Talk:Ealdorman

	Anglo-Saxon England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I am removing the following text, as it is inaccurate:

The Old English word for Ealdormen is Ældormenn, meaning, "older men".

The Old English word for Ealdormen is, indeed, "Ealdormen" itself. The conservative spelling has survived intact. The spelling "Ældormenn" is virtually unattested within the Old English corpus. Ealdormen is the most common Old English spelling. Aside from that, describing "Ealdormen" as meaning "older men" is arguably undesirable, as OE "men" is generally considered to be gender neutral and no equivalent modern term exists. --Yst 20:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is magistrate an appropriate description for Ealdorman, or would King's representative or deputy be a better approximation? --Smile 01:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Old English meaning is rather vague. It's hard to capture the ministerial and military implications of the term simultaneously in a single term. Magistrate is probably fine. --Yst 20:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and move)

I'd suggest merging Thegn to here, and dealing with the other nebulous Anglo-Saxon titles which appear as the Latin patricius, dux, comes, princeps, praefectus, subregulus, and the rest. As I understand it, ealdorman is simply a vernacular term for "important nobleman". One "ealdorman" can be a dux, another a princeps, and a third a praefectus. Some ealdormen are clearly independent rulers, others are royal servants. At present the article deals only with the 10th century Wessex type of ealdormen. This would probably mean moving the article to Anglo-Saxon nobility or something like that, but splitting things up makes it hard to cover them properly. Thoughts? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separate & a proposal

Merging the Scandinavian Thegn/Tegn with Ealdorman seems wrong to me. My comments:

While Thegn has an Anglo Saxon origin it was also used extensively in Scandinavia (well, Denmark and, mainly, Sweden). In the literature, also in English, it is referred to as Tegn or Thegn, never as Ealdorman.
There is a hypothesis that the title of Thegn was used for/by persons in what is today Sweden who were loyal to the 'Danish' king. Much of this discussion centers around discussions about the distribution of rune stones and place names related to Thegn. Merging the Thegn and Ealdorman articles, would, in my opinion, obscure the discussion about these types of hypothesis
In a Scandinavian/Swedish setting, it is not certain that Thegn actually means the same as Ealdorman. At least as I have interpreted the discussion.
In the Scandinavian/Swedish setting, Thegn is often discussed together with other other titles such as ceorl / churl (karl), sven, draeng (dräng) and rink. These are typically not believed to have the same meaning as Ealdorman.
A proposal could be to have a separate Tegn article referring to the use of the term in Scandinavia/Sweden while the Ealdorman article discusses its use in an Anglo Saxon setting. I'm not sure, but would that be a better solution?

Regards Osli73 15:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that merging Eaaldorman would be unnecessary, though mentioning the similarity between the words' meaning or offices would certainly be desirable. Alderman and other later terms refer directly back to the original term, and I feel there is sufficient distinction between the terms to remove the Merge. Zach Beauvais 17:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ealdormen

If we have a page that is about ealdormen, we should most certainly compile the list of ealdormen.--24.22.111.99 04:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Kyle McKenzie Street[reply]

I agree. Perhaps if anyone has access to records of ealdormen they could begin the compilation? Zach Beauvais 17:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose to merge

An Ealdorman was the Anglo-Saxon eqivalent of a great magnate such as the latterday Earls, Marquesses or Dukes. Whereas the Thanage was equivalent to the Knightage. Both could act as King's officers, but as with the similar situation in Scotland where the Thanes were powerful officers of the King's peace, the Ealdorman just as the Scots Mormaer was a king himself, albeit locally. This merge should not be carried out for the simple reason that, although there were Ealdormen in what is now Scotland, that it was only in those parts that formed the Kingdom of Northumbria, whereas Thanes in common with Scandinavia were spread throughout, cf MacBeth, Thane of Glamis and Cawdor! for a good essay on the subject please see Scotland c1000-1200: The Shire, the Thane, the Sheriff and the Sheriffdom. Ewan J. Innes, MA(Hons Scot. Hist.) FSA Scot Brendandh 20:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, they're distinct titles that did occasionally co-exist. There ought to be an article on Anglo-saxon nobility or Northern European nobility, but it shouldn't absorb the articles on Thane or Ealdorman any more than the present-day nobility article absorbs viscount or duke.-- The_socialist ^talk? 15:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the terms should remain independent. Zach Beauvais 17:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]