What part did an eel play in King Stephen of England acknowledging Henry Fitzempress as his heir to the thrown?

peasypod

Well, in Christmas 1127, Henry I (Steven's uncle) gathered a load of clergy and nobility (including Stephen) in London and got them to take an oath pledging their allegiance to Matilda (Henry's eldest legitimate child) should Henry die. Henry ended a fairly decent reign with a supreme act of silliness, succumbing to death in 1135 after eating a heap of lampreys. (sort of eel-like things)... Though Matilda had been defeated the succession was still not settled - Stephen wanted his son Eustace to be named heir, and Matilda wanted her son Henry fitzEmpress to succeed to the crown. The two sides finally reached a compromise with the Treaty of Wallingford which ruled that Stephen could reign over the kingdom unopposed until his death when the throne would pass to Henry of Anjou. All too very confusing for my over-worked brain at midnight, I'm sure Stewy knows more.... Dec 23 04, 7:29 AM

infiniti

Might I add he ate these yummy eel like creatures against his doctor's advice-but seriously, who can control themsleves when it comes to eels... Dec 23 04, 8:40 AM

Stew54

Your confidence in me is misplaced I think, peasy. I know a load of rotten eels played a part in getting King Stephen on the throne in the first place, having caused the death of Henry I. That resulted in what is often called the Anarchy when the crown was disputed between Stephen and Matilda - her claim was better than his but she was a girl after all and really should have been in the kitchen not the throne room ;) [just kidding peasy, please don't shout!] But what I thought was the trigger for Stephen to concede that Matilda's son could succeed him was the death of Stephen's own son, Eustace. I don't know what killed Eustace, and in particular whether an eel was involved. Dec 23 04, 10:59 AM

TommyBundok

Eustace actually choked to death on an eel. Dec 23 04, 11:46 PM