# Talk:Humphrey IV of Toron

On Talk:Kingdom of Heaven (movie), 62.78.105.225 wrote that "...the real Humphrey IV was the local soft gay boy. Sources state he avoided quarrel etc, and rather obviously he later was Richard Lionheart's boyfriend." 
While contemporary sources (even the sympathetic Itinerarium Peregrinorum) describe Humphrey as looking girlish, and being 'effeminate' in manner, I don't recall any actually accusing him of being gay: if they had, it would have been very useful ammunition in the divorce proceedings. But he and Isabella seem to have been genuinely attached to each other. As for being Richard's lover - again, where is this taken from? I suspect it may be from James Reston's sensationalist work, not a primary source... Silverwhistle 12:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The original contrib there is from User:Arrigo (who frequently operated un-logged-in from that IP range); he was fairly strong on pushing the POV that Richard I of England was homosexual (see Talk:Richard I of England#Homosexuality) without any particular sourcing. I wouldn't take it very seriously. Choess 13:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I know the primary sources on Humphrey, and suspect this has come from historical fiction and from 'popular history' like Reston's Warriors of God (which seems to think The Lion in Winter is a reliable source on Richard and Philippe...!). Given the tone of some of the comments made about Humphrey, sexual ambiguity is possible, but I think the fact nothing was said about it during the annulment makes it doubtful. I had a look at the Richard page, too. Was amused to see said party had tried to designate Isabella of Jerusalem as a "faghag"! My favourite of her husbands is her second: I hope she learned to appreciate him in the brief time she had him... Silverwhistle 15:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't really trust 'Warriors' either, but he actually said 'as we know from James Goldman's play "Lion in Winter"' which doesn't imply that he researched it, just means that he's making a pop culture reference. -Augustulus
Silverwhistle, if you had cared to read Warriors of God you would have seen that it doesn't even mention that Humphrey was gay, much less Richard's lover. Although, the two homosexuals did work closely for a long period of time. It's certainly probable. 65.96.44.48 13:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Ouch from Augustulus, anyway. Are you going to take this from that bloke, Silverwhistle?! I have to agree with them, btw. Your Isabella and Humphrey "attachment" theory is weaker than the homosexuality evidence. Besides, Humphrey was a hottie. How could King Dick resist? Sorry to double post, but whatever. 65.96.44.49 16:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Augustulus, if you are going to pretend to be two people, you could at least remember to log in the second time. Adam Bishop 20:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
__? Adam, don't be a droolyhead (and that's a technical term). I'm too morally strict for that kind of thing. I'm not a genius, but I'm certainly not stupid!
.. __, stop dicking around with my computer ... and Adam, stop being arrogant. I hate arrogance. Augustulus 00:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Edit: Spoke to the party in my household who posted as 65.96.44.49 and that I just blanked out ... he was just trying to be a weirdo (especially with his gay-act). Bishop, I apologize I got pissed and I forgive your accusation, for you made an honest mistake.

Can anyone join in? Runciman (History of the Crusades, vol. 3 p. 30) says of Humphrey that "his beauty was too feminine for him to be respected by the tough soldiers around him" and that "he was not fitted for married life". However Runciman reached these views, they must surely have contributed to the popular picture. Andrew Dalby 19:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, Humphrey is a little too obscure to have a popular image, and Sir Steven certainly is respected. However, it is an indisputed fact (am I wrong?) that he was effemenate, and most historians admit he probably was into men. Again, for such an obscure character, there's certainly a good amount of evidence. But what I've wondered is whether Humphrey was a coward or just soft and innocent. Personally I pity him. Augustulus 18:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Runciman is respected but a little quaint nowadays; he probably thought Humphrey was gay but was too coy to say that directly. I would say it is not really disputed at all one way or the other, in the sense it is not an important question. Everyone seems to agree that he didn't like fighting or disputes of any sort, and that he was very devoted to Isabella, but everyone has different reasons for this, depending on whose side they are on. Adam Bishop 18:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Runciman is respected, but (besides being quaint, a lot of his interpretations have been challenged by historians over the past 50 years: he takes a lot of the Old French Continuation on trust, for example - when it's now known that very little of it is contemporary.
However, the main basis for Humphrey's image is the first part of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, which was sympathetic to his cause, but quotes a Latin couplet (attributed to Vergil in some MSS, but now attributed to Pseudo-Ausonius) which hints at sexual ambiguity. However, no primary sources indicate it was mentioned in the divorce proceedings, which turned entirely on parental consent and age of consent. He had fought in battle before this, and had been captured at Hattin. His refusal of Guy of Senlis's challenge suggests to me that he knew that, legally, Guy was right over the age of consent issue. Silverwhistle 20:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Really? I thought that the primary sources were all over him on that, or at least hinted it - 'almost a girl' could mean a lot. And he was probably captured because he didn't put up a fight in the first place. The fact that Saladin captured him twice and released him both times probably means that he was not a threat. And I don't think he was devoted to Isabella, because the marraige was never consummated, because he never gave her the opportunity, either because he was gay or because he had qualms about having sex with girls. Both are understandable, but they were married for a long time, through Isabella's teenage years.  At that age, she would probably be seeking out sex, especially from a husband as allegedly handsome as Humphrey. Augustulus 00:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

He captured pretty much all the important nobles at Hattin, and he let them all go, except Raynald of course. And no one says the marriage was unconsummated, do they? Adam Bishop 01:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Non-consummation is not mentioned in any account of the divorce proceedings. It would have made life much simpler for everyone if it had been! They were married when Isabella was 11. Consummation may have waited until she was physically mature. She was only in her fifteenth year when Humphrey was taken prisoner in 1187. Silverwhistle 09:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd say it was likely it was not consummated because they didn't have children! And fifteen is plenty mature. By 13 she'd be old enough for childbearing. That's puberty, and that's when the first periods start rolling in. Judging by the fact that Conrad of Montferrat was a scuzzball, he probably wanted to present Humphrey as a ravenous seuxal demon. That seems more likely to me. Augustulus 14:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what seems more likely to you. Adam Bishop 15:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes it does. History that far back is all about speculation. Your hero Gillingham speculates. Silverwhistle a few posts ago speculated on Humphrey and Guy of Senlis. I'm fine with it. It doesn't mean that they lack historical credibility, it's just that we're filling in the blanks. Formally, we must adhere to a neutral point of view, but what we believe is most likely is what goes in the history books, like it or not. That's the way it's been for seven thousand years. That's the way it's going to stay. Augustulus 17:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't much matter what me or Silverwhistle think about it either, since we don't write the books (well, I don't :)). Who are you? You are some guy on the internet (or perhaps three or four people) who inexplicably thinks Humphrey's marriage was never consummated and that he was "a ravenous sexual demon." Adam Bishop 17:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
"Judging by the fact that Conrad of Montferrat was a scuzzball"... Now that's what I call speculation above and beyond the bounds of reason...! Niketas Choniates would have argued against you very strongly on that, as would Bertran de Born:
"Seingner Conrat, tot per vostr'amor chan,
Ni ges no.i gart ami ni ennemi."
And I'm with them... Silverwhistle 18:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha. Well, what I think about Conrad is irrelevant. He just seems to me like a jerk. But, then again, so was pretty much everyone else at that time! Personally I'm just a Saladin kind of fellow. Sorry about that, but Conrad did shoot at his own dad ... makes me chuckle, but still.

Adam, tisk, tisk. Who I am is none of your business, and I am sad to see a bright guy such as yourself (and I'm not being sarcastic) resort to personal attacks just because he lost a few arguments. And I thought I had a short temper ... besides, I said that Conrad would probably have wanted Humphrey to look like a sex predator to push his case that he should marry Isabella, and therefore be king. And aren't we all "some guys on the internet"? We're people, and we're on the internet. We're all concerned about the truth. Silverwhistle is the most credible of us all, but at least I'm an intelligent "guy on the internet". Augustulus 19:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
No, you're trolling us, and I keep responding, and it's pissing me off. Adam Bishop 19:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
"Sorry about that, but Conrad did shoot at his own dad ... makes me chuckle, but still."... With his father's approval. And it was one man's life against those of the citizens and refugees in his care, and the fate of the whole kingdom. It doesn't seem to have affected their subsequent relationship.
"besides, I said that Conrad would probably have wanted Humphrey to look like a sex predator to push his case that he should marry Isabella, and therefore be king". But he didn't. I've read all the extant primary sources on the divorce, including the Papal Legate's investigation as part of the Champagne succession dispute in 1213. The annulment was based purely on the lack of parental consent and the fact that Isabella was a year under-age at the time of the marriage.
"And aren't we all "some guys on the internet"?" - Well, I'm not a "guy", for a start, and some of us are professionally trained historians. Silverwhistle 19:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Your ignorance disturbs me. I am not just some 'guy', and if I were not professionally trained in history, I would not continue on arguing with you. But you will agree that we are all humans, on the internet. I was pointing out the absurdity of that statement. And Adam, if I were trolling you, I would be stupid in the field of the Crusades, which I am not. I have no desire to piss you off. If I am insulting you, please let your rage out on my user talk page. Silverwhistle, I couldn't care less how much you like Conrad, but you have no need to defend him. I still think he was a jerk. Besides, if he never came to Tyre, Saladin would have spared the population and probably 100 years of bloodshed, and perhaps the gay crusade, would never have taken place. Perhaps a thousand years of bloodshed would never have taken place. It was unfortunate that Guy of Lusignan was weak enough to listen to Reynald, but Conrad's interference only intensified the conflict. I suggest we get back on the topic of Humphrey and how we can better this article. Again, please take this to my user page if you truly hate my guts. Augustulus 23:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Humphrey IV of Toron/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 20:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough review. Please find my comments below. Please let me know if any further action is needed. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Suggest mentioning Baldwin IV's death in the lead; we jump to Baldwin V's death after mentioning Baldwin IV's relief of Kerak, which is a bit confusing if we don't make it clear that Baldwin IV died in the interim.
I expanded the lead to mention Baldwin's leprosy and dead. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
1969 is early for an ISBN, so can you confirm that Baldwin is really the 1969 edition and not a later edition?
The book that I used do not mention a later year of publication. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
This provision of the marriage contract suggests that the king wanted to prevent Humphrey from uniting two large fiefs, Toron and Oultrejourdan: This is phrased as a tentative deduction, but in the lead it's stated as definitely known.
I rephrased the lead. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Before long, Saladin set Humphrey free again without demanding ransom: do we know why?
I do not remember reading about Saladin's motives. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Why is there a "See also" link to War of the Succession of Champagne?
As far as I can remember, the invalidity of the divorce of Isabella and Humphrey was mentioned during the debates about the succession of Isabella's third husband, Henry II, Count of Champagne, in the County of Champagne. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
That takes care of everything so I'm going to pass this.  I would suggest mentioning the leprosy in the body of the article, since it's now in the lead, but that's no reason to hold up promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the promotion. I expanded the article in accordance with your above suggestion. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)