Hi, yes, I know William is mentioned there, but there is universal consensus that Roger was mistaken, because all other evidence shows that William was dead before then. Possibly Roger, who was writing a generation later, knew William's name and his work, and assumed that the archbishop of Tyre in question must have been William; however I don't remember the exact arguments and I will have to look them up. I'm pretty sure there is a discussion of the situation in Stubbs' edition. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply