The Barony of Djar il-Bniet in Malta, 1350, 1432.
“Una delle piu’ antiche, e principali famiglie Maltesi, e’ stata questa, mentre fin del 1372 si fa’ memoria di Guglielmo Murina, che sia stato Capitano della nostra Citta, & Isola, proveduto, & investito nell’istesso anno dal Re’ Federico Terzo (ritrovandosi allora in Malta) per I suoi fedeli servigi, del feudo di Bucane, con le seguente parole: “Notum fieri volumes universes, praesentibus, & futuris, quod ad humilem supplicationem culmini nostro factam per Guillelmum Murinam de Melivets fidelem nostrum; Considerantes puram fidem, & devotionem sinceram, quas idem Guillelmus erga Celsitudinem nostram semper gessit & gerit, ac grata, & accepta servitia per eum Maiestati nostra collate fidelitate serventi, & viribus indesesis, & c eidem Guillelmo, & suis haeredibus, etc quoddam tenimentum terrarium Curiae nostrae vovatum Bucane, & c sub servitio unius equi alforrati, & c & ex certa nostra scientia duximus cocedendum & c. Dat. In Insula Meliveti anno Domino Incarnationis MCCCLXXII.XII Novembris XI. Ind. Il suo proprio originale fu’ da noi veduto, e letto; benche’ si ritrovi eziando transontato negli’ atti di Gonsalvo Canciur nel 1510, ad istanzia del Barone Giacomo Angaraldo Inguanes, possedendo hoggi il feudo I suoi successori.” (From Abela’s “Della Descrittione di Malta del Commendatore Abela” (1647)).
Last updated: 16-04-2023.
Granted to: Milite Cicco Gatt, Capitano della Verga of Malta, Castellano of Malta.
By: Ludovico, King of Sicily and Malta
On: 4th November 1350 in Messina
With Remainder to: His descendants by feudal tenure (Jure Francorum) in perpetuity.
British Crown Recognition: 1878.
List of Title holders:
1. Milite Cicco Gatto, 1st Barone, (d. 1372), succeeded by his son.
2. Lanza Gatto, 2nd Barone, (d. 1397), succeeded by his son.
3. Francesco Gatto, 3rd Barone, (d. 1442), succeeded by his only illegitimate daughter.
4. Imperia Gatto, 4th Baronessa, (d. 1458), succeeded by her eldest son.
5. Angeraldo Inguanez, 5th Barone, (d. 1472), succeeded by his son.
6. Antonio Angeraldo Inguanez, 6th Barone, (d. 1487), succeeded by his son.
7. Giacomo Angeraldo Inguanez, 7th Barone, (d. 1564), succeeded by his son.
8. Marco Angarao Inguanez, 8th Barone, (d. 1577), succeeded by eldest son.
9. Giacomo Angaro Inguanez, 9th Barone, (d. 1599), succeeded by his brother.
10. Antonio Angeraldo Inguanez, 10th Barone, (d. 1606), succeeded by his younger son, while eldest brother was abroad.
11. Marco Inguanez, 11th Barone, (d. 1611), succeeded by his eldest brother.
12. Alessandro Inguanez, 12th Barone, (d. 1660), succeeded by his son.
13. Marc’Antonio Inguanez, 13th Barone, (d. 1682), succeeded by his only son.
14. Marc’Antonio Inguanez, 14th Barone, (d. 1760). title went into dormancy.
Title went dormant amongst two claimants, the Grand Master later confirmed Gio Francesco d’Amico as the next titleholder, while the illegitimate branch of the direct line continued to style the title till this day. Claimant 1 ;- Direct line of 13th Barone.
15. Contessa Maria Inguanez, (d. 1778), great grand niece of the 14th Barone, 15thde jure Baroness, succeeded by her eldest daughter.
16. Contessa Giacobina Tanti, (d. 1783), 16th de jure Baroness, succeeded by her eldest daughter.
17. Contessa Margherita Spiteri, (d. 1812), 17th de jure Baroness, suceeded by her eldest daughter.
18. Contessa Anna Farrugia, (d. 1846), 18th de jure Baroness, succeeded by her eldest son.
19. Conte Angelo Farrugia, (d. 1898), 19th de jure Barone, succeeded by his eldest daughter.
20. Contessa Maria Ciangura, (d. 1923), 20th de jure Baroness, succeeded by her eldest daughter.
21. Contessa Marianna Bugeja, (d. 1973), 21st de jure Baroness, succeeded by her eldest daughter.
22. Contessa Maria Vassallo, (d. 1991), 22nd de jure Baroness, succeeded by her eldest son.
23. Principe Giuseppe Said, (1949-, 23rd de jure Barone di Djar il-Bniet.
Heir: Conte Charles Said-Vassallo, (1971- Claimant 2 ;- Descendant of the 12th Barone.
15. Gio Francesco d’Amico Inguanez, (d. 1779), first cousin, twice removed, 15th Barone, succeeded by his son.
16. Claudio Emanuele d’Amico Inguanez, (d. 1782), 16th Barone, succeeded by his uncle.
17. Alessandro d’Amico Inguanez, (d. 1802), 17th Barone, succeeded by his son.
18. Vincenzo d’Amico Inguanez, (d. 1850), 18th Barone, succeeded by his sister.
19. Maria Teresa d’Amico Inguanez, (d. 1880), 19th Baroness, succeeded by her grand niece
20. Maria Francesca Carmen Sceberras d’Amico Inguanez, 20th Baroness, (d. 1947), succeeded by her nephew.
21. Alexander Arthur Chesney Sceberras d’Amico-Inguanez, (d. 1960), 21st Baron, succeeded by his sister.
22. Frances Mary Chesney Sceberras d’Amico-Inguanez, (d. 1981), 22nd Baroness, title went into dormancy, later succeeded by Great, great great great grandson of the 17th Barone.
23. Marchese Dr Carmelo Apap Bologna Sceberras d’Amico-Inguanez, (1939-2021), 23rd Barone di Djar il-Bniet, succeeded by his eldest son.
24. Marchese Francesco Apap Bologna, (1963-, 24th Barone di Djar il-Bniet.
Heir: Marchese James Apap Bologna, Baroncino di Djar il-Bniet e Buqana.
Granted to: Milite Antonio Desguanechs sives Inguanez, Capitano della Verga of Malta, Castellano of Malta.
By: Alfsono I, King of Sicily and Malta
On: 4th November 1432 in Messina.
With Remainder to: By marriage to the heiress to the fiefdom, giving equal status to the fief.
British Crown Recognition: 1878.
List of Title holders:
1. Milite Antonio Desguanechs sives Inguanez, 1st Barone, reverted to the original fiefl creation.
Articles relating to this title: 1. Two D’Amico-Inguanez families.
The Maltese fiefdom of Djar il-Bniet e Buqana.
Footnote: The two fiefs of “Diar el Bniet” and of “Buqana” were never granted as titles in the strict sense. However, the holder of these two untitled fiefs (together) was by custom accorded the title of “barone”.
Published sources show these fiefs as having been granted in 1350 in favour of Francesco Gatto and 1404 in favour of Guglielmo Murina, as they in fact were.
However, it appears that the first time “Buqana” was ever referred to as a title was only in 1512 in favour of Giacomo Arginaldo Inguanez, whilst the first time the holder of both fiefs was referred to as a “barone” in a legislative act was in 1725 in favour of the Marc’Antonio Inguanez and his wife the baronessa. This is described in the Commissioners Report which only attributed a date of creation of this title of Diar el-Bniet AND Buqana. (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. 91-96).
The actual report reads as follows:-
“The gentleman who claims the title of barone of the two fiefs of ‘Djar el Bniet’ and of ‘Bucana’ is the ‘barone di Cicciano’ Alessandro Sceberras. The lands of ‘Djar el Bniet’, situated in these islands were first granted to Francesco Gatto and to the heirs of his body by Louis, King of Sicily (House of Aragon), on the 4th January 1350, by a privilegium given at Messina, the fief having reverted to the Crown after it had been held by Michele Bava. The grant was afterwards confirmed in Malta on the 12th November 1372, by King Frederick, brtoehr of the said King Louis, in favour of Lancea Gatto, son of the above-mentioned Francesco, sub militari servitio unius equi alforati curiae nostrae perinde praestando ; and was once more confirmed by King Martin, at Catania, on the 14th February 1397, in favourof another Francesco Gatto, son of the said Lancea, as appears from authentic documents laid before the Commission.
By another privilegium given at Catania on the 15th April 1404, King Martin confirmed in favour of the said milite Francesco Gatto, not only the possession of the fief of ‘Diar el Bniet’, but also that of the fief of ‘Bucana’ which had been conveyed to Gatto, and had been previously by a privilegium given in Malta on the 4th November 1372, assigned by King Frederick to Gugliemo Murina and his descendants sub servitio unius equi alforati curiae nostrae perinde praestando.
Barone Alessandro Sceberras who in the committee list is styled Barone TestaferrataSceberras Damico Inguanez proved his descent from the before-mentioned Francesco Gatto; but he is not the present possessor of the two fiefs in question, the name being actually held by Baronessa Maria Teresa Damico.
With regard to these fiefs, it is to be remarked that the feudatories were bound to render to the lord, personal military service and that, in the diplomas or privilegia, they are styled milites. In an old and highly authoritative work, “La descrizione di Malta del CommendatoreGio Francesco Abela”, written in 1647, the two fiefs of ‘Diar el Bniet’ and ‘Bucana’ are referred to as noble fiefs, with the title of barone annexed thereto. From old memorial accounts it appears that Giacomo Arginaldo Inguanez, who possessed the said two fiefs in 1512, was sent by the Governement of Malta in the capacity of ‘ambasciatore’ (as such agents were then styled) to the court of the Viceroy of Sicily for the object of obtaining certain franchises, on which occasion he was designated as Barone of ‘Bucana’ (vide: Abela, Lib. 4, Notiz. 3 #38).
Although this does not appear to have been expressly granted in the diplomas or Privilegiagiven in 1350 and in 1372, yet there are sufficient grounds for holding that at a later period that title was conferred or recognized, for Grand Master Manoel, on the 30th April 1725, issued a Prammatica or Ordinance, by which in order to remedy abuses and inconveniences, which had for some time prevailed in regard to titles, that Grand Master ordered and commanded that thenceforward no advocate, notary, or attuario should take upon himself to give in any instrument, contract, or other public act drawn up by him, the title of ‘illustrissimo’ or of ‘noblile’ to any of the prince’s vassals, with the exception of the “Capitano della Verga pro tempore, of the two Magistrati of the cities of Valeltta and Notabile, and the ‘Milite barone Marc’Antonio Inguanez our feudatory, and BaronessaInguanez his wife, and their descendants.” Other nobles who will be mentioned hereafter were subsequently excepted form the provisions of the above “Prammatica.”
Barone Marco Antonio Inguanez is the ancestor of Maria Teresa Damico, the present Baronessa. By the foregoing legislative act he, as the holder of the two fiefs in question, and his descendants were recognized by the former Government as barons. Marc’Antonio was moreover thirty-four times between the years 1705 and 1760, appointed Capitano dellaVerga, and always designated as Barone Inguanez.
We are therefore of the opinion that to Maria Teresa Damico belongs the title of “Baronessadi Diar el Bniet” and “Bucana”, and that Alessandro Sceberras, her nephew, cannot at present claim this title. Her name will therefore be included in our list, and the date of creation of her title stated to be the 4th January 1350.
The foregoing reasoning implies that any claim to this title could only be made if based on the tenure of the fiefs of “Diar el Bniet” and “Bucana” (together). This is further reinforced by the fact that unlike what is stated in the report, Marc’Antonio Inguanezdied without issue in 1760 and the fiefs were succeeded by his kinsmen the D’AmicoInguanezes who came to enjoy the title of “barone”.
However, it now appears that in Malta the holding of properties in fief, was subsequently revoked by the DISENTAILMENT OF PROPERTY (EXTENSION TO FIEFS) ACT (ACT XXX of 1969). That ACT makes specific provision nothing therein ‘affects any title of nobility’, thereby ensuring a statutory exception to the automatic extinction of a nobiliary title in the event of an extinction of the fief to which the title refers. Thus the fiefs of “Diar el Bniet” and “Bucana” were extinguished in 1969 and therafter held like any other property.
It now remains debatable whether this title should descend amongst the descendants of the 1969 holder of the aforesaid properties, or whether the title should “follow” the ownership of both of the said properties or either one of them.
* Two D’Amico-Inguanez families.
There were in Malta two distinct branches of the D’Amico-Inguanez family:- Both are now extinct in the male line. The senor line also held two titles of marquis and one of hereditary knight.
There is no record of the D’Amico family in Abela’s Decrittione di Malta. There is a reference in passing at page 303 to Canon Antonino D’Amico of Messina (viv. 1113), but nothing appears to connect to the family being discussed in this section.
Little is known about this family and the book “The Family of Inguanez” (1888) says ‘We are unable to throw any light on the name of the head branch of this family, or of the exact date of its arrival in Malta, as the oldest documents in our possession only date back to the year 1600. From these we gather, that the family established itself here about the middle of the 16th century, was distinguished at that period, and possessed of property in Malta. Some of the earliest of these papers, record marriages at that period, and possessed of property in Malta.”
This family’s landed status is probably indirect. In 1644 the girl Maruzza of the noble Castelletti family and descendant of the older Noto, Surdo and Nava families, married one Claudio d’Amico, hence the surname ‘D’Amico Castelletti’.
The D’Amico family’s nobility was also indirect and occurred after Marco Antonio last Baron Inguanez of the direct line, died at Christmas 1760. Recent research shows his ancestors the families of Inguanez (originally Des Guanechs from Catalunya, Spain) and Gatto were originally involved in piracy.
According to his will drawn up in 1758 by Notary Gio Maria Zammit and published 5 days after the Baron’s death, part of his estate was bequeathed to the D’Amico, Galea and Manduca families. In addition to his own worldly goods, the baron also held the fiefs of Diar el Bniet et Bucana. These fiefs could not form part of his estate and reverted back to the government. However, by January 1763, Gio Francesco D’Amico Castelletti whose paternal grandmother Ersilia Fiott Farrugia was related to the baron by reason of her own mother being the younger sister of the baron’s father (the elder sister’s line becoming extinct in 1746 with the death of the Baron of San Giovanni Raffaele Portelli Abela) successfully proved his right to succeed the two fiefs described as “baronies” of Djar il Bniet and Bucana . Grand Master Pinto ordered his Secreto to relinquish these properties in favour of Gio Francesco, now surnamed D’Amico Inguanez. “Passato a miglior vita il Noble Cavle D. Marco Antonio Inguanez Barone di questi due Feudi senza figli, il Magco e Noble D. Gio Francesco D’Amico Inguanez terzo cugino del defunto Barone, avendo esposto al G. Mro Pinto che giusta le Regie concessioni e Disposizioni de’ suoi antenati si trovava chiamato al possesso della riferire non solo dalle due Baronie mede mappure di altri stabili, e Scritture ad essi riguardanti Supplico l’Altezza Sua che come Principe gliene dasse l’investitura col peso de’ servigj dovuti. Il G. Mro si degn’ su tale importante affare ordino si facesse il processo citato il Segreto dell’ Alt. Sua avanti gli Uditori dai quali riconosciuto vero tutto cio’ che aveva esposto il do Noble D’Amico Inguanez il Gr. Mro ordino al Secreto di rilasciargli il possesso, e frutti raccolti, delli quali il do Secreto aveva provisionalme preso possesso: Ed ottenne l’investitura avendo prestato il Giuramento, sotto le riserve espresso nei Diplomi di di Feudi, e specialme di tenere un cavallo bardato per ciascuno di di Feudi. 20 Gen. 1763: ab Indne fo 282 p. 2.”.
Undoubtedly there the 1763 document confirms the fiefs as baronies. However it is not clear whether Marc’ Antonio Inguanez ever considered his title to refer to these two properties or as the “Baron of Ortigos” in Catalonia (Spain) which is described in the book “The Family of Inguanez” (Malta, 1888) as having been enjoyed by his ancestor Angeraldo Desguanechs.
Gio Francesco D’Amico Inguanez was married to Asteria Testaferrata de Noto daughter of Enrico and Felicita’ of the wealthy Cassar de Saynfamily. Gio Francesco’s marriage was convenient for two reasons, first she provided the necessary funding to fix the palazzo in Mdina. Montalto (1979) reports it had fallen into such a state of disrepair Asteria had to spend a considerable sum of money ‘to render it in some way habitable’having found the palace ‘practically destroyed’. The second reason was because Asteria brought to D’Amico not less than another 3 titles of nobility because by deed made on the 10 September 1772, between members of the Testaferrata family intended to compromise all matters between them it was covenanted:-“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.”
Such was the new prestige of the first line of the D’Amico Inguanez family that in 1765, the princely Pinto who lived to be ninety two agreed to hold the baptism of Baron D’Amico’s son in the Chapel of the Magistral Palace in Valletta. Pinto sent five kaless ; a carriage drawn by two mules, accompanied by four pages and four servants. These brought the D’Amico family to the Palace for the ceremony after which the Grand Master presented the child with a gold cross. Baroness D’Amico was given a ring and a necklace of diamonds, and the boy’s grandmother, Marchioness Testaferrata, received a jeweled pendant. The fact that the Grand Masters sent a carriage drawn by two mules to bring the family to his palace was, in itself, a great honour, since the number of mules, or horses for his carriage was a sign of prestige regulated by custom.
The son Claudio Emanuele was destined to remain an only child and in 1779 he was installed as successor in the baronies of Diar el Bniet and Bucana: “Succeduta la morte del Nobile D. Gio Francesco D’Amico Inguanez, che fu’ possessore delle Baronie di Bucana, e Diarilbniet: Il Gr. Mro concesse l’investitura delle medme al Nobe D. Claudio Emanuele D’Amico Inguanez, unico figlio del dto fu’ Gio: Francesco. V. Boll. 10.Maggio 1779, f. 293”
Claudio Emmanuele died without issue and this line of the D’Amico Inguanez became extinct.
He was succeeded by his father’s brother Alessandro. “Accaduta la morte del rifto Nobe D. Claudio Emanuele D’Amico Inguanez senza figli, ha dato il Gr. Mro ordine, sia spedita la solita Bolla d’investitura delli suindicati Feudi di Bucana, e Diarilbniet in favore del Nobe D. Alessandro D’Amico Inguanez Zio paterno del dto defonto Claudio Emmanuele, ed in seguito il medmo Nobe D. Alessandro fece il solilto giuramento di fedelta’. 24. Novembre 1782, f. 265.”
The second line of the D’Amico Inguanez family is controversial.
It appears this family caused the restored commemorative tablet of the Mdina Gate to read something different to the original. According to “The Family of Inguanez” (1888), King Alfonso “gave permission to have the arms of Inguanez placed on the inner side of the main gate at Notabile, beneath those of the Royal arms, to commemorate Antonio Desguaneck’s having reduced the islands of Malta and Gozo to submit to the House of Aragon. These arms were on the entrance of Notabiel until 1798, when these, together with nearly all other escutcheons, were removed by order of Napoleon, during the French occupation. They have recently been replaced by the descendants of the Inguanez family during the administration of Sir Lintorn Simmons, K.C.B. & G.C.M.G. in 1886.”
However, the restored tablet does not tally with the description provided by Abela (1647) (see below).
When Malta was occupied by the French in 1798, all titles of nobility were abolished and the nobles were ordered to burn their documents on the fete day of the 16th Messidor of the 6th year of the French Republic (14 July 1798). Alessandro now using only his real surname of D’Amico, indicated his willingness to comply but compelled by the consideration the document held by him contained his right to the two fiefs denominated Bucana and Diar el Bniet he asked for an exemption. Permission was granted by Bosredon Ransijat, President on the 13th Thermidore of the 6th year of the French Republic (31 July 1798).
Alessandro died in 1801 and was succeeded in the properties by his son Vincenzo. On the 5th October 1802, Commissioner Alexander Ball invested the widow Maria on behalf of their minor son Vincenzo.
Vincenzo D’Amico Inguanez last male descendant of the D’Amico family died unmarried on the 1 August 1850. He was survived by his elder sisters Maria Teresa, also unmarried. The younger sister Rosalea wife of Pasquale Sceberras (a Lord Lieutenant) died in 1741.
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.
To facilitate the preparation of the report, an “ad hoc” Committee of Nobles was requested to provide a list of claimants. In that list, Alessandro Sceberras Testaferrata is listed with the title of “Barone di Djar el Bmiet et Bucana”. This listing is at variance with that published in 1870 by the Marchese Giorgio Crispo Barbaro in his “Maltese Nobility and the Maltese Gentry holding Foreign Titles” where Teresa Damico Inguanez is described as a Maltese Lady holding the foreign title of “Bucana and Diar el Bniet” created on the 13 November 1372 by King Ferdinand of Sicily.
The Commissioners explained that although the Barone Alessandro Sceberras proved his descent from the before-mentioned Francesco Gatto; they could not accept his claim because he was not the then possessor of the two fiefs in question. The Commissioners noted that in fact the two fiefs were actually held by Baronessa Maria Teresa Damico who was described as a descendant of Marc’ Antonio Inguanez who received recognition in 1725. The Royal Commission therefore concluded that to Maria Teresa Damico belongs the title of “Baronessa di Diar el Bniet” and “Bucana”, and that Alessandro Sceberras, her nephew, could not, at that time, claim this title
There is nothing in the genealogies of the D’Amico Inguanez family to support the view expressed by the 1878 Royal Commission that Maria Teresa Damico was a descendant of Marc’ Antonio Inguanez. As seen above the record of 1763 shows he died without issue.
Maria Teresa last of the direct line of the barons D’Amico Inguanez (line of 1782), died on the 11 November 1880. She was succeeded not by her sister’s son Alessandro Sceberras but by her sister’s 15 year old granddaughter Maria Francesca later married (1890) to Colonel Alexander Chalmers Mc Kean of the 6th Innisklling Dragoon Guards.
Buhagiar and Fiorini (1996) describe the Baroness as a “trailblazer” of tourism. The article in “Malta and Gibraltar” (1915) has photos beckoning the reader to rent rooms at her house.
Buhagiar and Fiorni (1996) also lament the Baroness’s decision to make architectural changes to her properties in Mdina. Interestingly, “Malta and Gibraltar” (1915) shows the “apartment that formed the King’s Bedchamber”. On the other hand the tradition that King Alfonso was entertained in a certain room within the Inguanez palace is dismissed by Buhagiar and Fiorini (1996) as a “recent fabrication”. The photos shown in both publications are similar and probably show the same room.
Technically the D’Amico Inguanez family, as barons, ranked the lowest amongst the local nobility. However, by a general legislation of the 17 March 1795 enacted by Grand Master Rohan-Polduc, holders of titles of nobility were made to rank for the purposes of precedence in appointment to municipal offices (‘giurati’) according to their dates of creation and all the other new creations came to be ranked after the older, “It being a principle universally acknowledged that the lustre of Nobility principally depends on its greater antiquity, nothing is more just and reasonable than that the older Nobles should have precedence over the more recent”.
The legislation clarified that holders of foreign titles could enjoy this precedence only if they effected due registration. At the same time, equal precedence for the same purposes was accorded to the holder of Maltese titles and any descendant from such holder provided he was descended in the male to male line, if he lives on rent of his own property, and this only if his intermediate ancestors had also lived on such rent.
In terms of the 1795 legislation, as lineal male-to-male descendants, all branches, and sub-branches, of the D’Amico Inguanez ranked equally, “in regulating the precedency among the Nobles of this our dominion, whether first-born or cadets indiscriminately”. Therefore in terms of the 1795 legislation, had the Inguanez family not been extinct in the male to male line it would have been entitled to precedence on its own merits because of the grant of Ortigos dating to 1285 and Saccaia dating to 1432.
An attempt – spearheaded by a member of the Barbaro family – to change this rule of precedence to favour the new counts and marquises was defeated by Lord Granville on the 19 May 1886 who ruled that in view of the considerable opposition especially by Maria Francesca Sceberras and the small support which the proposal received, “I have to request that you will inform the Committee of Privileges that I am not prepared to reconsider the decision of Grand Master Rohan.”
According to the 1878 Report, the Commissioners decided to ante-dated the title of Barone di Djar il-Bniet et Bucana to the year 1350. In this way the baroni of Djar il-Bniet et Bucana were ranked before the later creations.
Very strangely, the official lists (after 1878) of titles of Maltese Nobility have no reference to either Inguanez or D’Amico as original barons. This might be explained by the reasoning that following the 1760 reversion and the terms of the 1782 investiture, the correct date for purposes of precedence in male to male descent should be 1763.
The use of the titles of “Most Illustrious” and “Noble” was criminalized in 1725 and the Grand Masters relaxed this rule in favour of only some families. Of all the various enactments between 1725 and 1798 it appears that none favoured any member of the D’Amico Inguanez family to be styled “Most Illustrious” or “Noble”. However, on the 18 June 1884, the Committee of Privileges of the Maltese Nobility requested the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, for permission to allow each ‘titolato’ the use of the style and title of ‘The Most Noble’ explaining that “during the Government of the Order of St. John each and every Titolato in Malta was allowed the style and title of Most Noble or Most Illustrious”. At first this request was resisted by the British Authorities, not because the claim was misleading, but because British law allowed only Princes of the English Blood Royal use the title of “Most Illustrious”. Not wanting to offend what was wrongly perceived as a Maltese custom, a compromise was reached and on the 23 February 1886, Lord Glanville instructed Governor Simmons that:- “I am also to desire you to give directions for the resuming the practice of according to the ‘Titolati’ in all public and official documents and in all communications from officers of the Government their customary titles of ‘Illustrissimo e Nobile’ or the ‘Most Noble’ as suggested in your despatch of the 7th of December, as there can be no good reason for withholding a courtesy the discontinuance of which has been felt to be a grievance.”
Therefore all the ‘titolati’ acknowledged by the British Administration became entitled to the style “The Most Noble”.
An important feature about the “title of Baron of Djar il-Bniet and Buqana” in terms of the 1878 Report is that unlike other titles descendible by primogeniture, it is not a hereditary title but a title personal to the holder of the fiefs known by that name. The Commission categorized “Djar il-Bniet et Buqana” in the third class of fief, which in order to give rise to a title of nobility must satisfy three criteria, namely (1) descent from the original grantee of a simple fief, (2) actual possession of the fief and (3) proof that in the interim period there is a sufficient number of declarations showing that previous holders of that fief is considered to be a baron. Another author, Ruvigny (1909) criticized the Commissioners’ third class because mere tenure does not constitute a privilege of Peerage. He explained whereas land could come into possession of illegitimate children or be willed away, on the other hand the right to title of Nobility could only descend by primogeniture, i.e. under a system of succession identical in principle to that under which the Crown devolves. This criticism is valid there is no evidence the mere feudatories ever enjoyed a title of nobility, the title originating much later after 1350.
In his summation of the Commissioners’ Report, the British Secretary of State wrote that each of the titles considered is either personal to the holder of a fief, or descends in order of primogeniture so as to be held only by the eldest male descendant. Thus, in the case of Djar il-Bniet et Bucana the title is personal to the holder and cannot be regarded transmissible by inheritance if the fief is extinguished. Logically, if either fief were to be lost or sold, then one cannot, anymore, claim to be a baron.
Since 1969, the holding of properties in fief in Malta has been revoked by law. However, provision is made in that law in the sense that nothing therein ‘affects any title of nobility’, thereby ensuring a statutory exception to the automatic extinction of a nobiliary title in the event of an extinction of the fief to which the title refers. Thus although the fiefs of “Diar el Bniet” and “Bucana” were extinguished in 1969 and thereafter held like any other property, the title remained protected. An examination of the genealogy shows that in 1969 the then holder of the fief was Frances Mary Carmen Chesney Sceberras D’Amico Inguanez, (1898-1981) who therefore remained in possession of the personal title by reason of that legal provision.
However, since 1975, Malta has had a law called the Gieh ir-Repubblika Act which provides for the abolition of titles of nobility and the control of honours and decorations. Everyone, it says, is obliged to refrain from recognizing in any way, and from doing anything which could imply recognition of, any title of nobility or honour which is not recognized in accordance with the law.
* Fiefs of Djar el Bniet et Bucana (a.k.a. “Title of Baron of Djar il-Bniet and Buqana”)
HISTORY
The title Barone di Djar il-Bniet et Bucana forms part of the Maltese Nobility. The claim to this title has a two-fold origin, one in a very old fief called “Djar il-Bniet” which was granted on the 4 January 1350, and the other in another fief called “Bucana” which was granted to a different family on the 11 November 1372.
The fief of “Djar il-Bniet” was united by marriage to the other noble fief of “Bucana” and in 1404 the then possessor was invested in both fiefs, hence giving rise to the joint sobriquet. These fiefs are considered as being the basis of the Premier title of the Maltese Nobility. The title is not hereditary, but personal to the possessor of the fiefs.
Some of the holders of Djar il Biet and Bucana were never addressed as Barons during their lifetime, but are nevertheless are counted and numbered as Barons in the genealogy (see link). Other sources may not include some of the Barons listed in the genealogy, and may even consider the Barony to have been created more than once.
Since 1969, succession by fief was abolished in Malta by Act 30 of 1969 dated 21 November, 1969. Provision is made in that law that nothing shall affect any title of nobility, and the laws in force concerning any such titles shall continue to have effect.
Since 1975, a general duty is imposed in the Republic of Malta not to recognize any title of nobility.
ORIGIN AND NATURE OF TITLE
In considering the claim made in regard to the title of Barone di Djar il-Bniet et Bucana, a 19th century Commission found that the lands of “Diar el Bniet”were first granted to Francesco Gatto and the heirs of his body by Louis King of Sicily (House of Aragon) on the 4th January 1350 by a privilegium given at Messina whilst the fief of Bucana had been granted by another privilegium on the 4th November 1372 by King Frederick to Guglielmo Murina and his descendants “sub servitio imius equi alforati curiae nostrae perinde praesando.” Guglielmo (William) Murina had an only daughter Margherita wife of Manfredo Castelli. These in turn also had an only daughter Paola who became the wife of Francesco Gatto who was an agnate grandson of Francesco, senior. By another privilegium given at Catania on the 15th April 1404, King Martin confirmed in favour of Francesco junior, not only the possession of the fief of ‘Diar el Bniet’, but also that of the fief of ‘Bucana’. Paola and Francesco had one daughter Imperia who married Antonio Inguanez. The claims to the title of Baron were made through the Inguanez descendants. In fact the person claiming the title, Alessandro Sceberras is described as a descendant of Francesco Gatto, senior. On the other hand Maria Teresa D’Amico, the person to whom the title was eventually awarded by the Commissioners, is described as a descendant of Marc’ Antonio Inguanez who lived in 1725
The 1350 and 1372 grants read as follows:
LODOVICUS DEI GRATIA REX SICILIAE per praesens Privilegium notum fieri volumes universes tam praesentibus, quam futuris, quod nos considerantes puram fidem et devotionem sinceram quas Ciccus Gattus Castellanus Castri Insulae Meliveti fidelis noster erga Majestatem Nostram gessit, et gerit satis fideliter et devote, nec non grata obsequia per eum Culmini nostro praestita quae praestat ad praesens et praestare poterit in futurum, Domino Concedente, dicto Cicco suisque haeredibus in perpetuum de suo corpore legitime descendentibus quoddam viridarium cum aquis aquarum cursibus spatiis terries cultis et incultis juribus tenimentis, et pertinentiis suis vocatum de Irbniet situm et positum in tenimento Civitatis Meliveti, suis finibus limitatum, quod quidem viridarium olim tenebat, et possidebat quondam Michael Bava habitator Dictae Civitatis fidelis noster, vita sibi comite, post cuius obitum, suorumque haeredum ad manus nostrae Curiae extitit ratio nobiliter devolutum, de speciali gratia, liberalitate mera, et ex certa nostra scientia duximus concedentum fidelitate nostra haeredum, et successorum nostrorum in eodem Regno nostrae Curiae et cuiuslibet alterius juribus simper salvis; in cuius rei testimonium certitudinem, et cautelam praesens Privilegium sibi ex inde fieri, et Majestatis Nostrae Sigillo pendenti jussimus communiri. Datum Messanae per Nobilem Mattheum de Palicio Comitem Nohariae et una cum Sociis Regni Siciliae Vicarium Generalem, ac ejusdem Regni Cancellarium anno Domcae Incarnationis 1350. IV Jan IV Indictionis Regni Nostri Anno Nono feliciter. Amen
FREDERICUS REX DEI GRATIA REX SICILIAE, et Athenarum, et Neopatriae Dux Praesentis particularis scripti serie notum fieri volumus universes et futuris, quod ad humilem supplicationem Culmini Nostro factam per Guillelmum Murinam de Meliveto fidelem Nostrum considerantes puram fidem et devotionem sinceram, quas idem Guillelmus erga celsitudinem nostrum simper gessit, et gerit, ac grata, et accepta servitia per eum Majestati Nostrae collate fidelitate ferventi, et viribus indefessis, quae confert ad praesens et praestare poterit in futurum, concedente Domino gratiare eidem Guillelmo et suis haeredibus de suo corpore legitime descendentibus in perpetuum quoddam tenimentum terrarum nostrae curiae vocatum Bucanae situm, et positum in insula Meliveti prope’ tenimentum haeredum Michaelis de Bernardo, secus terras Fratris Benedicti Camenza via pubblica, et aliis confinibus, cum juribus, limitibus, redditibus, proventibus, et pertinentiis suis omnibus, suo servitio unius equi Alforati Curia nostra provide praestando; quod servitium idem Guillelmus Curiae nostrae per se, et dictos haeredes suos ipsi Curia sponte obtulit praestiturum protestans proinde fidelitatis debitum juramentum, ac faciens minibus, et ore homagium iuxta sacrarum Constitutionum Imperialum Regni nostril continentiam, et tenorem de liberalitate mera largitate munificentia, et speciali gratia, et ex certa nostra scientia duximus concedendum fidelitate nostra, haeredum et successorum nostrorum in eodem Regno nostrae concessionis futuram memoriam et robur perpetuo valiturum praesens patens scriptum fieri proinde, et sigillo pendenti maiestatis nostrae iussimus communiri. Datum in Insula Meliveti Anno Dominicae Incarnationis M.C.C.C. LXXII novembris xj Indictionis.
The Commissioners explained that as a rule there are two classes of fief namely: simple fiefs and noble fiefs and that those of Djar il-Bniet et Bucana fell into the first category. The Commissioners explained that in this first class of fiefs, the feudatories were sometimes styled miles or magnificus but these personal designations conferred no title of nobility descendible to the feudatory’s heirs and successors in the fief.
The Commissioners observed that the original feudatories of the fiefs of Djar el Bniet (1350) and Bucana (1372) were never expressly granted a title of nobility. Technically these fiefs are not “noble fiefs”.
The second class of fief is described by the Commissioners as that to which the dignity of Baron or other title was annexed. Such grants were not unknown to Malta but in terms of the Commissions’ Report, there is not one known instance of a fief based in Malta dating prior to the advent of the Knights in 1530 made out specifically with a title of nobility attached to it. Thus, there is not one title now claimed, which existed in Malta as titles created by grant or patent before 1530. The Commissioners therefore concluded that the fiefs “Djar il-Bniet et Buqana” do not qualify as “noble fiefs”. In effect, this meant that these two fiefs were land possessions without right to any title whatsoever.
However, the Commissioners went on to identify a third class of fief as follows: “In feudal times, however, the possessors of a fief, though not entitled to enjoy the dignity of Baron, commonly styled themselves barons, an appellation which was intended to designate the holder of an estate in fee, and not to confer a particular title of nobility on the descendants of the person who had originally obtained the grant and the feudal investiture.” – The Commissioners continued with the following emphasis:- “But when a fief which, according to the original deed of grant was a simple and untitled fief, and all its successive possessors were acknowledged and styled as barons, in that case, the title and dignity of baron was considered as annexed to the possession of that fief, and inheritable by all the holders of it.”
It is in this third context that the Commissioners considered the complex claim of Alessandro Sceberras to the title of “Diar il Bniet et Bucana”. This claim was rendered complex because that claimant was not the actual possessor of those lands. In fact the Commissioners reported that those lands were held by his aunt Maria Teresa Damico. Instead of dismissing Alessandro’s claim, the Commissioners considered whether Maria Teresa D’Amico would qualify under the third class of fiefs. The Report states the sufficient grounds for holding that the title was conferred or recognized occurred in 1725 when the title was acknowledged in the person of Marc Antonio Inguanez by Grand Master Manoel de Vilhena, who having on the 30 April 1725 issued an order prohibiting the use of the Titles of Illustrissimo and Nobilespecifically exempted Marc’ Antonio referring to him and his wife as Baron and Baroness. Moreover, the Commissioners noted that Marc’ Antonio was 34 times between the years 1705 and 1760, appointed Capitano della Verga, and always designated as Barone Inguanez”. The office of Capitano della Verga was the highest municipal office of Malta and entitled the holder to precedence in terms in the 1739 legislation.
Therefore the criteria for this third class of fief, of which the aforesaid fiefs “Djar il-Bniet et Buqana” form part are three in number, namely (1) descent from the original grantee of a simple fief, (2) actual possession of the fief and (3) proof that in the interim period there is a sufficient number of declarations showing that previous holders of that fief is considered to be a baron. This is weak argument because mere tenure does not constitute a privilege of Peerage. Another author, Ruvigny criticized the Commissioners’ third class explaining that whereas land could come into possession of illegitimate children or be willed away, on the other hand the right to title of Nobility could only descend by primogeniture, i.e. under a system of succession identical in principle to that under which the Crown devolves.
In his summation of the Commissioners’ Report, the British Secretary of State wrote that each of the titles considered is either personal to the holder of a fief, or descends in order of primogeniture so as to be held only by the eldest male descendant. Thus, in the case of Djar il-Bniet et Bucana the title is personal to the holder and cannot be regarded transmissible by inheritance if the fief is extinguished. Logically, if either fief were to be lost or sold, then one cannot, anymore, claim to be a baron.
Recognition by the Government of the Order of Saint John
According to the 1878 Report, the aforesaid enactments and appointments in favour of Maex’ Antonio Inguanez were tantamount to the Government of the Order of Saint John accepting the title of Barone di Djar el Bniet et Bucana as one of the titles forming part of the Nobility in Malta. In effect the Grand Masters upheld the correct view of Peerage law, by practically creating a new title as a recognition of an established custom, in a case were a holder of land by military tenure had vulgarly come to be known as a Baron, and the Sovereigns had been induced to acquiesce. But the Commissioners did not stop there. Ruvigny observes that although according to strict Peerage law, no titles are traceable in Malta created by an existing patent of Nobility previous to the rule of the Grand Masters, titles having their legal foundation in a recognition by the Grand Masters have been ante-dated for purposes of precedency, to coincide with the date of grants of land under a military tenure inferior to baronial tenure. In fact the Commissioners ante-dated the title of Barone di Djar il-Bniet et Bucana to the year 1350.
PRECEDENCE ENJOYED BY THE HOLDER OF THE FIEF/TITLE OF BARONE DI DJAR EL BNIET ET BUCANA
In terms of the general 1739 legislation the Barone Marco Antonio Inguanez, having been a Capitano della Verga for many years, was entitled to precedence over every one else. However that argument is irrelevant here as the issue to be determined is to what precedence an ‘ordinary’ Baron of Djar il-Bniet be entitled.
In terms of legislation, it follows that the direct recognition extended in 1725, albeit unregistered in accordance with 1739 legislation, allowed Marc’ Antonio a right to precedence. In terms of that legislation this precedence was allowed to him as well as to his male-to-male descendants (“Il discendente per linea mascolina”). However, from an examination of the genealogy (see link), Marc’ Antonio died childless and he could in fact not have transferred this right to any descendant.
By virtue of the later general legislation of 1795, the holder of the title of Barone di Djar el Bniet et Bucana and the qualifying agnate descendants are to rank before the holder of any title created after 1725 (year of first recognition) and respective descendants. Therefore, it follows that the Barone di Djar el Bniet et Bucana ranks before the Conte della Bahria (created in 1743), Marchese di Scriop el Hagin (1776) and the Marchese di Ghajn Kajet (1796) even though all the latter titles purport a higher rank. The same position holds in regard to the respective male-to-male descendants. In the context of the 19th century Commissioners’ Report, once the title was ante-dated to the year 1350, the Barone di Djar el Bniet et Bucana does not rank after the earlier titles of Barone di Gomerino (1710) and Barone di Budacco (1716), but before them.
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. A total of 3 general orders were made to this effect. The French in turn lost Malta in 1800 when the Commander in Chief Vaubois surrendered to His Britannic Majesty. On the 30 May 1814 (Treaty of Paris) it was stipulated that the island of Malta and its dependencies belong in full right and sovereignty to his Britannic majesty.
In time, the use of nobiliary titles was resumed. However, it appears that 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. Throughout this period, a group known as the Assembly of Maltese Nobles is known to have functioned at this time but it did not enjoy any official role.
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.
To facilitate the preparation of the report, an “ad hoc” Committee of Nobles was requested to provide a list of claimants. In that list, Alessandro Testaferrata Sceberras Damico Inguanez is listed with the title of “Barone di Djar el Bmiet et Bucana”. This listing is at variance with that published in 1870 by the Marchese Giorgio Crispo Barbaro in his “Maltese Nobility and the Maltese Gentry holding Foreign Titles” where Teresa Damico Inguanez is described as a Maltese Lady holding the foreign title of “Bucana and Diar el Bniet” created on the 13 November 1372 by King Ferdinand of Sicily.
UNSUCCESSFUL CLAIM OF ALESSANDRO SCEBERRAS TO THE FIEF/TITLE OF BARONE DI DJAR EL BNIET ET BUCANA AND AWARD OF TITLE TO MARIA TERESA D’AMICO
The Commissioners explained that although the Barone Alessandro Sceberras proved his descent from the before-mentioned Francesco Gatto; they could not accept his claim because he was not the then possessor of the two fiefs in question.
The Commissioners noted that in fact the two fiefs were actually held by Baronessa Maria Teresa Damico who was described as a descendant of Marc’ Antonio Inguanez who received recognition in 1725.
The Royal Commission therefore concluded that to Maria Teresa Damico belongs the title of “Baronessa di Diar el Bniet” and “Bucana”, and that Alessandro Sceberras, her nephew, could not, at that time, claim this title.
The 1878 Report also describes how Alessandro Sceberras made an unsuccessful claim to the title of Barone della Marsagranted to conferred to Ferdinando Castelletti by Grand Master Manoel de Vilhena by a patent of the 12th June 1725 but was successful in the title of Barone di Ciccianowhich had previously devolved to Fabrizio Testaferrata in 1695.
CONTROVERSIES
The first controversy stems from the fact that Maria Teresa D’Amico is described as a descendant of Marc’ Antonio. It appears that the genealogy of Marc’ Antonio was not considered by the Commissioners. The reasoning of the Royal Commission implies that the basis of the recognition/conferral is only the act of 1725 in favour of Marc’ Antonio Inguanez, the then holder of the fiefs, but it does not follow that the commissioners were correct in awarding the title to Maria Teresa D’Amico in view of the genealogical fact that Marc’Antonio Inguanez died without issue in 1760, thereby rendering it impossible and wrong for the Commissioners to have considered Maria Teresa as a descendant of Marc’ Antonio.
The second controversy refers to the need to establish a valid basis of recognition or conferral some time after 1782. After the death without issue in 1760 of Marc’ Antonio Inguanez, the fiefs of Djar el Bniet and Buqana were invested in the family of D’Amico-Castelletti-Fiott-Farrugia-Inguanez (i.e. the descendants of Pietro D’Amico-Castelletti through his marriage to Ersilea Fiott-Farrugia Inguanez, a descendant of Alessandro Inguanez). This succession was confirmed by judgments of the “Supremo Magistrato di Giustizia di Malta” one of the 4 November 1761 in favour of Gio Francesco D’Amico Inguanez, and another of the 22 November 1782 in favour of Alessandro D’Amico Inguanez. It is also a genealogical fact that Gio Francesco D’Amico Inguanez’s only son died in 1782 without any surviving issue. Therefore on the assumption that Alessandro D’Amico Inguanez did receive, sometime after 1782, a recognition similar to that extended to his kinsman Marc’ Antonio in 1725, only the descendants of Alessandro who are in possession of the fiefs of Djar el Bniet and Buqana are entitled to the personal title of “Baron”.
The third controversy refers to whether this personal title has been rendered transmissible. Since 1969, the holding of properties in fief in Malta has been revoked by law. However, provision is made in that law in the sense that nothing therein ‘affects any title of nobility’, thereby ensuring a statutory exception to the automatic extinction of a nobiliary title in the event of an extinction of the fief to which the title refers. Thus although the fiefs of “Diar el Bniet” and “Bucana” were extinguished in 1969 and thereafter held like any other property, the title remained protected. An examination of the genealogy shows that in 1969 the then holder of the fief was Frances Mary Carmen Chesney Sceberras D’Amico Inguanez, (1898-1981) who therefore remained in possession of the personal title by reason of that legal provision. However, this consideration alone does not render a personal title transmissible to future possessors of the erstwhile fiefs.
A fourth controversy would arise if the third is resolved. If the title is deemed transmissible, a question could arise whether it should descend according to the rule of primogeniture, or whether the personal title should “follow” the ownership of both of the said properties or either one of them
OTHER ENTITLEMENTS
For the purposes of precedence amongst the Nobility in Malta, in terms of the the 1739 and 1795 legislations combined, the holder of the title of Barone di Djar il-Bniet et Bucana would rank according to antiquity of creation and relative registration of this title. The Barone di Djar il- Bniet et Bucana would rank before the holder of Cicciano (1695) because the latter title was first directly recognised only a few months later in 1725. However in view of the fact that the Commissioners ante-dated the title of Barone di Djar il-Bniet et Bucana to the year 1350 which is a year preceding every other title known in Malta, it follows that the holder of that title ranks before all other titles.
The limited use of the title “The Most Illustrious and Noble” was first regulated in Malta in 1725 and was extended by the Grand Masters to only some families, not necessarily titled-families. However, this title was considered unacceptable to the British authorities who opined it could only be borne by Princes of the blood Royal. A compromise was reached allowing the introduction of the style “The Most Noble” on the premise that all title holders were entitled to the title. Thus, as from the year 1886, the holder of the title of Barone di Djar il-Bniet et Bucana became entitled to be styled “The Most Noble”. On the one hand, this was unnecessary in regard to Djar il-Bniet et Bucana because Marc’ Antonio’s descendants were already entitled to the title of “The Most Illustrious and Noble” by reason of the aforesaid decree dated 1725. On the other hand it is a fact that Marc’ Antonio did not have any descendants.
The British Colonial administration also allowed presumed successors of titles of nobility, the diminutive style of the respective titles, in this case Baroncino di Djar il-Bniet et Bucana. But the Colonial administration did not allow any legal right to the use of these styles.
Other descendants of the various holders of this title are by custom entitled to be styled dei Baroni di Djar il-Bniet et Bucana. Again, the Colonial administration did not allow any legal right to the use of this style.
PRESENT DAY
Since 1969, succession by fief was abolished in Malta by Act 30 of 1969 dated 21 November, 1969. Provision is made in that law that nothing shall affect any title of nobility, and the laws in force concerning any such titles shall continue to have effect.
Since 1975, a general duty is imposed in the Republic of Malta not to recognize any title of nobility. (Act 29 of 1975 dated 17 October 1975).
GENEALOGY
For full Genealogy of the Fief holders of Djar il-Bniet et Bucana please see:
http://www.maltagenealogy.com/libro%20d’Oro/djarilbniet.html
and
http://www.maltagenealogy.com/libro%20d’Oro/djarilbniet1.html
REFERENCES
(1) Grant of lands of ‘Djar el Bniet’, situated in the Maltese islands to Francesco Gatto and to the heirs of his body by Louis, King of Sicily (House of Aragon), on the 4th January 1350, by a privilegium given at Messina.
(2) Grant of lands of ‘Bucana’, situated in the Maltese islands to Guglielmo Murina and to the heirs of his body by King Frederick on the 11 November 1372
(3) Enactment by Grand Master Manoel de Vilhena dated 30 April 1725 regulating the use of the Titles of Illustrissimo and Nobile.
OTHER:
Additional Note:- Another present-day claim to this title is based on the premise that Marc’ Antonio Inguanez who died in 1760 should not have been succeeded by Gio Francesco D’Amico because in terms of Francesco Gatto’s will it is stipulated that upon extinction of the male line, the estate would devolve in favour of the closest natural descendants and not to D’Amico who was in a more remote degree.
In time, this claim gave rise to the legend that a curse was put on the descendants of the D’Amico family so that they be deprived of issue.
Something might be made out of the fact that Gio. Francesco’s son as well as his brothers had no ulterior issue of their own, however the curse was not so effective in regard to Gio Francesco’s sisters Rosalea Sceberras and Eugenia Galea.
