In Western European nobility, especially in England, titles of nobility would run along the lines of "Duke of", "Earl of", "Count of", and then a location name like Somerset, Norfolk, Shaftsbury, etc.
Often these titles would be ended, resurrected, ended again, resurrected. Sometimes they would be stripped from one person and given to another or passed down to an heir who held a different title and lived somewhere else entirely.
This can sometimes be confusing as the Earl of Shaftsbury might actually be living in Berkshire for example. So ultimately the question is, is how much did the title match the nobles owned lands and place of residency? Did the monarchy just retain a lot of older titles that weren't tied to historical origin for posterity and tradition?
It depended on time period and location, but in general, in Europe, the closer to Charlemagne you get, the closer the relationship between title and geography. In the case of England, the closer to 1066/William the Conquerer you get, the more accurate the titles get.
Ancient British peerages like the Duke of Norfolk have always been and are still somewhat tied to ancient seats, manors, and lands. But by the high period of Rotten Boroughs in the early 1800s, lower peerage titles (eg Baron) or newer peerage titles, were created for political expediency and were often made up. In some cases the parliamentarian standing for the district had never actually been there.