Talk:Melisende, Queen of Jerusalem

William of Tyre

William clearly acknowledges the adulterous relationship between Melisende and Hugh. The sources that suggest that the revolt of 1134 was caused by Fulk's reorganization of the nobility include: Ibn al-Qalanisi and Orderic Vitalis.

The article reads:

Thereafter, wrote the historian William of Tyre, Fulk "never tried to initiate anything, even in trivial matters, with her foreknowledge."

Should this be 'without' rather than 'with', perhaps? Andre Engels 13:00 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC)

Adam, we were in at the same time! Sorry but can you copy edit again!! :)

Also.. is there a wiki-way as to why we reduce the second word in a heading back to lower case? As it introduces a second chapter I would think it would be capitalized. Also.. can you help me link up certin things.. like the Melisende Paslster and other important names and events in the text?

Thanx much, Drachenfyre... oh and I have more to list for sources!

I'm not sure, that's just the Wikipedia style...they're not really "chapters" as such, it's not a book. Also, we only have to link to things once, the first time they appear, so if they occur again you can leave them unlinked. Adam Bishop 05:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alberia

Alberia Torkenkluvim, where did you get the image you posted on the Melisende page? I am very courious and, if I inturpet correctly, it relfects a Queen accepting fealty from a vassel yes? Is this Melisende?

Thank you very much!

Eleanor and Melisende

I removed the section about Eleanor and Melisende, it's entirely too speculative and doesn't really belong here. I don't think we should include what "may have" happened. Adam Bishop 7 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)

Yes Adam I do see your point. It is certin they did meet though, and according to Eleanor biographer Alison Wier Melisende was hostess to the King and Queen of France and Louis is documented in the historical record touring Jerusalem with Melisende. Eleanor was in discrace, according to Wier, and thus she was not mentioned when the couple entered capital. For those that might have liked to see the text in question Here is the text origionally:

Despite the military and diplomatic setbacks caused by the Second Crusade, in Jerusalem the meeting between Melisende and Eleanor must have had an impact on both women. Melisende was undisputed queen by right, head of a nation and subject to no man. The palace was well appointed with all the Oriental splendor and comforts that western Europe's draughty castles and poor sanitation lacked. From fine quality Persian carpets and wall tapestries, fine silk sheets and clothing, mosaic floors, to bathing and grooming habits, the Jerusalem of Melisende must have seemed a kind of paradise to western Europeans. Eleanor, sure of herself and with the nerve of her youth and renowned beauty, must have been influenced by this. This meeting between the two queens with their shared experiences may have engendered a kind of 'kindred spirit' friendship between them, though Eleanor was in disgrace for alleged infidelity with her uncle in Antioch. Eleanor may have seen Melisende's successes as inspiration, influencing her dealings with her husbands and sons, even with the governance of Aquitaine once Eleanor returned to Poitou. After 11 months Eleanor and Louis departed for France, ending the Second Crusade.Drachenfyre 01:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Translation to English would be Helpful

My Latin isn't good enough to do it myself, but would someone be able to translate the following section of the article into English:

Of Melisende, William of Tyre wrote "reseditque reginam regni potestas penes dominam Melisendem, Deo amabilem reginam, cui jure hereditario competebat."

Without a translation, it is quite hard to know what is being conveyed. Magic1million (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It is the same William of Tyre quote found in the first subsection: "the rule of the kingdom remained in the power of the lady queen Melisende, a queen beloved by God, to whom it passed by hereditary right". I have removed the Latin text. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 16:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Peer review

Melisende, Queen of Jerusalem

I am listing this article for peer review because, after 16 years on this project and probably twice (thrice?) as many GA nominations, I would like to submit my first FA nomination. Borsoka really put me through my paces during last month's GA review, and I believe that this has resulted in an exceptionally high quality. I would like to get opinions and suggestions of other interested editors. Is everything clear? Is it fun to read? Does it cover everything you would expect it cover? Do you agree with Borsoka's assessment of the quality of sources? Other comments are also welcome.

Thanks, Surtsicna (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Pictures should generally have "alt" text for visually impaired, see WP:ALT. I think FA reviewers are pretty insistent on that.

• Consider putting some of the pics on the left side of the page ... I think most FA quality articles tend to alternate left/right ... but that is not an FA requirement.

• Quality of prose is great .. I'm having a hard time finding any suggested improvments.

• Format & layout of cites & references looks great, & should satisfy FA reviewers.

• In Bibliography, you have three works by Mayer, but his name middle name is "E" in one, and spelled out in the other two. Probably should be consistent in this Bibliiogrpahy, even if the books/articles themselves vary in the middle name spelling. But that is my opinion: I'm not sure what the WP MOS says on that.

• Cite: Runciman 1952, Appendix III ... is there a page # that could be provided to reader?

• . @user:Surtsicna done. Noleander (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The image placement is a perennial mystery to me: when I have them altering, someone inevitably says that they should be on the right per MOS:IMAGELOC, and of course vice versa. Today's FA, for example, has all six on the right side, but yesterday's had a majority on the left side. The appendix has no pages marked, I am afraid. I have added the alt descriptions and made Mayer's name consistent throughout. Thank you! Surtsicna (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon

With the caveat that I am neither a native speaker nor familiar with the subject, I am happy to give some comments with respect to making a successful FAC nomination.

Sources Sources look fairly comprehensive to me. There is this one about images and this about her wealth that you may want to consider using, as both have at least a dozen citations according to Google Scholar.

Prose

• She was the first female ruler of the Kingdom of Jerusalem --> I could not find this claim in the main text
• terrorized --> I expected this text to be in British English, where it is usually spelled terrorised. But I think it is in AmEng, given the spelling counseled instead of counselled. Or am I mistaken?
• believes that Melisende was born in Edessa --> I would link the previous instance of Edessa, not this one
• During this journey the king of Jerusalem, Baldwin I, died. --> I believe it would be helpful to the reader to mention that this Baldwin is not related to Melisende.
• Baldwin II was elected to succeed him --> it gets a bit tricky with all these Baldwins. I assume Melisende's dad wasn't called Baldwin II until his coronation, so the bit "also known as Baldwin II" comes perhaps a bit premature. Just as a proposal perhaps rework this whole bit into something along the lines of this: "She and two of her sisters, Alice and Hodierna, were born while their father Baldwin of Bourcq was the count of Edessa. Folda thus believes that Melisende was born in Edessa. In 1118, her father set out on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. During this journey the king of Jerusalem, Baldwin I, died. Her father was elected to succeed him. Her parents were crowned king and queen in 1119, after which her father was named Baldwin II. Melisende subsequently gained another sister, Ioveta."
• King Baldwin started providing for his daughters --> King Baldwin II
• citing the chronicler William of Tyre --> maybe add 12th century
• Baldwin started associating Melisende --> Baldwin II
• Their marriage --> it's been a while since Melisende was mentioned, so "Their" is a bit odd to me
• King Baldwin bestowed --> King Baldwin II
• but Baldwin marched to Antioch --> but the king marched to Antioch
• The queen is commonly said --> I would add who claims that it is commonly said
• By choosing Manasses rather than one of her subjects, Melisende ensured the preservation of the royal authority. --> I'm not sure I follow this

Images:

• I would add links to the captions. As an example, Crusader states in the first one

I believe this article is in great shape and will have a good chance of passing at FAC. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Edwininlondon. Melisende being the first female ruler is mentioned in the Assessment section; the Background section says that there had been no female succession prior to hers. The text is in Oxford English Dictionary English, which prefers -ize and accepts -l-. It does not matter much to me either way. English is English. The links differentiate between Edessa the state and Edessa the city. Baldwin I may have actually been to Melisende: historians have long assumed that he was somehow related to Melisende's father, but this is disputed. Baldwin II's ordinal refers to Edessa as well (Baldwin I having preceded him there too), so it is not premature. I prefer to avoid saying or implying that medieval rulers were known by these ordinals because the ordinals are a modern convention. Do you think there is a danger of him being confused with Baldwin I? The latter is mentioned only once and is already dead by then. I have expanded on William and Manasses per your suggestion. Surtsicna (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Adam Bishop

I think everything looks good overall. This was on my hypothetical list of articles to work on, because the previous version that must have been there for about 20 years really wasn't very good...I am happy to see that this version is a huge improvement!

I made a few copyedits for language/style. One thing I am wondering about is whether to use American or British spellings (honor vs. honour, etc). I thought we generally use British spellings for medieval subjects, but now that I'm writing this, I guess that doesn't really make a lot of sense. Is the rule that we just stick with whatever the author prefers?

As for history, I think the sources are used well. Mayer's and Hamilton's essays are the classic sources and interpretations, but they are quite old now. There are many instances where historians rely on Mayer's interpretation of things, not just for Melisende, but for pretty much everything...he was an extremely prolific writer. Perhaps we (as in, other historians, not Wikipedians specifically) are too trusting. For example the argument that Ioveta was sent away to a monastery because she was the only daughter born after Baldwin II became king (and could have therefore been a threat to Melisende) isn't really an idea that is supported by more recent historians. Another example is Baldwin III issuing a charter in his own name, "leading Mayer to believe that Melisende forbade that any charters be issued in her son's name only". Perhaps the article relies too much on Mayer's hypotheses. But the information is properly cited to Mayer and it is presented as his opinion, so there is nothing technically wrong with it.

There are some good recent sources too, Folda and Barber, so that helps. There are more recent works that would likely be helpful as well, such as two articles by Erin Jordan - “Corporate monarchy in the twelfth century Kingdom of Jerusalem” in Royal Studies Journal 6 (2019), which is largely about Melisende; and “Hostage, sister, Abbess: the life of Iveta of Jerusalem” in Medieval Prosopography 32 (2017), which is of course about Ioveta but naturally talks a lot about Melisende. There is also a book about Baldwin II by Alan Murray in Routledge's "Rulers of the Latin East" series, which might be worth looking at. There is apparently a forthcoming book in the series about both Fulk and Melisende, by Danielle Park. It wouldn't necessarily mean this page would have to be rewritten, but it would be great to incorporate it, whenever it's released (unfortunately I'm not sure when it's supposed to be published, since it has been listed in the forthcoming titles since Murray's book in 2021).

There are also a few recent works about women during the crusades, and medieval queenship in general, that might be helpful (at least for background context): Sarah Lambert, "Queen or consort: rulership and politics in the Latin East, 1118-1228" in Queen and Queenship in Medieval Europe (ed. Anne J. Duggan, 1997), Susan B. Edgington and Sarah Lambert, Gendering the Crusades (University of Wales Press, 2001), Natasha R. Hodgson, Women, Crusading and the Holy Land in Historical Narrative (Boydell, 2007), and Helen J. Nicholson, Women and the Crusades (Oxford University Press, 2023).

Otherwise it looks good and I don't have any major changes to make. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

You promised it and you delivered it, Adam. Thank you. Edwininlondon above also wondered about spelling. I am not a native English speaker so I have no horse in that race. For me, English is English. In fact, I brazenly blend simpler American spelling with the logical British date order 🤫 I did hope to include the more recent sources that you mentioned, but was rather disappointed to find that they only glossed over Melisende and offered no unique perspectives or counterpoints. Park's book seems promising, though. Funnily enough, I had rewritten the article about Sibylla while Nicholson was writing the first full biography of Sibylla. I had had no idea. It came out last year and I guess another rewrite is in order 🙃 Surtsicna (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)