Talk:Maria of Montferrat

Name change

Surely, the name Maria of Jerusalem is more suitable than Maria of Montferrat? Montferrat was her fathers name, and I suppose that is why it has been used. But she was after all a monarch of Jerusalem. This is reason enough to use Jerusalem in her name. Monarchs are referred to by the country the are a monarch in, rather than by their family name. Maria's gender is no reason to use another rule about her. The intro in this article also say that the name Maria of Jerusalem are used about her. Thereby, I assume it would be okay to rename the article. I will leave this message here for others to give their oppinion on the matter all the same before a move is made. --Aciram (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

She's normally called "Maria of Montferrat" in English, for whatever reason. You do see "Maria of Jerusalem" (or "Mary of Jerusalem"), but not as often. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I would support moving the article to Maria of Jerusalem or Maria, Queen of Jerusalem (to comply with Sibylla, Queen of Jerusalem and Melisende, Queen of Jerusalem). Surtsicna (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it should be moved to Maria, Queen of Jerusalem as it indicates who she was--David (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I never understand that argument. The article indicates who she is; why must the title indicate it, especially if it's an artificial title invented for Wikipedia that is never used anywhere else? Hardly any title indicates what something or someone actually is. We don't have an article titled Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit, do we? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Adam Bishop. If Maria of Montferrat is more common name then that should be the title.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maria of Montferrat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Surtsicna (talk · contribs) 22:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 10:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Image review

• Could you add a map? Borsoka (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
• File:Marie de Montferrat.jpg: caption is needed.
  • I would state that the image depicts her coronation. Borsoka (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
• File:Arrival and coronation of John of Brienne.jpg: I would avoid the PoV in the caption, because we do not know anything of her thoughts.Borsoka (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I added File:C. 1210 Southeastern Europe and Asia Minor.jpg. I would prefer not to have the same map in the articles about Maria and Isabella II because the articles otherwise look too similar. I put a caption in the infobox although I dislike the look of captions in Template:Infobox royalty and try to avoid them. The caption in the John of Brienne image was not meant to refer to Maria's thoughts, but if that's how it sounded, a change was needed. Surtsicna (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• File:C. 1210 Southeastern Europe and Asia Minor.jpg: I would name Boniface and introduce him as her uncle in the caption.

A bit difficult to pull because he shed his mortal coil in 1207 and the map says 1210... Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• :):)

Source review

• Haberstumpf, Hamilton, Murray: translation of titles are missing.
• Hamilton: ISBN is missing.
• Waag: I would italicise the Latin text in the title. Borsoka (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Italicised Latin, added the ISBN. I did not know that we were supposed to provide translation of titles. It's ringing OR bells for me, but the parameter does exist in Template:Cite book and you know what you're doing, so let's roll. Surtsicna (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• I doubt that a title's translation could be regarded OR. Borsoka (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• References 11, 17, 31 are OK.
• Could you please check references 19 and 21. Borsoka (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I cited Perry's 2018 book instead of the 2013 book... embarrassing :') Surtsicna (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• ...in recognition of... I would rephrase ("in reference to"/"after"/...)

Done. Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• ...lacking a male ruler... I would rephrase ("without"/...)

It does not look good because there is already a "without" in the same sentence, only four words earlier. Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• ... in order to gain legitimacy I would delete this text, because it is not only unnecessary, but potentially misleading (did he need to marry her in a week to gain legitimacy?)

I think it is crucial and it sets the stage for John of Brienne's accession through marriage with Maria. Henry did need to marry Isabella as soon as possible once he had been selected to rule because political legitimacy is important. Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• The contemporary historian Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani was shocked: when he asked a courtier to whom the paternity would be awarded, he was told: "It will be the queen's child!" Rephrase to avoid the use of two colons.

Oh, two colons is really bad. The second set is not actually supposed to be there. English punctuation standards... Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• ...Queen Maria Komnene... Delete her title to avoid confusion.

I think her title prevents confusion as it helps distinguish her from Maria of Montferrat and it establishes her status. Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand. Maria of Montferrat was also queen of Jerusalem. Maria Komnene had been queen more than 30 years before her granddaughter ascended the throne. Perhaps dowager queen?

I meant that Maria of Montferrat was not yet queen. Dowager queen will work! Surtsicna (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• I would mention that Guy was Maria's fiancé.

So would I if it were clear... but some sources (e.g. Runciman) say that the sisters betrothed to Aimery's sons were Maria, Alice, and Philippa, while others say they were all daughters of Henry, so Margaret, Alice, Philippa. To make matters extra confusing, this Margaret is sometimes also called Maria. Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• ..., leaving five daughters Delete (repetition), and rephrase the subsequent sentence ("Maria, as her eldest surviving daughter, ....", or something similar.

Six daughters are named in the preceding section. This is the first time we are saying that Isabella was survived by five. Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• ...the custom of the kingdom... The case of Baldwin V contradicts this statement: his mother and maternal grandmother were his closest relation on her mother's side, and his claim to the throne came from her mother, but Raymond III of Tripoli became the regent.

Of course. I think Edbury notes this too. There are exceptions to every rule. I am not sure if this irregularity should be discussed in this article. Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• My concern is that no one could refer to a precedent establishing this custom. So I would refer to the law book mentioned in Hamilton's study. Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

How about simply "the law of the kingdom"? Surtsicna (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• ...an impoverished and aged knight... Both claims are dubious. I would not cite Runciman on this subject.

Of course. Perry refutes this. I forgot to take it out. Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• He may have been championed... Attribute this PoV to a scholar.

I got a lot of criticism for such attributions in the Queen Melisende FAC process... Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Even so, I would attribute this PoV to a scholar. :) Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not particularly mind doing so, but the next time I catch flak for it, I am pinging you! Surtsicna (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• I will hide away. I am a wimp. Borsoka (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• Alice, Maria's heir presumptive, married their stepbrother King Hugh I of Cyprus most likely in early 1210 and received the County of Jaffa as her dowry. Delete.

Is it not noteworthy that her half-sister took a huge part of the royal domain? Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Then make it clear in the text. Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Can't be clearer than that, I'm afraid. I'm fine with it being removed, though. Surtsicna (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• ...pronounced Maria and John married... I would rephrase it ("officiated Maria and John's marriage"/"solemnized their marriage"/...)

Done. Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• I would introduce Al-Muazzam as the ruler of Damascus.

Let's do that. Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• ...Maria's consent was noted in most of John's acts ... Maria showed little inclination toward political activity... Contradiction?

Hmm. It would have been if it said "no inclination". With "little inclination" I am not sure that it is. Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Did Sybilla indeed show little inclination toward political activity? She arranged her own coronation despite strong opposition, and also the coronation of her husband, despite even stronger opposition. Borsoka (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I too wondered about this. Sibylla also negotiated with Saladin and was an active countess of Jaffa before her accession to the throne. Obviously they are all contrasted with Melisende. Hamilton says:

Between 1186 and 1228 the crown of Jerusalem was held by women: Sibyl, Isabella I, Maria, and Isabella II. None of them had a strong political drive: they all married, in Isabella I's case four times, and they devolved power to their husbands.

• (Lead) I would mention that she was a posthumous daughter.
• (Lead) I would mention that Conrad was her father. Borsoka (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I actually avoided that on purpose. This seems to be a very rare case of a medieval biography where the mother is far more important to the topic than the father, so I wished to emphasize that. As Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani was told regarding the father's identity, "It will be the queen's child!" Surtsicna (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I have suspected that too, but I do not think we can leave out her father, especially as she was named after him. Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, he's there now. Surtsicna (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I have no choice but to pass this article. Congratulations. Have you considered creating a Featured topic on the female rulers of Jerusalem, regents among them? Borsoka (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I have not, but now I shall! So far we only have Melisende of Jerusalem and Alice of Champagne as FAs, and we would need a few more to qualify. Surtsicna (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron talk 03:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• Maria of Montferrat
• Isabella II of Jerusalem

)

Death of Isabella II

• ... that two queens of Jerusalem—Maria and her daughter, Isabella II—died in childbirth (pictured), one after delivering the other?

• Source: Perry 2015, p. 7

• • ALT1: ... that two successive queens of Jerusalem, mother and daughter, lost their lives to childbirth—Maria after giving birth to Isabella II, and Isabella II after bearing her own heir (pictured)?
  • ALT2: ... that mother and daughter Queens Maria and Isabella II of Jerusalem (pictured) both died of childbirth complications shortly after delivering their successors?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Intelligent and Loyal
  • Comment: I nominate this now because Maria of Montferrat passed its GA nomination a week ago. Isabella II of Jerusalem will be formally added to the nomination shortly, after one remaining issue in the GA review is addressed.
    • Isabella added.

Created by Surtsicna (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. Nominator has 253 past nominations.

Surtsicna (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC).

• QPQs done (2 in 1). Maria's article passed GA a week before the nom, Isabella's three days after. Gonna just go with that. The hook info is all included at Isabella's article, half at Maria's, which is satis. Info has in-line citations, though I can't access these various Guy Perry (not our Guy Perry I hope) works. The link in this nom, even, is showing a blank page on jstor for me. Would Surtsicna be able to provide quotes + context from the sources? As for the hook fact, while it's the only thing I think that connects the two articles, is there anything potentially more interesting than "teenagers died in childbirth 1000 years ago"? I don't object to the current options entirely, but it would be nice to have something about their reigns if possible! Otherwise, all looks good. Kingsif (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Kingsif. Here are the quotes:

• "Within days of her birth, she had become the formal heiress ('dreit heir') to the kingdom, since her mother, Queen Maria, died shortly after childbirth." Perry 2015, p. 74
• "In late 1212 his queen, Maria, died shortly after childbirth, leaving only their newborn daughter, Isabella II (often called ‘Yolande’ or ‘Yolanda’)." (Perry 2018, p. 68)
• "Isabella-Yolanda was doomed to repeat the fate of her mother. She died only a few days after giving birth, and was buried in the cathedral of Andria. She was not yet seventeen." Perry 2015, p. 76
• "The short reigns of Isabella I’s daughter Maria and her granddaughter Isabella II demonstrated the fragility of the succession; both women lived only long enough for each of them to marry and produce a single heir." (Murray 2015, p. 133)

They did nothing in their reigns. The articles say this too. They were children, absent, or pregnant throughout. Dying the same deaths at the same young age is pretty much what they are best known for. Surtsicna (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Thanks for the quotes. I found when reading the articles that it seemed Maria was uninterested in ruling but that Isabella might have been, but was prevented from doing so? If this is V could it be used? Kingsif (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

The article does not say that she was interested in ruling, Kingsif. I suppose you glanced that from her sole act, but it would be WP:OR for Wikipedia to make that conclusion. Surtsicna (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps I assumed too much from the mention that her husband kept her away from passing other things? Well, then, happy to approve all proposed hooks. I would prefer alt0 and alt2 (I find the phrasing of alt1 weaker than the others). Kingsif (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)