# Talk:Isabella I of Jerusalem

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)