1. Yes, although more likely they would have split the titles between first and second sons.
2. Because there’s a cultural taboo against combining land holdings – “Holdings are seldom divided. Nor are they combined, as a rule, although one person could concievably hold more than one title.” – which makes sense from a geopolitical perspective. It’s hard to administer two far-flung holdings, and there would be a good deal of tension about favoritism, where the heir will be raised so they’re not considered a “foreigner,” etc.