Talk:Kings of Jerusalem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Middle Ages Portal Kings 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.
List	This article has been rated as List-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	Crusades task force
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

The claimants lists, although somewhat sound, are apparently a work of some busybody who wants to perpetuate this kingdom, and makes king lists also based on thin air. No authoritative work has ever treated the precise successions of these imaginary kingships, as far as I know. Therefore they are here mostly "original research".

Then, another busybody, user Adam Bishop, stakes a proprietary interest here, and tries to inhibit further corrections by removing information.

I must ask him to give fully his reasons to remove the list of dukes of Lorraine, through whom the Austrian Emperors actually have claimed this titulary kingdom. 62.78.121.58 18:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, no need to be a jerk. If I removed information, it was accidental. Anyway, if it was up to me, the list would stop at 1291. I was simply trying to copyedit the information you added, and I will do so again - unless you are staking a proprietary interest here...Adam Bishop 19:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

What are your reasons to call another editor as "jerk"??? Hope you find time to give your reasons for that, and better reasons for the erasure of Lorraines, while you hopefully do something more constructive than act as some jerk or whatever wankers do.

Since it is well known that some dukes of Lorraine used this royal title, and their direct heirs, Emperirs of Austria, used it as well, it is desirable that you return the erased Lorraines to their place. 62.78.121.58 19:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Well...accusing other people of being a busybody (and a "wanker") when they are only trying to make corrections to poorly written and poorly formatted additions...listen, I think we are getting off on the wrong foot here. I have no reason to erase the Lorraines, because I didn't erase them. You are perfectly capable of putting them back, anyway. But shouldn't we try to decide who actually had a real claim first, rather than all this "original research", as you say? Adam Bishop 19:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a proposal to help with this, but I'll wait for a little feedback here before implementing it. The claims have an essentially treelike structure, and so I'd propose to reformat them as lists, sublists, sub-sublists, etc., creating a new level whenever two individuals claim to be heirs to one of the titular holders. (It shouldn't nest more than three deep or so.) This also provides the opportunity to include a sentence or two of explanatory text at the heading of each list describing the strength or weakness of particular claims to the succession. Claims that are no longer actively exercised (e.g., heirs no longer use the title "King of Jerusalem") should be summarized with a sentence or so, as the current summary of the Brienne claim. I would also suggest that the "Potential Maltese claim" be removed, as the 1st Baron of Baccari was illegitimate and had no claim on Cyprus, Jerusalem & Armenia either by succession or conquest, and that the material on "proximity of blood" be moved into a separate article on that subject.

Yeah that's a good idea. I think more can be done with the actual kings and queens - there were more regents and baillies than are currently listed, for example. Adam Bishop 05:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Maltese claim 2 Trees and levels 3 point out who actually used the title 4 Concise Listing 5 Four Kingdoms 6 Mary of Antioch 7 ordinals 8 French Kings, use of the title 9 Is there a Plantagenet claim? 10 Princess Elisabeth of Urach 11 Queen Elizabeth II 12 Guiness Claimant?

[edit] Maltese claim

AFAIK, none of those Malteses ever used the title of King of Jerusalem. That is a sufficient reason to remove them from this article. After all, we do not make an encyclopedia about who COULD claim, we make an encyclopedia of things happened in the real world. 62.78.106.71 06:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trees and levels

someone suggested: "The claims have an essentially treelike structure, and so I'd propose to reformat them as lists, sublists, sub-sublists, etc., creating a new level whenever two individuals claim to be heirs to one of the titular holders. (It shouldn't nest more than three deep or so.) This also provides the opportunity to include a sentence or two of explanatory text at the heading of each list describing the strength or weakness of particular claims to the succession."

Well, there are a real multitude of claims when those oversimplified lists are opened. Particularly the conquests of Naples throughout centuries commenced a vast number of claims. (Where is any good basis that all crowned heads of Naples are entitled to this title???? I am aware that most of those took the Jerusalem title, but not necessarily everyone. And what right do they have to leave the Naples-conquered claim to Jerusalem to be claimed by their own heirs (of whom there may be genewral heir line and male heir line), some of whom never succeeded in reigning in Naples??? What is the basis that Naples=Jerusalem??? Thus, the treelike structure soon becomes overcrowded and diffivult to display, and difficult to understand.

The real problem with tree structure however is the fact that very many of those claims sooner or later converged together with another claim. In random, so the treelike structure will then have need of very complex joinings.

Thus, I cannot recommend the treelike structure as itself. Better to try to list those claims and describe their strengths and weaknesses, then offer some list, but as soon as possible, refer the list to some basic list where there is a joining point. 62.78.126.64 12:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] point out who actually used the title

The lengthy king lists, sometimes based on thinking "who could have been entitled", are increasingly farther away from encyclopedic purpose. Such individuals who actually in real life USED the title King of Jerusalem, should be highlighted and clearly pointed in the article. Preferably based on some sort of evidence that the person actually used the title during his lifetime, and was recognized by others (such as some other kings). 62.78.126.145 18:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. This page should not turn into a dumping ground for the inheritance patterns of half the noble houses of Europe. I think a list, sublist etc. structure will work OK despite the "crossing" of lines; it's always possible to say, "Claim devolves upon Humperdinck the Indigent, becomes united with the Savoyard claim" or something like that. Furthermore, these lists should be terse. We only need explanation where a claim "splits"; the fact that whichever Duke of Savoy was succeeded by his great-uncle should stay in that person's article. Anyway, I have a list nearly done; I mostly need to disentangle some of the later Angevin claims, but there are some other points that one of the recent contributors can perhaps resolve.

1. What is the birth order of the daughters of Amadeus IX of Savoy? Both Marie and Anna left descendants to the present day, the heirs-general being the Princess of Urach and the Prince de Ligne (de la Tremouille). It is not clear which one is the senior heir.

Conventional genealogies (I checked from Europäische Stammtafeln) give Anna as the elder of these two. Apparently the precise birth years are not available, but contemporary sources and/or careful reasoning favor the said order of seniority. 62.78.124.208 07:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

1. We need a full accounting of the d'Enghien children of Isabella de Brienne, particularly their birth order; if Louis d'Enghien was senior to John, the de Brienne claim passes into the St. Pol of Luxembourg, rather than to the Laval/de la Tremouille.

You can find all of them in Europäische Stammtafeln, Neue Folge, Band VII. We do not need the rest of them, since they apparently were younger than both Louis and John. Conventional genealogies (such as Europäische Stammtafeln) give John as the elder of these two, who apparently were born in closest years (no sibling between them). Apparently the precise birth years are not available, but contemporary sources and/or careful reasoning favor the said order of seniority. 62.78.124.208 07:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

With this in hand, I think it's possible to make a much more compact page that still covers all the various claims to Jerusalem without being overly verbose. Choess

[edit] Concise Listing

Let the flames begin! I have pared it down to lists and sublists detailing the "flow" of the two major claims to Jerusalem, which I think is sufficient. Please remember that this is a wiki, and that information on inheritance from particular individuals is usually best kept in the individual article, and not duplicated at length here.

(The above comment is mine.) I missed your reply with the information with ES; I've re-added a note on the Brienne claim, which I accidentally removed, and set down the Prince de Ligne as the Cypriote heir-general as well. Choess 04:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not one for a flaming war. I appreciate that people make improvements to existing texts. Not a new structure, if it can be avoided. Now I have tried to correct the most egregious errors and problems in contents of the newly-installed structure. 62.78.104.3 12:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your courtesy. You might want to look at this list of titles, which shows the styles of many European rulers and helps give an idea of who inherited claims, dropped claims, etc. This Heraldica page is also useful. I had deliberately removed some of the supposed claimants, such as Charles Martel and the Hungarian Angevins, certain of the French kings, etc., because the Angevin (1277) claim on Jerusalem acted as if permanently attached to the crown of Naples, and those persons, regardless of hereditary right, do not appear ever to have claimed the throne of Naples. I don't wish to cause trouble, so I won't remove them again, but I'm not convinced they're appropriate additions to the listing. Some incidental points: for future reference, you don't need to save deleted text to the talk page, since it's kept in the reversion history of the page. I'm considering setting up a disambiguation page for the Kingdom of Sicily at some point to explain that the original kingdom of Sicily comprised both Sicily and Southern Italy; after the Sicilian Vespers, two rival kings controlled the two territories, and while they both claimed to be "King of Sicily", the mainland rulers are commonly known as "Kings of Naples". (This state of affairs went on for so long that when they were finally reunited, the new kingdom was referred to as the "Kingdom of the Two Sicilies", and hence also your "Queen of Four Kingdoms," instead of three.) Choess 17:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Four Kingdoms

Well, regarding the wording of four kingdoms, I have long had a hunch that it may be a later invention, for example an author in early 1900's who made that book. I have evidence of neither. All that is sure that in recent literature, Yolande is called that. The hunch I mentioned, has no solid evidence behind, only a feeling of a well-read person.

It can very well have been that they were called four kingdoms already in that era.

Then, not certain which were those kingdoms. I have seen a list where they are assigned Cyprus, too. Probably a far-fetched claim, if true at all.

Aragon had tributaries, such as kingdom of Majorca.

The possibility that Sicily was treated as two, is only one possibility. A reason that speaks strongly against that hypothesis is Angevins really really wanted all to believe that Sicily is one kingdom and they legitimately hold its all lands directly or under vassals. Therefore, only rare Angevin in her/his senses would have allowed anything that says two sicilies. The kingdom of island of Sicily was, for these reasons, officially subjugated to recognize Neapolitan-Angevin overlordship. Angevins would not have treated it as another kingdom (but only as repossessed vassal area), had it ever fell back to them (which it did not). It was Aragons who introduced TWO in picture, to them Neapolitan provinces were an addition, to be proud of.

Therefore, I cannot take the term "Four Kingdoms" as evidence of anything. 62.78.125.186 10:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mary of Antioch

The Mary here was NOT princess of Antioch.

Princess of Antioch refers to a reigning princess of that, or the consort of a reigning prince.

Mary was only a younger daughter.

Same problem as with Princesses of Monaco today.

However, in those days, the junior members of such family actually did not use the title prince/princess.

Her rightful surname (which they did not use) was something of Poitou...

They were lords and ladies, not a useful title. They were known by titles they themselves succeeded in obtaining.

Thus, this Mary was for her supporters: Queen Mary II of Jerusalem. But we apparently should not use that as her name.

Most contemporaries, and the texts in posterity, know her simply as Mary of Antioch.

According to wiki standards, she can be titled as "Mary of Antioch"", there is no error, but a possibility of confusion, if other Mary of Antioch (were there important enough other personnages of that name?) ever gets her article. 62.78.104.3 12:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

There was a Maria of Antioch...but "Mary of Antioch" should be fine. Adam Bishop 15:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think that's just a question of the English vs. French version of the name; incidentally, the well-known historian Sir Steven Runciman in "The Sicilian Vespers" refers to the younger Mary/Maria as "Maria, Princess of Antioch" (albeit she was, as the original commenter points out, neither Princess Regnant nor Princess Consort). So we may need some form of disambiguation between the two Marys/Marias of Antioch. Perhaps Maria of Antioch (empress) and Maria of Antioch (pretender)? Choess 17:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I hate such disambiguations, () (). No one ever writes that in order to find something. Thus, I believe we could make use of the pure happenstance that the one got here Mary, the other Maria. And put a disambiguatuion note in the beginnig of both articles. In style "This article is about an empress-consort of... Another Maria please see Mary of..." and "This article is about a claimant of the title of Queen Regnant of Jerusalem... "

By the way, French version would be Marie. Maria is apparently the Latin version, or something. Funny, I am not English-speaker, bu I seem to use loyally the purest English versions... 62.78.104.3 17:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, Latin version, fine. My point is that we should be consistent; if we're using Anglicized forms, then both of them should be "Mary", and we need a disambiguation. How about a disambiguation page at "Mary of Antioch" and moving the current pages to "Mary of Antioch, Byzantine Empress" and "Mary of Antioch, pretender to Jerusalem", redirect from "Maria of Antioch" to the "Mary of Antioch" disambiguation page (once links currently to "Maria of Antioch are fixed)? Choess 17:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ordinals

In my opinion, it is rather ridiculous to construe ordinals to kings to appear as ordinals of Jerusalem. It seems as a busybody attempt to recreate independent-looking royal lines from thin air. AFAIK, even kings in Naples and Cyprus did not use such artificial ordinals.

A possibility of consensical rule could be that only ordinals which were used by persons themselves are put here, and all other ordinals omitted (just the first name of the monarch, and possibly some "surname" such as "of Durazzo" being then here on display) 62.78.104.3 13:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

You have to stop calling people "busybodies." Do you seriously think someone is trying to recreate an independent kingdom? Adam Bishop 15:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Busybody is a good word to describe someone who has obviously too much royal romantics and too little historical sources or sense. Sorry if it offends, but perhaps that sort of minor offence makes those a bit more hesitant to create all sorts of things, even here. And if the offence causes a flaming war, then I am sure that serious editors will force that sort of busybody out from here, which also will be a good thing, since it says that the person will probably never learn sufficient hesitation. 62.78.104.3 17:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't really care about the ordinals one way or another; if you want to change them back to the ordinal of the person's major (real) title, go ahead (but please be consistent if you do so.) Choess 17:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] French Kings, use of the title

Is it really appropriate to include the French Kings in this list? According to the page on royal titles I mentioned earlier, only Charles VIII and Louis XII claimed the titles of Naples and Jerusalem, and none of the other French kings seem to have ruled Naples nor used the titles. Louis I of Hungary made a claim in 1350, but he had dropped it in 1358 and none of his heirs claimed it in his right. The claims of Louis XI (not pressed) and Charles VIII were (shakily) based on descent from Louis II of Anjou and, as I understand your material, the testament of Charles, Count of Le Maine. The claim of Louis XII was either by testament from Charles VIII or by conquest; and as he lost the realm and dropped the claim, there's no point in extending it through his heirs, particularly because the title of "King of Naples" was never inherited in a uniform manner. (Francis I, for instance, fought the Italian Wars not because of a claim to Naples, but because the House of Orleans claimed the Duchy of Milan.)

Louis XI and Charles VIII were the heirs-general of Charles I of Sicily. That alone would be sufficient for a strong claim. However, they had the testament of the titular Charles IV also. Testament had been an accepted way to obtain Naples etc (though I do not appreciate testaments in royal successions).

No, it would not be sufficient; you've just explained that Naples passed by Semi-Salic law, so the heirs-general have no claim. According to the entry on Charles VII, his claims were based on his descent from Mary of Anjou, daughter of Louis II; but since there was already a legitimate heir-male, the testament of Charles IV of Anjou was probably the best claim he had (followed, of course, by his conquest).

I have explained that I believe that Angevin Naples intrinsically went by male succession (not necessarily Salic Law). It may mean that females may transfer rights, but closest male succeeds. Or, as in Naples, almost the contrary: male line failing, a female may succeed, and a testament is needed. All our clear-cut succession rules were a hazy thing in medieval inheritances, I believe. The rules crystallized only some centuries later. AND, right of the heir-general was as recognized in those times as its alternative, male succession.

If we look at the first case, where Naples faced a problem, it was when Robert succeeded despite of Charles Robert. There apparently proximity ruled: Robert was closer in kinship to Charles II than Charles Robert. That was SENIORITY and proximity controlling - and those principles tended to have an alliance with some form of male succession, i.e excluding females. CR would have been primogeniture and heir-general (and agnatic and male).

Next, Joanna succeeded Robert. Or, actually, Robert testamented kingdom to Andrew and Joanna jointly. You see: testament. It made an exception. A female was allowed to succeed by testament. But Robert thought it proper to compensate his late brother's heirs, by making Andrew heir. Andrew's inclusion was for male succession. And, assuming that he represented his father's rights (Louis was superseded), primogeniture, Salic Law, agnatic. Joanna really got overwhelming support when she wanted to oust Andrew, this signaling that rights of heir-general, female, were very good in minds of subjects.

Next, Joanna (who at that point had become "a honorary male" in dynastical sense) wanted to arrange things by adopting and testament. To a son of the line of Margaret, eldest daughter of Charles II. The blood was required - a woman in the past was in position of having transferred the right. And the heir was preferably male. Thus, male succession, among descendants of Charles I. No proximity any longer required, nor primogeniture.

This went awry: Charles of Durazzo got popular support and ousted Joan & Louis. Apparently it was against established sense of rights. Charles was heir male (and apparently the only male who any longer lived of the senior line, except the old and sonless Louis of Hungary). Actually, for a long time in Joanna's reign, Charles of Durazzo had been thought to succeed automatically. Joanna was not thought to be succeeded by her surviving niece, another Joanna, Duchess of Durazzo. Females were out. In my opinion, this signals the strengthening of the rights of heir in male line. Charles was also male in proximity (actually, his wife was in proximity).

Junior Angevins quite clearly used the male line: it seems to have been self-evident to René that the royal claim will go to his nephew, not to his surviving daughter or her son. Of course, this was in 1470's, thus male succession has became stronger almost everywhere.

In Hungary, many wanted the heir-male (Charles of Durazzo) to succeed Louis I, not giving his daughters that right. That had been the Arpad way of succession. And Angevins brought similar traditions, from Capetian tradition.

When the last male, Ladislas of Naples, died, Joanna II apparently was the requisite woman to succeed, despite of predilection to male line. She was the "honorary male" in dynastical sense.

I think the preceding explains why male succession seems to be the background of Naples case. Male line interrupts easily. Therefore, in average, in one per 3-6 cases, there will be a need of special arrangement.

All that predilection to males notwithstanding, heirs-general clearly had a very good claim. Angevins were products of feudal culture of Latin countries, and there the right of heir-general was the common principle. For example, their vassals used it, usually. And you know that important vassals were the ones to solve the succession dispute (if it was not solved by violence, conquest, etc...). Most vassals applied their own traditions to other situations, self-evidently.

Therefore, I happen to continue to believe that heir-general held a significant advantage. If someone happened to be heir-general of Charles I in a succession strife, I believe it helped.

Capetian kings of France were in habit of counting agnates as their subjects, somehow. For example, Louis XIV apparently made some claims to all kingdoms ever held by his predecessors.

I remember hearing about that doctrine, although I don't remember the name for it. However, as I recall, it applied to the boundaries of France, which was supposed to encompass the Empire of Charlemagne or something like that. It had nothing to do with foreign kingdoms like Naples.

I remember to have read a book that told that as child, L XIV's teachers had a map showing highlighted all the kingdoms once held by the dynasty. Such as Naples and Hungary and Aragon. To teach him where he has claims. We actually are not able to draw borders to what L XIV may have claimed...

And, the fate of Navarre (= Louis XIII making it perpetually a part of French crown) supports this idea. Navarre was foreign, at least as foreign as Naples.

When Louis XII took the Naples titles, he rather obviously made them as property of French crown, to be claimed by successors in Capetian male line. I believe he did not have any testament from Charles VIII.

His claims must have come either by testament or by conquest,

I think it was by conquest and by papal sanction, supported by the fact that he descended from the original holder of that title. Please remember that Naples was a papal fief and that Popes had very often wanted Jerusalem to be in their gift.

It is almost clear that there was no such testament. Chrles and Louis had been enemies for a long time. And Charles did not expect to die at that point.

as he did not descend from Mary of Anjou and I see no evidence that Charles VIII's claim derived

At that point, Mary of Anjou was nothing significant (after all, also her brother had left issue through female). You should know that Louis had Charles I's blood in his veins. That fact was as good as Mary's blood.

from the heirship-general. I think conquest is most likely, actually; if you look at the entries

No, he was certainly not heir-general. But his predecessor on the French throne had conquered the same place and held the same title. That sufficed to Louis. In their minds, it had become an appendage of the French crown, "royal domain". And, I suspect that Charles IV's (= Maine's) testament was for kings of France, not for a named cousin. Could anyone find the text of that testament??

for "France" and "Naples" at the European Titles page, he did not claim Naples at the beginning of his reign, only while in possession of the kingdom in 1501. Furthermore, by the Treaty of Blois in 1505, he renounced all claims on Naples.

Yes, renunciations tend to be respected as long as forced... I believe that any French king doing something to Italy, had that claim somewhere in the arsenal... You know, most of them had designs on Italy... or against Spain...

And if you look at the Heraldica page on France, it is clear that the Neapolitan claim was never united with the crown of France.

No, I see nothing that confirms such. Rather, I see sources which indicate that for a short period, Naples was as appendage as later Navarre was. Only circumstances prevented French monarchs to keep Naples as their one appendage, but that does not quell the will to claim.

So the heirs of Louis XII in France had no claim on Naples by the Neapolitan laws of succession, any claims that they had were explicitly renounced by Louis XII in 1505, and none of them ever used the title "King of Jerusalem". I think this is good and sufficient reason to remove them from this page.

I happen to believe that the 14th century presumption of succession in Naples was in male line. And Joan I and Joan II were exceptions produced by testaments and Semi-Salic solution in failure of males. This, of course, is funny compared with original Jerusalem succession rules, but anyway, Naples takeover of Jerusalem title did not base on Jerusalem rules at the least.

If you check successions in Naples with the idea of it being basically in male line, I believe you will arrive in more consistency than what you now believe (="not in uniform manner", "irregular").

Well, I agree that there's an internal logic to it, but the passage by testament and periodic conquests can make it hard to follow. In other words, you have to treat each case individually; you can't just say, "This is the heir-general, so he has a claim on Naples."

But we can make an assumption "he is the heir-male, so he has a claim on Naples" and voila, you see that almost always he was a claimant or a pretender.

Louis I of Hungary did not have male heirs, and that could be a reason why they did not assert Jerusalem claim.

I think I saw something somewhere while researching Joan I that Louis sold his rights to Naples to someone (Andre? Charles of Durazzo?) for a sum of money. That may play a role, too.

After his taking that title, he certainly cannot have sold it to Andrew, as Andy's murder had been the primary reason why he attacked Naples. And to sell it to infant Charles of Durazzo seems a bit overstretched. Please, better candidates, please.

Further down the page, I think the mention of heirs-general at various points, transfer of the Island of Sicily, etc. is superfluous and best confined to articles about the individual kings or perhaps one on the Kings of Naples. For the purposes of this article, it's sufficient to know that the title of King of Jerusalem was treated as an appendage of the crown of Naples, and that the Neapolitan crown followed an irregular pattern of inheritance. In addition, both the Kings of Spain and the Kings of the Two Sicilies used "King of Jerusalem" in their royal styles, so the note about the title going to the Spanish kings is superfluous.

As for use of the title: it's clear that some of these claims were sometimes allowed to lapse and then renewed by heirs. Rather than write out the title each time, perhaps we should italicize names of individuals who transmitted a claim, but did not use the title of "King of Jerusalem"?

Italicization would possibly be a good thing. But not, if it leads to warring whom to italicize, whom not.

Well, for any individual who can be shown to have used the title "King of Jerusalem" (with examples like that on the Titles of European Princes page), I think they should not be italicized. So it's pretty easy to prove that someone shouldn't have italics. I think we can agree on this, even if details of succession are fuzzy.

Jerusalem was rather obviously also combined with that island of Sicily, Sardinia, evolution (I want to distinguish the island here, because Sicily as kingdom has meant so many things). Of course they held the claim from Lusignan inheritance. But rarely publicly pretended in intervening generations. And they were only heirs-male of Cypriot Anne. This occurrence in 1713 immensely strengthened their Jerusalem-claim, as there Kings of Spain and France (holders of certain other claims) agreed to official Treaty where he was recognized as a King of Jerusalem. Therefore it deserves a place here, and should not removed to places which do not treat KofJ.

I agree that we should keep the Savoyard claimants, even if they did switch the succession to heirs-male, because they often used the title of King of Jerusalem in their styles.

It is a pity that the junior "Two Sicilies" went to use the title which the father apparently never expressly renounced in their favor. As kings of Spaincould always say that the juniors have two sicilies only by a grant (abdication: in renouncements etc, such things that are not expressly renounced, remain), I believe the Spanish claim is stronger. Please invent then another way to imply this in the article, if you are not happy with the present expression.

I'm not sure I follow, and as both claims are based on the Angevin claim, which was never really accepted except under duress in Outremer, I don't think it makes sense to split hairs about which one was "stronger". IMO, the only truly "strong" claim to the Kingdom of Jerusalem belongs to de Ligne de la Tremoille; everything else is just bookkeeping to explain why certain individuals put "King of Jerusalem" into their royal titles, as a "vanity".

If I am to decide, I would rule in favor of the Brienne claim. But we have to be realists, too. Angevins had received the papal blessing, and their right was respected in Europe. At that point, the opinion in Outremer did not matter. When Acre lost, Jerusalem was anyway a "kingdom in minds of people" and the kingdom a nice/funny cultural construct that had apparently some role in christian landscape of realms and royals. Taking that as the starting-point, IMO the younger brother should not have made the same claim as the elder brother.

Speaking about realism, it of course is possible (but not desirable) to list only those who titled themselves as Jerusalem. Since their pretensions came from lines of succession, I want all those lines shown. Otherwise, a reader either begins imagine things (possibly from thin air such as was the modern Habsburg title derived from Charles VI) or is left without pertinent information. I believe this article is intended to give A VERY FULL ACCOUNT of those successions and reasons of claims, since there exists the reality-and-land-based article Kingdom of Jerusalem for that information which deals with the kingdom that existed in map, not in minds of christians.

Heirs-general and heirs-male have been a way to create two claims. Also regards this kingdom. It is good information here.

I think that we do not have sources which fully give each one's sporadic claims to the title. Therefore I am hesitant to exclude someones, unless some source clearly states that he explicitly dropped it.

I think there's some material on this at the "Title of European Princes" page; e.g., Dukes of Lorraine, starting with Antoine, stopped using the title and only started again in 1700. I think there's a gap in its use by Savoy, too. The other claimants seem to have been consistent.

I think I have heard that Savoyards used it more continuously than the title material shows. There might be some compartmentalization, in a way that certain titles were not shown in everyday correspondence or in certain roles. (And, think about a Duke of Savoy calling himself king of Jerusalem when writing to king of Spain in those times :))))

or such reasons, we cannot fully rely on those tile lists.

Besides, claims were not always put in formal titulary. Claims were claimed, but not necessarily pretended.

The title was not always joined with title of Naples. For example, when Leopold I of Lorraine revived the pretension, they began to use only "Jerusalem" without the name of any other kingdom. (Their claim came from Naples succession.) I think that is because it was easier to pretend a kingdom which was under no christian's rule at the moment. Some others may have used the same dood idea. (Perhaps however he was hesitant to go against the mighty Habsburg king of Spain who at that time held Naples and Sicily, physically.)

Well, yes, you can quibble about that. The Dukes of Lorraine stopped using the title

It is not a quibble, but a signal that the title had got a possibly different role, for example that it is the kingdom "in minds"...

of "King of Naples", but they did maintain the title of "Duke of Calabria", which was for the heir-apparent of the Kings of Naples. Again, it was Antoine who stopped using both kingly titles, probably for political reasons; Leopold revived the claim in 1700, but the claim to be King of Naples was never revived and the Calabrian claim dropped by Francis II. But ultimately their use of the title was connected to a Neapolitan inheritance, even if it was politic not to openly claim that kingdom. Choess 13:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I thought they used Calabria throughout those centuries, consistently. Saying by it that they are crown princes of kingdom of Naples, and preferably want the kingdom back. The only thing they did not do was to play the role of pretending king when they did not have any kingdom.

It was apparently always somewhat appealing to title oneself as king of the biblical city. Thus, such pretensions may unearth from rarer sources, yet.62.78.125.186 09:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Henri, comte de Chambord has two lines of heirs as royal claimants to the throne of France. Has either line ever claimed the title "King of Jerusalem"? User:Dimadick

No French King (or royal claimant) since Charles VIII has used that title, and no French King since Louis XII has claimed the throne of Naples, to which the style "King of Jerusalem" is more or less attached. (They're still in the article because I got tired of the above argument and didn't want to spend energy and time refuting delusional ramblings about how the Kings of France really were titular Kings of Jerusalem, they just didn't use the title, or have any right to the throne of Naples, or tell anyone about it...) Choess July 4, 2005 07:08 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a Plantagenet claim?

What about Fulk's dynasty? Was the inheritance completely given to the Lusignans, with no mention any time down the line in history? 68.110.8.21 23:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rights to Jerusalem could only have passed through Fulk's issue by Melisende, as opposed to the children of his first marriage, even if he claimed to hold the crown of his own person. The only exception I can think of is Frederick I, Margrave of Meissen, who briefly used the style of "King of Jerusalem" as descendant of Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, though not by the marriage that brought the latter the kingship; needless to say, he was never recognized in the Kingdom itself or much of anywhere else. Choess 00:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And if you mean the Planagenets as in the English dynasty, they couldn't claim it because they descended from Fulk as Count of Anjou, not King of Jerusalem. Fulk's grandson Henry II of England was actually offered the crown in the 1180s when there was no suitable heir, but neither he nor any other western monarch wanted to deal with the moribund kingdom. I suppose if Fulk's great-grandson Richard Lionheart felt he could claim the kingdom, he could have done so during the Third Crusade, but there would have been no basis for it. Adam Bishop 02:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Elisabeth of Urach

Is the Princess Elisabeth of Urach listed as a potential claimant the granddaughter of Mindaugas II of Lithuania/Wilhelm, 2nd Duke of Urach via his eldest son. Because according to the Online Gotha she died in 1999.dwc lr 22:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. The present heir is her first cousin once removed, Patrick Guinness; I've updated the page. Choess 23:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queen Elizabeth II

Don't forget that Palestine was under a British Mandate between World War I and World War II. While the reigning Queen of England took the throne after the British gave up on Palestine, we might as well include her, given that Britain is monarchial soil. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the Kingdom of Jerusalem? Adam Bishop (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guiness Claimant?

Among the claimants is this one: "Patrick Desmond Carl-Alexander Guinness of the Guinness family". Is this for real? I find it hard to imagine that the family of brewers is a valid claimant to the throne of Jerusalem. CsikosLo (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Patrick is the heir-general of Marie of Savoy, daughter of Amadeus IX, Duke of Savoy. The birth order of Marie and her sister Anna (whose heir-general is the Prince de Ligne de la Trémoïlle) is not known, so either of the two could be potential claimants to the Savoyard legacy of Jerusalem, Cyprus, and Armenia. Choess (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...this should be stated on the article page. CsikosLo (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this part of the list really necessary in the first place? Isn't it actually the dreaded "original research"? I suppose these people could claim to be heirs, but do they? Is there any evidence that any of them even know what the Kingdom of Jerusalem is? Aside from Juan Carlos, maybe we should remove all the supposed modern claimants. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)