Talk:List of earls in the peerages of Britain and Ireland

Untitled

We've already got lists for all the separate peerages (e.g. England, Scotland) and a reasonably good list of all earldoms (List of Earldoms). Is this page necessary? Mackensen 17:16, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I think it's useful. The Peerage of England series duplicates all those with peerages in more than one Peerage. If I just want a list of Earls, say to draw up a table of precedence, this page is the most useful. If I want to see what a reconstituted Irish House of Lords would look like, then Peerage of Ireland is the most useful. They all have their uses. Proteus (Talk) 17:24, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Earls of Scotland

While the Earls of Scotland are currently listed in chronological order by the creation of their earldom, I seem to recall that the order of precedence (which this page is supposed to represent) of early Scottish earls is actually based on some sort of traditional list, rather than actually on strict seniority. Does anyone know about this? john k 02:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, the Hull database lists them in this order:

1398 Crawford 1452 Erroll 1404 Mar 1457 Rothes 1458 Morton 1469 Buchan 1507 Eglinton 1455 Caithness 1565 Mar & Kellie 1562 Moray

But it leaves out Sutherland, probably because it's based on a list from before 1963, when the Earldom and Dukedom of Sutherland split apart again. Does anyone know a) if this is correct; and b) where Sutherland fits in? john k 02:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To note - the fact that Crawford and Erroll come first seems to be fairly well substantiated. I've no real idea of the rest - the only other ones that are out of place are Caithness and Mar&Kellie. john k 02:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can't comfirm or deny the odd position of Caithness, but (Mar and) Kellie is indeed ahead of Moray. Crawford and Erroll are definitely first, and Sutherland, I assume, is between Erroll and (the actual) Mar. The other odd thing is Rothes and Morton, as my information says that the latter was created 6 days before the former (20 and 14 March 1458 respectively), but again I have no further information on them. Proteus (Talk) 12:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The document to which you refer is called the Decreet of Ranking, which was created in 1606 on the instructions of James VI and I. The Decreet ordered the first seven earls as follows: Angus, Argyll (as Master of the Household), Crawford, Erroll, the Earl Marischal, Sutherland, Mar. As the post of Earl Marischal is no longer extant, Sutherland would indeed fit in between Erroll and Mar. (Source: Historic Earls and Earldoms of Scotland) -- Emsworth 17:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Emsworth, do you know anything about Caithness's placement? Also, is there a general consensus to reorder the early stuff to reflect order of precedence? john k 18:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find anything on Caithness. I do agree, however, that the list should reflect the order of precedence. -- Emsworth 18:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

HRH The Earl of Wessex derives his precedence from his status a younger son of the Sovereign, not from the date of creation of the earldom. User: Jeff 4 July 2005

A bold proposal

Given the discussion here and the general support for moving the article to a more descriptive and accurate title, would anyone object if I moved the article to List of earls in the peerages of the British Isles with a redirect from List of earls? I'm going to propose this for the other peerage pages, as well. Fishhead64 20:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Under the current title I would expect to find Scandinavian earls here too Fornadan (t) 14:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was support for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

• Support move to List of earls: No need for a capital letter, as these are earls in general: if it was List of Earls of Arundel the capital would be justified (that one's actually a redirect). Compare to existing articles List of dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom and List of counts of Austria–Hungary. PamD (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support for the same reason that we use Prime minister instead of Prime Minister. It is used as general term and not about a particular person. Same applies here. --70.24.182.130 (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support This is proper English usage for a common noun. --Bejnar (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a list of Earls in the Peerages of Great Britain, not of all the earls in the world (chiefly in Scandinavia); it doesn't have the long form because we're using it for the variant which contains all Earldoms ever created. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean a "List of earls in the peerages of Great Britain", certainly? Could you explain why a list of earls in peerages has a different capitalization from a list of earls full stop? The Earl of Y (or Earl X of Y) is an earl in the peerage (even the difference between the Earl and an earl indicates the capitalization). And if this is only a list as you descriibe it, then it is dreadfully mistitled anyway. Fram (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- This is the correct capitalisation. Strictly, it is a List of extant British earldoms. The word "earl" is occasionally used for Norman French titles, but that is an archaic usage. There is a separate article listing all creations, though that may be deficient for the proconquest period, lacking Earls of Mercia, Northumberland, Wessex, etc. However these were perhpas more in the nature of offices than hereditary peeages. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Per nominator; proper English usage for a common noun, consistent with similar articles. Chrisieboy (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Earl of Charlton (1860)

I reverted the addition of the above by a new editor, on the basis that I could find no reliable source for the existence of this title. The same editor has undone my revert. However, he has not created an article on the title or added any reference. Until evidence is provided that the title existed, I must regard the addition as a variety of vandalism, but I am not sure how to proceed from here. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am absolutely appalled by the suggestion from Peterkingiron the addition is some sort of vandalism. The title does exist. I may have been premature in adding the title at this stage. But I intended on building the section as time dictated. Peterkingiron should never ever make assumptions and not just remove anything until they have the correct facts! An article will be added in due course, or don't I bother due to the tactics of Peterkingiron? user: Amendingt2

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amending2 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a fictional title - (replace the word dot with a dot and no spaces) z7.invisionfree dot com/the18thcentury/ar/t67.htm (spam filter avoidance there... ) and references in the badly scanned Members of the Beaufort Hunt http://www.archive.org/stream/membersofbeaufor00henr/membersofbeaufor00henr_djvu.txt that appear to refer to Earls of Charlton Park in fact refer to Earls of Suffolk and Berkshire, whose seat was Charlton Park. Peridon (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Amending2, if you have evidence that the title exists, you need to cite your evidence for it. If you do not know how to do this, set it out here, and I will add it to the article in the proper manner. I am an experienced WP editor, and am not in the habit of intentionally removing correct and appropriate information, which would be vandalism. I did a websearch before reverting your addition and also checked "rayment", a website which has compiled lists of peers, WPs, etc from reliable sources. This led me to believe that the title does not exist. If I am wrong, I will be very happy to be proved so. If as Peridon suggests the title is a mistaken reference to the Earls of Suffolk and Berkshire from their residence, it should not be in the list, but should be a redirect to that title and a short passage should be added to the article on that article (or rather both of them), explaining the issue WITH REFERENCES. If it is a fictional title, it should not be in this list, but again there will be appropriate ways of dealing with it. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

list of heirs apparent

this list include a secondary list of the heirs apparent of earls, why? If I wanted to know who the heir apparent of a particular earl is I will(and do) click on the link for that earl's article(either one). After all mostly what is listed here is the courtesy title. It would make more sense to list heirs apparent who used an earldom as opposed to courtesy titles and broken links. besides it is something where that the information would change and no one would update the lists. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Earl of Buckland 1947 (UK)

1. Its a redlink
2. It doesn't appear in Leigh Rayment
3. It doesn't, in fact, appear on Google other than on this page

= I'm calling bullsh*t, so if "Robin Johnson, 3rd Earl of Buckland" wants to prove me wrong, he can reply here.

Looks like WP:OR to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Earldoms in the Peerage of England

I suggest that the above category should be headed 'This category lists all substantive earldoms created in the Peerage of England.' Compare Category:Marquessates in the Peerage of England. The category would not therefore include:

1. Earl of Arundel - held by the Duke of Norfolk.
2. Earl of Bedford - held by the Duke of Bedford.
3. Earl of Cardigan - held by the Marquess of Ailesbury.
4. Earl of Marlborough - held by the Duke of Marlborough.
5. Earl of Norfolk - held by the Duke of Norfolk.
6. Earl of Northampton - held by the Marquess of Northampton.
7. Earl of Salisbury - held by the Marquess of Salisbury.
8. Earl of Sunderland - held by the Duke of Marlborough.
9. Earl of Surrey - held by the Duke of Norfolk.
10. Earl of Wiltshire - held by the Marquess of Winchester.
11. Earl of Worcester - held by the Duke of Beaufort.

Alekksandr (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC) See ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 7#Category:Courtesy Earldoms in the Peerage of England

Each of these was created as a substantive earldom, i.e., not created simultaneously with a higher title. —Tamfang (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Earl of Strathearn and Earl of Dumbarton

I'm surprised that the Earl of Strathearn (Prince William, Duke of Cambridge) wouldn't have been discussed here before, but is there any reason why he isn't on this list (or, for that matter, the Earl of Dumbarton)? There are certainly substantive titles. StAnselm (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

They are subsidiary titles rather than 'top level' titles, of which none are listed on this page. Subsidiary titles are listed on List of earldoms. This information is contained in the article lead. ToastButterToast (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, does that mean the titles can be both substantive and subsidiary? Because both articles describe the respective titles as substantive. StAnselm (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the term substantive title is used to differentiate from courtesy titles. A peer can hold multiple substantive titles, for example Prince Harry holds three substantive titles, Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton, and Baron Kilkeel. In this case the Earl and Baron titles are subsidiary titles as they are of lower rank than the Duke title. Also, should Prince Harry have any children they could potentially (depending on other factors) use one of his subsidiary titles as a courtesy title, in a similar fashion to James, Viscount Severn. This is kind of a simplified explanation but I hope it covers everything well enough. ToastButterToast (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clearing that up. StAnselm (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Earldom of Bristol

See Talk:Earl_of_Bristol, sub-heading 'Extinction of the first creation'. Please add any response there. Alekksandr (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

subsidiary earldoms

The column Subsidiary Titles is oddly, er, titled. That usually means the viscountcy/barony used as a courtesy title, not other titles of equal degree. How about Other Earldoms? —Tamfang (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)