# Talk:Sibylla, Queen of Jerusalem

to quote the historian Baldwin about the factionalism leading to Hattin "since the kingdom was split into two factions, partisan historians handed down to posterity two sets of villains and heroes"
Hamilton, the main source of this article, clearly is biased on Sybilla's side; I am not going to present the other and start an edit war, by quoting Runciman, I will delete the most obbious POV and add facts reference by baldwin more neutral work
 

In the movie, "Kingdom of Heaven", she virtually ends-up with Balian.

I see Drachenfyre has already fixed this up, but I still have a question for 62.78: what exactly are you reading? Can you tell us which book(s) and which author(s) you are using? It would really be helpful here, especially since your other recent edits to Isabella, Humphrey, and Richard Lionheart have also been rather...suspect, to say the least. (I'll repeat again that it would also be helpful if you created a username.) Adam Bishop 18:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Not thankful for your persistent cries for "helpfulness". The response remains same: no.
In my personal bookshelf I have Zoe Oldenbourgs: the crusades. Years ago, i have read plenty of other books on crusades etc. e.g Runciman, Norwich, byzantine histories too. Howeve, I am not willing to misuse my time by trying to remember all books and articles I have read.
Then, finally, your cry "suspect", I believe, shows disgusting things about yourself. 62.78.124.139 20:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Wow, 62.78, your tyraid here shows "disgusting things about yourself", too! And I would say it shows more about yourself then anyone else.Drachenfyre 4 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)
And furthermore, for you to bludgeon onto these pages, which others have actively sought-out source material for, and to add uncorraborated material begs for others to question your sources. Your memory of past books read is not good enough for me. If you do not wish to be questioned, as clearly you do not, then you should come prepared with sources. I recommend for you to get off your high horse, mosey over to your book shelf or nearest libary, look up your sources, and document correctly. If not, expect others who have the source material to change your editsDrachenfyre 5 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)

Someone had written a comment (should we say proclamation): "Sibylla's legitimacy was secured, ratified, and aknowladged during the lifetime of her father and her brother. Only the adherants of the Maria Comena faction would have ressurected this notion."
That, however, is sadly wrong, in its straightforward oversimplification.
Everyone who has read about medieval customs, knows that they did not overly honor legislation or ratifications. All those depended on the power of the ruler who wanted the thing. A dead ruler was no more extremely mighty. You have to remember that centralized state was missing, as we know the state. Authorities, courts, and officialdom were quite like as such are today between sovereign states.
And we know that between states, even today, agreements and treaties are sometimes not worth of the ink which is spent to writing them.
In medieval local and reiona politics, ratifications of legitimacy were almost routinely voided and resurrected when lords battled on successions and inheritances. The matter regarding Baldwin and Sibylla was actually very tasty, since it was so good and clear. There had been mich flimsier causes (such as denying someone's legitimacy because their parents were in "spiritual kinship", one's parent was another's godparent. Or a marriage annulled because the church doors were not open during the marriage wows.)
It is no untruth that the Kingdom of Jerusalem was perceived as a republic of noble houses and religious orders. A republic without centralized byrocracy. Rather a republic with "particularist laws" and with exterritorial rights.
For example, Zoe Oldenbourg in her book "The Crusades", p 389, and in other places too, mentions the widespread idea that Agnes de Courtenay's children could be regarded as bastards.
Medieval thinking was not necessarily logical nor consistent. King Baldwin IV was already crowned and consecrated as king by representatives of god, but Sybille was only a possible future claimant. When thinking about reasons to keep Sibylle away from the throne, they did not necessarily mean anything re B IV's status. And, in 1186, B IV was already dead, the question at hand was to have the monarch installed, as legally as possible.
It is relatively funny that Baldwin IV's own testament also laid the situation like that: it specifically was built on idea that Sibylla was not necessarily the rightful heiress, that Isabella could have as good or better rights. Baldwin IV did that and did not mention about the legality of his own rule. 62.78.104.183 23:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is nice that Drachenfyre wants to be nice to this enormously good royal woman. It is a nice thing that she desires that only nice things ever happened to the queen. Sadly, also bad things happened in real world. Such as that Sybille was born of couple which later was deemed not a valid marriage. It caused the shadow of bastardy upon Sybille.
I think that the repetitive eagerness with which she and her allies at the time pleaded her right, is itself arousing suspicion whether her right there contemporary was held strong. Need of such proclamations of course signals some weakness in her right. I think everyone there knew her be the elder daughter of Amalric I - and, it itself was sufficient, were there no problems in her legal right. However, Reynald needed to stress her right in overflowing words to the populace. And Bernard Hamilton (apparently a biographer) has obviously so much taken his research object's interests in his heart that he stresses her legal right, I think, too much. From my analysis, I have concluded that Bernard Hamilton thus is a recent partisan, at least supporter, of Sibylla, which is why Hamilton's writings should be treated cautiously. 62.78.106.246 07:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I get the impression you have not looked at certain books before you talk about them (nor have you seen certain movies). It might be a good idea to at least look at the book, you don't even have to read it! Anyway, certainly Hamilton is not the only authority on the subject, but taking the opposite stance - that Sibylla somehow usurped the throne, or whatever you are trying to imply - is not a good idea either. Adam Bishop 22:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not a bastard: According to her father, Sibylla was his heir, along with her brother. This is the "security" of which I wrote. The Latin Church of Jerusalem, which negociated the annulment, rulled that though the marrage was annuled, Sibylla and Baldwin IV were the legal successors of their father. This was the ratification with which I wrote. The "aknowladged" portion with  was the continued assumption that Sibylla was the heir to the throne all the way up to 1183. Indeed, she was assumed the heir to such a degree and was the focus as the best way to reach kingship even the Iblin family moved to have her married into their ranks... and if one were to accept Eroul's acct, she too would have married into that family had it not been for the agressive moves of Tripoli and Bohemud. Sibylla was married to Guy so as not to have her married to someone they choose. Knig Baldwin IV was good with this as he had to give his accent. It was not until Guy's behaivor irritated the realm that Sibylla, hitherto the direct heir of her brother, own position became weakened. Drachenfyre 4 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)
In view of this, it is a small matter that Sibylla's opponants used a "wisker" of illigitmacy to promote their own claim: namely young Isabelle's claim to the throne.Drachenfyre 4 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)

Someone is putting back the small piece "would have also negated Baldwin IV's rule" into the place dealing with 1186, when Baldwin IV already was dead, over a year. At that point, it is clear hopefully to us all that any negation re B IV was not relevant. His reign already ended and in facto he reigned. Nothing could negate its existence. On the other hand, the fact that he reigned (say, mistakes happen), does not make Sibylla any more legitimate than she is.
Were that piece offered to some point of B IV's reign, it would be relevant, but as postmortem it is irrelevant. Therefore I am removing it from that place.
We have to remember that people overall are not logical nor consistent. Use of the same pretext against  Sibylla does not mean that it must be used (have been used) against Baldwin IV. People do so, also did in those days.
Medieval people were particularly illogical, because of their religious (better: superstitious) beliefs. To many it would have been perfectly well to think that things went bad during an illegitimate's reign, therefore the illegitimate sister should not be allowed to ascend. Superstition: no more curse, if no illegitimate ruler any longer.
In real world there in 1170's-80's, I think Baldwin IV was uncontestedly allowed to reign because

he was male, and only male available, there were no close male heirs of the royal dynasty (only cousins and second cousins)
in Middle Ages, bastards succeeding were not unheard of - there plenty of cases...
the legitimate Isabella was almost an infant when B IV ascended - at that point, not very useful to favor Isabella
later, B IV was apparently regarded as sort of saint - medieval people tended to awe in front of sickness  62.78.124.139 20:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
In the real world there in the 1170's-'80's, I think Sibylla was legitimate because
1) She was recognized as the legal successor of her father in 1163
2) The Latin Church of Jerusalem ruled she was legitimate, though the origional marrage was annuled
3) Sibylla remained the chief focus for ambitious rulers through out her brother's reign as the best way to the kingship
4) More Importantly: Sibylla took the initive and negociated with the Haute Cour, who endorsed her as Queen. Ultimatly, it was this same haute Cour that suported her grandmother Melisende, her father Almeric I, her brother Baldwin IV.
Drachenfyre 4 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)
It would be desirable that Drachenfyre were not to make so many typos all over the place. And (4) Haute Cour changed all the time. Certainly there were not very many members of HC to decide upon Sibylla's accession who had supported her grandmother. (3) Isabella's potential grew as she reached her teens and later adulthood. Do not forget that she was perhaps a decade younger than Sibylla. Thus, Sibylla's position had a tendency to weaken every year. (2) and (1) father's decision did not mean very much, particularly after he died. All the time, kings' testaments were even ignored. The church changed its mind all the time, and clerics battled among themselves. Many were opportunists. One of the basics regarding the medieval church's rulings on marriage and legitimact was the idea of marriage being unviolable sacrament, it either existed for life or did not exist. Divorce was unknown, in pinciple. This here also was annulation. Sibylla's legitimization was the exception to church principles, and such exceptions tend to crumble and deteriorate when circumstances change and new decisionmakers ascend. I believe the problem of "bastardy" was existent all those years, and rather important in the later stages. 217.140.193.123 20:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The underlying issue is her marriage. If she had been married to anyone but Guy - if William had lived, say - it's unlikely her right to succeed would have been challenged so fiercely. But stopping Sibylla - or making her annul him - was the only way to stop Guy. Silverwhistle 20:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In the article, someone wants to keep the entire sentence "Bernard Hamilton wrote "there is no real doubt, following the precedent of Melisende, that Sibylla, as the elder daughter of King Amalric, had the best claim to the throne; equally, there could be no doubt after the ceremony that Guy only held the crown matrimonial.". However, it is on the spot where clearly is an analysis of crowned Sibylla, and position of Guy. Thus, the argument should only deal there with the Guy position, i.e was it crown matrimonial or something bigger. I hope that no one mixes the question of Sibylla's personal right there, as it is a different argument and controversial, dealt elsewhere.
Because of these reasons, from that pot, I will remove the idea "Bernard Hamilton wrote "there is no real doubt, following the precedent of Melisende, that Sibylla, as the elder daughter of King Amalric, had the best claim to the throne", and leave only that part of citation that deals with crown matrimonial. 62.78.124.139 20:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

There should be an infobox for the article, seeing as most royals and nobles have one.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added one. Have juggled the images around to fit slightly. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Since the infobox makes this claim, in what sense was Agnes of Courtenay Sibylla's predecessor? Seems to me, unless we're being sexist about this, her predecessor was Baldwin V. Andrew Dalby 17:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. Surtsicna (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sibylla, Queen of Jerusalem/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Reverosie (talk · contribs) 21:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: MallardTV (talk · contribs) 16:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Earwig finds 79.3% similarity to findagrave.com/memorial/261330574/sibylle-d&, 46.2% to https://pantheon.world/profile/person/Sibylla,_Queen_of_Jerusalem, and 45.7 to https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7722/j.ctt7zssjh (I'm pretty sure they all just copy the article content though LOL)
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Looks pretty perfect to me.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
"to whom she was unwaveringly attached despite his unpopularity..." may read a bit as editorialized. But its all good.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
I love the images!
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

@MallardTV and Reverosie:, I see that the article has been marked as a GA but I do not see the review–and I can scarcely believe that I wrote something perfect on the first attempt. Surtsicna (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I made a lot of edits to the article by implementing a completely new source, but I was very much shocked by the quick pass as well. 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 19:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
@Surtsicna and @Reverosie, I agree that it is not perfect. It is, however, meeting all GA criteria. Along with that, the things that could be improved are already very nice and would be for the most part just flow-related. So no, it isn't perfect, but yes, it is a strong GA. MallardTV  Talk to me!  19:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much!!! 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 19:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Apologies, @Reverosie. I did not mean to disregard your contribution. I find the review to be disappointingly barebones, @MallardTV. There is not a single source spot check; no attempt to check whether the files used have US copyright tags; and the conclusion that Earwig's finding of a 45.7% copyright violation for the 2004 Haskins Society Journal article must be due to Haskins (!) copying this article is just wholly unserious. Surtsicna (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Oh no, that wasn't what I thought you meant at all! I agree with you that the review is quite short; if you find anything, let me know, and I'll fix it! 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 20:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: Many of the images indeed had issues. I've fixed them myself (hopefully I did it right) 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 20:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
@Surtsicna Oh goodness! The similarity thing... I 100% was thinkinh about the find a grave entry when I wrote that part and didn't connect the dots. The copyvio is concerning. As for the spot check, I did one, but neglected to write it all down here. I certainly did not go about this in the best way. MallardTV  Talk to me!  22:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)