Kingsale barony question

[bx...@yahoo.com]

According to the latest Debrett''s, the current baron is unmarried and
childless.

There are 3 males listed in the collaterals: Joseph Kenneth Charles de
Courcy (b. 1955), his son Patrick (b. 1993) and Joseph's brother
Richard (b. 1960).

None of the males are listed in capital letters which is Debrett's
way of showing heir apparent or heir presumptive.

Question: is Joseph heir presumptive and was this just an oversight by
Debrett's or in fact, is there no heir to this 14th Century title?

Thanks.

Brooke

[S. Jones]

That is a good question. Unfortunately, I think this might be a case
where there is a real danger of the title becoming dormant. Joseph
Kenneth Charles de Courcy is possibly in remainder to the title, who
knows if there are senior heirs of whom we do not know.

Merry Christmas to everyone!

SJ

[Anna Maria Barsotti]

Mr. Sinclair de Courcy Williams belongs to a collateral brunch of de Courcy family. In fact, his Great-Grandmother was H. Emily Letitia de Courcy married to Dr. John William Williams. She was the daughter of Rev. Michael de Courcy and sister of Michael de Courcy 32nd Baron Kingsale.

Because of the title is passed down from male side, in this case I'd like to know if Sinclair de Courcy Williams could be a possible senior heir candidate to the title.

Yours sincerely

A.M.Barsotti in de Courcy Williams 

[colinp]

As he is descended from a female member of the family then the answer is No, he is not an heir to the title. The title only descends through the male line

[Anna Maria Barsotti]

Dear Ms Parker, 

in the first place I do appreciate you answering my issue.

On the other hand I'm asking myself if it's possible looking for an heir to the title in very faraway line that probabily is more collateral to the Barony than the position of a descendant who comes from the sister of one them (Barons). In my opinion that is an open question.

Yours sincerely

A.M. Barsotti in de Courcy Williams

Il giorno gio 6 set 2018 alle ore 19:03 colinp <colina...@hotmail.com> ha scritto:

As he is descended from a female member of the family then the answer is No, he is not an heir to the title. The title only descends through the male line

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to peerag...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/peerage-news.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[G. Willis]

Just for anyone following this thread who doesn't have the requisite volumes to hand- the discussion here from 2005 has some useful details of Joseph Kenneth Charles de Courcy and others: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.talk.royalty/uF7S78PNvOc

Also this, which illustrates the distance of J. K. C. de Courcy from a previous holder of the title, for whatever that's worth: https://www.ashefamily.info/ashefamily/5668.htm

[Anna Maria Barsotti]

Good morning Mr. Willis,
Thank so much for your e mail. I think it'll be useful.

[Henry W]

(In this post I use the first numbering in the Complete Peerage, i.e. starting from a creation in 1228 to Miles de Courcy (d. c. 1230) and ignoring a doubtful 5th Baron. Lots of different numberings can be encountered in different sources - I have tried to include relevant dates to help those looking at other sources)

I've had a look at this - it is clear from a cursory check of the Complete Peerage that the title has only ever descended to males, with no abeyances or female Baronesses.  This is corroborated by the reference in the Complete Peerage under the 24th Baron (d. 1776) to this being an "ancient Baron[y] which [has] always descended in the male line". This was decided in 1761 by the Irish House of Lords. It is clear that the Nicholas de Courcy, the 11th Baron (d. 1475) was the heir general and heir male of the first Baron. His son, James de Courcy, the 12th Baron (d. 1491 or 1499) succeeded normally, but it then gets a bit murky, as the Edmund, the 13th Baron and surviving son was an idiot and was displaced by his uncle, David, the 14th Baron (d. 1520). It is unclear when Edmund died, but in any event he d.s.p. (childless). If the title was capable of descending on female lines, it would never have gone to David, and instead to Edmund's niece, Anastasia de Courcy. Anastasia did marry, and her descendants would be the heirs general, if the title were capable of descending in that fashion. It would appear that the decision in 1761 simply confirmed the descent as it had been occurring to that date, i.e. heirs male of the body. 

Wikipedia suggests that the title was created by writ, and that a later licence was interpreted as a patent by some. The Complete Peerage itself states that the origins are "obscure".

In short, to address Anna's query:

- No, the descendants of H. Emily Letitia de Courcy are not in line to the title as this is not a male line as established at the latest by the Irish House of Lords in 1761 (and probably earlier).

- If you could somehow reverse the ruling and allow this title to descend along female lines (this would be an eye-watering expense in litigation with little chance of success in my view), then the title would not seek out female heirs of relatively recent Barons, but instead would descend to the heir general of Anastasia de Courcy above. It may be that it would not be possible to definitively trace those heirs and the title would fall into dormancy.

(Please also try to keep your replies on the same thread so that it is easier to follow, rather than creating new threads)