Talk:Kingdom of Jerusalem

older comments
''As new generations grew up in the kingdom, they began to think of themselves as "oriental," rather than European. They often learned to speek Greek, Arabic, and other eastern languages, and married Greeks or Armenians (and, rarely, Muslims).''
 * This paragraph is oxymoronic & needs to be replaced


 * How so? Any suggestions? Adam Bishop 20:07 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * It should be utterly self-evident :) I may rewrite it if I can figure out how to reword it in a way that makes sense.


 * Self-evident? How?  It looks fine to me. john 14:18 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, if it helps, what I meant was that the Crusaders, who were usually French, thought of the Byzantine Empire and their language (Greek) as "oriental", as were the Armenians, Arabs, Turks, etc. They were all "eastern" people, and all Crusaders were considered "Latins" or "Franks" (even the ones who weren't from France).  I know it's an oversimplification, and that can be fixed if necessary, but I don't see how it's oxymoronic. Adam Bishop 15:32 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

OK, I never create images, especially PNG ones, so I really don't know what I'm doing...I'm sure there must be better ways to draw this map. If anyone can make it look a little more "professional," go right ahead. As it stands right now, is it alright? Does it interfere too much with the article? Adam Bishop 01:41, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...I don't know how to edit it. It's not so much that it looks bad that bothers me, as that it doesn't actually show the whole Kingdom; specifically, Sidon and Beirut are left off. (Other places should also be marked: Ramleh, Nablus, Tiberias, and so forth.)


 * Yeah, since I was working with the World Factbook map, it didn't extend into modern Lebanon. There must be some map-making program out there somewhere... Adam Bishop 20:25, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, I found a pretty good map of the Crusader States, so I'll put in that article...I've removed the map from here, but if someone still wants to try to fix it, I won't delete it: [[media:KingdomofJerusalem.png]] Adam Bishop 04:16, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Foundation and Early History
I must say, this section is, historiographically, a little outdated. As the likes of Murray and Riley-Smith have shown, there is little evidence that Godfrey used the title of Advocate himself - he seems to have prefered the more general title of Princeps. Also, the aspirations of Daimbert are somewhat problematic. The only evidence available for the claims that Godfrey surrendered Jaffa and Jerusalem to the Patriarch can be found only in the work of Willima of Tyre. Asside from the fact that William's version of this controversy is often somewhat lacking (he fails to tell us, for example, that Daimbert was deposed in 1102 by a synod presided over by a papal legate), the phrasing shows that William wrote, or at least rewrote, large parts of this letter. I'll edit it unless anyone raises any major complaints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.130.170 (talk • contribs)


 * No complaint, especially about the Daimbert stuff, but we should probably still mention the Advocatus title - he may not have really used it, but it's prevalent everywhere so we shouldn't ignore it entirely. Adam Bishop 15:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The entire paragraph in this section seems to be taken almost word for word, from the book "The Templars" by Piers Paul Read (pg. 87, ISBN 1-84212-142-1). Thus, it needs to be reworded somehow.


 * Really? What does the book say? That paragraph was written gradually by various people, like myself and John Kenney, so that's kind of strange. Adam Bishop 20:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll start from where its relevent:

"...was the Kingdom of Jerusalem, ruled by Godfery of Bouillon who, unwilling to call himself King where Christ had worn a crown of thorns, took the title of 'Defender of the Holy Sepuchre' instead."

"...Baldwin was less scruplous about taking a royal title and on Christmas Day 1100, at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, the defeated Daimbert crowned him King of Jerusalem."

Kaiser matias 19:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the offending passage. I have not read or heard of The Templars, by Piers Paul Read. Furthermore, the passage under discussion is not "word for word" the same as the passage quoted. The similarities are the bit about the crown of thorns, which is, I think, a quote from the chronicles themselves, although I'm not really certain (at any rate, it is how Godfrey's action is typically explained); and the use of the word "scrupulous," which seems a slight basis on which to base a claim of plagiarism. john k 20:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

After reading the part from the book, and then here again, I noticed that it isn't that similar. Just when I quickly glanced at it the first time, it seemed very familiar. But, well, it seems very different when compared closely. Kaiser matias 21:15 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some Medieval Accounts of Salah al-Din's Recovery of Jerusalem
there seems to be no account of besiege of Jerusalem by Salah al-Din's army anywhere in wikipedia. Here is an excellent article about it, maybe someone would like to add it: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/salahdin.html

Minor edits by User:John Kenney need to be rewoven.
Sorry about rolling back...However, my edits are equally valid to yours. TheUnforgiven 02:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the mistake I made. TheUnforgiven 02:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * They may be valid edits, but not for this article. That sort of discussion belongs on the crusade article, not here. Adam Bishop 03:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Recent expansion
For the past few days I've been trying to expand the article. I think the Kingdom of Acre bit is still a little lacking in information, but I don't know as much about that so it's more difficult to expand (since I am lazy and mostly doing this off the top of my head). Any help/suggestions would be appreciated! Adam Bishop 22:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Absurd table
The table on the right side of the article is absurd. You didn´t have these concepts of "Constitution" or "Official language" in the Middle Ages, it´s an Anachronism, you should take that from the article. I have also detected mistakes in it, I suggest you read the article from the french wikipedia.


 * Yeah it is absurd, but people insist on including such tables on articles both for modern countries and extinct entities. I think it would be better off with just the map and the coat of arms, which is all that used to be there. And where have you detected mistakes, in the article or the table? What are the mistakes? (If you do not want to fix them yourself, perhaps it would be helpful to inform someone else.) Adam Bishop 03:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Demographics?
Where did the figures of "750,000 to 1,500,000, with just under half being of Frankish and Italian origin, and the remainder evenly divided between Greek, Syrian, and Muslim with small Jewish communities." come from?

This seems to be way too big.

Aslo, I don't know if the iqta system is equivalent to the European Feudal system, since I think the former was more purely financial than the latter.

MYLO 23:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It came from the same anon whose junk you just fixed up on the Mamluk article. Those numbers didn't jump out as nonsense at first, but you're right, they are pretty bizarre now that I look again...375 000-750 000 Franks? Adam Bishop 06:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

- - - -

Here are numbers I found:

According to P.M. Holt in "The Age of the Crusades" (1986):

"Few reliable statistics exist or can be deduced. it has, however, been surmised that the Frankish population [of the Crusader holdings] consisted at most of about 250,000, about half of whome were in the Kingdom of Jerusalem [I assme prior to Hattin]. The three great cities of the kingdom were Acre, which probably had over 60,000 inhabitants in the 12th century, Tyre and Jerusalem itself with 20,000 to 30,000."

David Nicolle in "Hattin 1187 (Osprey Campaign Series 19)" (1993) says:

"In the early 1180's the Kingdom of Jerusalem had 400,000-500,000 inhabitants, no more than 120,000 of whome were latins (Christians of western European origin). The rest constisted of indigenous 'Oriental' Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Samaritans."

Bot these figures agree, with about 120,000 western Europeans in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, prior to Hattin atleast.

MYLO 00:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII
What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 12:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Fatimid Flag
May I ask why the Fatimid flag was removed from the infobox so quickly? As far as I know, the Fatimids did fly a plain green flag. (I realize that the image depicts the flag of Libya, but I figure it's a close enough approximation.) Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, I saw "flag of Libya" and just assumed it was sneaky vandalism! Adam Bishop (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry. I guess that just adds an unnecessary level of confusion. I'll upload a more appropriately named image. Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC removed

 * Featured article candidates/Kingdom of Jerusalem/archive1, see instructions at WP:FAC regarding consulting with significant contributors. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Tolerant?
tolerance for other faiths was in general higher than that found elsewhere in the Middle East. Greeks, Syrians, and Jews continued to live as they had before

I might be wrong, but from my information the Crusaders were not too kind to jews, Muslims or even native christians. I know for sure they massacared them when they entered the city at first.

--Michael1408 00:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They may have, since that's what tended to happen in every city at the time. After 1099 they were pretty tolerant, although, of course, non-Catholics were second-class citizens, and in Jerusalem itself Jews and Muslims were not allowed. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

See pages 60 - 61 and page 478, for example, of Jean Richard's superb The Crusades, c. 1071-c. 1291, (available on Google Book Search in English translation) for references. 41.241.23.60 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Coinage
Feel free to insert the following image into the article:  PHG  Per Honor et Gloria 06:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Neat. That would be useful for the Economy section. Thanks! Adam Bishop (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Normans
Why doesn't it mention the Normans as they were the ones that founded the kingdom of Jerusalem after conquering Jerusalem in 1099.Davido488 (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * They weren't the only ones; Normans are more associated with Antioch anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Crusader priod in the history of Jesusalem (city)
I made some effort in rescuing and cleaning the machine-translated article (now moved into my user space) User:Staszek Lem/Jerusalem during the Crusader period. See some of its fate in Talk:Jerusalem during the Crusader period; people wanted it to be kept, but did't want to spend their time on it.

Please contribute to finishing the job, or I will delete it from my space. I am not even a Jew.

Please keep in mind that Jerusalem and Kingdom of Jerusalem are not the same, so the redirect of Jerusalem during the Crusader period here is not good. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, there is still the problem that we now have two articles, that one and History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages). Adam Bishop (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't see any point in the existence of theses articles.Jack Bufalo Head (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Greek name
Is there a source for the Greek name, Βασίλειον τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων? Google, at least, gives only Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. I haven't looked very thoroughly at the Greek sources, but I see that Anna Komnene refers to the "king of Jerusalem" (using the Latin word "rex"), and John Kinnamos uses "king of Palestine", at least in the English translation. Does anyone ever refer specifically to a "kingdom of Jerusalem"? Adam Bishop (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

territory of modern-day Israel, Palestine
In a geographic sense, doesn't the territory of modern-day Israel include the Palestinian territories; the link to the historical geographic region of Palestine doesn't seem to fit the decriptor of modern-day; (not sure of what a territory of a modern-day territory might be)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It may have said "Palestinian territories" at one point (I'm pretty sure I wrote that bit and I thought that's what I linked to), but links to contentious articles like that are occasionally changed in drive-by mass edits, and maybe this one was never changed back. I'm not sure, but anyway, it certainly should link to the modern state/territory/whatever of Palestine. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Current King of Jerusalem
Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that King Juan Carlos I of Spain claims to be also King of Jerusalem even now in the XXI Century? 201.141.228.133 (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Map
There is no map of the internal division of KOJ on Wikipedia. I found and uploaded a single PD one:. Is it reliable enough to use here? trespassers william (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319183603/http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp/keyword.cross+potent/qx/symbolism_details.htm to http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp/keyword.cross+potent/qx/symbolism_details.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

This passage in the article is wrong. The source provided for it does not say what the article claims it does...

 * The article incorrectly states the following under the "Crusader society and demographics" section, the source provided does not back it up:


 * """"There were an unknown number of Muslim slaves living in the Kingdom. There was a very large slave market in Acre which functioned throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Although Christians, both Western and Eastern, were by law prohibited from being sold into slavery, the native Christians were often indistinguishable from the Muslim population and the Italian merchants were sometimes accused of selling them along with Muslim slaves""""


 * The source that is used for the above, is from page 62 to 63 of the book "The Feudal Nobility And The Kingdom Of Jerusalem 1174 1277 By Jonathan Riley Smith". It is source #104 at very bottom of the article.

However, the book says nothing at all about selling native Christians as slaves. What those pages DO say, is that European Christians were being sold as slaves in the markets there and that they were wrongly being sold as "Muslims", in order to get around the ban on having Christian slaves.

It does not state who - Christian / Jewish / Muslim or other wise - were buying the slaves either. It is flat out wrong the way this part of the article is written since the source does not state that. It implies brutality upon the native Christians along with implying racism. Below I have copied and pasted page 62 and page 63 from the source provided.


 * Frok page 62 to 63 of the book "The Feudal Nobility And The Kingdom Of Jerusalem 1174 1277 By Jonathan Riley Smith": """""There is evidence for another grave abuse in a letter written by Pope Innocent IV in 1246 in which he informed the patriarch and his bishops that italian merchants were sailing to Palestine from Greece with their ships loaded with Greeks, Bulgarians, Ruthenians and Wlachs, all Christian men and women, whom they would sell into slavery as Muslims: indeed this passing off as Christians as Muslims seems to have been common enough in the kingdom to have resulted in legislation""""".

Here is a link to a archive from the book and it links directly to pages 62 to 63:

If it not changed within a week then I will remove the passage, I am not experienced at editing myself. 174.48.155.235 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Names in other languages
Is there actually any evidence for any of the names of the kingdom in other languages? I'm not even sure they usually called it "kingdom of Jerusalem" in Latin and French. In Arabic and Greek it seems to me that they usually called it "kingdom of the Franks" or something similar. Simply translating the modern English term into various languages is incorrect and misleading (and in Wikipedia terms, probably original research). I'd look around for translations in the primary sources, but then, that wouldn't really be acceptable for Wikipedia either, would it... Adam Bishop (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

OK I looked around a bit and here are some of the actual names used by medieval authors:

Examples from Latin and French are too numerous to give a full list. Any combination of royaume/roiaume/reiaume/reaume de Jerusalem/Ierusalem/Iherusalem/Hierusalem, and probably other spellings. I'm certain I also saw "kingdom of Syria" in a crusader source but I can't find it now (it was something like "reaume de surie").

Latin is typically regnum Hierosolimitanum/Hierosolymitanum, etc. (with or without the H). I didn't check every possible Latin source because they're pretty much endless, but William of Tyre usually says "Kingdom of Jerusalem" with the plural form of Jerusalem, which is common for cities in Latin, regnum Hiersolymorum. At least once he also says "king of the Latins in Jerusalem", rex Latinorum Hierosolymis.

Arabic authors usually don't have a name for it. Usama ibn Munqidh for example doesn't have a name for the kingdom but he often refers to the “king of the Franks”. Ibn al-Furat calls it مملكة عكا ("Kingdom of Acre") (The History of Ibn al-Furat, vol. 7, (Beirut, 1942), pg. 262 and elsewhere). Frederick II wrote a letter to the sultan of Egypt in Arabic, in which he refers to all of his kingdoms, including مملكة الشام القدسية (the "Jerusalemite kingdom of Syria") (Tarikh Mansuri, Biblioteca Arabo-Sicula, Appendix 2, 1887, 34-7). Abu Shama is the only one I have found who does use "Kingdom of Jerusalem", مملكة القدس (RHC Or, vol. 4, pg. 391). He also uses ملك الشام الفرنجي, "Frankish Kingdom of Syria" (as opposed to the Muslim Kingdom of Syria), but interestingly in this case instead of the usual "mamlakah" he uses the more abstract noun "mulk" RHC Or, vol. 4, pg. 492).

In Greek nobody seems to call it anything. Anna Komnene uses the Latin word rex for the kings though, ρηξ ιεροσολυμων.

In Hebrew there also doesn't seem to be a name, at least not in Benjamin of Tudela or Petachiah of Regensburg.

I can't find anything in Armenian either. Ara Doustourian's translation of Matthew of Edessa uses the phrase "kingdom of Jerusalem", but the French version in the RHC doesn't say that. The Armenian text in the RHC doesn't seem to say that either, but I can't read Armenian so I'm not sure (RHC Arm, vol. 1, pg. 119).

In Old Norse, the city is called Jorsalaborg, the reegion in general is Jorsalaland, and the king is called Jorsalakung. Occasionally the kingdom is called Jorsalariki or Jorsalarike. (For example, in Thomas Saga Erkibyskups, ed. Eirikr Magnusson, vol. I, London, 1875, pg. 353).

What about Occitan, Spanish, Catalan, Italian? Middle English, Middle German? Maybe even Coptic? Georgian? Syriac? All of these languages were spoken there. Where do we stop? Even if we just use the Latin/Old French terms, which variants do we list? And as I mentioned earlier, isn't this the sort of synthesis/original research that is frowned upon here? Maybe we shouldn't include any names, at least not in the infobox. Maybe we should have a separate section in the text for the names. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Found some more - Philip of Novara uses Reiaume de Surie. French and Latin sources also use Royaume/roiaume/reiaume/reaume de Acre/d'Acre, and Regnum Acconense. Some Latin authors call it Regnum Palestinae/Palestine/Palaestinae" (Peter of Blois) or Regnum Palestinum/Palaestinum (Gerard of Wales).


 * Modern Greek authors use Βασίλειον but I haven't found any medieval Greek authors who do. Of course, the only Βασίλειον for them was the Byzantine Empire; for polemical reasons, they probably wouldn't refer to Jerusalem that way. The Greek translation of the Assizes of Jerusalem, and Leontios Makhairas' chronicle, use "regaton", Ρηγάτον τῶν Ἰεροσολύμων. The Chronicle of Morea uses the same word but calls it the Kingdom of Syria, Ρηγάτον της Συρίας. John Kinnamos does not have a name for the kingdom, but like Anna Komnene, he uses the Latin word rex. The king is the "king of the Palestinians", ρηξ Παλαιστινησ. Kinnamos and Anna also uses "arxe", αρχε for Jerusalem, and for other kingdoms like Hungary and Sicily, but also other states like the ePrincipality of Antioch (so it might not mean "kingdom" exactly, more like "dominion" or "authority"). Adam Bishop (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Found some more:
 * Middle English: Royamme of Jerusalem
 * Middle High German: Kuncriche Jerusalem
 * Old Castilian: Reino de Hierusalem/Hierusalen or Reine de Suria
 * Old Catalan: Regne or Reyame de Jerusalem/Iherusalem/Jherusalem
 * Classical Armenian: Գերուսաղեմի Թագաւորութիւն (Gerowsaġemi T’agaworowt’iwn)
 * Syriac: ܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܕܦܪܢܓܐ ܕܐܘܪܫܠܡ (Malkutha d-Faranja d-Urishlem, Frankish Kingdom of Jerusalem)
 * Don't know if we should add this to the article or not, but I made a blog page for it instead, which I'll keep updating as I find more. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * In Leiðarvísir og borgarskipan, Nicholas says "There beyond the river is Rabitaland but Jorsalaland, which they call Syrland, on this side", suggesting that the Saracens called the kingdom Syria, although I'm not sure if he is translating al-Sham or an Arabic form of Syria or if he is reporting information he got from French speakers. I have looked, but have not found, a reference to the kingdom by any name in Occitan. Srnec (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Neat thanks! I found lots more including Occitan (Regne de Suria), they're all listed on the blog I linked to above. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Melisende's rule 1131
In the paragraf depicting melisendes rule over Jerusalem it is writen as if her King Consort Fulk was in the drivers seat. Even after explicity stating that he was ousted from prominece and power. Is the way the article seemingly gives power of action to Fulk especially in the second paragraf accurate?

I am happy to be corrected as i am new to this topic although it seems contradictory to me in the current state. 45.156.242.143 (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Frankish Kingdom of Palestine
Is the term "Frankish Kingdom of Palestine" in widespread use? Is is used at all? I found Frankish Kingdom in Palestine, but nothing else. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Looking at @Adam Bishop's blog referenced above https://kojnames.blogspot.com/ there exist usage from Peter of Blois and Gerald of Wales at the very least. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * That's not a reliable source of course, but there is an article by Andrew Buck, "Settlement, Identity, and Memory in the Latin East: An Examination of the Term ‘Crusader States’" (English Historical Review 135, 2020) that also talks about some of these names. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Accordingly, we should add the Kingdom of Palestine, the Principality of Jerusalem, and the Eastern Kingdom? So far, haven't seen the Frankish Kingdom of Palestine. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * In the infobox? I would stick with "Kingdom of Jerusalem" in Latin and Old French, since the rest are mostly just rare curiosities. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)