Talk:Family tree of Kingdom of Jerusalem monarchs

Connection to Gerberga of Saxony
Adam Bishop the fact no biographer of Baldwin II and Godfrey of Bouillon cites Gerberga of Saxony as their common ancestor does not mean that their relationship to her cannot be academically proven. On the contrary, multiple academic sources all point to it: the line of descent of Gerberga of Saxony is strongly established by genealogists and historians alike, I know for a fact that people have written books on her children by both marriages (to Gilbert, Duke of Lorraine and Louis IV of France), and that other people have written about her children's children etc. If you consider the scientific literature which is available on various of her descendants (Baldwin's and Godfrey's ancestors) there is no question the link of the Kings of Jerusalem to Gerberga can be established with a highly reasonable amount of certainty (I found at least 9 sources during my research). No biographer of Baldwin and Godfrey cites her as a common ancestor merely because she is a (very) distant ancestor and no one found it pertinent nor took the time to check this relationship in particular. Again, like I said many times, I am aware wikipedia does not allow synthesis nor original research and that is precisely why I had the trouble to find this specific book (Ancestral Roots of Certain Colonists who came to America before 1700 by Frederick Lewis Weis) and use it as a source when I edited Baldwin II's article.

The link of Godfrey of Bouillon and Baldwin II to Gerberga of Saxony is mentioned in the page 143 (line 148) and page 150 (line 158), while the link of Baldwin of Bourcq to Gerberga of Saxony is mentioned in the page 57 (line 140), page 107 (line 103A) and page 146 (line 151). The links of the Boulogne brothers and Baldwin of Bourcq to the House of Reginar is mentioned in page 143 (line 148), page 149 (line 155) and page 217 (line 240). You can check this information on google books (https://books.google.com.br/books?redir_esc=y&id=3F9nG8aFJ7MC&q=giselbert#v=onepage&q&f=false). If for some reason you are unable to find Baldwin and Godfrey's connection to Gerberga via Ancestral Roots or other works of literature, ´please let me know by messaging me directly and I will be more than happy to provide you the exact places where I verified this information.

In addition, I'm under the impression (most) of the sources you will find that describe all these complicated kinship relationships in a single work are comprehensive genealogical books, such as American Roots. Especially since the relationship between these two people (Baldwin II and Godfrey) is too distant and scholars have not yet found the need to comment on it specifically/individually. My intention in mentioning it on my edit and the relevance I found for doing so is because it is stated on the same article that the relationship between them is unknown (which it clearly isn't as I have previously established, I don't think I would have found it necessary to even mention this particular and distant kinship if this part of the article was phrased differently).

The reason why the user Borsoka opposed my edit on Baldwin's article is simply because he personally deems American Roots as an unsuitable source (as it is dedicated to the genealogy of American Colonists and it is not a biographical source on Baldwin II or on Godfrey of Bouillon), it was never because the relationship could not be proven (it definitely can). On the other hand, as the present article (the Kings of Jerusalem family tree) is an article about the genealogy of the Outremer monarchs (not on the biography of a single individual),  I must disagree with your reversal of my edits, particularly since a) this page did not cite any sources before my edits, b) even though American Roots is a book focused on the genealogy of Americans, it is a reliable academic source and it does include a comprehensive genealogy of European royalty and nobility (including the monarchs of Jerusalem), c) the subject of the source I am citing is not incompatible with the subject of this article (the genealogy of the Kings of Jerusalem).

Finally, wikipedia itself verifies the relationships between Gerberga and Godfrey, and Gerberga and Baldwin II, if you even follow the wikipedia pages on Baldwin's and Godfrey's parents, grandparents etc., which you can reach via their own personal articles you will eventually get to Gerberga of Saxony (again, I am aware wikipedia is not peer-reviewed and cannot be used as a source, that is why I used American Roots).

Here is the sequence:

1) Godfrey of Bouillon > Eustace II of Boulogne > Eustace I of Boulogne > Lambert I of Louvain + Gerberga of Lower Lorraine > Louis IV of France + Gerberga of Saxony;

2) Baldwin of Bourcq > Hugh I, Count of Rethel > Manassess III, Count of Rethel > Gilbert of Roucy > Renaud of Roucy > Gilbert of Lorraine + Geberga of Saxony.

Sincerely, Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know what else to say here, Borsoka and I have already gone over this with you on the Baldwin II talk page. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Adam Bishop Well, you could be so kind to explain exactly why you are opposing the edit. You said American Roots does not detail the relationship but in fact it does (I can prove it), Borsoka said American Roots was not a suitable source because it does not concern biographical information (but again this specific article we are discussing now concerns genealogy, not someone's biography, and American Roots concerns American genealogy, although it does include the genealogy of the Kings of Jerusalem and European royalty, so it is not an  incompatible source). Like I said many times the link to Gerberga can be proven academically (I found many sources pointing to it, and can definitely send them to you if you want to see them), I merely used this specific source (American Roots) to avoid using synthesis, and still American Roots is a peer-reviewed academic source, your or Borsoka's personal distaste for it does not disqualify it as a source.

Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Adam Bishop P.S.: I wielded to Borsoka's argument on the Baldwin II's article (that American Roots is not a suitable source because it deals with American genealogy and not the biography of Baldwin II) because I do believe his point is right (although, it does seem a bit unreasonable to me given that the relationship can be academically proven and wikipedia itself verifies it). When it comes to this article (Kings of Jerusalem family tree) I think the situation is completely different as I explained above (the subjects of the source and of the article are not incompatible). On the other hand, I would like to ask if American Roots and the other sources I found (the other sources constitute synthesis that's why I didn't use them) aren't suitable to establish the relationship on Baldwin II's article, it does not mean that they are not enough for the deletion of the statement that the relationship is unknown on Baldwin II's article, does it? Thank you.

Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I don’t think there’s any dispute that Gerberga is Godfrey and Baldwin I’s great-great-great-grandmother. But why does it matter in this article? Nobody else’s ancestry is given at all. (Why does this page even exist? But that’s a separate issue…)


 * I can see all your page references in Ancestral Roots - page 143 (line 148), page 146 (line 151), page 149 (line 155), page 150 (line 158), and page 217 (line 240) all refer to Gerberga as an ancestor of Godfrey/Baldwin I.
 * Ancestral Roots and Wikipedia have the following genealogy for Godfrey/Baldwin I (sorry it looks like this...I'm not sure how to make a tree here):

Gerberga + Louis IV of France | Charles Duke of Lower Lorraine + Adelaide of Troyes | Gerberga of Lower Lorraine + Lambert I, Count of Louvain | Matilda + Eustace I, Count of Boulogne | Eustace II, Count of Boulogne + Ida of Lorraine | Godfrey, Baldwin I


 * No dispute there, that’s simple enough.


 * Page 57 (line 140) mentions Gerberga’s other descendants in Vermandois, so that’s not really relevant.
 * Only line 103A seems to be about Baldwin II specifically. It gives the following genealogy:

Giselbert of Lorraine + Gerberga of Saxony | Alberade of Lorraine |               Giselbert of Roucy | Manasses III + Yvette of Roucy | Hugh I of Rethel + Mélisende of Montlhéry | Baldwin II


 * Wikipedia has the same info (Giselbert = Gilbert, Yvette = Judith).


 * However, this is all based on the assumption (even mentioned in Gilbert of Roucy's Wikipedia article) that Gilbert married a “princess of Aquitaine” and had 4 children, including Judith/Yvette. But the historian Jean-Noël Mathieu does not think that was the case. Mathieu’s article (“La Succession au comté de Roucy aux environs de l'an mil”) may help clarify things, but the journal it’s in (Onomastique et Parenté dans l'Occident médiéval) is not easily available for me; fortunately he’s cited by Alan Murray in the book I mentioned on Baldwin II’s talk page (The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Dynastic History 1099-1125). It seems that Gilbert actully never married or had any children, so it’s possible that Gerberga of Saxony’s line ends there. Judith/Yvette married Baldwin II’s grandfather Manasses III, but he parents were not descended from Gerberga. In fact, Mathieu speculates that Judith/Yvette was actually a daughter of Eustace I of Boulogne (in which case she would be Godfrey/Baldwin I’s great-aunt, and Baldwin II would be their second cousin - and she would also be descended from Gerberga of Saxony!), but there’s no evidence for that either, Mathieu is just guessing.


 * Alan Murray’s book notes some other speculation. Everyone can agree that Baldwin II’s parents were Hugh I of Rethel and Melisende. Paul Riant and Steven Runciman thought Hugh I was the son of Manasses of Rethel and a woman who was Godfrey/Baldwin I’s aunt - as Mathieu also speculated. (Ancestral Roots line 103A also notes there is no evidence for this). Jonathan Riley-Smith believed the same and thought this woman was named Ida of Boulogne, but there is no evidence for her either. Jean Richard suggested that Mélisende of Montlhéry was Eustace II’s sister - so Godfrey/Baldwin I’s aunt, making Baldwin II their first cousin. But again, there is no evidence for that.


 * Murray notes that almost all of the information we have about Baldwin II’s ancestry comes from the historian of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, William of Tyre, who should have had all the best information available at the time. He was certainly motivated to connect Baldwin II to Godfrey and Baldwin I - but he couldn’t! So it’s likely that even in the 12th century, no one knew exactly how they were related. It’s possible they weren’t even really related at all.


 * So for all these reasons, among others, Ancestral Roots *is* an unreliable source. Borsoka doesn’t like it, and neither do I, but you’re right that that’s not what makes it unreliable. It’s unreliable because it’s not a peer-reviewed academic work. It cites virtually no sources, aside from other genealogies. In this case the only source for line 103A is “ES III.4/624-625”, which is the Europaische Stammtafeln. That might be a more reliable source, and I would be interested to see what it says, but I don’t have access to it...if you can find it, maybe that would help.


 * But still, there is much, much more to figuring out someone’s ancestry than checking a list in Ancestral Roots or some other genealogy book. Where did they get their information? How accurate is that information, and has it been corrected by better information since then? Genealogy books are always just copying from other genealogy books regardless of how accurate or inaccurate the lists are. Ultimately the information comes from medieval sources like chronicles and charters, and I don’t know about you, but the frustrating thing about genealogists on Wikipedia is that they usually have no idea about the existence of the medieval sources or how to use them. That’s why we rely on historians to point out how these sources do not always contain the information we would like, and how sometimes, it’s actually impossible to figure out someone’s ancestry. And that’s the case for Baldwin II. We just don’t know how he was related to Godfrey and Baldwin II. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Adam Bishop Hello, thank you so much for taking the time to reply to my messages, that is virtually all that I wanted. I am very grateful for your attention and consideration. I had recently become aware of the problems you mentioned (the uncertainty of Judith of Roucy ancestry etc...), I agree with your remarks that under the present situation Ancestral Roots alone does not qualify as a reliable source (I was under the impresion I had acess to a copy of Europaische Stammtafeln, I will verify if this is the case). My sole intention in initiating this debate was to verify if any scholars have solved the mystery of Baldwin II's ancestry and we were not aware of it merely because we keep using the same traditional sources... I will therefore continue my quest of trying to find reliable sources which can establish or assist to establish the relationship between Baldwin II and Godfrey of Bouillon. The WP article on Giselbert of Roucy does mention another possibility for his relationship to Ebles I and Judith/Yvette, there is a theory that they descend from Giselbert's sister, Ermentrude of Roucy (I will see what sources I can find in regards to this theory and to the other theory pertaining the Princess of Aquitaine). I must say that I had never wished to state my findings on a possible connection between the Bouillon brothers and Baldwin II as an absolute/completely verifiable truth, I am very sorry if that was the impression I gave, I merely wanted to highlight the theories that propose an explanation for their relationship (I do want to ask, is there any ways of adding such information to WP clarifying it is clearly speculation, given that we cite the exact sources that propose these speculations? Thank you.) I will also see what I can find about Jean-Nöel Mathieu's work. Moreover, a friend of mine has recently pointed out an academic article that might also help to solve the mystery, I will read it and then get back to you/message you again. Again, tank you very much for replying.

Best regards,

Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Adam Bishop P.S.: I do see where you are coming from about modern genealogists not checking medieval sources... On another completely unrelated note, I have recently had the trouble to check the archives of Bruges from 15th century in medieval Dutch to find a document which clarified a particular genealogy. Therefore, I assure you that I am more interested in the truth/what can be established academically than anything else.. Thank you,

Best regards,

Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Well that's good - working in the archives is important, and maybe more importantly, it's also fun! Adam Bishop (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (A little late to the game here, but . . . ) I would agree that Ancestral Roots is not the best of sources. At a minimum it is too many steps removed from the original scholarship, simply repeating one theory that the editors happened upon, without any direct expertise or full analysis of the various opinions.  And they are various.  There are too many competing theories, to display any one in this chart as representing scholarly consensus.  However, I will make a suggestion, in the form of a bold edit - we can show that Baldwin II was kinsman of the first kings without specifying the relationship, which I have now done. Agricolae (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Should the table include ...?
1. Isabella I and Amalric II's daughter Melisende of Lusignan?

2. Melisende's daughter Maria of Antioch (pretender)?

Maria sold her rights to Charles of Anjou in 1277, and he used the title of King of Jerusalem from then on. See King_of_Jerusalem. He also had some success in enforcing his claim 'on the ground' - see Charles_I_of_Anjou and Kingdom_of_Jerusalem. Alekksandr (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)