Duke of Berwick
The Duke of Berwick is a title in the Peerage of England, created by letters patent on 19 March 1687 for James FitzJames (1670–1734), the illegitimate eldest son of King James II by Arabella Churchill, sister of the 1st Duke of Marlborough.[1][2] FitzJames, a skilled military commander, initially fought for his father as a Jacobite, notably at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690, before entering French service under Louis XIV, where he rose to the rank of Marshal of France in 1703.[2] His most significant achievement was the victory at the Battle of Almanza in 1707, securing Spanish territories for Philip V during the War of the Spanish Succession, though he met his end by a cannonball at the Siege of Philippsburg in 1734.[2] The title was attainted by Act of Parliament in 1695 due to FitzJames's adherence to the exiled James II and his campaigns against English-allied forces, rendering it legally forfeit in Britain, though he and his descendants continued to style themselves as dukes.[3][4] Exiled in France and later Spain, where Philip V granted him the titles Duke of Liria and Jérica in 1707, FitzJames's lineage persisted through the Fitz-James Stuart family, who intermarried with Spanish nobility and eventually inherited the prestigious Dukedom of Alba in 1802 via the female line.[3] This merger elevated the family's status among European grandees, with subsequent holders bearing multiple titles, including those of Grandee of Spain, though the English dukedom remains unrecognized by the British Crown.[1] Notable for embodying the trans-European loyalties of Jacobite exiles, the Dukes of Berwick exemplified the tensions between dynastic allegiance and national sovereignty, with later generations contributing to Spanish military and diplomatic efforts while preserving Stuart claims.[2] The family's arms and coronet reflect this hybrid heritage, blending English, French, and Spanish heraldic elements.[5]Origins and Creation
James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick
James FitzJames was born on 21 August 1670 at Moulins in the Bourbonnais, France, as the eldest illegitimate son of James, Duke of York (later King James II of England), and Arabella Churchill, sister of John Churchill, future Duke of Marlborough.[6][7] Despite his bastardy, which barred him from direct succession to the throne, FitzJames was accorded royal favor and raised primarily as a Catholic in France to insulate him from Protestant pressures in England, with a brief return to England in 1682.[6][7] This upbringing underscored the legitimacy derived from his paternal lineage, positioning him as a loyal extension of Stuart royal interests. His education reflected his semi-royal status, commencing at age seven at the Collège de Juilly under the Jesuit Father Gough, followed by the Collège du Plessis until 1684, and the Jesuit Collège de La Flèche, where he absorbed rigorous classical, religious, and preparatory military instruction.[7] Contemporaries remarked on his resulting personal attributes—grave, religiously inclined, methodical, and temperate—free of scandals beyond his steadfast Jacobite fidelity, with descriptions emphasizing his bravery, piety, and strict discipline as hallmarks of character.[6][7] These traits, cultivated through Jesuit formation, reinforced his foundational role in the Berwick title's dynastic continuity. Early military exposure further evidenced his competence and loyalty to his father, including service in Tangier and, at age 15 or 16, joining the Duke of Lorraine's forces in Hungary in 1686, where he displayed courage during operations against the Ottomans.[6][7] Such demonstrations of aptitude without personal vice lent credibility to his elevation, distinguishing him as a capable heir to royal martial traditions despite illegitimacy.
Military Career and Achievements of the 1st Duke
James FitzJames commanded a wing of the Jacobite cavalry at the Battle of the Boyne on July 1, 1690, leading charges against William III's forces; despite the overall defeat, he had a horse shot from under him and rallied retreating Irish troops in Dublin's Phoenix Park, enabling an orderly withdrawal that preserved approximately 15,000 soldiers for continued resistance rather than total annihilation.[6][8] This tactical preservation of forces underscored his early command acumen, avoiding the complete collapse that could have ended Jacobite efforts prematurely. Following the campaign, Berwick entered French service under Louis XIV, participating in the Nine Years' War with engagements at Steenkerke in August 1692 and Neerwinden in July 1693, where he was wounded and captured but swiftly exchanged, demonstrating resilience in sustaining operational effectiveness amid prolonged conflicts.[5] In the War of the Spanish Succession, Berwick was dispatched to Spain in 1704 as commander of Bourbon forces, achieving a decisive victory at the Battle of Almanza on April 25, 1707, where his army of roughly 35,000—comprising French, Spanish, and Irish troops—overcame an Allied force of about 22,000 under the Earl of Galway through disciplined infantry holding the center and a devastating cavalry assault on the exposed enemy left flank after Galway committed reserves centrally.[9][10] The maneuver exploited Allied tactical errors, with Berwick's superior cavalry coordination and troop cohesion shattering the Portuguese and British lines, resulting in over 13,000 Allied casualties and securing Philip V's control over eastern and southern Spain, a causal factor in Bourbon retention of the throne against Habsburg claimants.[9] His strategic oversight minimized Bourbon losses at around 3,000, highlighting empirical advantages in maneuver warfare and discipline over numerical parity alone. Berwick's later achievements included the successful siege and capture of Kehl in October 1733 during the War of the Polish Succession, breaching Rhine fortifications with engineered approaches and artillery dominance to enable French advances into the Empire.[5] Elevated to Marshal of France in 1703 for prior services, his career culminated in commanding the Rhine Army, but he was decapitated by a cannonball on June 12, 1734, during the Siege of Philippsburg, an engagement where French engineering and bombardment tactics pressured Imperial defenses despite his untimely death.[11] These victories, rooted in precise cavalry employment and siege proficiency, bolstered French influence and Bourbon stability in Europe, affirming Berwick's reputation for calculated aggression yielding verifiable strategic gains.[9]Attainder and Forfeiture
Parliamentary Attainder in 1695
Following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which installed William III and Mary II on the English throne, Parliament pursued measures to neutralize threats from supporters of the deposed Catholic king James II, including his illegitimate son James FitzJames, created Duke of Berwick in 1687.[1] In 1695, Parliament attainted FitzJames through legislative act for his military adherence to James II—having fought on the Jacobite side at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 and subsequently serving in the French army against English forces—without affording him a judicial treason trial, a procedure enabled by bills of attainder that imposed punishment via statute rather than common law process.[1][6] This attainder reflected the Whig-dominated legislature's strategic consolidation of power amid ongoing fears of Jacobite invasion and Catholic resurgence, prioritizing political security over procedural norms rooted in English legal tradition.[12] The 1695 attainder operated within a broader framework of anti-Catholic and anti-Jacobite statutes, including pre-existing Test and Corporation Acts that barred Catholics from office and the post-Revolution Association Oath of 1696 requiring abjuration of James II's claims, though the latter postdated Berwick's case.[12] While Irish Parliament enacted explicit penal laws in 1695 disarming Catholics and prohibiting foreign education to suppress potential Jacobite sympathy, English measures focused on targeted forfeitures against prominent exiles like Berwick, whose titles and any associated English estates—granted by James II—were declared void, with no recorded reversal despite later Jacobite pretensions.[13][1] Empirical records show limited asset seizures in Berwick's instance compared to domestic Jacobites, as he held no substantial English lands at the time of exile, preserving his foreign honors under Louis XIV while rendering the dukedom dormant in British peerage rolls.[1] Legally, the attainder extinguished Berwick's English peerages—Duke of Berwick-upon-Tweed, Earl of Tinmouth, and Baron Bosworth—extending corruption of blood to bar succession, though descendants informally claimed them in Jacobite circles without British recognition.[1] This forfeiture underscored Parliament's causal prioritization of regime stability over dynastic legitimacy, treating adherence to the exiled Stuarts as constructive treason irrespective of trial evidence, yet it did not retroactively invalidate the original patent's grant under James II.[6] The absence of a named specific bill in parliamentary journals highlights the era's ad hoc use of attainders against absentees, contrasting with judicial attainments requiring court process, though some genealogical sources debate the precise mechanism as legislative versus outlawry-based.[1]Implications for Dynastic Legitimacy
The attainder of James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick, enacted by Parliament on 27 January 1695, declared him convicted of high treason for adhering to the exiled James II, thereby forfeiting his English and Irish peerages—including the dukedom created by royal patent on 30 May 1687—and imposing corruption of blood, which legally barred his heirs from succeeding to those honors or related estates under the post-1688 constitutional order.[14] This legislative punishment extended beyond the individual to disrupt hereditary transmission, contravening the causal logic of male-preference primogeniture, wherein dynastic rights accrue to direct descendants irrespective of interim political forfeitures, as rooted in longstanding feudal and monarchical customs predating parliamentary supremacy.[15] Jacobites contested the attainder's validity on grounds of illegitimacy, arguing that the Williamite Parliament lacked sovereign authority to annul a king's prerogative grant, viewing the 1688 events as a de facto rebellion that could not retroactively vitiate divine-right creations; consequently, they sustained the Berwick succession in a shadow peerage, affirming continuity through non-recognition of revolutionary enactments.[16] This stance echoed broader absolutist precedents, where parliamentary acts against royal kin—such as the 1685 attainder of James Scott, Duke of Monmouth, for rebellion against James II—were reversible upon monarchical vindication, as evidenced by the Indemnity and Oblivion Act of 1660, which systematically pardoned and restored titles forfeited during the Commonwealth era to realign with restored Stuart legitimacy.[17] Such attainers drew historical censure as instruments of factional expediency, enabling asset seizures to fund the new regime while eroding absolutist norms; the 1695 measure, applied selectively to Jacobite adherents despite antecedent royal legitimations, exemplified this by prioritizing settlement-era power consolidation over immutable inheritance principles, a critique later informing constitutional prohibitions on legislative punishments without trial.[18][19]Jacobite Continuation
Succession Line and Key Holders
Upon the death of James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick, on 12 June 1734, the Jacobite title passed by strict male primogeniture to his eldest son, James Francis Fitz-James Stuart, 2nd Duke (1696–1738), who held it briefly until his own death less than four years later.[20] The succession then continued through the direct male descendants of the 2nd Duke, adhering rigorously to agnatic primogeniture, bypassing female lines entirely. This principle ensured the title remained within the patrilineal Fitz-James Stuart branch, distinct from Spanish noble titles that permitted female succession after 1953.[20][1] The key holders in the Jacobite line from 1738 onward are as follows:| Duke | Name | Lifespan | Succession Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3rd | James Francis Edward Fitz-James Stuart y Ventura Colón de Portugal | 1718–1785 | Eldest son of the 2nd Duke; inherited at age 20.[20] |
| 4th | Carlos Fernando Fitz-James Stuart y Silva Alvarez de Toledo | 1752–1787 | Son of the 3rd Duke; held during late 18th-century upheavals.[20] |
| 5th | Jacobo Felipe Carlos Fitz-James Stuart y Stolberg-Gedern | 1773–1794 | Son of the 4th Duke; short tenure ending in early death.[20] |
| 6th | Jacobo Fitz-James Stuart y Fernández de Híjar-Silva | 1792–1795 | Son of the 5th Duke; died young without issue.[20] |
| 7th | Carlos Miguel Fitz-James Stuart y Fernández de Híjar-Silva | 1794–1835 | Younger brother of the 6th Duke; restored male continuity.[20] |
| 8th | Jacobo Luis Francisco Pablo Rafael Fitz-James Stuart y Ventimiglia | 1821–1881 | Eldest son of the 7th Duke.[20] |
| 9th | Carlos María Isabel Fitz-James Stuart y Portocarrero Palafox | 1849–1901 | Son of the 8th Duke.[20] |
| 10th | Jacobo María del Pilar Carlos Manuel Fitz-James Stuart y Falcó | 1878–1953 | Son of the 9th Duke; his death without male heirs marked the divergence from the Spanish Berwick line, which passed to his daughter.[20][1] |
| 11th | Fernando Alfonso Fitz-James Stuart y Saavedra | 1922–1970 | Nephew of the 10th Duke (son of the 10th Duke's brother); upheld male primogeniture.[20] |
| 12th | Jacobo Hernando Fitz-James Stuart y Gómez | b. 1947 | Eldest son of the 11th Duke; current holder since 1970, residing in Spain.[20][1] |