The Dukedom of Berwick

Has anyone made a claim to get the bill of attainder reversed on this
peerage. I do recall seeing an interesting article from the Times,
circa 1952. That said that the Dukedom was not actually in a state of
attainder. Also can anyone confim that the succession of the Spanish
Dukes of Berwick, has gone through the male line and the not the heirs
general, because if so then there would be another claimaint to the
English honours. Finally what happend to the dukedom of Fitzjames, the
french title given to the first duke, was it's remainder the same as
the English one?

pierre_aronax...

The name of that dukedom and peerage was Fitz-James and not Fitjames.
It is extinct since 1967: only transmissible in male line to legitimate
and natural descendants.

There are (noble) adoptive descendants, who have the surname "Cassagne
de Beaufort de Miramon-Fitz-James" and use (without substantive right,
=E0 la fran=E7aise) the courtesy title of "count of Miramon-Fitz-James".

An other (non noble) adoptive descendant has the surname "Thi=E9ry de
Bercegol du Moulin de Fitz-James" and uses (with no more right) the
title of "count of Fitz-James".

marquess...

Thanks for all the replies, it looks like the male line is about to be
extinct anyway, as the present duke only has daughters, and has a
brother who only has daughters too. I can see no other male heir,
other than that of the heirs general, who are not in remainder.

Guy Stair Sainty...

The present titular Duke, the Duke of Penaranda de Duero, declined to claim the
title a few years ago when it was suggested to him he might seek a writ of
summons in the title; it seems likely that the English creation will become
extinct and that the Spanish one will survive. Indeed the eldest son and heir of
the Duchess of Alba has followed a long-standing Spanish practice of reversing
his names, so that his matrilineal name now becomes the patronimic,
as Carlos de FitzJames Stuart y Martinez de Irujo (Duke of Huescar, etc).

The first Duke was never attainted but the title was simply dropped from the
rolls; I have tried to persuade the editors of various peerages to include it
but they have not done so.

Don Aitken...

Have you ever managed to track down the origin of the often-repeated
statement about the attainder? I usually see it specified that it
occurred in 1697, so it isn't a matter of just assuming that it must
have happened at some time.

A. Gwilliam...

Not having access to a copy of the Chronological Table of Statutes I
can't even attempt to look into this properly, but have you seen the
text of:

"An Act to attaint such of the Persons concerned in the late horrid
Conspiracy, to assassinate his Majesty's Royal Person, who are fled
from Justice, unless they render themselves to Justice; and for
continuing several others of the said Conspirators in Custody" [Jan.
11, 1697]

Wikipedia appears to give it a short title of "Attainder of
Conspirators Act 1696". Usual caution given, etc.

I'm not familiar with legislation from this period, so apologies if I'm
too obviously blundering around in the dark with this one.