(post under contruction)

Swaim/den Hartog: Descendants of Denis, Son of Ampud?

Introduciton

Based on the recent evidence of a Hungarian origin for the Swaim/den Hartog Y-chromosome lineage E-FGC11450, it is now likely that the Swaim/den Hartog line had lived within the somewhere within the boundaries of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary, although well before that kingdom had formed around 1000 AD. In this post when I used the word Hungary I mean the the country as it existed at its greatest extent, which included not only the area encompassed by today's Hungary, but also part or all of todays Romania, Serbia, Croatia and Slovakia. The use of the work Hungary when referring to events before the year 1000 AD is anachronistic but is conceptually useful as a shorthand way of referring to the reason, so I'll often use it anachronistically.

I believe it's likely that the Swaim/den Hartog line had lived from about 1 AD in the region of Hungary east of the Danube in the Tisza river drainage basin and that it had arrived there as part of the Iazyges group of the Sarmatians. The earliest known presence of E-V13 in this region is the “Derecske 20802”, who was buried in a Sarmatian cemetary near the village of Derecske between 200-300 AD. The “downstream” E-V13 haplogroup of Derecske 20802 is not known, but we do know that the E-FGC11450 Derecske 20799 lived in this same village half a century later, between 750-800 AD.

I've chosen to spell the word “Tisza” by one the earlier ways of spelling it as “Tisa”. The Germans refer and referred to this river as the “Theiss”.

Before their migration to the Tisa region, the Iazyges had lived with the rest of the Sarmatians on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe as one of the nomad tribes. I now believe it likely that the E-V13 line as a whole had entered Europe sporadically from the steppes possibly no earlier than 1100 BC, migrating there over time from the Sarmatian group and its predecessor groups the Sauromatians and The Sarmatians and others. The Sarmatians spoke an Iranian language, and this probably indicates that E-V13 had migrated from its probable home in the Levant, including today's Israel, eastward through todays Iran and then up the Caucasus between the Black and Caspians Seas onto the steppe. E-V13 had probably formed somewhere around the Levant or eastern Anatolia around 9700 BC, possibly as part of the Natufians, who we know lived in Israel at that time as semi-sedentary hunter-gatherers (but who later may have been the first humans in the world to invent agriculture).

I'll discuss this history in much more detail in a future post, but in this post I'm going to discuss one possible way the Swaim/den Hartog line might have migrated from Hungary ultimately to Holland. As I've mentioned many times before in these posts, the evidence is weak that the Swaim/den Hartog line had descended from Otto van Arkel, son of the last of the Lords of Arkel. In this post and other future posts I'm going to provide what I believe are credible alternative explanations for how the line had moved from Hungary to Holland. The most like possiblities are:

--As a Roman soldier from Sarmatia posted in one of the Roman camps along the Rhine in Germania Inferior in today's Holland (between 1-400 AD). There is some evidence from the ancient E-V13 men that some of them may have been stationed in Holland (thousands of Iazyges were stationed in England as well, which may well account for the majority of E-V13 in England today).

--As a Danish Viking in the 1000's who migrated to Flanders, perhaps as a son of Sweyn II Estridson, King of Denmark. Sweyn's army spent some time in Flanders as a guest of Robert I, Count of Flanders. Robert's daugther Adela married a son of Sweyn, Knud IV, King of Denmark, and their son Charles was later the Count of Flanders. This seems a stretch, but there is strong evidence that several men from the Tisa region had migrated to the Viking countries between 800-950 AD, so it isn't quite as implausible as it first appears; it also provides an explanation for the name Sweyn.

--As one of the grandons of Denis, son of Ampud, a Hungarian noble. Beatrix d'Este was the 3^rd wife of Andrew II, King of Hungary (~1177-1235), and there is evidence that her child, Stephen the Posthumous, was not the son of King Andrew but rather of Denis, son of Ampud. If this is true, Denis' son Andrew III, King of Hungary, who supposedly the last of the Arpad kings of Hungary, was not actually an Arpad but an Ampud. There is confusion about all this, of course, and not surprisingly a great deal of deception and lies, because it involved the power politics of which noble house would become the kings of Hungary. The other two sons of Stephen the Posthumous ended up in France under the care the the House of Anjou, who had four kings of Hungary (one of them a female) 1308-1395). This is the subject of this post.

--As a Hungarian noble in the 1400's, perhaps of the Garay (Garai, Gorjanski) family. This will be the subject of a future post. At first this may sound unlikely, but there is interesting evidence that links the Garay family to the Ujlaki family to the House of Luxembourg and the House of Habsburg to the House of Bavaria-Strubing. And, as it turns out, the Counts of Holland in the early 1400's were from the House of Bavarai-Straubing and were in fact the counts who destroyed the House of Arkel. So there is a strong link between the Land of Arkel and Hungary at this time. I was led down this path by researching the identity of Szekesfehervar 53, the ancient E-FGC11450 man who was buried in the Arpad royal Basilica of Szekesfehervar, who was obviously an important noble to have been buried there.

There is variable evidence for all of these possibilities, but ultimately it will be Y-chomromose DNA matching that will reveal which of these possibilities (if any) is correct. The descent-from-Otto van Arkel hypothesis could early be proved or disproved by the study of DNA from an ancient van Arkel. The Croy hypothesis, the subject of this post, could also be easily proved or disproved by the Y-DNA analysis of one of the living Croy descendants. Accordingn the Wikipedia article “House of Croy” at least one of the male lines survives, so this is possible. However, nobles today have no real political power and the identity of a member of a house is probably so important to most members that few would probably be willing to challenge that identify by testing their Y-DNA. They Croy family has long claimed and litigated over their origin as descendants of Prince Geza Arpad. A Croy member would likely not be happy to learn that was a lie and that the line had actually descended from an adulterous liason between Denis Ampud and Beatrix d'Este, even though those were both noble families, and the House of Este was an especially illustrious line. Whether or not the Croy family descended from the Arpad line would be as easy as taking a Y-DNA test, as the Arpad line is now known within a strong degree of probability to be R1a-SUR51. If a Croy was not R1a-SUR51 but rather the Swaim/den Hartog descendant line of E-FGC11450, then the hypothesis in this post would be proved. But a Croy will probably never take such a test as his identity as a Croy-Arpad to risk unmaking his true ancestry as a Croy-Ampud.

De Croy

I had first encountered the de Croy family when looking for a connection to the Brimeu family, because the Briemeu family had owned the small County of Megen near Oss, and one branch of the Swaim/den Hartog line had used the surname “van Megen.” The Geni.com tree shows the Croy family descending from from Geza II King of Hungary through Geza II's great-grandson Marc Croy (1150-1190). I was skeptical of the truth of this supposed lineage and turned to the fmg.ac website for clarification. It turns out that the de Croy family has for hundreds of years claimed to descend from the kings of Hungary, and the fmg.ac website lists various documents in which such a descent is mentioned ((NORTHERN FRANCE - AMIENS, MONTREUIL, PONTHIEU (fmg.ac) ), The truth of the claim, however, is not settled: the website says: “A longstanding tradition, which persists even today in various so-called genealogical websites on the internet, suggests that the Croy family was descended from the kings of Hungary. Different documents are contradictory regarding the precise alleged descent, and in any case more detail has been added over the years which is generally a sign that the result should be viewed with caution.”

The following are the documents cited:

French Wiipedia Article “Maison de Croy”

(citing 1600's historian Jacques de Bye”

Jacques de Bye was employed by “Charles Alexandre duc de Croy who wanted to boost the family's prestige” by the claim of descent from the kings of Hungary. The fmg.ac website says that “By's narrative is confused” because at one point Marc de Croy is said to be the brother of King Andrew III while at another point Marc is said to be a son of Andrew III from his first marriage (Bye didn't name the first wife, but that would have been Feneanna of Kuyavia). Bye also said that Marc of Hungary was present in France at an event in 1214 and that he was married in 1220; fmg.ac points out that these dates are inconsistent with Andrew III's estimated birth date of between 1265-1270 AD.

1486 Charter of Emperor Maximillian I

This charter stated that “the illustrious de Croy family descended from the true and legitimate Kings of Hungary” (translation with help of Google Translate)

1510 Charter

This charger stated of Jacques de Croy bishop of Cambrai: “the origin of your nobility derives from the Most Serene Kings of Hungary”

Douxchamps 1999

“We may be surprised that before 1486 the Croys observed a very significant silence on the subject of their royal origins, when they would have had very good reasons to take advantage of it.”

Scohier 1589

This source said that a man named le Feron “indicated that “Marc” was the son of King Andras IIIby his wife Sibille Cumana” although the fmg.ac website says that “Schohier preferred and alternative possibility that Marc was the brother of Andras III.”

Thus far we have conflicting information in regard to whether Marc was the brother or the son of King Andrew III, with the dates favoring that he was his brother—assuming the claim wasn't entirely a lie.

However, the fmg.ac website also present three cartulary entries from the late 1200's from the Amiens Cathedral. The website provides a discussion on the validity of these entries, including the opinion of one person who “suggests that they were added after 1737”, though there is apparently no proof of such backdating. These entries (translated using in part Google Translate and including fmg.ac commentary as well as its quotes from the charters) are:

Charter of February 1284

By charter dated Feb 1284 (O.S.) “Marcq de Honguerie knight son of Andrew duke of Hungary and lord in part of Croy in the Somme” donated harvest from “my farm of Masnil the lord Rokencourt” to Amiens cathedral, with the consent of “Felix of Hungary, his older brother”

Charter of 12 June 1290

By charter dated 28 Jun 1290 “lady Guigone de le Chambre, lady of the castle of Allevard in Dalphinel [Dauphine of Vienne southwest of the County of Savoy]... widow of the late noble lord Felix of Hungary, knight and oldest son of Andrew, duke of Hungary... his three children from youngest to oldest Antoine, Andrieu and Jehan de Honguerie...” assisted by “lord Marcq de Honguerie knight, lord in part of Croy in Somme and lord d’Araines and the brother of the late lord Felix”, made payments to “the chapter d’Amiens” according to the will “of the late lord Felix”

Charter of 28 August 1292

By charter dated 28 Aug 1292 “Marguerite de Sicile wife of her lord Charles de Valois” notified that “late noble knight Felix of Hungary, our cousin formerly lord in part of Croy in Somme and oldest son of...prince Andrew of Hungary our...uncle...our cousin both through Madame Marie de Honguerie our...mother and through my lord Charles king of Sicily my...father” died suddenly “in the flower of his life...leaving... her widow with three small children” and that she donated “the propertyx...in the city of Arviler that we had purchased from Lord Guis de Chastellon” to Amiens cathedral for the soul of “our flate cousin”. An earlier charter dated 18 Apr 1292, records that “Guis de Chastellon knights” sold “des dismes...en le vile de Arviler” to “Marguerite de Sicile feme a mon lord Charles quens de Valois”[439], making no mention of Hungary or Croÿ.

1308 Hungarian Document

The fmg.ac website also includes a document in the “Seigneurs de Sassenage” section of the “Burgundy Kingdom Viennois” region. The website wrties that “a mid-19^th century work in Hungarian [Magyarorszagi Cruoy nemzetsegnek torenete 1848] reproduces a document dated “5 Dec 1308”, which purports to record a marriage....” Oddly, this document was not referenced in the section on Croy. The fmg.ac website quoted from the document, which I translated through Google Translate:

"Lord Peter Crouy Chanelis, the son of the noble Lord Antonius Crouy Chanelis and the noble Lord Ambrosine de Comeriis" and "the noble... the noblewoman Agnesia de Cassenatico called de Veraciensi, the daughter of the noble... lord Othonardi de Cassenatico called de Veraciensi I deceased and.. .lord Ludovice de Sabaudia also deceased ", with the consent of "lord Francis de Cassenatico's guardian and uncle said domicelle...and...lord Agnesie Gesie Juinville wife of the said lord Francis...”

The fmg.ac website say that “It is assumed that the documentn is spurious and that the persons it named never existed.” However, it doesn't support this opinion with any contradictory evidence, merely noting that there are no other references to the named people named Sassenage; but as “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”,

Discussion of the Three 13^th Centurey Amiens Charters

First, I don't claim these translations are exactly correct, but I think they're probably close.

The fmg.ac website is doubtful of the validity of these three charters, saying that “their inconsistency with Sochier and Bye suggests that they were written later” and that “Presumably the charters represent an attempt to correct Bye's chronological errors, although the “correction” was still unsuccesful considering that King Andras III could not have had adult children in 1280's.”

The fmg.ac website says that Andrew III is estimated to have been born between 1265-1270 BC, so it's correct in saying that Andrew could not have had adult children in the 1280's. But he could have had adult brothers or half-brothers in the 1280's, and so we're back the question of whether Marc Croy was a brother or a son of Andrew III. And the answer is simple: if Marc Croy was in fact either a son or brother of Andrew III he must have been a brother.

Oddly, the fmg.ac website doesn't tell us in this section, when making this argument, that King Andrew III's father Stephen the Posthumous did in fact have two illegitimate children (names unkown). The website tells us this in the section on Stephen the Posthumous, but not in the section on the supposed origin of the Croy family. Thus, we do in fact know that Andrew III had two half-brothers through his father. Nothing appears to be known of the fate of these two brothers, who it appears are only known because they were mentioned in the will of Stephen the Posthumous.

Thus, it is indeed possible that Felix and Marc were the half-brothers of King Andrew III, We don't need to manufacture that possibility, and we can reject statements that Felix and Marc were Andrew's sons.

The informant in at least the 1290 and 1292 charters appears to be Marguerite d'Anjou, who was the daughter of Mary of Hungary, so it seems likely that she knew that Felix and Marc were actually the brothers rather than the sons of Andrew III. Thus either writer or the transcriber of the charters was mistranscribing or falsifying the true relationship or Marguerite had lied to whatever scribe(s) had written the charters. As we'll see, Marguerite's relationship to the two brothers may have been ambiguous because they were possible rivals to her own family's claim to the throne of Hungary through Mary, and although Marguerite is now claiming that the two brothers were descended from the Arpad line of kings of Hungary, her mother's contention had always been that Andrew's father Stephen the Posthumous was a bastard of Beatrice d'Este and a son of Denis son of Ampud and thus not an Arpad.

The timing of the 1290 charter is also suspicious. It's dated 12 June 1290 and although it says that Felix was dead, it doesn't state exactly when he had died. Andre III ascended the throne on 10 July 1290, or just a month after this charter was dated. The closeness of these two events might be merely a coincidence, but violence, murder and lies were tools in the toolbox of most nobles of that time, especially in Hungary when it came to royal succession; it's possible that Felix' death was not natural, but was murder. In any case Marguerite in 1290 may have realized that her claim was going to lose to that of Andrew III, and therefore made an agreement with Marc and or Felix that in exchange for never claiming the throne of Hungary she would allow them to claim descent from the Hungarian kings for the social prestige it brought them, and possibly also that she would also claim they were sons of Andrew III, which would erase the stigma of their being bastards of Stephen the Posthumous. This was a pretty good deal, because their own illegitimacy added to their father's probable illegitimacy could be a high bar to the throne of Hungary they might never overcome. Better a lord with high connections in France than a bastard of a bastard in Hungary.

The above is of course speculation, but based on real possibilities.

Although the fmg.ac website states that these 13^th century charters are probably forgeries and were attempts to correct the much later claims of other researchers, I'm not so certain about that. Why would a forger introduce the totally unneccesary details that Marc Croy had a brother, with details of his name and the name of his wife and children. Whoever were those children, nobody seems ever to have claimed descent from them, so what would be the purpose of complicating a lie with other lies? Those other lies could be looked into and declared lies, which which also cast doubt on the lie of primary concern. In my opionion, but of course with access to the original documents to examine them, I think it likely that the three 13^th century charters are not forgeries but that Marguerite d'Anjou lied or was wrong about the true father of Felix and Marc (or that the scribe or transcriber lied or made that same mistake. Both “son” and “brother” in French begin with the letter “f”, and this could have led to confusion).

Felix

The information from the 13^th century charters on Felix is sparse, but names his wife and children. These were:

Guigone de de le Chambre of cstle Allevard in the Dauphine of Vienne

Jehan (John)

Andrieu (Andrew)

Antoine (Anthony)

Allevard is located in today's Isere department of the Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes region of France, which is far from the Somme region but close to Provence where Marguerite d'Anjou apparently lived.

The Dauphine of Vienne was a special state theoretically part of the Holy Roman Empire but ruled by the French royalty. When Felix would first have been given land in the Dauphine it was probably ruled by John I of Viennois, a member of the House of Burgundy; by 1292 it was ruled by Anne of Viennois, daughter of John, married to Humbert I de la Pin. By 133

The fmg.ac website shows a family called the “Seigneurs de la Chambre” at this time in Savoy; Savoy was a county in this region. There is no woman named Guigone in the various de la Chambres listed by fmg.ac, but “Guigonem” and/or “Guiges” is a recurring male name, so some form of this name could have had a similar feminine form of the name. The estate of Allevard is mentioned once in a 1303 document: “Antoinette de la Chambre, daughter of Guillaume de la Chambre and his wife Berengere --- “Guigues de la Alleman lord of Valbonnais” assigned income of Olson and Allevard” to “Berengere widow of Guillaume de la Chambre....” This was about 12 years after the death of Felix, and because Antoinette de la Chambre has assinged income from Allevard to someone, she must have owned Allevard, from which Felix' wife Guigone de la Chambre came. These people were thus likely close family to her. However, Guigone may have moved from Savoy to the Amiens region or elsewhere; or she may have moved back with her family after Felix' death. Three sons were listed for Felix and Guigone, but perhaps there were also daughters; if so, then Antoinette might have been a daughter (remember that one of the sons was named Antoine).

We have the 1308 Hungarian document that said that Peter Crouy-Chanelis married lady , son of Lord Antonius Crouy Chanelis

Lord Peter Crouy Chanelis, the son of the noble Lord Antonius Crouy Chanelis and the noble Lord Ambrosine de Comeriis" and "the noble... the noblewoman Agnesia de Cassenatico called de Veraciensi, the daughter of the noble... lord Othonardi de Cassenatico called de Veraciensi I deceased and.. .lord Ludovice de Sabaudia also deceased ", with the consent of "lord Francis de Cassenatico's guardian and uncle said domicelle...and...Lady Agnesie Gesie Juinville wife of the said lord Francis...”

This entry is saying that Peter Croyy Chanlis son of Antonius Crouy married a woman named Agnesia de Cassenatico (dicto Veraceinsi). The fmg.ac website believes that this entry is a forgery, apparantly because it does Agnesia and her father Othonardi can't be fit into the Sassenage family history.

What at first confused me about this entry was that it doesn't mention the name Saassenage at all; the woman Peter Crouy was marrying was surnamed Cassenatico. But then when I did a search on the name Cassenatico in the fmg.ac page for Burgundy Kingdom Viennois I came up with with 65 entries, which is far more time than the number of times that name was mentioned in this Croy section. After looking over the various Cassenatico people it appears that Cassenatico is another spelling of the name Sassenage.

Cassenatico or Cesenatico?

After more internet searching I began to understand what might have happened with the entry. Because the name Cassenatico was a variant spelling of Sassange and because Sassenage was a part of the Dauphine of Viennois, and since Marc Croy's brother Felix married a woman from Allevard in the Dauphine, the fmg.ac website assumed that the surname of Agnesia and her father Othonardi was “Cassenatico” AKA Sassenage. But I think it's possible that a different place may have actually been meant, this being the Adriatic port town in Italy called “Cesenatico”. The Wikipedia entry for “Cesenatico” says that the town was founded in 1302 and was considered part of the city of Cesena (10 miles inland from Cesenatico).

If we search the fmg.ac website for the term “cesena” we find it associated by 1376 with the Malatesta family of Rimini (located 20 miles SE of Cesena and 14 miles from Cesenatico:.

Pandolfo I Malatesta had two sons. One of these sons, Pandolfo Malatesta, had a son Galeotto Malatesta “l'Ungharo” [the Hungarian] (1327-1372) who married Costanza d'Este, illegitimate daughter of Obizzo III d'Este Signore de Ferrara and unknown mistress. Galeotto and Costanza had a daughter Costannza who married Ugo d'Este, legitimated son of Obizzo III Marchese d'Este.

Pandolfo I Malatesta's other son was Galeotto Malatesta (-Cesena 1385), who in 1376 conqurecd Cesena. One son was Pandolfo III who had an illegitimate son Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta (1470-1468) who married Gineverva d'Este, daughter of Niccolo III d'Este Signore di Ferrara e Modena. Galeotto also had another son Andrea Malatesta Signore di Cesena (2373-1416) ,Andrea had one daughter Parisina (1404-1425) who married Niccolo d'Este Signor di Ferrrara e Modena, illegitimate son of Alberto d'Este. Parisina was beheaded for adultery in 1425 and Niccolo was poisoned in Milan 1441.

Obizzo III d'Este great-great grandson of Azzo VII d'Este who raised her niece Beatrice d'Este who was the wife of Andrew II and the mother of Stephen the Posthumous. Although the Malatesta family didn't conquer Cesena (and presumably with it Cesenatico) until 1376, or nea

Azzo VI d'Este

Azzo VI d'Este Aldobrandino I d'Este

Azzo VII d'Este Beatrice d'Este (m. Andrew II Arpad)

Rinaldo I d'Este Stephen the Posthumous

Obizzo II d'Este Felix (Croy Chanelis)

Aldobrandino II d'Este Antoine Croy Chanelis

Obizzo III d'Este Peter Croy Chanelis (m. (1308)

Costanza d'Este (1343-1391) Agnesia di Cesenatico

m. Galeotto di Cesena

Thus in tis scenario we have two descendants of Azzo VI d'Este who married a person from Cesena/Cesenatico in Italy. Furthermore, the Wikipedia page “Galeotto I Malatesta” says that “In 1351 Malatesta led a campaign in Abruzzo in the service of Louis of Anjou, king of Sicily...” Louis of Anjou's grandfather was Philip VI le Fortune, son of Charles of France and Marguerite d'Anjou daughter of Mary of Hungary.

Thus, if we assume that the “Cassenatico” mentioned in the document on Peter Croy's marriage is the same place as Sassenage in France, we have a document floating without an anchor because Agnesia de Cassenatico can't be placed within the Sassenage family. However, if we look for another “Cassenatico” and find Cesenatico (part of Cesena) in Italy, then the document is well-anchored both by genealogy and by historical events.

Using the priniple of Occam's Razor, it is likely that the place mentioned in the 1308 document was Cesenatico in Italy, and that Agnesia di Cesenatico was very possibly a d'Este (which would make the marriage endogamous but quite attenuated by noble standards). Or she might have been from other, related family from Cesena.

In other words, the two different places, Cassenatico/Sassenage in France and Cesenatico/Cesena in Italy, were confused by either the scribe or later by a transcriber or by the fmg.ac website.

And if this is true, then there is less reason to believe that the 1308 entry was “spurious”. And if this is true, then we have at least one of Felix's descendants living in the Dauphine or Savoy rather than near Amiens and using the name Croy Chanelis. The importance of this is that this document thus would provide more evidence that the Croy line was indeed related to Andrew III of Hungary (although providing no evidence one way or the other that their paternal line may not have been the Arpad line).

Marc Croy

It isn't clear how Marc Croy fits into the Croy genealogy. Presumably he married a woman named Croy and took her name, but the name “Marc Croy” doesn't appear to show up in the records shown in fmg.ac. The 1284 charter named him “sire en partie de Croy”, which Google Translate says means “Lord in part of Croy.” By 1290 he is also lord of Araines. Nowhere does any documennt appear to say who else was lord in part of Croy, but perhaps it was split between Marc's wife and a brother if she had one. But if she did have a brother, then Croys today could be in two different Y-chromosome haplogroups.

Jan Croy in Gorinchem

The problem I have with this argument for the falsity of the charters is that the subject of the last two of the charters is not Marc Croy, but rather his brother Felix. Why would a forger introduce unneccesary complications in his forger, fabricating a brother for Marc and also a family for that fabricated brother including the names of his wife and three children? The most successful lie is the simplest lie because if the unneccesary facts were proven falese then the primary lie would by association also be presumed false as well.

It's true that in the last charter Mageurite of Sicily says that Marc and Felix were sons of Andrew III, which is impossible, but this persistent confusion of Marc Croy's supposed identify was possibly intentional and even Marguerite may not have known their true identies, which her mother may have concealed. Andrew III died in 1301 and had been crowned King of Hungary 10 July 1290. and so was by the King of Hungary at the time of the last charter, though not yet at the time of the 1290 and 1284 charters.

The death of Andrew III ignited a succession crisis because he left no children and was supposedly the last male member of the Arpad line. This opened the field for other others not in the Arpad line to claim the throne, including the claim of the Anjou family through Marguerite's mother Mary of Hungary, the daughter of Stephen V King of Hungary (who was himself the son of Bela IV; Bela IV was a son of Anrew II). Mary had passed her claim to the throne to her grandson Charles Robert (Charles I), who in 1308 was in fact crowned King of Hungary, but only after Wenceslaus of Bohemia and Otto the Bavarian had short terms as King of Hungary.

But if Andre III had left no children, then who were Marc Croy and Felix the children of? Both Bye and Scohier nad said or implied that they might have been brothers of Andrew III rather than sons. If Marc Croy and Felix were children of Andrew III then they would have been next in line to be Kings of Hungary. Felix died before Andrew III, so as the older brother his sons would be in line before Marc Croy. But the legitimacy of Andrew III himself was in doubt by many in Hungary, as I'll soon discuss, so the legitimacy Marc and Filix would be in doubt whether they were Andrew II's brothers or sons. They couldn't have been sons of Andrew, however, because they were too old for that. But they could have been illegitimate brothers, and if so their claim to the throne was doubly questionable, as not only were they illegitimate but their father was also possibly illegitimate. Thus, their claim to the throne of Hungary was weak but given that their brother Andrew III had be crowned king, it was still possible that they too could be crowned king, given the death otherwise of the male Arpad line in Hungary.

It's possible that the Anjou line had brought Felix and Marc to France to place them off the chessboard, giving them lordship of Croy in exchange for their not claiming a right to the throne of Hungary. Considering their possible double illegitimacy that wouldn't be a bad deal unless they were overly ambitious, and in the end for Marc Croy's descendants it did in fact turn out to be a good deal. As for Felix's untimely death, perhaps he had begun expressing a desire to persue the throne after all, and for renegin on the agreement was silenced—but this is sheer speculation, just a possibility; he could simply have died from an accident of disease.

Why would Marguerite of Sicily lie about the true identity of Marc Croy and Felix? Possibly they were being held in reserve to place them on the throne of Hungary if they could get an Anjou on the throne; better to win part of the prize than none at all. And in that case they were better to be seen as sons of Andrew III than illegitimate brothers. Tis is probably not the case, however, because although in France they could possibly be presented as sons of Andrew III, in Hungary they would likely be known as illegitimate brothers of Andrew III, whose father Stephen the Posthumous was himself widely considered illegitimate and not even a true Arpad at all.

But there is another possibility. Stephen the Posthumous may not have been an Arpad through is father, but he was unquestionably a d'Este through his mother Beatrice d'Este. And Beatrice d'Este was the daughter of Aldobrandino I d'Este, who was the son of Azzo VI margrave of Este (1170-1202). Another son of Azzo VI d'Este but through a different mother was Azzo VII d'Este, this different mother was Alix de Chatillon, whose father was Raynald of Chatillon whose had a daughter through another woman and this daughter was Anna of Antioch, the wife of Bela III of Hungary, the father of Andrew II of Hungary who married Beatrix d'Este. This was not a cousin relationship between Beatrix d'Este and Andrew II of Hungary, but also Azzo VIII d'Este, the great-grandson of Azzo VII d'Este, was married to Beatrice of Anjou (1295-1330), the younger sister of Marguerite, although no children came from that marriage.

Margeurite's husband Charles Count of Valois was a great-grandson of King Andrew II through Andrew II's 2^nd wife (Beatrix d'Este was his 3^rd wife); their daughter Violante married James I of Aragon, whose daughter Isabel of Aragon married Phillip III the Bold, King of France, the father of Charles of Valois.

Brothers of Andrew III

Although the fmg.ac website states that Bye and Scohier had said that Marc Croy was possibly the brother rather than the son of Andrew III, it's curious that the website in this section didn't also point out that Andrew III did in fact have two “natural” brothers (actually half-brothers). This very fact makes the Croy claim of Hungarian descent much more credible, even if the exact line of descent and timeframe would be different than presented by Bye or as represented in the Geni.com family tree.

(In the Geni family tree the Croy family should probably begin with “Jacques de Croy” (c. 1240-) married to “Marguerite d'Araines” (c. 1270-); “Jacques” should be Marc and Marguerite d'Araines should be Felix' wife, not Marc's (unless he married Felix's widow). We can see the tree is wrong with “Guillaume de Croy” the supposed fahter of “Jarcques de Croy” because he was supposedly born around 1180 and died around 1224, which means he had died 16 years before his son was born, which is impossible. Thus, this early part of the Croy family in the Geni.com tree can't be taken seriously.)

The fmg.ac website says that Andrew III (Andras III) and his 3^rd wife Beatrice (Beatrix) d'Este had one child: Andras (Andrew) III. This child was Istvan (Stephen) (1236-1271) and was born after Andrew III's death (other sources usually thus call him Stephen the Posthumous). The website doesn't mention that Stephen the Posthumous' half-siblings, all of them older than him, considered him to be the illegitimate son of Beatrix d'Este and a Hungarian nobleman named Denis, son of Ampud, and therefore not an Arpad and not in line for the kingship of Hungary. Thus, there is evidence that Stephen the Posthumous was not an Arpad.

Stephen the Posthumous had one legitimae son, who was Andrew III. However, the fmg.ac website says that “Istvan Duke of Slavonia had two illegitimate children, shown in Europaische Stammtafein although the primary source on which this is based has not so far been identified: c) son. 1271 d) son. 1271.

Putting everything together, we can thus see that the Croy story could be essentially true if Felix and Marc Croy were these two illegitimate sons of Stephen the Posthumous; these sons would be half-brothers of Andrew III as mentioned by Bye and Sohier. Their circumstances as the illegitimate sons of Stephen the Posthumous, who was possibly himself illegitimate and not a true Arpad, would explain how they ended up in France with the Anjou family. As we'll see, Mary of Hungary, who married Charles d'Anjou and whose daughter Marguerite was the mentioned in the 1292 charter, always believed Stephen the Posthumous to not have been an Arpad. Thus, her daughter Marguerite also probably believed this as well. They could have been the grandchildren of Beatrix d'Este, but not the grandchildren of Andrew II.

Incorrect Genetic Information

Because the fmg.ac website refers to a Russian website that makes incorrect claims regarding the Croy family's supposed Y-chromosome haplogroup, I feel that I should explain why the website is incorrect so that readers don't consider it valid.

The fmg.ac website concludes its analysis of the Croy family's claim of descent from the Arpad line by saying: “As a final point, reference has been found (dated 8 Nov 2019) to “recent genetic testing of Belgian...Croy” which excluded any Croy family descent through the male line from the Arpad dynasty. This statement has not been verified as no other mention of such testing has been found.”

The following is what this website has to say about the Croy family: “Arpad’s dynasty was stopped in 1301 with death of King Andrew III (1290–1301). However, according to family legends, lineal descendants of Arpad’s on man's line are Belgian nobility sort Croy and Scottish clan Drummond. However recent genetic testing of Belgian sort [lineage] Croy has attributed them to Indo European, Haplogroup I1, and Scots of clan Drummond – to Europeans, Haplogroup R1b1. For these reasons we cannot count their successors of dynasty Arpad’s on man's [paternal] line. Their communication with Arpad’s on female line is possible.” And: “Genetically Arpad’s are ethnic Ugrian of Russ, Haplogroup N1c1. We have to two modal Haplotype [1] which should be closest to representatives of Arpad’s dynasty.”

 q

I have seen no evidence that any Croy has ever tested his Y-chromosome DNA with any of the major platforms and the Russian website provides no source for this statement.

I also don't know of any claim that the Scottish clan Drummund claims descent from the Arpad paternal line and without a reference I can't evaluate this claim.

The reference to happlogroup I1 as “Indo-European” and to R1b1 as “European” may or may not be true when applied to the origin or current region in which the haplogroup is most concentrated, but does not exclude the existence of a particular person or descendant line of that haplogroup anywhere in the world, even from thousands of years ago. Thus, the implication that the Arpad line must necessarily come from an “ethnically Ugrian” haplogroup and could not have come from a “European” haplogorup is wrong.

Although Hungarian is a Finno-Ugric language, we now know that the Arpad line was most likely in haplogroup R1a-SUR51, a downstream haplogroup of R-Z93. The closest paternal relatives of the Arpad line are the Bashkirs of Bashkortostan in and around the Ural mountains. The Baskir language is Turkic and closely related to the Tatar and Kazakh languages, which are unrelated to the Finno-Ugric languages of Hungary and Finland/Estonia. Thus, the Russian site is incorrect when it implies that the Arpad line would probably be haplgroup N1c1.

In summary, this website's claim about the haplogroup of the Croy family is unverifiable and probably as wrong as its claim abou the haplogroup of the Arpad family. The fmg.ac website should delete its citation to the website unless it provides citations to the supposed testing of the Croy DNA so that the validity of this testing can be evaluated.

Beatrice d'Este and Stephen the Posthumous

The Arpad Y-chromosome haplogroup was determined using the DNA from the remains of a man who buried in the Basiliica of Szekesfehervar, which was one of the burial locations of the Arpad line and succeeding kings of Hungary. Based on circumstantial evidence the Researchers have presented these remains as definitely or almost definitely those of Bela III of Hungary (~1148-1190)(I have strong doubts about the validity of this identification, which I present in a future post, but in any case the remains were likely those of one of the kings of Hungary).

Bela III and his wife Anne/Agnes of Antioch had two sons. Bela III was succeeded as king by Emerich, his oldest son, who rule for 8 years, and then by his son Ladislaus III, who ruled for less than a year. Ladislaus III was Emerich's only son, so on his death the crown went to Bela III's only other son, Andrew II.

Andrew II had the following wives, children, and spouses of the children:

Wife 1: Gertrude of Merania (1185-1213) daughter of Berthold IV of Andechs and Margrave of Carniola and Istria and Agnes of Wettin

Anna Maria (1204-1237) m. Tzar Ivan Assen II of Bulgaria

Bela IV King of Hungary (1206-1270) m. Maria Laskarina of Byzantium and Elizabeth the Cuman

Elizabeth of Hungary (1207-1231) m. Margrave Louis IV of Thuringia

Coloman of Halych (1208-1241)

Andrew II of Halych (1210-1234)

Wife 2: Yolanda of Courtenay (1200-1233), daughter of Peter II of Courtenay and Yolanda of Flanders

Yolanda (1215-1251) m. James I King of Aragon

Wife 3: Beatrice d'Este (1215-1245), daughter of Aldobrandio d'Este

Stephen the Posthumous (1236-1271)

As I've already mentioned, although this is the generally accepted list of children of Andrew II, there's serious doubt about whether or not his supposed son Stephen the Posthumous was actually his son. The information about the questionable paternity of Stephen the Posthumous is from the Wikipedia articles “Beatrice d' Este, Queen of Hungary” and “Stephen the Posthumous”. The article on Beatrice d'Este doesn't cite the exact source of information for the dipute over Stephen's paternity, but generally cites two sources, both apparently books written in Hungarian to which I don't have access. The article on Stephen, however, cites does cite a source, which is also one of the sources cited in the source on Beatrice d'Este (Kristo et al, Az Arpad-haz uralkodoi [Rulers of the House of Arpad], 1996). This is of course a secondary source rather than a primary source. The fmg.ac website doesn't mentione this question at all, but as the information on Beatrice d'Este and her son Stephen the Posthumous includes specific and somewhat detailed information ot included in the bare-bones fmg.ac website, I believe that this information is likely based on primary sources not available to the fmg.ac website. Thus, I'm going to accept as true that the paternaity of Stephen the Posthumous was questioned by the older sons of Andrew II and that Denis, son of Ampud was suspected to be the father. The fact that Beatrice d'Este had given birth to her son in Germany rather than Hungary and that Stephen the Posthumous was raised in Italy rather than Hungary tends to support this, as well.

According the the Wikpedia article on Beatrice d'Este, she “was was the only child of Marquis Aldobrandino I of Este” and an unknown mother. Her father died the year she was born and she was educated by her father's brother Azzo VII d'Este (~1205-1264)(Azzo VII d'Este's mother was Alix de Chatillon, and his great-grandson Azzo III d'Este (1263-1308) was married to Beatrice d'Anjou (1295-1330), the daughter of Charles d'Anjou and his wife Mary of Hungary (1247-1323), and thus was the sister of Marguerite who gave the information in the 1292 Amiens entry on the death of Felix de Hungary).

In 1234 Andrew II, who was aged somewhere around 60 and had just been widowed from his second wife, visited the court of Este and “fell in love” with Beatrice, who was about 19 years of age. Her uncle consented to her marriage to Andrew II, which occurred in May 1234. Bela and Coloman, Andrew II's sons by Gertrude of Merania, had opposed Andrew II's marriage, and the relationship of Beatrice and the sons of Andrew II was tense.

Andrew II died in September 1235, or just over a year after his marriage to Beatrice. Beatrice was pregnant by this time, and after Bela ascended to the throne as Bela IV shortly after Andrew II's death, “Bela and Coloman accused her of having, in King Andrew's life, an adulterous relationship liaison with their father's influential lord Denis, son of Ampud. Bela IV dismissed and punished many of his father's closest advisors, including Denis, who was blinded and imprisoned; he died in captivity. Bela also ordered Beatrice's imprisonment, but she managed to escape to the Holy Roman Empire, where she gave birth to a posthumous son in the town of Wehrda, Duchy of Thuringia...in early 1236. Bela and Coloman considered her child to be a bastard, who was born out of the queen's extramarital affair with Denis. Later chronicles, for instance in the Illuminated Chronicle, which sought to prove the lawful origin of Andrew III, were ignoring these details and emphasized that Beatrice want to return home voluntarily.

“Stephen was named after Saint Stephen, the first King of Hungary, by which Queen Beatrice sought to emphasize the legitimate origin of her son. The exiled queen with her infant began her journey to Ferrara [Italy] six months later. She was planning to live in the court of her uncle, but Marquis Azzo VII denied her request and refused to return her former estates [which she'd given up as a condition of marrying Andrew II]. She spent the following years wandering in Italy but did not receive significant financial support to promote her son's cause. Pope Innocent IV granted her revenues of 35 monasteries in Italy, in order to stabilize her financial condition. Beatrice sent her 7-year-old son Stephen to the court of Azzo VII in Ferrara in 1243, where he spent his childhood and and received knightly education....Beatrice never gave up her son's claims to receive ducal revenues from Hungary....Beatrice died in the Gemola monastery in the first half of 1245.” (Wikipedia “Stephen the Posthumous”).

Bela IV and Coloman may have had good reason to believe that Stephen the Posthumous was the son of Denis son of Ampud by an adulterous encounter with Beatrice. The Wikipedia article “Denis, son of Ampud” says that “Duke Bela had practically taken control of the country before the death of his ailing father.” Thus, Bela may have known that his father could not physically have produced a son with Beatrice at this time. However, it's also possible that they'd lied abou that possibility as an excuse to clean house and get rid of Denis, who they may have considered to powerful to let live. Although they had disliked Beatrice from the start, would they have murdered the infant Stephen if they had actually believed him to be their half-brother? It's possible, but Stephen was no real threat to them because their claims and their son's claims to the throne would always be superior to those of Stephen even if he was truly the son of Andrew II. Beatrice's flight to safety might have been evidence of her guilt but could as easily have been to protect her and her son even if their claim was unjustified. However, the fact that her uncle Azzo VII, who had raised her from infancy, had refused her request for asylum in his house probably indicates that he did believe that her child was not the son of Andrew II. He later raised Stephen in his court no doubt because Stephen was still his great nephew, even if he was a bastard, and Stephen was of course innocent of any wrongdoing himself (and, furthermore, regardless of what Azzo VII believed, Stephen nonethless had a claim to the throne of Hungary, which might outlive the enmity of Bela IV and Coloman, and someday prove useful to the House of Este). But apparently Azzo VII had considered Beatrice's adultury too criminal to ever reconcile with her. If Beatrice had committed adultery with Denis she had broken a taboo that was taken seriously by the nobility, who had no other way to ensure their children were their own other than by strict control of their women's fidelity (however, Beatrice would not have been first wife a Hungarian king to have committed adultery, as King Coloman (1070-1116) had caught his second wife Euphemia of Kiev in the act of adultery and had sent her home to her father Vladimir II Monomakh Grand Prince of Kiev; her son Boris was never therefore never recognized as an Arpad).

Stephen the Posthumous

Beatrice died when her son was nine years old. Pope Innocent transferred to him the right to the income from the 35 monateries that had been financing Beatrice. He was raised by his great-uncle Azzo VII and “educated as a son of the king of Hungary” (ibid). Wuej Azzo's son Rinaldo died in 1251 he was left without a legitimate heir, and for a time Stephen was considered his heir, but then Azzo adopted Rinaldo's illegitimate son Obizzo as his heir, and Obizzo was “legitimated” by Pope Innocent in 1252. This probably caused bad blood between Stephen and Azzo, and “Sometime around 1252, Stephen left Azzo's court and traveled to the Kingdom of Aragon, where his half-sister Violant was the queen consort, but died in the autumn of 1251. Nevertheless, Stephen enjoyed the hospitality of his brother-in-law King James I of Aragon and his family. There, Stephen was also recognized as a legitimate member of the Árpád dynasty.”

“Sometime later in the first half of the 1250's, Stephen returned to Italy and departed for his great-uncle's rival Pietro II Traversari.” Azzo was the leader of the Guelf (Welf) faction, whereas Traversari supported the rival Ghibbelines. In 1262 Stephen married Pietro's daugher Isabella and had a son by her, but both wife and son died around 1263.

Shortly after their deaths Stephen left the Traversi home in Ravenna and moved to the Republic of Venice where “where he represented the Traversi's political and business interests. There, Stephen married Tomasina Morosini around 1264, a daughter of a wealthy Venetian patrician Michele Sbarra Morosini. With this marriage, Stephen acquired large wealth and political influence, the Morosini family were one of the most prominent political dynasties in Venice. The marriage produced a son, Andrew, who was born around 1265.” In 1264 Azzo VII died and Obizzo was elected as the next lord of Ferrara, ending Stephen's hopes of inheriting something from Azzo. “Stephen unsuccessfully tried to look for allies against Obizzo, for instance Charles I of Anjour around 1267.” (Wikipdia “Stephen the Posthumous”, citing Zsoldos “III Andras” in Szovak et al, Szent Istvan es III. Andras, 2003.).

“Charles I of Anjou” was the husband of Mary of Hungary, who were the parents of Marguerite de Anjou, wife of “lord Charles de Valois” from the Amiens charter of 1292 in which Marguerite stated that her cousin Felix of Hungary had died. Thus we have a tie between the Anjou family and Stephen the Posthumou at a time when Stephen the Posthumous's two illegitimate sons may have already been born or would soon be born. This connection is important evidence in trying to identify Felix and Marc (Croy) as the two illegitimate sons of Stephen the Posthumous. Although Charles I didn't marry Mary of Hungary until 1270, it's possible that he was considering such a union, and this might be one reason why he turned down Stephen's request, because Stephen's claim would be superior to that of his future wife so it would be in his interest to weaken Stephen rather than support him. But this is mere speculation because he may not have inteded to marry Mary at this time.

On 10 April 1271 Stephen the Posthumous wrote his will in contemplation of his death from an illness he was suffering. At that time he was living in the Morosini's palace in Venice. “He declared his son Andrew as his heir to his claims in Hungary and Italy (Slavonia and Este, respectively), and nominated his wife's two kinsmen, her brother Albertino Morosini and brother-in-law Marino Gradenig, as Andrews guardians. Stephen also mentioned his two natural [illegitimate] sons without specifying their name and age, who he financially and hypothetically took care of from the incomes of Slavonia and Este, after his heir Andrew takes possession of those two estates.” (Wikipedia “Stephen the Posthumous” citing Wertner Az Arpadok csaladi tortenete, 1892)

Stephen died not long after making his will and was buried in the Morosini family tomb on San Michele Island in Venice. If this mortuary is still intact, then it would be a simple matter to test his remains for his Y-chromosome haplotype to determine if his son, widely considered the last of the Arpad kings by everyone but the last of the Arpads themselves, was truly an Arpad.

The Wikipedia aticle on Stephen says without citation that “The 15th-century Humanist historian Antonio Bonfini claimed that Stephen's features alluded to royal descent and were particularly reminiscent of his father Andrew II.” Even if this was true, Bonfini was born in 1427, which was 156 years after Stephen's death in 1271, so he obviously didn't know him personally and could only have seen paintings of him, if even that; thus, his opinion is essentially worthless. Also, Bonfini “was a court historian in Hungary under King Mathias Corvinus [Hunyadi] during the last years of his career” (Ibid), so his patronage depended on pleasing his patron, and his “opinion” on Stephen's resemblance to Andrew II may have been what he believed Huyadi wanted to hear. The truth is that during this time and until very recently there was simply no way to determine the true father of a child except in some cases if the true father was of a different ethnicity than the supposed father; this was why in most societies the adultery of a wife was considered taboo while the husband's infidelity went unpunished and appers to have in fact been expected among the nobles (although, as Denis son of Ampud may have learned, it could be dangerous to cuckold a powerful lord).

Succession Crisis

When Stephen the Posthumous died in 1271 the king of Hungary was Stephen V, son of Bela IV son of Andrew II. Stephen V died in 1272 and was succeeded by his son Ladislaus IV, who was assassinated by three Cumans in 1290 (Ladislaus' mother was a Cuman, who were Turkic nomadic steppe warriors from Central Asia who “exerted an enduring influence on the Medieval Balkans” and “were numerous, culturally sophisticated, and militarily powerful.” (Wikipedia “Cumans”). In the 1200's the Mongols pushed the Cumans westward and in 1238 Andrew IV offered refuge to the Cumans with the promise that to convert 40,000 Cuman and Iranic Jasz (who had bee living with the Cumans) families to Christianity. In large part Andrew IV's strategy was to use the Cumans and Jasz as buffers for the coming Mongol attack that devasted Hungary. The Cumans and Hungarians had a uneasy and oftenviolent relationship, and for a long time had a semi-autonomous relationshp within Hungary).

“Since Ladislaus had died childless, the question now was who would succeed him. In addition to Mary, her sisters Catherine and Elisabeth believed that they had claims, as did the children of the youngest sister, Anna. In additon, the crown was already claimed by Ladislaus' cousin Andrew the Venetian, who who was the next heir according to agnatic descent. Andrew was summoned from Vienna by Archbishop Lodomer, who crowned him King Andrew III....”

“However, Mary refused to accept Andrew's right to the crown, because in her view his father Stephen the Posthumous had been a bastard, and thus not a legitimate member of the House of Arpad...Stephen had been born to the third wife of King Andrew II after her husband's death, and was not recognized by his elder half-brothers, including Mary's grandfather Bela IV. In April 1291, Mary declared her own claim to the throne. The Babonici, Frankopans, Subici, and other leading Croatian and Slavonian families seemingly accepted her as the lawful monarch, although as events showed their loyalty in fact vacillated between her and Andrew III. In January 1292, she transferred her claim to Hungary to her son, the 18-year-old Charles Martel. Charles was then set up by Pope Nicholas IV and the church party as the titular King of Hungary (1290-1295) as the successor of Mary's brother [Ladislaus IV; both were children of Stephen V]

“Andrew III was unable to give full attention to the conflict with Mary and Charles, because he was engaged in a conflict with another challenger, Albert of Austria” That conflict was settled, but in its aftermath the powerful Koszegi family “threw their support to Mary's party. They rose up in open rebellion against Andrew in spring 1292, acknowleging Charles Martel as King of Hungary. Andrew's troops subdued the rebellion by July, but in August the Koszegis captured and imprisoned him [Andrew]....” (Wikipedia “Mary of Hungary, Queen of Naples”). “Andrew was liberated within four months, after his supporters sent their relatives as hostages to the Koszegis.” (Wikipedia “Andrew III of Hungary”).

The Wikipedia article on Mary says that “In 1290-94, she was regent for him [her husband Charles] in Provence.” However, it also says that Mary's sister Elisabeth lived with Mary in Naples, so perhaps Mary moved between Naples and France as needed by circumsances. Charles was King of Naples.

“Charles Martel died of the plague in Naples on 12 August 1295. After his death, the Pope confirmed Mary's sole rights in Hungary on 30 August 1295.” (ibid)

In 1300 the Subici, Koszegis and Csaks invited Mary and her husband Charles to sen Charles Robert, then aged 12, son of Charles Martel,to Hungary to become king. Charles Robert did go to Hungary, and many of the lords and towns in Croatia and Slavonia recognized him as the king, but then those nobles reconciled with Andrew and the attempt failed. But in January 1301 Andrew died and Charles Robert was crowned king by an archbishop but this was determined to not have been a proper coronation and it was not until 1308 that he was actually officially crowned as king of Hungary.

The Other Sons of Stephen the Posthumous

That's the story of Andrew III, but the fate of his half-brothers appears to be a mystery. Their dates of birth are unknown, but would have to have been at the latest nine months after the death of their father in April 1271. Stephen the Posthumous was born in 1236, visited Aragon around 1252, and by 1255 returned to Italy to live with the Traversaris. He married Isabella Traversari in 1262 and their son Stephen was born and died in 1263. Stephen then moved to Venice and married Tomasina Morosini around 1264, and their son Andrew was born in 1265.

It's possible that one or both of Stephen's illegitimate (“natural) sons were born in Aragon and that he brought him/them back with him to Italy. Or both may have been born in Italy. It appears that among the nobles male pre-marital and marital infidelity was expected and tolerated and wasn't a bar to marriage because illegitmae children couldn't inherit from their father. Thus, probably neither the Traveris or Morosini families would considered it a problem if Stephen had brought with him from Spain one or two illegitimate sons—or if he had sired them in Italy.

If we assume the two sons were underage after Stephen's death in 1271, they may have been taken care of by the Morosini family until they reached adulthood. But what then? They were supposed to receive money from the incomes from Slavonia and Este after Andrew took possesion of those estates, but those incomes may never have materialized or Andrew may not have given them any money from those estates. This is unknown.

However, our hypothesis is that these two illegitimate brothers of Andrew III in fact Felix and and Marc (Croy), who were apparently had been adopted in some sense by Mary of Hungary and Charles II of Naples. Mary and Charles married in 1270 when Mary was 12 years old and Charles was about 16. In 1278-82 they lived in Provence. In 1284-1288 Charles was held captive in Italy by the king of Aragon and Mary managed at least some of his affairs.

The question at the heart of this hypothesis is why would Mary or Charles take responsibility for the upbringing of Stephen the Posthumous' two illegitimate children?

If Andrew II was the true father of Stephen the Posthumous, then the illegitmate sons of Stephen sould be grandsons of Andrew II through Stephen and would be cousins to Mary, who was the great-granddaughter of Andrew II. However, Mary's contention was that Stephen the Posthumous was the son of Denis son of Ampud and not of Andrew II, and thus she would not be their cousin. The two sons of Stephen were grandsons of Beatrice d'Este, but niether Mary nor Charles were descended from the Este family.

Charles married his daughter Beatrice to Azzo III d'Este, but this was in 1304, by which time the two illegitimate sons of Stephen were well into adulthood, and that marriage waas for political and economic reasons and was not an indication of a longtime relationship between the families (Azzo III d'Este was the son of Obizzo II, who was the illegitimate son of Rinaldo, the only son of Azzo VI d'Este from whom Stephen the Posthumous had hoped to become heir).

Thus there appears to be no family reationship between either Charles or Mary and the children of Stephen the Posthumous, except the cousin relationship that would exist between both Charles and Mary if Stephen the Posthumous was truly a son of Andrew II, a contention they both denied in part because they wanted to claim the throne of Hungary for their own heirs.

But Andrew must have grown up together with his two illegitimate half-brothers and possibly cared for them, so it's possible that Charles and Mary, or Charles' father Charles, would have considered them as good hostages to hold near to them, and so took over their upbringing from the Morosini family of Venice, who would have no real reason to want to care for them. Or, if not hostages, removing them to France and giving them property would at least remove them from the Hungarian chessboard as potential future rivals to their son and grandson. Although they were illegitimate, a dispensation from the Pope could legitimize them, so they still represented a threat that could possibly be nullified by providing them with a pleasnt alternative life as French noblemen, making the long-shot pursuit of the throne of Hungary less interesting to them.

Zuanne

We've seen that Stephen the Posthumous had appointed as his son Andrew's guardians two a brother of Tomasina (Alberto Morosini) and a brother-in-law named Marino Gradenigo. The Geni tree doesn't show a sister of Tomasina who married a Marino Gradenigo, but oly a sister named Constanca who married a man named Vladislav Nemanjic and a sister named Geneure about whom there is no information. Nonetheless, if we assume the validity of Stephen's will, Tomasina must have had a sister who married a man named Marino Gradenigo. The Italian Wikipedia article “”Gradenigo” (Gradenigo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) says that the Gradnigo family was “one of the most important and ancient families of the Venitian aristocracy” and produced 2 doges of Venice. Interestngly, it also says “The origin of the family is uncertain and the various theories about it are based on legends. According to some, it came from Transylvania, for others from Ravenna....” Transylvania, today in Romania, was during medieval times part of the Kingdom of Hungary.

But although we don't know who the name of the sister who had married a Gradenigo, we do know that Tomasina's brother “Giovanni Morosini, Zuanne” had also married a Gradenigo named Tommasina.

Stephenn the Posthumous didn't specify a guardian for his two illegitimate sons, but it wouldn't be surprising if they were also cared for by one of the Morosini or Gradenigo family. Although Stephen's wife might not have approved of these children he'd acquired by cheating on her, their mother or mothers may have been some other family member or member of their social circle and may have been cared for as attentively as we can assume their half-brother Andrew was taken care of, especially as the money to care for them was coming from Stephen's former properties.

The name of Tomasina brother Giovanni was shown as “Giovanni Morosini, Zuanne”. After a bit of internet research it became clear that the name “Zuanne”, also spelled “Zuane” and “Zane”, was a nickname or substitute name for “Giovanni”, probably specific to the Venice region (and possible to Genoa as well). A paper by Reynard Gluzman lists “subordinate and Venetian merchant ships lost in tragic circumstances over seventy years (1480-1550)” (Gluzman_Wrecked_captured_or_destroyed.pdf ) shows 52 instances of the name “Zuane”, although several of these names represented the same person,One ship was named Zane and was owned by Zuane di Andrea Zane.

The reason I'm mentioning the name Zuanne/Zuane is, of course, because of its strong resemblance to the name Swain/Swaim/Zweyn/Zweym. The name Zweynen was first used in the descendants of Willem Ottens by Jan Willems, a son of Willem Ottens, and was later used ty the Swaim line branch in America. Whether than name had originially ended with the letter “m” or “n” is subject to debate; the descendants of Thys Barentsen in American used both versions of the name, although with a strong bias toward “m”.. In my own branch of the Swaim family the named changed to an “n” with my grandfather, probably due to the prevalence in America of the English name “Swain”, which is not known to be related to the Dutch “Swaim”.

The use of a similar name by a brother of the mother of Andrew III, King of Hungary, raises the possibility that the true origin of the name was derived from Zuanne Morosini. But of course this would only be the case if:

--Stephen the Posthumous was the biological son of someone other than his purported father Andrew II, and

--It came from one of Andrew III's half-brothers, and

--That half-brother was raised in the Morosini household and had used the name olater as an homage to Zuane Morosini; and

--That half-brother had moved to France as either Felix or Marc, and

--A descendant of that person had later moved from France to Holland and either he or one of his descendnats gave birth to Willem Ottens.

Although the above sequence of events, aside from the origin of the name Swaim, is the hypothesis of this post, I tend to doubt that this is the origin of the name Swaim. When I first started researching the origin of the name a few years ago I came across a post somewhere that stated or speculated that the name had come from the wife of Jan Willem Zweym. She could have been one of the Den Haag “Rijswijk Sweyms” before the name disappeared by the 1500's. I'm not convinced by this new “Venetian Zuanne” hypothesis of the origin of the name, but since this is a possible connection it has to be considered.

If the Swaim/den Hartog Line Descended from Felix or Marc, how did it Come to Holland?

Croy in Holland

Control of Holland in 1349 passed to the Dukes of Bavaria-Straubing:

1349-1389 William V of Bavaria-Straubing

1389-1404 Albert of Bavaria-Straubing

1303-1417 William VI of Bavaria-Straubing

The death of William VI touched off the long-lasting Hook and Cod Wars, with the countship of Holland (and others) being contested by William VI's daughter Jacqueline and William VI's brother John the Pitiless. If Jacqueline had been a man Holland would have gone to him without question, but in Holland it was felt that a woman couldn't be count; thus, the next in line of successon was John the Pitiless, brother to Jacqueline's father William VI. In the Wikipedia article “Count of Holland” John the Pitiless is not listed as a count of Holland but was in fact the de facto count of Holland from 1418 until his murder in 1425. After that Philip the Good of the House of Valois became count of Holland through is mother Margaret of Bavaria-Straubing, who was a brother of William VI of Bavaria-Straubing.

Thus, in 1425 the count of Holland was now held by Philip I the Good, who was a Valois and was in fact the 3^rd great-grandson of Margaret d'Anjou and thus the 4^th great-grandson of Mary of Hungary. Margaret d' Anjou was the one gave the information for the 1200's charters in Amiens that mentioned Marc Croy and his older brother Felix, who I'm speculating were the illegitimate sons of Stephen the Posthumous and half-brothers of Albert III.

Thus, we now have a plausible route through which members of the Croy family may have migrated to Holland. The Croys were subjects of the Burgundian Valois family and thus we would not be surprised to find them in Holland after 1425. This is also a critical time period for the Swaim/den Hartog line because the estimated birth date of Willem Ottens, the progentor of the line, was around 1430-1435.

The House of Valois (which was a cadet branch of the House of Burgundy) held the title of count of Holland as follows:

1432-1467 Philip I the Good m. Isabella of Portugal

1467-1477 Charles I the Bold m. Isabella of Bourbon

1477-1482 Mary I the Rich m. Maximillian of Austria, HRE

In Abraham Kemp's book Leven der Doorluchtige Heeren van Arkel Ende Jaar-Beschriving er Stad Gorinchem (1656) (Leven der doorluchtige Heeren van Arkel, ende Jaar-Beschrijving der Stad Gorinchem, heerlijkheyd, ende lande van Arkel, onder desselfs Heeren, ook onder de Graven van Holland, tot den Jaare 1500 (googleusercontent.com) , Kemp chronicles the medieval history of events related to Gorinchem and the Land of Arkel. He mentions various Croy family members as follows:

1415

(p 196): Engebert van Adingen van Croy. This Croy is mentioned along with Jan van Brederod and others. I'm uncertain of the context but although it's possible that this Croy was present in Holland, it doesn't prove that he was.

1425

(p 231): Johan van Lutzenburgh Heer van Croy. This Croy was mentioned in connection to Philip the Good of Burgundy, who was count of Holland 1432-1467. although he appears to have taken control of Holland in 1425 after the murder of John the Pitiless of Bavaria-Straubing. Again, I'm not certain of the context in which Kemp named Croy here and we can't assume that this Croy had ever visited Gorinchem or the land of Arkel.

1457

(p 293) “d'Heeren van Croy”. There appears to have been more than one Croy individual here who, along with others including “Lannoy” who signed a document possibly involving Gorinchem and Dodrecht.

1463 (Kosteyn incident)

(p 314-316) Jan van Croy is mentioned along with Jan van Lannoy in relation to an incident involving Charles the Bold and his father Philip III the Good. Here's a brief and incomplete genealogy.

Philip II the Bold was Duke of Burgundy m. Marguerite of Flanders

John the Fearless (1) misstress Agnes de Croy

Jean of Burgundy Bishop of Cambrai

John the Fearless (2) married Margaret of Bavaria-Straubing

Philip III the Good (Grand Duke) Count of Holland m. Isabel of Portugal

Charles the Bold

Thus we see that Jean of Burgundy, Bishop of Cambrai, was the paternal uncle of Phillp the Good, Count of Holland, and the patern great-uncle of Charles the Bold.

Most of the following is from the Wikipedia article “Charles the Bold”, which explains the situation better than did Kemp.

Charles was born in 1433 and at his baptism one of his two spondors was Antoine I de Croy (probably Antoine I de Croy (1387-1375)). This was the same year that his father Philip had gained full control of Holland from his cousin Jacqueline, who had already lost control over most of it to her uncle John the Pitiless. This is also within the likely time period that Willem Ottens' older brother Gerrit was likely born.

In 1457 Philip the Good proposed to his son Charles the Bold that Charles' chamberlain should be Philip de Croy (probably Philippe I, comte de Porcean (1322-1511), son of Antoine). But “Charles resented de Croys, whom he considered at fault for his father's humiliation by the king of France, as Charles VIII had reportedly bribed de Croys numerous times. Charles thus refused his father's proposal....”, which angered his father greatly.

“In 1462, Charles survived an attempt to his life made by Jehan Coustain,premier valet de chambre, who wanted to poison him. Shortly after, Coustain was executed in Rupelmonde. Charles blamed de Croÿs for this attempt while de Croÿs came to believe that Charles staged this attempt to fuel their feud. By the end of 1463, the disputes between Charles and his father had become a mask for the bitter rivalry between de Croÿs and Charles. With a major crisis rising in the horizon, the States General of the Burgundian Netherlands decided to intervene. In 5 February 1464, Charles made a speech to the deputies assembled in Ghent, which illuminates his emotional attitude with the text of the speech being more about de Croÿ family than his father. At the end, Charles and Philip the Good reconciled in June 1464, after they met in Lille, although de Croÿs were able to hold their power yet. Later in that year, Charles assumed full power, arguing that Philip the Good was becoming too senile, and instantly put pressure on de Croÿs. As a last act of power, Philip threatened Charles with a stick and ordered him to leave de Croÿs alone. Ten days after this incident, the States General gave Charles full power by appointing him lieutenant général. His first act was to confiscate de Croÿs estates; they were banished to France, where to their surprise, their French patron, Louis XI, showed them no support.”

Abraham Kemp wrote of this incident because although most of it must have taken place in Burgundy, Flanders or France, the events spilled over into Gorinchem. From my understanding of what Kemp said, Philip the Good had made the valet Coustain, orginally Jan de Croy's servant, a knight and a secret council. Jan de Croy and Jan de Lannoy were envious of Charles (Croy and Lannoy were also cousins through their grandparents Jean de Lannoy (1384-1415) married to Jeanne de Croy (1366-))

Kmep appears to say that Jan/Jean Lannoy was secretly angry at Charles because Charles had obtianed the lordship of Arkel, which apparently had been given previously to Lannoy by Philip, but this gift had been prevented by Charles, who took it for himself. Croy was also secretly angry for something similar that had occurred in regard to lands in France and Namur. Thus, Lannoy and Croy pitted Philip against Charles. According to Kemp Charles, fearing his father, fled to Gorinchem with his wife

Elizabeth of Bourbon.

The Wikipedia article “Antoine I de Croy” says that “Upon Chrarle's [the Bold] accession as Duke, Antoine [de Croy] was accused of plotting with astrologers to bring about the Duke's downfall and was compelled to leave to France....It was not until the age of 83 that he reconciled himself with Charles the Bold and was allowed ot reclaim his properties in Burgundy.” This appears to have been part of the incidents above involving his son Jan and Jan Lannoy.

Assuming the accuracy of Kemp's story, Charles was thus the lord of Arkel and had resided for some tim in Gorinchem. This would have been during the lifetime of Willem Ottens. The Wikipedia article on Charles the Bold says that his father Philip disliked travel and seldom went to Holland. Philip may have sent Antoine Croy to Holland as his representive, but this is just speculation.

But the Croy family must certainly have been larger than tis represented in documents or genealogies. Even if “Antonius”, the father of Peter Crouy Chaneli who married Agnesi “Cassenatico” was “Antoine”, one of the three children of Felix listed in the 1290 Amiens charter, what happened to the other two children? Based on the behavior of the other nobles of the Middle Ages several bastards had certainly been born to the Croy line as well, half of whom would have been males, and some of these may have been given some land and then ignored by the “legitimate” family members.

.

Otto van Haeften

The Geni.com family tree is far from perfect and some of it is composed of speculative people or relationships based on evidence too thin to be considered genealogically accurate, but it's also true that some of the speculation might be correct or at least provide clues that can lead one in new and useful directions.

In my 1 May 2022 post I noted that the van Haeften family of Haaften, Gelderland, a dozen or so miles southeast of Middelkoop and Leerbroek, had used the same unusual double patronmym as had some of the sons of Willem Ottens (e.g., Claes Willem Ottens (b. ~1475), Jacob Willem Otten (b. ~1475)).

In Kemp's list of notable local nobles for the year 1423 Kemp listed, among others, “Willem Heer Otten Soon van Haaften” (Willem Ottesn van Haaften), “”Gijsbert van Haaften Heer Otten soon” (Gijsbert Ottens van Haaften).

For 1459 Kemp listed again “Willem Heer Otten Soon van Haaften”; “Gijsbert van Haaften, Heer Otten Soon”; and also “Willem van Haaften Otten Classz”.

The above are not double patronnyms, but the Geni tree gives us the following double patronmyms for the van Haeften/Haaften family:

(

Margaretha Gijsbert Otto van Haeften (c. 1457-), daughter of Gijsbert van Haeften (c. 1439) and grandaughter of Otto de Cock van Haeften, van Rhenoy (1365-1430).

Walraven Otto Nicolaes van Herwijnen van Haeften (1407-1478), son of Otto de Cock, Heer van Haaften (1365-1430).

Thus it appears that one son of Otto van Haeften (1365-1430) used a double patronyn consisting of father-grandfather, and then daughter of a different son of Otto (Gijsbert) also used a double patronym consisting of father grandfather. Margaretha Gisjbert Otto was estimated to have been born in 1457 and would thus be in roughly the same generation as Claes Willem Ottens and Jacob Willem Ottens, sons of Willem Ottens. If Gerrit and Willem Ottens were illegitimate sons of Otto de Cock van Haeften, this could explain the use of the double patronym by two sons of Willem Ottens.

In the Geni.com family tree the double-patronymed Margaretha Gijsbert Otto van Haeften married Glimmer Jan Glimmer van Rijswick (1445-1524), and his name too is a double patronym consisting of father-grandfather. All three were lords of the Rijswick in Brabant rather than in den Haag, In my 1 May 2022 post I discussed the implications of one of the transactions noted H. den Hertog in his genealogy of the Hertog/Hartog family. In that transaction dated 29 July 1527, Jan Zweym Willems gave to his brother Jacob Willem Ottens (the son of Willem Ottens with the double patronym) a perpetual interest note that was later that year bought by the widow “Adriaentgen Jan Glymmersen.” I noted that Adriaentgen Jan Glymmersen probably wouldn't have accepted such a note unless she's had a connection to the Swaim/den Hartog family.

Although I stated in my earlier post that Adriaentgen Jan Glymmersen” was probably Adrian Glimmer Jan van Rijswick, this is probably not the case because the double patronymic implies that her father was named Jan and her granfather Glimmer. Thus, she was probably a daughter of Jan Glimmersz van Rijswick (1475-1516) married to Geertruid Jan Otto van Heukelom (yet another person with a double patronym); although this person isn't listed in the Geni.com tree, she obviously existed because she was named in the transaction regarding Jan Zweym's note.

Jan Glimmers van Rijswick (1408-1484) was married to Otte Nicolaes van Malsen (1409-1472). In the 1 May 2022 post I also discussed H. den Hertog's statement that in 1518 Jacob Willem Ottens (the same person just mentioned above) was heir to some property along with other people and with Adam van Malsen taking the largest share (half) of the inheritance. The relationship between the van Rijswick and van Malsen famlies probably comes through this marriage, but the Geni.com tree is incomplete and there may not be enough information to reconstruct a more complete family tree.

But given the double patronyms shared almost uniquely with the van Haeften-van Rijswick-van Malsen-van Heukelom family group, it seems plausible that Willem Ottens was the son, probably illegitimate, of Otto de Cock van Haeften (1421-1473) or his father Otto de Cock van Haeften (1365-1430). Otto de Cock van Haeften (1365-1430) was married to Adelisse Bruijstensdr van Herwijnen (1378-1451), daughter of Bruysten Jans van Herwijnen (1330-1410) and Elisabeth of Bavaria (1350-1415). Elisabeth of Bavaria was the illegitiamte daughter of William I Duke of Bavara and Count of Holland, Zeeland and Hainaut (1330-1388) and Catharina Gerrit Buseendr (1332-1370). (William of Bavaria-Straubing was also a great-grandson of Charles of Valois and Marguerite d'Anjou (daughter of Mary of Hungary) through is mother.)

These relationships are accroding to the Geni.com family tree, but the Wikipedia article “William I, Duke of Bavaria” says that William had one legitimate child who died early, and two illegitimate children including “Elisabeth, married Brustijn van Herwijnen, lord of Stavenisse.”

Thus, if this is true, and if the father of Willem Ottens and Gerrit Ottens was the bastart son of Otto de Cock van Haeften (1421-`1473), then he would have been a 2^nd great-grandson of William I Duke of Bavaria, even if they (this would not be true if they were bastard sons of Otto de Cock van Haeften (1365-1430) however). This might then be the source of the surname “den Hartog” that some of Willem Ottens descendants used.

If the father of Willem Ottens and Gerrit Ottens was a van Haeften, then two brothers would have to had been illegitimate, because otherwise they would have used the name van Haeften. This makes sense in terms of the history of the family. Willem Ottens and his brother Gerrit appear to own land from their first mention, and land ownership in the 1400's appears to have been confined to nobles, although I could be wrong about this. But in any case, it's unlikely that the average peasant farmer had any hope at this time of owning and. So where did this property come from? It was located in the Land of Arkel, which by 1412 had been lost to the House of Arkel and was now fully in control of William of Bavaria. If Willem and Gerrit Ottens were bastards and their land had come to them through Otto van Haeften, this land would have been divided between children at every generation until little was left to Thys Barentsen by the time of his emigration to Amerca in 1620. The source of income for landowners was the income from their lands, primarily agricultural products. A lordship gauranteed a return from all the lands within the lordship, but the owner of a plot of land could only derive income from his own land. With the relentless division of land between children at each generation, after a few generations the amount of land each individual descendant owned wasn't enough to support those descendants. To the lord of the land it didn't matter who owned the land in feudal lease as the income would be the same, but to the landowner who had inherited a plot of land too small to provide an income large enough to survive, the landowner would have to find another source of income to supplement the farm income, or sell the land. This is probably what had happened to Thys Barentsen and thus had stimulated his emigration from Holland.

Van Haeften a de Croy Descendant?

Although in my 2022 post I discussed the double patronym similarities between the van Haeften family and the Swaim/den Family (Claas Willem Ottens, Jacob Willem Ottens), and obvioulsy knew that Otto van Haeften had the correct given name for the father of Willem Ottens, I didn't follow up on that lead, instead giving my attention to the potential Otto Gerrits van Oist connection. Indeed, even if I had followed up on van Haeften I wouldn't have known what to do with it.

The Geni.com family tree shows that van Haeften line supposedly going back to Wouter I van Chatillon (1050-1089). This indicated that the line may have originally come from Hainaut or France. The entries had no sources, but even if they were accurate I didn't see how they could fit into the Swaim/den Hartog famly history.

However, when I was recently researching the origin of the Croy family, the subject of this post, I saw that a daughter of Charles of Valois and Marguerite d'Anjou, Margaret de Valois (1295-1342) had married Guy I de Chatillon, comte de Blois (1290-1342). This reminded me of the supposed van Haeften connection and seemed promising because it led straight back to the likely origin of the Croy family as I had reconstructed it from the sons of Stephen the Posthumous.

Here's the line of descent in the Geni tree from Otto van Haeften (1365) back to Wouter I de Chatillon:

Otto de Cock, Heer van Haeften (1365-1420) m. Adelisse van Herwijnen (1378-1451)

Nicolaes de Cock, Heer van Haeften (1339-1373) m. Johanna de Cock van Opijnen

Otto de Cock, Heer van Haeften (1337-1354) m. Margaretha van Neerijnen

Otto de Cock, Heer van Haeften () m. Mabelia van Tuyl

Rudolf de Cock, Heer van Haeften (1300-1341) m. Marcella van Brakel

Johan van Haeften (1295-) m. Geertruida van Arkel

Johan de Cock, Heer van Weerdenburg (1268-) m. Agnes van Mierlaer (1275-1340)

Hendrick de Cock, Heer van Weerdenburg m. Eva de Langel

Rodolfus de Cock van Weerdenburg (1210-1265) m. Anes van Cuijck

Reinoud II van Chatillon (1180-) m. nn van Coucy

Hugo van Chatillon (1130-) m. Jolanda van Henegouwen (1160-1202)

Henrik I van Chatillon m. Elisabeth de Crepy (1095-)

Wouter I van Chatillon (1050-1089) m. Mathilda van Leuven (1055-)

In this descent the last one to use the name Chatillon was Reinoud II born around 1180, married to an unknown woman surnamed Coucy. These two were obviously from France, so the story must be they moved in the early 1200's to Gelderland near Holland. But obviously this is a problem, because the first mention of Felix and Mar Croy was in the 1284 Amiens document—a century after Renouid II de Chatillon was supposedly born.

But this also has ann interesting parallel in the Geni.com tree for the Croy line, in which Marc Croy was supposedly born in 1150 as the 2^nd great-grandson of Geza II, King of Hungary.

But the Geni family tree and whatever trees it was based on are not in agreement with the actual documents from the Amiens Cathedral, which I believe are probably not forgeries because they agree with what we know of the two illegitimate sons of Stephen the Posthumous, also the father of Andrew III. What may in fact be forgeries were any documents claiming an earlier ancestry of the Croy family in France, because an earlier migration to France and connection with the d'Anjou family is inconsistent with the history of Hungary. The d'Anjou family had no claim on the Hungarian throne until the marriage of Mary the Hungarian to Charles d'Anjou of Naples in 1270. I believe the claims of a different and earlier orgin for Marc Croy because the early Croys knew very well that their origin from the kings was strongly doubtful due to the claims of Bearice d'Este's adultery with Denis son of Ampud and they wanted to avoid that taint by claiming an earlier and different origin from an undisputed Arpad. I also think that the parallel origin of the Chatillon-to-van Haeften line might have been altered to coincide more closely with that of the Croy line.

The entries in the Geni tree leading from Otto van Haeften to Reinoud de Chatillon were unsourced, but recently I looked at the van Haeften line in the WikiTree.com crowdsource tree; particularly interesting ws the entry for “Unknown de Cock (abt. 1200)”. This entry is for “Unknown “Rudolf or Ghizelbertus de Cock”. This entry does provide the probable source for the entry in Geni.com tree, in which “Rudolf II de Cock is presented in a 1715 family tree as a descend [sic] of the French knights and nobels [sic] of Chatillon. His father would be a Reinolt van Chastillion married with a daughter of Couoy [source is “Utrechts Archief Geneologie van de geschlachten Van Chatillon en De Cock by Antoniem 1715”] However we do not find any evidence of this in the Charters (Oorkondes) of his time (1200-1300) and this genealogy mixes several things up....”

So there is in fact evidence that the van Haeften family did originate from the line that married into the d'Anjou family with Margerite's daugther. This is a strong tie-in between van Haeften and d'Anjou, and according to the Amiens charters there was a strong connection between Maruerite d'Anjou and Marc and Felix Croy, as discussed above. I don't want to wade into the mess of all the various genealogies, many or all of which could be wrong, perhaps intentionally. They Croy family was very protective of its claim to descent from the kings of Hungary. “The whole matter [of such descent] verges on the surreal with litigation in France during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Germain-Sarrut, writing in the mid-19th century, summarised the legal proceedings which followed a judgment of the Chambre des Comptes de Dauphiné dated 26 Mar 1790 which accepted a claim brought by the Crouy-Chanel family based on their supposed Hungarian descent. The “Crouy-Chanel” were based at “la Tour du Treuil”, a fortress located in the northern outskirts of Allevard (named in the 28 Jun 1290 charter quoted above), about 20 kilometres south-east of Chambéry, in the present-day French département Isère, arrondissement Grenoble, canton Le Haut-Grésivaudan. Presumably on the strength of the 1790 judgment, the family was granted the title “comte...sous le nom de Croy-Chanel de Hongrie” by decree dated 6 Nov 1809. The Croÿ-d’Havré family challenged the Croÿ-Chanel right to the name and arms, arguing that “c’étaient eux qui descendaient des rois de Hongrie” [they were the descendants of the kings of Hungary] a challenge which was accepted in part by the Cour royale de Paris 12 May 1821 but led to further appeals and court hearings. Judging from Germain-Sarrut’s summary, the different courts seem never to have questioned the validity of the documentation which was presented to them to “prove” the descent.” (fmg.ac NORTHERN FRANCE - AMIENS, MONTREUIL, PONTHIEU (fmg.ac) )

So the genealogies are hopelessly muddled, perhaps intentionally, but the best forgeries always are always based on some reality, but twisted to lead from the truth to a lie. The lie here might very well be that the Corys descended from the kings of Hungary, when the truth may be that they had actuallydescended from Denis, son of Ampud.

Before we circle back to Denis son of Ampud, I'll say one more thing abou the WikiTree.com entry. In that entry it cites a document on the van Haeften family, from a 1265 charter. That charter lists witnesses who are relatives (“Consanguineorum”) of Rudolf de Cock. Onen of these witnesses was “Ghijsbert van Tuyl”. (“Gysberti de Tulen”).

When we look at Kemp's list of imortant people in Gornichem for 1423 (p. 224-5) we find Henrik Knobbout van Os as a schepen (among others), and among the list of regional lords:

Gijsbert van Tuyl Heer van Est

Dirk de Rover van Tuyl

Reynald van Tuyl, van Est

Heer Walraven van Haaften, Ridder

Willem Heer Otten Soon van Haaften

Rutger van Tuyl

Henrik van Tuyl van Est

So we've estblished a family relatinship between the van Tuyl and van Haeften families, and also we've now discovered than the van Tuyl famly at this time were the lords of Est. Est was no doubt the same as today's Est locate 4 miles south of Buurmalsen and 15 miles southeast of Middelkoop/Leerbroek. So nos the qiestion is whether or not the Otto Gerrits van Oist who was beheaded in 1436 for participating in Jan van Arkel van Heukelom's raid on Utrecht in fact a van Tuyl—that “Oist” was meant to be “Est”, and that even perhaps he was the son of the above “Gijsbert van Tuyl Heer van Est”? In this case I would say that he was not the father of Willem Ottens, but probably a bastard son of Otto de Cock van Haeften and the cousin but not father of Otto Gerrits van Oist.

Ampud

If the hypothesis of this post is true, then the Swain/den Hartog line descends fromone of the Croy lines and the Croy lines descend from Stephen the Posthumous, and Stephen the Posthumous was the son of Denis son of Ampud rather than Andrew II, then the earliest known ancestor of the Swiam/den Hartog line would the man simply known as Ampud, Apod, Ompud, Ampudinus or Ompudinus.. He was apparently mentioned a few times between 1163-1176 AD. (Wikpedia “Ampud”)

The Wikipedia article on Ampud says that a historian surmised, based on the name Ampud, that Ampud was of the clan Tomaj, which was of Pecheneg origin. The Pechenegs were a nomadic or semi-nomadic tribe that spoke a Turkic language. If Ampud was the Swaim/den Hartog ancestor I doubt that his origins were Pecheneg but more likely Sarmaatian. In any case, I'm not certain that a particular nationality can be imputed to him based simply on his given name, anymore than we can surmise that his grandson's name Denis indicates that the was Greek (Dennis is from the Greek Dionysus).

Ampud was mentioned as an Ispan (count) and had been Ban (governor) of Slavonia and Palatine of Hungary. Palatine was the “highest-ranking office in the Kingdom of Hungary....” and “The palatines acted as itineratn judges....” (“Palatine of Hungary” Wikipedia).

Ampud was for a time the Ban of Slavonia. Slavonia is today part of Croatia (Pannonian Croatia) but was in the Middle Ages part of Hungary. From the Hungarian perspective Slavonia was “beyond the Drava” and today the Drava river forms part fo the boundary between Hungary and Croatia to the south. The fact that Ampud had been Ban of Slavonia is interesting because one of the ancient E-FGC11450 me, Nustar 28388 (750-780 AD) had been buried in what was later to become Slavonia, though at the time he was living was part of the Avar khaganate. However, since the Nustar 28388 and the Swiam/den Hartog lines belongn to different downstream lines of E-FGC11450, if Ampud was a direct Swaim/den Hartog paternal ancestor then Nustar 28388 could not have been an Ampud paternal ancestor although he could he could have been part of the same clan and the then-living Swaim/den Hartog ancestor could have known (or even have been an autosomal relative of) Nustar 28388. I'll discuss this in more detail in my future post on the E-FGC11450 ancient man Szekesfehervar 53 who was buried among the kings of Hungary and their families.

Ampud II

Ampud II was the son of Ampud “born into an influential noble family, which possessed landholdings in Slavonia along the Drava river.” (Wikipedia “Ampud II). Ampud II was mentioned by implication before 1186 and apparently mentioned in 1199.

“Ampud [II] married an unidentified daughter of Count Berthold III of Andecs, Margrave of Istria sometime before 1186. There is only one source for their marriage. Count Berthold wrote a letter to Ruper von Neuburg-Falkenstein, the abbot o Tegernsee at an unknown time that “send one of his horses to his daughter, who has already been married with the son of dux Ompudinus (Ampud I), and on occasion he will pay for it.” As Rupert died in 1186, the exchange of letters certainly took place before this year. With this marriage, Ampud has gained an illustrious kinship. Duke Andrew's [II] wife, Gertrude of Merania was the niece of Ampud's unidentified spouse.” (ibid)

Since Ampud II's wife was the niece of King Andrew II's wife Gerrude of Merania, Ampud II's son Denis would have been a first cousin to Andrew II's sons and daughters by Gertrude, who included Anna Maria, Empress of Bulgaria; Bela IV, King of Hungary; Elizabeth, Landgravine of Thuringia; Coloman of Halych; Andrew II of Halych. This means that Bela IV and Denis of Ampud were first cousins through their maternal grandparents Berthold III von Andechs and Agnes von Rochlitz. This means that when Bela !V blinded and ultimately murdered Denis of Ampud, both men were first cousins through their mothers.

Also, since their common grandmoter Agnes von Rochlitz, Denis of Ampud as well as all the descendants of Andrew II with Gertrude of Merania, including Andrew IV, had autosomal DNA from Goswin II Count of Heinsberg, who was the maternal grandfather of Agnes von Rochlitz. Thus, Denis of Amput had autosomal DNA from Limburg and his descendants might have some lingering small DNA segments in common with descendants of Goswin II von Heinsberg.

Denis Son of Ampud

All quotations in this section are from the Wikipedia article “Denis, son of Ampud”.

“Denis had two brothers, Michael, who belonged to the rival baronial group centered around Duke Bela in the 1220's, and Lawrence, who held Ispanates in Zagreb Couty, Slavonia around the same period, in the service of Duke Coloman”. I've found not other information on Denis' brothers, but assuming they survived Bela IV's wrath toward Denis, either or both may have children in Hungary and a male Ampud line may still exist.

Denis “inherited the family possessions beyond the river Drava from his father. Denis was first mentioned in contemporary records in 1216, when he became the Master of the treasury in the royal court of Andrew II...he held the dignity for eight years until 1224, with a brief interruption...in 1222.” He also served as ispan of three counties at various times and was Palatine of Hungary as well."

King Andrew II “introduced a new policy for royal grants” that shifted power from the royalty to the lords, which was administered in large part by Denis, and which was opposed by Andrew's son Bela (who would succeed Andrew as king). This likely caused some of the animosity of Bela toward Denis.

“Denis participated n the Fifth Crusade under the command of Andrew II between summer 1217 and early 1218....Crossing the Jordan River, Denis led the Hungarian contingent within the crusade army in order to besiege and and capture the fortress of Al-Adil I at Mount Tabor in November-December 121, while Andrew II stayed away from the military conflict and collected Christian relics.”

“Duke Bela had practically taken control of the country before the death of his ailing father. Sometime at the turn of 1234 and 1235, Denis was succeeded as Palatine of Hungary by Denis Tomaj, a supporter of the duke. Andrew II died on 21 September 1235.Béla, who succeeded his father without opposition, was crowned king by Archbishop Robert in Székesfehérvár on 14 October. Immediately after his coronation, Béla IV dismissed and punished many of his late father's closest advisors. For instance, he had Denis blinded and Julius Kán imprisoned, according to the contemporaneous Roger of Torre Maggiore's Carmen Miserabile. According to a charter of Béla IV, Denis was convicted for "spoiling the realm and disloyalty". His successor, Denis Tomaj claimed his predecessor proved to be an "unjust judge", which resulted his conviction.[29] Denis was also accused by Béla IV and his brother Duke Coloman of having, in King Andrew's life, an adulterous liaison with Queen Beatrix, the king's young widow. Béla ordered her imprisonment, but she managed to escape to the Holy Roman Empire, where she gave birth to a posthumous son, Stephen. in 1236. Béla and Coloman considered her son a bastard, who conceived from an adulterous relationship between Palatine Denis and Queen Beatrix. Stephen was father of Andrew III, the last monarch of the Árpád dynasty. The blinded Denis died in prison custody in 1236. Béla IV donated Denis' formerly confiscated estate Borica in Syrmia to the Cistercian friars of Bélakút Abbey (near present-day Petrovaradin, Serbia) in June 1237."

Denis, Son of Denis

“Despite that [the claimed death of Denis], historian Mor Werner considered Denis survived his punishment and escorted his "relative" Violant (Andrew's youngest daughter) to the Kingdom of Aragon in 1235, where she became the queen consort of King James I of Aragon. According to Wertner, Denis fought in the siege of Valencia during the Reconquista, and was progenitor of the influential Dionisii noble family in Aragon. However, this count Denis was alive even in 1268, which is made impossible to identify him with Denis, son of Ampud. Therefore, historian Szabolcs de Vajay claimed Denis had a namesake son, who served asispánof Szepes County like his father. Accordingly, he expatriated to Aragon with his queen in 1235, after his father became a victim of King Béla's political purges. This "Comes Dionysius" was referred to as Queen Violant's relative (Latin: affinis domne regine) in contemporary Aragonese documents. He led an advance force during the siege of Valencia in 1238. He was granted landholdings by James I in the city. He died sometime between 1268 and 1272. He was ancestor of the Dionisii family, which became extinct in 1974. In his 2018 study, historian Dániel Bácsatyai disputed the above identification. A certain cleric Charles, who attended the University of Bologna, was referred to as a nephew of Cardinal Stephen Bancsa in 1264, then a son of "Count Denis of Hungary" in 1269. Consequently, Bácsatyai considered this Denis belonged to the gens (clan) Bancsa and was not related to Denis, son of Ampud. He argued the inscription in the tombstone of his daughter Elizabeth, where Denis was styled as "comes de Cepeз" is not necessarily identifiable with Szepes County.” (Wikipedia “Denis, son of Ampud”)

The Geni.com Family Tree for Denis in Aragon

The generally accepted history is that Stephen the Posthumous was the son of Andrew II of Hungary. However, from even before his birth Bela (IV) and Coloman, the sons of Andrew II by Gertrude of Merania, proclaimed his father not to have been their father Andrew II, but Denis son of Ampud through an adulterous liaison with Andrew II's 3^rd wife Beatrice d'Este. The uncertainty over his bith lingered for a few generations and influenced the decision of the nobles of Hungary when they had to choose a successor to Ladislaus IV, but in the end they chose Stephen the Posthumous' son Andrew III as king, and from that the historians generally accpeted the legitimacy of Andrew III's claim to the throne through is father Stephen the Posthumous.

But we've seen moderately strong evidencce that Stephen the Posthumous may in fact have been the son of Denis son of Ampud. If that's true, and if Stephen the Posthumous two illegitimate sons were the progenitors of the Croy lines in France, and if Gerrit Ottens and Willem Ottens were the illegitimate sons of a de Croy or descendants of a de Croy/van Haeften, then there may still be members of the line living in Hungary as descendants of Denis Ampud's two brothers. There may also be descendants living in Spain and Portugal as descendants from Denis Ampud's son Denis, who was the progenitor of the prolific Dionysus can in Aragon—assuming that this Aragon Denis was in fac the son of Denis Ampud.

The Geni.com family tree has a tree for the family of Denis, son of Apud, who it names as “Dionis de Szepes”. This part of the tree was added by Juan Carlos Griffin Albarracin, presumably a Spaniard, in 2010. Most if not all of the entries show no sources. The earliest part of the tree is a follows:

Apod de Csanad

Apod de Szolnok, el Jove (1153-) m. Anya von Andechs Meranien (c. 1190-)

Dionis de Szepes (1210-1270) m. Margarida Cabrera Montcada (daughter of Guerau V de Cabrera, vescomte de Girona & de Ager and Romona de Montcada)

The problem with this part of the tree is that there are two many years between Apod de Szolnok (Ampud II) and Dionis de Szepes (Denis of Szepes). This was discussed in the Wikipedia article on Denis, and can be resolved if we insert Denis son of Ampud into the genealogy as the son of Apud de Szolnok and the father of Dionis de Szepes. Since Denis son of Ampud did have a son named Denis who apparently fled to Aragon after his father's arrest and blinding, this is plausible. Thus, the “Dionis de Szepes (1210-1270)” here is the son of Denis, son of Ampud who was blinded/murdered by Andrew IV.

Dionis and Margarida had two sons and a daughter.

I've looked at portions, though not all, of the Geni.com tree for the generations of descendants of Denis/Dionis/Dionysus. Most remained in Spain and Portugal, though at least one line ended up in Columbia. One line ended up in the Grimaldi line of Monaco. Some of the names include Cabeza de Vaca, Ponce de Leon, which are names of some of the New World conquistadors, although the Dionis lines appear to have remained in Spain and Portgugal.

Denis/Dionis/Dionysis

In this post I'm not going to wade too deeply into the morass of autosomal DNA, but I will say a few things about it in relation to the Dionysis family of Denis and his father and grandfather Ampud.

The documentary seal of Denis is described in the Wikipedia aritcle “Denis, son of Ampud”: “Denis' seal was preserved by an undated charter which is currently kept in the Heiligenkreuz Abbey. It depicts two opposing ascending dragons in a blazon with the circumscription “Sigillum Dionysii palatini”.”

That article also discussed the possibility that Denis, the son of Denis, had moved to Aragon and was the progenitor of the “influential Dionisii noble family in Aragon.”

In the Geni.com family tree I followed one line of descendants down to a line that married into a “de la Cerda” line, which was a noble Spanish family. Siger van Gent's brother Hugo I (1539-1596) had a son Hugo, whose whose 2^nd great-granddaughter Isabelle de d'Antoing (1300-1354) married Alfonso de la Cerda, Senor de Lunel, Tafalla y Caparroso” (1289-1327). One of Alfonso de la Cerda's great-grandmothers Violante de Hungria, married to James I King of Aragon; this is the Violante who was the daughter of Andrew II, King of Hungary, who Denis Ampud or his son Denis supposedly escorted to Aragon in 1235 to be married to James I; Denis/Dionis then remained in Aragon to avoid the wrath of Bela IV. However, my apparent genetic connection to “de la Cerda” cannot have come through this de la Cerda unless it came through the van Gent line; but as I said, the line of Denis/Dionis in Spaid did later marry into the de la Cerda line. Interestingly, one of the de la Cerdas in the tree of another of my de la Cerda matches from the late 1600's or early 1700's is actually named “Dionysia Canales de la Cerda Oyarzun”. I don't know how common the name “Dionysia” was at this time so I don't want to read too much into this. Also, this line was from Chile and one of my other “de la Cerda” matches is from Mexio, but this isn't surprising as many noble families migrated to the Spanish colonies in the Americas.

23&Me.com now estimates that I'm 5.0% “Spanis & Portuguese”, a claim which is not supported by my known genealogy but if true could possibly have come through Spanish Protestants who had moved to the Netherlands during the 1500's-1600's to avoid religious persecution, and/or from my supposed Dutch New Netherland ancestor Anthony Jansen van Salee “the Turk” whose mother may have been from a Spanish Muslim family that had been kicked out of Spain during the final Reconquista in 1492 (this could also explain the North African as well, although as I'll detail in a future post, the North African and Iranian/Caucasian is probably from the deeper Natufian or Sarmatian ancestry. Previously 12&Me had predicted I was sub-Saharan now changed to North African and Central Asian now changed to Iranian/Caucasian)

Or possible it had come through a Scandinavian ancestor on my mother's side. In m post 16 September 2023 post on my shared Dutch matches with Scandinavian matches I discussed various matches from Liege and the Low Countries who had migrated to Scandinavia in the late 1500's and early 1600's. One of these men supposedly from Liege who who had migrated to Sweden was Gillis de Besche (1579-1648) who was married to Sara Petersdotter Dionysia (1586-1668). So again, we have the name Dionysia, this time apparently as a family name.

I've recently come to believe that some of these ancestors from Liege were actually Hungarians who had displaced by the Ottoman conquest of Hungary in 1526. Specifically I think that this is posible with de Besche, as there is no place in the Low Countries that I could find named “Besche” or something similar, but several in Hungary as that name derives from the word “Pecheneg”. You may remember that I emntioned that the Wikipedia article on Denis Ampud said that a Hungarian historian believes that the name Ampud indicates that the Ampud line was of Pecheneg origin. I don't believe that would be true if the Ampud/Denis/Dionysis line was the origin of the Swaim/den Hartog line because although I do believe that that line came into Europe as a steppe nomad line, I believe it was an Iranic Sarmatian line rahter than a Turkic line. But it is possible that some of the Sarmatian lines were intermixed with the Turkic lines, because quite a few of the E-V13 IBD (autosomal) matches are from Mongolia, and the origin of the Turkic languages was South Siberia and Mongolia. But even if the name Besche originated from the word “Pecheneg”, this doesn't necessarily mean that the de Besche line would have been Pecheneg itself. The Wikipedia article “Pechenegs” has a list of “Settlements bearing the name Pecheneg”.

So the hypothesis here is that the families of de Besche and Dionysia may have fled Hungary in 1526, settled for a time in Liege, and then migrated to Sweden. Tue Dionysia line may have been from one of the brothes of Denis of Ampud, or from a Spanish line that that for religious reason had left Spain, probably to Holland, where it met the de Besche line. If so, this cannot have been the same line line from Denis Ampud that hypothetically spawned the Swaim/den Hartog line but could have been a very closely related line from Denis son of Denis who had moved to Aragon.

This is all speculative and is merely an addendum to this post, but in a future post I'll show an interesting network of autosomal DNA segments I share with various people who today live in Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Greece, Macedonia, Ukraine, Russia, Poland, Holland, Sweden, Finlalnd and other countries. These are clearly IBD segments that show tie together all these countries in a remarkable pattern that is highly consistent with the current locatons of E-FGC11450 in Europe. Other upcoming posts will one showing another connection between Hungary and the Land of Arkel, another exploring he earliest origins of E-FGC11450 and E-V13 in Europe, and another showing that various of the E-V13 matches in Hungary during the Avar era had probably migrated beginning around the year 900 AD to Viking Scandinavia, with some of them ending up in Lief Erikson's Greenland settlement in Greenland and some in Iceland.