Maltagenealogy.com presents
REFERENCE VALUE OF 19TH CENTURY REPORTS ON
CIRCUMSTANCES AND GRANT
Looking for More Data Here.
The Correspondence and Report of the Commission
appointed to enquire into the claims and grievances of the Maltese Nobility, May
1878, presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty (C.-2033.)
is a veritable repository of information relative to the various titles of
nobility. Many published sources indicate that the titles described therein are
those recognized by the British Monarch. However, and in fact, the purpose of
that report (as the report reads) was to identify those titles which were
recognized by the Maltese authorities before the annexation of
The
Report consists of 4 basic sections: a list of claimants, the main report, a
supplemental report and a summing up by the British Secretary of State for the
Colonies.
In
all, the Report considered various claims to 45 titles of nobility and
hereditary distinctions. The findings of the Report are detailed in the parts
relative to each title/distinction.
The
Report also describes the historic development of regulation of Maltese
Nobility as a body during the 18th century as well as the progressively
different terms and remainders of nobiliary grants. That century is significant
as the first legal instrument dealing with the Maltese nobility as a body was
only promulgated by Despuig as late as 1739, (N.B. That is to say many centuries after 1090 which is the much vaunted
date when Roger the
The aforesaid
rules first promulgated by Grand Master Despuig in
1739 as subsequently amended by Grand Master Rohan in
1795, are reproduced hereunder. These enactments which are referred to
throughout the Report are not cited verbatim in the Report:
Hosplis
Mgr et Hierlem Sti. Sepulchri. - Per togliere le differenze di precedenze tra le persone che saranno promosse alla giurazie dell’ Universita’ della Notabile e della Valletta, vogliamo, ordiniamo e comandiamo che tutte siano precedue dagli infrascritti, e che fra queti si regoli la precedena call’ ordine seguente cioe’:
Primieramente,
chi fu Capitano della Verga della Sudetta Citta’ Notabile e nostra Isola di Malta.; Secondo. Il Titolato che ha un titolo fondato sopra un feudo in realta’ esistente qui, benche’ non lo possegga.; Terzo. Il titolato che non ha un titolo fondato sopra fondo realmente esistente nel nostro Dominio, registrato che sia il titolo nella Cancelleria nella nostra Religione e nella Gran Corte della nostra Castellania, e pagato per i rispettivi registramenti il diritto di scudi cento sedici di questa moneta, da dividersi per
meta’ tra la Cancelleria e la Castellania sudetta.; Quarto. Il discendente per linea mascolina da chi fu Capitano della Verga, se vive colle proprie rendite, e se i di lui ascendente intermedie vissero pure colle proprie rendite.;
Quinto.
Il discendente per linea mascolina da un titolo con titolo fondato sopra un feudo qui realmente esistente, se vive colle proprie rendite, e se i suoi ascendenti intermedie cosi vissero; Sesto. Chi fu primo Giurato della Notabile; Settimo. Chi fu primo Giurato della Valletta;
Ottavo.
Il piu’ anziani di Giurazia di quella Universita’ della quale sara’ creato giurato.;
Nono.
Chi fu Giudice d’Appello Criminale o Civile della Gran Corte della Castellania e della Corte Capitanale e Governatoriale;
Diecimo.
Il Dottore di Leggi ed il Dottore di Medicina.:
- Dichiariamo
che fra le persone d’un stesso grado si deve attendere l’anzianita’ del titolo primordiale e che chiunque fu Giurato, se sara’ fatto Console di
Mare, fra i quali s’attendera l’anzianita d’ufficio. Dat. In Palatio, die xvi. Septembris 1739 (f. Despuig)
Hosplis Magr. Hierlem. Sti. Sepulchri,
et Ordinis Sti Antonii, Viennensis Essendo una massima universalmente ricevuto, che il maggior lustro della Nobilta’ principalmente dipende dalla sua maggiore antichita’, niente che il piu’ giusto e ragionevole che il piu’ antico Nobile preceda il piu’ moderno. Siamo pertanto venuti nella determinazione
di Ordinare che nel regolarsi la precedenza tra le persone Nobile di questo nostro Dominio, cosi’ primogeniti che cadetti indistintamente,
si abbioa ad avere unicamente riguardo alla maggiore o minore antichita’
del titolo che nobilito le loro famiglie, e cio tanto se il titolo sara’ stato concesso da Noi o Nostri predecessori,
che se lo avessero ottenuto da Principi esteri, purche’ pero sara’ stato questo debitamente registrato nella Nostra Cancelleria e Gran Corte della Castellania; nel consorso pero’ di ugual data quello nella di cui persona concorreranno piu’ titoli dovra’ essere preferito, all’ altro che ne avesse meno,
secondo la graduazione stabilita nel Chirografo
Magisteriale del Nostro Predecessore Gran Maestro Despuig di Gl. Em. Del 16 Sept 1739, quale in quelle parti che non contradicono la questa nostra disposizione intendiamo di pienamente confermare. Datum in Palatio die xvii Martii 1795 (f.) Rohan
The
Report (paras. 83-95) described how previous to the 18th century, Malta had its
fair share of much older families which at that time were the established and
historic noble families or barones, albeit not
even in receipt of an actual patent of nobility. The Commissioners, however
observed that these older families enjoyed successive, generational
appointments to key posts particularly the Universita’
and the Capitano della
Verga under the government of the Order, on which occasions they were
sometimes styled barons, and constantly designated as nobles. The Report
(ibid.) describes how by the 18th century, the only two surviving feudatory
families (as known to the Commissioners) had by custom achieved the status of baroni by the end of the 17th century.
In
regard to the “new” families, that is the 18th century nobility
described in the first and third parts of the main report (Paras. 24-82 and
(106-226), some of these were already extinct by the time of the 1877-8
Commission, as the very same Commission observed. The fourth part of the report
shows a number of other distinctions received by Maltese during the 16th to the
18th Century (Paras. 227-239).
The
Report emphasised that creation of titles of nobility was certainly an
indisputable right of the twenty eight Grand Masters who governed
The
remaining noble fiefs (2), foreign titles (14) and distinctions (10) considered
by the Commissioners, have their own origins and are likewise amply described
in the report. All were subjected to an investigation whether such noble fiefs,
foreign titles and distinctions were duly registered, or at least directly
recognized by the Grand Masters. – Not all were found to satisfy this
criterion. Whilst both noble fiefs were allowed, 1 foreign title was declared
extinct whilst 4 foreign titles and 8 distinctions were found to be ineligible;
the remaining 2 distinctions were dismissed altogether by the Secretary of
State for the colonies. Of the remaining 9 foreign titles, 1 was decided
directly by the Secretary of State and 1 remained yet to be substantiated.
Thus
by the time the final Report was published the list of approved claimable
titles approved by the Commissioners and the Secretary of State numbered 16 Magistral titles + 2 fiefs + 8 foreign titles + 1 to be
substantiated, or a maximum of 27 eligible titles.
The
Report also emphasized the requirement of due registration and recognition of
titles emanating from foreign authorities as yet another aspect of the Grand
Masters’ Sovereignty over the islands. This applied even to those titles
that were granted from time to time by the
Interestingly,
the Report does not detail the French period (1798-1800) when titles of
nobility were formally abolished. (General Bonaparte issued two orders dated 13
and 16 June 1798 prohibiting the use of any title “Ordre (1) Quartier General
de malte, le 25 Prairal, an VI (13 Juin 1798): Le General en Chef ordonne……(Article 2.)… Toutes les armoires seront abbatues dans l’ espace de
24 heures. Il est defendu de porter dest livrees, ni aucune marque et
titre distinctif de noblesse. Ordre (2) Au
Quartier General de malte, le 28 Prairal,
an VI (16 Juin 1798): Bonaparte Membre de l’Istitut
National, General-en-Chef ordonne…(Article Cinquieme)….Dix
jours apres la publication du present
ordre, il est defendu d’avoir des armoires soit
dans l’interieur, soit a l’exterieur des maisons, de cacheter des lettres avec des
armoires, ou de prendre des titres feodaux. ……(Article
Douzieme)….Tous les contrevenants aux
articles cidessous, seront condamnes pour la premier
fois, a une amende du tiers de leurs revenus; pour la seconde fois, a trois
mois de prison; pour la troisieme fois a un an de
prison; pour la quatrieme fois, a la deportation de l’ile de
Malte, et a la confiscation de la moitie de leurs biens. Il devra toujours y
avoir 10 jours d’intervalle entre la recidive.”)
The
only reference (of the Commissioners see Paras. 144
and 173) to the French Period is to another Order issued by Bosredon
Ransijat, President of the Commission du Gouvernement dated 18 Messidor Year 6 (6 July 1798), where it was enacted that
all honorary titles should be burnt on the 14th of that month and that every
holder of a title should carry his patent at the Arbre
de la Liberté.
The
Report implies that after the French capitulation, the use of nobiliary titles was resumed. The Report describes at
length how after Malta came to form part of the British Empire, the unregulated
and improper use of titles of nobility and other honours was tolerated by the
local authorities who were themselves found to be at fault for encouraging such
improper use, up to the time of the Commission. The following
paras. 165-166 neatly describe the muddled state of affairs of the time:
We also
found in several lists of the electors of the members of council for Malta and Gozo, published under the Government authority, the said Gio Paolo Testaferrata referred to as ‘Marchese” in the list of electors for Gozo, and as ‘dei Marchesi” in the list of those of Malta. In some
notices the late Francesco Gauci Bonici, who was for
several years member of the Council of Government, is designated as Barone, which title had originally been granted to one of
his ancestors, for the term of his natural life only. (Sua naturali vita perdurante).
The above stated circumstances lead us to conclude that no great importance was
formerly attached by the Local Government to a proper use of the titles of
nobility. In confirmation of this statement, we may mention that in several
Government notices, the late Baldassare Sant was
styled Count, to which title he had no right. His son and heir, Lazzaro Sant, does not claim but the titles of Conte and Barone Fournier de Pausier, which
he inherited from his mother Luigia, wife of the said
Baldassare, to whom they were not certainly
communicable. It must, however, be remarked that since 1870 the said Gio Paolo Testaferrata and Lorenzo Cassar Desain have been styled Marchesi in several Government
Notices concerning the Agrarian Society, and the Society of Arts, Manufactures,
and Commerce.
The
need for a proper study being so necessary, the British Secretary of State for
the Colonies commissioned a report in 1876, on those titles alleged to have
been conferred to Maltese families before the annexation of
This
list was in turn forwarded to Judges Naudi and Pullicino together with the
terms of reference contained in the Governor’s letter dated
No
pre-set formality being required, the Commissioners thought it advisable to
request the attendance of 28 claimants (3 claimants not being called for
reasons explained in the report) to supply the Commissioners with supporting
documentation. Two claimants declined to comply with the Commissioners’
invitation, without giving any explanation for their refusal. In addition,
seven other claimants, not included in the Committee’s list, appeared in
the course of the inquiry. Two persons in whose favour
two titles were successfully confirmed are neither in the Committee’s
list, nor did they appear before the Commission. In one instance a third party
called into question a claimant’s claim. The Commissioners did not make
any written queries to any of the applicants, all communications being oral.
A
later correspondence of 1883 (Report of
the Committee of Privileges of the Maltese Nobility on the claims of certain
members of that body with the Secretary of State’s reply (C
3812).), between a new Committee and the Secretary of State, found sufficient
grounds to reverse the Commission’s decision about the extinction of two
of the aforesaid four titles, as well as the Commission’s decision to
disallow two claims alleging a direct recognition from the Grand Master.
Moreover, the same 1883 correspondence implies that a title which the Secretary
of State left unimpaired, had in fact been settled in
the interim period, resulting in the acceptance of another title.
The
holders of these titles were thereafter regarded as the official nobility of
The
conclusions reached by the reports of 1878 and 1883 were as follows (in the
order as considered by the original Report):
(1)
Joint title of Barone
di Gomerino (granted jointly to Paolo and
Beatrice Testaferrata on the
(2)
Title of Barone
di Budack (granted to Gio
Pio De Piro on the 23 April
1716 by Grand Master Perellos); In their report the
Commissioners stated that this title was claimed by Monsignor Salvatore Grech Delicata but his claim was disputed by Giuseppe Depiro, the former claiming he was nominated, the latter
claiming that the title was extinct and that he was in possession of a Primogenitura.
The Commissioners decided not to take notice of the documents
produced by Giuseppe Depiro
nor to ask for information from Monsignor Grech Delicata.
(From a detailed analysis, the title was found to be valid but invalidly
nominated to Monsignor Grech Delicata).
(3)
Title of Barone
di San Marciano (granted to Diego Antonio
Galea Ferriol on the 14 June 1726 by Grand Master Manoel de Vilhena); In their
report the Commissioners stated that this title had been successfully claimed
by Pietro Paolo Galea who proved his descent from Barone Diego Antonio Galea Feriol
and the regular transmission of the title through first-born male descendants successively
down to his person.
(4)
Title of Barone
della Tabria (granted
to Isidoro Viani on the 11 December 1728); In their
report the Commissioners stated that this title had been successfully claimed
by Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani who although he descends from the grantee in the
primogenial line through a female line, is entitled
to enjoy the present barony; The Commissioners also noted that the
claimant’s real name is Testaferrata not Viani.
(5)
Title of Barone
della Culeja
(granted to Ignazio Bonnici on the 2 June 1737 by
Grand Master Raimondo Despuig);
In their report the Commissioners stated that this title had been successfully
claimed by Vincenza Bonnici, wife of said Pietro Paolo Galea, who inherited the title from her father
Barone Ignazio Bonnici,
junior, who left no issue.
(6)
Title of Barone
di Benuarrat (granted to Saverio
Gatto on the 18 August 1737 by Grand Master Raimondo Despuig); In their
report the Commissioners stated that this title had been successfully claimed
by Angiolino Attard Montalto, who descends from the
first title person, although through a female line, as appears from documents
produced by him; and he is the first-born descendant in the primogenial
line of the grantee.
(7)
Title of Conte della Bahria (granted to Ignazio Muscati Falsone Navarra on the 16 May
1743 by Grand Master Emmanuel Pinto de Fonceca); In
their report the Commissioners stated that this title had been successfully
claimed by Antonio Stagno-Navarra-Muscati-Falsoni, the
holder of the lands of Bahria, his pedigree through a
female line is fully proved, and no one has appeared to dispute his right to
the exclusive right of conte, which unquestionably
belongs to him as the possessor of the feud to which it is annexed.
(8)
Title of Conte delle Catene or delli Mori (granted to Pietro
Gaetano Perdicomati Bologna
on the 20 January 1745 by Grand Master Emmanuel Pinto de Fonceca);
In their report the Commissioners stated that this title was disputed by Felicissimo Apap and Luisa
Strickland in her own name and on behalf of her son Gerardo, to the exclusion
of each other. The Commissioners noted that the last holder of the
Primogenitura and of the title of Conte was Sir Nicolo’
Sceberras Bologna KCMG and that one of the two suitors, Luisa, widown of Captain Strickland, is the daughter of Maria
Teresa Bonici nee Sceberras, eldest married sister of
the last possessor, and that the other suitor, Marchese
Felicissimo Apap, is the
son of the Maria Apap nee Sceberras, youngest sister
of the said Sir Nicolo’. (From a detailed
analysis, it was Gerardo who was to be preferred as the primogenial
descendant).
(9)
Title of Barone
della Marsa (granted to Gio
Francesco Dorell Falzon on the 10 March 1775 by Grand
Master Emmanuel de Rohan); In their report the
Commissioners stated that this title was unsuccessfully claimed by Maria
Francesca widow of Filippo Apap
because that title was extinct upon the death of Barone
Dorell. The Commissioners also noted that another
title of Barone della
Marsa (and earlier grant oto
Ferdinando Castelletto by
Grand Master Vilhena of the
(10)
Title of Barone
di Buleben (granted to Gaetano
Azzopardi on the 23 July 1777 by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan,
as extended in favour of Calcedonio,
his son, by Rescript of the same Grand Master, on the
25 April 1778); In their report the Commissioners stated that this title was
unsuccessfully claimed by Calcedonio Azopardi-Zamitt junior because that title became extinct
with the death of Barone Calcedonio
Azzopardi senior on the 20 February 1799. By means of a later decision dated
1883 of the British Secretary of State, authorization was given through the
grace and favour of the Crown to Calcedonio
Azopardi junior, his sons and descendants, to hold
the said title of Barone di Buleben
as it was held previously and possessed by the “Primogeniti”
Azopardi possessors of a “Primogenitura”
erected in favour of Barone
Gaetano’s children.
(11)
Title of Marchese
di San Giorgio (granted to Carlo Antonio Barbaro on the 6
September 1778 by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan, as
extended in favour of Gioacchino
Ermolao, his son, by Rescript
of the same Grand Master, on the 2 January 1779, and further extended in favour of the latter’s descendants in perpetuity, by Rescript of the same Grand Master on the 5 June 1792); In
their report the Commissioners stated that this title was unsuccessfully
claimed by Giorgio Crispo Barbaro because his father
Gustavo the first-born male descendant in the primogenial
line of the first titled person, was still alive at the time. The Commissioners
also noted that the extension was to all of Gioacchino
Ermolao Barbaro’s
descendants in perpetuum.
(12)
Title of Conte di Beberrua (granted to Luigi Gatt on the 23 October
1783 by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan); In their
report the Commissioners stated that this title was unsuccessfully claimed by Nicolo’ Gatt because that title became extinct with
the with the death of the orginal grantee Luigi Gatt.
By means of a later decision dated 1883 of the British Secretary of State,
authorization was given through the grace and favour
of the Crown to Nicolo’ Gatt and that it should
continue to descend, “de primogenito in primogenitum in infinitum”, to the male
descendants of the grantee.
(13)
Title of Marchese
del Fiddien (granted to Salvatore Mallia Tabone on the 15
October 1785 by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan, as
extended by Rescript of the same Grand Master on the
15 June 1793); In their report the Commissioners stated that this title had
been successfully claimed by Salvatore Mallia-Tabone, grandson of the first
titled person, as appears from the documents he has produced, and he is the
first-born descendant in the primogenial line of the
grantee.
(14)
Title of Marchese
della Taflia (granted
to Saverio Alessi on the 13
November 1790 by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan); In
their report the Commissioners stated that this title had been successfully
claimed by Bernardo Alessi, the grandson of the
person first ennobled, and the first-born male child in the family. The
Commissioners also noted that there is nothing in the patent whether the title
should be enjoyed by al the grantee’s descendants simultaneously, or by
one of them under the rule of primiogeniture.
(15)
Title of Conte di Ghain Toffieha (granted
not by patent, but by Rescript, to Ferdinando Teuma Castelletti on the 7 January 1792 by Grand Master Emmanuel
de Rohan); In their report the Commissioners stated
that this title had been successfully claimed by Pietro
Paolo Teuma Castelletti, as
he proves by the documents produced before the Commission, to be the grandson
of the original grantee. The Commissioners also noted that the grant was in the
family always taken to be limited to the first-born descendant only.
(16)
Title of Marchese
di Gnien Is-sultan (granted to Filippo Apap on the 1 December
1792 by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan); In their
report the Commissioners stated that this title had been successfully claimed
by Felicissimo Apap-Pace-Bologna,
who is the great grandson of the person first ennobled. The Commissioners also
noted that this title was always held to be inheritable by the first-born
descendant only.
(17)
Title of Barone
della Grua (granted
to Saverio Carbott
Testaferrata on the 30 December 1794 by Grand Master Emmanuel de Rohan); In their report the Commissioners stated that this
title was claimed by Nicola Maria Delicata-Carbott-Asciack,
who descends lineally from the grantee. The Commissioners noted that the male
descending line of the said Saverio is extinct, for Saverio Carbott left Giuseppe Carbott, of whom Saverio Carbott Montalto was born; Saverio
Carbott junior, had no male issue, but only a
daughter, Giovanna Carbott Montalto, the
claimant’s mother. The question having been reserved to the Secretary of
State, the Commissioners did not include the claimant’s name in the list.
In their Supplemental Report, the Commissioners opined that Nicola Maria Delicata Carbott Asciak established his claim because the order of
succession settled in the charter granting the title in question includes
generally the grantee’s male descendants, and therefore taking the law
relative to the transmission of lands (primogeniture) to be applicable to the
transmission of titles, that charter comprehends the claimant who is descended
from the grantee through a female line.
(18)
Title of Conte della
Senia (granted to Vincenzo
Fontani on the 6 June 1795 by Grand Master Emmanuel
de Rohan); In their report the Commissioners stated
that this title had been successfully claimed by Luigi Fontani,
the first-born and only surviving son of the said Caonte
Vincenzo Fonato, original
grantee. The Commissioners also noted that there was no reason for inquiring,
at present, who will have the right to bear the title after the present
holder’s death, whether his first-born son alone or simultaneously his
daughters also.
(19)
Title of Marchese
di Ghain Kajet (granted to Gerolamo
Delicata on the
(20)
Fief of Ghariescem
and Tabia (granted to Giacinto Cassia by deed of compromise on the
(21)
Fiefs of Djar
el Bniet and Buqana
(the first granted to Francesco Gatto by Louis
King of Sicily on the 4 January 1350, the second granted to Guglielmo
Murina by King Frederick on the 4 November 1372). In
their report the Commissioners stated that this title was unsuccessfully
claimed by Alessandro Sceberras-Testaferrata-Damico-Inguanez
(who proved his decent) because he was not the possessor of the two fiefs in
question, the same being actually held by Maria Teresa Damico. In their report
the Commissioners stated that although no title of barone
appears to have been granted in the diplomas of 1350 and 1372, that there are
sufficient grounds for holding that at a later period that title was conferred
or recognized on
(22)
Title of Barone
di Cicciano in the
(23)
Title of Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri
in the
(24)
Title of Marchese,
(conferred upon Mario Testaferrata on the
(25)
Title of Conte (granted to
Giuseppe Preziosi on the
(26) Title of Conte di
Mont’ Alto (conferred at the request of Bernardo Piscopo on the
(27)
Title of Conte enjoyed
by the Wzzini family, (exact date of creation unknown
but held by Ignazio Wzzini
in the year 1722). In their report the Commissioners stated that this title had
been successfully claimed by Giorgio Serafino Duca Comninoe Lascaris
Ciantar-Paleologo, the first-born descendant of Ignazio Wzzini. The Commissioners
also noted that the claimant has not shown that his family was in possession of
the title of ‘Conte” prior to the year 1722.
(28)
Title of Marquis in the
Kingdom of Castille (granted to Gio
Pio de Piro on the 6
November 1745 by Philip V, King of Spain, the title of Marquis being revived on
the 28 September 1870 by the Kingdom of Spain in favour
of Saverio De Piro); In
their report the Commissioners stated that this title had been successfully
claimed by Saverio De Piro,
in whose favour the title was revived.
(29)
Title of Barone
(granted on the 31 March 1768 by Empress Maria Theresa, Empress of Austria,
upon Giorgio Fournier de Pausier); In their report
the Commissioners stated that this title was unsuccessfully claimed by Lazzaro Sant-Fournier-de-Pausier
because no proof was made of the recognition of this title by the Grand
Masters, which might have supplied the want of registration.
(30)
Title of Count in the
kingdoms and provinces of the Austrian Empress (granted to Giorgio Fournier de Pausier on the 29 January 1770 by Maria Theresa, Empress of
Austria); No decision was reached by the Commissioners in either their report
or their supplemental report on the claim of Lazzaro
Sant-Fournier-de-Pausier, who descends from the
grantee’s granddaughter. The British Secretary of State then permitted
the claim of Lazzaro Sant Fournier and his
successors, for the purpose of precedence, to take the place to which they
would be entitled under the principles of legal interpretation applicable to
the grant if it had emanated in 1770 from the Sicilian or Maltese Sovereign
authority.
(31)
Title of Count in the Italian
Provinces of the Austrian Empress (granted to Baldassare
Salvatore Sant on the 22 December 1770 by Maria Theresa, Empress of Austria);
In their report the Commissioners stated that this title had been successfully
claimed by Gio Francesco Sant Cassia, who is the
first born son of the Conte Luigi Maria, eldest son of the Conte Gio Francesco, who was the eldest son of the first titled
person..
(32)
Title of Conte (presumed to
have been granted to Salvatore Manduca on the 28 December 1776 by one of the
Dukes of Parma (probably Don Ferdinand)); In their report the Commissioners
stated that this title was claimed by Monsignor Salvatore Manduca-Piscopo-Macedonia,
but did not give any decision as the claimant had yet to produce evidence of
the existence and recognition of the title. It appears that by 1883, such proof
had been produced.
(33)
Title of Barone
di San Giovanni conferred upon Serafino
Ciantar on the 16 July 1777 by Ferdinand I, King of the Two Sicilies;
In their report the Commissioners stated that this title had been successfully
claimed by Giorgio Serafino Duca
Comninoe Lascaris Ciantar-Paleologo, who is the first-born surviving descendant of
the original grantee.
(34)
Title of Barone
di San Paolino granted to Matteo
de Ribera on the
(35)
Title of Conte di Casandola
(presumed to have been granted by Charles II, King of
(36)
Distinction of Knight of
the Order of Noble Tornearii and Armigers of the Holy
Roman Empire (granted motu proprio at Vienna to Giacomo Testaferrata
de Robertis on the 6 November 1637 by Ferdinand 3rd
Emperor Elect of the Romans and of Germany); In their Report, the Commissioners
stated that this dignity received direct recognition from the Grandmasters but
were unsure whether this title, although recognised, was in any way affected by
the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806. The dignity was claimed by
various persons including Emmanuele Testaferrata-Bonici-Asciack, Lorenzo Antonio Testaferrata, Guseppe Testaferrata Viani, Gio. Paolo Testaferrata-Olivier de Puget, Lorenzo Antonio Cassar-Desain, ne’ Testaferrata, Ignazio Testaferrata Bonici, Enrico
Testaferrata, and Francesco Gauci Testaferrata. The Commissioners also
noted that a similar claim might be asserted by all other male and female
descendants of the aforesaid Don Mario, who did not appear before them, the
number of such descendants amounts to no less than
157. The British Secretary of State decided that there was no proof that the
dignity ever received recognition.
(37)
Distinction of Knight of the Order
of Noble Tornearii and Armigers of the Holy Roman
Empire (granted motu proprio at Vienna to Massimiliano
Balzano on the 19 November 1698 by Leopold I Emperor
Elect of the Romans and of Germany); In their Report, the Commissioners stated
that this dignity received direct recognition from the Grandmasters but were
unsure whether this title, although recognised, was in any way affected by the
dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806. The dignity was claimed by Luisa,
widow of Captain Walter Strickland, in her own name and on behalf of her sons,
who are all minors. The Commissioners also noted that upon the same grounds
this dignity might be claimed by other descendants of Balzano,
who all bear family names different from that of the grantee, the male line of Balzano having become extinct, and the female descendants
having married into different families. The British Secretary of State decided
that there was no proof that the dignity ever received recognition.
(38)
Dignity of Patrician of
Messina (granted to Mariano Testaferrata on
(39)
Dignity of Patrician of
Messina (granted to Marchese Don Mario
Testaferrata Castelletti, Don Daniele and Don Pandolfo Testaferrata De Noto,
and the Barone P.P. Testaferrata Abela on the 28
August 1792 by the Senate of Messina); In their Report, the Commissioners
stated that this dignity was unsuccessfully claimed by Pietro
Paolo Testaferrata-Abela-Moroni, Augusto Testaferrata Abela, Lorenzo Antonio
Testaferrata, Gio. Paolo Testaferrata-Olivier de
Puget, Lorenzo Antonio Cassar-Desain, ne’ Testaferrata, Ignazio
Testaferrata Bonici, Enrico
Testaferrata, and Francesco Gauci Testaferrata because independently of the
circumstance that the dignity is a municipal concession, the said instrument
was never registered nor have the claimants produced any proof of its ever been
recognized by the local sovereign.
(40)
Dignity of Roman Patrician
(conferred upon Monsignor Don Leonardo Abela, Bishop of Sidonia,
Placido and Alessandro Abela his brothers, and upon
his three nephews ex sorore Pietro
di Ferro, Ascanio Surdo and
Paolo Testaferrata on the 11th day of the calends of June of the year 1590 by
the Roman Senate); In their Report, the Commissioners stated that this dignity
was unsuccessfully claimed by Pietro Paolo
Testaferrata-Abela-Moroni, Augusto Testaferrata Abela, Monsignor Salvatore
Grech-Delicata-Testaferrata Cassia-De Piro, Lorenzo Antonio Cassar-Desain,
ne’ Testaferrata, Saverio
De Piro and (f) Felicissimo
Apap-Pace-Bologna because independently of the
circumstance that the dignity is a municipal concession, the said instrument
was never registered nor have the claimants produced any proof of its ever been
recognized by the local sovereign.
(41)
Dignity of Roman
Patrician (reputed to date 6 July 1674, origins unknown); In their Report,
the Commissioners stated that this dignity was unsuccessfully claimed by Emmanuele Testaferrata-Bonici-Asciack,
and Lorenzo Antonio Cassar-Desain, ne’ Testaferrata, because no proof or document
whatever have been produced.
(42)
Dignity of Roman Patrician
(reputed to date
(43)
Dignity of Venetian Patrician,
(origins unknown); In their Report, the Commissioners
stated that this dignity was unsuccessfully claimed by Giorgio Crispo Barbaro because no proof or document whatever have
been produced.
(44)
Distinction of Knight of the 1st class
of Charles III., King of Spain, (origins unknown). In their
Report, the Commissioners stated that this dignity was unsuccessfully claimed
by Luigi Fontani because no proof or document
whatever have been produced. Moreover the Commissioners noted that this
distinction cannot according to the law then in force
(1872) be borne in
(45)
Dignity of Messinese
Patrician, (origins unknown). In their Report, the Commissioners stated
that this dignity was unsuccessfully claimed by Antonio Stagno-Navarra-Muscati-Falsoni
because no proof was made of the existence of this title
In
answering the Governor’s query on the use of two or more surnames, the
Commissioners noted that assumed surnames are added after the lawful surname
(patronymic), the lawful surname being that coming from his father,
grandfather, and other male ancestors. The Commissioners reported that the
practice adopted by the “titolati” was to
prefix their respective titles to their name without any mention of lands or
other designation. The Commissioners observed that those titolati
who added maternal surnames, did so for either of three reasons (i) to show connection to the ennobled family (ii) to show
connection to a family from whom a primogenitura
derived, and (iii) for the simple expedient of distinguishing the different
branches of the family. In preparing their list of allowed claims, the
Commissioners stated that they were disregarding the assumed surnames and refering to the titolati merely
by their respective patronymics, thus Antonio Stagno Navarra Muscati was referred to
as Antonio Stagno, Gio
Francesco Sant Cassia as Gio Francesco Sant, and
Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani as Giuseppe Testaferrata. It is interesting to note
however that the Commissioners did not do so in regard to the claimants Mallia
Tabone and Teuma Castelletti.
As a
rule, the titles described above were merely honorific, that is to say without
property tenure. The requisite of wealth and security of status which is
implied in the Despuig and Rohan
rules, appears to have prompted some of the grantees/their descendants to set
up or modify separate, individual entails known as fideicommissae
or “Primogenituri” so that such entails,
usually consisting of valuable buildings and large tracts of lucrative land,
work in tandem with the succession of these otherwise, merely-honorific titles.
In the Report, references to such entails is found in the descriptions of Gomerino (a Primogenitura described as having
been formed in 1714), Budaq (details whereof
are not specified in the Report), delle Catene (an
entail described as the Primogenitura Bologna), Bulebel
(a Primogenitura described as being existing in 1778), Mont’ Alto (a
Primogenitura and Maggiorato described as
existing in 1725), and Manduca (referring to the same Primogenitura in Mont’
Alto).
The
possession of a primogenitura did not
necessarily imply any right to nobility (Para. 155); however it did prompt some
successors to add the surnames of the founders of the primogeniture to
their own (para. 243). The Commissioners also
identified one instance where a primogenitura
could continue to subsist even though the title associated with the family
that enjoyed it would have fallen into extinction (Para. 187). In another
instance, the remainder of a title was granted specifically to follow the
succession of an entail set up by a third party (Para. 38), whilst in another
case (Para. 25) a question arose whether the grant of a title was in fact
somehow amended following the erection of an entail. (N.B.
The holding by entail was eventually abolished in
(N.B. Although the Commissioners do not state it, the apparent wealth and
lifestyle of the contemporary claimants appears to have been of some concern to
them. This is alluded to in their commentary (Para. 235) on the very wide
remainder of two hereditary knighthoods which were granted motu
proprio by a foreign sovereign:- Among such descendents there are
people of all classes, and whilst some live on income from their own property,
others pursue mean occupations and have slender means of support. (N.B.
This apparent prejudice against claimants living in less fortunate
circumstances may perhaps explain why other titles granted by the Grand Masters
were not presented by the respective descendents. The titles which were granted
by Grand Masters but not considered by the Report include: (1) Barone di Frigenuini (to
Alessandro Mompalao on the 17 September 1737 by Grand
Master Despuig; regranted
to Gaetano Pisani on the 17
June 1773 by Grand Master Ximenes) (2) Marchese di Sciorp il-Hagin (to Claudio Muscati Xiberras on the 8 March 1776 by Grand Master Rohan), (3) Barone (to
Francesco Gauci on the 6 September 1778 by Grand Master Rohan)
(4) Barone di San Cosmo (to Ugolino Calleja on the 27
November 1792 by Grand Master Rohan), (5) Conte di
Santi (to Romualdo
Barbaro on the 1 December 1792 by Grand Master Rohan),
(6) Conte di Meimun (to Saverio
Marchesi on the 8 March 1794 by Grand Master Rohan). It appears that no descendant of these grantees
made any claim to the Commissioners.)
Notwithstanding their efforts to ensure a
comprehensive study of these titles, the Commissioners made a caveat
that their report being based on a list of titles prepared by an ad hoc Committee
of nobles formed on the occasion of a visit by the Prince of Wales, cannot be
assured to “correspond
to all the existing titles of nobility, and still less that the thirty one
gentlemen …(mentioned in the list)… represent all those who, under
certain conditions, would have the right of claiming a title by virtue of the
same grant. On the contrary, as it will be hereafter remarked, many gentlemen
not comprised in that list are exactly in the same condition as others therein
mentioned. As no notice has appeared in the Government Gazette, informing the
public of the existence of our Commission, and inviting all those who might
have a right to a title of nobility to lay their claims before us, our inquiry
must necessarily be incomplete, and limited to those titles which are included
in the list, or which after its presentation have been claimed. On the other
hand, we could not ascertain how far the committee are invested with a
representative character, with regards to the interests of the Maltese nobility.”
This caveat
was later regarded as unnecessary by Governor van Straubenzee
who stated that he had no reason to suspect that anyone having any pretension
to be a “Titolato” was ignorant
either of the existence of the Committee of Nobles, or of the appointment of
the Commission. He also commented that the publication of a notice to the
effect above stated would hardly be consistent with the instructions contained
by the Despatch of the Secretary of State. At all events, he added, if there
were more “Titolati” they were at
liberty at any time to prove their claims, and take the precedence to which
they are entitled.
Whatever
criticism may be leveled at the 1878 report, to date it remains the only
impartial description and interpretation of those titles - of which the
Commissioners had cognizance - which were related to the period when the Grand
Masters ruled
In terms of the Gieh
ir-Repubblika Act of 1975, titles of Nobility are
not recognized in Malta whilst although today one witnesses in Malta the use of
the very same nobiliary titles described in the aforesaid reports, such use is
neither legal, nor regulated, nor protected. The implication of the ACT is that
these titles, which are undoubtedly part of
The Report of 1878 can be criticised
from various angles, particularly in view of the Commissioner’s admission
that its own findings could not be looked upon as a complete representation of
all potential claims. Despite all this valid and compelling criticism, it is
submitted nonetheless that the report should be the basis of formulating any
argument for the purposes of reconciling Maltese historic titles with our
National Heritage.