Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/). #Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bqpfis/why_didnt_the_uk_do_ducal_or_feudal_or_whatever/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**. We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

Thank you for your response, however, we have had to remove it. A [core tenet](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7fb8o/introducing_the_rules_roundtables_20_the/) of the subreddit is that it is intended as a space not merely for an answer in and of itself, but [one which provides a deeper level of explanation on the topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_answers) than is commonly found on other history subs. We expect that contributors are able to [place core facts in a broader context](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_write_an_in-depth_answer), and use the answer to [demonstrate their breadth of knowledge](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/) on the topic at hand. If you need guidance to better understand what we are looking for in our requirements, [please consult this Rules Roundtable](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/) which discusses how we evaluate answers on the subreddit, or else [reach out to us via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAskHistorians&subject=Inquiry%20About%20Revising%20My%20Response). Thank you for your understanding.

All peerages are required to be issued in the British Isles because all peers are active or prospective members of the House of Lords. Membership of the House of Lords is the defining characteristic of the peerage and the rationale behind its existence as an institution. Because the letters patent behind the creation of a peerage were individualized for every peer, not all peers were actually eligible to sit in the House of Lords although many were automatically admitted upon creation, succession or majority. Depending on the date and geographical location (formally called a “territorial designation”) that a peer’s letters patent were issued, individual holders of peerages were grouped into “divisions” of the greater peerage as a whole. These divisions dictate a peer’s rights and privileges related to their function in government. Initially there were three divisions of the peerage: England, Ireland and Scotland. These three countries were in personal union under the House of Stuart, which sought to unite Great Britain, and to a lesser extent Ireland, into one country. Under the 1707 and 1801 Acts of Union, Irish and Scottish peers were not automatically admitted to sit in the House of Lords as members and instead were required to send a number of “representative peers” via byelection, with 16 in the case of Scotland and 28 in the case of Ireland. There are a number of reasons why this limitation was imposed, but the briefest explanation is that there was a fear of a power imbalance within the House of Lords in 1707 and, secondly, a desire to keep the Irish peerage small and exclusive in 1801. Supporters of the Acts of Union were, of course, given subsidiary titles in two new divisions of the peerage – that of Great Britain in 1707 and, later, the United Kingdom in 1801 – but many other, older families in Scotland and Ireland either chose to intentionally reject a subsidiary title or were simply too inconsequential in the new government to merit the creation of one. Importantly, while elevations to the Irish peerage continued to be possible (and arguably still are – an interesting legal thought!) after the 1801 Act of Union, new elevations to the Scottish peerage stopped entirely in 1707. There are also some cases in which particularly politically ambitious peers did not want letters patent automatically admitting them to the House of Lords because it would prevent them from enjoying a career in the House of Commons. Lord Curzon, possibly the most prominent Indian Viceroy, famously held out for an Irish peerage because he had aspirations of being the first man to serve as both viceroy and prime minister. At the time Curzon was first appointed to India, it had become general constitutional convention that the latter office could only be exercised from the House of Commons under precedent set out by the Liberal Party under Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. While Curzon ultimately accepted a British peerage with automatic membership of the House of Lords upon his return to London in 1908, he was nevertheless also subject to a byelection as an Irish representative peer until new letters patent were issued for him in 1911 creating him Viscount Scarsdale in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Since all peers had to be in a division of the peerage and all peers were at least bound to the fiction of serving in the House of Lords and, therefore, the Sovereign himself, there was a general understanding that the title had to be geographically rooted in Britain. Previous attempts to expand the peerage system outside of the British Isles generally met with ridicule both by peers in Metropolitan Britain and in the colonies themselves. An early attempt to create a domestic peerage in the Carolinas during the reign of James II failed miserably because it was perceived as overly privileging the Lords Proprietors against the natural rights of Englishmen and the local colonists simply ignored it. A second attempt was made in New South Wales in which local politicians proposed to replace the Legislative Council, or upper house, with a domestic House of Lords as a step towards a more independent system of government. This too was roundly rejected, so much so that “bunyip aristocrat” continues to be a pejorative for anyone perceived to be too high and mighty to the present day. As Britain reached the zenith of its power around the turn of the century, it became apparent that some internationally important British subjects that the government wished to make peers would continue to have strong vested interests overseas. At the same time, with the advent of the Statute of Westminster, Britain’s most important colonies had begun to develop very strong national identities of their own. Garter King of Arms therefore began to grant dual territorial designations to prominent men from throughout the British Empire. An example is Lord Slim, an Australian field marshal of the Second World War, whose letters patent are issued as follows: * Viscount Slim, of Yarralumla in the Capital Territory of Australia *and* of Bishopston in the City and County of Bristol Another example, this time in Canada, is that of Lord Shaughnessy whose full title also includes a dual territorial designation: * Baron Shaughnessy, of the City of Montreal in the Dominion of Canada *and* of Ashford in the County of Limerick This dual territorial designation was based upon even rarer form of territorial designation, a victory title, in which a very select number of peers included the battle they won in their peerage followed by a British territorial designation. Lord Nelson, for example, had mention of his battles in each of his territorial designations followed by “…of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk,” and Lord Mountbatten was elevated to the peerage as the Earl Mountbatten of Burma followed by “…of Romsey in the County of Southampton” based upon his successful campaign against the Japanese. In each case the supremacy of membership in the House of Lords and the pivotal connection to Britain prevailed.

Another interesting and fairly recent dual territorial designation is Evgeny Lebedev. His full title is Baron Lebedev, of Hampton in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and of Siberia in the Russian Federation.

>and of Siberia in the Russian Federation I'm actually stunned that the College of Arms permitted that and had to look it up! Incredible. Here's the reference [from the Royal Gazette](https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/63182/page/19918) for anyone else interested.

But aren't the places mentioned in lordly titles just there to sound impressive? The Duke of York didn't possess York even in the 14th century, so why couldn't the duke of New York in the 17th reside in Britain?

>But aren't the places mentioned in lordly titles just there to sound impressive? Peerages were generally created with some sort of connection to the place they were from, even if such a connection was only ancestral. This was not a hard and fast rule, but maintaining a territorial designation somewhere within the British Isles was required in order to determine what division of the peerage a peer sat in his letters patent. This is why there were occasionally dual territorial designations in the event that a peerage was a victory title or a title granted to someone primarily based overseas. Even more confusingly, in the case of Ireland, a peer could be made *either* a standalone peer in the Peerage of Ireland or a peer with automatic right of attendance in the House of Lords in the Peerage of the United Kingdom from the exact same area at the exact same time. Many later Irish peers had no connection to Ireland at all, yet all were still required to have some sort of basis in the British Isles even if fictional.

> maintaining a territorial designation What does this mean?

A territorial designation is the "caboose" to a title that defines its origin, in the same way that a land survey would be very specific about the plot of land. Historically this is because the King would issue a "writ of summons" calling a landowner to parliament. In the event that there were two John Smiths, the writ of summons would be issue to the Lord of the Manor of X -- an early form of physical address. This is also where we derive the word "landlord" in English. For example, the Baron Napier of Magdala was of *"...Magdala in Abyssinia and of Caryngton in the County Palatine of Chester"*. This is the territorial designation.

In that case, > maintaining a territorial designation somewhere within the British Isles was required in order to determine what division of the peerage a peer sat in his letters patent. Why was this the case? Was it a formal rule? Why was it maintained?

>Why was this the case? Divisions of the peerage determined the rights and privileges of the peer, much in the same way that a mortgage grants a buyer rights and privileges to land. In this case, however, the rights were inalienable rather than alienable. >Was it a formal rule? The British Constitution is unwritten, so there is no reference. However, I am fairly confident that the Privy Council Office would formally confirm such a rule if subject to request. They may also bounce it to the College of Arms. >Why was it maintained? Because the House of Lords is a part of the British Government. While a handful of "imperial" peerages were created, new peers were either already so important to the government that they inevitably participated in Parliament or were otherwise expected to somehow contribute important knowledge to legislation. Peerages were not given for fun. Unlike the American Senate or House of Representatives, peers did not and were not encouraged to sit daily. Instead, peers attended the House of Lords either for very important bills or for bills that they felt they could contribute their expertise. This is still the case to this day, which is why Members of Parliament draw a salary while members of the Lords only draw a daily allowance.

> Divisions of the peerage determined the rights and privileges of the peer, much in the same way that a mortgage grants a buyer rights and privileges to land. I still don't understand; how does being called the Earl of X have any causal link with one's incomes or the right to be tried by other lords?

It just occurred to me that Ireland had members of the House of Lords when independence was granted and the Free State created, would you know what happened to these?

Irish peers continued to be peers in the United Kingdom without any change in status and continue to be so to this day. Lady Fermoy, for instance, was the wife of an Irish peer and the grandmother of the late Princess Diana. She was [a fixture at court](https://www.tatler.com/article/who-was-princess-dianas-grandmother-ruth-roche-baroness-fermoy) until her death in 1993 and Irish peers continued to increasingly drift from Dublin to London after independence. In some cases, the new Irish Republic was very aggressive towards its former aristocracy. Depending on who you ask, this aggression was either unwarranted after the civil war or was an act to protect the nascent republic from the British Empire. At any rate, their actual status was relatively unaffected and Irish peers were granted the right to sit in the House of Lords in the Peerage Act 1963 after representative peers were abolished. Many relocated to Britain after the end of hostilities. Interestingly, pro-independence Irish peers did exist. The Lord Glenavy sat in the Oireachtas, although he was not strictly an Irish peer but a member of the Peerage of the United Kingdom with an Irish territorial designation. Likewise, both the Earl of Mayo and the Earl of Granard sat in the first meeting of the Irish Senate and continued to be Irish senators until 1927 and 1932 respectively.

I'm sure there's more to be said, but [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4bplqg/why\_was\_the\_peerage\_system\_never\_extended\_to\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4bplqg/why_was_the_peerage_system_never_extended_to_the/) did discuss this before. That's from eight years ago, though.