Conte’s di Casandola, 1685.
The title of Conte di Cassandola appears to have been granted by Charles II, King of Spain and Sicily on the 6th January 1685. At Maltese Law this title is only a foreign title and, as such, it can be considered for the purposes of precedence in Malta only if registration or Magistral recognition has been achieved in accordance with the rules of 1739 and 1795 as enacted by Grand Masters Despuig and Rohan. In this case, this title granted to Stagno was never registered in Malta, nor does it appear to have received direct recognition for the Grand Masters who ruled Malta. Moreover in 1878, no proof whatsoever was given of its existence was provided to the Commissioners. (See:- 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.) (See Report Paras. 35-36). This does not render the title invalid but in accordance with the rule cited above, although the title may be valid, it does not enjoy precedence in Malta.
Granted to: Don Giuseppe Stagno, Patrizio Messina.
By: Charles II, King of Sicily.
On: 1685 Palermo, Sicily.
With Remainder to: In terms of the Statuto delle succesioni ai titoli e agli attrbuti nobiliari (Regio Decreto 16 agosto 1926, n. 1489 article 1 reads Alle antiche disposizioni che con norme diverse, nelle singoli regioni d’ Italia, regolana tutt’ ora l’ordine delle successioni, riguardo ai titoli ed attributi nobiliari concessi dai Sovrani degli antichi Stati, prima della unificazione politica, sono surrogate le disposizioni seguenti (etc). In addition article 12 of the same Statuto reads: Le disposizioni e le consuetudini riflettenti la successione nei titoli di nobilta’, contrarie alla presemti disposizioni, sono abrogate. Article 2 reads: Le successione nei titoli nobiliari e anessi predicate ha luogo a favore dell’ agnazione maschile dell’ ultimo investito per ordine di primogenitura, senza limitazione di gradi, con preferenza della linea sul grado. I chiamati alla successione devono descendere per maschi dallo stipite comune, primo investito del titolo. I titoli non si trasmettono alle femmine, ne per linea femminile, salvo quanto dispone il primo capoverso dell’ art. 4 . The latter capoverso reads Quelli concessi, oltre che tutti I maschi, anche alle femmine, spettano allo medesime solo durante lo stato nubile e non danno luogo a successione. Article 5 reads: I titoli provenienti da femmine, che, alla entrata in vigore delli presenti disposizioni sono legittimamente pervenuti alla lora discendenza maschile, continuano aa devolversi alla medesima discendenza, secondo le norme stabilite nel’ art. 2. Estinte le linee maschili, aventi per stipite comune la femmina intestataria del titolo, questo con gli annessi predicati ritorna, preview patenti di Regio assenso, all’ agnazione maschile della famiglia, alla quale apparteneva nel giorno della promulgazione delle leggi abolitive della feudalita’ osservate le norme stabilite nell’ art. 2. Some time later in 1943, further Italian legislation was enacted. In terms of the Ordinamento dello Stato nobiliare italiano (Regio Decreto 7 giugno 1943, n.651) article 40 reads: Le successioni dei titoli, predicate e attribute nobiliari hanno luogo a favore della agnazione maschile dell’ ultimo investito, per ordine di primogenitura senza limitazione di gradi con preferenza della linea sul grado. I chiamati alla successione debono discendere per maschi dallo stipite commune, primo investito del titolo. I titoli, I predicate e gli attributi nobbiliari non si trasmettono per linea femminile, salvo quanto dispone il primo capoverso dell art. 45 The latter capoverso reads : Estinte le linee maschili, aventi per stipite, comune la femmina intestataria del titolo, questo con gli annessi predicate ritorna, previe Lettere Patenti di Regio Assenso, all’ agnazione maschile della famiglia alla quale apparteneva nel giorno della promulgazione delli leggi abolitive della feudalita osservate le norme stabilite dall’ art. 40.
List of Title holders:
1. Don Giuseppe Stagno e Messina, 1st Conte, succeeded by his son.
2. Don Antonio Stagno e Porzia, (c. 1702), 2nd Conte, succeeded by his son.
3. Don Giuseppe II Stagno e Marchesi, (c.1725), 3rd Conte, succeeded by his son.
4. Don Antonio II Stagno e Calamara, (c. 1725), 4th Conte, succeeded by his son.
5. Don Giuseppe III Stagno e Muscati Navarra, 3rd Conte di Bahria, 5th Conte, succeeded by his son.
6. Don Antonio III Stagno Navarra e Ruffo di Floresta, (d. 1881), 4th Conte di Bahria, 6th Conte, succeeded by his son.
7. Don Giuseppe IV Stagno Navarra e Marino Alliata, (d. 1908), 5th Conte di Bahria, 7th Conte, succeeded by his nephew.
8. Don Raimondo dei Marchesi Palermo Navarra, (d. 1913), 6th Conte di Bahria, 8th Conte, succceeded by his son.
9. Don Francesco dei Marchesi Paleermo Navarra, (d. 1962), 7th Conte di Bahria, 9th Conte, succeeded by his kinsman.
10. Don Major Penns Unwin Stagno Navarra, (d. 1963), 10th Conte, succeeded by his son.
11. Don Robert Stagno Navarra, (1941-, 11th Conte.
Heir: Don Robert Bradley Stagno Navarra, (1965-, Contino di Casandola.
Articles relating to this title:
The Sicilian title of Casandola.
Footnote: The title of “Conte di Casandola” appears to have been granted by Charles II, King of Spain and Sicily on the 6th January 1685. His descendant, a Sicilian of Maltese descent, claimed this title in 1878.
At Maltese Law this title is only a foreign title and, as such, it can be considered for the purposes of precedence if registration or Magistral recognition has been achieved in accordance with the rules of 1739 and 1795 as enacted by Grand Masters Despuig and Rohan.
VALUE OF REGISTRATION/MAGISTRAL RECOGNITION From the records of the Cancelleria it appeared that the titles so granted were registered in virtue of a rescript from the Grand Master, on an application by the party concerned. The Royal Commissioners of 1878 remarked that they were prone to believe that the Grand Master would not have given his assent to registration without any investigation. From the start, however, the Commissioners pointed out that the Despuig/Rohan Rules on the matter did not deny nobility to a Titolato who failed to duly register his title, but only assigned him no place insofar as precedence was concerned. (See:- “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.) (See Report Paras. 101-102). It is also noteworthy that the Commissioners did not consider all the titles which were registered in the Cancelleria: For example the title of Conte granted to Baldassare Fenech Bonnici on the 11 June 1798 by Pope Benedict XIV, which was duly registered under Archives of the Order of Malta (554, f. 176) as well as the Archives of the Inquisition of Malta (102m f. 32) was not considered by the Report. It appears that no descendant of this grantee made any claim to the Commissioners.
In this case, this title was never registered in Malta, nor does it appear to have received direct recognition for the Grand Masters who ruled Malta. In addition, no supporting document was presented to the Royal Commission (See:- “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.) (See Report Paras. 35-36)
Thus in accordance with the rule cited above, although the title of “Conte di Casndola” may be valid in a different jurisdiction, it does not enjoy precedence in Malta.
The actual report says the following:
“The claimant (Antonio Stagno Navarra Muscati, who resides at Messina) in the committee list is also styled “Patrizio Messinese” and “Conte di Casandola”, which latter title is presumed to have been granted by Charles II, King of Spain and Sicily, on the 6th January 1685. The date of the title of “Patrizio Messinese” is not specified in the list, and no proof of the existence of either of these titles having been made by the Procurator of Conte Stagno, we must conclude that the claimant has failed to establish his right to those dignities.”