MELISENDE OF JERUSALEM / Part 2 #TeamMelisende

So when we left off in Part 1, Melisende had, after a tumultuous few years of marital strife (what marriage doesn’t go through false rumours of infidelity, political upheaval and a rebellion from a dear cousin), finally managed to find a degree of harmony within her marriage, only to have her husband die in what is usually said to have been a freak accident whilst hunting. This left Melisende to deal with two sons, both of whom had yet to reach their teenage years, a kingdom under immense pressure and at a near-constant state of war and a bunch of rowdy barons to deal with. For a woman with lesser political instincts that might have seemed overwhelming but Melisende was not ya average political operator. She had been trained her entire life for this moment. After years of either sharing power or being deprived of it, Jerusalem was now all hers (as it should have been all along quite frankly).

In the aftermath of Fulk’s death thirteen-year-old Baldwin (see above) was named King by the nobility of Jerusalem and on Christmas 1143 Melisende and Baldwin were crowned together. This is important to emphasise; Baldwin wasn’t crowned as a sole monarch with Melisende acting merely as his regent or guardian. They were crowned together, as co-monarchs with equal authority. Despite that, there does seem to be a lack of clarity amongst contemporaries as to the exact position of Melisende; she was commonly referred to as a regent with Ibn al-qalanisi writing that, “the boy’s mother was appointed to kingship in his place” [1] whereas others including William of Tyre believed that Melisende was “acting by hereditary right in assuming the care and administration of the realm” [2]. Due to William of Tyre’s proximity to the events and also how hard Melisende had fought for power when her husband was alive, I’m more inclined to support his view that Melisende and Baldwin were co-monarchs as Melisende and Fulk had been rather than Baldwin being sole King with Melisende as mere regent. Now co-monarchs is always a tricky idea especially amongst royals who believe in the divine right of kings because very few of them actually believe in the concept of sharing that right. And that unsurprisingly was exactly the problem between Melisende and Baldwin. You see for a few years, everything was relatively stable in the kingdom of Jerusalem; Melisende was a politically sharp, wise, talented leader who surrounded herself with good advisors and handled the administration of the kingdom well whilst Baldwin was too young and too inexperienced to have the abilities or indeed the desire to govern. Boy kings however grow into grown men and grown men especially kings do not like to share power with their mothers. In 1145 Baldwin turned 15 and thus according to Jerusalem law, old enough to rule; in any other scenario Melisende would have been deprived of power in favour of her son which quite frankly is ludicrous; no 15-year-old teenage boy should be in charge of anything let along an entire kingdom but I digress.

Was Melisende deprived of power, you ask? Well no actually she wasn’t. Melisende sort of just refused to give up the authority, she said she was rightfully hers as the daughter and heir of Baldwin II and continued ruling as the kingdom’s sole sovereign. Throughout history many a regent has tried to keep power when their time comes to give it up and it usually doesn’t end well for the regent. Melisende however had a legal claim to power, something Hans Eberhard Mayer emphasises when he points out she carried on ruling until 1152 despite the objection of a portion of Jerusalem’s nobles and the growing resentment of her own son; this attests “to the high legality of her claim” [3] he writes. One of the best ways of figuring out who was in charge when, is looking at the charters of the period and who they were signed by. Luckily for us, quite of a few of Jerusalem’s survive. In 1144, one charter is signed solely by Baldwin that lacks Melisende’s consent however as Eberhard Mayer points out, the charter was kind of standard routine for new monarchs and was merely a confirmation of an earlier charter signed by Melisende and Fulk in 1138 [4]. Her signature on the original charter was legally binding until the day she died, so there was no need for her to sign the new one. All other charters after that one however were signed by both mother and son, even after he becomes of age, which is super interesting because technically he didn’t need his mother to issue charters. He could do so alone. Melisende however clearly made a deliberate choice to limit her sons ability to issue charters without her consent something that Eberhard Mayer seems to agree with me on writing, “Melisende denied to her son that part of the joint rule which he certainly should have been allowed to exercise after his coming of age” [5]. The thing about Melisende is that, I don’t think she was doing it as some nefarious grab for power, I think she was just a genuinely wise, strong, monarch who had been deprived of power by her husband and had no intention of suffering the same treatment at the hands of her son and who quite frankly made a better monarch than both. Baldwin had no choice but to accept his mother’s authority, after all she had a legal claim in her own right, was backed by powerful vassals and the church and was respected internationally. He did however try and demonstrate his own abilities as king; one area he could do this without competition from Melisende was in leading the army and beginning in 1144 he led the Jerusalem army on a number of occasions [6]. Baldwin’s quest for military glory became particularly relevant when in the late 1140’s the Second Crusade came to town. Now the Second Crusade was to put it quite frankly a colossal shit show that came as a result of a never ending stream of poor decisions. One of the most inexplicably stupid decisions the Europeans made was to attack Damascus, a politically significant Muslim city that had remained neutral in the fighting and was technically an ally of Jerusalem. Attacking an ally sounds like a ridiculous idea, especially when it’s one of the only (if not the only?) Muslim ally you have. A fact, pointed out by none other than Melisende and my girl Eleanor of Aquitaine Queen of France.

You see on the 24th June 1148, the Council of Acre took place and was a meeting of the most significant European crusaders. The reason for the council was so that they could debate and decide their next move; the attendants including Eleanor’s husband Louis VII King of France, Conrad III of Germany, the Count of Champagne and the Count of Flanders among others. Now the chroniclers that detailed the meeting at Acre do not explicitly mention either woman but Melisende as the Queen of Jerusalem was almost definitely there (we know for a fact Baldwin was) due to the fact that the Council of Acre was also a meeting of the Haute Cour in which Melisende certainly had a vote. Eleanor was also very likely there although due to ongoing marital difficulties with Louis was seemingly not involved in the deliberations; in fact I’m fairly certain Eleanor was there, after all by the 24th June we know she had already left Antioch (allegedly by force). She therefore had to be in Acre. Melisende, it’s widely believed was against the idea of attacking Damascus and Eberhard Mayer does a very good of weighing the pros and cons and debating whether or not, that belief is true [7]. Eleanor was also apparently against the idea of attacking Damascus; we know that she had wanted the French army to support her uncle in Antioch, something that Louis had refused, in part due to his jealously towards Eleanor and her uncle’s close relationship. Basically the women in the situation were not listened to (shocking) and the Patriarch of Jerusalem, usually a staunch Melisende ally was at that moment at odds with her over her appointment of a bishop and so was more inclined than normal to support Baldwin. It’s widely believed Conrad III and Baldwin III were the brains behind the operation; both of them after all were in need of a military victory to bolster their positions in their respective nations, and that the Patriarch was able to convince Louis VII to join them. The attack against Damascus (seen in the image above) was brief and ended badly; the crusaders were left defeated and embarrassed and literally everyone blamed each other. Conrad blamed Baldwin, Baldwin blamed Conrad, Louis blamed everyone else and William of Newburgh blamed women. Yes you read that correctly. William of Newburgh was one of many chroniclers of the period who blamed the failures of the Second Crusade on presence of women. Louis due to a variety of reasons, both political and personal, had wanted Eleanor to accompany him and “this had set a poor example, encouraging other nobles to bring their wives, with the result that a multitude of women accompanied the crusaders bringing into disrepute an army that should have been chaste” [8]. Ah who doesn’t appreciate some good old fashioned 12th century misogyny. Blaming women was a trend during the Second Crusade, I mean Eleanor was blamed for pretty much everything and both Eleanor and Melisende were accused of being behind the death of Alfonso Jordan the Count of Toulouse [9].

In the aftermath of the Second Crusade, Melisende seemingly took advantage of the damage it had done to her sons name and not only did she begin to promote her second son Amalric (seen in image above) but in 1150 she also began to issue charters and documents in her own name [10], causing hostilities between mother and son to significantly increase. The tipping point came in 1152 when Baldwin demanded that he be crowned on Easter Sunday at the Holy Sepulchre; if you remember correctly he’d already been crowned once before as a kid but this time he wanted to be crowned alone without his mother besides him. The Patriarch (aka the highest religious figure in the kingdom not to mention a staunch Melisende ally) refused. Baldwin like most kings was not overly fond of being told no so the next day he showed up at the Holy Sepulchre wearing a Roman-inspired laurel wreath as a crown “presumably because the patriarch refused to let him use the crown jewels” [11]. This was basically a declaration of kinghood, his way of signalling to the people that he, and he alone was now ready to rule Jerusalem. This unsurprisingly was dramatic enough that the Haut Cour, made up of the barons of the kingdom intervened and had a pretty heated debate in which both Melisende and Baldwin were at the very least present. If Melisende said anything during the debate, we’re not sure. Baldwin however was very vocal and demanded the court divide the kingdom between him and his mother. The thing is I understand both sides of the argument; I get Baldwin wanting to rule alone without his mother limiting his authority but I’m also Team Melisende. Both sides have a point. Now initially Melisende agreed and told the court “she was willing to surrender one half of the kingdom and retain the other half – although all of it belonged to her by hereditary right” [12]. An agreement was made and the kingdom was split into two; Baldwin took Acre and Tyre and Melisende was given the bulk of Jerusalem, Nablus and Jaffa (which I believe was under her other son Amalric’s control). The partition of the kingdom was done this way purely because Meliesende’s greatest supporters were in Nablus and Jaffa (the southern parts of the kingdom) whereas Baldwin’s power was at it’s greatest in the north. So there’s been a lot of debate over the wisdom of splitting the kingdom and this is where Hans Eberhard Mayer and I start having problems. He accuses Melisende of being too power hungry; in fact he says “had she been wise, she would have taken this opportunity to withdraw honourably and with dignity. But as in the past, her thirst for power was greater than her wisdom” [13]. Unfortunately he’s not the only one that shares this view and I’ve seen a number of historians feed into this narrative. It’s just so stupid. It’s such a typical sexist critique of a women. She was too ambitious, she was too thirsty for power. You never see men being accused of having too much of a thirst for power. Melisende had been raised to rule Jerusalem. She just like any king (including her son) believed in the divine right of kings (and queens). Why shouldn’t she continue ruling? She was the daughter of a king, widow of a king, mother of a king and had ruled the country for a decade alone with wisdom and dignity. If I were her, I wouldn’t have been willing to just stand aside and retire, simply because my son told me too.

The situation of Jerusalem being a kingdom split between two equally stubborn monarchs didn’t last long as both Hans Eberhard Mayer and Bernard Hamilton attest to; within weeks Baldwin used to his advantage the military tricks he’d learnt and raised an army, invading his mother’s half of the kingdom. By doing so Baldwin was showing that he was now worthy of being sole king; being a competent general was one aspect of kingship and a pretty important one in a kingdom like Jerusalem. The citizens clearly reacted pretty well to this demonstration of kingly strength and admitted him to the city. Now admittedly in the aftermath of this, the majority of Melisende’s supporters abandoned her. Partially due to Baldwin’s show of strength but also because there was a genuine concern that a divided Jerusalem was at risk of being attacked by their enemies and many of the barons of the kingdom were eager for the conflict between mother and son to abate. There were however notable exceptions; Philip of Nablus and her son Amalric the Count of Jaffa certainly stayed on Melisende’s side, as did the Patriarch. It’s clear almost twenty of years had patronage had secured the church’s long-lasting support. The intervention of the Patriarch & other influential church-men prevented the situation from descending into full blown civil war whilst the supporters she retained were influential enough to secure negotiations that led to her being granted a pretty nice retirement gift; “the city of Nablus and it’s adjacent lands were granted to her for life and the king swore a solemn oath that he would not disturb her peace” [14]. Baldwin had technically won the war but that didn’t stop Melisende from having a continued presence in the politics of the region. In 1152 a grand assembly bringing together the nobilities of Antioch, Jerusalem and Tripoli was called by Baldwin. Melisende’s sister the Countess of Tripoli and her husband the Count were present as were the Patriarch of Antioch and Princess Constance of Antioch (Melisende’s niece). There were a number of reasons for the family reunion; one was to convince Constance to remarry following the death of her husband at the tail end of the Second Crusade in 1149. Constance demonstrating a flair for the family trait of stubbornness had refused all possible candidates much to the frustration of just about everyone. Melisende much to everyone’s surprise was not only in Tripoli at the time of the assembly, but actually took part. It’s important to note that she wasn’t actually invited by her son, she showed up unannounced and fabulous. William of Tyre said she was in Tripoli on a personal capacity, to a) visit her sister Hodierna who was at that point having a few marital difficulties and b) try and get through to her infamously stubborn niece. He claimed her visit coinciding with the assembly was unplanned. I admit I’m skeptical. It does however illustrate how important familial relations were to the politics of the region; Hodierna and Constance were both known to be very close with Melisende which gave her a degree of power. Baldwin couldn’t completely deprive her of power without insulting them and thus their kingdoms. Antioch, Jerusalem and Tripoli needed to be united and Melisende was fundamentally a part of that unity.

What’s interesting though is that after the Tripoli assembly, she does appear to have a continued presence in the governance of the kingdom. Between 1152 and 1157 on a a number of charters, Melisende’s name is included with the phrase “consilio et consensu” [15] meaning she counselled him about the matter at hand and consented to the charter being issued. Whether Baldwin actually allowed his mother to serve as an advisor (and whether he then listened to her advice) is unknown. It’s entirely possible it was merely a formality and he was wishing to present the image of a family finally at peace despite the whole going at each other, civil war thing. It’s also possible that the two, despite the aforementioned tension of the past decade, had managed to come to side kind of agreement, and Melisende with a lifetime of political experience was imparting some of it to her son. Eberhard Mayer points to one charter in particular that suggests the latter; “in 1155 or 1156, he [Baldwin] confirmed an important sale to the Holy Sepulchre of properties which Hugh of Ibelin held in fief from the King’s brother Amalric. In this charter no mention was made of Melisende’s consent but she was allowed to confirm the sale in a charter of her own” [15]. This particularly issue was completely separate from Nablus and pretty much had nothing to do with Melisende. The fact she was allowed to intervene and issue a charter of her own about the matter suggest a continued level of influence, as does the appointment of the new Patriarch Amalric of Nesle following the death of the old one. Two people who intervened in the situation and advocated on Nesle’s behalf were the king’s half sister Sybilla the Countess of Flanders (Fulk’s daughter from his first marriage) and one of his aunts, probably Melisende’s sister Ioveta. Although Melisende’s involvement in the appointment is unknown, both women were tied mostly to her and as Bernard Hamilton writes, “it’s significant that this important appointment was decided in the circle of the queen not the king” [16]. Another indication of Melisende’s continued influence was the the attack on a Muslim stronghold in the Eastern bank of Jordan in 1157. The attack was led by the King’s regent Baldwin of Lille (the King was busy in Syria) however William of Tyre wrote that Melisende had been the one to insist upon the attack, writing “studio et industria dominae Melisendis reginae” [17]. Clearly she had some influence. After 1160 however her involvement in state matters seems to stop and she died according to William of Tyre on 11th September 1161. It’s likely she was suffering from some sort of illness from 1160 onwards; we know her sister Ioveta the Abbess of Bethany was by Melisende’s side for most of that time and it’s believed nursed her. A number of historians including Hamilton suggests a stroke caused her illness and absence from government affairs although I’ve not seen solid evidence of that. It’s very possible though. She died with both of her surviving sisters by her side and was remembered fondly by the people she had governed since she was a young woman. Melisende, to me, is such an fascinating figure, a woman who despite her clear brilliance had to fight to gain and then maintain the authority that was rightfully hers and who managed despite the difficulties she faced, to remain a powerful figure in the kingdom that was hers.

I want to finish this profile with a final word from Bernard Hamilton who wrote of Melisende that “she was a remarkable woman who for over thirty years exercised considerable power in a kingdom where there was no previous tradition of any woman holding public office” [18]. He also quotes William of Tyre who wrote of Melisende that she strove to “emulate the glory of the best princes…she ruled the kingdom with such ability that she was rightly considered to have equalled her predecessors in that regard” [19]. Forget equalling her predecessors, I’d say she surpassed them.

Long Live the Queen.

Thank you for reading this! Hope you enjoyed it, and I’ll see you with a new post soon!

Alexandra x

References;

[1] Erin Jordan, “Corporate Monarchy in the Twelfth Century Kingdom of Jerusalem”, Royal Studies Journal, Vol 6, No.1, (2019), p. 9.

[2] Erin Jordan, “Corporate Monarchy in the Twelfth Century Kingdom of Jerusalem”, Royal Studies Journal, Vol 6, No.1, (2019), p. 9.

[3] Hans Eberhard Mayer, “Studies in the History of Melisende of Jerusalem”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol 26, (1972) p. 114.

[4] Hans Eberhard Mayer, “Studies in the History of Melisende of Jerusalem”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol 26, (1972), p. 115.

[5] Hans Eberhard Mayer, “Studies in the History of Melisende of Jerusalem”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol 26, (1972), p. 115.

[6] Hans Eberhard Mayer, “Studies in the History of Melisende of Jerusalem”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol 26, (1972), p. 115.

[7] Hans Eberhard Mayer, “Studies in the History of Melisende of Jerusalem”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol 26, (1972), p. 128.

[8] Natasha R Hodgson, “Women, Crusading and the Holy Land in Historical Narrative”, (Boydell Press, Woodbridge, Suffolk, 2007), p. 115.

[9] Jean Richard, “The Crusades: c. 1071-1291”, trans by Jean Birrell, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 165.

[10] Bernard Hamilton, “Women in the Crusader States: The Queens of Jerusalem 1100-1190”, Studies in Church History Subsidia, Vol 1, (1978), p. 152.

[11] Bernard Hamilton, “Women in the Crusader States: The Queens of Jerusalem 1100-1190”, Studies in Church History Subsidia, Vol 1, (1978), p. 153.

[12] Hans Eberhard Mayer, “Studies in the History of Melisende of Jerusalem”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol 26, (1972), p. 166.

[13] Hans Eberhard Mayer, “Studies in the History of Melisende of Jerusalem”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol 26, (1972), p. 166.

[14] Bernard Hamilton, “Women in the Crusader States: The Queens of Jerusalem 1100-1190”, Studies in Church History Subsidia, Vol 1, (1978), p. 154.

[15] Bernard Hamilton, “Women in the Crusader States: The Queens of Jerusalem 1100-1190”, Studies in Church History Subsidia, Vol 1, (1978), p. 155-156.

[16] Hans Eberhard Mayer, “Studies in the History of Melisende of Jerusalem”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol 26, (1972), p. 173.

[17] Hans Eberhard Mayer, “Studies in the History of Melisende of Jerusalem”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol 26, (1972), p. 174.

[18] Bernard Hamilton, “Women in the Crusader States: The Queens of Jerusalem 1100-1190”, Studies in Church History Subsidia, Vol 1, (1978), p. 157.

[19] Bernard Hamilton, “Women in the Crusader States: The Queens of Jerusalem 1100-1190”, Studies in Church History Subsidia, Vol 1, (1978), p. 157.