Earl Jarl and King

[Slim Shady]

Whats the difference between the 3 of these is all very confusing to me ;p

[Kolsveinn]

Earl and Jarl are both the same thing and equivalent tot the title of Duke. A Jarl generally ranks only below the King himself. Jarls rule over their own tribes, own sizeable lands, and are entitled to keep a personal hird of capable and experienced warriors.

[MrFrengLitch]

You can compare jarls to mayors and kings to presidents.

[littlesake]

short version:
Earl is just the English name for Jarl. King is well...king...a title supposedly above Jarl.

long version:
The complication lies in the fact that there was no clearly established hierarchy of titles in the early Medieval world, unlike what we have in our modern concept. For example: King > Duke > Marquis > Earl (Count) > Viscount > Baron in the UK system is probably what we are used to thinking of when it comes to noble titles. However, this is not the case back then.

The English name Earl comes from Old English eorl, which of course is closely related to the Old Norse jarl. It simply means a nobleman originally. For example, in the Old Norse society, there were three estates or classes, namely jarl, karl and thrall, or noble , freeman and slave. The Old English equivalents are eorl, coerl and theow (Old English c sounds k). Jarl became the title for a chieftain later on. In the Scandinavian world it slowly became equivalent to the title of a European continental Duke which is a title only below the king. However, in England, it became an equivalent to a Count.

The English word king comes from Old English cyning, which is again cognate with the Old Norse konungr. It means a leader or a person from noble birth originally. It also became a title used for chieftains of tribes.

A Jarl therefore was not necessarily less powerful or weathy than a King in the early Medieval world as they were both titles given to chieftains of various origins for various reasons. The same can also be said about counts and dukes in the Continental Europe. Also there were many Jarls and Kings simultaneously mentioned in this period as they were mostly half-historical and half-legendary if not outright legendary. So the distinction was really difficult to make for the Viking period.

[Slim Shady]

Ok so how Thane fits then in your exeplanation? I thought they were the noblement too ?

[littlesake]

If I had to make an analogy, then thane would be like a knight whereas jarl is a lord kingda thing.

[Slim Shady]

Oh ok got it all now :) thank you :)
I always wondered why they say 'King of all Denmark' instead of just the King ;p now i know xD