Talk:Fulk, King of Jerusalem

message: I am of the opinion that Fulk of Jerusalem as a title for this page is just wrong. I cannot imagine any Wikipedia browser thinking of looking under that title. Possibly Fulk, King of Jerusalem would be better. David Lauder (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think anyone is more likely to search for that title? Adam Bishop (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because "Fulk of Jerusalem" is quite meaningless in real terms, firstly, and secondly because that is not how he was known at the time. At least not according to Steven Runciman et al. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are "real terms"? Why is "Fulk of Jerusalem" less meaningful than "Fulk, King of Jerusalem"? The only possible confusion comes from the Patriarch of the same name and same general time period, who is already disambiguated as "Patriarch Fulk of Jerusalem". And no, he was not called "Fulk of Jerusalem" at the time but neither was he called "Fulk, King of Jerusalem". In Latin he was called Fulco, and there were probably many different spellings of his name in French. He was usually referred to as the Count of Anjou, since he was never really king in his own right (since his power derived from his marriage to Melisende). Even Muslims called him "al-Kund Anjur". So what do we do with all this? "Fulk of Jerusalem" seems the easiest solution. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I naturally I agree with your comments as to what he was called exactly at the time, but we should not digress. This is the English language version of Wikipedia. And if this is to be a proper encyclopaedia which browsers can easily find whoever it is they are looking for, the "the easiest solution" here is wrong. Fulk of Jerusalem was meaningless to me. I simply stumbled upon it. I would never have sought him under that title. There are many many things in Wikipedia which need rectifying. This is one of them. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What did you search for? It's easy to make redirects to this page. I know he is listed in the Fulk article and there are a number of other redirects. We can create more from "Fulk, King of Jerusalem" or "King Fulk of Jerusalem". Adam Bishop (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is only a debate on whether "Fulk of Jerusalem" or "Fulk, King of Jerusalem" was a better title. Both editors had problems with the title as it then stood, and Adam Bishop himself said "He was usually referred to as the Count of Anjou, since he was never really king in his own right "; it therefore seemed more appropriate to move the title to "Fulk V, Count of Anjou", for the reasons I gave when moving (i.e. he was King by marriage, and (although he was theoretically allowed to govern with the rights of a King, and at first did so), his power was limited by his wife later in his reign). Michael  Sanders 16:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are either King, or you are not King. Irrelevant of by what means he was crowned, he ruled as a monarch, which should be recognized as the highest office he ever achieved. Redirects from Count Of Anjou to King of Jerusalem would be best in my oppinion. Regards --Tefalstar (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "You are either King, or you are not King" - except that isn't true. Or is Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley going to be moved to Henry I of Scotland? Fulk wasn't King in his own right, only by marriage; he didn't rule as a monarch after 1136, and even before that his father-in-law had limited his rights. On the other hand, he was unquestionably Fulk V, Count of Anjou, and it is by that name he was and is more commonly known. Michael  Sanders 20:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The real problem with preferring the comital title to the royal in the title (how he ruled is irrelevant: he was king) is that readers unfamiliar to the topic will probably find it unusual or confusing that a figure whose historical significance is as a King of Jerusalem should be called, foremost, a Count of Anjou. Srnec (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this is a good example of why people should look things up rather than trusting me implicitly, or why I should do more research before posting anything...Fulk is exclusively called "king" by William of Tyre, at least after he becomes king. Ibn al-Qalanisi calls him "al-Kund Anjur" possibly because he does not know his real name and does not know what Anjou is (he actually always says "Count of Anjou, the King of Jerusalem"). Usamah ibn Munqidh always calls him King (King of the Franks, King Fulk son of Fulk). There are more authors we could look at (Orderic Vitalis for example), but apparently I was wrong above, my memory was confusing various other facts. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think readers would find it more confusing that the son of the Count of Anjou and the father of the Count of Anjou was called "Fulk of Jerusalem". Michael  Sanders 15:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or they might be intrigued and want to read the article, and find to their excitement that there was a crusader kingdom of Jerusalem of which this Fulk was also king. "How wonderful!" they will say. "I must learn more about this fascinating period of history!" Adam Bishop (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, does anybody have a better suggestion than "Fulk of Jerusalem" or should I move it back and fix redirects? Srnec (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Continuity is good. Conrad I, after all, is not listed under Jerusalem. Michael  Sanders 18:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Conrad is universally called "of Montferrat", and his days-long un-crowned rule is a little different. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spot on. He was King and that should be the title he has, especially when there is considerable differences in how he was referred to. Any confusion can quickly be dealt with in the article's introduction, and if it increases awareness about this period then thats even better. Also, if limits on power have anything to do with it, Elizabeth II would be in trouble of losing her title, irrespective of birthright. regards --Tefalstar (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like 3 to 1 in favour of a move and it should be noted that the current titled is not even consistent with the other counts of Anjou ("Name X of Anjou"). Srnec (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Regardless of any other source, there is no contemporary (primary) document which names his birthplace.  So I've removed that.Wjhonson (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthplace