King Richard I of Jerusalem

[Amateur]

In 1184 and 1185 the Patriarch of Jerusalem traveled to Italy, France, and England in search of support and a new prince for the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The King of Jerusalem, Baldwin IV, was dying of leprosy, and the kingdom was on the verge of civil war with his sister and half-sister vying for influence over the heir, the seven year old nephew of the King. The Patriarch and the Orders Hospitaliers and Templar hoped to secure a wealthy European monarch or prince, who would bring considerable resources to the Holy Land and rule the Kingdom as Regent for the child-king Baldwin V upon death of Baldwin IV.

The Patriarch's efforts gained support for the Kingdom of Jerusalem in both England and France, and eventually led to the Third Crusade in 1189, but failed to gain a new prince for the Holy Land.

What if Henry II of England and his son Richard, Duke of Aquitaine (later Richard I of England) had agreed to install and support Richard as Regent for the new child-King of Jerusalem?

Henry II had three living adult sons at the time, and is widely thought to have favored his youngest son, John, over Richard (the other son, Geoffrey, was Duke of Brittany by marriage and independent of his father's control).

Baldwin IV of Jerusalem died in May of 1185, and Baldwin V died in 1186, which would leave Richard in Jerusalem as the only living male relative of Baldwin IV in the Holy Land (Henry II and Baldwin IV were cousins).

What would be the effect of Richard, Duke of Aquitaine (the wealthiest province in the West), traveling to the Holy Land with the Patriarch and the Orders Templar and Hospitaliers to serve as Regent in 1185 and being crowned King of Jerusalem (with their support) in 1186 before the fall of Jerusalem to Saladin?

 

[kasumigenx]

He can marry Isabella of Jerusalem instead of his OTL wife, Berengaria.

 

[Amateur]

He can marry Isabella of Jerusalem instead of his OTL wife, Berengaria.

Isabella of Jerusalem was Richard's first cousin once removed (she was a first cousin of Richard's father).

Eww.

A more likely match would be with a princess of the Eastern Empire, such as Eudokia Komnene (available after her divorce in 1187).

 

[Arcavia]

Isabella of Jerusalem was Richard's first cousin once removed (she was a first cousin of Richard's father).

Eww.

But still possible, I think, with the right dispensation, no?

 

[FillyofDelphi]

But still possible, I think, with the right dispensation, no?

The Habsburgs woulden't get excommunicated for doing it over and over again. If Richard is a champion of the Church and what's keeping the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in its hands, I don't see why he coulden't get support for the idea. After all, if he can repel Saladin God CLEARLY approves of him running the place: if he had really committed a mortal sin victory would have been denied to him.

 

[Amateur]

But still possible, I think, with the right dispensation, no?

Possible, but since his claim to the throne was strong enough to stand on its own he would be better off marrying into the money and military support of the Eastern Empire.

As did most of the ruling houses of the four Crusader states, for the same reasons.

Richard's marriage would be a card he could only play once, and he would make the most of it (as he did OTL, securing a marriage that improved his position as Duke of Aquitaine and Normandy against the French Crown).

 

[Thoresby]

Isabella of Jerusalem was Richard's first cousin once removed (she was a first cousin of Richard's father).

Eww.

That would not be a problem, by Royal marriage standards that's distant. A papal dispensation would be needed but it would almost certainly be given unless Richard has passed off the Pope somehow.

 

[alexmilman]

In 1184 and 1185 the Patriarch of Jerusalem traveled to Italy, France, and England in search of support and a new prince for the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The King of Jerusalem, Baldwin IV, was dying of leprosy, and the kingdom was on the verge of civil war with his sister and half-sister vying for influence over the heir, the seven year old nephew of the King. The Patriarch and the Orders Hospitaliers and Templar hoped to secure a wealthy European monarch or prince, who would bring considerable resources to the Holy Land and rule the Kingdom as Regent for the child-king Baldwin V upon death of Baldwin IV.

The Patriarch's efforts gained support for the Kingdom of Jerusalem in both England and France, and eventually led to the Third Crusade in 1189, but failed to gain a new prince for the Holy Land.

What if Henry II of England and his son Richard, Duke of Aquitaine (later Richard I of England) had agreed to install and support Richard as Regent for the new child-King of Jerusalem?

Henry II had three living adult sons at the time, and is widely thought to have favored his youngest son, John, over Richard (the other son, Geoffrey, was Duke of Brittany by marriage and independent of his father's control).

Baldwin IV of Jerusalem died in May of 1185, and Baldwin V died in 1186, which would leave Richard in Jerusalem as the only living male relative of Baldwin IV in the Holy Land (Henry II and Baldwin IV were cousins).

What would be the effect of Richard, Duke of Aquitaine (the wealthiest province in the West), traveling to the Holy Land with the Patriarch and the Orders Templar and Hospitaliers to serve as Regent in 1185 and being crowned King of Jerusalem (with their support) in 1186 before the fall of Jerusalem to Saladin?

As I understand, the Orders you mentioned already had been there and as far as Richard is involved, most probably he would be at odds with most of the local barons and pretty much everybody else, while keep squeezung his Duchy out of money to pay for his activities in the HL.

He was probably too good a tactician to get himself into the Horns of Hattie-like situation so Jerusalem is not falling into the Muslim hands for a while. However, in the case of an escalated conflict the local resources may not be adequate and how he would build his relations with the European monarchs is anybody’s guess. At least in OTL he clearly failed in this area and him having a prestigious title of King of Jerusalem would not make things easier.

 

[isabella]

He can marry Isabella of Jerusalem instead of his OTL wife, Berengaria.

Isabella of Jerusalem was Richard's first cousin once removed (she was a first cousin of Richard's father).

Eww.

A more likely match would be with a princess of the Eastern Empire, such as Eudokia Komnene (available after her divorce in 1187).

But still possible, I think, with the right dispensation, no?

Possible, but since his claim to the throne was strong enough to stand on its own he would be better off marrying into the money and military support of the Eastern Empire.

As did most of the ruling houses of the four Crusader states, for the same reasons.

Richard's marriage would be a card he could only play once, and he would make the most of it (as he did OTL, securing a marriage that improved his position as Duke of Aquitaine and Normandy against the French Crown).

Richard has no claim of his own on the throne of Jerusalem so he would need to marry either Sibylla or Isabella of Jerusalem for claiming the crown. Richard was a descendant of Fulk of Anjou, King of Jerusalem but from his first wife, Ermengarda of Maine, while the Kingdom of Jerusalem was the inheritance of Fulk’s second wife, Melisende of Jerusalem.

 

[kasumigenx]

Richard has no claim of his own on the throne of Jerusalem so he would need to marry either Sibylla or Isabella of Jerusalem for claiming the crown. Richard was a descendant of Fulk of Anjou, King of Jerusalem but from his first wife, Ermengarda of Maine, while the Kingdom of Jerusalem was the inheritance of Fulk’s second wife, Melisende of Jerusalem.

True.

 

[Amateur]

Richard was a descendant of Fulk of Anjou, King of Jerusalem but from his first wife, Ermengarda of Maine, while the Kingdom of Jerusalem was the inheritance of Fulk’s second wife, Melisende of Jerusalem.

Officially, the King of Jerusalem was an elected position, with the Haute Cour (High Court) making the selection. The first ruler of the Kingdom refused to the title King, and when he died the Kingdom was originally offered to Bohemond I of Antioch, who was not related to the first ruler. Baldwin I, the dead ruler's brother, was able to capture the Kingdom and become the first King (second ruler) due to Bohemond being held captive by his enemies when the first leader died.

Fulk was originally recruited to be the consort of the Queen. He refused, and demanded to be King if he was to give up his position in France and relocate to the Holy Land. The Kingdom needed him and he was crowned the King of Jerusalem, not consort. Once crowned King, all his issue had claim -- he was not the Consort or some other lesser title, he was KING.

Plus, marrying one of the sisters would have frustrated the entire purpose of the Patriarch's embassy to the lords of Italy, England, and France.

Each sister headed a faction in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and conflict between the two was a source of strife within the Kingdom sufficient that the head of the Church in the Kingdom, the head of the Templars, and the head of the Hospitaliers were pleading with Henry II of England and Philippe II of France to send another prince, ANY other prince of note to serve as Regent, unify the Kingdom, and get the sisters (their cousins) to behave. Picking one side of this conflict was NOT what the Patriarch had in mind, for he feared the divisions between the two factions were weakening the Kingdom.

(Turns out the Patriarch was no slouch...)

Richard was a great-grandson of King Fulk I of Jerusalem, by Fulk's son and grandson. Once he relocated to Jerusalem, and given the choice between him and the despised Guy Lusignan upon the death of the child-king Baldwin V, the Haute Cour would have gladly offered the crown to Richard.

 

[Amateur]

He was probably too good a tactician to get himself into the Horns of Hattie-like situation so Jerusalem is not falling into the Muslim hands for a while. However, in the case of an escalated conflict the local resources may not be adequate

Under Baldwin IV the local resources were sufficient to repulse attacks from Saladin, and Baldwin was seriously ill and had to be carried to battle on a litter. His army numbered about 20,000 men.

Richard would presumably arrive with a significant army of his own, paid for by his possessions in France, and would add that army to the considerable force and strategic position of the Kingdom of Jerusalem while it was intact. Since Jerusalem has not fallen, there is no urgent need for a Third Crusade, so the King of France and the HR Emperor (later, his son) are not in theater, but presumably France and the HRE would at least partially honor their pledges of support to the Patriarch and some smaller collections of soldiers would take up the Cross.

I'm guessing Richard's own troops plus others sent would number about 10,000, half being Richards and the rest being a mix from France, the HRE, and various volunteers from the rest of Christendom.

 

[alexmilman]

Under Baldwin IV the local resources were sufficient to repulse attacks from Saladin, and Baldwin was seriously ill and had to be carried to battle on a litter.

Richard would presumably arrive with a significant army of his own, paid for by his possessions in France, and would add that army to the considerable force and strategic position of the Kingdom of Jerusalem while it was intact.

So, the Kingdom of Jerusalem would have the crusader army of Baldwin IV (20,000 men) augmented by thousands of western troops brought by Richard (he brought 9000 OTL after the fall of Jerusalem) and perhaps a few thousand more sent by other western monarchs (all pledged aid in the OTL, just no prince), led by an experienced commander who was physically fit, with numerous defensive fortifications to be used as bases of operation.

Well, to bring his OTL army he had to loot England and his continental possessions and then to proceeded squeezing money on his way to the HE. So I would not be too sure about his ability to keep these troops forever in this scenario. As far as Baldwin is concerned, the obvious question is which part of his army was his. Taking into an account Richard’s personality, it is not impossible to imagine that the rulers of,say, Antioch and/or Tripoli would be less than excited at perspective of being pushed around. The same goes for the barons of the Kingdom of Jerusalem: IIRC in OTL they did support Richard’s opponent. So these 20,000 may not materialize. Actually, they may never exist: the more or less known data related to the Battle of Montigsard are 375 knights and it is not even clear if the number includes mounted sergeants. It seems that this number applies to Baldwin’s own knights only. Speculations are that the total numbers were in the range of 7,000 - 10,000 including 500 knights Hospitallier, 80 Templars and up to 4,000 infantry (see wiki on that battle).

BTW, the OTL Richard’s army were troops from England and Normandy. An assumption that this number could be raised in Acquitaine is not necessarily correct being too optimistic.

In OTL crusade was a logical result of the fall of Jerusalem but if this did not happen, there is no crusade and nobody is sending any troops. There are just usual armed ‘pilgrims’.

Now, the conversation was not about Richard military prowess but about his ability to rule Kingdom of Jerusalem which would require a lot of diplomatic and administrative skills, areas in which OTL Richard did not demonstrate noticeable talents.

 

[Amateur]

Well, to bring his OTL army he had to loot England and his continental possessions and then to proceeded squeezing money on his way to the HE. So I would not be too sure about his ability to keep these troops forever in this scenario. As far as Baldwin is concerned, the obvious question is which part of his army was his. Taking into an account Richard’s personality, it is not impossible to imagine that the rulers of,say, Antioch and/or Tripoli would be less than excited at perspective of being pushed around. The same goes for the barons of the Kingdom of Jerusalem: IIRC in OTL they did support Richard’s opponent. So these 20,000 may not materialize. Actually, they may never exist: the more or less known data related to the Battle of Montigsard are 375 knights and it is not even clear if the number includes mounted sergeants. It seems that this number applies to Baldwin’s own knights only. Speculations are that the total numbers were in the range of 7,000 - 10,000 including 500 knights Hospitallier, 80 Templars and up to 4,000 infantry (see wiki on that battle).

BTW, the OTL Richard’s army were troops from England and Normandy. An assumption that this number could be raised in Acquitaine is not necessarily correct being too optimistic.

In OTL crusade was a logical result of the fall of Jerusalem but if this did not happen, there is no crusade and nobody is sending any troops. There are just usual armed ‘pilgrims’.

Now, the conversation was not about Richard military prowess but about his ability to rule Kingdom of Jerusalem which would require a lot of diplomatic and administrative skills, areas in which OTL Richard did not demonstrate noticeable talents.

The Kingdom of Jerusalem fielded about 20,000 soldiers at the Battle of Hattin. That number very likely represented essentially the entire mobile force available to the Kingdom (i.e., it excludes garrison forces), which included all the Crusader States.

The OTL Third Crusade counted about 35,000 soldiers at outset, 9,000 of which were Richard's. His main expense however was his fleet, needed to both transport the troops and secure supplies. OTL, in 1185 both Henry II and Philip II pledged to crusade in the Holy Land while obviously not being in a rush to actually go, so I would assume that the the ATL Henry and Philip would send Richard in their place and foot part of the bill.

Yes, Richard lacked people skills, and that would be a serious peacetime problem in the Kingdom. Guy was not a people-person either. Guy managed to field 20,000 men at Hattin without support from the West, because the Kingdom was at war and they all had to hang together or they would surely hang separately.

 

[isabella]

Officially, the King of Jerusalem was an elected position, with the Haute Cour (High Court) making the selection. The first ruler of the Kingdom refused to the title King, and when he died the Kingdom was originally offered to Bohemond I of Antioch, who was not related to the first ruler. Baldwin I, the dead ruler's brother, was able to capture the Kingdom and become the first King (second ruler) due to Bohemond being held captive by his enemies when the first leader died.

Fulk was originally recruited to be the consort of the Queen. He refused, and demanded to be King if he was to give up his position in France and relocate to the Holy Land. The Kingdom needed him and he was crowned the King of Jerusalem, not consort. Once crowned King, all his issue had claim -- he was not the Consort or some other lesser title, he was KING.

Plus, marrying one of the sisters would have frustrated the entire purpose of the Patriarch's embassy to the lords of Italy, England, and France.

Each sister headed a faction in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and conflict between the two was a source of strife within the Kingdom sufficient that the head of the Church in the Kingdom, the head of the Templars, and the head of the Hospitaliers were pleading with Henry II of England and Philippe II of France to send another prince, ANY other prince of note to serve as Regent, unify the Kingdom, and get the sisters (their cousins) to behave. Picking one side of this conflict was NOT what the Patriarch had in mind, for he feared the divisions between the two factions were weakening the Kingdom.

(Turns out the Patriarch was no slouch...)

Richard was a great-grandson of King Fulk I of Jerusalem, by Fulk's son and grandson. Once he relocated to Jerusalem, and given the choice between him and the despised Guy Lusignan upon the death of the child-king Baldwin V, the Haute Cour would have gladly offered the crown to Richard.

Fulk’s descendant by Ermengarde had no claim on Jerusalem or at least no claim while Melisende’s line was extant. Fulk was crowned King but jure uxoris (like John II of Aragon in Navarre, Ferdinand of Aragon in Castile or Philip II of Spain in England) so his heirs from another wedding had no automatic right on Jerusalem. The Haute Court OTL recognized the rights of Sybilla to the crown under the condition she divorced Guy (Sybilla accepted if she had the right to choose her new husband and then remarried Guy, crowning him as King). Being regent (so ruling Jerusalem until the majority of Baldwin V or for a little time after his death and having a high importance in the choice between Sybilla and Isabella as necpxt ruler) and being King are two totally different things and Richard can not have the latter without marrying either Sybilla or Isabella

 

[Amateur]

Fulk’s descendant by Ermengarde had no claim on Jerusalem or at least no claim while Melisende’s line was extant. Fulk was crowned King but jure uxoris (like John II of Aragon in Navarre, Ferdinand of Aragon in Castile or Philip II of Spain in England) so his heirs from another wedding had no automatic right on Jerusalem. The Haute Court OTL recognized the rights of Sybilla to the crown under the condition she divorced Guy (Sybilla accepted if she had the right to choose her new husband and then remarried Guy, crowning him as King). Being regent (so ruling Jerusalem until the majority of Baldwin V or for a little time after his death and having a high importance in the choice between Sybilla and Isabella as necpxt ruler) and being King are two totally different things and Richard can not have the latter without marrying either Sybilla or Isabella

The Crown of Jerusalem was hereditary by tradition but elective in principle. This is why the Haute Cour could impose conditions on Sybilla -- they had the ultimate legal say. Of course, their decision had to be supported by the bulk of the enfeoffed vassals of the realm in order to prevent civil war, but they legally could name anyone King.

So, if the Haute Cour did not want to choose either of the sisters (which is why they petitioned the Kings of England and France in the first place, to put the decision on them and avoid civil war), they could then resort to naming Richard Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri (Protector of the Holy Sepulcher), the title held by the first crusader ruler of Jerusalem?

Let the sisters inherit the fiefs personally controlled by Baldwin IV and briefly by Baldwin V, but lay the title King aside until either of them has male child that reaches maturity?

 

[Mort the Reaper]

So, if the Haute Cour did not want to choose either of the sisters (which is why they petitioned the Kings of England and France in the first place, to put the decision on them and avoid civil war), they could then resort to naming Richard Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri (Protector of the Holy Sepulcher), the title held by the first crusader ruler of Jerusalem?

Possibly. An outsider might be considered a good "compromise candidate".

 

[isabella]

The Crown of Jerusalem was hereditary by tradition but elective in principle. This is why the Haute Cour could impose conditions on Sybilla -- they had the ultimate legal say. Of course, their decision had to be supported by the bulk of the enfeoffed vassals of the realm in order to prevent civil war, but they legally could name anyone King.

So, if the Haute Cour did not want to choose either of the sisters (which is why they petitioned the Kings of England and France in the first place, to put the decision on them and avoid civil war), they could then resort to naming Richard Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri (Protector of the Holy Sepulcher), the title held by the first crusader ruler of Jerusalem?

Let the sisters inherit the fiefs personally controlled by Baldwin IV and briefly by Baldwin V, but lay the title King aside until either of them has male child that reaches maturity?

I think they will put the decision between the sisters in Richard’s hand (or offer to him the crown if he married one of them as while both Sybilla and Isabella were married, Guy was unacceptable for them and Isabella’s wedding to Humphrey easy to declare null)

 

[Black Prince of Britannia]

The Crown of Jerusalem was hereditary by tradition but elective in principle. This is why the Haute Cour could impose conditions on Sybilla -- they had the ultimate legal say. Of course, their decision had to be supported by the bulk of the enfeoffed vassals of the realm in order to prevent civil war, but they legally could name anyone King.

So, if the Haute Cour did not want to choose either of the sisters (which is why they petitioned the Kings of England and France in the first place, to put the decision on them and avoid civil war), they could then resort to naming Richard Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri (Protector of the Holy Sepulcher), the title held by the first crusader ruler of Jerusalem?

Let the sisters inherit the fiefs personally controlled by Baldwin IV and briefly by Baldwin V, but lay the title King aside until either of them has male child that reaches maturity?

The heaps and bounds you're willing to go through just so you can avoid having Richard and Isabella married despite all non-Angevins candidates post-Baldwin V being related by marriage to them is a little ridiculous, once again they were related far apart among medieval nobility to not have any issues despite very possibly requiring a Papal dispensation.

To Baldwin IV, Sybilla was the favored heir after her son Baldwin V, it wasn't a situation of the Haute Cour looking outward for a suitable candidate, it was Baldwin IV trying to counteract the overwhelming influence of Ibelin faction (which incidentally contained Isabella as the step-daughter of Balian, but curiously he never pursued her claim vehemently throughout Sybilla's lifetime, pressures were made to push their candidate of marriage for Sybilla never Isabella, so it was clear that to even the Ibelin faction, Sybilla was the clear heir). So if Richard was arrived in Jerusalem in 1180 as an exile/younger son (Henry the Young King was still alive by then) instead of the exiled Guy of Lusignan, then Baldwin IV would probably look at him as a more favorable marriage candidate for Sybilla instead.

The point is, yes in deed Richard's marriage card can only be played once. For Richard to want to have a say in Jerusalem, he would be looking inward of the Kingdom to secure his position, not outwards to Constantinople when his own position was tenuous, a marriage with a Roman princess would not benefit his position within the Kingdom, he would still be a landless noble without connections to the Kingdom and only a very slim chance of military assistance from the Komenenoids.

Similarly, neither Baldwin IV nor Sybilla would let this connection to possible assistance from Henry II be wasted, to them marrying Richard would be the equivalent of marrying Eastern Roman royals, which would be the case of a native noble seeking outside support.

The position of Richard at this point, and for much of his possible later reign, would be an outsider, not a native lord like the past Jerusalem Kings marrying Byzantines.

 

[isabella]

The heaps and bounds you're willing to go through just so you can avoid having Richard and Isabella married despite all non-Angevins candidates post-Baldwin V being related by marriage to them is a little ridiculous, once again they were related far apart among medieval nobility to not have any issues despite very possibly requiring a Papal dispensation.

To Baldwin IV, Sybilla was the favored heir after her son Baldwin V, it wasn't a situation of the Haute Cour looking outward for a suitable candidate, it was Baldwin IV trying to counteract the overwhelming influence of Ibelin faction (which incidentally contained Isabella as the step-daughter of Balian, but curiously he never pursued her claim vehemently throughout Sybilla's lifetime, pressures were made to push their candidate of marriage for Sybilla never Isabella, so it was clear that to even the Ibelin faction, Sybilla was the clear heir). So if Richard was arrived in Jerusalem in 1180 as an exile/younger son (Henry the Young King was still alive by then) instead of the exiled Guy of Lusignan, then Baldwin IV would probably look at him as a more favorable marriage candidate for Sybilla instead.

The point is, yes in deed Richard's marriage card can only be played once. For Richard to want to have a say in Jerusalem, he would be looking inward of the Kingdom to secure his position, not outwards to Constantinople when his own position was tenuous, a marriage with a Roman princess would not benefit his position within the Kingdom, he would still be a landless noble without connections to the Kingdom and only a very slim chance of military assistance from the Komenenoids.

Similarly, neither Baldwin IV nor Sybilla would let this connection to possible assistance from Henry II be wasted, to them marrying Richard would be the equivalent of marrying Eastern Roman royals, which would be the case of a native noble seeking outside support.

The position of Richard at this point, and for much of his possible later reign, would be an outsider, not a native lord like the past Jerusalem Kings marrying Byzantines.

Well Baldwin IV had taken enough precautions for preventing the Ibelin faction from damaging Sybilla’s rights as Isabella was engaged at 8 years to Humphrey of Toron whose mother and stepfather were strong supporters of Guy and Sybilla and the girl was given in custody to her mother-in-law to be. Then at Baldwin V’s death the Ibelins tried to proclaim Isabella as Queen against Sybilla but they were forced to renounce to that plan when Humphrey escaped from the place in which they were reunited for going to swear fealty to Guy and so the Ibelins were unable to do anything before the annulment of Isabella and Humphrey’s wedding (who happened only after Sybilla’s death).
The Ibelins tried to push a candidate of their own for Sybilla’s hand as she was the elder girl and ready to (re)marry plus Isabella was already in their camp after Maria and Balian’s wedding and too young to be married. When Baldwin choose Guy of Lusignan instead of Baldwin of Ibelin as second husband for Sybilla he also take away the young Isabella from the custody of her mother and stepfather.
When Baldwin IV decided who Guy was unsuitable as either regent or King replaced Sybilla with her son Baldwin V as heir but in case of the premature death of his nephews he left the decision of which of his sisters will succede to him to the haute court.
If Richard go to Jerusalem before Sybilla’s second wedding he will marry her without any doubt (as Richard would be the perfect candidate for her hand under any point of view), if he arrived at the time of the death of Baldwin IV or V the haute court will likely offer him the regency/crown if he married one princess (so givin him the choice between Sybilla and Isabella)

Remember who Sybilla was the eldest child of Almaric and was born around 1160 while Isabella was the youngest and was born only in 1172 (so she was 12 years junior than her half sister)