niother's death she would have been twenty-three, and previous to her marriage would no doubt have had a chamberlain and other officers appointed for her service. That she was ever called Matilda there is no evidence yet discovered; but there is no daughter of Matilda's more likely to have been so. But then we have to get over the awkward fact of Matilda and Constance being separately named in the encyclical letter of 1112. ["Matildem Anglorum reginam, nostri cnobii fondatricem, Adelidem, Mathildem Constantiam, filias ejus." Also in the Bouleau des Morts of the same Abbey we read: Ç "Orate pro nostria Mathilde Regina etttt Wiiiiillielmoooo ejus filio atque pro filiabus ejus Adelide, Mathilde, Constancia." -- Recherches sur le Domesday, p. 234.] Matilda is consequently, as Mr. Freeman truly describes her, "without a history." The vexed question of Gundrada will be discussed in the chapter comprising the biography of her husband, William, Earl of Warren and Surrey, and in connection with it the presumed widowhood of Matilda of Flanders, and her passion for Brihtric Meaw.
	F	ii	Adeliza was born 1055. She died about 1065.
	F	iii	Cecilia of Holy Trinity Abbess of Caen was born 1056. She died 30 Jul 1126.
	M	iv	Richard Duke of Bernay was born 1057/1058 in Normandy, France. He died about 1081.
	M	v	William II "Rufus" King of England was born 1060 in Normandy, France. He died 2 Aug 1100 in New Forest, Hampshire, England.
	F	vi	Constance was born 1061 in Normandy, France. She died 13 Aug 1090 in Brittany, France.
610583677	F	vii	Adela (Adelle) was born 1062 and died 8 Mar 1137.
	F	viii	Agatha was born about 1064. She died 1079.
	M	ix	Henry I "Beauclerc" King of England 1, 2, 3 was born 3, 4 about Sep 1068 in Selby, Yorkshire, England. He died 3 1 Dec 1135 in Lyons-la-Foret, Normandy, France and was buried in Reading Abbey, Berkshire. Henry I (of England) (1068-1135), third Norman king of England (1100-1135), fourth son of William the Conqueror. Henry was born in Selby. Because his father, who died in 1087, left him no land, Henry made several unsuccessful attempts to gain territories on the Continent. On the death of his brother William II in 1100, Henry took advantage of the absence of another brother-Robert, who had a prior claim to the throne-to seize the royal treasury and have himself crowned king at Westminster. Henry subsequently secured his position with the nobles and with the church by issuing a charter of liberties that acknowledged the feudal rights of the nobles and the rights of the church. In 1101 Robert, who was duke of Normandy, invaded England, but Henry persuaded him to withdraw by promising him a pension and military aid on the Continent. In 1102 Henry put down a revolt of nobles, who subsequently took refuge in Normandy (Normandie), where they were aided by Robert. By defeating Robert at Tinchebray, France, in 1106, Henry won Normandy. During the rest of his reign, however, he constantly had to put down uprisings that threatened his rule in Normandy. The conflict between Henry and Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, over the question of lay investiture (the appointment of church officials by the king), was settled in 1107 by a compromise that left the king with substantial control in the matter. Because he had no surviving male heir, Henry was forced to designate his daughter Matilda as his heiress. After his death on December 1, 1135, at Lyons-la-Faret, Normandy, however, Henry's nephew, Stephen of Blois, usurped the throne, plunging the country into a protracted civil war that ended only with the accession of Matilda's son, Henry II, in 1154. "Henry I (of England)," Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia copyright 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Henry I was born in the year 1068---a factor he himself regarded as highly significant, for he was the only son of the Conqueror born after the conquest of England, and to Henry this meant he was heir to the throne. He was not an attractive proposition: he was dissolute to a degree, producing at least a score of bastards; but far worse he was prone to sadistic cruelty---on one occasion, for example, personally punishing a rebellious burgher by throwing him from the walls of his town. At the death of William the Conqueror, Henry was left no lands, merely 5,000 pounds of silver. With these he bought lands from his elder brother Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy, only to see them taken back again a few years later by Robert, in unholy alliance with his brother William Rufus. Henry could do little to avenge such treatment, but in England he found numerous barons who were tired of the exactions and ambitions of their king. He formed alliances with some of these, notably with the important de Clare family. He and some of the de Clares were with William Rufus on his last hunting expedition, and it is thought that the king's death was the result of Henry's plotting. Certainly he moved fast to take advantage of it; leaving Rufus's body unattended in the woods, he swooped down on Winchester to take control of the treasury. Two days later he was in Westminster, being crowned by the Bishop of London. His speed is understandable when one realizes that his elder brother, Robert [Curthose], was returning from the crusade, and claimed, with good reason, to be the true heir. Henry showed great good sense in his first actions as King. He arrested Ranulph Flambard, William's tax-gatherer, and recalled Anselm, the exiled Archbishop. Furthermore, he issued a Charter of Liberties which promised speedy redress of grievances, and a return to the good government of the Conqueror. Putting aside for the moment his many mistresses, he married the sister of the King of Scots, who was descended from the royal line of Wessex; and lest the Norman barons should think him too pro-English in this action, he changed her name from Edith to Matilda. No one could claim that he did not aim to please. In 1101 Robert Curthose invaded, but Henry met him at Alton, and persuaded him to go away again by promising him an annuity of 2000 pounds. He had no intention of keeping up the payments, but the problem was temporarily solved. He now felt strong enough to move against dissident barons who might give trouble in the future. Chief amongst these was the vicious Robert of Belleme, Earl of Shrewsbury, whom Henry had known for many years as a dangerous troublemaker. He set up a number of charges against him in the king's court, making it plain that if he appeared for trial he would be convicted and imprisoned. Thus Robert and his colleagues were forced into rebellion at a time not of their own choosing, were easily defeated and sent scuttling back to Normandy. In Normandy Robert Curthose began to wreak his wrath on all connected with his brother, thus giving Henry an excellent chance to retaliate with charges of misgovernment and invade. He made two expeditions in 1104-5, before the great expedition of 1106 on which Robert was defeated at the hour-long battle of Tinchebrai, on the anniversary of Hastings. No one had expected such an easy victory, but Henry took advantage of the state of shock resulting from the battle to annex Normandy. Robert was imprisoned (in some comfort, it be said); he lived on for 28 more years, ending up in Cardiff castle whiling away the long hours learning Welsh. His son William Clito remained a free agent, to plague Henry for most of the rest of his reign. In England the struggle with Anselm over the homage of bishops ran its course until the settlement of 1107. In matters of secular government life was more simple: Henry had found a brilliant administrator, Roger of Salisbury, to act as Justiciar for him. Roger had an inventive mind, a keen grasp of affairs, and the ability to single out young men of promise. He quickly built up a highly efficient team of administrators, and established new routines and forms of organization within which they could work. To him we owe the Exchequer and its recording system of the Pipe Rolls, the circuits of royal justiciars spreading the king's peace, and the attempts at codification of law. Henry's good relationships with his barons, and with the burgeoning new towns owed much to skilful administration. Certainly he was able to gain a larger and more reliable revenue this way than by the crude extortion his brother had used. In 1120 came the tragedy of the White Ship. The court was returning to England, and the finest ship in the land was filled with its young men, including Henry's son and heir William. Riotously drunk, they tried to go faster and faster, when suddenly the ship foundered. All hands except a butcher of Rouen were lost, and England was without an heir. Henry's only legitimate child was Matilda, but she was married to the Emperor Henry V of Germany, and so could not succeed. But in 1125 her husband died, and Henry brought her home and forced the barons to swear fealty to her---though they did not like the prospect of a woman ruler. Henry then married her to Geoffrey of Anjou, the Normans' traditional enemy, and the barons were less happy---especially when the newly-weds had a terrible row, and Geoffrey ordered her out of his lands. In 1131 Henry, absolutely determined, forced the barons to swear fealty once more, and the fact that they did so is testimony of his controlling power. Matilda and Geoffrey were reunited, and in 1133 she produced a son whom she named for his grandfather. If only Henry could live on until his grandson was old enough to rule, all would be well. But in 1135, against doctor's orders, he ate a hearty meal of lampreys, got acute indigestion, which turned into fever, and died. He was buried at his abbey in Reading---some said in a silver coffin, for which there was an unsuccessful search at the Dissolution. [Source: Who's Who in the Middle Ages, John Fines, Barnes and Noble Books, New York, 1995] Henry I was born in the year 1068---a factor he himself regarded as highly significant, for he was the only son of the Conqueror born after the conquest of England, and to Henry this meant he was heir to the throne. He was not an attractive proposition: he was dissolute to a degree, producing at least a score of bastards; but far worse he was prone to sadistic cruelty---on one occasion, for example, personally punishing a rebellious burgher by throwing him from the walls of his town. At the death of William the Conqueror, Henry was left no lands, merely 5,000 pounds of silver. With these he bought lands from his elder brother Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy, only to see them taken back again a few years later by Robert, in unholy alliance with his brother William Rufus. Henry could do little to avenge such treatment, but in England he found numerous barons who were tired of the exactions and ambitions of their king. He formed alliances with some of these, notably with the important de Clare family. He and some of the de Clares were with William Rufus on his last hunting expedition, and it is thought that the king's death was the result of Henry's plotting. Certainly he moved fast to take advantage of it; leaving Rufus's body unattended in the woods, he swooped down on Winchester to take control of the treasury. Two days later he was in Westminster, being crowned by the Bishop of London. His speed is understandable when one realizes that his elder brother, Robert [Curthose], was returning from the crusade, and claimed, with good reason, to be the true heir. Henry showed great good sense in his first actions as King. He arrested Ranulph Flambard, William's tax-gatherer, and recalled Anselm, the exiled Archbishop. Furthermore, he issued a Charter of Liberties which promised speedy redress of grievances, and a return to the good government of the Conqueror. Putting aside for the moment his many mistresses, he married the sister of the King of Scots, who was descended from the royal line of Wessex; and lest the Norman barons should think him too pro-English in this action, he changed her name from Edith to Matilda. No one could claim that he did not aim to please. In 1101 Robert Curthose invaded, but Henry met him at Alton, and persuaded him to go away again by promising him an annuity of 2,000 pounds. He had no intention of keeping up the payments, but the problem was temporarily solved. He now felt strong enough to move against dissident barons who might give trouble in the future. Chief amongst these was the vicious Robert of BellÃssme, Earl of Shrewsbury, whom Henry hhhhhad known for manyy yearrssss asss aaa dangerous troublemaker. He set up a number of charges against him in the king's court, making it plain that if he appeared for trial he would be convicted and imprisoned. Thus Robert and his colleagues were forced into rebellion at a time not of their own choosing, were easily defeated and sent scuttling back to Normandy. In Normandy Robert Curthose began to wreak his wrath on all connected with his brother, thus giving Henry an excellent chance to retaliate with charges of misgovernment and invade. He made two expeditions in 1104-5, before the great expedition of 1106 on which Robert was defeated at the hour-long battle of Tinchebrai, on the anniversary of Hastings. No one had expected such an easy victory, but Henry took advantage of the state of shock resulting from the battle to annex Normandy. Robert was imprisoned (in some comfort, it be said); he lived on for 28 more years, ending up in Cardiff castle whiling away the long hours learning Welsh. His son William Clito remained a free agent, to plague Henry for most of the rest of his reign. In England the struggle with Anselm over the homage of bishops ran its course until the settlement of 1107. In matters of secular government life was more simple: Henry had found a brilliant administrator, Roger of Salisbury, to act as Justiciar for him. Roger had an inventive mind, a keen grasp of affairs, and the ability to single out young men of promise. He quickly built up a highly efficient team of administrators, and established new routines and forms of organization within which they could work. To him we owe the Exchequer and its recording system of the Pipe Rolls, the circuits of royal justiciars spreading the king's peace, and the attempts at codification of law. Henry's good relationships with his barons, and with the burgeoning new towns owed much to skilful administration. Certainly he was able to gain a larger and more reliable revenue this way than by the crude extortion his brother had used. In 1120 came the tragedy of the White Ship. The court was returning to England, and the finest ship in the land was filled with its young men, including Henry's son and heir William. Riotously drunk, they tried to go faster and faster, when suddenly the ship foundered. All hands except a butcher of Rouen were lost, and England was without an heir. Henry's only legitimate child was Matilda, but she was married to the Emperor Henry V of Germany, and so could not succeed. But in 1125 her husband died, and Henry brought her home and forced the barons to swear fealty to her---though they did not like the prospect of a woman ruler. Henry then married her to Geoffrey of Anjou, the Normans' traditional enemy, and the barons were less happy---especially when the newly-weds had a terrible row, and Geoffrey ordered her out of his lands. In 1131 Henry, absolutely determined, forced the barons to swear fealty once more, and the fact that they did so is testimony of his controlling power. Matilda and Geoffrey were reunited, and in 1133 she produced a son whom she named for his grandfather. If only Henry could live on until his grandson was old enough to rule, all would be well. But in 1135, against doctor's orders, he ate a hearty meal of lampreys, got acute indigestion, which turned into fever, and died. He was buried at his abbey in Reading---some said in a silver coffin, for which there was an unsuccessful search at the Dissolution. [Source: Who's Who in the Middle Ages, John Fines, Barnes & Noble Books, New York, 1995]
	F	x	Matilda died before 1112. It was thought that Matilda (Gundred) married William de Warren, 1st Earl of Surrey. That has since been disproved. For details see "Early Yorkshire Charters" by C. T. Clay or "tudes sur Quelques Points de l'Histoire de Guillame le Conqurant" by H. Prentout described under Surrey in "The Complete Peerage" by G.E. Gibbs.

They had the following children:

610583678

M

i

Engelbert II Duke of Carinthia, Margrave of Istre was born about 1065 and died 13 Apr 1141.

They had the following children:

610583679

F

i

Count Utha von Passau was born about 1065.

1221167444. Eudes I "The Red" Borel de Bourgogne Duke of Burgundy is printed as #1221167330.

They had the following children:

610583722

M

i

Hugh II "the Peaceful" Duke of Burgundy was born about 1088 and died 1142.

They had the following children:

610583723

F

i

Maud de Turenne was born about 1090 and died after 1162.

They had the following children:

610583730

M

i

Mstislav I Vladimirovich Grand Duke of Kiev was born 1 Jun 1076 and died 15 Apr 1132.

1221167596. Stephen Henry II (Etienne Henri) "The Sage" Count of Blois is printed as #610583676.

1221167597. Adela (Adelle) is printed as #610583677.

They had the following children:

	M	i	William de Blois Count of Chartres was born 1086. He died 1150.
	F	ii	Matilda (Maud) de Blois was born 1086. She died 25 Nov 1120 in Drowned in wreck of the White Ship near Barfleur, Manche, France.
	F	iii	Agnes de Blois was born 1088. She died 1129.
	F	iv	Eleanor de Blois was born 1089. She died 1147.
	F	v	Alice de Blois was born 1091 in Blois, Loir-et-Cher, France.
	M	vi	Eudes (Odo) de Blois Count of Champagne and Brie was born about 1092. The Conqueror and His Companions by J.R. Planché, Somerset Herald. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1874........ Son of Etienne II, Comte de Champagne and Brie, by Adele, supposed to have been a daughter of Richard II, Duke of Normandy, but by which of his wives or mistresses has not been ascertained. Now if such were the fact, Odo was the nephew of Duke Robert, the father of the Conqueror, and consequently first cousin of the latter and of his sister Adelaide or Adeliza, as far as blood was concerned. A marriage with her, therefore, would have been within the prohibited degrees so rigidly construed by the Church of Rome. William of Jumiegrave;ges, who styles him Count of Champagne, says he was nearly allied to King William by consanguinity, being grandson of Maud, daughter to Richard I, Duke of Normandy, wife of Odo, Earl of Blois and Chartres. This assertion is still more unfortunate, for Maud died childless, and Etienne, the father of our Odo, was the son of the Count of Blois' second wife Ermengarde, daughter of Robert I, Count of Auvergne, whom he married in 1020. I therefore deny the maternal descent of Odo from any near relation of William, Duke of Normandy, of whom he has been set down as a kinsman on the above authority only. Dugdale, who appears to have been perfectly bewildered respecting him, has printed in his Monasticon two accounts, one from the Book of Meaux, an abbey in Holderness, and the other from the Register of Fountains Abbey, which is nearly verbatim, but in one or two instances more explicit. The story as told in them is as follows: Odo having killed a magnate of his own country, took refuge in the dominions of his kinsman, William, Duke of Normandy, who gave him, through the intercession of the Archbishop of Rouen, his sister for wife, and subsequently bestowed upon him the island (according to the Book of Meaux), the county (according to the Register of Fountains), of Holderness. To the same Archbishop, not named, he is said to have been indebted for the grant of the county "comitatum" (the Register of Fountains reads "civitatem") of Albemarle on condition that he should attend the primate in any expedition with ten knights, and bear his standard before him. The author of L'Art de Vérifier les Dates, and Père Anselm follow this s s s s s s s s s account, b bubut spepecicify the Archbishop as Jean de Bayeux, who entertained a great friendship for Odo, and, with the consent of the Chapter, bestowed upon him the lands of Aumale on the above-named condition. Now let us see what light the crucial test of dates flings upon these statements. Etienne, the father of Odo, could not have been born earlier than 1021, and would have been about sixteen or seventeen when he succeeded his father in 1037 as Comte de Champagne and Brie. Allowing that he married before he was of full age, say 1040, Odo must have been a mere child at his death in 1047/8, when he was immediately dispossessed of his inheritance by his uncle, Thibaut III, legally, it would appear, according to the law at that period, which, if the heir to the lordship was not of sufficient age to receive investiture by the ceremony of girding with the sword, authorized the nearest in blood of full age to claim the succession. Sharp practice, it may be said, but still the law, and one, it may be worth remarking, which would justify the rebellions against William in the first years of his rule had he even been legitimate. At what time Odo took refuge in the Court of William, Duke of Normandy, is not stated, but he must have been a most precocious young swashbuckler if he killed "a magnate of his own country" before he entered his teens, and the loss of his estates would have been quite sufficient to have caused him at a later period to seek his fortune elsewhere, without having killed anyone fairly or foully. At the time of the invasion of England Odo would have been about five-and-twenty, and what more likely than, having nothing to lose and everything to gain, he should eagerly have volunteered his services to William? But if we are to believe that Odo was indebted to Jean de Bayeux for the hand of his wife and the lands of Aumale, how could he be the "Sire d'Aubemare" who fought at Senlac in 1066, when the said Jean de Bayeux was not elevated to the primacy till after the death of Archbishop Maurilius in 1067? The labours of Mr. Stapleton before alluded to, and those of the authors of Recherches sur le Domesday, enable us to solve the riddle in the most satisfactory manner. The old Norman Chroniclers state clearly enough that Odo de Champagne was the husband of the Conqueror's sister, though differing as to the fact of her being of the whole or the half blood, but not one of them had the kindness to inform us, if they knew, that the lady had been twice previously married, and had left issue by each husband. The facts of the case, which have been elicited from the records of the Church of St. Martin d'Auchi (de Alceio), commonly called of Aumale, from its vicinity to the town of that name, are as follows: In or about the year 1000 a castle was built on the river Eu, now known as the Bresle, at the point where it divides the provinces of Normandy and Picardy, by a certain Guerinfroi (Guerinfrides), who also, in 1027, founded in its neighbourhood the Abbey of St. Martin d'Auchi. This Guerinfroi, who was Sire d'Aumale (not Count, as he has been incorrectly called), had an only daughter named Berta, who became the wife of Hugh II, Comte de Ponthieu, and mother by him of Enguerrand, or Ingleram, Sire d'Aumale in right of his mother, who married Adelaide, sister of the Conqueror, and was killed in an ambush at St. Aubin, near Arques, in 1053, leaving an only daughter, named Adelaide after her mother, and having settled on his wife the lands of Aumale in dower. The widow of Enguerrand, being still young, married secondly, and in the first year of her widowhood, Lambert, Count of Lens, in Artois, and brother of Eustace II, Count of Boulogne, and had by him a daughter, named Judith, whose hand was given by her uncle, William the Conqueror, to Waltheof, Earl of Northumberland. Count Lambert could scarcely have seen the birth of his child, for he was killed at Lille the following year, in a battle between Baldwin, Count of Flanders, and the Emperor Henry III. A widow for the second time, and still in the prime of life, she married, thirdly, Odo of Champagne, by whom she was the mother of Stephen, who, on the death of his elder sister Adelaide, became the first Comte d'Aumale, or Earl of Albemarle, the Seigneurie having been made a Comte by King William, but upon what occasion and at what time we have no evidence. The name of Adeliza with the title of "Comitissa de Albemarle" occurs in Domesday, but not that of Odo, which first appears in connection with English transactions in 1088 (1st of William Rufus), when Count Odo and his son Stephen gave the manor and church of Hornsea, in the wapentake of Holderness, to the Abbey of St. Mary of York. This latter fact also leads to the correction of Orderic Vital's assertion, that King William granted the earldom of Holderness to Odo of Champagne at the same time that he distributed cities and counties with great honours and domains among other lords who had assisted him in the Conquest, viz, in 1070. In the first place, Holderness was not an earldom; and in the second, as late as the completion of Domesday, A.D. 1086, the whole district so named was still part of the honour of Drogo de Brevere, a Fleming who had fought for William at Senlac, and received the greater part of the territory of Holderness amongst other portions of the spoil. The gift of the lands (Dugdale says, of the city) of Aumale to Odo by the Archbishop of Rouen has also to be explained, for as Jean de Bayeux, if it were he, as stated by the author of L'Art de Vérifier les Dates,,,, wassss not advanced to the primacy before 1067, such donatiooon coouuld not have been made previous to the invasion of England, at which period, and as late as 1086, the city and Castle of Aumale, with such lands as had not been given to the church of Auchi, were in possession of Adeliza, as Lady or Countess of Aumale, the wife, or if she were deceased, the stepdaughter of that very Odo. It depends therefore entirely upon the date of Odo's marriage, whether it was he who, in 1066, was the "Sire d'Aubemare" (in right of his wife) alluded to by the rhyming chronicler as a combatant in the great battle. The evidence brought to light by the industry of Mr. Stapleton, and published by him in the 23rd vol. of the Archaeologia, supplemented by his letter to the late Sir Charles G. Young, Garter-King-of-Arms, and communicated by the latter to the Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica, vol. vi. p. 265, and also set forth by Mr. Stapleton in his notes on the Norman rolls of the Exchequer, has been epitomized by the authors of Recherches sur le Domesday, published in 1842, and it is singular, therefore, that the information of the triple marriage of the Countess of Ponthieu should have escaped the vigilance of Mr. Freeman, who has been led by Mr. Stapleton into the serious error which his later discoveries allowed him to correct, of making Odo the husband of the younger Adelaide, who at the time the record was written had succeeded, as daughter and sole heir of Count Enguerrand, to the "Suzeraineté""" offfff Aumale..... Whether the expatriated Count of Champagne fleshed his maiden sword at Senlac or not, he appears to have made no mark either for good or for evil in the annals of this country till, misled by ambition, he was induced to join in the conspiracy the collapse of which has given him an unenviable reputation in them. History is quite silent about him until after the death of the Conqueror, when we are told that Odo found himself embarrassed by his position as a feudatory of William Rufus in England and of Robert Court-heuse in Normandy. He owed allegiance to each; but how could he serve two masters who were at war with one another? He decided in favour of Rufus, and received an English garrison in his Castle of Aumale, which, in conjunction with his son Stephen, he enlarged and strengthened, at the expense of the royal treasury, on the invasion of Normandy by the Red King in 1090. Five years afterwards, however, he joined in a conspiracy with Robert de Mowbray, William d'Eu, and other disaffected nobles, to depose Rufus and place his own son Stephen d'Aumale upon the throne. The conspiracy failing in consequence of timely warning having been given to the King, Odo and his son were both arrested, the former thrown into a prison, from which he never emerged alive, and the latter condemned to have his eyes put out; but the piteous prayers of his wife and family, to say nothing of the payment of a considerable sum of money, obtained a remission of his sentence and restoration to liberty. How long Odo lingered in his dungeon is unknown. The exact date of his death is as uncertain as nearly every other part of his history, but it is presumed to have taken place in 1108. Dugdale says, "the lordships whereof he was possessed, as appears by the Conqueror's Survey, were only these," and he then enumerates certain manors, which, in "the Conqueror's Survey," are distinctly set down as held by Adeliza, Countess of Albemarle, Odo's name, as I have previously stated, not occurring in a single instance throughout the work; but Holderness, he adds, "was not given him till after that Survey." There he is right, as we shall find in the following notice of Drogo de Brevere.
	M	vii	Theobald IV de Blois Count of Blois and Champagne was born 2 Apr 1093 in Blois, Loir-et-Cher, France. He died 8 Jan 1151/1152.
	M	viii	Humbert de Blois Count of Virtus was born about 1094.
	F	ix	Lithiuse (Adele) de Blois was born about 1094.
610583798	M	x	Stephen de Blois King of England was born about 1096 and died 25 Oct 1154.
	M	xi	Henry de Blois Bishop of Winchester was born about 1099. He died 6 Aug 1171.
	M	xii	Phillip de Blois Bishop of Chalon died 1100.

Surname List | Name Index