Royal Dukedoms

[bx...@yahoo.com]

From colinp's recent post of Stephen Kershaw's Hereditary Peers list, I note 6  royal dukes: Cornwall, Edinburgh, Gloucester, Kent, Sussex and York.

While Cornwall continues on as a royal dukedom as long as there is a monarchy,  four of them  will lose that distinction within the next few years, some sooner rather than later.

The Duke of Edinburgh is a relatively young man at 60, so the dukedom likely to continue on for quite some time.  Still, it was only created as a life peerage, so it will not extend to the Earl of Wessex.

Gloucester and Kent are both elderly.  While they have sons and even grandsons to inherit, the dukedoms, after their passings, will become just "ordinary" dukedoms.

Like his brother, the Duke of York may live another couple of decades.  However, he has no sons, and so the dukedom will become extinct on his passing.

It may be a little ironic that of all the royal dukedoms the one that will survive the longest (outside of Cornwall) is Sussex, where Prince Archie is only 5.

Out of curiosity, what are both the fewest and the most royal dukedoms at any one time?

Thanks.

Brooke

[Jonathan]

What about the Duke of Cambridge?

Is a royal dukedom something distinct, or is it simply a dukedom that happens to be held by a royal at present?

[BREMENMURRAY]

In 1801 the sons of George III were Dukes of Cornwall,York,Clarence,Kent,Cumberland,Sussex and Cambridge.Also his brother the Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh.Eight in total.

In the reign of ElizabethI there were none

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Thanks, BREMENMURRAY.  Appreciate your answer.

Jonathan,  the Duke of Cambridge is also the Duke of Cornwall (and Duke of Rothesay).

Brooke

[Peter FitzGerald]

That matches my calculations as well. In full detail, the relevant period was between 24 November 1801 (the creation of the Dukedoms of Sussex and Cambridge) and 23 January 1820 (the death of the Duke of Kent and Strathearn), and the royal dukes were:

1. George, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay (eldest son and heir apparent of George III)
2. Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany (second son of George III)
3. Prince William, Duke of Clarence and St Andrews (third son of George III)
4. Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn (fourth son of George III)
5. Prince Ernest, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale (fifth son of George III)
6. Prince Augustus, Duke of Sussex (sixth son of George III)
7. Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge (seventh son of George III)
8. Prince William Frederick, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh (great-grandson of George II)

As well as the aforementioned period during the reign of Elizabeth I (there were no dukes at all for most of her reign), I believe that there were also no royal dukes for a brief period between the Glorious Revolution in late 1688 and the creation of the Dukedom of Cumberland for Prince George of Denmark (husband of the future Queen Anne) in early 1689.

The lowest number in relatively recent times seems to have been two royal dukes holding three dukedoms from 1919 (the suspension of the Dukedom of Cumberland and Teviotdale and the Dukedom of Albany) until 1920 (the creation of the Dukedom of York): Edward, Prince of Wales, as Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay, and Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn (third [and by this stage only surviving] son of Queen Victoria).

[malcolm davies]

When the present Duke of Gloucester and the present Duke of Kent die,their successors the Earl of Ulster and the Earl of St Andrews will rank behind all other dukes in the table of precedence.This is their present ranking as the eldest sons of royal dukes who rank immediately after other dukes.Their eldest sons will rank as sons of dukes,behind the sons of other dukes due to the date of creation.They will rank ahead of Archie son of the Duke of Sussex.When the present Duke of Sussex dies,Archie will take precedence as a royal duke similar to the Dukes of Gloucester & Kent as no doubt by then King Charles III will have died and been succeeded by King William IV.

[Jonathan]

I think the present Price of Wales will be King William V, assuming he chooses William as his regnal name.

My question remains as whether there is really such thing as a "royal dukedom", as opposed to a prince who happens to hold a dukedom. While they may be royal dukes, the dukedom itself isn't royal, and will be just the same as any othe dukedom once it is inherited. Is there anything in the letters patent stating that it is a royal dukedom for the first holder?

[Peter FitzGerald]

You are absolutely correct that there is nothing inherently royal about the title itself: it is the holder who is royal, and "royal dukedom" is just shorthand for a dukedom currently (or traditionally) held by someone who is a Royal Highness. The one quasi-exception I can think of is the titles held automatically by the eldest son and heir apparent (the Dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay): by the very nature of their remainder they can only be held by someone who is royal.

The only real feature of a "royal dukedom" comes from tradition rather than legal status: once a title has been used for a member of the royal family, it is generally not reused for a "normal" peerage (although this is a relatively recent practice: Albemarle, Bedford, Hereford, Kintyre, Norfolk and Somerset were once used for "royal" dukedoms but are now held in separate creations by non-royal peers).

And yes, the Prince of Wales would be William V: William IV was Queen Victoria's uncle and predecessor.

[BREMENMURRAY]

William Henry Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh died in 1805.Interestingly he married the illegitimate granddaughter of the first Prime Minister Robert Walpole before the Royal Marriages Act 1772.She was not received at court but their son William  Frederick inherited the title and became a royal highness when he married Mary a daughter of George III.He died  in 1834 but Mary lived long enough to be the only daughter of George III to be photographed.

[malcolm davies]

Peter,

          " it is the holder who is royal, and "royal dukedom" is just shorthand for a dukedom currently (or traditionally) held by someone who is a Royal Highnes"

It's a bit more than that.

First is it shorthand for the person created being a member of the Royal Family at the time of creation.

Second, and more importantly,it means that the person ranks differently from their status as a duke in the table of precedence.Now you can argue that this is not a formal designation, because their precedence is defined by their genealogical relationship to the Sovereign (see below as to the order) in the Table of Precedence,where they are not referred to as Royal Dukes.But it is a convenient short form of describing all males in the Royal Family who hold a dukedom.

The Earl of Ulster and the Earl of St Andrews rank immediately after the dukes in the table.When their fathers die they will rank as dukes,but since they are last in creation and lack separate precedence,there will be no change in fact in their precedence.

Here are some extracts from Heraldica on the subject:

"General and special orders of precedence 

The general order of precedence is the one that applies under most circumstances.  There are other special orders, such as during ceremonies of the Order of the Garter (knights are ranked by investiture irrespective of peerage), or in certain judiciary ceremonies.  There are local orders of precedence in which local officials are assigned particular rank.

In Parliament (at least before the House of Lords Act 1999), precedence was determined by the Roll of Parliament, drawn each year until 1966 by Garter King of Arms, and since then by the Clerk of Parliament with Garter's advice.  The Roll is printed at the head of the Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) for each session.  The Roll lists all members of the House of Lords (members of the House of Commons have no precedence, although their Speaker does since 1919).  The House of Lords Precedence Act 1539 is the basis for that roll, and some provisions of the act make clear that the order in Parliament is not the same as the order outside.  Thus, order on the Roll is not necessarily conclusive evidence about order outside Parliament.

For instance, the duke of Edinburgh was always ranked as a duke of the United Kingdom created in 1948, and thus ranked 32 on the roll of 1998, while in the general order of precedence he immediately follows the Queen and precedes his son.  That is because his precedence assigned by warrant of 1952 is "unless provided otherwise by Act of Parliament".   Interestingly, the duke of Windsor ranked 3d after Gloucester and Kent from 1937 to 1941, but became 2d before Kent after the death of the first duke of Kent in 1942.  He was thus ranked after his brothers among sovereign's brothers, but came before a sovereign's nephew.

The Great Officers of State do not have the same rank in and out of Parliament.  In Parliament, their office confers upon them precedence before the other peers of their own rank, but not before peers of higher rank.  Outside Parliament, their place does not depend on their peerage.

Royal dukes who are not grandsons of sovereigns are ranked among ordinary dukes in Parliament (see "HRH the duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale" ranked 25th between the duke of Northumberland and the duke of Wellington in the Roll of Parliament of 1918, or the 2nd duke of Connaught who ranked 28th in 1942 when his grandfather had ranked 4th in 1941).  But their place in the general order of precedence is clearly defined in the 16th century orders that form the basis for modern precedence.

I am not sure what is the effect of the House of Lords Act.  The Roll of Parliament is now called a "list of Members of the House," and is purely alphabetical, all non-sitting peers having been removed. But the House of Lords Precedence Act has not been repealed, as far as I know.

Personal precedence

Sovereign 

The sovereign heads the order of precedence as successors to the pre-Reformation kings for the temporal part, and as successors to the papacy (Act of Supremacy 1558).   A queen regnant has the same prerogatives as a king (Queen Regent's Prerogative Act 1554). Regent The duke of Somerset, as Protector of the Realm under Edward VI, was given precedence next to the king by letters patent. Consort

• Philip of Spain:

He was jointly king (articles of marriage)
• William of Orange:

he was king as William III (Bill of Rights)
• Prince George of Denmark:

he was given precedence as "the first nobleman of England" by his act of naturalization of 1688.
• Prince Leopold (husband of Charlotte, only daughter of George IV):

a statute of 1816 gave the Prince Regent authority to assign precedence to his son-in-law Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, which he did by warrant of 3 May 1816 (immediately after the sons of the King's brothers and sisters).
• Prince Albert:

when Queen Victoria married Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha a bill in Parliament assigning him precedence next after the queen was defeated.  His precedence was assigned by warrant of 4 Mar 1840 "except where otherwise provided by Act of Parliament".
• Duke of Edinburgh:

the warrant of 15 Sep 1952 assigns him precedence after the Queen "except where otherwise provided by Act of Parliament" (e.g., his place on the Parliament Roll is assigned by the date of creation of his peerage, namely 1948, the last of all dukes)

Male Members of the Royal Family 

The traditional order is:

• Sovereign's sons (Precedence Act 1539)
• Sovereign's grandsons (settled practice since a warrant of 13 Dec 1726 placing the dukes of Edinburgh and Cumberland before the duke of York)
• Sovereign's brothers (Precedence Act 1539)
• Sovereign's uncles (Precedence Act 1539)
• Sovereign's nephews (in male or female line; Precedence Act 1539: "or the King's brothers' or sisters' sons")
• grandsons of former sovereigns who are dukes (since 1850 when the duke of Cambridge was placed before the archbishop of Canterbury)
• grandsons of former sovereigns who are not dukes (HRH and Prince of GB by letters patent, 30 Oct 1917; precedence by custom)

Within each class, siblings are arranged by order of birth and otherwise individuals are arranged by order of succession to the throne (e.g., among grandsons and nephews).

Peers 

Earls came before barons from the earliest days.  The first non-royal duke was created in 1397, but a statute of 1382 already lists dukes before earls and barons.  Marquesses came before earls almost as soon as they were first created (1386), as viscounts did after earls (1440) although their position with respect to eldest sons of earls was not resolved until 1520.  Lords of appeal in ordinary have precedence as if they were barons (Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876) as do life peers (Life Peerages Act 1958).  There is no distinction made within the rank of baron between hereditary barons, lords of appeal and life peers.

The king's ability to alter the precedence within a rank of the peerage was effectively curtailed by the House of Lords Precedence Act 1539, which states that peers should sit after their "ancienty" (i.e.e, the date of creation of the peerage).  Attempts by James I and Charles I to assign higher precedence than normal to newly created peers met with opposition in the House of Lords, and no sovereign has attempted to do so since.

The relative precedence of peers of England, Scotland, Ireland and the United Kingdom is determined by the Act of Union 1706 (art. 23) and the Act of Union 1800 (art. 4).

Children and Grandchildren of Peers 

Children of peers were given precedence as early as the 14th c., with differences made between eldest and younger sons.  The ordering has been basically unchanged since 1399, although the position of sons of viscounts was altered in 1595.  All sons of peers rank above knights bachelor.  A peer who disclaims loses his precedence, as does his wife, but his children do not.  If a peer's eldest son dies, his eldest son inherits his precedence.  Grandchildren of peers were first assigned precedence in the 17th c.

Children of lords of appeal or life peers have no statutory precedence, since their parent's rank is not hereditary.  Their ranks are set by a royal warrant of 21 Jul 1958.

Baronets 

The creation of the new rank of baronet in 1611 occasioned considerable controversy.  James I had to settle the matter with letters patent od 28 May 1612 (which incidentally set the precedence of a number of officials).  Originally, the precedence of baronets was set in each letters patent of creation.  Thereafter, the letters patent of creation repeated the wording of the decree of 1612, and later still just referred to the customary precedences and advantages.  The letters patent of creation also set the precedence of the sons of the baronet.  James I made a promise never to create any other "degree, order, name, title, rank, dignity or state" between the lords of Parliament and the baronets.  Baronets

While the Acts of Union of 1706 and 1800 set the precedence between the peerages of England, Scotland, Great Britain, Ireland and the United Kingdom, they are silent on the matter of baronets.  It is therefore assumed that the precedence is set by the date of creation only (rule followed by the Registrars of the Baronetage appointed under a royal warrant of 8 Feb 1910 to keep a roll of the baronetage).

Knights 

The order in medieval times was knights of the Garter, knights of the Bath, knights bannerets and knights bachelors.  For the modern orders, precedence is defined in the statutes of the order.  The statutes often refer to each other in defining relative precedence, resulting in one bizarre case of circularity: the women members of the Royal Victorian Order are given precedence immediately before women members of the corresponding classes of the Order of the British Empire, while the women members of the Order of the British Empire are given by that order's statutes precedence immediately after women members of the corresponding classes of the Royal Victorian Order!

The enlargement of the Order of the Bath in 1815 introduced classes of members who were not knights.  They were given precedence before all esquires of the United Kingdom, which has been taken to mean those esquires who do not have precedence higher than knights (such as sons of peers).  The other orders with such classes of members (Star of India, St. Michael and St. George, Indian Empire, Distinguished Service Order, Royal Victorian Order, British Empire)

Esquires 

Esquires form an ill-defined category.  The only esquires to have a firm place in the order of precedence are sons of peers, who come before knights bachelor, and sons of baronets and knights, who come after them.  Below younger sons of knights bachelor there is no lawful authority for any order of precedence, although attempts have been made.

[Lori]

What a great explanation, thank you for all of that!

[BREMENMURRAY]

Of all the Royal Dukedoms from James I onwards only two Cumberland and Albany have unbroken male legitimate descend. Both were deprived over 100 years ago therefore it seems Kent and Gloucester will defy the trend with a clear line of succession. Unless they too are deprived at some time in the future

[malcolm davies]

Bremen,

              There are some who argue that the Dukedom of Albany is already extinct as the 3rd Duke’s marriage contravened the Royal Marriages Act,no consent having been given by King George V.

The problem is that,at that time his father was a foreign sovereign  and the 3rd Duke,then Prince Josias was a German citizen.UK laws generally do not have extra territorial effect, unless the terms of the statute make that clear,so I don’t think that opinion is correct.

There may come a time when for diplomatic reasons,the effect of the Titles Deprivation Act is reversed.

[Robert Jewell]

See how the dukedom of Berwick still hovers in the Spanish aristocracy, although it is undoubtedly extinct by British rules.

[BREMENMURRAY]

Berwick was created for the illegitimate son of James II and would not count as a Royal Dukedom. Much the same as Grafton/St Albans were created for sons of Charles II 

[Robert Jewell]

I bet the first ones acted kind of Royal even if they weren't officially Royal dukes. That was an interesting time in history.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/peerage-news/Wak0Eq24nqI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/fd75b5ed-c6db-4e3c-a015-c70373a8a7c7n%40googlegroups.com.

[992234177]

I’m not sure that Berwick is extinct, I thought the Duque de Penaranda de Duero was the rightful British duke 

On Sunday, February 2, 2025 at 1:38:03 AM UTC Robert Jewell wrote:

[Robert Jewell]

You seem to be correct: the present male line claimant is Jacobo Fitz-James Stuart, 12th Duke of Berwick, 20.Duque de Penaranda de Duero, he is 77, without a son. His heir-presumptive is his brother Luis Esteban Fitz-James Stuart y Gomez, 14th Marquez de Valderrábano, born in 1950, and also not have a male heir.

There is a Spanish ducado de Berwick, which can and has passed through the female line.

[S. S.]

Here is an abridged version of what I have for the BERWICK entry:

 

James FitzJames was one of the illegitimate sons of James II, by his mistress, Arabella (b 23 Feb 1648; d 30 May 1730), sister of John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough. James was created Baron Bosworth, Earl of Tinmouth and Duke of Berwick-upon-Tweed on 19 March 1686/87 (C 231/8, p 172; 3 Jas II, pt 3 (C 66/3293) no 29). Note that this was only one of ten English peerages created by James II during his reign.

James was later slain during the Siege of Philippsburg on 12 June 1734.

Most works state that the peerages were attainted in 1695 or forfeited thence upon his death in 1734. Though this has never been conclusively confirmed.

The Genealogist, v, no 5 (March 1981), pp 147-151, state that James was never attainted by an Act of Parliament, but was instead judicially attainted by being found guilty of high treason at the Old Bailey in Oct 1689 for being in arms with the errant James II. He was subsequently outlawed ca February 1690 (N.S.).

The court records 1 Aug 1689 as the date of attainder, this earlier date arising from the fact that forfeiture was retrospective to the time of the treason laid in indictment, though it was the actual attainder which brought the corruption of his blood. It goes on to state whether there had been another attainder between 23 Feb and 24 March 1695/96. A bit of circumstantial evidence is also cited.

For example, there is a newsletter report in Nov 1697 that he and others “who are attainted of high treason” had come over from France, on the day following, that the lords justices had published the proclamation against “the Duke of Berwick who is outlawed for high treason”. Thus, his attainder seems clear beyond doubt, with the amplification that rather than one outlawry, there were in fact two.

This has corroboration from the commission on the Irish forfeitures, which reported to the House of Commons on 15 December 1699. The Book of Outlawries exhibited had three parts: (1) the 57 English outlawries (which include “Jacob, Dux Berwick”); (2) the considerable outlawries made in the Irish King’s Bench; and (3) outlawries for treason “committed in parts beyond the seas” since the accession of William III and Mary II, where “James, Duke of Berwick” appears again”.

The Duke of Berwick himself provides a last word on the matter, writing from Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 28 March 1714 (shortly before Queen Anne’s death), concerning leave to go to England, having stated to his half-brother, the titular James III, that he was “afear’d, if Harley is a knave at the bottom, he will hinder me from reversing my outlawry”.

 

 

The peerage then descended thus:

James Francis, 2nd Duke of Berwick, only child by his first wife; d 2 June 1738.

Jacobo Francisco Eduardo, 3rd Duke of Berwick also Duque de Liria y Jérica etc, second but eldest surviving son and heir; d 30 Sept 1785.

Carlos Bernardo, 4th Duke of Berwick also Duque de Liria y Jérica etc, only son and heir; d 7 Sept 1787.

Jacobo Felipe Carlos, 5th Duke of Berwick also Duque de Liria y Jérica etc, only son and heir; d 3 Apr 1794.

Jacobo José María, 6th Duke of Berwick also Duque de Liria y Jérica etc, eldest son and heir; d 5 Jan 1795 (aged 3).

Carlos Miguel, 7th Duke of Berwick also Duque de Alba de Tormes etc, only younger brother and heir; d 7 Oct 1835.

Jacobo Fitz-James, 8th Duke of Berwick also Duque de Alba de Tormes, Duque de Huéscar etc, son and heir; d 16 Sept 1860.

Carlos María, 9th Duke of Berwick also Duque de Alba de Tormes etc, son and heir; d 15 Oct 1901.

Jacobo Santiago, 10th Duke of Berwick also Duque de Alba de Tormes etc, son and heir; dspm 24 Sept 1953.

Note that after the death of Jacobo, the peerages descended to his nephew and heir male, while the rest of his Spanish titles were inherited by his only child and sole heiress, María del Rosario Cayetana Paloma Alfonsa Victoria Eugenia Fernanda Teresa Francisca de Paula Lourdes Antonia Josefa Fausta Rita Castor Dorotea Santa Esperanza Fitz-James Stuart y Silva, who held more than 40 titles and a dozen grandees ones! She d 20 Nov 2014.

Fernando Alfonso, 11th Duke of Berwick also Duque de Peñaranda de Duero etc, nephew and heir; d 20 July 1970.

Jacobo Hernando, 12th Duke of Berwick also Duque de Peñaranda de Duero, Duque de la Roca etc, son and heir; b 15 Nov 1947, the present holder of the title.

The heir presumptive is his younger brother, Luis Esteba, Marqués de Valderrábano (which title was ceded to him by his elder brother in 1971); b 11 Dec 1950.

S.S.

[S. S.]

If anyone was curious, here is my entry for the title for my re-write of the Complete Peerage.

S.S.

[BREMENMURRAY]

This refers to James II and VI. He was in fact VII

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Here is what genealogy I have for this family.

https://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/gotha/berwick.html

[dpth...@gmail.com]

An interesting account of the 3rd Duke of Berwick on visiting Horace Walpole:

Horace Walpole to his cousin and closest friend, Hon. Henry Seymour Conway, 2 July 1764:

"Your  brother [Lord Hertford]  has  sent  me  the Duke  and  Duchess  of  Berwick,  and  what  upon  earth  to  do with  them  I  don't  know.  They  have  the  grace  to  call  themselves Lirias  here,  yet  they  do  not  go  to  Court,  and  say  they are  only  come  to  see  their  relations.  He  looks  like  a  cook,  but does  not  seem  to  have  parts  enough  for  one.  He  had  never heard  that  his  great-grandmother  married  Mr.  Godfrey;  he  told me  to-day  that  she  called  herself  Churchill,  but  that  her  family name  was  Marlborough.  The  Duchess  of  Liria,  who  is  sister  of  the  Due  of  Alva,  is  a  rational  civil  being,  not  at  all  handsome, but  easy  and  genteel.  They  have  more  debts  than  dukedoms, though  he  is  Duke  of  Veraguez [actually 10th Duque de Veragua y La Vega],  too,  and  have  crowded  all their  rich  blood  into  la  rue  de  Suffolk  Street ["an area noted for its poor accomodations", per the editors of the Yale Walpole]. "

[malcolm davies]

The point to understand is that whatever the circumstances of the validity of the attainder of the 1st Duke,the English title is extinct.The last claimant was the putative 10th Duke.

However there is a Spanish dukedom in the same name,created in 1707 by Philip V of Spain when the !st Duke was made a grandee of Spain.It descends in the female line.It has long been cojoined(since 1802) with the Dukedom of Alba, a title created in 1472 by Henry IV of Castile.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

About the same visit, Walpole wrote to George Montagu, 16 July 1764:

My  mind  is  pretty  much  fixed  on  going  to  Paris  the  beginning  of  September.  I  think  I  shall  go,  if  it  is  only  to  scold  my  Lord  and  Lady  Hertford  for  sending  me  their  cousins, the  Duke  and  Duchess  of  Berwick,  who  say  they  are  come  to  see  their  relations.  By  their  appearance,  you  would  imagine  they  were  come  to  beg  money  of  their  family.  He  has  just  the  sort  of  capacity
which  you  would  expect  in  a  Stuart  engrafted  on  a  Spaniard.  He  asked  me  which  way  he  was  to  come  to  Twickenham  ?  I  told  him through  Kensington,  to  which  I  supposed  his  geography  might  reach.  He  replied,  "  Oh!  du  côté  de  la  mer."  She,  who  is  sister  of  the  Duke  of  Alva,  is  a  decent  kind  of  a  body;  but  they  talk  wicked  French.  I  gave  them  a  dinner  here  t'other  day,  with  the  Marquis  of  Jamaica,  their  only  child,  and  a  fat  tutor,  and  the  few  Fitzroys  I  could  amass  at  this  season.  They  were  very  civil,  and  seemed  much  pleased.  To-day  they  are  gone  to  Blenheim  by  invitation."

[Matthew Kilburn]

The putative English title is not yet extinct as there are two heirs male yet living (see relevant post above).

[Windemere]

And so when the two gentlemen listed above ( Spanish Duque de Penaranda & Jacobite 12th Duke of Berwick, along with his younger brother) pass on, that will be the end of the male-line descendants of King James II.