Baldwin I brought his wife and children, too (both died before the Crusade made it to Antioch, though, while Baldwin was going through Cilicia). I believe there's mention that Tancred's sister went, as well. In each of the major armies of the First Crusade, there were huge numbers of non-combatants, probably more than the regular fighting strength, though the exact numbers are hard to determine, though proportions weren't as high as Peter the Hermit's. Similarly for the Crusades of 1101.
But how many of them settled, though?
Not many of the fighters who came in dribs and drabs for a campaigning season or so settled down, so I'm presuming the same reasons applied to the nonfighting pilgrims.
Not sure about the major movements given numbers on that score, but it doesn't seem to have been enough.
Nobles would have pride of birth to maintain so they stayed relatively pure. Some mixing with the Armenian nobles (Baldwin II and Morphia, etc). The commoners (retainers and infantry) had no such concerns, and freely intermarried where they could find someone.
Which unfortunately (speaking from the standpoint of good figures) makes it hard to determine how much of a distinctly Frankish identity existed in that level.
Crusades of 1101 could have brought a fair number of colonists. The land route through Constantinople and Anatolia needs to be kept open, though, for that to be viable. Byzantium needs to be strong enough to keep the Turks staying in Iconium...
Or to drive them out of Iconium, even better.
If Anatolia is in Christian hands, the main threat to the Kingdom of Jerusalem is that the Romans will prod the Franks into acknowledging that their lands are held by the grace of the Emperor, and in the case of Antioch (the most contested part), only because he can't be bothered to take them.