Talk:Earl

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. —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.

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'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?

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)

Split article?

It seems to me that using this article to discuss both British earls and Scandinavian jarls is not best practice. Besides etymology, the two titles don't seem to be related at all. Does any one else think it would be better to move the Scandinavian section back to Jarl (title), which currently redirects here? Ltwin (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Berig, who merged them. For myself, I would support a split. I can't see a reason to merge them beyond linguistics. Srnec (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Split. See the discussion (or lack of it) back in 07/08. It doesn't look right for the article now. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Split As far as I can see, these are separate titles that aren't related. Alvaldi (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Split - this seems to have been someone assuming they’re the same thing because they’re cognates. Theknightwho (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Split No reason for them to have been merged in the first place, bad move.★Trekker (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, earl is the most common English form of jarl, simply because during the Viking Age they were the same title, and after the Viking age the title jarl disappeared in Scandinavia. I give you examples from Google scholar:
  • "Danish earl" has 168 hits, while "Danish jarl" has 103 hits
  • "Norwegian earl" has 157 hits, while "Norwegian jarl" has 109 hits.
  • "Swedish earl" has 51 hits while "Swedish jarl" has 41 hits.

There is a reason why the the articles were merged, and it is WP:COMMONNAME. Even in the tv series Vikings, the jarls are called earls. --Berig (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

About 8 of the first ten are like: "Siward is a well-attested historical figure, Parker notes, a Danish earl of southern Northumbria who first appears in English sources in 1033". WP:COMMONNAME is about article titles, not their contents. it is not true that "after the Viking age the title jarl disappeared in Scandinavia." According to the article it was used in all Scandi countries for some time after. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it disappeared during the Middle Ages, after the Viking Age. There were no Swedish earls in England, but still "Swedish earl" is preferred to "Swedish jarl" according to Google scholar.--Berig (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

A very long time after the Viking Age in several cases! Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Right, but "Swedish earl" also includes results like this one[1] and this one[2] which are actually using "earl" as a translation of greve "count", as they were of equivalent rank in the early modern period. Theknightwho (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME isn't applicable in this case as the discussion isn't about what this article should be titled. The discussion is about whether the UK and Scandinavian terms refer to the same thing. You are free to argue that the Scandinavian term should be at e.g. Earl (Scandinavian title), but it isn't an argument against the proposed split. Did you really just propose we use a drama TV series as part of the basis for decisions on Wikipedia? – Elisson • T • C • 15:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I actually suggested we use Google scholar. I thought mentioning the tv series was relevant because of all the people who may want to find out about "Viking earls".--Berig (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Which is why there are things like hatnotes solving such issues. – Elisson • T • C • 16:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Split, separate titles without any relation except a common etymology. Checked four different Swedish encyclopedias (Nationalencyclopedin, Nordisk Familjebok 2nd ed, Bonniers Lexicon, and Svensk Uppslagsbok) and a dictionary (SAOB). All five have separate definitions of "earl" and "jarl", while for titles like "duke" (if included at all) they just define it as the English name of the Swedish equivalent title ("hertig"), point to the article of the Swedish title, point to an article on English peerage, etc. – Elisson • T • C • 15:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This is because after the Viking Age, the english earl came to correspond to Scandinavian title for duke, but that is not relevant for the Viking Age.--Berig (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument (if that was one). Please clarify why you believe the English "earl" and Scandinavian "jarl" (sometimes translated to "earl") refers to the same thing. – Elisson • T • C • 15:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should consult some of these articles. From the tone of your question, you seem to consider me delusional.--Berig (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't really need to consult further material, as I've provided relevant sources that treat "earl" and "jarl" as different subjects. So it's more up to you to provide arguments for the opposite. I like the earlier link you provided but removed ([3]) which clearly uses "jarl" for the Scandinavian title, and "earl" for the UK title, and provides a balanced view that researchers by routine uses "earl" for "jarl" without fully understanding the differences, while still saying there of course are similarities. I absolutely do not consider you delusional, but you have yet to provide any relevant argument for not splitting the Scandinavian title to a separate article. – Elisson • T • C • 15:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course jarl can have an article on its own, but having written 100s of articles on WP, I have come to the conclusion that if a lot of people are going to search for earl instead of jarl, it is better to have jarl as a sub-entry than as a stub, especially since they were two forms of the same word in two rather mutually intellible languages, Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse. Moreover, considering the fact that parts of England were ruled by Scandinavians such as the jarl/earl Eiríkr Hákonarson there is of course some fluidity and identity between the terms here.--Berig (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

If they of course can have articles on their own, why !vote oppose? As I said in another comment, hatnotes (or disambiguation pages) exist to help users find what they are looking for when different subjects have identical or near identical names. – Elisson • T • C • 16:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Because, jarl mostly belongs to a Viking Age context, where it is often equated to its cognate earl, and in that context I seem to be a lumper while you appear to be a splitter.--Berig (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

BTW, considering the amount of work I have invested on Viking Age content here on WP, I really wonder who is going to care for the quality of such a jarl article. There are preciously few good content writers on Viking Age articles here on English WP, and judging from your questions above you don't seem to consider me to be among them.--Berig (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you please stick to the question in hand? Neither the maintenance of a separate article (how would it be different from maintaining the current content of this article), nor my opinion of your Viking age article writing skills are what is being discussed (I have no opinion on that). – Elisson • T • C • 21:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

(e/c)In the immediate post-Danish conquest period there were earls and ealdormen with overlapping jurisdictions, and hence different roles, and 'earl' was at least somewhat analogous to 'jarl' (hence the etymology); by the immediate pre-Norman period, 'earl' designated the shire-level administrative role formerly fulfilled by ealdormen; later, with the establishment of a parliamentary role and greater social statification, it transitioned again, eventually becoming just a naked title with no administrative responsibilities, a hereditary status symbol of political power alone. Certainly in the last phase, earls were not the same as the Scandinavian jarls of the Viking era, but they also weren't the same as English earls of the Viking era, and I am not sure that in the first phase the two weren't completely indistinguishable. Agricolae (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, good comment, Agricolae.--Berig (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Something none of us seem to have spotted is that there is also an article called Swedish jarls, which currently acts as a quasi-article for the title "jarl" in general. Theknightwho (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's awkward. This is not a very well-written article, defining 'jarl' in the introductory sentence simply as a title sometimes held by families who would later become royal families, as if there was some sort of predestination involved, and also mentioning that, by the way, there were also Jarls at Novgorod, in Icelandic sagas, and even lists a Sicilian monarch as a jarl. Whatever disposition is made over the jarl/earl question, there is not enough inherently unique about Swedish jarls that requires a nation-specific article separate from wherever Danish, Norwegian, etc. jarls are to be covered. Agricolae (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, but it could I suppose be merged to the general Scandinavian one when that is split off from here. Personally I'd just leave it, linking and rewriting the lead as necessary. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It just doesn't have enough Sweden-specific content to justify its own article distinct from the coverage of 'jarl'. The only truly Sweden-specifc material in the whole article is one sentence about in Sweden the title was replaced by Duke, three Swedish jarldoms given as examples in part of a sentence that also mentions Norway, and a list. Everything else is truly generic (the etymology), equally descriptive of Jarl in other places - that the title was borne by people whose families later became kings (e.g. Ulf Jarl of Denmark) or that they were often de facto kings (the Norwegian Jarls of Hlade) - or explicitlay about non-Swedish jarls. Any time two simple sentences would cover the entirety of a page's topic-specific prose, that is an unnecessary fork. Agricolae (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Most of the screen space is taken up by lists of holders of the title, & "in popular culture". That all seems Sweden-specific to me. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Not on my screen its not. Between the prose text and the massive infobox, and the non-Swedish entries in teh lists. As to the 'In Popular Culture', it is unclear to me that any of that is the least bit notable (and one of the entries seems to be of jarls of invented countries, not Swedish, so equally relevant - or equally trivial - to a generic Jarls page). Basically, a list of Swedish jarls is the only thing that remotely justifying a separate page, and while that might be the basis for a List of Swedish Jarls page, I would call WP:NOPAGE and put it on the Jarls page if this proposal ends up being accepted, and also list other Jarls (there seem to be few enough that a list would not overwhelm that page). Agricolae (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Split, some Jarls were independent princes just like kings of small kingdoms. Baxbox (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Split Jarls were in most of the Nordic countries, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland. There is plenty of literature that was written in the very same era as the Jarls existed, so sources are not a problem. Earl is probably similar to Jarl, but they do definatly not have the same definition.

Side note: Support merging Swedish Jarls into Jarls.--Snævar (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Given that the overwhelming consensus is to split, I will go ahead and do that in a day or two if there are no more objections. Ltwin (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Chay x Phuocdu12 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)