William of Jülich
Peerage person ID=43071
William of Jülich, called the Younger (Dutch: Willem van Gulik de Jongere; died August 18, 1304), was one of the Flemish noblemen that opposed the annexation policies of the French king Philip IV, together with Pieter de Coninck.
He was also archdeacon of the prince-bishopric of Liège. William was the son of William the Elder and grandson of William IV, Count of Jülich, and of Maria, a daughter of Guy of Dampierre, Count of Flanders and Matilda of Bethune. His connection to the Flemish count and his wish to avenge the imprisoning of his uncles Robert III of Bethune and William of Dendermonde by the French king presumably explains his support for the Flemish resistance. An extra incentive for this support could have been the murder of his uncle Walram, Count of Jülich by the French after the Battle of Bulskamp in 1297. The Flemish resistance led to the unexpected victory over the French during the Battle of the Golden Spurs in 1302. William of Jülich gained another victory against the French in the Battle of Arques (1303).
In 1304 however, the French king returned with an army and defeated the Flemings during the Battle of Mons-en-Pévèle. William died during this battle.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “William of Jülich” is peerage person ID=43071. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through William, Jülich and Peerage, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “peerage person ID=43071” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 8, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q195942. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1304, 1297, 1302 and 1303.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “William of Jülich”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow William of Jülich primary sources, William of Jülich archive and William research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “William of Jülich”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “William of Jülich” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.