(ROYal) FAmily Feud: Queen Melisende and Dynastic Rivalry in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1131-1152
To cite this essay:
Voltz, Alexander. "(Royal) Family Feud: Queen Melisende and Dynastic Rivalry in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1131-1152." A. D. K. Voltz. Last modified [month and year on website footer; see below]. https://adkvoltz.com/essays/royal-family-feud/.
By 1118, succession in the Kingdom of Jerusalem was frighteningly Julio-Claudian. Both Godfrey of Bouillon and Baldwin I had died childless, and the Crusader state had only narrowly averted civil war. Baldwin of Bourcq did accede as Baldwin II, but he sired four daughters and no sons. While female inheritance occurred more frequently in the Latin East than it did in Europe, women were seldom accepted in positions of power, and men were the preferred stewards of the Crusader states. Nonetheless, the eldest of Baldwin’s issue, Melisende, succeeded her father upon his death in 1131. Modern scholarship informed by Melisende’s contemporaries continues to wrongly construe the queen as ambitious. Rather, this essay encourages a reassessment of Melisende’s character. She was reactive, not proactive, and provoked by the manoeuvres of her dynastic adversaries. Melisende’s husband, Fulk, Count of Anjou; her sister Alice, Princess of Antioch; and her son and successor, Baldwin III, were chief among her rivals.
Melisende likely met Fulk V, Count of Anjou when he made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1120, and William of Tyre describes the Angevin’s second coming in 1129 as surpassing the grandeur of kings. In any case, it was timely. As Baldwin II lay dying, he surprisingly “committed the care of the kingdom” to not only Fulk, but also Melisende and their infant son, Baldwin. Fulk must have been infuriated. Mayer’s detailed analysis of the Regesta regni Hierosolymitani concludes that Fulk was, at one point, Jerusalem’s sole heir. Furthermore, Mayer suggests that Melisende was only conferred royal powers after her husband demanded she were. Fulk was conscious of Baldwin II’s fragile claim to the throne; his intentions were not to empower Melisende but use her to legitimise his own succession. Evidently, Melisende’s introduction to regnancy is hardly driven by ambition. Very possibly, this was a life far removed from what she had envisioned. Until her death, Melisende was a keen patron of the church, and in her youthful days might have intended to pursue an ecclesiastic career. Moreover, Melisende had watched her pious mother, Morphia, play a minimal role in her father’s administration. As medieval noblewomen were usually the ones to raise their daughters, Morphia’s guardianship may well have concentrated on the sacred before the secular. Nonetheless, Melisende was helplessly catapulted into the political arena by her short-sighted father and her self-interested husband.
The Islamic chronicler Ibn al-Qalanisi makes no mention of Melisende’s accession as queen, but he keenly notes Fulk’s “unsound judgement” and “ineffective administration” that threw the Kingdom of Jerusalem into “turmoil” and “disorder”. According to Orderic Vitalis, this was the result of Fulk’s attempts to replace the Latin East’s existing nobility with “Angevin strangers” and “other raw newcomers”. Raymond of Poitiers’ invitation to wed Constance of Antioch is but one example. Despite al-Qalanisi’s object criticisms, Fulk’s aggressive policies were not entirely reckless. After all, he was merely emulating the practise of his father-in-law, repressing what factions opposed his rule whilst rewarding loyal supporters. It was this behaviour, however, that confronted Melisende with her first political crisis. 
William of Tyre reports rumours concerning “too familiar terms” between Melisende and Hugh, Count of Jaffa, leading to the latter’s uprising in 1134. The situation was dire: the familiar terms were effectively incestuous, and aspersions were cast over the paternity of Melisende’s son, Baldwin. For the most part, modern scholarship has disproved the rumours, instead convinced that contention arose between Fulk and Hugh over Melisende’s royal power. The established nobility construed it an additional offence that Fulk, contrary to the ultimate designs of Baldwin II, had been limiting Melisende’s involvement in government. For Hugh of Jaffa, Melisende was a symbol of the “old ways”, and such ways were not easily parted from.
Hugh’s armed insurrection was short lived, owing to Melisende’s personal intervention. William of Tyre believed she negotiated a truce between the two factions and managed to completely repair her fractured relationship with Fulk. While this reparation has largely been treated as inexplicable, answers may lie with the birth of Melisende’s second child, Amalric, in 1136. Where her mother and sister Alice had failed, Melisende had borne two sons. She and Fulk could only have been pleased. In both physicality and conception, Amalric may well have signified a romantic restitution between his parents, explaining Melisende’s emotional reaction to Fulk’s tragic death in 1143. Furthermore, the fact that Amalric remained fiercely loyal to his mother, even when her prospects of ruling had been dashed, indicates more than a political bond between the two.
The reason aside, Melisende was victorious in repelling Fulk’s attempts to usurp her royal authority. Additionally, a not insignificant number of vassals had risen of their own volition to support her. Melisende would exploit this popularity to its utmost bounds. Having unintentionally tasted power, she would forever hunger to retain its sweetness.
During Fulk’s reign, another of Melisende’s dynastic adversaries emerged. William of Tyre drastically contrasts the two sisters: Melisende exercised “great wisdom” and “skilful care”, while Alice, Princess of Antioch was naught but traitorous and gullible. Both accounts should be treated cautiously. In the case of Melisende, William had plenty of incentive to depict her well. Concerning Alice, he is “overly critical” and unreasonably characterises her to likely satisfy archetypal conventions within his crusade narrative. Modern scholarship is divided. Asbridge’s critical observation of female power in the Latin East as being, at the time, “untested” has been championed by Gaudette and Almeida. Richard, Cahen and Koncelik, though, assert that the magnates of Antioch were strictly opposed to female regencies. Regrettably, William of Tyre’s interpretation is the only substantial historic source that details Alice’s character.
Hodgson possibly arrives closest to the truth when she stipulates that Alice was disliked for reasons beyond her sex. Before her ultimate defeat in 1136, Alice had endeavoured thrice over to seize “in perpetuity” Antioch from her daughter and the principality’s rightful potentate, Constance. Such frivolous machinations were of considerable threat to Melisende and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. In 1131, during her second and arguably most successful attempt to dispossess Constance, Alice had joined a coalition that opposed Fulk and sort greater independence from Jerusalem. Asbridge has pointed out that Alice’s contributions to this movement were probably neither significant nor trivial. More likely, as Melisende had been for Hugh, a daughter of Baldwin II afforded the coalition some credibility. Indeed, Hugh’s revolt may have been connected to Alice’s, since the count witnessed a July 1134 charter she issued from Latakia.
Melisende, though at the time limited in her capacity to act, must have understood the danger Alice posed to her own power. Fortunately, Fulk responded quickly, restoring order to Antioch and driving Alice into exile. His “determined enemy”, however, made one last bid to seize the principality in 1135. Having by now gained advantage over Fulk, Melisende, according to William of Tyre, rose to Alice’s aid, convincing her husband not to intervene. That she would do so is confusing at best and has been conveniently ignored by modern scholarship. If Alice was indeed jealous of her sister’s queenship, perhaps Melisende felt sympathetic towards her. That said, such sympathy would contradict Melisende’s ever-developing political savviness. Alice was remarkably unpopular by this time, and Melisende tended to distance herself from potential liabilities. Fulk’s obedience, too, is startling. That he and Melisende had rediscovered their affection for each other, as this essay has suggested, seems the only explanation. In reality, it appears likely that an error was made on the part of William of Tyre. Either that, or he employs yet another narrative trope: the heroine, in a final display of benevolence, extends a hand of peace to the inevitably doomed antagonist.
Alice’s transgressions are of key importance if one intends to properly understand Melisende. The latter had watched her sister attempt to secure power for herself only to be consistently foiled. If Melisende wanted to retain her own power, she would need to behave as Alice had not. Consequently, having learned from her sister’s failures, she embarked upon a series of popular expenditure projects. Gaudette defends the necessity of this action, convinced that it was vital for a medieval queen to effectively utilise her kingdom’s resources. With Fulk, Melisende built a fortress near Beersheba called Bethgibelin. Not only did Bethgibelin check Fatamid interests in the region, it sowed the seeds for the Hospitallers’ reorganisation into a military order. Melisende also sponsored the construction of a convent at Bethany in 1138, which Fulk seems to have had no hand in. Gaudette believes the enterprise won Melisende the admiration of the kingdom’s citizens and clergy alike. The renovations of the Gate of David and then the Street of Bad Cooking were, again, popular decisions on Melisende’s behalf, though they also served as clever responses to genuine administrative problems troubling Jerusalem. Interestingly, Baldwin and Setton have criticised Melisende for this localised focus, instead praising Baldwin III for his broader approach to governing the Levant. Gaudette, however, has risen to Melisende’s defence, arguing that any introverted administration was the result of predefined gender roles within the Latin East. Regardless, perhaps William of Tyre’s flattering complements are not entirely wasted on Melisende.
It was through these acts of patronage and popular expenditure that Melisende was able to cultivate effective relationships with others of prominence, further expanding her authority. Throughout Melisende’s life, Bernard of Clairvaux remained her close supporter. Gaudette draws attention to their friendship. Their correspondence is revealing. While his letters address her as “friend”, Bernard is seemingly more concerned with the Latin East under Melisende than Melisende herself. In another letter, he expresses that “although a woman” Melisende should desire to rule as a “king rather than a queen”. Others have criticised Bernard’s treatment of women and here those criticisms seem valid. For Bernard, Melisende is a weak female ruler in need of frequent counsel. This may have been the case in 1131, but it cannot have been so in 1136. One also wonders why Melisende, more than a decade later, was effectively excluded from discussions concerning the Second Crusade if indeed she was so well acquainted with Bernard. Interestingly, Melisende eventually ceased communications with the abbot, much to his displeasure. This severing of ties is understandable. Both Baldwin II and Fulk had already exhausted the patience Melisende reserved for condescension.
Whereas Alice did not appreciate the difficulties of ruling as a widow in the masculine-orientated Latin East, Melisende did. The pressures for both sisters to remarry after their husbands’ respective deaths must have been great. Melisende ultimately resisted them, but Murray has aptly described Manasses of Hierges as her “surrogate husband”. Manasses was appointed royal constable and supreme commander of the army, physically executing what Melisende, as a woman, could not. Frighteningly alike Rome’s Sejanus, Manasses was “able” but gravely disliked. That Melisende would abandon her populist agenda suggests either a momentary lapse in judgement or, more likely, critical instability in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. By 1152, her last dynastic rival was on the warpath.
Melisende had been a pawn bartered by her father and beggared by her husband. Now, her son Baldwin, frustrated by his mother’s protracted regency, moved against her. One might join Mayer in sympathising with Baldwin, whose royal rights should have been conferred upon him in 1131. Melisende had gradually been limiting her son’s authority, similarly to how Fulk had once limited her. An examination of the royal charters confirms this. RRH No. 245, issued 4 July 1147, is signed in the names of not just Baldwin and Melisende but Amalric as well. Mayer is of the opinion that Amalric’s sudden elevation to power was neither legal nor desired. Thus, he proposes that Melisende, in a bid to divide and conquer, was responsible for her younger son’s inclusion in RRH No. 245. In doing so, Melisende reveals the extent of her lust for power. Unlike Baldwin II, who arguably sort to afford his family a royal future, Melisende displayed little regard for her sons when she set them against each other. In another sense, here the ramifications of a successful separatist movement under Alice become apparent. A diplomatic division of the Crusader states might have depleted the resources necessary for Melisende’s stratagem to succeed.
Melisende continued to issue charters undermining Baldwin. She took other measures, too, establishing her own scriptorium in place of a chancery and elevating Amalric to Count of Jaffa in 1151. It is worth considering why she behaved so passionately. Certainly, her rivals had cultivated within her all-pervading need to maintain her own power. Hodgson suggests that Melisende considered Baldwin too inexperienced, evidenced by his 1147 military failures in the Haurān region. Adopting a maternal perspective, this essay extends upon Hodgson’s theory. William of Tyre was critical of Baldwin’s youth, writing that the prince gambled “more than befitted royal majesty” and “dishonoured the marriage ties of others”. Melisende, as Baldwin’s mother, can only have noticed these juvenile debaucheries. It seems quite likely that she would have feared for the kingdom under his rule, even if Baldwin did eventually “put away childish things”. By the same token, though, one should wonder what exactly compelled Baldwin to turn on his mother. Koncelik suggests that external complications like the capture of the Count of Tripoli and the Count of Edessa, along with the advance of Nur-al-Din, demanded Baldwin centralise his authority. Mayer asserts that Baldwin’s fate was inevitable, since the controversies of Fulk’s reign had not been properly resolved. At the time, William of Nangis reported that Melisende was “more friendly than [was] proper to the enemies of God [the Saracens]”, which is why Baldwin attacked her. Though this seems unlikely given her affable patronage of the Christian faith, William is corroborated by Sigebert of Gembloux. Mayer notes that Sigebert was a “fierce” opponent to Melisende. Otherwise, William of Tyre is simply convinced that Melisende’s Manasses enraged Baldwin to the point of action. On Easter Day of 1152, he was crowned Baldwin III and Jerusalem’s only sovereign.
After a brief interim, Baldwin assembled a force and laid siege to Jerusalem. Melisende had fortified herself within the Tower of David, a defensible stronghold within the city’s centre. Amalric was with her, further supporting this essay’s argument that he was of great emotional worth to his mother. Accounts of the siege are fairly consistent in that it was short-lived and resulted in Melisende’s surrender. As to why Melisende capitulated, modern scholarship has supplied several theories. Mayer simply asserts that Melisende knew she was beaten, particularly when her supporters and “even the citizens of Jerusalem” abandoned her. Gaudette believes Melisende intended to and did negotiate her way into Baldwin’s government, as evidenced by her participation in an 1152 marriage council. Most ridiculous, though, is Jordan’s declaration that Melisende prioritised the good of the realm above herself. Such a declaration is unsubstantiated when measured against the motivations, actions and reactions of Melisende. Rather, Mayer’s stipulation is the most convincing. Addicted to the crown, the only thing Melisende probably feared more than losing power was losing life itself. Baldwin III had watched his aunt Alice constantly return to pain the royal backside; Melisende, with her astute intuition, might have gone as far to fear matricide. At any rate, Hodgson quite reasonably acknowledges that Melisende’s surrender was not necessarily a reflection on her ability to rule.
Even if she did ultimately distance herself from him, Melisende followed Bernard of Clairvaux’s recommendations and submitted to her son for the rest of her life. She died in 1161 of natural causes. Since her accession in 1131, Melisende’s actions were in response to those of her dynastic adversaries. She was not initially ambitious, as modern scholarship has argued, but sold into queenship by her father. Her husband exploited her political inexperience and attempted to usurp her authority. With support from established magnates like Hugh of Jaffa, Melisende retained her power. The importance of popular rule, along with the disadvantages of her sex, was revealed to Melisende through her sister Alice. By the time her son Baldwin had achieved majority, Melisende had inadvertently grown too fond of regnancy to relinquish it willingly. Her capitulation and decline into relative obscurity are evidence of her desire to revive her past.
From 1131 to 1152, Melisende entertained a terminal fantasy. Dalberg-Acton’s seminal words, though tired after years of overuse, are of complete relevance. Melisende did not wield absolute power, primarily because in her youth she did not hope to. Her thirst was acquired, and for that reason she evaded absolute corruption.
A. D. K. Voltz
 See Caroline Vout, “Tiberius and the Invention of Succession,” in The Julio-Claudian Succession: Reality and Perception of the “Augustan Model”, ed. Alisdair Gibson (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 59–77.
 Alan Murray, “Baldwin II and his Nobles: Baronial Factionalism and Dissent in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1118–1134,” Nottingham Medieval Studies 38 (January 1994): 62. See Alan Murray, The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Dynastic History 1099-1125 (Oxford: Linacre College, 2000), 155–65.
 Sylvia Schein, “Women in Medieval Colonial Society: The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Twelfth Century,” in Gendering the Crusades, ed. Susan Edgington and Sarah Lambert (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), 144; Natasha Hodgson, “Nobility, Women and Historical Narratives of the Crusades and the Latin East,” Al-Masaq 17, no. 1 (2005): 63; Alan Murray, “Constance, Princess of Antioch (1130–1164): Ancestry, Marriages and Family,” in Anglo-Norman Studies XXXVIII: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2015, ed. Elisabeth van Houts (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2016), 91. See Helen Gaudette, “The Piety, Power, and Patronage of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem’s Queen Melisende” (PhD diss., The City University of New York, 2005), 108, https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/docview/305006120?accountid=14723.
 William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, vol. 2, trans. and ed. Emily Babcock and August Krey (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 139–40. Quoted throughout as WT, followed by the book, chapter and page in Babcock and Krey. Gaudette, “Piety, Power, and Patronage,” 115.
 Hans Mayer, “Studies in the History of Queen Melisende of Jerusalem,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 26 (1972): 99–100; RRH No. 129; Reinhold Röhricht, Regesta regni Hierosolymitani (MXCVII – MCCXCI) (Innsbruck: Libraria Academica Wagneriana, 1893). All royal charters quoted throughout as RRH followed by the number in Röhricht.
 Hans Mayer, “The Succession to Baldwin II of Jerusalem: English Impact on the East,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 39 (1985): 144–46.
 Helen Gaudette, “The Spending Power of a Crusader Queen: Melisende of Jerusalem,” in Women and Wealth in Late Medieval Europe, ed. Theresa Earenfight (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010), 139–42.
 Gaudette, “Piety, Power, and Patronage,” 85.
 Natasha Hodgson, “Mothers,” in Women, Crusading and the Holy Land in Historical Narrative (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2007), 158–59.
 Amin Maalouf, The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, trans. Jon Rothschild (New York: Schocken Books, 1984), 116. al-Qalanisi’s words are taken from his The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades. See Gaudette, “Piety, Power, and Patronage,” 94.
 The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, vol. 6, book 12, ed. Marjorie Chibnall (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), 391. For the ethnic intricacies of the situation, see Adriana Almeida, “Alice of Antioch and the Rebellion against Fulk of Anjou,” Medievalista 4, no. 5 (December 2008): 8–9; Hans Mayer, “Angevins versus Normans: The New Men of King Fulk of Jerusalem,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 133, no. 1 (March 1989): 4, 14, 16–7.
 Johnathon Phillips, “Unrest in Antioch, 1130–8,” in Defenders of the Holy Land: Relations between the Late East and the West, 1119–1187 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 54–6. See Murray, “Constance,” 88.
 See Murray, “Baldwin II and his Nobles,” 65, 84–5.
 Gaudette, “Piety, Power, and Patronage,” 96.
 WT, XIV, 15, 70–71. Mayer, “Queen Melisende,” 102 suggests William of Tyre did not believe these rumours, since he ascribed them so.
 Murray, “Baldwin II and his Nobles,” 65; Bernard Hamilton, “Women in the Crusader States: The Queens of Jerusalem (1100–1190),” in Medieval Women, ed. Derek Baker (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 150. See Pauline Stafford, Queens, Concubines and Dowagers: The King’s Wife in the Early Middle Ages (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1983), 93–8.
 Gaudette, “Piety, Power, and Patronage,” 97–8; Hamilton, 149–51; Mayer, “Queen Melisende,” 106–13. Murray, “Baldwin II and his Nobles,” 80 does not definitively dismiss the rumours.
 Hamilton, 150; Mayer, “Angevins versus Normans,” 4.
 Almeida, 9.
 Hamilton, 150.
 WT, XIV, 18, 76.
 See Gaudette, “Piety, Power, and Patronage,” 100.
 Hodgson, “Mothers,” 187–88. Melisende was praised by Bernard of Clairvoux, whom William of Tyre had cause to respect as a prelate. Similarly, both Boase and Koncelik have recognized Melisende as a generous patron of the Church. Edbury and Rowe argue her legal consecration appealed to William. Almeida suggests that William’s successful career under Amalric was not worth jeopardizing. See Thomas Boase, Kingdoms and Strongholds of the Crusaders (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971), 101–4; Koncelik 95–96; Peter Edbury and John Rowe, William of Tyre: Historian of the Latin East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 65, 80–3; Almeida, 3.
 Murray, “Constance,” 86; Almeida 2, 12. See Hodgson, “Nobility, Women and Historical Narratives.” Patriarch Ralph’s simple deception of Alice further hints at William’s use of narrative archetypes. WT, XIV, 20, 79. See Phillips, “Unrest in Antioch,” 65; Thomas Asbridge, “Alice of Antioch: Female Power in the Twelfth Century,” in The Experience of Crusading: Defining the Crusader Kingdom, ed. Peter Edbury and Johnathon Phillips (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 45.
 Jean Richard, “The Political and Ecclesiastical Organisation of the Crusader States,” in History of the Crusades Vol. 5: The Impact of the Crusades on the Near East, ed. Norman Zacour and Harry Hazard (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), 203; Claude Cahen, Northern Syria at the Time of the Crusades and the Frankish Principality of Antioch (Damascus: Ifpo Presses, 1940), 44; Koncelik, 39. See WT, XIV, 4, 53.
 Fractional accounts from Antioch appear throughout Kamāl ad-Dīn ‘Umar ibn Ahmad Ibn al-‘Adīm, Histoire d’Alep, ed. Edgar Blochet (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1900).
 Hodgson, “Mothers,” 82.
 WT, XIII, 27, 44. See Gaudette, “Piety, Power, and Patronage,” 91–101.
 Hodgson, “Mothers,” 184. Pons, Count of Tripoli and Joscelin II, Count of Edessa were prominent magnates in this coalition. WT, XIV, 5, 54. See Almeida, 7; Phillips, “Unrest in Antioch,” 46.
 WT, XIV, 5, 54. For contrasting opinions on the success of Fulk’s northern campaigns, see Hans Mayer “The Wheel of Fortune: Seignorial Vicissitudes under Kings Fulk and Baldwin III of Jerusalem,” Speculum 65, no. 4 (October 1990): 877; Koncelik, 22–4.
 Mayer, “Wheel of Fortune,” 863.
 WT, XIV, 20, 78.
 Gaudette, “Piety, Power, and Patronage,” 91. See Phillips, “Unrest in Antioch,” 60; Murray, “Constance,” 85.
 See Mayer, “Queen Melisende,” 131–6; Gaudette, “Piety, Power, and Patronage,” 115–7.
 Gaudette, “Spending Power,” 136.
 Gaudette, “Spending Power,” 137–139. See RRH No. 245.
 Marshall Baldwin, “The Latin States Under Baldwin III and Amalric I, 1143–1174,” in A History of the Crusades: The First Hundred Years, vol. 1, ed. Marshall Baldwin and Kenneth Setton (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1958), 534.
 Gaudette, “Piety, Power, and Patronage,” 120.
 WT, XVI, 3, 139–40.
 Gaudette, “Piety, Power, and Patronage,” 109–10.
 Bernard of Clairvaux, The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. Bruno Scott James (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1953), 273.
 Bernard of Clairvaux, 273.
 See Jean Leclerq, Women and Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. Marie-Bemard Said (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1989), 33–52.
 Mayer, “Queen Melisende,” 127–8. See WT, XVII, 1, 184–186. Bernard had dealt directly with Conrad III of Germany. See George Waitz and Bernhard von Simson, eds., “Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Frederici I. Imperatoris,” in Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores in usum scholarum, vol. 46, (Hanover: Impensis Biblipolli Hahniani, 1912), 60.
 Bernard of Clairvaux, 274.
 Gaudette, “Spending Power,” 107. Perhaps this is why Alice so readily believed Raymond of Poitiers had come to marry her.
 Murray, “Constance,” 91. In terms of strict heredity, Manasses was Melisende’s cousin.
 WT, XVII, 13, 204–5, editor’s note 29.
 WT, XVII, 13, 205.
 Mayer, “Queen Melisende,” 113.
 Mayer, “Queen Melisende,” 114–6. See Koncelik, 91.
 Mayer, “Queen Melisende,” 124–5.
 Jill Claster, Sacred Violence: The European Crusades to the Middle East, 1095–1396 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009), 77. Mayer, “Succession to Baldwin II,” 144–6 would disagree. Mayer, “Queen Melisende,” 163–4 suggests that Melisende may even have been prepared to raise Amalric as a counter-king to Baldwin.
 RRH No. 256, No. 262.
 Mayer, “Queen Melisende,” 133–6, 163.
 Hodgson, “Mothers,” 186.
 WT, XVI, 2, 138–9.
 WT, XVI, 2, 139.
 Koncelik, 93.
 Mayer, “Wheel of Fortune,” 877.
 Pierre-Claude-François Daunou and Joseph Naudet, eds., “Continuatio Chronici Guillelmi de Nagngiaco (1301–1327),” in Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France, vol. 20 (Paris: Imprimerie Royale, 1840), 735.
 George Waitz and Bernhard von Simson, eds., “Sigeberti continuatio Praemonstratensis,” in Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores in usum scholarum, vol. 6, (Hanover: Impensis Biblipolli Hahniani, 1912), 454; Mayer, “Queen Melisende,” 161.
 WT, XVII, 13, 204–5.
 See Mayer, “Queen Melisende,” 166.
 For Daniel the Abbot’s evocative description of the citadel, see Daniel the Abbot, “The Life and Journey of Daniel, Abbot of the Russian Land,” in Jerusalem Pilgrimage, 1099–1185, ed. and trans. John Wilkinson, Joyce Hill and William Ryan (London: Hakluyt Society, 1988), 130–1.
 See WT, XVII, 13, 205–7.
 WT, XVII, 14, 207; Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarch Jacobite d’Antioche (1166–1199), trans. Jean Chabot (Brussels: Culture and Civilisation, 1963), 309; The Chronography of Gregory Abu’l Faraj the Son of Aaron, the Hebrew Physician Commonly Known as Bar Hebraeus, trans. Ernest Wallis Budge (London: Oxford University Press, 1932), 279.
 Mayer, “Queen Melisende,” 169, 175.
 Gaudette, “Piety, Power, and Patronage,” 129. See Mayer, “Queen Melisende,” 171; WT, XVII, 19, 214–5.
 Erin Jordan, “Corporate Monarchy in the Twelfth-Century Kingdom of Jerusalem,” Royal Studies Journal 6, no. 1 (2019): 12.
 Hodgson, “Mothers,” 187.
 Bernard of Clairvaux, 274. One wonders as to Bernard’s motivations.
 WT, XVIII, 32, 291.
 See Mayer, “Queen Melisende,” 175–6.
 See Hodgson, “Mothers,” 187.
 John Dalberg-Acton, Letter to Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1887, in Historical Essays and Studies, ed. John Figgis and Reginald Laurence (London: Macmillan, 1907), 504. “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Bar Hebraeus. The Chronography of Gregory Abu’l Faraj the Son of Aaron, the Hebrew Physician Commonly Known as Bar Hebraeus. Translated Ernest Wallis Budge. London: Oxford University Press, 1932.
Bernard of Clairvaux. The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux. Translated Bruno Scott James. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1953.
Daniel the Abbot. “The Life and Journey of Daniel, Abbot of the Russian Land.” In Jerusalem Pilgrimage, 1099–1185. Edited and translated by John Wilkinson, Joyce Hill and William Ryan, 120–57. London: Hakluyt Society, 1988.
Daunou, Pierre-Claude-François and Naudet, Joseph, eds. “Continuatio Chronici Guillelmi de Nagngiaco (1301–1327).” In Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France. Vol. 20, 583–647. Paris: Imprimerie Royale, 1840.
Ibn al-‘Adīm, Kamāl ad-Dīn ‘Umar ibn Ahmad. Histoire d’Alep. Edited by Edgar Blochet. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1900.
Maalouf, Amin. The Crusades Through Arab Eyes. Translated Jon Rothschild. New York: Schocken Books, 1984.
Michel the Syrian. Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarch Jacobite d’Antioche (1166–1199). Translated Jean Chabot. Brussels: Culture and Civilisation, 1963.
Orderic Vitalis. The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis. Edited by Marjorie Chibnall, Vol. 6, Book 12. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.
Waitz, George and Simson, Bernhard von, eds. “Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Frederici I. Imperatoris.” In Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum. Vol. 46, 1–346. Hanover: Impensis Biblipolli Hahniani, 1912.
–––, eds. “Sigeberti continuatio Praemonstratensis.” In Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores in usum scholarum. Vol. 6, 447–56. Hanover: Impensis Biblipolli Hahniani, 1912.
William of Tyre. A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea. Translated and edited by Emily Babcock and August Krey, Vol. 2. New York: Columbia University Press, 1943.
Almeida, Adriana. “Alice of Antioch and the Rebellion against Fulk of Anjou.” Medievalista 4, no. 5 (December 2008): 2–13.
Asbridge, Thomas. “Alice of Antioch: Female Power in the Twelfth Century.” In The Experience of Crusading: Defining the Crusader Kingdom. Vol. 2. Edited by Peter Edbury and Johnathon Phillips, 29–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Baldwin, Marshall. “The Latin States Under Baldwin III and Amalric I, 1143–1174.” In A History of the Crusades: The First Hundred Years. Vol. 1. Edited by Marshall Baldwin and Kenneth Setton, 528–62. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1958.
Boase, Thomas. Kingdoms and Strongholds of the Crusaders. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971.
Cahen, Claude. Northern Syria at the Time of the Crusades and the Frankish Principality of Antioch. Damascus: Ifpo Presses, 1940.
Claster, Jill. Sacred Violence: The European Crusades to the Middle East, 1095–1396. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009.
Dalberg-Acton, John. John Dalberg-Acton to Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1887. In Historical Essays and Studies. Edited by John Figgis and Reginald Laurence. London: Macmillan, 1907.
Edbury, Peter and Rowe, John. William of Tyre: Historian of the Latin East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Leclerq, Jean. Women and Saint Bernard of Clairvaux. Translated Marie-Bemard Said. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1989.
Murray, Alan. “Baldwin II and his Nobles: Baronial Factionalism and Dissent in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1118–1134.” Nottingham Medieval Studies 38 (January 1994): 60–86.
–––, “Constance, Princess of Antioch (1130–1164): Ancestry, Marriages and Family.” In Anglo-Norman Studies XXXVIII: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2015. Edited by Elisabeth van Houts, 81–95. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2016.
–––. The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Dynastic History 1099-1125. Oxford: Linacre College, 2000.
Phillips, Johnathon. “Unrest in Antioch, 1130–8.” In Defenders of the Holy Land: Relations between the Late East and the West, 1119–1187. 44–72. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
Richard, Jean. “The Political and Ecclesiastical Organisation of the Crusader States,” In History of the Crusades Vol. 5: The Impact of the Crusades on the Near East. Edited by Norman Zacour and Harry, 193–250. Hazard Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.
Schein, Sylvia. “Women in Medieval Colonial Society: The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Twelfth Century.” In Gendering the Crusades. Edited by Susan Edgington and Sarah Lambert, 140–54. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002.
Stafford, Pauline. Queens, Concubines and Dowagers: The King’s Wife in the Early Middle Ages. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1983.
Vout, Caroline. “Tiberius and the Invention of Succession.” In The Julio-Claudian Succession: Reality and Perception of the “Augustan Model”. Edited by Alisdair Gibson, 59–77. Leiden: Brill, 2013.