Talk:Earl/Archive 1

Hughes' Speculation
"Earl" replaced the Norman French-derived "count" due to the latter's resemblance to the unflattering word "cunt". - is this just one guess, or is it certain? - Nik42(added 03:32, 30 April 2005)


 * I've got my doubts - Earl/jarl was used in Scotland and Anglo-saxon England - and continued after the Norman conquest. Count was never used in Scotland - nor (I think) in England - so how could it be 'replaced' by the earlier term Earl?? --Doc Glasgow 11:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty dubious of this, as well. Ashley seems to have introduced this bit - can s/he provide a source? john k 07:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Now provided. Note that the invading Norman aristocracy spoke Norman French, not English, so they would have originally used "count" or cognate. "Earl" was an English word. &mdash;Ashley Y 00:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Word "earl" doesn't exists in modern French but it exists in Norman French. E.g. Rollo of Normandy was never count or duke of normandy but "jarl des normands" (earl of northmen).62.39.32.194 10:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Count originates from Latin comte it were provincial rulers who went independent in time when Roman Empire went asunder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edelward (talk • contribs) 09:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The full passage from Hughes reads:
 * It is a likely speculation that the Normal French title Count was abandoned in England in favour of the Germanic Earl (A-S eorl, a nobleman, ON jarl, a viceroy) precisely because of the uncomfortable pronetic proximiy to cunt, which in Middle English could be spelt counte.

Hughes make clear this is strictly speculation, and provides no citations or evidence. All other words to make this claim, each time presenting it as an undisputed scholarly finding, reference back to Hughes' brief assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:70.160.246.128 11:12, 22 January 2023

Earl/Jarl
I have combined the Jarl article and the Earl article. The way the two cognates are treated in Wikipedia articles, there is no sense to have them as separate entries. Moreover, during the Viking Age, the two names were nothing but two variant of the same concept.--Wiglaf 11:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC).

The following is a totally foundationless statement : "Arguably, their knowledge in interpreting runes also meant they were gifted in martial arts..." That does not follow in any way, unless it can be demonstrated. There is nothing inherently martial about the runes. CarlaO&#39;Harris (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC) - I really wish there wasn't so much foreign intrusion about foreign culture and countries use of variations of Earl. The word Earl is a british word, and i came here to see about this British title. I did not come here to read about distant cousin countries Jarls and etc. There's way too much confusion that is a melee of various OTHER COUNTRIES which don't have EARLS, a British title. If you can talk of its historical use by Anglo Saxons, British ancestral Vikings OR NORMANS, fine. If there was ONE lower section devoted to actual historical ANGLO SAXON usage of that term on mainland,and the direct source from Europe, fine. But this article is out of control and all over the place, trying to incorporate all other countries that have something remotely resembling Earl in their nobility titles. I really think it would be far better to remove all this intermixture and insertion of other countries' language and histories, and confine it to a small space in a small section. This article is about BRITISH EARLS. Please stop the insertion invasion. ok, the other thing is that there is a column on the right top that shows a whole bunch of titles that are equivalents, in several different languages, BUT THIS IS NOT SELF EXPLANATORY and doesn't really tell where these come from. People may mistake it for all being English. It needs to be removed from there and put into a lower section with a real table with lines and columns that gives a better labeling of where these words are from. Since this is not an article about ALL TYPES OF NOBILITY FROM EVERYWHERE, why keep emphasizing all that ? it should be a minor note here. It's as if everyone from everywhere wants to insert and take over with thier country's meanings and history on this BRITISH EARLS article. PLEASE STOP IT. THIS NEEDS SERIOUSLY EDITED! DO YOUR OWN ARTICLE ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES THAT LINKS TO THIS ONE ABOUT BRITISH EARLS INSTEAD. Or one that generalizes the European and world  titles or whatever. Meat Eating Orchid (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Coronet
I note that no information on the coronet of rank borne by an earl (which alternates raised orbs and strawberry leaves around the rim) has been included. Incidentally, when I added information on coronets to the Baron and Viscount articles I was blocked for two days by "Doc Glasgow"; can they explain why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Walton One 10:38, 20 February 2006

Merge Jarl (title) here
Someone has created an article Jarl (title). Considering the fact that Jarl is frequently translated into earl on WP and elsewhere, this article seems superfluous and I suggest that its content be merged into this article.--Berig 13:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Seven (7) months have passed since I proposed the merger and I have neither seen any objections nor any expansion of the Jarl (title) article to much more than a copy and paste version of the Scandinavian section of this article. I have now merged Jarl (title) into this one, and the only thing that could be added was a better etymology section. I have also removed the unreferenced and farfetched etymological connection with alderman.--Berig (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

well Berig, it was a mistake. stop merging articles that aren't really nor specifically about the same thing. It's spelled differently, from a different country, and isn't the same currently. How could you possibly think they are " the same thing"? they simply are not. NOBODY in the english speaking world thinks of a "jarl" when they think of a British Earl. Just link them or have a small section for goodness sake. 7 months? are you imagining that everyone interested in British Earls is going to all come to this page within 7 months? frankly all this conglomeration is inappropriate, annoying and confusing. Meat Eating Orchid (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Son
I quote "The eldest son of an Earl generally takes the highest of his father's lesser titles as a courtesy title; younger sons are styled The Honourable [Forename] [Surname]". What is the first born son if his father has no lesser titles? I know it is uncommon but there is no rule to say it couldnt. Thanks for any help... --Camaeron 13:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See this AllsoulsDay (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * From the article "Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom"
 * "If a peer of the rank of Earl or above does not have any subsidiary titles of a name different from his main title, his eldest son usually uses an invented courtesy title of "Lord Surname". For instance, the eldest son of the Earl of Devon is styled Lord Courtenay, even though the Earl has no barony of that name, and similarly the eldest son of the Earl of Guilford is styled Lord North. The eldest son of the Earl of Huntingdon, who has no subsidiary titles, is styled Viscount Hastings to avoid confusion with the substantive peer Lord Hastings. The Earl Castle Stewart's heir uses the style Viscount Stewart in order to avoid confusion with the Lord Stewart, eldest son of the Viscount Castlereagh, eldest son of the Marquess of Londonderry. The Earl and the Marquess are both scions of the House of Stewart."Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

sequence number
Is there a sourcing explaining how earls are numbered "1st Earl" and "2nd Earl"? Also how the 2nd Earl's wife isn't titled the 2nd Countess and just simply Countess of [fill in the blank]? That stuff confusses me (how it works and where it comes from) and from what I've seen, none of the articles on noble titles explain the numbering system. Cladeal832 (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The person who is created an earl X and is the first holder of the title is the 1st Earl X. His successor the 2nd Earl X and the successor thereof the 3d Earl X and so on. The Countesses are not numbered because they do not hold the title in their own right. Also an Earl that gets widowed or divorced can remarry and the numbering would be confused. If the Earldom of X becomes extinct, and is recreated for another person on a later date, the sequence starts all over again with a new 1st Earl X. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

MILHIST
I can't see anything in the article to explain the inclusion of this article in WikiProject Military History, so I have removed the banner. Feel free to contact me on my talk page or the MILHIST community in general at WT:MILHIST if you believe this was not an appropriate course of action. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This article has too much history and not enough modern definitions
I came to this article hoping to learn what an "earldom" is (it redirects from earldom to here). I also wanted to know what the current status of earls is. Do they get salary/third-penny/money from the monarch or the public? Do they have restrictions placed on them? What are their duties? Where do they live? (Do they have to live in a castle/residence/etc.?) Does an "earldom" have a real place in the UK today? Does it matter what earldom somebody lives in? I hope somebody can elaborate this article. --Waqqashanafi (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

--excellent points and good questions! you are so right. I want to see this pertinent info too of course. And less of certain less pertinent things. Meat Eating Orchid (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

#Changing power of English earls
"earls were not de facto rulers in their own right" means what? Maybe I'm being legalistic, but ordinarily de facto is excluded by de jure (in ... own right). Wikiain (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

false claim
I argue the sentence "The word is cognate with the Scandinavian form jarl, and meant "chieftain", particularly a chieftain set to rule a territory in a king's stead. In Scandinavia, it became obsolete in the Middle Ages and was replaced by duke (hertig/hertug/hertog). "

First, I dont see the pint of comparing the two titles Earl and Jarl. They were apparently different, although they sounded smilar.

Secondly, it seems the title Jarl, who was a person in charge of the army, was replaced by Marsk, a Scandinavian form of Marschall.

The last jarl in Sweden died in 1366, and the function was then given to a man with the title Marsk. One person in 1910 had the personal opinion that Dux was the same as Jarl, which has since been repeated, with no confirming source or evidence. It remains an opinion, and Theres plenty of arguments against it.

In Norway, Skule Bårdsson was first Jarl in 1217, and as such got responsibility for the army, and then in 1237, as another attempt of compromise, Skule was given the first Norwegian title of duke (hertug). There is no indication that those two titles meant the same thing, or was mixed. He was first Jarl, and then also Hertig (Duke), but after he became Hertig/Duke he kept his title Jarl.

1295 was the year was the last elected jarl in Norway. 1309 archbishop and jarl Jörund, the last jarl in Norway, who was called jarl in Norway, 70 after Norway had its first hertig (Duke) Nothing indicates that Duke replaced the title Jarl in Norway.

Dan Koehl (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)