Quote Originally Posted by gilmore View Post
Huh?

How can this be?

If the gentleman in question still retains the territorial designation "of Lee" in his name, he should still be owner of the feudal barony of Lee (and of course that is what he would have bought in 1985, since baronies in the peerage are not capable of being sold [unless perhaps you were very tight with some one in the former Labour government.]) The connection of a feudal barony with the actual ownership of the caput, or essential piece of land, of that barony was severed in the Abolition of Feudal Tenures Act of, I believe, 2001. So he could have sold the land and kept the lairdship, as they are more usually designated.
First we are looking at two distinctly different things: Territorial designations (lairds who may or may not be barons) and Baronies. Possession of either of these allows the holder to use the style "of X" after his name.

In the instance of E. Leslie Peter of Lee, he died several years ago and the estate, along with the barony, was sold to another gentleman whose name escapes me at the moment, but who is none the less styled "of Lee".

Mr. Alvis of Lee (who sold the barony, land and castle to Peter of Lee) retained the style "of Lee" as it had become part of his legal name by letters patent when he was recognized as feudal baron and tenant-in-chief of the Crown. The original owners of the lands and barony of Lee were the Lockharts of Lee, a designation they still retain although they have not possessed either the lands, fortalice, or barony of Lee for quite some time.

It has always been possible to sell the land and retain the barony-- or sell the barony and retain the lands. The barony of Elphinstone being one such example of a barony alienated from the land.

I hope this has cleared things up.