Is this "coffin, meet nail" for the debate on Balian's origins?
Balian the Old” (Stewart, Peter, October 16, 2000, 2nd & 3rd msg) < soc.genealogy.medieval > Runciman didn't pay enough attention to genealogy: the origins of Balian and a possible relationship to the Le Puiset viscounts of Chartres had been much discussed before the publication of his magnum opus. The theory was first advanced by Du Cange, and apart from some questionable heraldic evidence his main source was in Lignages d'Outremer (Assises de Jérusalem II), chapter viii, which says that Balin was a brother of "conte Guilin de Chartres". This was taken to identify Guilduin, viscount of Chartres in 1028, founder of the dynasty of seigneurs of Le Puiset and counts of Jaffa, where Balian was constable at that time. The reasons why this could not be correct are set out in John La Monte's article *The Lords of Le Puiset on the Crusades* in Speculum 17 (1942), which you can find in most university libraries. A more distant relationship may still be possible, although the balance of probabilities is against this. .... Please excuse my reckless disregard for chronology - Balian the Old was of course constable of Jaffa about a century after his purported brother was viscount of Chartres, which is not the least compelling reason why the information is suspect. ... "
