The crusader states, established at the beginning of the 12 century, rapidly developed unique political institutions and their own legal traditions. One of the most interesting ways in which they set themselves apart from contemporary societies was the prominent role played by women. In the surrounding Muslim world, of course, women had neither names nor faces, much less a voice, in public. In the Byzantine Empire, on the other hand, while women enjoyed considerable freedom, wealth, education and influence, they did not directly hold power. Western Europe the 12th century saw several very powerful female rulers, notably the Empress Matilda and Eleanor of Aquitaine, yet the crusader kingdoms stand out because the high status of women in the Holy Land was more comprehensive and institutionalized than in either the Eastern Empire or the Western Europe.
This high status probably evolved
out of the repeated failure of the ruling dynasties to produce male heirs. A look at the succession in the Kingdom of
Jerusalem illustrates this well. When Baldwin II died in 1131, he was succeeded
by his daughter, Melisende, who ruled jointly with her husband Fulk of Anjou
(grandfather by his first marriage of Henry II of England). When Fulk died in
1143, Melisende remained Queen of
Jerusalem, and ruled jointly with
her eldest son, Baldwin III. Although her
son eventually side-lined her, it was only after a struggle in which several
powerful barons and most of the clergy sided with the Queen.
At Baldwin III’s
death in 1163, his heir was his brother Amalric I, but Amalric’s heir was the
ill-fated Baldwin IV, the Leper King, who had no children, making his
sisters (and through them, their children and/or husbands) his heirs. As fate would have it, in the century between
the death of Baldwin II and the ascension of Friedrich II as consort of a Queen of Jerusalem in 1225, the crown of
Jerusalem passed through the female line no less than ten times! Furthermore,
the situation in the crusader states and baronies was similar, if not quite so
dramatic; that is, the title to baronies repeatedly passed through heiress
rather than heirs. This fact alone would have raised the importance of women,
but it is significant that these queens (and countesses and ladies) were not
passive vessels.
Melisende was Queen in her own
right, commanded loyalty and support among her vassals and forced both her
husband and later her son to take her political wishes into account. Sibylla forced upon the kingdom a man
patently unsuitable for the kingship and soon detested by her brother, the
reigning King, and the majority of the barons.
When her son Baldwin V died, Sibylla – not Guy – was crowned by the
patriarch, but she placed the crown on Guy’s head as her consort. Furthermore, Guy’s vassals viewed their oaths
to him absolved the moment Sibylla died – despite Richard of England’s
determined support for Guy.
In the end,
even the Lionheart gave up and recognized that without Sibylla, Guy could not
be King of Jerusalem. The crown passed to Sibylla’s sister, Isabella. Isabella
conferred the crown on three men in succession, Conrad de Montferrat, Henri de
Champagne and finally Aimery de Lusignan. Notably, Henri de Champagne, a nephew
of both Philip II of France and Richard I of England (his mother was a daughter
of Eleanor of Aquitaine by Louis VII), never even called himself King of
Jerusalem; he remained Count of Champagne, while Isabella was Queen of
Jerusalem. Her daughter’s husband, John of Brienne, also lost his title of King
of Jerusalem at his wife’s death, although he acted as regent for his infant
daughter until she wed Friedrich II.
The dynastic importance of women
was both cause and effect of a uniquely high status for women in the crusader
kingdoms that took many other forms. Not only did women act as regents and
receive homage from vassals, they enjoyed a freedom of movement and opinion
that scandalized the Muslim – and sometimes the Christian – world. Amalric I’s wife Agnes de Courtney is
sometimes accused of being set aside because of her immorality, certainly she
was accused of having affairs with a prelate of the church (later the Patriarch
of Jerusalem, Heraclius) and with Aimery de Lusignan. Her daughter Sibylla is
alleged to have had an affair with Baldwin d’Ibelin before taking Guy de
Lusignan to her bed. Certainly a
contemporary claimed that Baldwin IV wanted to hang Guy for “debauching” a
princess of Jerusalem, but was then persuaded to let his sister marry her
lover. It was behavior such as this that
led many in the West to believe Jerusalem had been lost in 1187 because of
God’s wrath with the immorality of the Christian rulers.
Yet while the antics of the royal
women may indeed have deserved censure, the higher status of women generally
meant that widows in the crusader kingdoms exercised far more control over their
property and their lives. SIbylla is the most prominent example, but she was
not alone in choosing her second husband. Constance of Antioch chose Reynald de
Chatillon, and Maria Comnena chose Balian d’Ibelin, just to name two other prominent
examples. In short, young girls were married often at very tender ages to boys
or men of their parents’ choosing, but widows had the power, property and right
to choose their own husbands – and did.
Compared to their faceless and voiceless sisters in the Muslim
world, this was undoubtedly the greatest privilege of all.
Read more about powerful women in the crusader states at: http://defenderofjerusalem.com
Read more about powerful women in the crusader states at: http://defenderofjerusalem.com
No comments:
Post a Comment
I welcome feedback and guest bloggers, but will delete offensive, insulting, racist or hate-inciting comments. Thank you for respecting the rules of this blog.