Talk:Isabella I of Jerusalem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Isabella I of Jerusalem is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
 |
Crusades task force | ||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
She is the pivotal genealogical point of the later (in 1260's) succession dispute. It is presumably so that many readers will check her name, in order to find out about that. Therefore, there should be some proper mention about the dispute. 62.78.124.73 06:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- They're not going to realize that she was the "pivotal figure" until they read the text about the succession dispute, which will be in the article of whichever person they were reading about when they realized there was a succession dispute. Seriously, hyperlinks are our friends, here. Choess 07:23, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
-
- I've added in refs and hyperlinks to the Champagne succession issue, when the validity of her divorce was raised. Silverwhistle 10:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It is very possible that there are people who have heard of succession dispute, want to know more about it, and have heard that it was because of Isabella's inheritance and branches created by her children. (Actually, there was a time sometime in the past when that was approximately the sum of facts I knew.) You apparently have a sort of tunnel vision. We must remember that succession disputes should be mentioned also with the person from whom that originates. 62.78.106.28 17:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] daughter Maria's birth year
User 217.16.209.173 has written the following in the article proper: "(The date of birth of her daughter Maria of Montferrat, who succeeded her as queen regnant, is uncertain. Some claim Maria had aready been born by this time, but this may be in response to the comments noted below in Muslim sources.)".
I resent the part "Some claim Maria had aready been born by this time, but this may be in response to the comments noted below in Muslim sources." - particularly the element alleging "response". I believe such wording in the article proper is unsuitable. Article should be neutral. It does not belong to the article.
User 217.16.209.173 should learn to make discussions about facts and interpretations on the relevant talk page, not in the article proper.
As it is well known that Isabella, then around 20 y.o, married Conrad in Autumn 1190, and Isabella was (later) proven rather fertile, it is highly likely that a child was born to them already in 1191.
On the other hand, Maria's birth has been indicated by some source of Franco-Syria to have taken place before the death of her father. And, Maria appears never as "posthumous" in contemporary sources, which are however rather likely to mention if she was posthumous. 217.140.193.123 29 June 2005 06:15 (UTC)
- And yet Imad, who is a very reliable chronicler, refers to Isabella's pregnancy during her wedding to Henry II of Champagne. He was present at the wedding, so I think he'd know. He doesn't mention that Isabella had any children already living -- the explanation being that she was pregnant with Maria during her marriage to Henry. Missi 23:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Hi, Missi! Good to see you here! The edit being discussed here was made by me (as 217.16.209.173) when not signed in. There is no reference in the Itinerarium, Roger of Howden & c to Maria being born in her father's lifetime (and as Isabella was the heiress to the kingdom, you would think it was an important enough event to be noted). Imad ad-Din and Old French Continuation of William of Tyre both say Isabella was pregnant when she married Henry. Conrad and Isabella were only married for 17 months, during which time he was often off campaigning (Baha al-Din says he was wounded in battle 9 days before the wedding, so am not sure how well he'd have been feeling for a while!), so one pregnancy in that time is reasonable. I'm not sure why 217.140.193.123 thought it out of order to remark on issues re: reliability of sources. I would now say - and will edit to clarify this point - that there's no question that Maria was a posthumous child. I've done a lot of work on the Montferrat family, and it's clear from that side of things that she was not born in her father's lifetime. Silverwhistle 19:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The Brevis Regni Hierosolymitani Historia in the Annals of Genoa also says Isabella was pregnant with Maria when she married Henri. Given the close ties between Montferrat and Genoa, this is probably reliable. Imad ad-Din gets confused earlier in that he also claims she was pregnant when she married Conrad, but no-one else mentions this, and I suspect this was simply him running ahead of himself in his narrative. Silverwhistle 21:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
