Multi-titled Scottish Peerages

[Sam Marroy]

I'm new to this group, so I'm not sure if starting a conversation is the appropriate way to ask this question - but I've had an interest in the various peerages of the British Isles for a long time, and one thing I've noticed but never been able to find an answer to is why there are so many double and triple barreled Scottish peerages? They have at times been created in the other peerages - notably the royal dukedoms created in the 1700 and 1800s (Duke of York and Albany, Connaught and Strathearn, Cumberland and Teviotdale, etc) and occasionally for non-royal peers (Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair), but the Scottish peerages seem to be rife with them, and almost exclusively as subsidiary titles. Examples include: Viscount of Balquhidder, Glenalmond and Glenlyn (Duke of Atholl), Lord Aberruthven, Mugdock and Fintrie (Duke of Montrose), and most ostentatiously, the extinct Lord Badenoch, Lochaber, Strathavon, Balmore, Auchindoun, Garthie and Kincardine (Duke of Gordon/Marquis of Huntly).

Was this just a stylistic quirk of the Scottish peerage, or was the purpose to recognize each region where they held significant lands in one title, rather than creating several?

[Scott55]

The main reason,I think, is that in order to be able to sit in the House of Lords your peerage has to be English and/or UK. If your peerage is strictly Scottish or Irish you can't be in the HoL.

[Shachar Raz]

Technically Scottish peers could all sit from 1963 to 1999, but by that point no new peers created in Scotland

[S. S.]

Sam, I always think the rather "odd" or quirky questions about the peerage are probably the most fun to answer. You are correct that several Scottish peerages tend to reference more than one place, double, triple or even more times. I myself have thought about this phenomena, but never could find a satisfactory answer anywhere, even in older peerage works. I theorize Scottish peerages referenced so many places was probably to highlight the various land holdings they held. 

Scott55, Sam was asking about Scottish peerages referencing more than one placename etc, not them having multiple subsidiary titles, which they tend to do than their counterparts. Indeed, Scottish peers are often profusely given multiple subsidiary titles. Probably for the same aforementioned reason.

S.S.

[992234177]

It’s possible that the intention was that they were considered to be separate peerages, Earl of Strathtay and Earl of Strathardle.   The victorians liked things to be simple and they lacked an understanding of what earlier generations intended.   When George VI gave his father in law a UK earldom it was his intention that he would henceforth be Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne and of Strathmore but do we actually know that when the earldom was altered they meant for it to be used as one.

It is odd that English/UK/GB/Irish titles were treated so differently.   Why did the Duke of Brandon only get the barony of Dutton instead of a list.

[S. S.]

I don't think that the case of multiple designation peerages being considered separate peerages in their own right holds much merit. I have read through Wood, Douglas, Courthope, Nicolas and others and have never encountered them being considered separate dignities. Indeed, even in the footnotes of the Complete Peerage you will not find reference to the multiple designation peerages being considered separate peerages. 

Strathmore and Kinghorne's situation is different. The title was created as Earl of Kinghorne, but was then altered by charter to Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne. This is by no means unusual in the Scottish peerage ,and happens rather a lot with titles, whether to change the designation/name or to alter the remainder. As to the 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne being created Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, I don't think anyone would have called it "Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne and Strathmore". He was given a new earldom purely to reflect his new family connection and to elevate his or the descendant's seat in the HoL from the measly barony they held at the time. A similar situation occurred when the Duke of Argyll [S] was created Duke of Argyll etc.

S.S.

[S. S.]

To add onto the discussion, possibly the reason why not many peerages were granted in the Peerages of England, Great Britain or the United Kingdom is due to the fact why would you? Does a person being elevated to an earldom really need two viscountcies and three baronies to their name? Certainly the trend had been in the past to elevate one step at a time and then when that gave way to more peerages, only a limited number would still be created, e.g. it would have been like an earldom or a barony at the same time, or a viscountcy and a barony at the same time. There are of course anomalies where more than a few were granted at the same time. There may have also been a general feeling that too many honors dilutes the system. Sure, a Scottish duke gets four lordships to their name, but "I am an English duke with two subsidiary titles" or something to that effect. 

S.S.

[Sam Marroy]

This is a bit of a tangent, but the creation of the second Argyll dukedom for the 8th Duke has always puzzled me. The 5th Duke had already been created Baron Sundridge, giving future Dukes an automatic seat in the House of Lords, and presumably he would have still been addressed as Your Grace/Duke in the Lords, at least based on the way hereditary peers who have been granted life peerages are treated - ie they sit by virtue of their life peerage, but are known by their most senior title (for example, in a slightly different, but similar case - the current Marquess of Salisbury was called up to the Lords with a writ of acceleration under his father's barony of Cecil, but was still referred to by his courtesy title, Viscount Cranborne). Soooo...if he already had a seat in the HoL, and would have continued to enjoy all the perks of being a Duke, what was the point of the second dukedom? And if it was, for some reason, so important to give him another dukedom, why wouldn't they have revived the title Duke of Greenwich, held by the 2nd Duke of Argyll? I know there probably aren't good answers to these questions, but I've never even seen any attempt to explain it, which is frustrating

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Well, what do you give a Duke who already holds the highest rank in the Peerage, had the Thistle and the Garter, and was an important member of several Cabinets, in addition to being the father-in-law of a royal princess? Short of being created a prince himself, a UK Dukedom was the only honor left.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

In addition to Sundridge, I guess he also held the Hamilton GB Barony created for the wife of the 5th Duke, by the way.

On Friday, April 5, 2024 at 12:38:45 PM UTC-5 Sam Marroy wrote:

[Sam Marroy]

Haha well I suppose that's a fair point, but there have been hundreds of Scottish peers who have held their titles in the 300+ years since the Acts of Union passed, and the 8th Duke of Argyll is the only one so far as I can tell who was granted an identical title in the peerages of Great Britain/the UK.** That's weird! If, as I mentioned earlier, he had been given a re-creation of the Dukedom of Bridgewater, originally held by the 2nd Duke of Argyll, I could understand that - the dukedom of Brandon was revived for the 6th Duke of Richmond and Lennox after his father, the 5th Duke, had inherited the estates of his uncle, the last Duke of Brandon of the first creation - but the double Argyll dukedom is such an anomaly that I feel like there has to be a better explanation than this. But hey, maybe there isn't, who knows

**(with the exception of a small handful of peers who were given a second peerage with a different remainder after it became clear they wouldn't have a male heir, ie the Duke of Fife, the Duke of Newcastle).

[S. S.]

Unrelated, but there are also some Irish peers who have received titles of the same designation in the peerages of England, Great Britain or the United Kingdom. The Earl Fitzwilliam comes to mind. Perhaps they thought they would like to have sat in the HoL by their higher title rather than by a lower title, even though they are called by their higher one?

S.S.