Talk:James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick

Outlaw 2009

I was under the impression that Berwick was outlawed, and that therefore his title was forfeit. Proteus 19:46 GMT, 17th January 2004

The site listed on the article page provides a caption for the picture of the second Duke: "James Francis Fitz-James, son of the Duke of Berwick and Honora de Burgo. He was Duke of Berwick and Duke of Liria, and married Dona Catarina of Portugal, sister of the Duke of Veraquas." -- Lord Emsworth 01:30, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

That may be more of an indication of the opinion of the Duke's son than any official statement that he was actually the 2nd Duke. The 1st Duke was never attainted by Act of Parliament, but as far as I'm aware he was declared an outlaw and his name was removed from the Roll of the House of Lords (outlawry being another way of forfeiting titles by attainder). Some people seem to have claimed that he was in fact still the Duke of Berwick (and that the continental noble who is currently his heir (the Duque de Penaranda de Duero, I believe) is de jure Duke of Berwick) but others state that the outlawry cancelled his titles. In any case, his name was dropped from the Roll, and so it seems to be the opinion of the British Government that his titles were forfeit. Proteus 15:13, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've added the places of his birth and death. 24.31.169.252 (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Full References

@user:Jgrantduff with these edits (4–25 May 2015) you added inline citations to:

• Richard Holmes, "Marlborough", p.48
• GM Thomson, The First Churchill, p.49-50
• White-Spunner , p.127

But that is not enough to uniquely identify the source uniquely. What is needed to be added to the References section laid out in WP:CITEHOW. Also please check the other citations (added before May 2015) that use the same books, that the pages match the editions you added. -- PBS (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@User:Aldebaran69 on 9 November 2014 you added a lot of information to this article without any citations to a reliable source. Please add some (CHALLENGE). -- PBS (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Picture description is wrong

Description bellow small picture writes: "Louis XIV of France creates James, Duke of Fitz-James in the Peerage of France, after the Battle of Almanza"

However, bigger versions of the same picture clearly show spanish coat of arms (behind the king) and order of golden fleece given to James FitzJames by Philip V of Spain. This decription is there for years, so I rather ask. Anyone objects if I correct this? Pavlor (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Corrected by IP. Thanks! Pavlor (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Description

There is an editor who has changed the initial description of FitzJames several times from an Anglo-French military leader to an English military leader. I believe this should not be done, especially without discussion as the former is the longstanding use and is, i think, rather more accurate. FitzJames was certainly English (British, anyway) largely, by ancestry ~ that can be considered to be covered by the Anglo portion of the adjective. As a military figure, however, he was certainly more involved with the French than the British; as far as i can see, Governor of Portsmouth is the sole military position in England...? Anyway, i'm putting this here, if for no other reason, at least to offer the possibility of a discussion before it gets back into an edit war; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 07:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Reply to Lindsay on the subject of changing the initial description from Anglo-French to English:

As you have stated, the description for him being English is already accurate on the basis of ancestry, which is already a strong argument for a simple description of him as English. As for calling him Anglo-French on the basis of being a mercenary in the service of France, this just seems very odd. There is no precedent for referring to someone's ethnicity/nationality on the basis of the nation they work for, especially early modern foreign mercenaries in Europe. Just because someone works as a mercenary for a foreign country, that doesn't mean they should be identified by countries they have served under, and I'm unaware of this standard being imposed on any other historical figure on Wikipedia or elsewhere. A good example who is near contemporary to FitzJames is Alexander Leslie, A Scottish general who for a large share of his military career worked under Swedish service during the Thirty Years War, who is not referred to as Scot-Swedish despite this fact. Therefore on the basis of consistency and accuracy, English should be the description used. If I don't get a response back in two or three days I'll assume the edit is acceptable and make it.

Many thanks,

Marvic 256 (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I think Anglo-French is accurate. Although he had English parents the article says he was born and educated in France and only briefly returned to reside in England before fleeing in exile. He wasn't just a mercenary who went abroad to seek money and fame. In addition to this, I've had a look at his entry in the ODNB and it says "...he received permission from his half-brother, now regarded by Jacobites as James III, and the regent, Mary of Modena, to become a naturalized Frenchman", "As a peer of France he was eligible to sit in the parlement of Paris" and that Berwick was "...a French subject who needed his king's formal permission to leave France".[1] Barret (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Marvic 256, i think that you may have partially misunderstood my argument. Anglo-French is modifying military leader, rather than merely giving FitzJames's ancestry, that's why i mention that he was nothing more than Governor of Portsmouth for England; all his real military service and leadership was on the continent, largely with the French. If we were merely giving his ancestry, surely we'd be calling him an Anglo-Scot? With the information Barret has given (thank you), it would be even stranger to merely describe him as English; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 05:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Barret, Fair enough. The fact he had formally become a naturalized Frenchman is probably the best argument for the Anglo-French description being the more accurate one.

Which Charles Churchill

I have a query about the statement that "Berwick struggled against the Foot Guards, who forced his men to retreat in the Landen. He was taken prisoner by his cousin, Charles Churchill, and ransomed for 30,000 florins". The issue is I think this is unlikely to be his cousin. His cousin Charles Churchill was a prominent army commander in the 18th century, but in 1694, when the events described took place, Charles was only a teenager. I think the more likely Charles Churchill is this Charles' father, Charles Churchill who was a senior army officer at this time. He was the brother of James, Duke of Berwick's mother, Arabella Churchill, and thus was his Uncle rather than his cousin. I am not sure if the original source has made a mistake, but it would be good if someone could check this as I think there is an error here. Also if the correct Charles Churchill can be established it would be good to link to their article. Dunarc (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The source says "...Marlborough's nephew, the Duke of Berwick, was captured by Marlborough's brother, Charles...", so yes, the uncle not the cousin. DuncanHill (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Great - thanks for fixing so quickly. Dunarc (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)