Talk:Earl of Northumbria

Merger

As this article makes clear, the Earldom of Northumbria was a different (and much bigger) thing from the later Earldom of Northumberland. (It covered what is now Northumberland, Co. Durham and Yorkshire, for a start.) Merging the two as if they were equivalent is incorrect and very unhelpful. Proteus (Talk) 23:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Any political body is different at different stages in time. So if this is the basis of your thinking, how do you separate kingdoms, earldoms, empires, etc, from their larger or smaller predecessors or successors? Why is the United States of America the same country in 1800 as 1950, when it is several times larger? You should be aware that the distinction between "Northumberland" and "Northumbria" is a complete neologism, the only difference is that one is English and one is Latin. The late medieval "earl of Northumberland" had exactly the same title as his 11th century predecessor. BTW, I noticed you deleted the Scottish earls of Northumberland/Northumbria. Was it because they don't fit your artificially neat division, or did you have some other reason? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

An easy starting point for separating political bodies, to answer your first question, is when they're called different things (by people now even if not then). And even if "Northumbria" and "Northumberland" were the same thing (which I don't agree they are, any more than London's the same as Londinium simply because it's a translation of it), "Earl" meant a different thing at the different times covered by these two articles, with the Anglo-Saxon earldoms (successors to the petty kingdoms of England) being far more important things than the more modern ones (even at the very beginning when they were earldoms of shire counties). The Earl of Northumberland may have had the same title as a previous Earl of Northumbria in a linguistic sense, but they were no more actually the same title than the current Earl of Wessex holds the same title as King Harold. And if they are in some sense comparable, this can be discussed in the article, but as they are nowadays referred to by different names, it's just confusing to conflate them in the same article. (As for the Scottish holders, I apologise — I thought I was just reverting the merger, and didn't realise I was getting rid of something.) Proteus (Talk) 17:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "earl" changed in meaning after the coming of the Normans, but only in the sense that the northern French "count" had slightly different nuances than the Anglo-Scandinavian earl; but the English always called English counts "earls", even though the Norman earls called themselves "counts". That aside, Londinium and London is not a valid comparison to make. Londinium was a Latin-British city which became mostly ruined and London was a high medieval city built on the site. Northumbria is simply Northumberland written in Latin, whether that's done in the 10th century or the 14th century. And for instance, Robert Bartlett calls both Waltheof and Siward "earl of Northumberland", and avoids the term "Northumbria" altogether. So, Bartlett, perhaps the leading expert on England in this period, agrees with me. At any rate, Henry of Scotland became Earl of Northumberland because he thought of himself as the rightful heir (through his mother) to Waltheof, earl of Northumberland. Henry pressed claims to overlordship in the Durham dominions, and even Yorkshire. So, if you're gonna maintain this distinction, Henry should be in the "Northumbria" page. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there does sometimes appear to be confusion as to whether someone was Earl of Northumberland (the county of Northumberland) or Northumbria (the counties of Northumberland and Durham, sometimes with the addition of the county of York), but I believe that's something that can be discussed in the context of the two articles (it's possible that Henry of Scotland thought of himself as Earl of Northumbria whilst everyone else thought of him as Earl of Northumberland, for instance), rather than by conflating them. By the time of the Percys, I would say, the Earls of Northumberland were pretty definitely confined to the county of Northumberland (the Prince-Bishops of Durham had Co. Durham, after all), so after that the two were definitely not the same. And whilst it's true that Northumbria is a Latin translation of Northumberland, I don't think it can be said that Northumberland is always an English translation of Northumbria. Proteus (Talk) 23:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If the various iterations of Burgundy are divided up, why not this? Northumbria and Northumberland were politically distinct organisations - the former an institution of the Saxon/Norse old Kingdom, the latter an example of the imposed Norman institutions. Michaelsanders 14:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I do 100% agree with Proteus. I'm planning for a long time to write it for the french wiki, but documentents for the precise nature of this earldom are rare. Why scottish holders (David I of Scotland to Malcolm IV of Scotland) aren't mentionned (in the Northumberland earl's article ? (interesting link : http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL1.htm#_Toc141154291 – scroll a little back) --PurpleHz 19:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My problem is that maintaining the artificial distinction between "Northumberland" and "Northumbria" leads the unwary to regard the two as genuinely contemporary separate concepts ... when they were not. The Kingdom and Earldom (both before the Percies and after) is Northumberland in English, Northumbria or Northumberland in Latin. That's the only real difference. This is plain fact and can't be argued with. It's like the artificial distinction - purely their invention - created by historians refusing to translate Scotia in some instances and translating it to Scotland in others. The earldom of Northumberland lost York and Deira, fine, but maintained its name as the rump - Bernicia/Bamburgh - in the north. The Normans refused to reverse this process (understandably, the earldom was distant and gigantic), and thus the concept change to what we now call the County of Northumberland. I acknowledge I'm not going to be able to correct this terminological fiction on wikipedia ... but Henry and the Kings of Scotland who were earls of Northumberland/Northumbria held the same territorial rights as Waltheof, Earl of Northumbria and his immediate predecessors (they were grandson and great grandsons respectively), and cannot be classed separately; they were the successors of the Saxon and Danish earls, not the predecessors of the Percies. That needs fixed! And, BTW PurpleHz, David I of Scotland was never earl of Northumberland/Northumbria! :) Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there is confusion, lemme explain the Scottish earls of Northumberland. David I married Maud, daughter of Waltheof. Waltheof was earl of Northumberland and held all the estates in what was later called the "Honour of Huntingdon". Waltheof was executed; his daughter Maud inherited the "Honour of Huntingdon" but the title to Northumberland was given to the bishop of Durham; Maud later married David I; David was not earl of Huntingdon save through marriage. The Scottish earls are as follows

Henry fitz David, 1139-1152

William the Lion, 1152-1157 (deprived by Henry II)

Maud died in 1130, her heir Henry (David's son) inherits. David attacks Stephen demanding Henry be restored to his grandfather's wider inheritance (Northumberland); Stephen eventually caves in and grants him this (1139). Henry dies in 1152. David makes his oldest son Máel Coluim the new heir to Scotland, and gives the younger William the earldom of Northumberland. Henry II sought to reverse all significant changes done by Stephen, and deprived William of the earldom in 1157. End of Scottish earls, though William would later try to reclaim his lost inheritance. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but i know quite well all this ! (wrote french articles for Waltheof, Treaties of Durham) :D The question is : Why aren't they mentionned in the english articles ? --PurpleHz 11:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Northumbria and Northumberland aren't de same territory, that's why the distinction is made. Northumberland is a rather fixed territory, while Northumbria evolved a lot, from the orginal kingdom to Northumberland. Robert de Montbray (Mowbray) was the first earl to have a territory reduced to Northumberland, when Geoffrey of Coutances came back in 1091 and became "prince-bishop of Durham". I want to write a french article on "earls of Northumbria", but can't find reliable sources. Can you help ? Thanks ! --PurpleHz 11:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained, that's a misunderstanding. There was no difference between Northumberland and Northumbria! How much territory was controlled by the earl depended on the earl ... Cospatric controlled Cumberland for instance, Waltheof did not, but Henry did, etc. The later earldom for the Percies came about after English government had been systematized into counties, with Northumberland taking its form from the core of the old earldom of Northumberland in Bernicia. As for basic sources, the classic and comprehensive account would be Kapelle's Norman Conquest of the North and you could also see (less detailed) Rollason, Northumbria: 500-1100 (also, Morris' Marriage and murder in eleventh-century Northumbria is cool). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)