The same peerage name held by 2 different peers at the same time

[bx...@yahoo.com]

The recent post concerning peerage names being repeated 3 or more times made me wonder about a situation that's similar, but slightly different.

How many peerage names have been held at the same time by 2 different peers?

The one that comes to my mind is Windsor, a viscountcy held by the Earl of Plymouth, and of course, the dukedom, held by the former Edward VIII.

Are there any other such examples?

Thanks.

Brooke

[S. S.]

This list can swell up if you consider peerages with similar names but a slightly different element, e.g. there is a Barony of Hamilton of Dalzell and a Barony of Hamilton of Epsom. I would recommend sticking to peerage names that are completely identical, of course excluding the territorial designation, e.g. as in the Windsor example.

The Barony of Berkeley of Stratton [I] was created in 1658 for John Berkeley. George Berkeley, 9th Baron Berkeley was already created Earl of Berkeley in 1679 and would later die in 1698. Related in this family was William FitzHardinge Berkeley, who was created Earl FitzHardinge in 1841. His brother (both being illegitimate sons of the 5th Earl of Berkeley) was later created Baron FitzHardinge in 1861, however the Earl FitzHardinge would already die by 1857, so not quite at the same time.

Lady (Henrietta) Laura, only child of Sir William Pulteney, 5th Bt, was created Baroness Bath in 1792 and later Countess of Bath in 1803. This was at the same time when the 3rd Viscount Weymouth was created Marquess of Bath in 1789 and when his successor inherited the title and died in 1837. Laura’s mother was Frances Pulteney, daughter of Daniel Pulteney MP, first cousin of William Pulteney, 1st Earl of Bath, thus explaining the choice of title.

 S.S.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Well, there is the Buckingham/Buckinghamshire situation. The Hobarts were created Earls of Buckinghamshire in 1746, though I can attest from my reading through the Walpole correspondence that they were just as often called "Buckingham" as "Buckinghamshire". Still when the Grenvilles were raised to a marquessate in 1784, and then a dukedom in 1822, they took the title "Marquess/Duke of Buckingham". Their center of power had long been Buckingham, so it was hard to deny them that title, though I have read that the Hobarts were quite unhappy about this.

In the Buckingham case, at least it could be claimed that one title was for the county of Buckinghamshire and the other the town of Buckingham. That is not the case for Devon and Devonshire, which surely must both refer to the same place: the county of Devon. Nevertheless we have long had Earls of Devon alongside Dukes of Devonshire.

Of course multiple use of names often happens on the Baron level, with the names distinguished by adding "of X" "of Y, etc.

But the most surprising instance, to me at least, was the Fitzwilliam situation. One Fitzwilliam family was created Baron Fitzwilliam in 1620 and Earl Fitzwilliam in 1716 and remained extant until 1980. Meanwhile, a separate Fitzwilliam family was created Viscount Fitzwilliam in 1629, and that title remained extant until 1833. Both sets of Fitzwilliam titles were in the Irish peerage.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

As for Lord Buckinghamshire being unhappy when the Grenvilles chose "Buckingham" for their marquessate:

Walpole wrote to Lady Ossory 21 January 1787 about a dinner party thrown by Lord Carmarthen: "The Marquis and Earl of Buckingham would not have been a very loving couple..."

A footnote in the Yale edition of the Correspondence explains:

"Political differences aside, they would have been incompatible: the Earl of Buckinghamshire resented the Marquis's choice of title in 1784, as Lady Mary Coke's 'MS Journals' for 1785 make clear."

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Two separate groups of Earls of March have long existed. One is believed to refer to the Welsh marches, the other to the Scots marches.

One Earldom of March, soon after the death of Charles Stuart, Duke of Lennox and Richmond and Earl of March, in 1672, was in 1675 granted to King Charles II's son, Charles Lennox, Duke of Richmond. This earldom is now held by the Duke of Richmond.

Meanwhile, Lord William Douglas was created Earl of March in 1697. This earldom is now deemed to be held by the Earl of Wemyss.

On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-6 bx...@yahoo.com wrote:

[dpth...@gmail.com]

A line of Setons were Viscounts Kingston in Scotland from 1651 until 1715. Meanwhile, an Irish Barony of Kingston was created for the Kings in 1660, lasting until 1761. And during all this time there were the Pierreponts, who were Earls and Dukes of Kingston in England from 1628 until 1773. A separate Irish line of Kings were created Barons Kingston in 1764 and Earls of Kingston in 1768.

On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-6 bx...@yahoo.com wrote:

[S. S.]

March and Kingston reminds me of Arran. The Earldom of Arran [I] was created in 1662 and later in 1762. The later is still extant. The peerage refers to the Aran Islands [sic] in Ireland. 

The Earldom of Arran [S] was first created in 1467 and forfeited in 1469. It was then recreated in 1503, 1599 and 1643. The 1503 creation was for the 2nd Lord Hamilton [S]. The 3rd Earl of Arran was succeeded by his nephew, the 2nd Marquess of Hamilton [S]. His father had been created Earl of Arran alongside the marquessate in 1599. The 1599 creation became extinct upon the death of the 1st Duke of Hamilton/3rd Marquess of Hamilton in 1651. The 1503 creation is considered dormant. The 1643 (as Earl of Arran and Cambridge) creation is still held by the Dukes of Hamilton and Brandon [S] today. This peerage refers to the Isle of Arran in Scotland. 

S.S.

[S. S.]

Another example is the Barony of Arundell of Wardour which was created in 1605 and became extinct in 1944. The other is the Barony of Arundell of Trerice which was created in 1664 and became extinct in 1768. I have pointed this out before but both peerages’ names are simply “Arundell”. “of Wardour” and “of Trerice” as indicated in italics are part of the territorial designation. Due to this, both peerages are often written with the appendage as forming part of the title in most peerage works.

S.S.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

This of course happened a lot in the early days, when peerages are said to have been created by summons and sitting. The summonses were addressed to a person's name, often with the addition of a territorial designation, but these territorial designations seem to have been used in day-to-day business only in the case of surnames having more than one barony, so were likely not officially part of the title.

Thus we had Grey of Wilton, Grey of Ruthin, Grey of Codnor, Grey of Powis, etc.; and Willoughby de Eresby, Willoughby de Broke, and later [though this one by patent, not summons] Willoughby of Parham.

[colinp]

Duke of Sutherland (UK 1833) and Earl of Sutherland (S c 1235)

Duke of Queensberry (S 1684) held by Duke of Buccleuch and Marquess of Queensberry (S 1682)

[Robert Jewell]

The Dukedom of Sutherland separating from the Earldom of Sutherland, and running in parallel

[Robert Jewell]

Two hearts that beat as one. Look at the time of my post and colinp's.

[S. S.]

Paul, in the case of both Arundell baronies, it is important to remember that both peerages were by letters patent, not by writ of summons. 

You are quite right that baronies created by writ of summons often appended a territorial designation, mostly to differentiate similarly-named individuals from each other. Strictly speaking, we can take most of these alone by the name written on the writ of summons, i.e. Grey of Ruthin should just be Grey; Willoughby de Eresby etc should just be Willoughby etc, though of course we kept it to make our lives easier at recording and differentiating. A similar argument can be made as to how peerages were written down in the letters patent. Since writing conventions shifted as did the language, there are a few peerages whose name is rendered in the modern form, rather than the one it was written in originally, e.g. the Earldom of Cork was spelt as "Coke" even in 1753, but we still spell it the modern (and arguably more convenient way). 

This also reminds me of whether we should use "de" or "the" in the title of such writ of summons. Arguably, using "de" is the same as saying "Willoughby of Broke", though of course that distinction is preserved depending on the time period and how later writers rendered it. 

Also, to the Kingston example, the Dukedom of Kingston is actually Kingston-upon-Hull (the letters patent spells it out entirely rather than just Kingston), which refers of course to the town of Kingston-upon-Hull (or Kingston more commonly). The Earldom of Kingston [I] refers to the town of Kingston in county Dublin. So these two peerages are not strictly similar by means of name alone, still an interesting example.

S.S.

[S. S.]

The Earldom of Nugent [I] was created in 1776. the 1st Earl Nugent's daughter and heiress, Lady Mary, married the Grenville 1st Marquess of Buckingham. The earldom was given a special remainder to his son-in-law, the Marquess of Buckingham, so both these peerages briefly existed together, with the barony becoming extinct in 1850 upon the death of Grenville and Mary's second child (the remainder was to him after his mother), George Nugent-Grenville. 

S.S.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

And then there are the two extant earldoms of Mar.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Looks like there are quite a few.  Thank you to all who responded.

Brooke

[malcolm davies]

Not only is the Earl of Plymouth Viscount Windsor,but the Marquess of Bute is Earl of Windsor.Both are descendants in the female line from the Windsor family who had valuable landholdings in South Wales.

It is somewhat surprising that this was not taken into account when Edward VIII was created Duke of Windsor.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

I remember reading that it was taken into account, but that "Windsor" still seemed to be the best choice for him because of his unique position as a sovereign.

[Peter FitzGerald]

Kingston upon Hull (a city rather than a town) is actually known commonly as Hull, rather than as Kingston. But these peers were nevertheless always known as Dukes of Kingston, rather than Dukes of Hull.

[Peter FitzGerald]

This is not unique in royal titles: e.g. Prince William was created Earl of Strathearn even though the Earl of Moray is Lord Abernethy and Strathearn, and Prince Albert Victor was created Duke of Clarence and Avondale even though his cousin the Duke of Albany was already Earl of Clarence.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

The "Holland" peerages are an interesting case, especially when two unrelated Holland Baronies were created within a couple months in 1762.

An Earldom of Holland, co.Lincoln, was cr 24 September 1624 for the Rich family; extinct 7 September 1759.

Lady Caroline Fox was cr Lady Holland, Baroness of Holland, [also the one in] co. Lincoln, 7 March 1762. Her husband, Henry Fox, was cr 17 April 1763 Baron Holland of Foxley, co Wilts. Note that while these two baronies were technically of counties Lincoln and Wiltshire, respectively, the choice of "Holland" as a name was surely due to the fact that the Foxes had been living at Holland House, Kensington (which house had in turn got its name from having previously been the home of the Rich Earls of Holland). These two Baronies became extinct in 1859.

Two months after Lady Caroline was made Baroness Holland, the 2nd Earl of Egmont [I] was cr 7 May 1762 Lord Lovel and Holland, Baron Lovel and Holland of Enmore, co Somerset. This Barony is still extant.

Meanwhile, in Scotland, an Earldom of Breadalbane and Holland was cr 1681, and is still extant. In this case the choice of "Holland" was said to have been in honor of the 1st Earl's first wife, daughter of the 1st of the Rich Earls of Holland, co. Lincoln.

On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-6 bx...@yahoo.com wrote:

[dpth...@gmail.com]

The Perceval/Egmont Barony of Lovel and Holland presumably was named in honor of the old Barons Lovel, de jure Barons Holand, whose title arose more from a surname than from a place. That Barony of Holand was forfeited by attainder in 1487. (Another line of the Holand/Holland family had a Barony which has been in abeyance since 1408.)