# Talk:John of Brienne

If John was born around 1148, then he would have been nearly 90 years old by the time of his death around 1237. It is noted that his grandfather, Walter II, Count of Brienne[1], had a son named Jean de Brienne who was the abbott of Beaulieu from 1156 to 1192 and may have been confused with John of Brienne, the King of Jerusalem, Especially on the presumed birth-year of 1148. King John of Brienne was probably born in 1170 or 1175, as he was one of the 5 children of Erard II, Count of Brienne[2]. Sundehul 18:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

After now 5 requests for a source supporting this claim that J. de Brienne has been titled "duke of Philippopolis" (i.e., a source that indeed DOES support this claim, not a source that is vaguely related to the subject), User:Vagrand has again reverted to the unsourced version without 1)providing the needed source 2)answering the request on his talkpage. I ask a 6th time: is there a precise quotation from a reliable source supporting this claim?--Phso2 (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

See bg article: "Under the accord signed on April 9, 1229 in Perugia between the Latin Empire and the former Jerusalem King Jean de Brienne, the latter takes possession of the Duchy of Philippopolis and became Duke of Philippopolis for the period 1229 to 1237." (notte 22 given in bg.wikipedia.org: Проект на договор между Латинската империя и ерусалимския крал Йоан от 9 април 1229 г., в: "Латински извори за българската история", том ІV, БАН, София, 1988 г., с.36) and Tresor de chronologie, d'histoire et de géographie pour l'étude et emploi des documents du moyen-age.--Vagrand (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
At last...The first source is a compilation of primary sources with a few commentaries, and neither the primary source nor the commentary appear to support the information that Brienne became duke of Philippopolis; this seems merely to be the personnal interpretation of the original Bulgarian WP contributor, and this interpretation is contradicted by published sources. Moreover, the primary source is a draft treaty which was amended in its final form of april 1229 (the one published by Buchon) and which safegarded the rights of G. de Stroim on the duchy; so without another source about this matter one cannot conclude that Brienne and his heirs (which had carreers in the West and never returned to the East after childhood) were ever dukes of Philippopolis.--Phso2 (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC) PS: Mas-Latrie doesn't even mention Jean de Brienne...
Having looked over the primary sources, I tend to agree that Brienne was never duke of Philippopolis. The text of the treaty of Perugia is given on pp. 21–22 of Buchon's Éclaircissements in the notes; as best I can make it out, it seems that when he turned twenty, he would be invested with the Kingdom of Nicaea and the lands of the Empire "ultra Bracchium" (across the Hellespont, in Asia Minor), with the exception of the Duchy of Nicomedia. John's heirs might choose either the lands "ultra Bracchium" or in Europe (including the duchy of Philippopolis) and do homage to Baldwin and his heirs for them. But the treaty seems to recognize Gerard as duke and notes that it doesn't intend to infringe on existing rights-presumably the difference is that Gerard would now be doing homage for his duchy to John's heirs, rather than directly to the Latin Emperor. (Think of the way the Angevins spun off the suzerainty of Achaia from the Empire in the Treaty of Viterbo. At any rate, John's heirs don't appear to have made any claim to their (fairly worthless) rights after his death in 1237. Choess (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:John of Brienne/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Coming to this soon. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
No copyvio detected, no dablinks. Once again, a fairly well-written masterpiece. Only a few comments: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

General
A lot of duplicate links. Try this tool to wipe out the unnecessary links.
Early life
are obviously invented I think "apparently" will make it sound more like a general opinion, as it is it seems as if we said it. Nothing mandatory, I felt I should share my view.
if his father sent John to a monastery he left before taking monastic vows I could not understand how you come to this conclusion
John's father, Erard II No need to introduce him again
His oldest son, Walter III Should not you say "Walter III" when you refer to him for the first time, in the 1st para?
Two versions of Ernoul's chronicle tell different stories about John's ascent to the throne of Jerusalem Are there only two versions, or are they two among many? If it is just two, we can say "The two versions of Ernoul's chronicles differ in their accounts of John's..." which I feel sounds better
King of Jerusalem
Wikilink "Holy See"
Papal service
Even if this account was fabricated Are you saying this account was really fabricated (You should be saying "even though"), or are you presenting a possibility?
Emperor of Constantinople
but Besse also described I think you should say Bernard and not Besse (he is "of Besse").
Historian Guy Perry wrote that John Simply "Perry" would do
Family
Check that this section does not repeat details from previous sections.
 His youngest son John Comma before John
Sainsf, thank you for your thorough review. I tried to fix all above problems. Sorry, I cannot use the tool you suggested above (generally, I am unable to use most tools offered by WP). I assume that the Family section contains duplinks, but I think it is actually a separate part of the article, so the duplications helps users to identify his family members. Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Most of those duplinks can then be retained. I am happy we can promote this now. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Saying that John was co-ruler and regent from Isabella, is factually incorrect. You are either co-monarch (meaning you are recognized as head of state), or regent (you are ruling in name of head of state, and if head of state dies or comes of age, your right to power expire). 
I didn't see any Queen regent being listed as co-ruler, so I do not understand why King regent should be.
Empress Teofano is not listed as co-ruler, because she was only regent for Otto III. She was called 'empress' because she was widow after emperor, but she was not co-monarch with Otto; she ruled in his name. Similarly John was called 'King' because he was widower after queen, but he was no longer formal sovereign: Isabella was. John was regent and dowager-King, not her co-sovereign. This is why he lost his right to rule after Frederick married Isabella; Frederick became king by marriage and co-ruler of Isabella, and because he was of age, John's right to regency expired. Sobek2000 (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you refer to reliable sources verifying your above statements, and also explaining their relevance in the article's context? For sources verifying the infobox I refer to sections "Conflicts" and "Negotiations" from the article. Borsoka (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
I do not understand your question. Article basically agrees with me - it literally says at the beggininng that John was regent for Isabella. Then in section Conflict this sentence: "Most of the Jerusalemite lords remained loyal to the king, acknowledging his right to administer the kingdom on behalf of his infant daughter". Then section "Negotiations" says: "Frederick declared that John had lost his claim to the Kingdom of Jerusalem when Isabella married him; he styled himself king of Jerusalem for the first time in December 1225"
Definitions of regent, here we go:
"a person who rules a country for a limited period, because the king or queen is absent or too young, too ill, etc.", https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/regent
"a person who governs a kingdom in the minority, absence, or disability of the sovereign", https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regent (few meanings, I pasted the one that isimportant in context of our conversation)
From wikitionary, few meanings, important to our conversation is: "One who rules in place of the monarch, especially because the monarch is too young, absent, or disabled".
Wikipedia definition on Regent page states: "a person appointed to govern a state pro tempore (Latin for 'for the time being') because the actual monarch is a minor, absent, incapacitated or unable to discharge their powers and duties, or the throne is vacant and a new monarch has not yet been determined".
If we agree that John ruled on behalf of his infant daughter and that he lost his claim in the moment Frederick married Isabella, that means John was regent for Isabella, not co-ruler with her.  Sobek2000 (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
The article says that nothing was so clear as you summarise: John regarded himself co-ruler and regent. Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

John also certainly did not feel that he lost his claim the moment Frederick married Isabella, as we can see from his actions in the years afterwards... Adam Bishop (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
I am not talking how John regarded himself - I am talking about formalities. Formally, John's claim came from being husband of Queen. And this claim ended in moment Maria died - article clearly says John was regent for Isabella. If he was co-ruler, he wouldn't be regent, as he would rule in his own right, not on behalf of his daughter.
Your argument that John believed he deserves to be co-ruler of Jerusalem, does not make him one legally. John was opposing Frederick, but he was no longer recognized as king by noblemen after Isabella's marriage, and he soon left Jerusalem, as there was nothing left there for him. He had no right to rule there.
'John regarded himself co-ruler and regent' - You are still missing the point. Person cannot be at the same time co-ruler and regent, at least from formal point of view (of course there can be situation when one of co-rulers is dominant figure, and other reigns only nominally, but I am talking here solely about formalities, not how situation look in practice).
Co-ruler is person who rules alongside other person. (For example: John and Maria, Isabella I and Henry of Champagne, Sibylla and Guy, Baldwin III and Baldwin IV, Henry II of England and his son Henry the Young King, Cleopatra and Caesarion).
Regent is person who rules on other's person behalf. (John of Ibelin on behalf of Maria, Teofano on behalf of Otto III, Kosem Sultan on behalf of Murad IV). John's right was solely as regent on behalf of Isabella. The only reason he was titled 'king' during his regency with Isabella is because he was previously king iure uxoris alongside Maria. But after she died, he was no longer king in his own right, just like Teofano was no longer empress in her own right after detah of her husband.
I already gave anology in my first post - when it's dowager queen who is regent on behalf of her son, none claims she is co-ruler, as she obviously is not - she is temporary ruler, until boy comes of age. And John was widowed/former king who was temporary ruler because his daughter was child.
That is what article says. I quote once again: "Most of the Jerusalemite lords remained loyal to the king, acknowledging his right to administer the kingdom on behalf of his infant daughter". If he ruled only on his daughter's behalf, then he was not co-ruler with her. And indeed Frederick had later no problem to take power for himself after marrying Isabella, as John was Maria's widower, not king in his own right. If John was still ruling king, they would simply continue to rule together. John had no right to rule because after Maria's death he was only regent, whose right to the throne expired after Isabella provided Jerusalem with new adult king by her marriage.  Sobek2000 (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
John of Brienne was also co-monarch and regent in the Latin Empire. He was elected co-emperor and regent of the Latin Empire for life.
If John was just a dowager-King, why did Frederick need to strip him of the title of king?
According to the book "John of Brienne: King of Jerusalem, Emperor of Constantinople, c.1175–1237"
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=4XhaAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA69
"Like other king(-consorts) of Jerusalem both before and after him, John seems to have believed that anointing and coronation had conferred on him the inalienable right to rule as king for life"
"This question becomes all the more pertinent when we bear in mind that John not only retained the rule of the kingdom but contrived to keep the crown itself. In this way, he set a precedent that would be followed, in rather different circumstances, by his successor as king of Jerusalem, the Emperor Frederick II."
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=4XhaAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA70
"There may even have been scope for major differences of opinion con-cerning precisely what had happened in 1212-13. Some could regard John as still king for life, whilst others could see him as merely a crowned regent."
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=4XhaAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA145
"Isabella, aged only fifteen or sixteen, had died a month earlier like her mother, just after childbirth leaving behind an infant son, Conrad. Frederick was able to take advantage of the precedent established by King John back in 1212-13, though. Not only did the emperor retain the crown of Jerusalem during Conrad's minority, but, even after that, he continued to regard himself as king of Jerusalem for life."
John was not just a regent. He set a new precedent. Acolex2 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
You cannot be co-monarch and regent at the same time. That is mutually exclusive. If you are regent, then you are not co-monarch. If you are co-monarch there is no need for you to be regent, because you virtually cannot be higher than being monarch. John used title of "King", but the same way Teofano called herself "Empress" - would you say that she was co-monarch?
' co-emperor and regent of the Latin Empire for life.' - If John was co-emperor, than he was not regent. If John was elected emperor, that means he was recognized as ruler in his own right there.
'If John was just a dowager-King, why did Frederick need to strip him of the title of king?' - Frederick did not strip him from title of King. He stripped him of King's power. John could continue call himself "King" - but that would be honorary title, just like you would still call dowager Queen consort "A Queen" - but it wouldn't mean you recognize her power. Teofano was still called empress after she widowed.
'John seems to have believed that anointing and coronation had conferred on him the inalienable right to rule as king for life' - Please, if you answer, first read what I wrote. I said very specifically: "I am not talking how John regarded himself - I am talking about formalities." I do not care how John regarded himself - I am talking solely about whom he was formally: and formally he was regent for his daughter, who used title of King, but did not rule in his own right.
Example of Frederick is strawman argument, as Frederick situation was the same - right for him to rule came from his wife, and was retained because his son was minor, and father obviously had full control over him. I do not care how Frederick regarded himself. It's not about how ruler regarded himself, but what was his formal status.
If Teofano regarded herself as co-monarch to Otto III, that still wouldn't make her one, because she rule don behalf of her son, not in her own right. In the same way John ruled on behalf of Isabella, not with her. And regardless what John thought, noblemen of Kingdom clearly did not recognized his authority anymore after Frederick married Isabella.  Sobek2000 (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't really know what else we can tell you. Sometimes "formalities" and strict dictionary definitions just don't matter at all. Reality is much more complicated/interesting. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I will try different way: saying that someone is co-monarch and regent is like saying that X is president and vice-president at the same time. It's factually incorrect. Either X is president, or they deputize president. Reality was that John (dowager king) was regent for Isabella (who was Queen regnant) and article itself says this.
'Sometimes "formalities" and strict dictionary definitions just don't matter at all' - But they do matter. John was dowager King and regent for his daughter. In the moment his daughter got married, John lost his power as he no longer was her male guardian. This is very simple and I do not know what it is so hard to understand for you.
If wikipedia do not consider queens regents as co-ruler, I do not understand why do you insist to John be recognized as co-ruler, when he was not.  Sobek2000 (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Where are the references to support your opinion? I remember the talk on Talk:List of pharaohs. You asked for endless references. You know the importance of references. I can't agree with you because of the book "John of Brienne: King of Jerusalem, Emperor of Constantinople, c.1175–1237". References are the most important thing on Wikipedia.
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=4XhaAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA70
"There may even have been scope for major differences of opinion con-cerning precisely what had happened in 1212-13. Some could regard John as still king for life, whilst others could see him as merely a crowned regent."
There have been many disputed monarchs throughout history. For example, about Theodora (wife of Theophilos) and Eudokia Makrembolitissa, Some references say they were regents, some say they were monarchs. Wikipedia shows all those references.
You should also respect all references and if there are conflicting references, write both sides of them. Acolex2 (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
From encyclopedia britannica on John's page https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Byzantine-emperor: "John reached the Palestinian town of Acre on September 13, 1210, married Mary the following day, and was crowned at Tyre on October 3. Mary died in 1212, and John was named regent for their infant daughter, Yolande de Brienne, who inherited the crown as Isabella II. (...) As regent, John arranged a five-year truce with al-Malik al-ʿĀdil, sultan of Egypt and Syria, in July 1212. "
"John then married Berengaria, daughter of Ferdinand III of Castile, and in 1225 gave his daughter Isabella in marriage to the Holy Roman emperor Frederick II, trying to retain his rights as regent of the kingdom of Jerusalem. Immediately following the marriage, however, Frederick began to contest these rights."
From Isabella's page https://www.britannica.com/biography/Isabella-II-queen-of-Jerusalem: "The daughter of John of Brienne and Mary (Marie) of Montferrat, Isabella inherited the throne on her mother’s death in 1212, but her father ruled as regent and guardian and even continued to style himself as king (though he had been legally only king consort)."
References you cited yourself do support my statement: "Some could regard John as still king for life, whilst others could see him as merely a crowned regent".
Ultimately it does not matter of 'some' saw him as rightful king - 'some' people believed Arthur I should be King of England, which does not change fact he never legally became one. Whatever 'some' people view John as, he clearly was legally widower of one Queen and Regent for another Queen.
I am not familiar with Eudokia and Theoroa, so I am not gonna comment this. What I can comment is that person cannot be legally regent and co-monarch at the same time, just like you cannot be president and vice-president at the same time. This is mutually exclusive. While some authors might reffer John as 'regent and co-ruler', authors are humans, and obviously often use oversimplified language or do mistakes. In wikipedia we should apply correct language.
I am not discussing there wheter John was co-ruler or regent. I am saying that person cannot legally be co-ruler and regent at the same time. That doesn't make any logical sens. Wikipedia's article acknowledges that John was regent on behalf of Isabella, so consistently he should be labelled in infobx as regent, not co-monarch. I am talking about legal situation he was in, not what were his personal beliefs.
I am saying here that calling someone regent and co-ruler in logically incorrect, and I do not care how many references you gonna point to, as I am not discussing here John's life and what he believed himself to be, but un-logical phrase that legally is contradiction. John can be labelled as co-ruler OR as regent - but not as both, as this is legally impossible, just like someone cannot be president and vice-president at the same time.    Sobek2000 (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
I know those pages of Encyclopædia Britannica.
The user Borsoka remove them from this page.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_of_Brienne&diff=prev&oldid=1146213925
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_of_Brienne&diff=prev&oldid=1146211356
It is because of those pages of Encyclopædia Britannica that John is described as regent and co-monarch.
Check the "23 March 2023" of the Revision history on this page.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_of_Brienne&action=history
I am surprised that you consider the pages of Encyclopædia Britannica to support your opinion. Acolex2 (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Some other (experienced) editor used Encyclopedia Britannica, so that's why I also consider it's a credible source. Sobek2000 (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
@Borsoka@Adam Bishop @Acolex2 Okay, what about this - labelling John as regent during Isabella's reign in infobox, with note that he still styled himself "King of Jerusalem" during this time. Sobek2000 (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
In the infobox on the page Baldwin II, Latin Emperor, John of Brienne is regent and co-emperor.
In the infobox on the page Erik of Pomerania, Margaret I of Denmark is regent and co-monarch.
In the infobox on the page Antiochus XIII Asiaticus, Cleopatra Selene of Syria is Co-ruler and regent.
Does your proposal mean these things?
There are many rulers for whom it is unclear whether they were regents or monarchs, so Wikipedia shows both sides of them. Acolex2 (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
@ Each case is its own and should be analyzed individually. I am not talking about situation where it's unknown/unclear if person was co-ruler or regent. I fully support stating in such situation that someone was "regent or possibly co-ruler". But you can only by one or other. You cannot be both at the same time. John is not described on his page as "regent or co-ruler" - he is described as "regent and co-ruler", which does not makes sens from legal point od view, as regent is deputy of ruler. It's like saying someone was "president and vice president" at the same time. My problem is not with acknowledging of possibility of co-ruling, my problem is with the way it's phrased, specifically in case of John.
John was not regent for Baldwin, because he ruled alongside him. John had full power when Baldwin was going, but was ruling because he was chosen as emperor, not on behalf of Baldwin.
Look, at Hatshepsut's case as analogy - she was first regent and then she became co-monarch. In the moment she became Pharaoh, she stopped being legally regent, because she ruled now in her own right and alongside Thutmose, not on his behalf. Of course Thutmose was still young, so she was making decisions in his name still, but legally her time as regent ended, she was now co-ruler and when Thutmose grew, she was still a Pharaoh, because she reign on her own. That is not the case with John and Isabella, as he ruled on her behalf whole time, not in his own right, and when Isabella married, right to rule was takien from him.
John could make decisions on Baldwin's behalf, but legally he was his co-emperor, not regent.  Sobek2000 (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
???
Did you forget the page of Encyclopædia Britannica you mentioned yesterday?
https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Byzantine-emperor
"In 1228 John was invited to Constantinople to be regent and coemperor with the young Baldwin II and arranged a match between Baldwin and his four-year-old daughter by Berengaria."
This is the reference you mentioned yesterday. John was a regent and co-emperor.
What is your purpose in this talk? Why don't you even remember the reference you mentioned? Acolex2 (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
I remember my references. I was simply focusing my attention on John's time in Jerusalem, not on all aspects of his life. Unfortunately, it seems, whoever was writing encyclopedia Britannica also cannot see difference between regent and co-ruler, though they ate least correctly assesed John was only regent during reign of Isabella.
My purpose is to show that language used by Wikipedia makes people confused, instead of clear things up. One cannot be regent and co-monarch - that is mutually exclusive. You mentioned Margaret I - I do not think she should be labelled as queen regnant; she was dowager queen regent, and there might be added some note or section in text that she is sometimes considered queen in her own right, but that is unclear; saying that someone was 'co-ruler and regent for their co-monarch' is simply logical nonsens. Maybe someone wrote such thing in book they published, but obviously such phrase doesn't make sens, and should be explained or noted in wikipedia.
I also wonder what is purpose of this talk  - why do you keep defending logical fallacy in language, instead of hep me claryfing things?
John should be labelled as co-emperor of Latin Empire and regent of Jerusalem for Isabella II (with note he styled himself as king during regency). He was not regent for Baldwin, because he was chosen for life - meaning that if Baldwin died, John would still remain as emperor. Regent is temporary function - you cannot be regent for life, that goes against whole purpos eof being regent. Saying he was regent for Baldwin is example brachylogy - yes, he was making decisions for Baldwin, but for position of ruler in his own right (equal to his co-monarch), not for position of regent (below monarch).
If you have such problem with me trying to clarify things and confusing mess some infoboxes are, please tell me who is regent, and who is co-monarch, and what is difference between those two things. I feel I need to have full picture of what you think on those terms, before we can go further.   Sobek2000 (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Yesterday, you mentioned the pages of Encyclopædia Britannica to support your opinion, and you said that you consider it's a credible source. But why do you suddenly not trust it?
Encyclopædia Britannica also has the page about the Latin Emperor Baldwin II. Let's look at that page.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Baldwin-II-Porphyrogenitus
"in 1228. In his minority the regency was entrusted to John of Brienne."
This page also says that John was regent. Just admit your mistake. The writer of Encyclopædia Britannica did nothing wrong. It's your mistake. Acolex2 (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
What is my mistake? I never said I consider Britannica credible source. I said that OTHER exprienced editor used once Britannica as 'credible source' and gave it as source, so I thought it's considered credible in wikipedia. I was focused solely on John's role in Jerusalem and I didn't pay attention to how he was described in relations to Baldwin. Britannica supported my claim about his regency with Isabella, but I failed to notice, it's still confuses terms in case of him and Baldwin.
You create straw man and avoid respond to question I asked. Stop focusing on Britannica - I think we both agree  itshouldn't be used as source in this debate - and focus on my question. John was regent for Isabella, and co-emperor for Baldwin. If he was 'regent' for Baldwin, than we should label every single ruler who legally co-ruled with his child "also regent", whcih would be ridiculous. So Henry II was "co-king and regent" for his son, according to you? No, he was co-king. If his son died - which happened - Henry II was still monarch, because he ruled in his own right, not on his son's behalf. If he was 'regent', he would lost all his power in moment he son died.
You cannot be regent and co-monarch. That is mutually exclusive. It's discussion about language, not about Britannica's credibility. I shouldn't use it because now you focuse not on the part that I actually discuss here. I was wrong to use Britannica, but I do not backtrack on my claim - person cannot be legally both co-monarch and regent. They are either co-monarch OR regent.
Once again I am asking you: who is regent, and who is co-monarch? It's impossible to have this discussion, if I don't know what you understand by this terms. Sobek2000 (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I can't agree with your opinion because you do not have any references to support your opinion.
In the Talk:List of pharaohs you said to me:
"Are you able to read? Beacuse each source you bring agrees with me."
"I wanted have dialogue, but you ignored all my arguments and all sources I provided, and your own sources were agreeing with me."
And in this talk, I wanted have dialogue, but you ignored all my arguments and all sources I provided, and your own sources were agreeing with me. Acolex2 (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I am tired. I suggest this form to you
"| succession2 = Regent of Jerusalem
| moretext2 = (disputed)"
Like the pages Sisowath Kossamak and Jadwiga of Poland, I will add  "efn" to the infobox. Is it okay? Acolex2 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
What references? I gave you what is definition of regent. I linked several definitions what regent is. Being regent (temporary ruler) directly contradicts being co-ruler (constant ruler alongside other person(s)). What else reference you want? Because what we need here is clear definition is regent, not something that writer who had used brachylogy wrote. Writers do mistakes, but that is why we have clear definitions of words so we can correct them. (My source was NOT argeeing with you on case of Isabella & John.)
I accept your suggestion, but I will remaind you, I had already proposed very similar thing two days ago. We could have implement this long ago instead of arguing.
I don't think he should be labelled as 'regent (disputed)' because it is not his regency that was disputed, only his kingship. People were not questioning his right to rule as long as Isabella was minor, people were questioning wheter he has right himself to rule, without Isabella. "Regent of Jerusalem" + note (that explains he styled himself as king during regency) should suffice.
Question is now, what to do with him as 'regent for Baldwin'. I do think he should be labelled simply as co-emperor of Latin Empire, without phrase "also regent for his co-monarch", as John ruled in his own right alongside Baldwin. Being co-monarch nulifies need for regency, as person cannot be higher than monarch. I can agree there is bit legal mess around situation with Isabella, but it's cut clear and clean that he was recognized emperor at the same as Baldwin, so they were co-rulers, not regent and co-ruler. That John was actual ruler as senior monarch until Baldwin comes of age is understood, explaining he was 'also regent' is moot.   Sobek2000 (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Too many books say that John of Brienne was regent for Baldwin II.
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=eU9jBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA41
"while John of Brienne (1229-37), the regent co-emperor for Baldwin II (1237-61) and Latin emperor of Constantinople"
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=4oqrAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA62
"A warrior was clearly needed and the regency and co-emperorship was offered to one of the foremost soldiers of the day, John de Brienne (c. 1170-1237)"
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=tNDCpBNqXuUC&pg=PT452
"John campaigned in Italy for the pope and finally served as regent for Baldwin II and co-emperor in the Latin Empire of Constantinople."
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=KlYKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PT64
"Jean de Brienne (1228-37), titular king of Jerusalem, ruled as regent for Baldwin II, and saved Constantinople from an attack of the allied Bulgarians and Greeks."
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=B0NMAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA517
"Jean de Brienne, titu-lar king of Jerusalem, next took the reins of power as regent for Baldwin II. (1228-37)."
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=TJRPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA115
"Jean de Brienne was at the same time invited to Constantinople, to act as regent for the young Latin Emperor, Baldwin de Courtenai,"
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=A0LPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA178
"It was this astonishing veteran who prolonged by his regency of eight years (1229-1237) the days of the dying empire."
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=hp76BnwczzgC&pg=PA310
"John of Brienne, regent (1229-37)"
I can't ignore these books. What do you think? Acolex2 (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
What do I think? - I think clearly authors intended to make it more confusing to readers. I would argue that "co-emperor" encompases regent already: Baldwin was young, so of course John ruled in his stead and on this level he was acting as regent, but on legal level they were equal as co-monarchs - that is what made him different than 'average' regent.
But of course, I am powerless if so many authors use title 'regent and co-monarch' - apparently they have no problem with this term, though it's big brachylogy that only make person confused, wheter person belongs on list of rulers or only on list of regents.
I would say this: When Hatshepsut became Pharaoh, she of course was still making decisions for Thutmose, but on legal level she was equal to him, ruling in her own right, and same with John and Baldwin. To me in moment when person becomes co-monarch, they should stopped being calling a 'regent', as regent is used towards person who rules temporarily, whereas person becames co-monarch for life (unless they are deposed or abdicate), and John was chosen to rule In Empire for life (unlike in Jerusalem, when he was accepted only until Isabella comes of age or marries).
Or, when Sigismund I the Old made his son as co-king, he became de facto regent for boy, as August was too young to make decision, so of course father ruled in his stead and made decisions in name of both of them. But none is ever reffering Sigismund as "also regent for his co-monarch" in any historical book about them I had read. Sigismund did not ceased to be King, that was his highest title, and that is how he is reffered. Similarly with John - being Emperor is the highest title, so calling him regent is unnecessary in my opinion.
But I am no longer going to argue - since you presented so many books using this terminology, you decide what description should given. I explained why I think co-monarch/co-ruler is sufficient, but I can't do nothing if you think otherwise.
I would then wish only added to infobox he was regent of Jerusalem with note he styled himself King, and transfer Isabella from section "co-rulers" into section "monarch" under his regent title.  Sobek2000 (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
I will add "efn" to the infobox and write "John is sometimes described as regent for Baldwin. blah blah......" Is it okay?
I am tired. If other users don't agree with your opinion, you will need to talk to them again. Acolex2 (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
I think it's okay. I am tired too. Thank your for your time. Sobek2000 (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
According to our relevant policy, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source." Britannica is a tertiary source. Furthermore, our own understanding of certain terms is irrelevant as per WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)