Talk:Baron de Ros

Suggestions for Improvement

• This article does not cite its sources.
• This article lacks formatting consistent with the Wikipedia Manual of Style; specifically, it needs section headings and a section index to break-up the article text. I suggest researching other articles of similar topics for style examples.
• An example of an article with better style is: Duke of Cornwall.
• There is a broken wikilink in the article. Before inserting a wikilink in an article for a non-existent article for future use, the editor should create a stub article.

Jerry lavoie 16:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem with numbering of the Barons de Ros

According to The Complete Peerage, Vol. XI, pp. 96-7, the barony of Ros of Hemsley was created by writ with William de Ros (who is numbered in this Wikipedia article as the 2nd Baron). In Magna Carta Ancestry, Vol. III, p. 448, Richardson also uses this numbering. It thus seems likely that all the Wikipedia articles on the Barons de Ros should be renumbered. Comments? NinaGreen (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

To add to what I wrote above on 6 December, The Complete Peerage, Vol. XI, p. 95, states that on 24 December 1264 Robert de Ros was summoned to Simon de Montfort's Parliament in London, but according to a footnote on that page:

In 1616 the Barony was allowed precedence from this writ, a decision adopted by the Lords in 1806 (Round, Peerage and Pedigree, vol. i, pp. 249-50); but these writs, issued by Simon in the King's name, are no longer regarded as valid for the creation of peerages.

It thus seems necessary to renumber the baronies in this article, as suggested above, particularly since, in addition to the reliable sources cited above, the online source, Cracroft's Peerage, cited in this article, also states that William was the first baron. NinaGreen (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Nina: It's ok with me as long as you cross your T's and dot your i's. However, you need to add your sources to the article itself. Please add these sources as IN LINE cites to this article and also at William de Ros, 1st Baron de Ros. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The page moves have entailed a lot more cleanup on the pages for the various barons than I had anticipated, and you're right, I hadn't yet tackled the necessary changes to the main article. I've now revised the first few paragraphs of the article, and added the refs and inline citations. NinaGreen (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Good progress. Thanks for all your hard work on these. I see you added the Richardson ref, but you have not used it in line. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I was notified of the page moves earlier today, and have done quite a lot of cleanup. There's likely further cleanup to be done as many other pages link to the de Ros pages, so if anyone notices anything which needs fixing, please go ahead. NinaGreen (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Another numbering problem

Edward Manners, 3rd Earl of Rutland was the 14th Baron de Ros, according to the article, and his daughter and successor was Elizabeth Cecil, 16th Baroness de Ros. What happened to the 15th Baron? Colonies Chris (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baron de Ros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101116183800/http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk:80/online/content/Ros1299.htm to http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/Ros1299.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)