ABSTRACT
Against overwhelming odds, the First Crusaders had captured Jerusalem. While one or two of the chroniclers described Godfrey as a king, or associated the rule of Jerusalem with royal authority, most carefully evaded clarifying his precise title. Apocalyptic expectations among the Latins may also have led Godfrey to avoid taking the title of king of Jerusalem. Modern historians have also suggested that Godfrey may not have taken the title of king in deference to the arguments advanced by clergy who were present in Jerusalem at the time of his appointment. Historians have sometimes interpreted Raymond of Aguilers' testimony as evidence that those prelates intended for Jerusalem's spiritual leader to be the chief authority in the new state. Albert of Aachen's trilogy of visions foretelling Godfrey's appointment as ruler of Jerusalem strike a notably different tone to that which characterises the remainder of his account of the First Crusade.
