Talk:List of Earls
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
[edit] 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
[edit] 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)
