Conte’s di Mont’Alto, 1720, Conte Manduca 1776.
Last Update: 16-04-2023.
The title of Conte di Mont Alto in the Duchy of Parma, was, together with the fief of Monte Alto, conferred at the grantee’s request, by Francis I (Farnese), Duke of Parma, upon Bernardo Piscopo, by a Rescript given at Piacenza on the 8th July 1720.)The grantee did not have any (legitimate) issue, so he made another request to the Duke of Parma, in order that he be granted “the power of disposing of the fief in favour of Felice Manduca Piscopo, his grand-nephew, or of one of the brothers of the said Felice, and so in favour of such of them as Bernardo might designate his heir, and of his legitimate and natural male children and descendants from a real and lawful wedlock issuing in infinitum, according to the order of primogeniture, or in such any other manner as petitioner might prefer to dispose thereof, so that in case he should die without issue as aforesaid, the above-mentioned fief, with the title of Count, with its jurisdictions, power of the sword, and its merum and mixtum imperium ..should be vested in the aforesaid Manduca, or in such of his brothers as the petitioner might nominate to be his heir, in the same manner and form as if the latter were expressly included and designated in the said grant and investiture, and this (he requested) in order that in the family of his said grand-nephews, that is of such of them as might be his heir, the glorious token of a perpetual vassalage to the Most Serene dynasty of your Highness might always be preserved in its lustre”. 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.) The grant of the title and the fief was registered on the 2 September 1721 (Ref. AOM 525, f. 111r-112r).
As seen above the title of Conte di Mont’ Alto as extended in 1724, became extinct in 1775. However at the time of the 1878 Commission, Monsignor Salvatore Manduca Piscopo Macedonia, claimed that same grant was again ‘extended’, this time by another rescript dated 28 December 1776, in favour of Salvatore Manduca, his grand-father, and of the grantee’s male issue. . 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.) (Para. 188) . Unfortunately for the Monsignor, his representative failed to produce an authentic documentation and the Commissioners, feeling pressed to get on with their work, did not think it advisable to delay further the presentation of their Report. In doing so, they did not fail to observe as follows: The present title (if taken to have ever existed) was never registered in Malta, nor has the claimant produced any proof of its having ever been recognized by the Grand Masters of the Order of St. John. We must not, however, omit to state that on inspecting the Minute Book in which the appointment of the jurats was entered during the Government of the Order, we noticed that Salvatore Manduca was in the year 1797-1798 appointed jurat for Notabile and styled ‘Conte’. We can, however, give no importance to this circumstance in the absence of an authentic copy of the patent of creation of this title; and we beg to add that although the above-named Francesco Manduca had declared himself ready to bring over from Parma some authentic documents, we did not think it advisable to delay further the presentation of our Report. As matters now stand, we cannot include Monsignor Manduca in our list of Titolati. It is, however, to be understood that the claimant is by no means precluded from producing at any future time further evidence of the existence and recognition of this title, in which case his claim, must in our opinion, be reconsidered.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.) (Para. 188) .
It should be recalled that at Maltese Law this title ‘granted’ in 1776 would only qualify as 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 supposedly granted or extended in favour of Salvatore Manduca 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.). This consideration does not render the title invalid (assuming the claim is substantiated) but in accordance with the rule cited above, it does not enjoy precedence in Malta.
In any event the 1776 grant could not have been issued by a Duke Farnese of Parma as the last Duke Antonio, who succeeded the Duke Francis/Francesco (grantor of the extinct 1720 title), died without issue on 20 June 1731 and that Duchy was in accordance with the Treaty of London of 1718 succeeded by the descendants of their aunt Elisabetta (Carlos Borbone). In the acts relative to the 1744 registration Felice Manduca, describing himself as “humble servant and vassal” applied to the Grand Master to register the succession of the title of Count of Mont’ Alto. The applicant explained that he had succeeded Bernardo in the antique comital fief of Mont’ Alto in the State of Parma, and that this succession had been accepted by an act of the year 1739 by the Duke of Parma and another of the year 1741 by the King of Hungary, who was the actual sovereign of the said State of Parma. He went on to explain that he was desirous to register the documents in the Cancellaria where the original patent was already registered. The applicant undertook to meet all the usual obligations necessary to register similar successions. The applicant therefore requested the Grand Master to allow the registration of the documents in the Cancellaria, ordering that the originals be returned. On the 14th July 1744 Grand Master Pinto ordered that the documents be registered.
Granted to: Dr Bernardo Piscopo Macedonia JUD.
Title: Conte di Mont’Alto.
By: Francis I Farnese, Sovereign Reigning Duke of Parma.
On: 1720 at Piacenza, Duchy of Parma, Italy.
With Remainder to: The title of Conte di Mont Alto in the Duchy of Parma, was, together with the fief of Monte Alto, conferred at the grantee’s request, by Francis I (Farnese), Duke of Parma, upon Bernardo Piscopo, by a Rescript given at Piacenza on the 8th July 1720.)The grantee did not have any (legitimate) issue, so he made another request to the Duke of Parma, in order that he be granted “the power of disposing of the fief in favour of Felice Manduca Piscopo, his grand-nephew, or of one of the brothers of the said Felice, and so in favour of such of them as Bernardo might designate his heir, and of his legitimate and natural male children and descendants from a real and lawful wedlock issuing in infinitum, according to the order of primogeniture, or in such any other manner as petitioner might prefer to dispose thereof, so that in case he should die without issue as aforesaid, the above-mentioned fief, with the title of Count, with its jurisdictions, power of the sword, and its merum and mixtum imperium ..should be vested in the aforesaid Manduca, or in such of his brothers as the petitioner might nominate to be his heir, in the same manner and form as if the latter were expressly included and designated in the said grant and investiture, and this (he requested) in order that in the family of his said grand-nephews, that is of such of them as might be his heir, the glorious token of a perpetual vassalage to the Most Serene dynasty of your Highness might always be preserved in its lustre”.
1724 and 1725, Bernardo nominiated his eldest grandnephew, Felice Manduca Piscopo to succeed him, Felice, the 2nd Conte died in 1775, leaving no male issue. However, his brother, Salvatore Manduca Piscopo, petitioned Ferdinand I, Duke of Parma for permission to succeed the title. A rescript was issued granting this request on 1776. Since then, the title has descended through the male line according to primogeniture.
List of Title holders:
1. Dr Bernardo Piscopo Macedonia JUD, (d. 1725), 1st Conte, succeeded by his grand nephew by approval in 1724.
2. Nobile Felice Manduca Piscopo Macedonio, Hereditary Knight of the Holy Roman Empire, (d. 1775), 2nd Conte, extinct.
Granted to: Nobile Salvatore Manduca Piscopo, Capitano della Verga of Malta, Hereditary Knight of the Holy Roman Empire.
Title: Conte Manduca.
By: Ferdinand I, Reigning Duke of Parma.
On: 1776 at Piacenza. Duchy of Parma, Italy.
With Remainder: To his male descendants by primogenitura.
British Crown recognition: 1879.
List of Title holders:
1. Don Salvatore Manduca Piscopo Macedonia, (d. 1800), Capitano della Verga of Malta, Hereditary Knight of the Holy Roman Empire, 1st (3rd) Conte, succeeded by his son.
2. Don Sir Vincenzo Manduca Piscopo Macedonia, KCMG, (d. 1865), Hereditary Knight of the Holy Roman Empire, 2nd (4th) Conte, succeeded by his nephew.
3. Don Rev Mgr Salvatore Manduca Piscopo Macedonia, Domestic Prelate to the Pope and Apostolic Pronotary, (d. 1885), Hereditary Knight of the Holy Roman Empire, 3rd (5th) Conte, succeeded by his nephew.
4. Don Francesco Manduca Piscopo Macedonia, (d. 1916), Hereditary Knight of the Holy Roman Empire, 4th (6th) Conte, succeeded by his son.
5. Don Bernardo Manduca Piscopo Macedonia, (d. 1972), Hereditary Knight of the Holy Roman Empire, 5th (7th) Conte, succeeded by his nephew.
6. Don Francis Manduca Piscopo Macedonia, (d. 1993), Hereditary Knight of the Holy Roman Empire, 6th (8th) Conte, succeeded by his son.
7. Don Alfred Manduca Piscopo Macedonia, (1958-, Hereditary Knight of the Holy Roman Empire, 7th (9th) Conte.
Heir: Don Joseph Bernard Manduca Piscopo Macedonia, (1959-, Contino di Mont’Alto alis Manduca.
General Heir: Don Christian Manduca.
Articles relating to this title:
The Italian title of Mont’Alto.
Footnote: The title of “Conte di Mont’Alto” in the Duchy of Parma, was, together with the fief of Monte Alto, conferred at Piacenza on the 8th July 1720 at the request of the grantee, the Maltese Citizen Bernardo Piscopo, by Francis I (Farnese), Duke of Parma.
This title did not originate in Malta but in Parma. At Maltese Law it is only a foreign title and, as such, it can be considered for the purposes of precedence 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, the said title is clearly older than the aforesaid rules. However from a diligent reading of the Commissioners Report there is no reference to either a recognition by the Grand Masters nor to any registration of this title. In any event, this grant is detailed in the Commissioners Report. (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. 176-191)).
It is to be remarked that in the general part of the Report that (like most of the titles granted by the Grand Masters), the foreign titles considered by the Commissioners were observed to be purely nominal, not feudal, and that the mere attachment of peculiar designations such as “diSan Vincenzo Ferreri” and “di San Paolino” did not render such titles feudal. The Commissioners did however point out that this was not the case in regard to the title under discussion (Mont’Alto) and that discussed elsewhere (Castel Cicciano) (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 Para. 241)).
The Commissioners carried out a very detailed analysis of this title, the fief and the remainder and concluded that the title of Conte di Mont’Alto as granted in 1720 became extinct in 1775 and accordingly dismissed the claim of the then claimant Monsignor Manduca PiscopoMacedonia .
However, the Monsignor was at the same time claiming another title of “Conte” namely one presumed to have been granted in 1776 to Salvatore Manduca by Ferdinand I, Duke of Parma. This second title was likewise not registered nor was there any proof of recognition by the Grand Masters. The Commissioners did not pronounce themselves on the latter title, because, as explained by them, the Monsignor had yet to present some more documents to substantiate his (second) claim both in so far as its existence as also insofar far of proof of recognition by the Grand Master.
Some published sources indicate both titles as being one and the same, which of course they are not. However, it is worth noting that this confusion is probably due to the mistake of the British Secretary of State for the Colonies who in assessing the Report (which clearly states that the title of Mont’Alto is extinct) that “If Monsignor Salvatore Manduca Piscopo Macedonia succeeds in substantiating his claim to be Conte di Mont’Alto, the title should of course be added to the list”. (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. 176-191; 218-222 and letter dated 30 April 1878 to Governor van Straubanzee, the Secretary of State for the Colonies Hicks-Beach (Report page 59-60))
The full texts relative to both titles reads as follows:
The title of “Conte di Mont’Alto” in the Duchy of Parma, which is claimed by Monsignor Salvatore Manduca Piscopo Macedonia, was, together with the fief of Monte Alto, conferred at the grantee’s request, by Francis I (Farnese), Duke of Parma, upon Bernardo Piscopo, by a Rescript given at Piacenzaon the 8th July 1720.
Subsequently to the grant, the said Bernardo having no issue, in a petition addressed to the Duke of Parma, represented (translated from the Italian): that he was desirous of obtaining the power of disposing of the fief in favour of Felice Manduca Piscopo, his grand-nephew, or of one of the brothers of the said Felice, and so in favour of such of them as the petitioner (Bernardo) might designate his heir, and of his legitimate and natural male children and descendants from a real and lawful wedlock issuing in infinitum, according to the order of primogeniture, or in such any other manner as petitioner might prefer to dispose thereof, so that in case he should die without issue as aforesaid, the above-mentioned fief, with the title of Count, with its jurisdictions, power of the sword, and its merum and mixtum imperium..should be vested in the aforesaid Manduca, or in such of his brothers as the petitioner might nominate to be his heir, in the same manner and form as if the latter were expressly included and designated in the said grant and investiture, and this (he requested) in order that in the family of his said grand-nephews, that is of such of them as might be his heir, the glorious token of a perpetual vassalage to the Most Serene dynasty of your Highness might always be preserved in its lustre. He consequently requested that H.S. Highness, should grant him the power of disposing of the said fief, in the way hereinafter stated, and that pursuant to such a disposition, his highness should “nunc pro tunc” invest the abovementioned Manduca Piscopo, his grand-nephew, or another brother of his, as aforesaid, for himself and his legitimate and natural sons and male descendants, from a real and lawful wedlock, issuing in infinitum, and declare that, in such case, he should be considered as invested with the said fief of Monte Alto and with a title of Conte, as if the said Felice or such of his brothers as might be the petitioner’s heir, as aforesaid, had been expressly included and designated in the grant and in the investiture. He also prayed that H.S. Highness might be pleased to grant him licence to create on that fief a rgular and lineal Primogenitura, in favour of the legitimate and natural first-born descendants in infinitum of the sad Felice or another of his brothers, as petitioner might prefer”.
On the foregoing petition, the Duke issued the following rescript: Concedimus investimus, mandamus, declaramus, approbamus, et derogamus in omnibus et per omnia ut petit. Et non obstantibus (Dat. Comitii, die 19 Mensis 7 bris anni 1724, Franciscus Dux
From the tenor of that petition it appears: 1st That Bernardo applied for the extension of the grant in favour of Felice Manduca his grand-nephew and his descendants or of another brother of the said Felice and his descendants exclusively, that is, in favour of such of them as he should have nominated his heir, according to the law of primogeniture; 2ndly that he did not in his application, contemplate the case of the extinction of the descending line of Felice, or of another of his grand-nephews, whom he would have designated as his heir; 3rdly That he did not apply for, and consequently, by the rescript juxta preces, did not obtain the grant, that the title should be enjoyed by all those who, according to his testamentary dispositions, would have possessed the Primogenitura, but he only obtained thereby the power of transmitting the title to one of his grandnephews who would be his heir, and to his descendants, under the rule of primogeniture.
Thence, it follows, that the dispositions contained in Bernardo’s testament, to which we shall hereafter refer, and according to which the devolution of the Primogenitura was to be regulated, cannot be attended to in interpreting the grant which, in substance, does not contain but an alternative power.
We do not think that it may be legally assumed that the expression “according to the order of primogeniture” have, in the present instance, the strength of establishing that the title we are considering is inheritable by all the holders of the Primogenitura, even though they do not descend from Felice or from one of his brothers whom the grantee would have nominated to be his heir. That expression implies merely that the descent of the title to the lineal successors of such heir must take place according to the rule of primogeniture; and certainly Bernardo in making use of that expression did not contemplate the removal of the title, under th law of primogeniture, to a line different from that which had been preferred, and which subsequently became extinct.
The words (which immediately precede the expression “according to the order of primogeniture”) in favour of Felice Piscopo his grand-nephew, or of one of the brothers of the said Felice, that is, of such of them as petitioner might designate his heir, and his legitimate and natural male children and descendants, form a real and lawful wedlock issuing”, leave no doubt on the subject. It is true that after the words “according to the order of primogeniture” Bernardo proceeds to say “or in such any other manner as petitioner might prefer to dispose thereof” but the applicant in order to explain what he meant by those expressions “or in such any other manner as petitioner might prefer to dispose thereof” immediately adds, “that in case he should die without issue, as aforesaid, the abovementioned fief, with the title of Count”.should be vested in the aforesaid Manduca, or in such of his brothers as the petitioner might nominate to be his heir.”
Bernardo in a subsequent part of his petition says “and this (he requested) in order that in the family of his said grand-nephews, that is of such of them as might be his heir, the glorious token”..might be preserved in its lustre. By these expressions, Bernardo evidently did not allude to the family of all his grand-nephews that is of Felice and of all the brothers of Felice, and their respective descendants, but to the family of that alone of his grand-nephews whom he should have nominated to be his heir. If, therefore, Bernardo in his testament designated Felice as his heir, no one of the brothers of Felice and no descendant of any of the brothers of Felice can have a reasonable claim in virtue of the Rescript of the 19th September 1724, to the title of “Conte di Mont’Alto.”
Now, Bernardo in his solemn testament received in the acts of Notary Tommaso Vella, on the 9th March 1725, nominated his heir in the following terms (translated from the Italian original):- “I further nominate”..Felice Manduca my grand-nephew, son of Signor Francesco Manduca, to be heir to all and singular my property”.. “The testator proceeds to say, “But whereas, being destitute of issue, it was always my particular intention to preserve my property, that it may be in perpetuum enjoyed by the descendants of Maria, my late paternal half-sister, my will and direction is that all my said property shall be erected”.into a perpetual majoratus , under a very close fidei commissum prohibiting”.for it is my will that the said property be perpetually preserved and enjoyed by the first-born or eldest son, and by his male children and descendants for ever, and on failue of male issue by the first-born daughter, nominating as I do nominate the aforesaid Signor Felice my grand-nephew, son of Signor Francesco Manduca, to be the stock of the said Primogenitura and Maggiorato, provided, however, that he as well as all his descendants who shall enjoy the Maggiorato, shall bear the family name PiscopoMacedonia and my own armorial ensigns..”and not otherwise.”
The testator moreover directed that in the succession to the Primogenitura the following order should be observed, that is, that after having been enjoyed pleno jure by the aforesaid Signor Felice my grand-nephew, for the term of his life, it shall after his death descend to his first-born son, if he shall happen to be alive, and if he shall not, to his first-born son, from whom it shall be transmitted to the first-born grandson or other descendants, the one after the other, from one first-born descendant to another, the degree of primogeniture being observed, in perpetuum, even beyond the tenth and twentieth degree in infinitum , during the existence of the line of the said Felice, provided such descendants be lawfully and naturally born, so that he shall succeed who shall be the first-born surviving son, and his line, and the male or other surviving descendants issuing from such line, and after their decease quando cumque the succession shall devolve upon the second-born son of the said person first nominated, and his son, grandson, or great grandson, according to the order of primogeniture in perpetuum and in infinitum, and in the failure of the second-born son as aforesaid, it shall devolve upon the legitimate and natural third-born son, and on the first-born son among his legitimate and natural male descendants.
By the foregoing testamentary dispositions Bernardo Piscopo contemplating only his grand-nephew Felice, designated him alone as he heir, he created a Primogenitura of which he nominated the said Felice to be the stock and stirps. In regulating the succession to that Primogenitura, moreover, he ordered that it should descend to the first-born son of Felice and his issue according to the order of primogeniture; and foreseeing the possibility of the extinction of the descending line of Felice’s first-born son, he specified the manner in which he intended that in such case the Primogenitura should pass to the other descendants of the said Felice. It is therefore, obvious that Bernardo by his testament exhausted the powers granted him by the Duke of Parma, who had authorized him to dispose of the title in favour of Felice, or of one of the brothers of Felice,
Bernardo’s testament contains no disposition as to the devolution of the Primogenitura, in case the line of Felice should be extinguished, and no substitution is in such case, ordered in favour of any of Felice’s brothers. It is only therein provided that “if the said Felice shall infringe the conditions herein-before expressed, he shall forfeit the succession to, and the enjoyment of, that property, and the whole of shall go to, and be vested in, Bernardo, his brother, or his sons, and in case both shall violate what has been as herein-before ordered, the whole shall fall to the benefit of their other brothers and sisters and their sons, after each other, the order of primogeniture, as aforesaid, being always observed.
Nor can it be inferred from the foregoing disposition, that the line of Felice having become extinct, we are to extend to the case of death the disposition which appears to have been made for the case of contravention; and even if this were assumed, it would not follow that Bernardo, after having designated Felice as his heir, had in virtue of the Rescript of 1724, the power of disposing either directly or by way of substitution, of the dignity with which he had been ennobled by the Duke of Parma, in favour also of another of Felice’s brothers. If therefore, we hold that Bernardo substituted in the Primogenitura other lines to that of Felice, (which it was certainly in his power to do) this assumption does not lead to the conclusion that he had the power of transferring the title to any of the persons belonging to the line he had substituted).
Now, looking to the facts, it appears that the line of Felice, who left no issue, was determined by the death of his two daughters, the Contessa, Maria Manduca, wife of Barone Pietro Paolo Testaferrata and of the Contessa Felicita Manduca, wife of Barone Ignazio Bonici, both of whom had no offspring. After the decease of Contessa Felicita, the Primogenitura was inherited by Bernardo Manduca, brother of Felice, who died also without issue, and then it fell to Sir Vincenzo Manduca, who was born of Salvatore, another deceased brother of Felice, and who was also issueless. After the death of Sir Vincenzo Manduca, the Primogenitura was inherited by Monsignor Manduca, who is the present claimant of the title of “Conte di Mont’Alto”. He is the son of Paolo Manduca and grandson of the aforesaid Salvatore Manduca, and there is no doubt that, but for the circumstance of the title having become extinct, his claim would rest on good legal grounds. The possession of the Primogenitura was awarded to Monsignor Manduca by a decision of the Civil Courts of these Islands, based on certain arguments deduced from Bernardos testament.
After a careful consideration of all the foregoing circumstances, we are necessarily led to the conclusion that the title of Conte di Mont Alto, was determined on the 14th May 1775, by the death of Conte Felice Manduca, who had no male issue (see Chap. 11, #218 et seq).
We have no legal grounds for adopting a different conclusion, and with regard to any recognition of the present title which might be presumed to have been effected under the British Government, we beg respectfully to refer His Excellency to the observations already stated with regard to the claim to the Barony of Buleben.
The title of Mont Alto as granted in 1720 having been declared extinct, the Commissioners later proceeded to discuss the other title claimed by Monsgnor Manduca as follows:
As we have already stated, the title of “Conte di Mont’Alto”, in the Duchy of Parma, granted in 1720 to Bernardo Piscopo, and extended in 1724 in favour of one of the grantees male grand-nephews, was determined by the death without issue of “Conte Felice Manduca”, which occurred on the 14th May 1775 (#188). Monsignor Salvarore Manduca Piscopo Macedonia, however, asserts that the said grant was, by a rescript of the 28th December 1776, renewed in favour of Salvatore Manduca, his grand-father, and of the grantees male issue. In support of such claim, Francesco Manduca on the claimant’s behalf produced on the 29th September last several papers which are stated to be true copies of certain documents existing at Parma, but which bear no attestation, and consequently afford no evidence of the authenticity of their contents.
One of these documents is stated to be a copy of a petition addressed to the Duke of Parma by the said Salvatore Manduca, who therein represented (the extract is translated from the Italian): “That having gratuitously obtained the grant of the fief of Monte Alto situated at Parma, for himself and his legitimate and natural sons and male descendants, in the same manner as it was originally granted to Bernardo Piscopo, on the 1st July 1720, and subsequently renewed in the person of Felice Manduca, late brother of the said Salvatore, he (petitioner) requested that H.S.H. should give the necessary directions for the execution of the deed relative to the grant”. The foregoing request was complied with, by the rescript of the 28th December 1776.
It may not be improper to remark, in this place that in 1776, the Primogenitura erected by Bernardo Piscopo in 1725 (#183) was possessed by Contessa Anna Manduca, eldest daughter of the said Count Felice. It follows that Salvatore Manduca in requesting the renewal of the title in favour of himselfand his male descendants, acknowledged that the original grant of 1720 had been extinguished by the death of Felice, and that the rules laid down in Bernardo’s testament for the devolution of the Primogenitura were not applicable to the succession of the original title.
We beg to submit that among the unauthenticated documents produced by the claimant, there is the form of an oath of fidelity which is stated to have been taken by the said Salvatore Manduca, when invested with the fief of Monte Alto. It is conceived in the following terms:- (Translation form the Italian) “I, Salvatore Manduca Piscopo, feudatory of Mont’Alto situated in the Duchy of Parma, do swear unto God Almighty that from this time forward until the last day of my life I will always and at all times be a faithful and obedient subject, feudatory, and vassal of H.R.H. the Most Serene and Royal Infante of Spain, Don Ferdinando of the House of Bourbon, as Duke of Parma, Piacenza and Guastella”.. And that I will not acknowledge as my lord any other person, whatever may be his capacity, rank, condition, and pre-eminence, but H.R.H. the said Most Serene Infante Ferdinando as Duke of Parma, Piacenza, and Guastalla, his heirs and successors as aforesaid.
The present title (if taken to have ever existed) was never registered in Malta, nor has the claimant produced any proof of its having ever been recognized by the Grand Masters of the Order of St. John. We must not, however, omit to state that on inspecting the Minute Book in which the appointment of the jurats was entered during the Government of the Order, we noticed that Salvatore Manduca was in the year 1797-1798 appointed jurat for Notabile and styled “Conte”. We can, however, give no importance to this circumstance in the absence of an authentic copy of the patent of creation of this title; and we beg to add that although the above-named Francesco Manduca had declared himself ready to bring over from Parma some authentic documents, we did not think it advisable to delay further the presentation of our Report.”
As matters now stand, we cannot include Monsignor Manduca in our list of “Titolati”. It is, however, to be understood that the claimant is by no means precluded from producing at any future time further evidence of the existence and recognition of this title, in which case his claim, must in our opinion, be reconsidered.’
The Report was then presented to the authorities. In his letter dated 30 April 1878 to Governor van Straubanzee, the Secretary of State for the Colonies Hicks-Beach (See Report page 59-60) wrote:
“If Monsignor Salvatore Manduca Piscopo Macedonia succeeds in substantiating his claim to be Conte di Mont’Alto, the title should of course be added to the list”.
It is clear that the Secretary of State was here referring to the title of “Conte” presumed to have been granted to Salvatore Manduca and not to the title of “Conte di Mont’Alto”, described elsewhere in the report under paras. 176-191, which the Commissioners found to have been determined on the 14th May 1775, by the death of Conte Felice Manduca, who had no male issue.
In any event, it appears Monsignor Manduca managed to substantiate his claim sometime between 1878 and 1883 because his name appears as one of the five titolati who were appointed to form a Committee in 1883 as results from the document “Report of the Committee of Privileges of the Maltese Nobility on the claims of certain members of that body with the Secretary of State’s Reply, August 1883, presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty (C-3812)”.
Who is the rightful Conte di Mont’Alto? .
Who is the rightful Conte di Mont’Alto? The original fief and title of Conte di Mont’Alto granted by the penultimate Duke of Parma have been extinct since the 18th century, but it appears during late 19th century British Malta an earlier mere title of courtesy was adapted to be regarded as the perpetuation of the defunct honour which was claimed to have been renewed, albeit denuded of any fief, in 1776.
This mysterious twist happened sometime between 1878 and 1883 and has remained confused ever since.
Official documents show the foreign grant of title and fief of Conte di Mont’ Alto within the Duchy of Parma and Piacenza was registered in Malta on the 2 September 1721.
The fief consisting of a Villa, enjoyed the power of merum and mixtum imperium. “Ottenne graziosamente da Francesco I Farnese Duca vii di Parma e Piacenza in feudo Nobile ed Antico una Villa da Montalto situate nello Stato di Parma Col titolo di Contea per lui e suoi Figli legmi maschi nati e nascituri in infinitum; Colla giurisdizione Civile e Criminale, mero e misto imperio, e potezta’ del Gradio. Sotto le condizioni. Pmo che fra un Mese debba prendersi l’investitura e prestar il giuramo di fedelta’, e riservati al duca tutti li gius di Darsj: 2 cio’ in vigor d’un atto pubblico rogato Stipulato dal Presidente e Magistrato della Camera Ducale di Parma d’Ordine del Duca li 10 Luglio 1720. Registrato in Cancell per Decreto del G. Mro. Dell 2 7bre 1721, f. 122.” Relative document is at A.O.M. 525, f. 111r-112r.
The grantee was one Bernardo Piscopo and the grant was dated 1720, but it was destined to become extinct as Bernardo did not have any children of his own.
The Count was well aware of this and he petitioned the Duke, representing he was desirous of obtaining the power of disposing of the fief in favour of one of his collateral relatives Felice Manduca or such other one male relative as per the order of primogeniture established on the 19th September 1724. The Duke acceded to this request on the 19 October 1724. “E poi Avendo esposto allo stesso Duca ch’ egli non aveva figli, ne sperava di averne lo supplico che si degnarse della facolta’ di nominare per suo successore il Nobe Felice Manduca Piscopo suo Pronipote, od altro suo fratello, e figli maschij del medesimo per ordine di primogenitura il che gli fu’ conceduto li 19. 7bre 1724.”
Bernardo died and Felice was duly invested as successor. Afterwards, Felice had his succession registered in Malta in July 1744. “Il do Felice morto il zio, e prese l’investitura supplico’ il G. Mro che quest’ ampliazione di privileggio farsi registrare in Cancll some segui’ sotto li 24.Luglio 1744 f. 161 p. 2”.Relative document is at A.O.M. 554, ff. 173r-173v
Meanwhile in Malta, Bernardo had also nominated his successor to the title in his will made on the 9th March 1725 (Notary Tommaso Vella). By means of the same will, Bernardo established an entail in Malta regulating other properties. Eventually, the nominated successor’s own family became extinct.
This gave rise to a serious problem. Although the Maltese entail was succeeded by another of Bernardo’s relatives, the title and fief of Mont’ Alto were extinct, because the 1724 permission could only be construed in regard to not more than the male issue of one nominated relative.
In fact by 1878, a Royal Commission appointed to enquire into the claims of the Maltese Nobility found that the title granted in 1720, as subsequently extended in 1724 had become extinct on the 14th May 1775, by the death of the Conte Felice Manduca. The Commission noted after Felice’s death the entail was succeeded by Vincenzo Manduca who in turn was succeeded in the same entail by Monsignor Salvatore Manduca, but concluded the succession of the mere entail could not revive the title.
The Commissioners were explicit: “By the foregoing testamentary dispositions Bernardo Piscopo contemplating only his grand-nephew Felice, designated him alone as he heir, he created a Primogenitura of which he nominated the said Felice to be the stock and stirpes. In regulating the succession to that Primogenitura, moreover, he ordered that it should descend to the first-born son of Felice and his issue according to the order of primogeniture; and foreseeing the possibility of the extinction of the descending line of Felice’s first-born son, he specified the manner in which he intended that in such case the Primogenitura should pass to the other descendants of the said Felice. It is therefore, obvious that Bernardo by his testament exhausted the powers granted him by the Duke of Parma, who had authorized him to dispose of the title in favour of Felice, or of one of the brothers of Felice, Bernardo’s testament contains no disposition as to the devolution of the Primogenitura, in case the line of Felice should be extinguished, and no substitution is in such case, ordered in favour of any of Felice’s brothers. It is only therein provided that “if the said Felice shall infringe the conditions herein-before expressed, he shall forfeit the succession to, and the enjoyment of, that property, and the whole of shall go to, and be vested in, Bernardo, his brother, or his sons, and in case both shall violate what has been as herein-before ordered, the whole shall fall to the benefit of their other brothers and sisters and their sons, after each other, the order of primogeniture, as aforesaid, being always observed Nor can it be inferred from the foregoing disposition, that the line of Felice having become extinct, we are to extend to the case of death the disposition which appears to have been made for the case of contravention; and even if this were assumed, it would not follow that Bernardo, after having designated Felice as his heir, had in virtue of the Rescript of 1724, the power of disposing either directly or by way of substitution, of the dignity with which he had been ennobled by the Duke of Parma, in favour also of another of Felice’s brothers. If therefore, we hold that Bernardo substituted in the Primogenitura other lines to that of Felice, (which it was certainly in his power to do) this assumption does not lead to the conclusion that he had the power of transferring the title to any of the persons belonging to the line he had substituted).
Now, looking to the facts, it appears that the line of Felice, who left no issue, was determined by the death of his two daughters, the Contessa, Maria Manduca, wife of Barone Pietro Paolo Testaferrata and of the Contessa Felicita Manduca, wife of Barone Ignazio Bonici, both of whom had no offspring. After the decease of Contessa Felicita, the Primogenitura was inherited by Bernardo Manduca, brother of Felice, who died also without issue, and then it fell to Sir Vincenzo Manduca, who was born of Salvatore, another deceased brother of Felice, and who was also issueless. After the death of Sir Vincenzo Manduca, the Primogenitura was inherited by Monsignor Manduca, who is the present claimant of the title of “Conte di Mont’Alto”. He is the son of Paolo Manduca and grandson of the aforesaid Salvatore Manduca, and there is no doubt that, but for the circumstance of the title having become extinct, his claim would rest on good legal grounds. The possession of the Primogenitura was awarded to Monsignor Manduca by a decision of the Civil Courts of these Islands, based on certain arguments deduced from Bernardo’s testament.
After a careful consideration of all the foregoing circumstances, we are necessarily led to the conclusion that the title of “Conte di Mont’ Alto”, was determined on the 14th May 1775, by the death of Conte Felice Manduca, who had no male issue.”
However, the Monsignor Salvatore Manduca Piscopo Macedonia, had a fall-back argument. He asserted that the grant of 1720 was, by a rescript of the 28th December 1776, renewed in favour of Salvatore Manduca, (coincidentally) the Monsignor’s own grand-father.
In support of this, the monsignor produced a number of unauthenticated papers purporting to be true copies of certain documents existing at Parma dated 1776.
The Commissioners indicated they were not convinced by this second claim: “The present title (if taken to have ever existed) was never registered in Malta, nor has the claimant produced any proof of its having ever been recognized by the Grand Masters of the Order of St. John.”.
They were kind to add “the claimant is by no means precluded from producing at any future time further evidence of the existence and recognition of this title, in which case his claim, must in our opinion, be reconsidered.’
Despite this opening, the Commissioners were still perplexed by the date of supposed extension being 1776. “It may not be improper to remark, in this place that in 1776, the Primogenitura erected by Bernardo Piscopo in 1725 was possessed by Contessa Anna Manduca, eldest daughter of the said Count Felice. It follows that Salvatore Manduca in requesting the renewal of the title in favour of himself and his male descendants, acknowledged that the original grant of 1720 had been extinguished by the death of Felice, and that the rules laid down in Bernardo’s testament for the devolution of the Primogenitura were not applicable to the succession of the original title.”
In any case, the Commissioners did not even sound convinced about the Monsignor’s claim to the primogenitura which he succeeded, let alone the tile because – they noted – he only succeeded “based on certain arguments deduced from Bernardo’s testament”.
Yet another basis – the third – for the claim is found in the Commissioners’ report but this was not based on a title granted in Parma. “We must not, however, omit to state that on inspecting the Minute Book in which the appointment of the jurats was entered during the Government of the Order, we noticed that Salvatore Manduca was in the year 1797-1798 appointed jurat for Notabile and styled “Conte”. We can, however, give no importance to this circumstance in the absence of an authentic copy of the patent of creation of this title.”
The Report was then presented to the British authorities. In his letter dated 30 April 1878 to Governor van Straubanzee, the Secretary of State for the Colonies Hicks-Beach (See Report page 59-60) wrote: “If Monsignor Salvatore Manduca Piscopo Macedonia succeeds in substantiating his claim to be Conte di Mont’Alto, the title should of course be added to the list”.
It is clear that the Secretary of State was here referring to the title of “Conte” presumed to have been granted to Salvatore Manduca in 1776 and not to the title of “Conte di Mont’Alto” created in 1720 which the Commissioners found to have been determined on the 14th May 1775.
It appears that something happened between 1878 and 1883 because the Monsignor’s name appears as one of the five titolati who were appointed to form a Committee in 1883. In that document, the Monsignor is noted as “Conte di Mont’ Alto”.
Did the Monsignor Manduca actually substantiate the 1776 claim or was his title based on the courtesy title of 1797?
In the first case, the title would be regulated by the law of Parma (later part of Italy), whereas in the second case the title might be taken to have originated in Malta and therefore subject to Maltese law.
* The Counts Manduca (1776)
Sir Vincenzo Manduca Piscopo Macedonia KCMG, Conte di Mont’ Alto in the Duchy of Parma (and Piacenza) (he succeeded his father Salvatore Manduca as 2nd holder of the 1720 title which was revived in 1776)
On the 19 September 1724, Francis I (Farnese), Duke of Parma (and Piacenza), invested Felice Manduca Piscopo in the title of Conte di Mont’ Alto and fief of the same name which were originally granted to his maternal uncle, Bernardo Piscopo, by the same Duke on the 8 July 1720 after the childless Bernardo applied for an extension of the title to the family of the person whom Bernardo nominated to be his heir. In fact Felice was nominated as Bernardo’s heir and in whose favour Bernardo erected a Primogenitura in 1725.
However, many publications omit to mention that this title became extinct in 1775 and also that it was only revived in 1776.
As the title was of foreign origin it could not enjoy any precedence in Malta unless it was registered in accordance with the 1739 rules enacted by Grand Master Despuig as later amended in 1795 by Grand Master Rohan. In fact on the 2 September 1721, Bernardo Piscopo had this title registered in Malta. The 1724 extension was likewise registered on the 14 July 1744. There was no legal requirement to register a foreign title in 1721 or 1724; However by 1744, this had become mandatory.
A question of succession arose after the line of Felice became extinguished in 1775.
The line of Felice, who left no male issue, was determined by the death of his two daughters, the Contessa Maria (-Anna)Manduca wife of the Barone Pietro Paolo Testaferrata and of the Contessa Felicita Manduca, wife of the Barone Ignazio Bonnici, both of whom had no offspring. Some published genealogical tables mention a third daughter (Anna) but the 1878 Report says that the Conte Felice had two daughters.
Writing in 1870, the Marchese Barbaro attributes this title – classified as a foreign title – to Monsignor Salvatore Manduca Piscopo Macedonia, but gives no indication as to how the title which originated in 1720 in favour of Bernardo Piscopo, ended up in a collateral’s hands.
A Royal Commission appointed to enquire into the claims of the Maltese Nobility held in 1878 that the title of Conte di Mont’ Alto was determined (i.e. extinct) on the 14th May 1775, by the death of the Conte Felice Manduca.
However, Monsignor Salvatore Manduca Piscopo Macedonia asserted that the said grant was on the 28th December 1776, renewed in favour of Felice’s brother Salvatore Manduca, grand father of the monsignor. Although the Monsignor exhibited a number of documents proving his claim, it appears that none of these exhibits were authenticated. In the Report there is no reference to any registration or independent “recognition” of the 1776 title.
The same Commission remarked that in 1776, the Primogenitura erected by Bernardo was possessed by the Contessa Anna Manduca, eldest daughter of the said Conte Felice. According to the Commission, it follows that Salvatore in requesting the renewal of title in favour of himself and his male descendants, acknowledged that the original grant of 1720 had been extinguished by the death of Felice, and that the rules laid down for the devolution of the Primogenitura were not applicable to the succession of the original title.
The Commission does not say what became of the fief but it follows that if Anna was holding Felice’s property, then Salvatore had no claim to the fief of Mont’ Alto.
Meanwhile in Malta in the year 1797-1798, when Salvatore Manduca was appointed jurat for Notabile during the Government of the Order of Saint John, he was styled as “Conte”.
Because the Commission did not think it advisable to delay further the presentation of its Report, it was understood that the claimant was by no means precluded from producing, at any future time, further evidence of the existence and recognition of this title, in which case his claim, must in the opinion of the Commissioners, be reconsidered.
Whilst nothing is known of what became of the fief of Mont’ Alto, it appears that Monsignor Manduca managed to substantiate his claim to the title sometime between 1878 and 1883 because we find in 1883 the same Monsignor Salvatore sitting on a newly constituted Committee where he acts as one of the five titolati appointed to form a Committee designed to review certain findings of the Royal Commission. In 1883 and thereafter the Monsignor is referred to as the Conte di Mont’ Alto. The Monsignor and his successors in this title also enjoyed all the prerogatives granted totitolati first introduced in 1886 .
There are therefore two titles of Conte di Mont’ Alto, one granted in 1720 which became extinct in 1775, the other which came to light in 1776. The latter title should be referred to as the “Counts Manduca” because it is apparent that the fief of Mont’ Alto was not in possession of the Manduca family.
Whatever their appellation, both titles should be regarded as titles which did not originate in Malta and they were both classified as such in the aforesaid Report published in 1878. The title of Conte di Mont’ Alto a.k.a. Conte Manduca is therefore a foreign title.
The Manduca family, is one of the few noble Maltese families which are listed in Abela’s publication of 1647, in which Abela dedicates one full page. That is to say this family was notable long before most of other Maltese families first received any patents or “recognitions” of nobility. According to Abela, this family claimed that two brothers Manduca were enslaved by corsairs in the garden of their estate known as “Wied Ballut”, the surviving brother who escaped remained in possession of the family estate.
Antonio Manduca was made a knight (Cavaliere) by Emperor Charles V in Messina in 1535 year of Antonio’s appointment as Ambasciatore. A Girolamo Manduca to whom Abela dedicates a paragraph in Book Four, Part IV, is described as a 16th century Jesuit renowned for his erudition and literary works.
Surprisingly, unlike some of the families already established by 1647, none of the Manduca family are noted as recipients of the titles of “Illustrissimo” and “Nobile” which were first regulated in 1725.
In addition, a marriage between one of Salvatore Manduca’s descendants and Angiolina Azzopardi brought into the Manduca family the honorific title of Barone di Buleben originally granted by Grand Master Rohan to Gaetano Azzopardi ad vitam on the 23rd July 1777 but later extended annexed to a another Primogenitura .
* Titles of Count of Mont’ Alto – (Count of Mont’ Alto and Count Manduca).
History
The title Conte di Mont’ Alto forms part of the Nobility in Malta.
The title was granted in 1720 and extended in 1724 but became extinct in 1775. The second grant is dated 1776. In a 19th Century Report, the 1724 grant described as “Count of Mont’ Alto”, whilst the 1776 grant is referred to as “title of “Conte” namely one presumed to have been granted in 1776 to Salvatore Manduca by Ferdinand I, Duke of Parma”
Since 1975, titles of nobility are no longer recognized in the Republic of Malta by Act 29 of 1975 dated 17 October 1975.
Origin and Nature of title
The title of “Conte di Mont’Alto” in the Duchy of Parma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Parma_and_Piacenza was, together with the fief of Monte Alto, conferred at the grantee’s request, by Francis I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Farnese%2C_Duke_of_Parma Duke of Parma, upon Bernardo Piscopo, by a Rescript given at Piacenza on the 8th July 1720. The fief enjoyed the power of the sword, and its merum and mixtum imperium..
The said Bernardo having no issue, later made a petition addressed to the Duke of Parma, represented that he was desirous of obtaining the power of disposing of the fief in favour of one of his collateral relatives. The Duke acceded to this request on the 19 October 1724. Bernardo proceeded to nominate his successor to his fiefdom in his will made in the acts of Notary Tommaso Vella, on the 9th March 1725. By means of the same will, Bernardo established an entail in Malta regulating other properties. The nominated successor’s own family eventually became extinct. Although the Maltese entail was succeeded by another of Bernardo’s relatives (Felice Manduca) a problem arose in regard to the title and fief of Mont’ Alto, because the 1724 permission could only be construed in regard to not more than the male issue of one nominated relative.
In 1878, a Royal Commission appointed to enquire into the claims of the Maltese Nobility found that the title granted in 1720, as subsequently extended in 1724 had become extinct on the 14th May 1775, by the death of Conte Felice Manduca, who had no male issue. After Felice’s death the entail was succeeded by Vincenzo Manduca who in turn was succeeded in the same entail by Monsignor Salvatore Manduca. However, succession of the mere entail could not revive the title.
In 1776 the title was renewed in favour of Salvatore Manduca, and of the grantee’s male issue, by means of a Rescript dated 28 December 1776. Salvatore was the brother of the Conte Felice.
Recognition by the Government of the Order of Saint John
As the title originated in the Duchy of Parma and Piacenza, it could not be held to form part of the Maltese Nobility. However, on the 2 September 1721, Bernardo Picopo had this title registered in Malta.
The 1724 extension was likewise registered on the 14 July 1744. There was no legal requirement to register a foreign title in 1721. However by 1744, this had become mandatory as explained below.
In 1739, the then Grand Master Depuig enacted a law introducing the concept of extending a form of precedence to even holders of foreign titles. The relative law is reproduced hereunder:-
Hosplis Mgr et Hierlem Sti. Sepulchri. – Per togliere le differenze di precedenze tra le persone che saranno promosse alla giurazie dell’ Universita’ della Notabile e della Valletta, vogliamo, ordiniamo e comandiamo che tutte siano precedue dagli infrascritti, e che fra queti si regoli la precedena call’ ordine seguente cioe’: Primieramente, chi fu Capitano della Verga della Sudetta Citta’ Notabile e nostra Isola di Malta.; Secondo. Il Titolato che ha un titolo fondato sopra un feudo in realta’ esistente qui, benche’ non lo possegga.; Terzo. Il titolato che non ha un titolo fondato sopra fondo realmenteesistente nel nostro Dominio, registrato che sia il titolo nella Cancelleria nella nostra Religione e nella Gran Corte della nostra Castellania, e pagato per i rispettivi registramenti il diritto di scudi cento sedici di questa moneta, da dividersi per meta’ tra la Cancelleria e la Castellania sudetta.; Quarto. Il discendente per linea mascolina da chi fu Capitano della Verga, se vive colle proprie rendite, e se i di lui ascendente intermedie vissero pure colle proprie rendite.; Quinto. Il discendente per linea mascolina da un titolo con titolo fondato sopra un feudo qui realmente esistente, se vive colle proprierendite, e se i suoi ascendenti intermedie cosi vissero; Sesto. Chi fu primo Giurato della Notabile; Settimo. Chi fu primo Giurato della Valletta; Ottavo. Il piu’ anziani di Giurazia di quella Universita’ dellaquale sara’ creato giurato.; Nono. Chi fu Giudice d’Appello Criminale o Civile della Gran Corte della Castellania e della Corte Capitanale e Governatoriale; Diecimo. Il Dottore di Leggi ed il Dottore di Medicina.: – Dichiariamo che fra le persone d’un stesso grado si deve attendere l’anzianita’ del titolo primordiale e che chiunque fu Giurato, se sara’ fatto Console di Mare, fra i quali s’attendera l’anzianitad’ufficio. Dat. In Palatio, die xvi. Septembris 1739 (f. Despuig)
The latter enactment was amended in 1795 by the then Grand Master Rohan as follows:
Hosplis Magr. Hierlem. Sti. Sepulchri, et Ordinis Sti Antonii, Viennensis Essendo una massima universalmente ricevuto, che il maggior lustro della Nobilta’ principalmente dipende dalla sua maggiore antichita’, niente che il piu’ giusto e ragionevole che il piu’ antico Nobile preceda il piu’ moderno. Siamo pertanto venuti nella determinazione di Ordinare che nel regolarsi la precedenza tra le persone Nobile di questo nostro Dominio, cosi’ primogeniti che cadetti indistintamente, si abbioa ad avere unicamente riguardo alla maggiore o minore antichita’ del titolo che nobilito le loro famiglie, e cio tanto se il titolo sara’ stato concesso da Noi o Nostri predecessori, che se lo avessero ottenuto da Principi esteri, purche’ pero sara’ stato questo debitamente registrato nella Nostra Cancelleria e Gran Corte della Castellania; nel consorso pero’ di ugual data quello nella di cui persona concorreranno piu’ titoli dovra’ essere preferito, all’ altro che ne avesse meno, secondo la graduazione stabilita nel Chirografo Magisteriale del Nostro Predecessore Gran Maestro Despuig di Gl. Em. Del 16 Sept 1739, quale in quelle parti che non contradicono la questa nostra disposizione intendiamo di pienamente confermare.Datum in Palatio die xvii Martii 1795 (f.) Rohan
It follows therefore that on the basis of the aforesaid enactments, the title of Mont’ Alto as granted in 1720 should have enjoyed a precedence in Malta calculated from 1721, date of first registration. However, as seen above this title had become extinct by 1775.
The 1878 Commissioners reported that the 1776 grant in favour of Salvatore Manduca was never registered, nor was there any proof of this title ever being recognized by the Grand Masters of the Order of Malta.
THE ROYAL COMMISSION APPOINTED TO ENQUIRE INTO THE CLAIMS OF THE MALTESE NOBILITY
After the Capitulation of the Order of Saint John the new French Rulers formally abolished all titles of nobility. (General Napoleon Bonaparte issued two orders dated 13 and 16 June 1798 prohibiting the use of any title “ORDRE (1) QUARTIER GENERAL DE MALTE, LE 25 PRAIRAL, AN VI (13 JUIN 1798): Le General en Chef ordonne……(ARTICLE 2.)… Toutes les armoires seront abbatues dans l’ espace de 24 heures. Il est defendu de porter dest livrees, ni aucune marque et titre distinctif de noblesse. ORDRE (2) AU QUARTIER GENERAL DE MALTE, LE 28 PRAIRAL, AN VI (16 JUIN 1798): Bonaparte Membre de l’Istitut National, General-en-Chef ordonne…(ARTICLE CINQUIEME)….Dix jours apres la publication du present ordre, il est defendu d’avoir des armoires soit dans l’interieur, soit a l’exterieur des maisons, de cacheter des lettres avec des armoires, ou de prendre des titres feodaux. ……(ARTICLE DOUZIEME)….Tous les contrevenants aux articles cidessous, seront condamnes pour la premier fois, a une amende du tiers de leurs revenus; pour la seconde fois, a trois mois de prison; pour la troisieme fois a un an de prison; pour la quatrieme fois, a la deportation de l’ile de Malte, et a la confiscation de la moitie de leurs biens. Il devra toujours y avoir 10 jours d’intervalle entre la recidive.”
Another Order was issued by Bosredon Ransijat, President of the Commission du Gouvernement dated 18 Messidor Year 6 (6 July 1798), where it was enacted that all honorary titles should be burnt on the 14th of that month and that every holder of a title should carry his patent at the Arbre de la Liberté.
The French in turn lost Malta in 1800 to a contingent raised by Captain Ball and Admiral Nelson. Malta later became a British Protectorate after the Treaty of Paris of 1814.
In time, the use of nobiliary titles was resumed. However, it appears that this use was unregulated.
In 1870 the Marchese Giorgio Crispo Barbaro published a compendium of the “Maltese Nobility and the Maltese Gentry holding Foreign Titles”. In that publication Giorgio Crispo Barbaro describes the Canon Salvatore Manduca Piscopo Macedonia as a Maltese Gentleman holding the foreign title of “Count of Montoldo”. – See full text of the Crispo Barbaro’s book athttp://www.saidvassallo.com/SME/1870%20barbaro.pdf
Eventually, the British Secretary of State for the Colonies commissioned a report in 1876, on those titles alleged to have been conferred to Maltese families before the annexation of Malta to the British Dominions, namely 1800. The Commissioners’ Report and Supplemental Report were published in 1878 together with relative correspondence.
UNSUCCESSFUL CLAIM OF MONSIGNOR SALVATORE MANDUCA PISCOPO MACEDONIA TO THE TITLE CREATED IN 1720 AS EXTENDED IN 1724
In 1878, this title was claimed by Monsignor Salvatore Manduca Piscopo Macedonia who is described in the 1878 Report as son of Paolo Manduca and the grandson of Salvatore Manduca who was the brother of the said Felice Manduca who benefitted from the 1724 extension.
The Royal Commissioners held that after a careful consideration of all the circumstances, they were necessarily led to the conclusion that the title granted in 1720 was determined by the death of the Contte Felice Manduca who had no male issue.
Moreover, the Commissioners later remarked that as in 1776, the entail was possessed by Anna Manduca, it follows that Salvatore Manduca in requesting the renewal of the title effectively acknowledged that the original grant of 1720 had been extinguished by the death of Felice, and that the rules laid down in Berbardo’s will for the devolution of the entail were not applicable to the succession of the original title.
NO DECISION BY ROYAL COMMISSIONERS ON CLAIM OF MONSIGNOR SALVATORE MANDUCA PISCOPO MACEDONIA TO THE TITLE REVIVED IN 1776
The same Monsignor Salvatore Manduca Piscopo Macedonia claimed that title as renewed by a rescript of the 28th December 1776 in favour of Salvatore Manduca, his grand-father, and of the grantee’s male issue.
According to the Report, the terms of the relative investiture read as follows: (Translation form the Italian) “I, Salvatore Manduca Piscopo, feudatory of Mont’Alto situated in the Duchy of Parma, do swear unto God Almighty that from this time forward until the last day of my life I will always and at all times be a faithful and obedient subject, feudatory, and vassal of H.R.H. the Most Serene and Royal Infante of Spain, Don Ferdinando of the House of Bourbon, as Duke of Parma, Piacenza and Guastella.. And that I will not acknowledge as my lord any other person, whatever may be his capacity, rank, condition, and pre-eminence, but H.R.H. the said Most Serene Infante Ferdinando as Duke of Parma, Piacenza, and Guastalla, his heirs and successors as aforesaid.”
However, the Monsignor who was represented failed to provide the Commissioners with authenticated copies of the grant. Moreover, the representative also failed to provide proof of any recognition by the Grand Masters. In this regard, the same Commissioners said that in the absence of authenticated proof of that title they could give no importance to the circumstance where in 1797 during the Government of the Order, Salvatore Manduca was styled “Conte” in his appointment as a jurat.
Notwithstanding the above reservations, the Commissioners left the Monsignor an opportunity to present the required evidence at a future stage after the presentation of the Commission’s Report.
BRITISH SECRETARY OF STATE’S ERRONEOUS DESCRIPTION OF TITLE
The British Secretary of State agreed with the Commissioners’ suggestion. However he described the Monsignor’s claim as referring to the title of “Conte di Mont’Alto”, instead of the title granted in 1776.
LATER DEVELOPMENTS IMPLY PROVISION OF PROOF
It appears that Monsignor Manduca managed to substantiate his claim sometime between 1878 and 1883 because his name appears as one of the five titolati who were appointed to form a Committee in 1883. In that document, the Monsignor is noted as “Conte di Mont’ Alto”.
CONTROVERSIES
Although the title forms part of the Maltese Nobility, some argue that the title remained subject to the laws of the Duchy of Parma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Parma_and_Piacenza . This view is especially reinforced by the terms of the 1776 investiture reproduced above.
By the Treaty of Aranjuez the Duchy of Parma was in 1801 surrendered together with Piacenza and Guastalla http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_of_Guastalla to France in exchange for the short-lived Kingdom of Etruria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Etruria. In 1807, Napoleon dissolved this new Kingdom and integrated it into France. In 1815 the Duchy of Lucca was carved out of Tuscany as a temporary compensation for the Bourbons of Parma until in 1847 they could resume their rule over Parma. The Bourbons ruled until 1859, when they were driven out by a revolution following the Sardinian victory in their war against Austria.
The duchies of Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla and the duchy of Lucca joined with the Grand Duchy of Tuscany and the duchy of Modena to form the United Provinces of Central Italy in December 1859, and were annexed to the Kingdom of Sardinia in March of 1860. In 1861, the Kingdom of Sardinia became a founding state of the new Kingdom of Italy, and ceased to exist after that date. A uniform nobiliary law under the House of Savoy was enacted in 1926 by Royal Decree no. 1489 dated 16 August 1926 and again in 1943 by Royal Decree no. 651, dated 7 June 1943. The Lateran Treaty of 1929 acknowledged all Papal titles created before that date and undertook to give automatic recognition to titles conferred by the Holy See on Italian citizens in the future. In 1946 Italy was proclaimed arepublic.
The second controversy stems from the published contention that the title is attached or otherwise related to the entail established by Bernardo Piscopo. This has no basis in the 1878 Report which says that the 1776 revival proved that the rules laid down in Bernardo’s will for the devolution of the entail were not applicable to the succession of the original title.
The third controversy regarding this title is its precedence in Malta. IN the 1878 Report, the only recognition that is alluded in regard to the 1776 title is that in 1797 during the Government of the Order, Salvatore Manduca was styled “Conte” in his appointment as a “Jurat”. The implication, therefore, us that this title’s precedence in Malta should be calculated as being the year 1797, that is to say after the very last title which was granted by the Grand Masters in 1796.
OTHER ENTITLEMENTS
According to the 1878 Report, this title was considered after the title of “Conte” conferred by Empress Maria Theresa on Salvatore Baldassare Sant on the 22 December 1770, and before the title of “Barone” di San Giovanni renewed by Ferdinand I, King of the Two Sicilies on the 16 July 1777 in favour of Serafino Ciantar.
As from the year 1886, the holder of this title of Nobility became entitled to be styled “The Most Noble”.
The holder of this title was accorded a precedence in Malta The presumed successor of this title is by custom entitled to be styled Contino di Montalto.
Other descendants of the various holders of this title are by custom entitled to be styled dei Conti di Mont’ Alto.
PRESENT DAY
Since 1975, titles of nobility are no longer recognized in the Republic of Malta by Act 29 of 1975 dated 17 October 1975.
GENEALOGY
The genealogy of the Counts of Mont’ Alto is as follows:
1st creation (1720, extended in 1724) (Count of Montalto)
· Bernardo Piscopo, 1st Count of Mont’ Alto
· Felice Manduca (Bernardo’s grand nephew), 2nd Count of Mont’ Alto
2nd creation (1776) (Count Manduca)
· Salvatore Manduca (Felice’s brother), 1st Count
· Paolo Manduca (son of Salvatore), 2nd Count
· Monsignor Salvatore Manduca Piscopo Macedonia, 3rd Count
REFERENCES
PRIMARY REFERENCES (GRANT/S):
(1) Grant of title and fief of “Conte di Mont’Alto” in the Duchy of Parma conferred at the request of Bernardo Piscopo, by Francis I, Duke of Parma, upon Bernardo Piscopo, by a Rescript given at Piacenza on the 8th July 1720. The fief enjoyed the power of the sword, and its merum and mixtum imperium.(Official Archives of the Duchy of Parma and Piacenza)
SECONDARY REFERENCES (HISTORY):
(1) Note of Registration dated 2 September 1721of title conferred in 1720 to Bernardo Piscopo. (Recorded in the Archives of the Order, National Library, Malta Ref. AOM 525, f. 111r-112r)
(2) Note of Registration dated 14 July 1744 of an extension given in 1724 of a title conferred in 1720 to Bernardo Piscopo. (Recorded in the Archives of the Order, National Library, Malta Ref. AOM 548, f. 161v)
(3) CORRESPONDENCE AND REPORT OF THE COMMISSION APPOINTED TO ENQUIRE INTO THE CLAIMS AND GRIEVANCES OF THE MALTESE NOBILITY, MAY 1878, PRESENTED TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BY COMMAND OF HER MAJESTY (C.-2033.):
(4) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES OF THE MALTESE NOBILITY ON THE CLAIMS OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THAT BODY WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S REPLY, AUGUST 1883, PRESENTED TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BY COMMAND OF HER MAJESTY (C-3812)
(5) Copies or Extracts of Correspondence with reference to the Maltese Nobility (In continuation of C3812, August 1883), presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty May 1886 (C-4628a) (6) John Montalto, “The Nobles of Malta 1530-1800” (Midsea Books, Malta, 1980)
TERTIARY REFERENCES (PUBLISHED GENEALOGY):
(1) Crispo Barbaro “THE NOBLES OF MALTA, AND THE MALTESE GENTRY HOLDING FOREIGN TITLES AS AT PRESENT EXISTING BY GEO. G.C.’A. CRISPO BARBARO MARQUIS OF ST. GEORGE” MALTA:- A.D. MDCCCLXX (THE ANGLO-MALTESE PRESS, MALTA, 1870)”
(2) Charles Gauci “THE GENEALOGY AND HERALDRY OF THE NOBLE FAMILIES OF MALTA” (GULF PUBLISHING, MALTA, 1981)”
(3) Charles Gauci A GUIDE TO THE MALTESE NOBILITY” (PEG PUBLICATIONS, MALTA, 1986)
(4) Charles Gauci “THE GENEALOGY AND HERALDRY OF THE NOBLE FAMILIES OF MALTA VOLUME TWO ” (PEG PUBLICATIONS, MALTA, 1992)
(5) Charles Gauci “THE GENEALOGY AND HERALDRY OF THE NOBLE FAMILIES OF MALTA VOLUME ONE ” (PEG PUBLICATIONS, MALTA, 2002).
.
