Talk:Baron Coleville

Untitled

Claims made in article

The following claims made in the article are false or insufficiently supported:

The second Baron Roger de Colville is noted espeically for his marriage to Margaret de Braose, a descendant of Charlemagne, thus incorporating a direct line of descent from the Emperor into the family.

The cited source does not make special note of Roger de Colville. All it does in include their names in a descent from Charlemagne claimed by some woman in New York who had no particular expertise in medieval genealogy. The source is not a WP:RS, and further, the pedigree is inaccurate.

The family originally came to England following the Norman Conquest with Sir Gilbert de Collveville being listed on the Dives and Battle Abbey rolls as a Knights of William the Conqueror as well as later recorded in the Domesday book.

Neither the Dives nor the Battle Abbey roles are considered authentic representations of the actual companions of the Conqueror. They were compiled much later, and had names added to them that can demonstrably be shown not to have come to England until later. True, Gilbert appears in Domesday (not as Sir Gilbert, a later affectation), but it represents WP:OR to say so. What is needed for this claim to be noteworthy in Wikipedia is a reliable secondary source that reports this historical fact, rather than a Wikipedia editor digging it out of the primary source (the Domesday book). This is a problem with the entire page - nothing appears to be based on reliable secondary sources. Based on this, one must question whether this particular family is notable. Agricolae (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Complete Peerage

Although this title appears in the first edition, it is absent from PP 378-9 of Volume 3 of the second edition.Alekksandr (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It appears under Coleville (pp. 374-375). However, in a change from the earlier edition, Cokayne has decided that the circumstances surrounding the summonses made by Simon de Montfort were irregular enough that they should not be considered an authentic royal summons, and thus did not create a lordship at that time. He lists the first Lord as Robert in 1331. This presumably accounts for the change in spelling, as he standardizes by using whatever spelling appears on the first summons, which is now the 1331 one rather than the 1264 one. (And he calls him Lord, not Baron Coleville, contrary to the page rename.) Agricolae (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

By the way, this also means that it is extinct rather than abeyant, since the heirs of the last lord, though descended from the granddaughters of the man summoned by Montfort, these were the aunts of the man summoned in 1331, and hence had no claim to a lordship deemed created at that time. Agricolae (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Connected article

Barony (de) Colville (of Castle Bytham) seems to be about the same peerage as this article (so far as such peerage ever existed). I suggest that, if either of them should continue to exist, the other should be merged with it. Alekksandr (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, clearly the same. Agricolae (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I have now made that page a redirect to this one - on the basis that this one follows the spelling in the 2nd edition of CP.Alekksandr (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)