Talk:House of Ibelin

message: Really, Maria Comnena was the only really ROYAL common ancestor of Ibelins. In the first generations, there really was no other wife who would have been from clear royalty. All others were noblewomen of more or less mediocre ancestry.
And, later wives were then not COMMON ancestors of all Ibelins, but ancestors of only a few members of the big family. Already because of this fact, I will not bother to mention them. Besides, are there any highly royal anyway?
Speaking of Maria Comnena's ancestry, she (according to genealogical and historical research) really had extraordinary some ancestors: from old Bagratides, through clear descent, and not such guessed as with some other branches. Therefore, I do not like that someone is trying to suppress that info. "related" is not enough - as she was clearly descended. Carried the blood.
Georgia is true.
Armenia is wrongly understood by editor X. It was the proper Armenia, ancestors even from Hellenistic era. Please do not confuse with that semi-crusading principality in Cilicia. It is not the same.
Bulgaria: any good genealogist knows that Comnenos family had an ancestress who descended from certain Bulgarian tsars of 10th century.
The Bagrations of Armenia proper, Maria's ancestors, according to contemporary Armenian sources really were descended from Persian and Parthian monarchs of Hellenistic & late Roman era (including Seleucides and Achaimenides). I suggest you to check relevant books, such as Charles Settipani, Nos ancetres de l'Antiquité, 1991. 62.78.126.61 18:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be more appropriate to put this on the page about the Comneni, rather than the Ibelins? The fact that Maria is descended from the Bulgarian tsars, etc. is almost completely irrelevant to an article about the Ibelins (although the fact that she was Byzantine royalty is relevant). Choess 18:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was a most important thing to poor Ibelins, as they did not have any other royal blood, coming from mediocre knights of obscure origin. Middle Ages, the highest descent was extremely important for nobility. They were social climbers. And they, living in Cyprus (earlier Palestine) were close to earlier realms of Seleucides, Persia, Achaimenides, Arsacides, and Armenia. Geographically even closer than Comneni in constantinople. 62.78.105.154 21:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Armenia was closer, but the Bagratid monarchy had collapsed for some time. Bulgaria and Georgia, I daresay, were further from the traditional Ibelin seats of power. (And I'm a bit skeptical about Bagratid claims of descent; the Rupenides traditionally claimed Bagratid descent, too, but Ruedt-Collenberg, who thoroughly studied Armenian genealogy, felt the original ancestor had been a retainer of King Gagik, which was inflated into a blood relationship later on.) And remember that the Byzantine Emperor made most of the leaders of the First Crusade swear fealty too him,  continued to take military action in the Crusader States through the fall of Edessa, periodically reassert suzerainity over Cilician Armenia, and so forth. Her Byzantine ties would have mattered to the d'Ibelin, not any descent from vanished Eastern states (which would have been shared with her kin, the Byzantine Emperors, anyway). Choess 22:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Maria Comnenas ancestry

message: Any idea what became of the family after the settled in Cyprus? Are there any people now living who can claim them as ancestors? Fergananim
:Well, as 62.78 added, "practically all Catholic royalty in recent centuries" have an Ibelin in their family somewhere. Adam Bishop 04:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Latter Ibelins

message: I think the family tree is screwed up (probably by me). Some people are in the wrong generation? It would probably also help to add dates. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I think I fixed it now. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family tree 

message: The scope of this article is a bit unclear: the lead sentence says that Ibelin “was a castle in the Crusader kingdom of Jerusalem”, while the hatnote states, (and the content reflects) that the article is “about a former crusader family”.
It needs to be one or the other, so I have re-written the introduction (the co-ordinates are wrong, anyway), and the first section, to resolve the matter. 
We could do with an article on the castle anyway, so I've taken that stuff out, and focused this on the noble house. I trust everyone is OK with that. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus? 

message: Following the slight re-write (above), I've also moved the page from Ibelin to House of Ibelin; it fits the content better, and "Ibelin" should be a disambiguation page now. I trust everyone is OK with this, too. Moonraker12 (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: There's a lot of work gone into this, but it is a little confusing as it stands (IMHO). Though I'm not sure what would be the remedy.
It might be better with the vertical  lines marking the generations; there are examples at Koechlin family and at Baldwin family (the second would be easier to install). Or listing the children of each  marriage against the couple's name, to make them easier to find. Or standardizing the family names (eg. Hugh I is also Hugh of Lusignan, Isabella of Antioch is also Isabella of Lusignan) it might make it clearer which family they belong to. The main problem, I think, is that there are so many of them: Maybe it would be worth breaking it up into “Family trees”: “Descendants of Barisan”, “...of Baldwin”, “..of Balian” for example. 
If there are no objections I will have a go at this in a short while. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've finally gotten round to doing something about this (As short whiles go, this is pretty bad!) There may be a better remedy, but hopefully this will do for now. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family tree, again