Talk:Alice of Champagne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAlice of Champagne has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 5, 2016Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 14, 2016.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Alice of Champagne claimed the Kingdom of Jerusalem, because its infant king, Conrad, had failed to take possession of it within a year and a day after the death of his mother?

Untitled[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 14.56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Philip[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Having explained that, it certainly seems like the article would benefit from a proper family tree. Surtsicna (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]