Talk:List of earldoms

All of the pages could be merged.

The problem of having a page longer than 32 kB is solved by dividing it into sections. -- Emsworth 20:11, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

'Tis done, my Lord. Proteus 22:36, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Word of warning.

I think we've got a lot of mistakes in this list; a lot of feudal titles. I don't think that those belong here. If I can't confirm a title's existence, I'm transferring it to this temp page here: List of Earldoms/Questionable. Mackensen (talk) 23:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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 earldoms in the peerages of the British Isles with a redirect from List of earldoms? I'm going to propose this for the other peerage pages, as well. Fishhead64 20:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's fair enough moving the equivalent pages for the other grades of the peerage, the titles of which do exist in other countries, but as far as I have understood the title of Earl is unique to the British Isles. Isn't this lengthier title for this article therefore rather redundant? Opera hat 18:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Opera Hat. There aren't earls anywhere outside the British Isles. john k 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why some titles bold, others not?

Why are some titles bold, and others are not? Is there some significance? --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Still extant earldoms are in bold. john k (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Split the article?

This article is nearly 100K long. Would it make sense to split it and have separate articles listing earldoms in each peerage? john k (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Arundel

What's with the second creation of Arundel in 1289? --109.156.110.184 (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This list omits the third creation of the Earl of Arundel in 1580, and lists the first and second creations as still extant, when of course only the most recent one can be extant. I'd correct it, but it's not clear that there was a new creation in 1580 (as the article Earl of Arundel suggests). Richard75 (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the 1580 creation from the other article, as it seems to be an error based on a misunderstanding of the restoration of a forfeited title. And it's not clear what evidence there is for a second creation either. Richard75 (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Chester

The assertion that the title "Earl of Chester" was re-created in 1850 can't stand without some meat behind it. For centuries before 1850 the title "Earl of Chester" has been tied to being "Prince of Wales". Of course I realize that these things are often disputed (Earl of Mar and all that) so I won't categorically state that an 1850 creation of "Earl of Chester" is WRONG, just that it is contrary to what most people accept and so needs some presentation of argument. Also if I click the words "Earl of Chester" and go to that article that data on creations of this title that I find there differs from the data found here. Inconsistency.2604:2000:C6AA:B400:7456:5EE0:243F:BF4C (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

I've done some checking and I see what's going on with this "1850" date for the Earldom of Chester, and I'll have none of it. The Wikipedia page on the future King Edward VII lists a change of title at 8 December 1841 indicating he was then created Prince of Wales. Wikipedia's article on "Earl of Chester" says that since the late 1300s the title "Earl of Chester" has been bestowed ONLY in conjunction with the title "Prince of Wales". It's beyond belief that the future Edward VII was NOT created "Earl of Chester" when created "Prince of Wales" in 1841. Then, in 1850, for some reason, the future Edward VII, already Prince of Wales, was also created Earl of Dublin. It is BOGUS to imply that this 1850 creation of a man who was already Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester since 1841 is a "new" creation of the Earldom of Chester. You MIGHT say that the 1841 date (not 1850) is a "new" creation. But most scholars don't do that because EVERY person who is Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester is, technically, newly created in the title rather than inheriting it by death of the previous title-holder, and it seems to most people that there's no point in listing EVERY title-holder of a title as a "new" creation when that qualifier must inevitably pertain to all of them.2604:2000:C6AA:B400:7456:5EE0:243F:BF4C (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

I agree that the article is wrong as it stands. But that leaves the issue of what it should say. The Dukedom of Cornwall was created in 1337 and has not been re-created since (except for the future Richard II in 1376), as it is automatically held by the eldest son of the Sovereign on becoming such. The same goes for the Scots Dukedom of Rothesay and Earldom of Carrick. But the Earldom of Chester has been re-created every time that the title of Prince of Wales has been (most recently in 1958). So I suggest that the article should show multiple creations as e.g. "List of dukedoms in the peerages of Britain and Ireland" does for the dukedom of York. Alekksandr (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Henry III

The article says that until Henry III the only titles in the peerage were baron and earl. That contradicts the articles about the other titles, none of which were created as early as that. Edward III introduced the title of duke in 1337, Richard II marquess in 1385, and Henry VI viscount in 1440. Richard75 (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I've changed this. Richard75 (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)