Barone (Freiherr) de Pausier, 1768, Conte (Graf) Fournier, 1770.
Last Update: 16-04-2023.
Giorgio Fournier de Pausier applied for a title and that by letters patent bearing date the 31st March 1768, the title of Barone was conferred by Empress Maria Theresa on Giorgio Fournier de Pausier. The patent issued, at the grantee’s request, runs thus:- Te supradictum Georgium Fournier in numerum, consortium, coetum, ordinem, atque Baronum dignatatem assumimus, teque una cum filiis tuis atque posteris virilis sexus, ex legitimo thoro natis atque nascituris in infinitum, primogeniali ordine semper servato, Baronem ac Barones Regnorum et Provinciarum nostrarum facimus, nominamus atque creamus. (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. 205-208). Although published sources refer to this title as Barone de Pausier it is clear that that is a misnomer as the title granted was of Barone and not Barone de Pausier.. However, the accepted form is used here so as to distinguish it from other dignities enjoyed by the grantee’s family. At Maltese Law this title of Barone (de Pausier) 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 Fournier de Pausier in 1768 was never registered in Malta, nor does it appear to have received direct recognition for the Grand Masters who ruled Malta. (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.) Unfortunately, the 1878 report is not helpful in indicating whether Empress Maria Theresa granted this title in her German or Italian provinces, or elsewhere, nor does it indicate the place where the title was applied for, or where it was granted. On the other hand, it is helpful in indicating that the 1768 remainder reads posteris virilis sexus, ex legitimo thoro natis atque nascituris in infinitum, primogeniali ordine semper servato . Upon a further reading of the 1878 report, it results that two years later Giorgio Fournier de Pausier received another title of Conte (see footnotes below) where the grantor is described as the same Empress Maria Theresa, and that that title was granted in the Kingdom and Provinces of Germany. This however is not necessarily conclusive proof of the relative jurisdiction as the 1878 Report also describes yet another title granted by the same Empress in the same year 1770 but in the Italian Provinces annexed to the German Empire. Another title, this time one of Conte was conferred upon the said Giorgio Fournier de Pausier by the same Empress Maria Theresa, by a patent given at Vienna on the 29th January 1770. The grant was made to the said Giorgio Fournier de Pausier, in the Kingdom and Provinces of Germany with succession to his children and descendants of the male sex, whether born or to be born from lawful wedlock, according to the order of primogeniture. The following is the operative clause of the patent of creation:- Teque una cum filiis tuis atque posteris virilis sexus, ex legitimo thoro natis atque nascituris, in infinitum, primogeniali ordine servato, Comitem ac Comites Regnorum et Provinciarum nostrarum, facimus, nominamus atque creamus. (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. 209-215; Suppemental Report Part III; Letter of Hicks-Beach at pages 59-60 of Report). At Maltese Law this title of Conte (Fournier) 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, it appears that the 1770 title granted to Fournier de Pausier was in fact registered in the Cancelleria, and in the High Court of the Castellania. Although published sources refer to this title as Conte Fournier it is clear that that is a misnomer as the title granted was of Conte and not Conte Fournier. However, the accepted form is used here so as to distinguish it from other dignities enjoyed by the grantee’s family. The 1878 Commissioners had difficulty in ascertaining whether the remainder of this 1770 grant, albeit providing for succession by Primogeniture, allowed a male descending from a female descendant of the grantee, to enjoy the title. In fact the 1878 Commissioners never reached a decision about the matter. It appears however that this latter question was resolved by the British Secretary of State.
Granted to: Comte Giorgio Fournier de Pausier, 4th (joint) Comte de Fournier in France.
Title: Freiherr de Pausier
By: Maria Theresa, Empress of Austria, Archduchess of Tuscany.
On: 1768 at Vienna, Austria.
With Remainder to: His male descendants in order of primogeniture.
Granted to: Comte Giorgio Fournier de Pausier, 4th (joint) Comte de Fournier in France.
Title: Graf de Fournier.
By: Maria Theresa, Empress of Austria, Archduchess of Tuscany.
On: 1770 at Vienna, Austria.
With Remainder to: His male descendants in order of primogeniture.
British Crown recognition: 1878, giving further acceptance or recreation in British terms of the title of Count or Earl Fournier.
List of Title holders:
1. Comte Giorgio Fournier de Pausier, 4th Comte de Fournier in France, 1st Freiherr, later 1770 created Graf de Fournier, succeeded by his son.
2. Comte Lazzaro Fournier de Pausier, 5th Comte de Fournier in France, 2nd Freiherr, 2nd Graf, succeeded by his daughter.
3. Comtesse Luigia Fournier Sant, (d. 1858), 3rd Freiin, 3rd Grafin, succeeded by her son.
4. Conte Lazzaro II Sant Fournier, (d. 1898), hereditary Conte Sant, 4th Freiherr, 4th Graf, 1st Count Fournier in the UK ( after the Royal Commission outcomes – see below), succeeded by his son.
5. Conte Alfred Sant Fournier, (d. 1903), hereditary Conte Sant, 5th Freiherr, 5th Graf, 2nd Count Fournier in the UK, succeeded by his son.
6. Conte Edward Sant Fournier, (d. 1951), hereditary Conte Sant, 6th Freiherr, 6th Graf, 3rd Count Fournier in the UK, succeeded by his son.
7. Conte Alfred II Sant Fournier, (d. 1973), hereditary Conte Sant, 7th Freiherr, 7th Graf, 4th Count Fournier in the UK, succeeded by his son.
8. Conte Alfred III Sant Fournier, (d. 2002), hereditary Conte Sant, 8th Freiherr, 8th Graf, 5th Count Fournier in the UK, succeeded by his son.
9. Conte Stephen Sant Fournier, (1965-, hereditary Conte Sant, 9th Freiherr, 9th Graf, 6th Count Fournier in the UK.
Heir to the Fournier titles: Conte Tyler Sant Fournier, (1997-, hereditary Conte Sant, Contino Fournier.
Heir to the de Pausier title Conte Connor Sant Fournier, (1999-, hereditary Conte Sant, Baroncino de Pausier.
Granted to: Conte Lazzaro Sant Fournier.
Title: Earl Fournier
Note: 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.
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. [Link]
By: British Royal Commission
On: 1878 at Valletta.
With Remainder to: His male descendants in order of primogeniture.
British Crown recognition: 1878, giving further acceptance or recreation in British terms of the title of Count or Earl Fournier. Though Maltagenealogy.com clearly assume it was a recreation of nobility title for the senior descendant of Counts Fournier through female descent.
List of Title holders: (as above).
Articles relating to this title:
* The Austrian title of de Fournier.
Footnote: The title of “Conte” conferred by by the same Empress Maria Theresa, by a patent given at Vienna on the 29th January 1770 on the Maltese Citizen, Giorgio Fournier de Pausier did not originate in Malta but in the Kingdom and Provinces of Germany. At Maltese Law it 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.
In this case, the grant relative to “Conte Fournier de Pausier” appears to have been duly registered in the Cancelleria of the Order.
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 regard to the title of “Conte” granted to Fournier de Pausier, an issue arose whether this title is transmissible to a male descendant in the female line according to the rule of primogeniture. At the time of the Royal Commission (1878), this title was claimed by Lazzaro Sant who claimed this title through his mother Luigia, granddaughter of the original grantee. The Commissioners did not pronounce themselves on the matter both in the Original Report and the Supplemental Report. The issue was eventually settled by the British Secretary of State for the Colonies. (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. 209-215; SuppementalReport Part III; Letter of Hicks-Beach at pages 59-60 of Report). ).
The actual report says the following:
“This title, which is likewise claimed by the said Lazzaro Sant, was conferred upon the said Giorgio Fournier de Pausier by the same Empress Maria Theresa, by a patent given at Vienna on the 29th January 1770, which is registered in the Cancelleria, and in the High Court of the Castellania. The grant was made to the said Giorgio Fournier de Pausier, with succession to his children and descendants of the male sex, whether born or to be born from lawful wedlock, according to the order of primogeniture. The following is the operative clause of the patent of creation:- Teque una cum filiis tuis atqueposteris virilis sexus, ex legitimo thoro natis atque nascituris, in infinitum, primogeniali ordine servato, Comitem ac Comites Regnorum et Provinciarum nostrarum, facimus, nominamus atque creamus.”
The foregoing expressions are substantially similar to those contained in another patent which will hereafter be considered, and by which the title of Conte was by the same Empress conferred upon Salvatore Baldassare Sant, in the said year 1770. The patent granted to the Conte S. Baldassare Sant runs thus: -Teque una cumflio tuo primogenitor Joanni Francisco Salvatori, et ab hoc, eodem nascendi ordine, descendentibus virilis sexus ex legitimo thoro natis atque nascituris, in infinitum, Comitem ac Comites nostrarum in Italia Provinciarum facimus, nominamus, atque creamus.
This patent, which is dated the 22nd December 1770, contained the following provision, which is not found in that of the 29th January 1770: “Addentes hanc gratiam speccialem, ut si aliquando stirpem masculinam familiae tuae extingui contingat, Comitis titulus et dignitas ad Primogenitum ex ultimafoemina generic tui superstite natum vel nasciturum, qui gentis tuae cognomen assumit ejusque posteros modo antedicto, servatoque simper ordine primogeniali transeat.
The foregoing clause in the patent of the 22nd December is preceded by the following recital: – Quod cum ita sint, non difficiles aures praebuimus precibus tuis, Nobilis dilecte Nobis Don Balthassar Salvator de Sant, Nobilis Melitensis quibus licet ordine, in numerum Comitum nostrarum in Italia Provinciarum postulas referri, illisque deficientibus, Comitis titulum ad Primogenitum ex ultima foemina superstite nasciturum, hujusque posteris extendi.”
Giorgio Fournier, the person first ennobled, left Lazzaro Sant (n.b. should read “Fournier”), who died without any son to whom the title might descend, but leaving only one daughter, Luigia Sant, the present claimant’s mother.
The Commissioners therefore concluded their Report as follows:
Not being called upon to settle the claims of Lazzaro Sant, we have thought it our duty to submit the above two extracts from the patents of the 29th January 1770 and the 29th December 1770 (n.b. should read 22nd December 1770) for the consideration of Her Majesty’s Secretary of State, to whom the decision must be left as to whether Lazzaro Sant, who descends from the grantee’s grand-daughter, is entitled to the enjoyment of the dignity conferred upon the male descendants of Giorgio Fournier de Pausier, under the rule of primogeniture.
This question having been reserved to the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Commissioners did not include the claimant’s name in the list. The Secretary of State for the Colonies then wrote to Governor Straubanzee to ask the Commissioners to address this issue.
However, in their Supplemental Report, the Commissioners remained reluctant to decide the issue:
The title of Conte was, as already adverted to in our former Report (#205) (n.b. should read “#209” because #205 refers to the title of Barone), bestowed on Giorgio Fournier de Pausier, by Empress Maria Theresa, by a charter issued on the 29th January 1770. The granting clause of the imperial charter runs thus:- Teque una cum filiis tuis atque posteris virilis sexus, ex legitimo thoro natis atque nascituris, in infinitum, primogeniali ordine servato, Comitem ac (n.b. In original report, this reads “et” instead of “ac”) Comites Regnorum et Provinciarum nostrarum, facimus, nominamus atquecreamus.
The first titled person Giorgio Fournier had no male issue, but left one daughter, Luigia wife of Baldassare Sant, of whom Lazzaro Sant, the present claimant, is the first-born son. The question which arises out of his claim, is whether he may, under the charter issued by the Empress of Germany, enjoy a title granted to the grantee’s descendants of the male sex, according to the order of primogeniture.
If this title had been created by a local sovereign, the question would present but little difficulty. It has already been observed that, looking to the principles of law prevalent in these islands, the sons of daughters are called to the succession to lands, and consequently to a title granted to the male descendants of a person without limitation. But in the present case, the claim must be considered under the German Feudal Law in force at the time of the issuing of the patent of this title.
Diligent as our researches have been we did not succeed in ascertaining what were the legal effects of a grant issued in Austria towards the close of the last century and limited to the male descendants of a person. With our inadequate information we do not feel justified in expressing any opinion on this point. We must not, however, omit to remark that in the same year in which the present title was granted, the said Empress Maria Theresa issued another charter conferring on Salvatore Baldassare Sant the title of Conte. The operative clause of the latter charter, as may be seen on reference to #211 of our former Report, appears to be (with some exceptions noticed hereafter) equipollent to that contained in the patent of Giorgio Fournier. In the patent of the Conte Sant, however, the following clause occurs: –
Addentes hanc gratiam specialem ut si aliquando stirpem masculinam familiae tuae extingui contingant, comitis titulis ed dignitas ad primogenitum ex ultima foemina generis tui superstite natum vel nasciturum, qui gentis tuae cognomen assumit, ejusque posteros modo antedicto, servatoque simper ordine primogeniali, transeat.
That clause proving that on the failure of the grantee’s male line, the son of the surviving female descendant should succeed to the title, is not to be found in the diploma issued in favour of Giorgio Fournier. It may, consequently, be that the will and intendment of the grantor was to limit the succession to the title originally conferred on Giorgio Fournier to his male descendants belonging to his male line.
The two said patents, however, differ in some respects. That of Giorgio Fournier grants the title of Conte in the Kingdom and Provinces of Germany; and the other of Salvatore Baldassare Sant confers a similar title in the Italian Provinces annexed to the German Empire. In the latter grant, a condition is attached by which the grantee is required to purchase a fief in Lombardy, a condition which does not appear in the patent granted to Giorgio Fournier.
We are unable to determine whether such differences can legally have any influence respecting the succession of the sons of female descendants to the title under consideration; we are, therefore, of opinion that the present claim may be more satisfactorily settled by a reference to more competent persons fully acquainted with the laws and statutes in force in the German Empire and its Italian dependencies, in or about the year 1770. Consequently we think ourselves justified in refraining from expressing an opinion as regards the claim of the said Lazzaro Sant to the abovementioned title.
The British Secretary of State for the Colonies settled the issue as follows: 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 Letter of Hicks-Beach at pages 59-60).
The third question is as to the claim preferred by Lazzaro Sant Fournier to the title of “Conte” granted by Empress Maria Theresa to Giorgio Fournier de Pausier upon the 29th of January 1770 (par. 209-214; supplemental report, par. 14-21). In this case, if the patent had issued in Malta or in Sicily, I gather than the claim would have been allowed under the rules of feudal law recognized in those States, and therefore without offering any opinion as to the strict legal effect which would be given to the patent at Vienna, and without prejudice to any future legal decision upon its meaning, should it ever be called in question in a court of law, I feel that I may reasonably permit the claimant 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
In this way, the title has been deemed transmissible according to the rules of primogeniture.
The Austrian title of de Pausier.
Footnote: The title of “barone” was granted by Empress Maria Theresa to the Maltese citizen Giorgio Fournier de Pausier.
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 granted to Fou8rnier de Pausier was never registered in Malta, nor does it appear to have received direct recognition for the Grand Masters who ruled Malta. (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. 205-208)
The actual report says the following:
By letters patent bearing date the 31st March 1768, the above title was conferred by Empress Maria Theresa on Giorgio Fournier de Pausier. The patent issued, at the grantees request, runs thus:- “Te supradictum Georgium Fournier in numerum, consortium, coetum, ordinem,atque Baronum dignatatem assumimus, teque una cum filiis tuis atque posteris virilis sexus, ex legitimo thoro natis atque nascituris in infinitum, primogeniali ordine simper servato, Baronem ac Barones Regnorum et Provinciarum nostrarum facimus, nominamus atquecreamus.”
The original patent of creation has been produced by Lazzaro Sant Fournier, who claims this title as the first-born descendant in the grantee’s primogenial line. It is, however, to be observed that he descends through Luigia Fournier his mother, wife of Baldassare Sant, and grand-daughter of the first titled person.
This patent is not among the records of the Government Cancelleria, or of the High Court della Castellania; although in the diploma whereby the title of Conte was granted by the same Empress to the said Giorgio Fournier (see next Chapter IX), and duly registered the present title is referred to as having been granted by that Empress to the above-mentioned Fournier.
No proof having been made of the recognition of this title on the part of the Grand Masters, which might have supplied the want of its registration, the claim of Lazzaro Sant to the title of Barone must necessarily be disallowed.
Thus in accordance with the rule cited above, although the title is valid, it does not enjoy precedence in Malta. It is to be remarked however, that the aforesaid Giorgio Fournier de Pausier was in receipt of another title discussed elsewhere, namely that of “Conte”.
* Questions on the title of Count Fournier.
Ruvigny, an eminent early 20th century authority on nobility, appears dissatisfied in his entry on the title of Conte Fournier.
The title of “Count of Pausier” or “Graf von Pausier” was created in Germany on the 29 January 1770 in favour of Giorgio Fournier by Empress Maria Teresa with remainder to his descendants of the male sex in the order of primogeniture.
He notes that this comital title was registered as a foreign title in Malta. In fact he classified this title as one of the ‘foreign titles incorporated in the Maltese Peerage’.
Ruvigny notes that the 2nd Conte was Lazzaro who died s(sine) p(prole) (m) maschio when the male issue of the grantee became extinct. But Ruvigny observes that the title was allowed to Lazzaro Sant, as son and heir of Count Baldassare Sant by Aloysia, only daughter and heir of the 2nd Count.
“It is difficult”, he writes, “to understand why this title was recognized, for unlike that of Count Sant, which was granted the same year, it is expressly limited to the heirs male of the grantee.”
It is the succession in favour of a descendant in the female line, not the recognition that Ruvigny appears to be objecting. He added a further note:
“However, the then Secretary of State wrote 30 April 1878: ‘In this case, if the patent had issued in Malta or in Sicily, I gather that the claim would have been allowed under the rules of feudal law recognized in those States, and therefore, without offering any opinion as to the strict legal effect which would be given to the patent at Vienna, and without prejudice to any future legal decision upon its meaning should it ever be called into question in a Court of Law, I feel that I may reasonably permit the claimant and his successors, for the purposes 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.’”
So, is the title of Count Fournier extinct? Was it perpetuated by a British Secretary of State?
Ruvigny appears to have missed the main position of the Secretary of State. The main position was that “no public officer, not even a Secretary of State, has the power of conferring titles of honour, for which the personal sanction of Her Majesty in each case is necessary; and even assuming that such acts to have been done by British officials with full knowledge that the titles were non-existent, their want of power would prevent these acts of supposed recognition form having the slightest effect.”
In the case of the title of the title of Conte Fournier, succession of that title was never allowed, or denied, in favour of a descendant in the female line of the grantee (the claimant Lazzaro Sant Fournier) by the Royal Commissioners in either their original or supplemental report which preceded the ruling of the Secretary of State.
All that the British Secretary of State did was to allow mere precedence to Lazzaro Sant Fournier allowing him to take the place to which he would be entitled under the principles of legal interpretation applicable to the grant as if it had emanated in 1770 from the Sicilian or Maltese Sovereign authority.
The Secretary of State appears to have known full-well the limitations of his authority and cannot be accused of meddling with the succession of the title. He could not have perpetuated the title.
The question whether the title became extinct upon the death of the 2nd Conte s.p.m., remains unanswered. Arguably, Ruvigny would have opined that extinction occurred when the male issue of the grantee became extinct. However, one cannot help noting that at the time of writing Ruvigny himself noted that the title was held by a 5th holder, albeit in the female line.
It appears – although it doesn’t result from Ruvigny’s commentary – that the title must have been renewed at some point in time. Most certainly this was not done by the British Secretary of State.
There is the ‘fall back’ argument of prescriptive title, whereby a person could claim a right by reason of uninterrupted possession over a prolonged period of time. In Malta this rule may apply with the lapse of 30 or 40 years. However, if that argument would be invoked it could no longer be said that the title originated in 1770 but at later time (probably 30/40 years after 1878, which is the year when the Secretary of State gave his ruling).
1. Reference value of 19th century reports on circumstances and grant.
2. [Correspondence and Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the claims of the Maltese nobility [Link], VIII, IX.
