Talk:Vale of Belvoir

Dukes of Rutland for a thousand years
This page contained a claim that Belvoir Castle has been the seat of the duke of Rutland for a thousand years. But the title of 'duke of Rutland' was created in 1703 (for a family that was obscure before 1260), besides which the existing Belvoir Castle was built after the Civil War and (I think) after the Restoration (1658).

I have, accordingly, deleted the claim.

Agemegos 07:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The title was upgraded to Duke in 1703, the lordship was already an Earldom and Barony before that (hardly "obscure") and had been since 1375. The family were well established in the area long before that, hence the "ancestral" term. There has been a castle on that site since shortly after the Norman invasion (ok, so only 949 years) and the current one is the fourth one to have existed. The claim is not at all absurd, and could easily have been resolved had you used a citation tag rather than simply deleteing what you didn't understand.


 * I have accordingly reinstated the correct information.


 * Pyrope 10:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 949 years is not 1,000 years, besides which there is no evidence that there was a castle in 1058 (it is very unlikely).
 * To refer to the Manners family as being Dukes of Rutland for a thousand years is misleading in itself. First, they were not dukes before 1703. They were not earls of Rutland before 1535. You say that 'the title' had been an earldom since 1375, but that is untrue and misleading. The earldom of Rutland of the first creation went extinct in 1415, and belonged to a completely separate family (a cadet branch of the royal House of Plantagenet.
 * To refer to the Manners family as being Dukes of Rutland for a thousand years is misleading in itself. First, they were not dukes before 1703. They were not earls of Rutland before 1535. You say that 'the title' had been an earldom since 1375, but that is untrue and misleading. The earldom of Rutland of the first creation went extinct in 1415, and belonged to a completely separate family (a cadet branch of the royal House of Plantagenet.


 * Before 1703 the Manners family were not dukes. Before 1525 they did not hold the honour of Rutland. Before 1264 they were not even lords. Before 1247 they did not hold the caastle in question. The castle did not exist before 1066 and probably later. It originally belonged to the d'Aubigny family, escheated to the Crown in 1215, and was given to Sir Robert de Ros (ancestor of the current dukes of Rutland) in 1247. To say that Belvoir castle has been the ancestral home of the dukes of Rutland for a thousand years is not 'the correct information'. It is just plain wrong in every sense.


 * You are wrong to aver that I did not understand the claim. I understand it perfectly, and understand in detail why it is wrong. I know that it is possible to source the claim from the Belvoir Castle official web-page, but that does not make the claim itself any less ridiculous. This statement does not need a citation, it needs to be removed.


 * Agemegos 07:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)