Talk:Isabella I of Jerusalem

Untitled

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)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isabella I of Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616113655/http://www.marchesimonferrato.com/Pubblicazioni.htm to http://www.marchesimonferrato.com/Pubblicazioni.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Date of death

I was unable to find an online source that gave a definite date of death. The Crusader World says she died a few months after Aimery, Crusader Art in the Holy Land says she died a few weeks later, Mediæval popes, emperors, kings, and crusaders and The Biographical Dictionary of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge both say Isabel died first. So if someone could clear that up, it would be greatly appreciated. —howcheng {chat} 18:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"Isabella of Jerusalem" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Isabella of Jerusalem and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Isabella of Jerusalem until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Isabella I of Jerusalem/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Surtsicna (talk · contribs) 18:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Reverosie (talk · contribs) 16:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello! For obvious reasons, I will be your GA reviewer. Comments will begin today or tomorrow! ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 16:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Review Format

Before I begin with anything else, I'd like to introduce my new review format. My review will go like this. It is similar to the format used on Baldwin III's article:

After the spot check, I will go in and copyedit the article myself. Instead of pointing out small gripes that I could easily fix without nagging you, my suggestions will focus on larger issues where your input and expertise are needed. If I do not have any of these suggestions, the article will be quick passed. If I do have suggestions, I will pass the article when they are dealt with accordingly.

You will have as much time as you need to fix my suggestions (if I have any), but if you go multiple weeks without making any progress (and do not give me a reason as to why), I may have to fail you. ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 14:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Update: Comments will most likely begin today; if not, they will certainly begin on Tuesday. I'm so sorry for the wait! ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 14:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Spot check

I'll begin the spot check now. Then, I will begin the copyediting. Knowing you, the article will likely be passed promptly :) ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 22:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

• The spot check looks good. I don't feel the need to post specific quotes; we've worked together frequently and you are a very trustworthy editor. The copyedit will begin now. If I have any comments that require your expertise, I will let you know :) ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 23:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Passing the article now. Congratulations! ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 02:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 talk 16:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Isabella remarrying

• ... that Queen Isabella I lost her first husband to politics, her second to Assassins, her third to a window, and her fourth to fish?

• Source: "They decided that he must be divorced. Humphrey ... was terrified of political responsibility. But Isabella was less amenable." (Runciman 1989, pp 30-31)

"One of the murderers was struck down on the spot. The other was taken and confessed, before he was executed, that he and his comrade were Assassins..." (Runciman 1989, p. 64)

"Henry turned to greet them, then, forgetting where he was, stepped backward through the open window." (Runciman 1989, p. 93)

"On 1 April 1205, after a short illness caused by a surfeit of fish, he died at Acre, aged little more than fifty." (Runciman 1989, p. 103)

• Location in the article: first husband in Isabella_I_of_Jerusalem#Hattin_and_the_Third_Crusade, 3rd and 4th paragraphs; second husband in Isabella_I_of_Jerusalem#Lady, 2nd paragraph; third husband in Isabella_I_of_Jerusalem#Queen, 1st paragraph; fourth husband in Isabella_I_of_Jerusalem#Queen, 4th paragraph

• • ALT1: ... that Isabella I of Jerusalem (pictured) was kidnapped by her mother and persuaded that she "could have neither honour nor her father's kingdom" unless she left her husband? Source: "She was described as persuading her daughter to separate from Humphrey, or else 'she could have neither honour nor her father's kingdom'." (Hodgson 2007, p. 188.)
  • ALT2: ... that a Muslim scholar condemned European Christians' treatment of women after the pregnant Isabella I of Jerusalem (pictured) remarried only a week after her husband's death? Source: "Yet the point on which ' Imad al - Dīn laid greatest stress is clear : a widow should not be forced to remarry when she is still pregnant by her late husband . The European Christians did not respect the rights of the pregnant woman and the unborn child, and this demonstrated their godlessness." (Nicholson 2024, pp. 24–27.)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Osmundastrum cinnamomeum

Improved to Good Article status by Surtsicna (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 254 past nominations.

Surtsicna (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Good to go. Main, AL1 and ALT2 are all okay. Main preferred. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: can you fix the referencing? Hodgson (2007) (fn 46, 47, 71) and Edbury (1994) (fn 69) and not in the sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Done, Hawkeye7. Thanks for noticing. Surtsicna (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

It has no effect on DYK eligibility, but I also note that Treadgold (1997) is in the references, but not used. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

That helps a lot. I have been trying to cut down on the number of publications in that section. Thanks. Surtsicna (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

"Husband she loved?"

Seems like quite a bold, hard to falsify statement on the picture caption... 2600:4040:7FCA:AA00:41B9:4213:F8CC:2E39 (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

It is in the text too, along with a source. Surtsicna (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

disposed → deposed → dispossessed

@Surtsicna:Thanks for correcting my edit. You can see my confusion, though. The word that confused me in its context was "disposed", which didn't make sense. So I thought (wrongly) that the word that was meant was "deposed", which kind of fits. Your correction now gives the word "dispossessed", which is a correction of the original provided word. Just providing my explanation of my thought processes. Cheers, Bill Reid | (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting mine, @Billreid. Otherwise I would have never noticed I wrote disposed! It even escaped the attention of my rigorous copy-editor @Векочел. Surtsicna (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)