Maltesenobles80

Title of Marquis Testaferrata

 

HISTORY

The title “Marquis Testaferrata” is a title of Nobility created in 1717 by Victor Amadeus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Amadeus_II_of_Savoy King of Sicily and Duke of Savoy. Technically although this title was granted to a Maltese, it does not form part of the Maltese Nobility. 

This title has been subjected to some controversy. 

- Some argue that this title was Sicilian therefore meaning that it may only be held by one descendant in succession. Others argue that it is a Savoian title therefore meaning that it may be held by more than one person at the same time. A third argument is that even if the title is held to be Sicilian because the especially wide terms of this grant allow for multiple succession. A Royal Commission of 1878 dismissed only the second argument. 

- A family compact allowing for a wide remainder was dismissed by a Royal Commission of 1878. However, the terms of the compact were upheld by a Court of Appeal in 1887. 

- In addition, the same Royal Commission stated if the rules of prmogeniture are to be followed then a disinheritance of the grantee’s first son would result in the title being succeeded by the line of the second son.

 

Since 1975, titles of nobility are no longer recognized in the Republic of Malta by Act 29 of 1975 dated 17 October 1975. 

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF TITLE

The title of ‘Marchese’ was granted on the 13th July 1717, to Mario Testaferrata, by Victor-Amadeus, King of Sicily and Duke of Savoy. The patent of creation of this title is worded in Italian, and its operative clause runs thus:- (Translation) “Hence it is that by these presents under our sign manual, of our certain knowledge, Royal authority, and absolute power, and with the advice of our Council we confer as a special favour on the said Mario Testaferrata, and all his legitimate and natural descendants successively, the title of Marquis, with all the privileges, prerogatives, dignities which are or may be enjoyed by other marquises. We therefore command that all our magistrates, ministers, vassals, and all out subjects generally on this and on the other side of the sea”. Shall acknowledge as Marquis the said D. Mario Testaferrata, and his legitimate and natural descendants successively”.

The foregoing grant was made at Chambery (Duchy_of_Savoy), on the 13th July 1717, by the said King Victor-Amadeus, whilst he possessed not only the Duchy of Savoy but also the Kingdom of Sicily. The patent of creation bears the following heading:- “Victor-Amadeus by the Grace of God King of Sicily, Jerusalem, and Cyprus, Duke of Savoy, Montferrat, and Aosta .and perpetual Vicar of the Empire”; and in conferring the title the King declares that he avails himself of his Royal authority.

It does not appear from any part of the said patent that Victor-Amadeus granted the present title as Duke of Savoy. In fact Victor Amadeus ordered that the diploma should be registered in his Principal Secretairerie of State for the Internal Affairs of his Dominions. In pursuance of that command that patent was registered, and not simply recorded in the Registry of the Privileges of the Kingdom of Sicily, and not in the Duchy of Savoy. In fact, at foot thereof, the following expressions are to be noticed:- “Reg. in Regio. Privil. Regn. Sicil., fol. 180, No. 1 (signed) Razan.” 

The concluding words of the patent, “Given at Chambery, on the 13th July, in the fourth year of our reign”, clearly shows that Victor-Amadeus did not grant the title either as Duke of Savoy or as Vicar of the Empire, for his accession to the throne of Savoy took place in 1675, that is 22 years previous to the said grant; but as King of Sicily, this island having been ceded to him by the Treaty_of_Utrecht, concluded on the 11th November 1713. that is four years before he conferred the title in question.

 

A 19th century Royal Commission held even if the grant made by Victor-Amadeus is to be taken to extend to all the descendants of Mario Testaferrata, the succession to the title must, according to the terms of the patent, proceed in a successive order;

No land was attached to this title of nobility. The title was merely honorific and did not give rise to any right of possession of any land in Sicily. In particular, it was specified that the title was given in the “fourth year” of Victor Amadeus’s reign even implying that it was given in Sicily rather than one of the several other Kingdoms Victor Amadeus possessed.

NO RECORD OF RECOGNITION BY GOVERNMENT OF THE ORDER OF SAINT JOHN

As the title originated in the Kingdom of Sicily, it could not be held to form part of the Maltese Nobility unless it was registered in the Government Cancelleria and of the High Court of the Castellania.

In 1739, the then Grand Master Depuig had enacted a law introducing the concept of extending a form of precedence to even holders of foreign titles. The relative law is reproduced hereunder:- 

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 fondorealmente 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 proprierendite, 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 quellaUniversita’ 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 Leggied 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 qualis’attendera l’anzianita d’ufficio. Dat. In Palatio, die xvi. Septembris 1739 (f. Despuig) 

 

The latter enactment was amended in 1795 by the then Grand Master Rohan as follows:

 

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 abbia 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

It follows therefore that on the basis of the aforesaid enactments, the title of “Marquis Testaferrata” as granted in 1717 could only enjoy a precedence in Malta from the day it was registered in the legal registries. 

THE ROYAL COMMISSION APPOINTED TO ENQUIRE INTO THE CLAIMS OF THE MALTESE NOBILITY

After the Capitulation of the Order of Saint John the new French Rulers formally abolished all titles of nobility. (General Napoleon 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.” 

Another Order was 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 French in turn lost Malta in 1800 to a contingent raised by Captain Ball and Admiral Nelson. Malta later became a British Protectorate after the Treaty of Paris of 1814.  

In time, the use of nobiliary titles was resumed. However, it appears that this use was unregulated. 

In 1870 the Marchese Giorgio Crispo Barbaro published a compendium of the “Maltese Nobility and the Maltese Gentry holding Foreign Titles”. In that publication Giorgio Crispo Barbaro makes no reference whatsoever to the title of “Marchese Testaferrata” granted in 1717. - See full text of the Crispo Barbaro’s book at http://www.saidvassallo.com/SME/1870%20barbaro.pdf

In 1876, the British Secretary of State for the Colonies commissioned a report, on those titles alleged to have been conferred to Maltese families before the annexation of Malta to the British Dominions, namely 1800. The Commissioners’ Report and Supplemental Report were published in 1878 together with relative correspondence. 

COMPETING CLAIM OF EMMANUELE TESTAFERRATA BONICI, HIS BROTHER IGNAZIO TESTAFERRATA BONICI, GIO. PAOLO TESTAFERRATA OLIVIER, GIUSEPE TESTAFERRATA VIANI, THE BROTHERS LORENZO ANTONIO AND LUIGI TESTAFERRATA AND LORENZO CASSAR DESAIN TO THE TITLE OF “MARCHESE” CREATED IN 1717

In 1878, this title was claimed by Emmanuele Testaferrata Bonici, Ignazio Testaferrata, Gio. Paolo Testaferrata Olivier, the Barone Dr. Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani, the brothers Lorenzo Antonio and Luigi Testaferrata, and Lorenzo Cassar Desain and his uncle Enrico Testaferrata.

Emmanuele Testaferrata Bonnici explained that as the first-born descendant in the primogenial line of the original grantee, the title was to be enjoyed by him exclusively.

Ignazio (Emmanuele’s brother) and Gio Paolo Testaferrata Olivier, all other descendants of the original grantee’s first son Enrico, claimed that as descendants of the original grantee, they were entitled to enjoy the title in accordance with the wide remainder.

The Barone Dr. Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani, Lorenzo Antonio Testaferrata, Enrico Testaferrata and Luigi Testaferrata were all descendants of the original grantee’s second son Gilberto. Giuseppe was the first-born descendant in the primogenial line of Gilberto, second-born son of the grantee. The brothers Lorenzo Antonio and Luigi Testaferrata descended from the second-born son of Mario, junior, who was born of the said Gilberto. Lorenzo Cassar Desain and his uncle Enrico Testaferrata descended from the third-born son of Mario, junior, who was born of the said Gilberto. All of these claimed that as descendants of the original grantee, they too were entitled to the joint possession in accordance with the wide remainder

In addition, Lorenzo Antonio Testaferrata, stated that the grantee’s first born son Enrico lost any right that they might have had to the title, and Enrico having been by his father Mario disinherited. For that reason Lorenzo Antonio contended that in consequence of the said disinheritance of the line of Enrico, the present title passed to the younger branch of the family Testaferrata, to which he belongs. In support of his statement he produced an extract from the testament of Marchese Mario, opened and published at Palermo by notary Dixidomino on the 16th April 1758, from which it appears that the said Mario willed as follows:-  “in toto integro et indeminuito patrimonio ac in dicto titulo Marchiones Sancti Vincentii nec non etiam in ejus Palatio, etc’ejus haeredem universalem instituit, ac proprio ore nominavit et nominat D. Gilbertum Testaferrata ejus filium” In the same testament, we find also the following clause: “Et quia dictus illustris testator ultra dictos Dominum Gilbertum et D. Pulchram, ejus filios desuper contemplatos, alium ejus filium primi matrimonii vocatum D. Enricum Testaferrata”. Et pro nonnullis ingratitudinibus disobedientiae, ac pro dubio insidiationis mortis ejusdem testatoris, ut ipse illustris asserit, etiam pro causa dissipationis nonnullorum bonorum mobiliumvigore praesentis, attentis juribus et rationibus desuper descriptis, dictus illus testator eumdem D. Henricum Testaferrata “dishaereditavit, a substantia et patrimonio paterno privando et totaliter eumdem D. Henricum Testaferrata ejus filium tam a successione titolorum Marchionis Sancti Vincentii Ferreri et Testaferrata, quam a succession”..et sic voluit et non aliter nec alio modo, et hoc non obstante quod fuisset per eundem illum testatorem facta wquaedam scriptura private, subscripta propria manu dicti illmi testatoris, in qua declarabat dictum D. Henricum ejus filium, successorem in Marchionem Sancti Vincentii Ferreri.”

 

The Royal Commission held that if the title is taken to extend to all the contemporary descendants of the person first ennobled, the number of such descendants, according to a table of descent which the Commissioners caused to be prepared by a genealogist, and which is appended to this report, amounts to 157. The Commissioners explained that in this number of 157, they also included the female descendants and the male descendants of the daughters for if the grant is held to be so unlimited as to include all the grantee’s descendants without any restriction, female descendants cannot by logical inference be excluded form the possession of the title. The Commissioners continued explaining that if daughters and the male issue of daughters are not comprised in the 1717 grant, the number of gentlemen who would be entitled to possess the title of “Marchese Testaferrata” would be 24. 

COMMISSION’S POSITION ON CLAIMED DISINHERITANCE OF ENRICO TESTAFERRATA

The Royal Commission also held that if the title is taken to be succeeded by the first-born son only, under the rule of primogeniture the marchese would be Emmanuele Testaferrata who was the then first-born son in the descending line of Enrico. However, the Commission also observed that should the disinheritance in Mario’s testament be valid, the title belonged to Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani. 

COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DISMISS ALL CLAIMS

According to the Royal Commission, no formal record could be found, in Malta, of any registration of this title. 

The Commission also explored the possibility that the omission of formal registration could be supplemented by a direct recognition from the Grand Masters. However the Commission concluded that although a number of Testaferrata descendants were styled “Marchesi” on various occasions when they received official appointments, these appointments did not satisfy such requisites as are necessary for holding that the sovereign’s assent in the possession of the title of Marquis; and that such possession was constant, uniform, and unequivocal. In particular, the Commissioners held if Grand Master Vilhena had ever recognized the title of “Marchese Testaferrata” as granted in 1717, he would not have omitted to mention it in the decree of the 9th July 1725, and would not have excepted Mario Testaferrata from the enactment of the relative Prammatica, by styling him only as “Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri” . 

 

The Commission also gave no importance whatsoever to a deed made on the 10 September 1772, between members of Mario Testaferrata’s family intended to compromise all matters between them. This agreement states:-Praefati quoque Dni contrahentes pro se et suis, convenerunt et convenient quod tam memoratus Dnus Don Gilbertus, ac sui filii et descendentes in infinituum, quam preti Dni Daniel, Don Pandulphus, et Donna Asteria eorumque filii et descendentes in infinitum, reciproce ac unite uti possint uti possint titulis omnibus honorificis atque nobilibus familiae competentibus, ac segnantur titulis Marchionatus Sancti Vincentii Ferreri et Marchionatus de Testaferrata et Equitis Sacri Romani Imperii, quorum copia uni alteri consignare debet, aliisque juribus etiam patronatus simplicis familiae competentibus et non aliter. The Commission held that whatever may be the import of this family compact, it was neither duly registered nor acknowledged by the local sovereigns, meaning that the afore-said agreement is legally null and void.

The Commission concluded after a full and impartial examination of all the circumstances of the case, and of the numerous documents which have been produced, all the claimants failed to establish their right to the title, and their names therefore will not be inserted in the list of titled gentlemen appended to this Report.

CONTROVERSIES 

 

That this title was not recognized by the Order in any form whatsoever was also stated by the Civil Court of Malta in the case “Emanuele Testaferrata Bonnici Asciak vs Gio Paolo Testaferrata Olivier and others” decided on the 16 August 1885. In fact that judgement stated: il Diploma di Vittorio Amadeo non fu mai riconosciuto dal Governo di Malta, e non ebbe, pertanto, in Malta, alcuna esistenza legale. This part of the judgement was confirmed by the Court of Appeal on the 8 January 1887. Notwithstanding its own statement, the same judgment also remarked on the wide remainder of the very same title created in 1717: Che, dall’ altro canto, pero’ e’ giusto rimarcare che nella transazione seguita per atti del Notaro Vittorio Giammalva del 10 settembre 177(2) tra i figli di Don Mario Testaferrata, il primo concessionario del titolo, di cui e’ qestione, dopo di avere menzionato solo due titoli di Nobilta’, quello cioe di San Vincenzo Ferreri, e l’altro di Testaferrata (alledendo a quello conceduto da Vittorio Amadeo) era stato convenuto che tutti i figli con loro discendenti dovessero essere in liberta’ di portare l’una e l’altra concessione.

 

Therefore if the title is taken to extend to all the contemporary descendants, this continues at least until 1926 when a Uniform Italian Law on Nobility was first published. The Statuto delle succesioni aititoli e agli attrbuti nobiliari (Regio Decreto 16 agosto 1926, n. 1489 substituted all remainders of grants of nobility granted by erstwhile monarchs in modern Italy. It is manifest that by 1926 many more persons must have come to benefit under the 1717 remainder. 

If the title is taken to succeed according to the rule of primogeniture, then according to the Royal Commission this succession is affected by the disinheritance, resulting in the title being succeeded by the line of Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani. 

ITALIAN LAW

 

The title created in 1717, albeit not registered in Malta remained subject to the laws of Sicily.

The Spaniards invaded Sicily in 1718 during the War of the Quadruple Alliance resulting in the Duke of Savoy ceding the Kingdom of Sicilyto Austria in 1720 by the Treaty of The Hague

Conquered by the Spanish during the War of the Polish Succession the kingdom was ceded together with Naples to a younger son of the King of Spain.  A Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was established in the Edict of Bayonne in 1808, under Bonapartist king Joachim Murat; he was officially titled "King of the two Sicilies", despite the fact that physically he only controlled the kingdom commonly known as Naples. However in 1816 the Kingdom of Naples and the Kingdom of Sicily were merged into the new Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Between 1816 and 1848 the island of Sicily experienced no less than three popular revolts against Bourbon rule, including the revolution of independence of 1848. The then king Ferdinand, conceded and granted Sicily a constitution. Disquiet spread to Naples, where the Neapolitan liberals successfully demanded that they should also be granted a constitution. All this, however, did not contain the ever-growing support for a united Italy. In 1860, Giuseppe Garibaldi and his cadre of about a thousand Italian volunteers (called I Mille), steamed from Quarto near Genoa, and landed near Marsala on the west coast of Sicily. Garibaldi's army attracted scattered bands of rebels, and the combined forces defeated the opposing army at Calatafimi. On May 14, Garibaldi proclaimed himself dictator of Sicily, in the name of Vittorio Emanuele II.

Six weeks after the surrender of Palermo, Garibaldi attacked Messina. Within a week its citadel surrendered. Having conquered Sicily, Garibaldi proceeded to the mainland, crossing the Straits of Messina. Progressing northward, towards Naples the populace everywhere hailed him and military resistance faded. Meanwhile, the King of Naples retreated, leaving Garibaldi take possession. 

Victor Emmanuel subsequently met with Garibaldi at Teano, receiving from him the control of southern Italy. Another series of plebiscites in the occupied lands resulted in the proclamation of Victor Emmanuel as the first King of Italy by the new Parliament of unified Italy, on March 171861

A uniform nobiliary law under the House of Savoy was enacted in 1926 by Royal Decree no. 1489 dated 16 August 1926 and again in 1943 by Royal Decree no. 651, dated 7 June 1943. The Lateran Treaty of 1929 acknowledged all Papal titles created before that date and undertook to give automatic recognition to titles conferred by the Holy See on Italian citizens in the future. In 1946 Italy was proclaimed a republic

 

PRESENT DAY

 

Since 1975, titles of nobility are no longer recognized in the Republic of Malta by Act 29 of 1975 dated 17 October 1975. 

 

According to The Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana (Golden Book of the Italian Nobility) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libro_d%27Oro which is regularly published by the Collegio Araldico of Rome Joseph Philip Testaferrata Bonnici is registered as holding the title of “Marchese” as granted in 1717. The Libro d'Oro lists most, but not all, of Italy's noble families and their cadet branches. It is not an official publication of the Italian state, which does not recognise titles of nobility or personal coats of arms.

(1) GENEALOGY

The genealogy of the Marchesi Testaferrata is as follows:

Creation (1717) 

·         Mario Testaferrata, 1st Marchese

For full Genealogy please see http://www.maltagenealogy.com/libro%20d'Oro/testaferrata.html

(2) GENEALOGY ACCORDING TO FAMILY COMPACT OF 1772

The genealogy of the parties to the compact are as follows:

Gilberto Testaferrata http://www.maltagenealogy.com/libro%20d'Oro/cassardesain.html and http://www.maltagenealogy.com/libro%20d'Oro/tabria.html

Daniel Testaferrata http://www.maltagenealogy.com/libro%20d'Oro/sanvincenzoferreri1.html and http://www.maltagenealogy.com/libro%20d'Oro/testaferrata.html

Pandolfo Testaferrata http://www.maltagenealogy.com/libro%20d'Oro/testaferrataolivier.html

Asteria Testaferrata D’Amico Inguanez http://www.maltagenealogy.com/libro%20d'Oro/djarilbniet1.html

(3) GENEALOGY ACCORDING TO RULES OF PRIMOGENITURE

·         Mario Testaferrata, 1st Marchese 

·         Enrico Testaferrata de Noto (Mario’s eldest son), 2nd Marchese

·         Daniele Testaferrata de Noto, 3rd Marchese

·         Gregorio Augusto Testaferrata de Noto, 4th Marchese

·         Daniele Testaferrata de Noto, 5th Marchese

·         Emmanuele Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq, 6th Marchese

·         Daniele Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq, 7th Marchese

·         Alfio Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq, 8th Marchese

·         Joseph Philip Testaferrata Bonici, 9th Marchese

For full Genealogy please see http://www.maltagenealogy.com/libro%20d'Oro/testaferrata.html

(4) GENEALOGY ACCORDING TO 1878 ROYAL COMMISSION, IF DISINHERITANCE PROVES VALID

·         Mario Testaferrata, 1st Marchese 

·         Gilberto Testaferrata (Mario’s second son), 2nd Marchese

·         Mario Testaferrata, 3rd Marchese

·         Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani, 4th Marchese

·         Gilberto Testaferrata Viani, 5th Marchese

·         Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani, 6th Marchese

For full Genealogy please see http://www.maltagenealogy.com/libro%20d'Oro/tabria.html

 

REFERENCES

PRIMARY REFERENCES (GRANT/S):

 

(1)         Creation of title of Marchese Testaferrata by Victor-Amadeus, King of Sicily and Duke of Savoy at Chambery (Savoy), on the 13th July 1717 (Official Archives of Kingdom of Sicily Reg. in Regio. Privil. Regn. Sicil., fol. 180, No. 1)

 

 

SECONDARY REFERENCES (HISTORY):

 

(1)         Will of the Marchese Mario Testaferrata opened and published at Palermo, Sicily by notary Dixidomino on the 16th April 1758

(2)         Deed dated 10 September 1772, between members of the Testaferrata family intended to compromise all matters between them. 

(3)         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.): 

(4)         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, AUGUST 1883, PRESENTED TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BY COMMAND OF HER MAJESTY (C-3812) 

(5)         Copies or Extracts of Correspondence with reference to the Maltese Nobility (In continuation of C3812, August 1883), presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty May 1886 (C-4628a) 

(6)         John Montalto, “The Nobles of Malta 1530-1800” (Midsea Books, Malta, 1980)

 

TERTIARY REFERENCES (PUBLISHED GENEALOGY):

 

(1)         Crispo Barbaro "THE NOBLES OF MALTA, AND THE MALTESE GENTRY HOLDING FOREIGN TITLES AS AT PRESENT EXISTING BY GEO. G.C.’A. CRISPO BARBARO MARQUIS OF ST. GEORGE” MALTA:- A.D. MDCCCLXX (THE ANGLO-MALTESE PRESS, MALTA, 1870)" 

(2)         Charles Gauci "THE GENEALOGY AND HERALDRY OF THE NOBLE FAMILIES OF MALTA" (GULF PUBLISHING, MALTA, 1981)"

(3)         Charles Gauci A GUIDE TO THE MALTESE NOBILITY" (PEG PUBLICATIONS, MALTA, 1986)

(4)         Charles Gauci "THE GENEALOGY AND HERALDRY OF THE NOBLE FAMILIES OF MALTA VOLUME TWO " (PEG PUBLICATIONS, MALTA, 1992)

(5)         Charles Gauci "THE GENEALOGY AND HERALDRY OF THE NOBLE FAMILIES OF MALTA VOLUME ONE " (PEG PUBLICATIONS, MALTA, 2002)