While it’s true the etymology of “Earl” is Old English, that misses the point I was trying to make. Let’s look at titles of the British nobility and their origins (F = French; OE= Old English):
Duke (F) – Duchess (F)
Marquis (F) – Marquesse (F)
Earl (OE) – Countess (F)
Viscount (F) – Viscountess (F)
Baron (F) – Baroness (F)
One of these things is clearly not like the other. “Earl” is the only title derived from Old English roots. Why?
The French origin of titles is easily explained by the Norman Invasion. But why is “Earl” the only one with an Old English root? Why would the French noblemen use this title instead of the one they had in France (as they did all the rest)?
Now look at the feminine form. It’s always made by adding an -ess to the word (with some changes for euphony). Why isn’t there an “Earlesse?”
Note below “Earl”. It’s Viscount (etymologically vice-count). Why not vice-earl?
Finally, when the French invaded, they kept their own nobility ranks (an earl is considered the same rank as a count in other countries, BTW) instead of using English ones or inventing new ones.
It’s clear from the listing that “count” was once in the spot where “earl” currently is. The question is why?
For some reason or another, the French nobility decided to use the old term “Earl” for “Count.” And the fact that it is very close to one of the most taboo words in the English language would clearly be a strong factor in the change.