Talk:Roger Beauchamp, 1st Baron Beauchamp of Bletso

Recent move

This page was moved from being an article on a title (Baron Beauchamp of Bletso) to a biography page (Roger Beauchamp, 1st Baron Beauchamp of Bletso), without discussion or explanation. This presumably was on the basis that he was the only title holder.
However the article contains just one sentence about the eponymous Roger Beauchamp; the rest of the content describes five generations of the Beauchamp family, and details the link between the two Bletso titles (Beauchamp and St John), so I suggest it works better as a title article than a named person one.
The matter was raised at WT:PEER as part of a wider issue, but the only suggestion there was to re-write this article (presumably to make the content match the new title).
I suggest we would be better served keeping the content and scope the article already has and re-title it accordingly; and I suggest we should return it to its original title ( unless anyone has a better one) as the present title is unsatisfactory and inaccurate.
Any thoughts? Swanny18 (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Where a title was only held by a single person, the peerage article normally edirects to that person, as we do not need a separate article on the peerage. I presume Bletso is a place, which both Lord Beauchamp and the 1st Lord St John owned, so that nothing turns on that. It seems to have been the case that in practice certain 14th century baronies by summons failed to be inherited by thethe barons' sons. There was a Sutton (a lord of Dudley) who was summoned, though his successors for several generations were not. 17th and 18th century House of Lords peerage practice condiered that any barony by summons was heritable, but this must be an anachronistic view. The summons implies that the king considered Roger notable, so that it is proper to have an article on him. The problem with the present article is that it focuses on his posterity, rather than on his biography. That makes it a poor article to be at its present title, but that can be cured by some one discovering what he did do. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've no objection to us having a page on this Roger Beauchamp, providing we can find out more about him than who his parents were and when he died; what I am objecting to is having this article, with its present content, at this title. I know we'd normally redirect a title like this, but the content (and the edit history fro that content) doesn't match where it is now. I had thought the original title was more suitable, as the barony is the starting point to the story. The St Johns seem to have considered the title to be patent (and that they were in line for it). But if you think that title is unsuitable also, what about something else? "Beauchamp family of Bletso", maybe? Swanny18 (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Bletso is Bletsoe / Bletsoe Castle. As the page is mostly about the Beauchamp family, of whom only one held the peerage, I'm not sure the name Baron Beauchamp of Bletso was better as its title than Roger Beauchamp, 1st Baron Beauchamp of Bletso. Perhaps we also need a page for Beauchamp family of Bletsoe? On another matter, in the Middle Ages some peerages were effectively life peerages, and with one like this which failed to continue in the family, even though the only baron was survived by a grandson, I do not see what purpose is served by including "1st" in the title of the page. Moonraker (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I've revised the article, and it appears from the cited sources that although there is some uncertainty about the title, there may have been subsequent de jure holders of the title. It would also be useful to settle on one spelling of the place name. It's 'Bletsoe' on modern maps of Bedfordshire, and some Wikipedia articles use that spelling, while others, including a disambiguation page, use the spelling 'Bletso'. NinaGreen (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)