Huh. I stand corrected.
Thegn, which comes close to landed Knight or landed Gentleman. A Kings Thegn was certainly the equivilent of at least a Knight Banneret, if not a Baron.
There’s a few more rather obscure titles. Being a member of the Witan (House of Lords more or less) meant quite a bit.
Aetheling more or less meant “prince”.
They also had the Housecarls (or Huscarls, meaning Warrior of the House), but I don’t rightly know whether they were actual nobility or not.
They had some administrative duties in peacetime (their word was considered that of the King IIRC, so they were de facto judges and arbiters in minor matters), but more importantly they were professional soldiers who toed the line between men-at-arms, standing army and mercenaries. They were paid in coin by the King (rather than in land), and were a very, very effective fighting force.
I’m intrigued by this part of this thread. If I understand correctly, the OP makes up an etymology out of whole cloth, then comes to GQ for verification that his made-up etymology is the real deal??? 
I think it’s more a matter of the OP making an etymology out of whole cloth, and then coming to GQ to discover the realy etymology.
What Captain Amazing said. I spun a ridiculous yarn to evlkitty in response to a querry that had stumped me. i shared it here to sort of, you know, have a little fun. That I clearly wasn’t selling it as gospel is evidenced by the OP asking for the REAL answer. You’re postulation confuses you, rightly, because it’s ridiculous.
Also:
As I’ve said, I’m terrible to live with. because I DO know a lot of useless stuff. Like there are actually creatures like the snipe and the yellow-bellied sapsucker. I like to spin the occasional yarn just to see how ridiculous I can get before someone calls bullshit on me. It’s a game. Fun, see? So not realy a thrill from being deceptive as much as an exploration of how and why someone would trust an unsecured source of information. Fuck, Snopes even pulls that one.
And to everyone else, thanks for the details!
Well, no wonder. There never was a truly clear distinction in western Europe, although as time went on social stratification tende to increase. But ti wasn’t considered a total distinction as with some Asia cultures (such as the Indians and the Japanese caste systems).
Well, even the Japanese system wasn’t really a caste system for most of its history. There was the Emperor, of course, and then on the other end of the social spectrum, the burakumin, but in between those groups, there was room for social mobility. A number of the samurai families were descended from cadet branches of the imperial nobility (the Ashikaga, Nitta, Takeda, and Hojo families, for instance), and, of course, Toyotomi Hideyoshi was born a peasant. It wasn’t until Hideyoshi, actually, that Japanese society got stratified, probably because he didn’t want anyone else following his example.
Xema writes:
> And is there any example of this sort of “gee whiz” etymology that is valid? (All
> the many I have encountered are 100% bogus.)
I think a pretty good rule is that if the etymology sounds clever, it’s wrong. I also think that most of the false etymologies started as jokes rather than mistakes. Someone thought it was hilarious to create an etymology and see if they could get another person to fall for it.
What are you talking about? You’re using the very same sense of “count” that everyone else in the thread previous to you was talking about. You give the same etymology they did (excepting the OP’s) and everything.
What are you talking about?
An equerry is not a noble, he just looked after their horses.
No, he wasn’t. He was saying that the OP was using the meaning of “count” that describes the function of adding numbers one by one, as opposed to the meaning of “count” that has to do with being bosom buddies with the king.
I guess that’s right if what Exapno meant was “Count in the OP’s etymology’s sense is later than count in the sense given by everyone else.” It’s not what he did say, but it’s plausible that it’s what he meant to say.
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.
You might consider the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy – England in 1066 was only a few centuries removed from a dozen or so petty kingdoms – East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Wessex, Mercia, Strathclyde, etc. – most of which were run by Anglo-Saxon-Jute-complex leaders. As England united under Egbert and his heirs, the one rank subordinate to cyning but superior to freeman that everyone was used to was available to describe the governors, under the king, of the old kingdoms that had been united into England. That title was eorl. The layers of duke, count, and baron were imported – but the rank of count already had an Anglo-Sexon usage, one familiar to the subjects. Some of the Anglo-Norman families were simultaneously Comtes in Normandy and Earls in England – they obviously saw the titles as equivalent.
As for the other two ranks, Vicomte was the lieutenant who governed in the Comte’s name while he was absent serving with the King or holding court at another seat where he was also Comte by inheritance through heiress-marriage. A marquess or marquis derived his title from the German markgraf, count of a march (frontier area of a kingdom) – note the English title “Earl of March” given to the man who held the lands bordering Powys.
Because none of those other French titles existed in England. pre-Norman. You have Anglo-Saxon England, where the only noble title is Earl. So then the Normans come in and since William at first doesn’t want to change much, he keeps the title.
But there was no Saxon version of barons, viscounts, or dukes, so when the English kings decide to create the other titles, they use the French words. Remember, too, that most of these titles don’t come into the English nobility until much later. There weren’t any English Marquesses or non royal Dukes until 1385, when Robert DeVere was first created Marquess of Dublin and then Duke of Ireland., and there were no Viscounts until 1440.
You forget “King” (OE) as opposed to “Roi”.
And, in Anglo-Saxon times they did occ use “dux” from the Latin. wiki:
"The highest political division beneath that of kingdom among the Anglo-Saxons was the ealdormanry and, while the title ealdorman was replaced by the Danish eorl (later earl) over time, the first ealdormen were referred to as duces (the plural of the original Latin dux) in the chronicles. Thus, in Anglo-Saxon England, where the Roman political divisions were largely abandoned, the grade of duke was retained as supreme territorial magnate after the king."
However the first English Duke wasn’t created until 1337, several hundred years after the Conquest. Viscount didn’t come into English usage until even later, along with Marquis.
So, you have left out one of the best examples that argues against your point, and most of yoru other examples did not come over with the Conquest at all, but were created much later, in order to reward people and favorites.
Another non-analogous title retained in England was sheriff/shire reeve, as well as the concept of shires generally.
No English duchies at all until 1337, almost three centuries after the Norman conquest. “Duke” at one time was a relatively rare title conferring a certain sense of control over a large geographic areas. As time went on it increasingly became more a simple senior honorific.
ETA: Ah, too slow again.
Marquess - Marchioness, in the British peerage.
Marquis - Marquise in French.
Where the hell did County Durham come from then? 