Talk:Alice of Champagne

Untitled
I respectfully request this to be renamed as Alice of Champagne, since she was not born Cyprus, but only by marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.104.3 (talk • contribs) 14.56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Philip
I edited this page yesterday ( I've been trying to tidy up the House of Ibelin page) and added a footnote about Philip of Ibelin (as there wasn't a linked article, I thought I'd leave some information in case anyone wanted to write one). This was reverted, with the edit summary “OR” (and, less helpfully) “–uncles and nieces are related to each other”. Well, that was kind of my point; if Alice was related through her husband, and Philip was more than one generation away, the whole 'uncle' thing would be more of a courtesy title, wouldn't it? OTOH, have I got the wrong Philip of Ibelin? Is that the reason for the OR tag (which, I'm well aware, is wikispeak for ”keep your ideas to yourself”) Any offers? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Philip of Ibelin was the uterine half-brother of Alice's mother. Isabella I of Jerusalem and Philip of Ibelin were both children of Maria Komnene. Thus Philip was Alice's (half-)uncle, not an in-law. Surtsicna (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Having explained that, it certainly seems like the article would benefit from a proper family tree. Surtsicna (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @: The penny drops! I hadn't appreciated that she was also related through her grand-mother, or that Philip had his own article. I've added another link here, closer to where he is mentioned, and at the House of Ibelin page; and I've put an explanatory note in Philip's article explaining the relationship, if you care to check. And good work on the family tree! Much handier than the ancestor table that was there before. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Moonraker12. Unfortunately, a lot of users insist on the ancestor table. People are easily convinced that something is good when it's widespread, but evidently the ahnentafel is entirely useless. Alice's relationship to the Ibelins is extremely important, while her descent from an Aénor de Châtellerault is extremely trivial. Surtsicna (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna, thank you for your excellent work on the article, and also for the family tree. However, I think we could accept the co-existence of family trees and ahnetapfels, because there are many editors who insist on ancestor tables. Borsoka (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. But I am curious: do Runciman, Evergates, Treadgold or Dunbabin really mention Aenor de Châtellerault as Alice's ancestor? Or Andronikos Komnenos? Or Fulk IV of Anjou? Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The cited sources contain reference to all individuals mentioned in the charters. They are mentioned either as Alice's ancestors, or the ancestors of Alice's ancestors. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Conrad's majority
There is some question of whether Conrad's majority (and therefore also the meeting of the High Court) took place in 1242 or 1243. Logically it would be 1243 since that's when Conrad turned 15, but it's possible that Frederick was trying to cheat the system a little bit, by claiming Conrad was "in his fifteenth year" in 1242. I'll have to confirm the specifics with the sources I have at hand, but I think it might be a good addition to mention this in the article. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. Sorry, I do not have more information on the issue. Borsoka (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Basically, the problem is that we know the day of the meeting of the High Court, June 5 (according to Marsilio Zorzi), but none of the sources (Zorzi, Philip of Novara, Ernoul) mention the year. Conrad was born in April 1228, so if the meeting took place after he already turned 15, when he was of legal age to inherit the kingdom, then it would have been 1243. But it's possible that Conrad (or, Frederick acting on his behalf) advanced the claim in 1242, after Conrad's 14th birthday, but when he was sort of ambiguously in his fifteenth year. Maybe due to the distance and the time involved in getting messages back and forth, Frederick was trying to communicate with the High Court in the year leading up to Conrad's actual 15th birthday. It also seems that he sent Thomas of Acerra to Jerusalem in 1242 (at least according to Richard of San Germano). Why would he do this in 1242 instead of 1243? Presumably he was trying to send Thomas to meet with the High Court, which was meeting in June 1242.


 * I suppose this isn't really that relevant for Alice's article. It came up when I was writing about Patriarch Robert - he was stuck in Italy waiting for the new pope to be elected. An election was not imminent in 1242, so Frederick also might have been taking advantage of the sede vacante. If the meeting took place in 1243, the election was already underway (Innocent IV was elected on June 25).


 * I would say the 1242 date is generally accepted now, but some historians still use 1243. See David Jacoby, “The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the collapse of Hohenstaufen power in the Levant,” in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 40 (1986), and Peter W. Edbury, The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades (Cambridge University Press, 1993). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

FAC
I was invited by to the FAC, but missed the boat. Here are the comments I wrote but never got to post, striking those I or another editor have dealt with:

The first two outstanding issues do need to be addressed, I think. Srnec (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Google has the epub version but I can't resist mentioning that in the print version it's page 69 (nice) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)