Talk:Sibylla of Cyprus

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 TarnishedPath talk 15:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Armenians were enraged when their 60-year-old king married the 12-year-old Sibylla of Cyprus?

• Source: "It is noteworthy that Leo II, who was sixty years old and was described as being extremely passionate, has abandoned his first wife in order to marry Sibylla, who was barely twelve. Leo's new mariage aroused the ire of his felow-countrymen, some of whom conspired without success to block his return." (Coureas 1995, p. 34)

• • ALT1: ... that Sibylla of Cyprus might have been promoted as the rightful queen of Jerusalem had she not had an Armenian husband? Source: "... the rightful heir to the crusader kingdom would have been Sibyl ... but it is doubtful how far an Armenian king-consort would have been acceptable to the baronage of Jerusalem. This may explain why, although the question of Isabel I's divorce from Humphrey was not forgotten by the Holy See, it was never pursued with any degree of rigour, because the political implications for the Latin East would have been very difficult to handle." (Hamilton 2016, p. 228-229)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tusker (Vanuatu beer)

5x expanded by Surtsicna (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 248 past nominations.

Surtsicna (talk) 08:57, 22 August 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:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• Looks good. This was recently expanded from a stub. I'm approving the first hook only. I don't see the ALT1 hook as a definite fact because it uses "may have" and "rightful", but also would not object to a more concrete hook about Pope Innocent III blocking her from becoming Queen of Jerusalem, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Why the outrage over her marriage to Leo?

The DYK, in giving no specifics other than the ages of Leo and Sibylla, implies that the age difference was the issue for his subjects, but that seems very doubtful for this era, and the article does nothing to clarify it. Why were they outraged? 2600:4040:3118:E800:9527:3EBA:38D6:4128 (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I have the same question. In addition to the age difference, possibilities that occur to me are: (a) they objected to her because she was not Armenian; (b) they were concerned by the political connection to her family. Enquiring minds want to know.Bill (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thirded.--62.73.72.101 (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I am afraid that the historians I have been able to consult do not say explicitly. They just emphasize the age gap when recounting the opposition. Younger was not always seen as better; a 12-year-old bride might not be able to quickly deliver an heir, and a 60-year-old king with no sons would have been in a hurry. Indeed, Sibylla's only child was born after 5 years of marriage. A more mature wife might have born several children in that time. Then again, poor dynastic planning would not have enraged vassals so much that they try to oust the king. Armenians had been marrying Franks for a century, so xenophobia could not have been the reason either. Perhaps the ever-ambitious Hethumids expected that Leo would marry one of their kin. The cited source says that Leo had abandoned his first wife, so his subjects might have been reacting to bigamy–but other sources say that the first wife had died. I will be sure to ping you if I find an explicit reasoning somewhere. Surtsicna (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Reluctance of barons

'It is unlikely, however, that the barons of the kingdom would have accepted Sibylla's Armenian husband, Leo, as king...'

A few words on why the barons would be reluctant are in order. Was it only the religious difference, since he wasn't of the same Christian denomination as they were? Or was there general hostility between crusaders and Armenians? Or something else entirely? At first glance, it is natural to think that two islands of Christianity in a Muslim sea would be inclined to cooperate and could hardly afford to be hostile to each other, so an explanation would be appropriate. 62.73.72.101 (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

They were indeed inclined to co-operate, hence the marriage alliances mentioned in the article. The cited source (you can see it in the DYK nomination) does not elaborate on why Leo would have been undesirable, but it seems clear to me that while Leo was welcome as an ally, a king was nonetheless expected to be Frankish. Similarly, when Leo's daughter and successor married a Frankish prince, it was a good alliance, but as a king he was just too foreign and was so despised that he was murdered. Surtsicna (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if it had anything to do with the attempt to unite the Latin and Armenian churches. The union was "official" as of 1198, but it was controversial among the Armenians, and the Franks didn't believe they were implementing any of the reforms requested by the pope. Also, Leo was already interfering in Antioch, so maybe they didn't want him messing around in Jerusalem as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Death dates?

@Surtsicna: The lead says "1230/52" and the last sentence says "1232 and 1250". Looks like there is an error somewhere. --GRuban (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

1232 is the error. Thank you for letting me know! Surtsicna (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Sorry, it still says 50 in one place and 52 in the other. I don't have easy access to the source, or I'd fix it myself. --GRuban (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see now what happened. I added the 2 to 1230 instead of adding it to 1250. Surtsicna (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)