Testaferrata

THE GENEALOGY OF THE TESTAFERRATA FAMILY

[ Origin in Rome with the Capodiferro family]

Notes:

Footnote #1: The Testaferrata tradition that Arfio Capo di Ferro sive Testaferrata was a descendant of the Capo di Ferro family recurs at various times. For example, see Abela (1647), the grant of Patrician of Messina (1792) and the 1878 Report where the Marchese Nicola Testaferrata de Noto is described in one of the claims as “Marquis Testaferrata, of the Ancient Princes Capo di Ferro, Charge d’Affairs Maltese”. According to Abela, the first Maltese member of this family regarded as a Nobleman was Mariano Testaferrata, resident in Vittoriosa. Furthermore, a discussion regarding a possibility of Arfio’s origin.

Footnote #2: Mariano Testaferrata is regarded the progenitor of the two main lines of the Testaferrata family, viz. those descending from his sons Antonio and Giacomo. Many published sources including Abela (1647) regard Giacomo as the elder of the two. However, this has been the subject of some debate in recent years because their birth dates have so far, remained undocumented. According to “Date Order Sequence”, it results that Antonio was in fact older than Giacomo (See: The Testaferrata family (A reappraisal of the family’s early history), Giles Ash, Classic Press, Malta (undated) Abela introduces these lines as one being Patricians of Rome, the other being the Hereditary Knights.

Footnote #3: Abela (1647) does not mention the Dignity of Patrician of Messina granted to Mariano Testaferrata on the 20th December 1553. The Royal Commission (1878) dismissed this title as a mere municipal honour.  
Antonio’s line later received a second patriciate (of Rome) in 1590 as well as two nobiliary titles granted by the Grand Masters (Baron of Gomerino 1710, Most Illustrious and Noble, 1725). It also succeeded a Neapolitan Barony in 1695.  
Giacomo’s line received a Marquisate in Naples (1716), another in Sicily (1717) but was also invested in the Magistral title of Baron of Tabria in 1782, originally granted to the Viani family in 1728). The claim to the Barony of Culeja granted to the Bonnici family in 1737, arose only after 1798.  
In 1792, both lines, by then subdivided into 4 distinct lines, were confirmed in the 1553 Patricianship. 

Footnote#4: The Dignity of Roman Patrician was granted jointly to Monsignor Don Leonardo Abela, Bishop of Sidonia, Placido and Alessandro Abela his brothers, and upon his three nephews ex sorore Pietro di Ferro, AscanioSurdo and Paolo Testaferrata on the 11 June 1590 by the Roman Senate. However, the 1878 Commissioners dismissed this dignity on the same grounds as the title of Patrician of Messina (see above). 

Footnote #5: From a reading of the 1878 Report, it appears that of the six persons asserting a claim in 1878 to this dignity, not all were descended in the male-to-male line of the (joint) grantee from whom they were claiming. Whilst it is clear that the Testaferrata claimants were claiming by virtue of their agnatial descent from Paolo Testaferrata, it is unclear whether the basis of the other claimants was also being made in virtue of a female descent from Paolo Testaferrata or from another (female) descent from one of the other original (joint) grantees. 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.)

Footnote #6: Owing to a great abuse which had crept in, of notaries and lawyers giving the style of Nobile and Illustrissimo to many persons indiscriminately in public documents, the Grand Master de Vilhena issued a Pragmatic in the year 1725 in which he criminalized such unauthorized use. A copy verbatim of the Pragmatic dated 30th April 1725 is found in the sub-Enclosure in Enclosure No. 3 in the letter from Governor Simmons to The Earl of Derby dated 28 October 1884 which is published in Copies or Extracts of Correspondence with reference to the Maltese Nobility (In Continuation of C-3812) presented to the House of Lords by Command of Her Majesty, May 1886. In the said copy verbatim, there is what appears to be an exhaustive list of the persons who at different times received from the said Grandmaster and his successors, an exception from the aforesaid pragmatic, thereby allowing them the right to use the styles of Most Illustrious and Noble, namely: (1) Milite Barone Marc’ Antonio Inguanez (See Djar il-Bniet) and his wife Baronessa Inguanez (See Gomerino) (30 April 1725); (2)Barone di Cicciano Fabritio Testaferrata (See:Castel Cicciano) and his mother the Baronessa di Gomerino Beatrice Cassia Testaferrata  (See Gomerino), (11 May 1725), (3) Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri Mario Testaferrata (See: San Vincenzo Ferreri) (9 July 1725), (4) Carlo Falson (See Falson), and Eleanora Testaferrata (See: Capo di Ferro) (13 June 1726), (5) Barone di San Marciano Diego Galea Feriolo (See: San Marciano), (2 September 1726), (6) Barone Gio Pio De Piro (See De Piro) (19 March 1727), (7) Canon Giuseppe di Costanzo (See Paganica), and Donna Rosa (See De Noto),widow of Gio Battista di Costanzo (24 May 1729), (8) Barone Isidoro Viani (See: Tabria), (27 June 1730), (9) D. Vincenzo Platamone (See Platamone),and Antonio Bonnici (??), (10) Baldassare Bonnici (13 January 1732), (11) Calcerano Mompalao (See: Mompalao)), Giuseppe and Caterina Cuschieri (See: Frigenuini) (6 March 1732), (12) Barone Saverio Gatt (See: Benwarrad) (23 August 1737), (13) Signor Ludovico Bianchi (See: Bianchi) (25 October 1741), (14) Dr.Ugolino Bonnici (5 September 1794), (15) Dr. Saverio Crispo (See:Crispo) (??) 

Footnote #7: The title of Barone di Gomerino was created by Grand Master Perellos, by a patent dated 24th December 1710, and granted to Paolo Testaferrata and Beatrice Cassia, his wife, with succession to one of their legitimate and natural descendents for ever. They were invested in 1711. Succession to the title was not complete until the successor was invested. 

Footnote #8:  The Grand Masters created a number of titles which contemplated the right to nominate a successor. e.g. Gomerino (Testaferrata et Cassia – 1710), Budack (De Piro- 1716), San Marciano (Galea Feriolo – 1726), Tabria (Viani – 1728), Culeja (Bonnici – 1737), and Marsa (Castelletti – 1725). The faculty to nominate a successor was effective only if sanctioned by the Grand Master.  

The 1878 Report shows that the Royal Commissioners did not allow private transactions to over-rule the requirement of sovereign sanction. “It is hardly necessary to remark that such cession would be legally void, it being a settled point of feudal law that titles of nobility cannot be alienated and conveyed to other persons by deed of transaction between private parties, and without the sovereign’s sanction:. 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 Report describes instances of private nominations effected during the Government of the Grandmasters, which were regarded as valid only with the Sovereign’s assent. E.g. in the case of the title of Barone di Castel Cicciano, Royal assent was required for the 1695 transaction in favour of Fabritio Testaferrata and was in fact given in 1695, similarly in the case of Conte di Mont’ Alto, Royal assent was required for succession of the first count’s nominated successor and was in fact achieved in 1724.   

In an analogous case not determined by the Commissioners, the disherision by Mario Testaferrata de Robertis of his eldest son made in Palermo on the 16th April 1758 was not regarded as having any effect on the title of Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri. See also William Loftie “One of the claimants asserted that the eldest branch of the family was disinherited by the original grantee, and one might have supposed the Commission quite capable of deciding how far such an act of disinheritance would be valid in the case of an hereditary title”. -William John Loftie’s “A ride in Egypt, from Sioot to Luxor” (1879) Chapter I.   

Other instances not described in the Report but which are similar in meaning are: , the case of Barone di Gomerino, where Royal assent was required for the 1734 transaction in favour of Ercole Martino Testaferrata and was in fact given in 1737, and the case of Barone della Tabria, where Royal assent was required for the 1784 renunciation in favour of Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani and was in fact given in 1784.  

The policy of succession of titles as far as the British Government was concerned was stated in 1878 by the British Secretary of State for the Colonies writing to the Governor of Malta in 1878 to be “either personal to the holder of a particular fief, or descends in order of primogeniture to be tenable only by the eldest male descendant”. 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.). According to Maltese legislation (Code de Rohan) to succeed in primogenitures, one must consider, in the first place, the line, in the second place, the degree, in the third place, the sex, and in the fourth place the age. In those claims determined by the Commissioners, it appears that they applied the principle of computing from the grantee. E.g. in their remarks about Angiolino Attard (Benwarrad) being the ‘first-born descendent in the primogenial line from the grantee’, and in regard to Pietro Paolo Galea  (San Marciano) who had a ‘descent from Barone Diego Antonio Galea Ferriol, and the regular transmission of the title through the first born male descendents, successively down to his person’ 

Some of these grants allow primogenial succession through the female line. Thus in regard to the title of Barone della Tabria that in that grant ‘it is provided that in default of male issue the title is inheritable by female descendents. Consequently, although the then claimant Dr. Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani only descended from the grantee through a female line, he was nonetheless entitled to enjoy that barony. 

Footnote #9:  On the other hand, however, it appears ever since after the Government of the Order of St, John, a practice to ‘nominate’ a successor by a will has become accepted even though no assent is received from the Sovereign. E.g. in the case of Barone di Gomerino, in 1827 the barone Pietro Paolo Testaferrata Abela ‘nominated’ by a will his younger son, in the case of Barone della Tabria, the marchese Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani ‘nominated’ his younger nephew by means of a will made in 1892, in the case of Barone di San Marciano, the barone Calcedonio Galea Feriolo also willed in 1908 a ‘nomination’ in favour of his daughter in lieu of his son. Moreover, the Maltese Courts appear to have had no difficulty in (then) accepting  the principle of a ‘nomination’ without ratification from the Sovereign (In particular see judgments of 1882 (Gomerino), 1885 (Budack,) and 1894 (Tabria,). The use of a mere testamentary disposition, that is to say without seeking the Sovereign’s ratification, appears to be founded on the Budack judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal dated 7 January 1885 which said: “l’obbligo di chiedere l’investitura e di fare omaggio non era nella Bolla del Gran Maestro imposto sotto pena di decadenza del titolo e sotto il Governo successivo, l’obbligo medesimo ando’ completamente in disuso rispetto a tutti i titoli di nobilta’ conceduti dai Gran Maestri”.

Footnote #10: The Magistral grants which provide for the power of nomination also provide for a mechanism whereby the relative title is succeeded by the person determinable as per the following formulae thus: (Barone di Gomerino): facoltatem nominandi et eligendi unum ex dictis eorum descendentibus sive marem sive foeminanam, ad ipsorumet libitum et beneplacitum, pro hujusmodi titulo Baronis Gomerini consequendo et adipiscendo, dictaque nominatione et electione minime facta, ex tunc censeatur per eosdem eorumque singulos barones, nominatus et electus ipsorum Primogenitus, nisi eri ad Sacros Ordines promotus et in Religione professus et in defectu marium foemina primogenita; (Barone di Budack🙂 Hoc etiam addito, quod in casu tui vel tuorum in infinitum decessus, absque ulla nominatione vel electione dictui tituli seu Baroniae, ex nunc censeatur nominatus et electus Primogenitus, nisi erit ad sacros Ordines promotus et in Religione professus, et in defectu marium foemina primogenita….; (Barone di San Marciano:-) Et in casu tui vel tuorum in infinitum decessus, absque ulla nominatione vel electione successoris in dicto titulo, ex nunc censeatur nominatus et electus primogenitus nisi erit ad sacros ordines promotus, aut in religione professus, et in defectu marium, foemina primogenita... (Barone della Tabria: –) Et in casu tui vel tuorum in infinitu decessus absque ulla nominatione vel elctione successoris in dicto titulo, ex nunc censeatur nominatus et electus primogenitus, nisi erit ad sacros ordines promotus et in religione professus, et in defectu marium, foemina primogenita…” (For Culeja , seeTabria and forBenwarrad see San Marciano). – A question which may be debated is whether the mechanism means calculating the successor from the original grantee or from the last ‘possessor’. According to case law of the Privy Council of the House of Lords, it appears that the correct application is to calculate from the grantee, not the last possessor. Thus in determining who is to succeed in the default of a nomination, one has to assess the descent from the original grantee unless the instrument specifically provides otherwise (or is amended).  

Footnote #11: In terms of a decision of the 10th February 1883 (Strickland vs Apap) (Ref: 8 A.C.106), any ‘nomination’ may not operate to displace the order of vocation or preference expressly prescribed by the previous parts of the deed nor may one interpret the remainder against  the principles of primogeniture that line is to be preferred to degree and age. In default of actual nomination, the primogenitus is to be deemed nominated:  censeatur nominatus. The natural meaning of that expression is that this imported or supposed nomination is to be of the same nature as the real nomination might have been. The limit of line must be taken to apply to devolution in the absence of nomination.  In this way, one is precluded from determining succession from the last ‘possessor’ as otherwise it would make a nonsense of the original grant made out in favour of the grantees. The Sicilian argument that one should compute from the last possessor was delivered a final blow by the same Privy Council (Ref: No. 150 1923) in its decision of the 20th January 1926 (Cassar Desain/Testaferrata Moroni Viani) when it dismissed that claim saying “It is a satisfaction to the Board to feel that they are justified by authority in doing so, for that conclusion seems to them to be alone consonant with principle and right. The consequences of the view adopted by both Courts in Malta are indeed devastating. Their decision means that any failure by a beneficiary from whatever interested motive to claim primogenial property that property is at the mercy of any person whether within or without the vocations who succeeds in obtaining possession of it. He may hold it as against all comers even those next in the vocation freed and discharged from all primogenial obligations precise and serious as in this case they are. A more complete frustration of founders’ intentions as set forth in such an instrument of foundation as that here in question can hardly be conceived.”  
If a will is invalid (or simply not made), then the succession is regulated by the terms of the grant: thus in the case of Barone di Budack, a series of testamentary nominations made between 1874 and 1875 by the Baronessa Francesca Depiro in favour of a junior relative were declared invalid by reason of her incapacity of mind throughout that period and the title was deemed to have been succeeded by the more senior descendant of the grantee.  

In a judgment delivered on the 4 October 1894 regarding one of these titles (Tabria ) the Maltese Civil court went to great lengths to outline the importance of the preciseness of the language used in regard to the grantee and the restrictiveness of the words employed. 

Footnote #12: During the period 1883-1975, the British Colonial Administration adopted a practice of issuing ‘warrants of recognition’ issued ‘without prejudice to a decision of a competent court of law’: These warrants cannot be regarded as supplementing the terms of the original grants. In this regard, it is worth recalling the words of the British Secretary of State: “With reference to the question which the Commissioners have very properly raised in their original report, viz. whether acts of presumed recognition under the British Government, such as the issue of a passport from the Foreign Office to a gentleman, in which he is styled baron, or count, or marquis, or the mention of a similar title in a Despatch from a Secretary of State, or in a Government notice or other official document emanating from the Governor of the Colony, may be taken to have revived or perpetuated a title which has become extinct, or was otherwise without legal support, I feel able to give no other answer than that all such acts are altogether valueless for that purpose, and cannot be taken to have conferred, revived, perpetuated or confirmed any dignity which did not already rest upon an independent legal basis. It is only necessary to point out to you 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 is each case is necessary; and even assuming 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 from having the slightest effect”. (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 dated 30 April 1878 from the Secretary of State for the Colonies Hicks-Beach to Governor van Straubanzee (Report page 59-60)).

Footnote #13: Regarding the title of Barone di Cicciano (Castel Cicciano)

Footnote #14: For more information on the grant moto proprio Emperor Ferdinand III on the 6 November 1637. 

Footnote #15: Mario Testaferrata was also exempted from the aforesaid Pragmatic dated 30th April 1725 (see above). This exception is the basis for proving to the 1878 Commissioners that the titles of Djar il-Bniet and Buqana, Castel Cicciano and San Vincenzo Ferreri were recognized by the Government of the Order of Saint John in Malta thereby satisfying the criteria for recognition. 

Footnote #16: The title of Marchese Testaferrata was granted to Mario Testaferrata by the King of Sicily and Duke of Savoy on the 13 July 1717. However, the 1878 Commissioners dismissed this title as never recognized by the Government of the Order of Saint John in Malta.  

Footnote #17: Mario Testaferrata was also exempted from the aforesaid Pragmatic dated 30th April 1725 (see above). This exceptions forms the basis
Footnote #18: On the 28 May 1901 the Italian Consulta Araldica gave a judgment no. 2408 stating that the Italian Crown disassociated itself from the title Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri, in the Kingdom of Naples, granted in 1716 to Mario Testaferrata since at the date of creation “il napolitano non era piu’ nel dominio del Re di Spagna”. 
Most published sources overlook the fact that the grant of 1716 is null and void. 
Moreover, it cannot be said that the 1725 act reads as giving rise to any form of remainder of the title in question: Consequently, the best argument possible would be that that the only effect of the 1725 “legitimation”  was to allow Mario Testaferrata the personal right to that designation. That is to say the act of 1725 did not allow ulterior succession from Mario of the title known as San Vincenzo Ferreri.  
Therefore the published claim that the local recognition rendered the title “a purely Maltese title created by Magistral fiat…….that it is not subject to Italian or Spanish law but only to Maltese law, which allows females to inherit in the absence of males” is not supported by the text. 

Footnote #19: According to Gauci, C.A. “The Genealogy and Heraldry of the Maltese families of Malta” page 375: “Regardless of the controversial origins of the title, within the Principality of Malta at least, Testaferrata and his descendants became Marquises of San Vincenzo Ferreri. This local recognition enabled the Royal Commissioners to recommend that recognition also be extended by the British Crown, thus the title of “Marquis of San Vincenzo Ferreri” vecame part of the present-day Maltese Nobility. From a legal point of view it must be regarded as a purely Maltese title created by direct Magistral Fiat in 1725. It therefore follows that it is not subject to Italian or Spanish law, but only to Maltese law, which allows females to inherit in the absence of males.” (sic.) 

Footnote #20: Mario Testaferrata was one of the very first recipients of the right to Illustrissimo e Nobile. Owing to a great abuse which had crept in, of notaries and lawyers giving the style of Nobile and Illustrissimo to many persons indiscriminately in public documents, the Grand Master de Vilhena issued a Pragmatic in the year 1725 in which he criminalized such unauthorized use. A copy verbatim of the Pragmatic dated 30th April 1725 is found in the sub-Enclosure in Enclosure No. 3 in the letter from Governor Simmons to The Earl of Derby dated 28 October 1884 which is published in Copies or Extracts of Correspondence with reference to the Maltese Nobility (In Continuation of C-3812) presented to the House of Lords by Command of Her Majesty, May 1886. In the said copy verbatim, there is what appears to be an exhaustive list of the persons who at different times received from the said Grandmaster and his successors, an exception from the aforesaid pragmatic, thereby allowing them the right to use the styles of Most Illustrious and Noble, namely: (1) Milite Barone Marc’ Antonio Inguanez (See Djar il-Bniet) and his wife Baronessa Inguanez (See Gomerino) (30 April 1725); (2)Barone di Cicciano Fabritio Testaferrata (See:Castel Cicciano) and his mother the Baronessa di Gomerino Beatrice Cassia Testaferrata  (See Gomerino), (11 May 1725), (3) Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri Mario Testaferrata (See: San Vincenzo Ferreri) (9 July 1725), (4) Carlo Falson (See Falson), and Eleanora Testaferrata (See: Capo di Ferro) (13 June 1726), (5) Barone di San Marciano Diego Galea Feriolo (See: San Marciano), (2 September 1726), (6) Barone Gio Pio De Piro (See De Piro) (19 March 1727), (7) Canon Giuseppe di Costanzo (See Paganica), and Donna Rosa (See De Noto),widow of Gio Battista di Costanzo (24 May 1729), (8) Barone Isidoro Viani (See: Tabria), (27 June 1730), (9) D. Vincenzo Platamone (See Platamone),and Antonio Bonnici (??), (10) Baldassare Bonnici (13 January 1732), (11) Calcerano Mompalao (See: Mompalao)), Giuseppe and Caterina Cuschieri (See: Frigenuini) (6 March 1732), (12) Barone Saverio Gatt (See: Benwarrad) (23 August 1737), (13) Signor Ludovico Bianchi (See: Bianchi) (25 October 1741), (14) Dr.Ugolino Bonnici (5 September 1794), (15) Dr. Saverio Crispo (See:Crispo) (??) 

Footnote #21: The title of Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri, in the Kingdom of Naples, was by Philip V, King of Spain and of the Two Sicilies, conferred upon Mario Testaferrata, by a patent dated the 10th November 1716, registered in a book called Privilegm Neap. X. fol. CCLVIII. Some published sources show the title of Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri as being Spanish in origin (as different to a Neapolitan title being granted by the King of Spain in his capacity as King of Naples). This it is not. The grant clearly purports the title to be based in Naples. Moreover, as has been discussed elsewhere under the title of Marchese De Piro is to be recalled that according to the rules set by Philip V’s predecessor (Philip IV) a Spanish Marquisate could only be granted if the grantee is already in possession of a title of Count or Viscount. In the grant to Testaferrata, there is no indication that he was ever in possession of either criterion. 

Footnote #22: The following is an extract from that patent: Tenore igitur praesentium ex certa scientia, regiaque auctoritate nostra, deliberato et consulto, ac ex gratia speciali maturaque sacri nostril Supremi Consilii accedente deliberatione, praefatum Don Marium Testaferrata, Sacri Romani Imperii equitem Tornearium, et cujus patria est insula Melitana, Illustrem Marchionem, in dicto Regno Neapolis Sancti Vincentii Ferreri ejusque haeredes et successores ex suo corpore legitime descendentes, praedicto ordine successivo servato, dicimus creamus et nominamus, ab aliisque in omnibus et quibuscumque actis et scriptures dici et nominari olumus et perpetuo reputari jubemus 

Footnote #23: This title did not originate in Malta but in Naples. 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 1716 patent was never registered in Malta, and technically the title is not entitled to any precedence whatsoever. However, the 1878 Commissioners held that the default of its registration is amply supplied by the direct recognition of it on the 9th July 1725, in the person of the original grantee, Mario Testaferrata, by Grand Master Manoel when said Mario Testaferrata received the right to be styled “Most Illustrious and Noble”. 

Footnote #24: On the basis of the fact that since the conclusion of the 1878 report, it results only now that in fact the grantor was not acting in his correct capacity, one may not attempt to supplement the conclusions of the 1878 Commissioners. One cannot argue that had the Commissioners been aware of the defect, they would have regarded the 1716 ‘legitimated’ by the act of 1725.  
Footnote #25: The claim that the 1725 act of recognition was tantamount to rendering the title subject to Maltese rules of succession is not supported by the text.
Footnote #26: In 1792, both lines of the Testaferrata family, by then subdivided into 4 distinct lines, were confirmed in the Dignity of Patrician of Messina granted to their common patrilineal ancestor Mariano Testaferrata on the 20th December 1553. The Royal Commission (1878) dismissed this title as a mere municipal honour. 

Footnote #27: The title of Marchese was granted on the 13th July 1717, to Mario Testaferrata, by Victor-Amadeus, King of Sicily and Duke of Savoy. The patent of creation of this title is worded in Italian, and its operative clause runs thus:- (Translation) Hence it is that by these presents under our sign manual, of our certain knowledge, Royal authority, and absolute power, and with the advice of our Council we confer as a special favour on the said Mario Testaferrata, and all his legitimate and natural descendants successively, the title of Marquis, with all the privileges, prerogatives, dignities…which are or may be enjoyed by other marquises. We therefore command that all our magistrates, ministers, vassals, and all out subjects generally on this and on the other side of the sea…shall acknowledge as Marquis the said D. Mario Testaferrata, and his legitimate and natural descendants successivelyThe foregoing grant was made at Chambery, on the 13th July 1717, by the said King Victor-Amadeus, whilst he possessed not only the Duchy of Savoy but also the Kingdom of Sicily. The patent of creation bears the following heading:- Victor-Amadeus by the Grace of God King of Sicily, Jerusalem, and Cyprus, Duke of Savoy, Montferrat, and Aosta .and perpetual Vicar of the Empire; and in conferring the title the King declares that he avails himself of his Royal authority. 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. 122-172). 

Footnote #28: At Maltese Law the title conferred on Mario Testaferrata 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. inaccordance with the rules of 1739 and 1795 as enacted by Grand Masters Despuig and Rohan.  In this case, the Commissioners noted that the title 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. 122-172).  

Footnote#28 A: Notwithstanding, its non recognition, the 1878 Commissioners went to some lengths to establish the proper remainder of the title granted to Mario Testaferrata in 1717. In fact the Commissioenrs remarked “The title is claimed by several gentlemen who assume that it is descendible to all the grantee?s contemporary lineal successors, and not to the first-born son exclusively, under the rule of primogeniture. If the title, however, is taken to extend to all the contemporary descendants of the person first ennobled, many other gentlemen who, like the claimants, are the descendants of Mario Testaferrata, would be equally entitled to the enjoyment of the present dignity”.

Footnote #29: From a reading of the 1878 Report, it appears that the claim for a multiple remainder originated a long time before then. In fact the 1878 report describes how on the 10th September 1772, after the death of Mario and of Enrico, his first-born by Anna De Noto his first wife, Enrico’s sons Daniele, Pandolfo and Asteria, on the one part, and Gilberto another son of Mario by Elisabetta Castelletti his second wife, on the other, after having brought against each other various suits, which were begun during the lifetime of Enrico, and were decided by the Rota Romana, agreed to compromise all matters between them. In order to stipulate this deed, there appeared Daniele in his own name and on behalf of his brother Pandolfo, and of his sister Asteria, wife of the Barone Giovanni Francesco Damico Inguanez, and Mario Testaferrata, son of Gilberto, as procurator of his father, and among other clauses, the following was agreed to:-Praefati quoque Dni contrahentes pro se et suis, convenerunt et convenient quod tam memoratus Dnus Don Gilbertus, ac sui filii et descendentes in infinituum, quam preti Dni Daniel, Don Pandulphus, et Donna Asteria eorumque filii et descendentes in infinitum, reciproce ac unite uti possint uti possint titulis omnibus honorificis atque nobilibus familiae competentibus, ac segnantur titulis Marchionatus Sancti Vincentii Ferreri et Marchionatus de Testaferrata et Equitis Sacri Romani Imperii, quorum copia uni alteri consignare debet, aliisque juribus etiam patronatus simplicis familiae competentibus et non aliter. 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. 122-172). 

Footnote #30: The 1878 Commissioners dismissed the validity of the 1772 agreement as follows: This is the so-termed patto di famiglia (Anglice, family compact), which after the death of Mario was entered into, and by which also Asteria, a daughter, and her descendants were admitted to bear all the titles belonging to the family, that of Marchese De Testaferrata included. But is the latter title, De Testaferrata, proceeding from the grant made by Victor-Amadeus, is not to be taken to extend to all the contemporary descendants of Mario, and if, whatever may be its extension, it was neither duly registered in these islands nor acknowledged by the local sovereigns, it is clear that the afore-said agreement is legally null and void. On the other hand, however, and according to the aforesaid judgment of 1887, the Court of Appeal observed as follows: Che, dall’  altro canto, pero’ e’  giusto rimarcare che nella transazione seguita per atti del Notaro Vittorio Giammalvadel 10 settembre 1773 (recte 1772) tra i figli di Don Mario Testaferrata, il primo concessionario del titolo, di cui e’  qestione, dopo di avere menzionato solo due titoli di Nobilta’, quello cioe di San Vincenzo Ferreri, e l’altro di Testaferrata (alledendo a quello conceduto da Vittorio Amadeo) era stato convenuto che tutti I figli con loro discendenti dovessero essere in liberta? di portare l’una e l’atra concessione. 

Footnote #31: As at 1878, this title (because of its particularly wide remainder) was claimed by no less than six main claimants, each one backing his respective claim by forceful legal argument. These were Emmanuele Testaferrata Bonnici-Asciack, Lorenzo Antonio Testaferrata, Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani, Gio. Paolo Testaferrata Olivier de Puget, Lorenzo Antonio Cassar Desain ne Testaferrata and Ignazio Testaferrata Bonnici. However, the Commissioners noted that many others could make similar claims. 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. 122-172).  In fact by 1883, the claimants were joined by Luigi Testaferrata, Carmela Testaferrata, Giuseppe Apap Testaferrata and Francesco Gauci Testaferrata. See: 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).

Footnote #32: The Commissioners also noted that in the hypothesis that : the grant is held to be so unlimited as to include all the grantee’s descendants without any restriction, female descendants cannot by logical inference be excluded from the possession of the title, King Victor Amadeus himself in the grant of the title of Conte, conferred upon Giuseppe Preziosi, on the 19th October 1718, wishing to exclude from the succession of the grantee’s female issue, ordered that the title was to hold to the grantee and his legitimate and natural male descendants, in lawful wedlock begotten, whether born or to be born. 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. 122-172).   

Footnote #33: Published sources also show that two of the claimants namely Gio. Paolo Testaferrata Olivier de Puget and Lorenzo Antonio Cassar Desain ne Testaferrata were successful in obtaining recognitions extended by Grand Master Pinto of the title under discussion. Indeed, these published sources attribute the dates of 1745 and 1749 respectively as the dates when Grand Master Pinto ‘directly recognized’ the title granted to their respective forebears. This is not supported by the documentary evidence because when one of the claimants Emmanuele Testaferrata-Bonici-Asciack subsequently sued both Testaferrata Olivier and Cassar Desain (Judgment No. 71/1887 of H.M. Court of Appeal dated 8 January 1887), the court upheld Emmanuele Testaferrata Bonnici Asciak?s claim that he was to have the exclusive right to the title granted by Vittorio Amadeo, King of Sicily and Duke of Savoy after the same Testaferrata Olivier and Cassar Desain declared espressamente di essere stato a loro da Sua Maesta` la Regina accordato il titolo che portano, e non aggiungendo alcuna pretensione su quello conceduto da Vittorio Amadeo, in sostanza ammettendo la domanda dell? attore di essere egli solo, almeno per quanto concerne loro stessi, nel diritto di portare il titolo di Marchese conferito con quel Diploma. These declarations positively exclude any link between the title granted in 1717 and the aforesaid ‘recognitions’. Moreover, it is plain that by 1887, it had been long accepted (and admitted by both Cassar Desain and Testaferrata Olivier) that the title granted in 1717 had not been recognized by the Grand Masters in any form whatsoever. 

Footnote #34: In the court proceedings culminating in the aforesaid judgemnt of 1887, both Cassar Desain and Testaferrata Olivier declared that dichiarando espressamente di essere a loro da Sua Maesta la Regina accordato il titolo che portano, e non aggiungendo alcuna pretensione su quello conceduto da Vittorio Amadeo. That is to say, Cassar Desain and Testaferrata Olivier declared that the titles enjoyed by them were by virtue of a grant by Queen Victoria. 

Footnote #35: The same Mario Testaferrata made a will which was opened and published at Palermo by notary Dixidomino on the 16th April 1758, from which it appears that Mario, who therein styles himself as Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri:, and also Marchese de Testaferrata, disposed as follows: in toto integro et indeminuito patrimonio ac in dicto titulo Marchiones Sancti Vincentii nec non etiam in ejus Palatio, etc ejus haeredem universalem instituit, ac proprio ore nominavit et nominat D. Gilbertum Testaferrata ejus filium In the same testament, we find also the following clause: Et quia dictus illustris testator ultra dictos Dominum Gilbertum et D. Pulchram, ejus filios desuper contemplatos, alium ejus filium primi matrimonii vocatum D. Enricum Testaferrata . Et pro nonnullis ingratitudinibus disobedientiae, ac pro dubio insidiationis mortis ejusdem testatoris, ut ipse illustris asserit, etiam pro causa dissipationis nonnullorum bonorum mobiliumvigore praesentis, attentis juribus et rationibus desuper descriptis, dictus illus testator eumdem D. Henricum Testaferrata dishaereditavit, a substantia et patrimonio paterno privando et totaliter eumdem D. Henricum Testaferrata ejus filium tam a successione titolorum Marchionis Sancti Vincentii Ferreri et Testaferrata, quam a successione..et sic voluit et non aliter nec alio modo, et hoc non obstante quod fuisset per eundem illum testatorem facta wquaedam scriptura private, subscripta propria manu dicti illmi testatoris, in qua declarabat dictum D. Henricum ejus filium, successorem in Marchionem Sancti Vincentii Ferreri. 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. 113-121). In the course of the 1878 inquiry, the 1878 Commissioners remarked  But if, on the contrary, the title lawfully subsists, and it is inheritable by the first-born son only, under the rule of primogeniture, the marchese would be the said Emmanuele Testaferrata, should the disinheritance in Mario’s testament be void, but, if valid, the title belongs to the said Dr. Giuseppe Testaferrata. 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. 122-172) 

Footnote #36: The designation of the title Marquis Testaferrata Olivier is a misnomer.  To assert that the title of “Marquis Testaferrata Oliver” was “recognized” in some form or another in 1745 implies that the surname “Testaferrata Olivier” had already been established. On the basis of the genealogical chart, the surname “Testaferrata Olivier” could only have been first established after 1762 (the date of marriage between Testaferrata and Olivier) and that the family could only have been established at least one generation after that marriage. At best this title should be called “Marquis Testaferrata de Noto”. 

Footnote #37: Many published sources describe the title of “Marquis Testaferrata Olivier” as having been “recognized” and/or “extended” by Grand Master Pinto in 1745 to a title which had been conferred by Victor Amadeus , King of Sicily and Duke of Savoy on 13th July 1717 upon Mario Testaferrata. This is not substantiated by either the 1878 Report nor the 1883 Report. 

Footnote #38  Gio Paolo Testaferrata Olivier had claimed before the 1878 Royal Commisison both the titles of “Marquis of San Vincenzo Ferreri” and Marchese Testaferrata. Published sources also show that the above recommendation was tantamount to a recognition by Grand Master Pinto of the title of Marchese granted on the 13th July 1717, to Mario Testaferrata, by Victor-Amadeus, King of Sicily and Duke of Savoy and that such “recognition” brought about the title of “Marquis Testaferrata Olivier” On the other hand, .it is amply documented that when Testaferrata Olivier and Lorenzo Antonio Cassar Desain were later sued by Emmanuele Testaferrata-Bonici-Asciack (Judgment No. 71/1887 of H.M. Court of Appeal dated 8 January 1887), the court upheld Emmanuele Testaferrata Bonnici Asciak’s claim that he was to have the exclusive right to the title granted by Vittorio Amadeo, King of Sicily and Duke of Savoy after the same Testaferrata Olivier and Cassar Desain declared espressamente di essere stato a loro da Sua Maesta` la Regina accordato il titolo che portano, e non aggiungendo alcuna pretensione su quello conceduto da Vittorio Amadeo, in sostanza ammettendo la domanda dell’  attore di essere egli solo, almeno per quanto concerne loro stessi, nel diritto di portare il titolo di Marchese conferito con quel Diploma. The import of this declaration is (a) there is no link whatsoever between the title granted in 1717 and the aforesaid “recognition” of 1745, (b) that there is no recognition by a Grand Master of the 1717 title, (c) Testaferrata Olivier did not base his successful claim on the 1717 title.  

Footnote #39  By eliminating of the claim to Marchese Testaferrata and being faithful to Gio Paolo’s original claims as described in the 1878 Reports, it follows therefore (unless one were to dare vaunt the claim that Queen Victoria’s act was tantamount to raising Testaferrata Olivier to the English Peerage!!), that the only remaining basis of Testaferrata Olivier’s claim can only be a subformation of the “title” of Marquis of San Vincenzo Ferreri(which in the 1883 report is wrongly described as a Spanish title). 

Footnote #40  Contrary to the findings of the 1878 and 1883 Reports, a Maltese Court of Appeal did not appear to have any reservations about the claim that all of Mario Testaferrata Robertis’s descendants (including those descended in a female line) are equally entitled to the titles of Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri and Marchese Testaferrata According to a judgment of 1887 (Judgment No. 71/1887 of H.M. Court of Appeal dated 8 January 1887), the Court of Appeal observed as follows: Che, dall’ altro canto, pero’  e’  giusto rimarcare che nella transazione seguita per atti del Notaro Vittorio Giammalvadel 10 settembre 1773 (recte 1772)tra i figli di Don Mario Testaferrata, il primo concessionario del titolo, di cui e’  questione, dopo di avere menzionato solo due titoli di Nobilta’  quello cioe di San Vincenzo Ferreri, e l’ altro di Testaferrata (alledendo a quello conceduto da VittorioAmadeo) era stato convenuto che tutti i figli con loro discendenti dovessero essere in liberta’  di portare l’ una e l’ atra concessione. That is to say, quite apart from the reservations about the deemed grant of 1745 which purportedly gave rise to the title of Marchese Testaferrata Olivier , it appears that all descendants of Mario Testaferrata (including therefore the members of the Testaferrata De Noto family) are equally entitled to enjoy both titles of Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri and Marchese Testaferrata 
Footnote#8 In accordance with the 1883 recommendation, ulterior succession (from Gio Paolo Testaferrata Olivier) is limited in favour of the “eldest son”. Females and cadets are therefore excluded from succeeding.
Footnote #41: In 1792, both lines of the Testaferrata family, by then subdivided into 4 distinct lines, were confirmed in the Dignity of Patrician of Messina granted to their common patrilineal ancestor Mariano Testaferrata on the 20th December 1553.The Royal Commission (1878) dismissed this title as a mere municipal honour. 

Footnote #42: The designation of the title Marquis Cassar Desain is a misnomer.  To assert that the title of ‘Marquis Cassar Desain’ was ‘recognized’ in some form or another in 1749 implies that a member of the Cassar Desainfamily was ennobled in 1749. This was specifically ruled out by the 1878 Commissioners as follows: Lorenzo Cassar Desain, who is a descendant through a male line of Mario Testaferrata, has like his deceased father, dropped the name Testaferrata and assumed that of Cassar Desain, in order to be able to possess the aforesaid Primogenitura, which was instituted by Gio. Battista Cassar Desain in his testament received in the acts of Notary Paolo Vittorio Giammalva, on the 7th April 1781. That testament contains, among other disposition, the following clause (translated from the Italian):- ‘I further direct and expressly command that the possessor of the said Prmogenitura erected, as herein-before stated, by me, shall always bear the name Cassar Desain, without adding any other family name thereto, and that he shall, at the same time, bear the armorial ensigns of the said family Cassar Desain, under the penalty of forfeiture, upon breach of the said condition, and my will is that, in such case, the said Primogenitura shall forthwith go to and be vested in, such person as should have succeeded to it, after the death of such defaulter, and not otherwise. With reference to the foregoing extract we beg to state that the family of which the said Lorenzo Cassar Desain is bound to bear the surname and armorial ensigns is not in possession of, nor has it ever asserted any claim to, any title of nobility. (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. 122-172) . At best this title should be called ‘Marquis Testaferrata Castelletti’. In addition, and on the basis of the genealogical chart the designation of this title as ‘Marquis Cassar Desain’ is patently a nonsense as it was Gilberto Testaferrata Castelletti’s youngest grandson’s son who married a Cassar Desain. Insofar as this ‘title’ is concerned, the surname ‘Cassar Desain’ could only have been first established after 1822 (the date of marriage between Testaferrata and Cassar Desain, coupled with the aforesaid requirement of the deed dated 1781) and that the familycould only have been established at least one generation after that marriage.  

Footnote #43: Many published sources describe the title of ‘Marquis Cassar Desain’ as having been ‘recognized’ and/or ‘extended’ by Grand Master Pinto in 1749 to a title which had been conferred by Victor Amadeus , King of Sicily and Duke of Savoy on 13th July 1717 upon Mario Testaferrata. This is not substantiated by either the 1878 Report nor the 1883 Report.  

Footnote #44: Lorenzo Antonio Cassar Desain, had staked a claim to both the titles of ‘Marquis of San Vincenzo Ferreri’ and Marchese Testaferrata. Published sources also show that the above recommendation was tantamount to a recognition by Grand Master Pinto of the title of Marchese granted on the 13th July 1717, to Mario Testaferrata, by Victor-Amadeus, King of Sicily and Duke of Savoy and that such “recognition” brought about the title of “Marquis Testaferrata Olivier” On the other hand, .it is amply documented that when Cassar Desain and Gio Paolo Testaferrata Olivier were later sued by Emmanuele Testaferrata-Bonici-Asciack (Judgment No. 71/1887 of H.M. Court of Appeal dated 8 January 1887), the court upheld Emmanuele Testaferrata Bonnici Asciak’s claim that he was to have the exclusive right to the title granted by Vittorio Amadeo, King of Sicily and Duke of Savoy after the same Testaferrata Olivier and Cassar Desain declared espressamente di essere stato a loro da Sua Maesta` la Regina accordato il titolo che portano, e non aggiungendo alcuna pretensione su quello conceduto da Vittorio Amadeo, in sostanza ammettendo la domanda dell’  attore di essere egli solo, almeno per quanto concerne loro stessi, nel diritto di portare il titolo di Marchese conferito con quel Diploma. The import of this declaration is (a) there is no link whatsoever between the title granted in 1717 and the aforesaid “recognition” of 1749, (b) that there is no recognition by a Grand Master of the 1717 title, (c) Cassar Desain did not base his successful claim on the 1717 title.  

Footnote #45   By eliminating of the claim to Marchese Testaferrata and being faithful to Cassar Desain’s original claims as described in the 1878 Reports, it follows therefore (unless one were to dare vaunt the claim that Queen Victoria’s act was tantamount to raising Cassar Desain to the English Peerage!!), that the only remaining basis of Cassar Desain’s claim can only be a subformation of the ‘title’ of Marquis of San Vincenzo Ferreri (which in the 1883 report is wrongly described as a Spanish title). 

Footnote #46  Contrary to the findings of the 1878 and 1883 Reports, a Maltese Court of Appeal did not appear to have any reservations about the claim that all of Mario Testaferrata Robertis’s descendants (including those descended in a female line) are equally entitled to the titles of Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri and Marchese Testaferrata According to a judgment of 1887 (Judgment No. 71/1887 of H.M. Court of Appeal dated 8 January 1887), the Court of Appeal observed as follows: Che, dall’ altro canto, pero’  e’  giusto rimarcare che nella transazione seguita per atti del Notaro Vittorio Giammalvadel 10 settembre 1773 (recte 1772)tra i figli di Don Mario Testaferrata, il primo concessionario del titolo, di cui e’  questione, dopo di avere menzionato solo due titoli di Nobilta  quello cioe di San Vincenzo Ferreri, e l’ altro di Testaferrata (alledendo a quello conceduto da VittorioAmadeo) era stato convenuto che tutti i figli con loro discendenti dovessero essere in liberta’  di portare l’ una e l’ atra concessione. That is to say, quite apart from the reservations about the deemed grant of 1745 which purportedly gave rise to the title of Marchese Testaferrata Olivier , it appears that all descendants of Mario Testaferrata (including therefore the members of the Testaferrata Castelletti family) are equally entitled to enjoy both titles of Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri and Marchese Testaferrata

Footnote #47 In accordance with the 1883 recommendation, ulterior succession (from Lorenzo Antonio Cassar Desain) is limited in favour of the ‘eldest son’. Females and cadets are therefore excluded from succeeding. 
Footnote #48. The 1883 recommendation implies conversely that Lorenzo Antonio Cassar Desain was descended in a line of eldest son to eldest son starting from Gilberto. An examination of the genealogical table shows that this is not the case. By applying the 1883 recommendation to the table of descent enumeration should be as follows: Gilberto Testaferrata Castelletti (“1st” Marquis), Mario Testaferrata Castelletti (“2nd”), Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani (“3rd”), Gilberto Testaferrata Viani (“4th”), Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani (5th). With the extinction of that first male line, the title should devolve to the surviviving male lines of Lorenzo Testaferrata Viani (in the 19th century these lines were residing in Tunisia), and after their extinction onto the line of Filippo Testaferrata from whom Lorenzo Antonio descended. 
Footnote #49: Beatrice Testaferrata, nee Cassia, was one of the very first recipients of the right to Illustrissimo e Nobile. Owing to a great abuse which had crept in, of notaries and lawyers giving the style of Nobile and Illustrissimo to many persons indiscriminately in public documents, the Grand Master de Vilhena issued a Pragmatic in the year 1725 in which he criminalized such unauthorized use. A copy verbatim of the Pragmatic dated 30th April 1725 is found in the sub-Enclosure in Enclosure No. 3 in the letter from Governor Simmons to The Earl of Derby dated 28 October 1884 which is published in Copies or Extracts of Correspondence with reference to the Maltese Nobility (In Continuation of C-3812) presented to the House of Lords by Command of Her Majesty, May 1886. In the said copy verbatim, there is what appears to be an exhaustive list of the persons who at different times received from the said Grandmaster and his successors, an exception from the aforesaid pragmatic, thereby allowing them the right to use the styles of Most Illustrious and Noble, namely: (1) Milite Barone Marc’ Antonio Inguanez (See Djar il-Bniet) and his wife Baronessa Inguanez (See Gomerino) (30 April 1725); (2)Barone di Cicciano Fabritio Testaferrata (See:Castel Cicciano) and his mother the Baronessa di Gomerino Beatrice Cassia Testaferrata  (See Gomerino), (11 May 1725), (3) Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri Mario Testaferrata (See: San Vincenzo Ferreri) (9 July 1725), (4) Carlo Falson (See Falson), and Eleanora Testaferrata (See: Capo di Ferro) (13 June 1726), (5) Barone di San Marciano Diego Galea Feriolo (See: San Marciano), (2 September 1726), (6) Barone Gio Pio De Piro (See De Piro) (19 March 1727), (7) Canon Giuseppe di Costanzo (See Paganica), and Donna Rosa (See De Noto),widow of Gio Battista di Costanzo (24 May 1729), (8) Barone Isidoro Viani (See: Tabria), (27 June 1730), (9) D. Vincenzo Platamone (See Platamone),and Antonio Bonnici (??), (10) Baldassare Bonnici (13 January 1732), (11) Calcerano Mompalao (See: Mompalao)), Giuseppe and Caterina Cuschieri (See: Frigenuini) (6 March 1732), (12) Barone Saverio Gatt (See: Benwarrad) (23 August 1737), (13) Signor Ludovico Bianchi (See: Bianchi) (25 October 1741), (14) Dr.Ugolino Bonnici (5 September 1794), (15) Dr. Saverio Crispo (See:Crispo) (??) 

Footnote #50: The title of Barone di Gomerino was created by Grand Master Perellos, by a patent dated 24th December 1710, and granted to Paolo Testaferrata and Beatrice Cassia, his wife, with succession to one of their legitimate and natural descendents for ever and that the Grand Master gave to the said Paolo and Beatrice Testaferrata Cassia, and to all and each of the holders of the title of “Barone di Gomerino” in perpetuum, the power of nominating to the succession of the title one of their male descendents at their will and pleasure, and on failure of such nomination it was provided that the title should descend to their first-born child. They were invested in that title on the 10 January 1711. Succession to the title was not complete until the successor was invested. 
Gomerino is the name of certain lands situated in Malta: they were granted originally as a noble fief by Frederick King of Sicily to Guglielmo Surdo, and after having been purchased by Grand Master Fr. Giovanni La Valette, they were again conferred in allodium by Grand Master Fr. Alosio Wignacourt on Gio. Maria Cassia. This allodial property eventually came to be held by Gio Maria’s grand daughter Beatrice.  
However the 1878 Royal Commissioners stated that this title was being disputed between Pietro Paolo Testaferrata Abela Moroni and Augusto Testaferrata Abela: The Royal Commissioners decided not to express any opinion, limiting themselves to saying that it would be prudent not to hear the claimants. 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. 24-26) 

Footnote #51:  The Grand Masters created a number of titles which contemplated the right to nominate a successor. e.g. Gomerino (Testaferrata et Cassia – 1710), Budack (De Piro- 1716), San Marciano (Galea Feriolo – 1726), Tabria (Viani – 1728), Culeja (Bonnici – 1737), and Marsa (Castelletti – 1725). The faculty to nominate a successor was effective only if sanctioned by the Grand Master. 

Footnote #52:  Published sources show Fabrizio as having succeeded after Paolo died in 1713.  
This is wrong because Paolo died in 1714, not 1713 – see text of inscription in Cospicua Church and Convent of St. Theresa (Discalced Carmelites) reproduced.  

Footnote #53:  In 1713, Beatrice passed Gomerino property in 1713 onto her eldest son Fabrizio who had already succeeded his mother in the title of Barone di Castel Cicciano by means of a private transaction which received Royal assent in 1695. However, Fabrizio was never invested in the title of Gomerino. On the other hand, it was Ercole Martino who was invested on the 1st May 1737 as Baron of Gomerino (National Library of Malta Collections – Archives of the Order Volume 541, f. 184r) and this with reference to a private deed dated 1734 referring in turn to a primogenitura established in 1714, known as the “Ta’ Xbiex” Primogenitura.
Moreover, in 1744 that Ercole Martino (already holding the title of Baron of Gomerino) received the property of Gomerino by virtue of Fabrizio’s will.  

Footnote #54:  It appears that there has been some confusion in published sources, even in the Royal Commissioners’ Report, between the ownership of the property of Gomerino and the succession of the title of Gomerino.  In fact, the 1878 Commissioners had already remarked in regard to the title of Barone di Gomerino that in that grant it is provided that the power of nominating a successor of the title may be made in favour of Paolo and Beatrice’s “male descendants” . It does not result from the Report why the Commissioners excluded the possibility of any female being nominated to succeed to the title when the text cited by them allows for a succession by a female. Perhaps more remarkable is that elsewhere in their report the same Commissioners observed that at the time of the 1878 Commission, the primogenital descendent of Paolo and Beatrice Testaferrata was Alessandro Sceberras Testaferrata Damico Inguanez described as first-born descendent in the primogenial line of Paolo Testaferrata and Beatrice Cassia Baronessa di Castel Cicciano his wife, who by a deed of donation stipulated before notary Benedetto Vassallo, on the 8th February 1695, granted to Fabrizio Testaferrata their first-born son… (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. 106). : However from the record of the proceedings of a later judgment given by the Corte Civile di Sua Maesta’  Prim’ Aula 9 gennajo 1882 (Testaferrata Abela vs Testaferrata Abela Moroni), it results that the Gomerino property was in 1713 the subject of a donation and it was stipulated that relative succession of that property was to benefit only males descending in the male line from Paolo and Beatrice Testaferrata.  

In fact the donee Fabrizio Testaferrata eventually died in 1744 without agnate descendants, and the property was succeeded by his Ercole Martino.  

On the other hand, the “Ta’ Xbiex” primogeniture was succeeded by the eldest of the family of Testaferrata Abela Moroni/ Testaferrata Moroni Viani as per rules of primogeniture whilst the Gomerino estate was succeeded by descendants of the junior Testaferrata Abela family by means of a series of nominations. 

 Footnote #55: The Dignity of Patrician of Citta’ di Castello  was granted to Pier Giacomo Testaferrata on the 19 September 1739. There is no mention of this dignity in the claims presented to the 1878 Commissioners. See Correspondence and Report of the Commission appointed to enquire into the claims and grievances of the Maltese Nobility, May 1878, presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty (C.-2033.)

Footnote #56: The Corte Civile di Sua Maesta’  Prim’ Aula 9 gennajo 1882 decided as follows (See Testaferrata Abela vs Testaferrata Abela Moroni (4 January 1882)): Che non e’ diffettosa la nomina nel titolo, per parte di Pietro Paolo Testaferrata e di Francesco, perche’  nella stessa si e’  ritenuto essere il detto titolo annesso al giardino del Gomerino, e la nomina e’ stata fatta nel giardino coll’ annessovi titolo baronale, siccome risulta bastantamentedella intenzione dei detti Pietro Paolo e Francesco di nominare la stessa persona, e nel possesso del Giardino, e nel titolo; molto piu’ che questa era la volonta’ di Fabrizio Testaferrata, primogenito di Paolo e Beatrice, espressanel di lui testamento del 12 agosto 1744, 
Footnote #57: There appears to be no historic basis in asserting that Fabrizio Testaferrata succeeded the title orginally granted in 1710. He merely held the property known by the same name.  
By 1734, the other cograntee (Paolo Testaferrata) was already dead. Beatrice’s act, as approved by the grand master in 1737, implies that the Grand Master did not accept Fabrizio as having succeeded the title of Gomerino after Paolo’s death in 1714 or after having received the property in 1713. Very significantly, Fabrizio who in 1725 was also a recipient of the title of Illustrissimo e Nobile was not acknowledged by the Grand Master as Barone di Gomerino. 

It is therefore no surprise that by the time of the Royal Commission of 1878, this title was being claimed by the then holder of the “Ta’ Xbiex” Primogenitura (Pietro Paolo Testaferrata Abela Moroni) and the holder of the Gomerino property (Augusto Testaferrata Abela). No decision was given by the Royal Commissioners, nor were these two descendants allowed to present their respective cases before the Commission. The text of the Secretary’s list does not support the Commissioners’ view that the claimants were staking their claims to the exclusion of each other.  

However, a court case did ensue (see above), whereby Augusto Testaferrata Abela successfully proved that he succeeded the title by a series of nominations calculated from Fabrizio’s succession in 1713 year when he received the property of Gomerino. The court case could not and did not invalidate the 1737 succession and annexation to the “Ta’ Xbiex” Primogeniture in favour of Ercole Martino. In this way, the published sources are correct where they describe Ercole Martino as having succeeded Fabrizio in 1744 in terms of the 1882 judgment, but they are incorrect because they ignore the investiture of 1737. 

Assuming that the 1882 judgment is correct, during the period 1713 till 1737 there were two holders of the same title (Beatrice as holder of the title and Fabrizio as holder of the property) of the same title granted in 1710, and between 1737 till 1744 there were two holders (Fabrizio as holder of the property and Ercole Martino as the person invested) of the same title, one based on 1710, the other based on the 1737 decree. This would mean that we have to ignore the fact that in 1725 the Grand Master chose not to acknowledge Fabrizio Testaferrata as the Baron of Gomerino and only acknowledged Beatrice. It follows that if Fabrizio did succeed in 1713 (as per judgement of 1882) and Ercole Martino succeeded the surviving cograntee Beatrice in 1737 (as per order of the Grand Master of 1737), then there are two Barons of Gomerino!  

Thus the Barons of Gomerino are calculated as follows:  
1, (as per 1737 legislation) Beatrice (co-grantee) in 1710 succeeded by Ercole Martino in 1737. That is to say, at least during the period 1710 till 1714 there were clearly two holders (Paolo and Beatrice) of the title of Baron which originated in 1710. 
2, (as per 1882 judgement) Paolo (co-grantee who donated the property in 1713 and died in 1714) in 1710 succeeded in 1713 by Fabrizio in turn by Ercole Martino in 1744;  

The adjusted enumeration as per judgement of 1882 and the Grand Master’s decision of 1737 is as follows: 

Footnote #58: Ercole Martino Testaferrata was the second and last person to have been formally invested in the 1710 title of Baron Testaferrata of Gomerino.  
Following the 1737 investiture, and order of primogeniture, succession is reckoned as follows: Paolo and Beatrice Testaferrata (joint 1st Baron and Baroness), Ercole Martino Testaferrata (1st possessor of the Primogenitura, 2ndBaron), Paolo Testaferrata Abela (3rd Baron), Pietro Paolo Testaferrata Abela (4th), Giuseppe Testaferrata Abela Moroni (5th) Pietro Paolo Testaferrata Abela Moroni (6th), Salvatore Testaferrata Moroni Viani (7th), Pietro Paolo Testaferrata Moroni Viani (8th),  Salvino Testaferrata Moroni Viani (9th).  
On the other hand, Francesco and Augusto Testaferrata Abela are noted as having succeeded the property of Gomerino, Francesco by their father and Augusto by said Francesco following an earlier nomination of 1744 based on the 1713 donation.  
Following the 1713 donation of the property, supplemented by the 1882 judgment, succession is reckoned as follows: said Paolo Testaferrata (1st Baron), Fabrizio Testaferrata (2nd Baron, succeeding the property in 1713 by donation), said Ercole Martino Testaferrata (3rd Baron, succeeding the property in 1744 ‘by nomination’), said Paolo Testaferrata (succeeding as 4th not 3rd Baron), said Pietro Paolo Testaferrata Abela (succeeding as 5th not 4thBaron),  Francesco Testaferrata Abela (6th ‘by nomination’), Augusto Testaferrata Abela (7th ‘by nomination’) Ugo Testaferrata Abela (8th), Pietro Paolo Testaferrata Abela (9th), Adriana Maria Testaferrata Abela (11th). Fiefs were abolished in Malta 1969 with a savings clause “nothing shall affect any title of nobility, and the laws in force concerning any such titles shall continue to have effect”. The question whether this renders the title transmissible by descent or whether it is extinct is discussed at 

Footnote #59: On the assumption that neither the 1737 investiture nor the private nominations are valid, the title would be succeeded in order of Primogeniture. At the time of the 1878 Commission, the primogenital descendent of Paolo and Beatrice Testaferrata was Alessandro Sceberras Testaferrata Damico Inguanez described as first-born descendent in the primogenial line of Paolo Testaferrata and Beatrice Cassia Baronessa di Castel Cicciano his wife, who by a deed of donation stipulated before notary Benedetto Vassallo, on the 8th February 1695, granted to Fabrizio Testaferrata their first-born son…… (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. 106). In this way succession would be reckoned as follows: said Paolo and Beatrice Testaferrata (1st Baron and Baroness), Fabrizio Testaferrata (2nd Baron, succeeding his parent at their death), Clara Sceberras (3rd Baroness, succeeding her father at his death), Pasquale Sceberras Testaferrata (4th Baron succeeding his mother at her death), Antonio Sceberras Testaferrata (5th Baron succeeding his father at his death), Pasquale Sceberras Testaferrata (6th Baron succeeding his father at his death), Alexander Sceberras D’Amico Inguanez (7th Baron succeeding his father at his death), Maria Francesca Carmen Sceberras D’Amico Inguanez, (8th Baroness, succeeding her father at his death),  Alexander Chesney Sceberras D’Amico Inguanez, (primogenial descendant of Paolo and Beatrice Testaferrata succeeding Maria Francesca at her death as 9th Baron),  Frances Mary Carmen Chesney D’Amico Inguanez (10th Baroness, succeeding her brother at his death), Carol Ann Sceberras Trigona (primogenial descendant of Paolo and Beatrice Testaferrata succeeding Frances Mary at her death as 11th Baroness). 
Footnote #60: There appears to be no historical basis of Fabrizio Testaferrata ever holding the title of Barone di Gomerino with the Grand Master’s consent. 
As at 1713 (year of the donation of the property to Fabrizio), 1714 year (when Paolo died), 1725 (when Beatrice and Fabrizio received the title of Most Illustrious and Noble), 1734 (when Ercole Martino received the title as holder of the “Ta’ Xbiex” Primogenitura) and 1737 (when Ercole Martino was invested in the title of Barone di Gomerino), the property was not held by the holder of the title of nobility. 

Further Footnotes: The Hereditary Knighthood of the Holy Roman Empire (Testaferrata).

Reference:

1. The Testaferrata family (A re-appraisal of the family’s early history), Stephen Giles Ash, Classic Press, Cospicua.