"Libro d'Oro di Melita"

"Title of Baron of Benwarrad granted to the Most Illustrious and Noble Saverio Gatto (1737)"

All Corrections/Additions are Welcome

To see the ancestry of Saverio Gatto, lineal descendant of Cicco Gatto, go to Djar-il-Bniet e Buqana.

* Saverio Gatto, (died 1782) 1st Baron of Benwarrad (Cr:1737), Most Illustrious and Noble, Married 1737 to Eutilia Cuzkeri, with issue

1. Paola Gatto, 2nd Baroness of Benwarrad, Married Emmanuele Moscati Cassia, with issue.
1.1. Vincenzo Moscati Cassia, Baroncino di Benwarrad., dunm. 1786.
1.2. Antonia Moscati Cassia, 3rd Baroness-(Appears to have had illegitimate issue - See Below.)

2. Maria Antonia Gatto, Married 1774 to Chev. Alberto Montalto de Riberia, 5th Barone di San Paolino (Sicily), with issue
2.1. Francesco Saverio Montalto de Riberia, married Maria Teresa Biagio, with issue
2.1.1. Vincenzo Montalto de Riberia, dunm.
2.1.2  Paolo Montalto de Riberia, 4th Baron-See Below

2.1.3. Calcedonio Montalto de Riberia, dunm.
2.1.4. Maria Antonia Montalto de Riberia, married 1830 to Sir Nicola Sceberras Bologna, 5th Count of Catena, and dsp.

3. Maria Gatt, married 1778 to Angelo Ellul, (Son of Filippo and Anna), with issue
3.1. Teresa Ellul
3.2. Giuseppe Ellul
3.3. Saverio Ellul
3.4. Anna Ellul, married Gregorio Mantucci
3.5. Vincenza Ellul, married 1812 to Francesco Barbaro.

 

Footnote#1: The title of Barone di Benuarrat was conferred by patent on the 18th August 1737, by the Grand Master Despuig to the nobleman Saverio Gatto, and to such of his sons or daughters in perpetuum as should be named by the holder of the title, and in default of nomination, to the first-born male descendent, and in the failure of male issue to the first-born daughter. The 1878 Commissioners described the terms of the patent of creation as being identical with that contained in the charter of the Barone di San Marciano. (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.) Moreover, it is to be added that from a reading of the first paragraphs of the 1878 Commissioners Report (Paras. 24-34), the Commissioners implicitly stated that the first six titles (of which Culeja was one) were broadly similar in reading [even though they have some (significant) differences between them]: The extracts shown by the 1878 Commissioners read as follows:

 

(Barone di Gomerino :-) -1710 GM Perellos) Praefeatos Paulum et Beatricem et post eosdem, omni futuro tempore et in perpetuum, unum ex omnibus et singulis eorumdem successoribus de suis corporibus legitime et naturaliter descendentibus, semper Baronis Gomerini titulo decoarus et insignimus, et barones creamus et constituimus......Tribuentes iisdem Paulo et Beatrice omnibusque ac singulis aliis qui omni futuro tempore ac in perpetuum titulo ac prerogativa Baronis Gomerini fruentur, 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:-) - 1716 GM Perellos) Tibi Joanni Pio De Piro et post tui obituum uni ex filiis vel filiabus legitimis et naturabilibus, ex te et Nobili Anna Gourgion tua conjuge procreatis vel procreandis quem vel quam omni futuro tempore et in perpetuum. Tu et quilibet seu quaelibet ex tuis successoribus in dicta Baronia constitutus seu respective constituta, malueritis eligendum vel eligendam, tribuimus, concedimus et donamus hujusmodique titulo insignimus ac Baronem dicto Feudi de Budacco constituimus et ita nominari posse et debere....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- 1726 GM Vilhena) Tibi Nobili Didaco Antonio Galea Feriol et post tui obitum, uni ex filiis vel filiabus legitimis et naturalibus ex te legitime procreatis vel procreandis, quem vel quam omni futuro tempore et in perpetuum. Tu et quilibet ex tuis legitimis successoribus in dicta Baronia constitutus seu respective constituta, malueritis eligendum vel eligendam. 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 - 1728 GM Vilhena) Tibi Nobili Isidoro Viani et post tui obitum uni ex filiis vel filiabus legitimis et naturalibus ex te legitime procreatis vel procreandis, quem vel quam omni futuro constitutus seu respective constituta, malueritis eligendum vel eligendam. 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..."

 

Footnote#2: Specifically, the 1878 Commissioners observed that Gattos diploma was the last of the first six titles considered by them in order of antiquity, namely Gomerino (Testaferrata et Cassia - 1710), Budack (De Piro- 1716), San Marciano (Galea Feriolo - 1726), Tabria (Viani - 1728), Culeja (Bonnici) - 1737 and Benuarrat (Gatto- 1737) . 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#3: It should be remarked also that Saverio Gatto was one of five of the said recipients of six titles to have been granted the right to Illustrissimo e Nobile. The persons who at different times received this dignity were: (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) (??). (See http://www.maltagenealogy.com/SME/mostillustriousandnoble.html )-

Footnote#4: The 1878 Commissioners remarked in regard to the title of Barone di Benuarrat that the first-born descendent in the primogenial line from the grantee was Angiolino Attard. The Commissioners remarked that although such descent is through a female line, as females are also qualified to enjoy the title in subsidium, they did not hesitate to approve Angiolino Attard’s claim   It is interesting to note that Angiolino Attard was not on the Committee of Titolati’s list, even though it later resulted that he was entitled to two titles including the one under discussion.

Footnote#5: In regard to the “first six” titles, primary emphasis is placed on the holder’s faculty to nominate and in default, 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 , see Tabria and for Benwarrad see San Marciano).

 

Footnote#6: It should be remembered that 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. The question which has been debated many times is whether line is to be calculated from the original grantee or from the last possessor. It appears that in terms of Sicilian Law, ulterior succession was calculated from the last possessor. However, it should be recalled that all of these six grants did not emanate from a Sicilian Monarch but from an independent and Sovereign ruler of Malta. In fact the 1878 Commissioners emphasized that Grand Masters were not bound to refer to the cognizance and decision of feudal suits (para. 135): The Commissioners considered this aspect with particular attention and concluded that even when Emperor Charles V, as King of Sicily, ceded the Maltese islands on the 24 March 1530 to the Knights, there was no condition reserved in the King’s favour that provided that the privileges granted by him should be recognized and enforced in the territory he had granted to the Grand Masters and the Order of St. John: Moreover the Commissioners also observed that any possible doubt was done away with by Philip II’s ulterior grant of 27 June 1559. The implication that one should computate descent from the original grantee instead of the Sicilian rule may have enormous implications but it seems that this was in fact the preferred interpretation by the Privy Council of the House of Lords in the classic Strickland/Apap case the outcome of which decided not just a mere title but an entire patrimony. According to the decision of  the 10th February 1883 of the Privy Council of the House of Lords in the Strickland/Apap case (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. See also http://www.maltagenealogy.com/SME/catena.html 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). 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. That the 1878 Commissioners would have been in agreement with the principle of computing from the grantee is clearly implied in their remarks about Angiolino Attard (Benwarrad) being the first-born descendent in the primogenial line from the grantee, as well as their remarks that Pietro Paolo Galea  (San Marciano) 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 (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. 19, 30, 34). In addition, all of the six grants (with the exception of Gomerino) are addressed in the first person singular, which again implies the need to interpret the grants and apply the remainder from the original head. 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, e.g. Tibi Nobili Isidoro Viani et post tui obitum ex te descendentes ,  Tu et quilibet ex tuis legitimis successoribus and tui vel tuorum in infinitum decessus.

Footnote#7: It appears that the accepted form of exercising the faculty to nominate a successor is by means of a will or a public deed. However during the Government of the Order, the Sovereign's assent was required in order for such nomination to take effect. It will be recalled that elsewhere in the 1878 Report, the Commissioners stated: 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 http://www.maltagenealogy.com/SME/sangiorgio.html  In the context of nominations effected during the Government of the Grandmasters, we have seen that 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, that in the case of Barone di Gomerino, Royal assent was required for the 1734 transaction in favour of Ercole Martino Testaferrata and was in fact given in 1737, that in the case of Barone della Tabria, Royal assent was required for the 1784 renunciation in favour of Giuseppe Testaferrata Viani and was in fact given in 1784. 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.  Moreover, according to the British Secretary of State writing to the Governor of Malta in 1878, it appears he himself excluded the possibility of a title being succeeded to outside a regular succession: - in fact he wrote: As each of these titles are either personal to the holder or a particular fief, or descends in the order of primogeniture so as to be tenable only by the eldest male descendant, it will be apparent that the holders of these titles are the persons who alone can be recognized as the heads of their respective families, so as to come within the terms of my predecessor’s Despatch above referred to. (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.) (page 60). By analogy, 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 (but appears to have different effects on the title of Marchese Testaferrata. In this regard, one cannot ignore William Loftie's barbed comment: 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. See: -William John Loftie’s A ride in Egypt, from Sioot to Luxor (1879) Chapter I.

On the other hand, however, it appears that ever since after the Government of the Order of St, John, the aforesaid practice of nominating has become accepted by a will even though no assent is received from the Sovereign. Indeed, we see how in the case of Barone di Gomerino, that 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,)

In addition it should be remarked that 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 a more senior descendant of the grantee. 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.

Finally, it should be noted that during the period 1880-1975, the British Colonial Administration adopted a practice of issuing warrants of recognition under signature of the Governor: 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)).

* Antonia Moscati Cassia (Born 1783), 3rd Baroness of Benwarrad,
Married Firstly to Conte, Sir Paolo Parisio, GCMG; and secondly to Sir Giuseppe Maria de Piro, 5th Baron di Budaq, GCMG.
Secretly lived with the French Commissioner (Regaud de St Jean d'Angely, Later Created Count in the French Empire) and had one child from this liaison.

1. (Illegitimate) Emmanuele Muscat (d'Angely),(1799-1851 in Egypt), married 1827 at Borgu (Vittoriosa) to Francesca Decelis with issue (Note: Moved to the Greek Island in 1828, and later settled in Egypt in 1836)
1.1. Antoine Muscat, (1829-76 in Egypt), married 1859 to Antonia Theresia Tanti, with issue
1.1.1. Emmanuele Muscat, (1862-1934 in England), married 1900 or 1901 to Stephanie Vianello, with issue
1.1.1.1. Paolo Muscat, (1905-64 England), married 1933 to Marion Taylor, with issue
1.1.1.1.1. Emmanuele Muscat d’Angely, Comte d’Angely, (Note: Chief Source provider to the illegitimate connection of the Baroness Moscati Parisio) Later changed it to Muscat d'Angely and also claims the French Count Title with the acceptances from the HRH, Comte de Paris in 1980, (1940-, married 1972 Paris, France to Yolanda Rossel, with issue.

1.1.1.1.1.1. Paul Muscat d’Angely,  Vicomte d’Angely, (1975-, married (Divorced June 2008) Dec 2006 Lyons France to Christine Vogle.

1.1.1.1.1.2. Diane Muscat d’Angely, (1979-, married Nov 2006 Lyon France to Pierre Lauren, with issue.

1.1.1.1.1.3. Stephanie Muscat d’Angely., (1982-. married April 2008 Paris, France to Horace Muscat (See below).
1.1.1.1.2. Anne Muscat, (1935-, married 1956 London to Henry Weiss., with issue.
1.1.1.1.3. Maryanne Muscat, (1938-, married 1964 to John Lopes., with issue
1.1.1.2. Antonia Maria Muscat, (1907-98), married Raymond Campbell, with issue
1.1.2. Orazio Muscat, (1869-1927 in England), married 1894 London to Evelyn Jones., with issue.

1.1.2.1. Evelyn Muscat, (1896-1949)., married with issue (England)

1.1.2.2. Horace II Muscat, (1899-1943)., married 1921 Kensington London to Abigail Robertson, with issue. (England)

1.1.2.2.1. Horace III Muscat, Heir to Paul (1923 -, married 1948 London to Anne Smith, with issue.

1.1.2.2.1.1. Horace IV Muscat, (1951-, married 1980 London to Katherine Cateson, with issue.

1.1.2.2.1.1.1. Horace V Muscat d'Angely (upon marriage), (1982 -., married 2008 Paris France  to Stephanie Muscat d'Angely (See Above).

1.1.2.2.1.1.2. Christopher Muscat, (1985-.

1.1.2.2.1.2. Lawrence Muscat, (1954 - 2002), married 1991 Norwich to Daniela Acheson, with issue.

1.1.2.2.1.2.1. Harry Muscat, (1995 -.

1.1.2.2.1.2.2. Natalie Muscat, (1998-.

1.1.2.2.1.2.3. Thomas Muscat, (2000-.

1.1.2.2.1.3. Stephanie Muscat, (1958 -, married 1979 Kent to William Phillimore., with issue.

1.1.2.2.1.4. Jane Muscat, (1962 -., married 1984 St Albans to Vincent George, with issue.

1.1.2.2.1.5. Louis Muscat, (1965 -.

1.1.2.2.1.6. Anne Muscat, (1968 -, married 1995 Sydney Australia to Raymond Campbell (Cousin)., with issue.

1.1.2.3. Charles Muscat, (1901-72)., married with issue. (England)

1.1.2.4. Paul Muscat, (1905-91)., married with issue. (England)
1.1.3. Giovanni Muscat, (1875-1951 in Toronto, Canada), married 1902 in London to Rene Jones., with issue.

1.1.3.1. Emmanuel Muscat, (1904-82)., married with issue. (Canada).

1.1.3.2. Stefano Muscat, (1906-58)., married with issue. (Canada).

1.1.3.3. Jane Muscat, (1908-74)., married with issue. (Canada).
1.2. Carlo Muscat, (1831-57 in Egypt), married Agata Caruso, with issue

1.2.1. Carlo Muscat, (1850-), married 1868 to Baroness Aloisea von Brockdorff., with issue.

1.2.1.1. Carlo Muscat, (1871 Tunis), married with issue.

1.2.1.2. Giorgio Muscat, (1872- Tunis), married with issue.

1.2.1.3. Ursula Muscat, (1874- Tunis), married with issue.

1.2.1.4. Leonora Muscat, (1877- Tunis), dunm.

1.2.1.5. Enrico Muscat, (1878- Tunis), married with issue.

1.2.2. Antonia Muscat, (1853-), married 1865 to Barone Frederick von Brockdorff.

1.2.3.Eleanore Muscat, (1855-)., dunm.

1.2.4. Marco Muscat, (1857-)., dunm.
1.3. Maria Antonia Muscat, (1832-97 in Greece), married 1852 Port Said to Carlo Giappone, moved to Greece.
1.4. Sophia Muscat, (1833-68 in Tunisia), married 1854 Port Said, Egypt to Ernesto Falzon,  (Moved to Tunis. (Descendants now in France).).
1.5. Carmen Muscat, (1837-1907) in Egypt), married 1856 Port Said Egypt to Raimondo Aglie di San Martino, with issue. (Descendants in England, Australia, Italy, and USA).

 

 

Footnote#1: There appears to be no contemporary record of Antonia Moscati Cassia’s having had a child outside wedlock. There is no mention of this allegation in the records of the court case referred to below which moreover had premised that Antonia had died childless. View “Nobles of Malta” by Montalto for reference.

 

Footnote#2: Although, this line from Antonia’s supposed son Emmanuele Muscat may be more senior to that of the descendants of Paolo Montalto de Ribera, this line cannot be taken into account for determining succession to the title of Barone di Beuarrat as it stems from an illegitimacy. Thus in the grant relative to San Marciano (which the 1878 Commissioners describe as identical to that of Benuarrat), illegitimate descendants are not included within the remainder. Thus - et post tui obitum, uni ex filiis vel filiabus legitimis et naturalibus ex te legitime procreatis vel procreandis. Moreover, a strict interpretation would not admit any issue which has been legitimated.

 

* Paolo Montalto de Riberia, 4th Baron di Benwarrad, 6th Baron di San Paolino married 1806 to Graziulla Carbott dei Baroni della Grua, with issue

1. Vincenzo Montalto de Riberia, Baroncino of Benwarrad e San Paolino, dunm.
2. Maria Antonia Montalto de Riberia, (died 1878), 5th Baroness of Benwarrad, 7th Baroness di San Paolino Married 1831 to Dr. Giuseppe Attard, M.D., (GA's Ancestors), with issue.

2.1 Angiolino Attard Montalto, (1836-92), 6th Baron of Benwarrad, 8th Barone di San Paolino married 1869 to Angelica dei Conti Manduca, with issue
2.1.1. Giuseppe Attard Montalto, (1870-1935), 7th Baron of Benwarrad, 9th Barone di San Paolino, married 1926 to Carolina dei Conti Manduca, with issue
2.1.1.1. Maria Angela Attard Montalto, (1927-2001), 8th Baroness of Benwarrad, married 1948 to Lieut. Frank Gordon Kitson, RN., with issue

2.1.1.1.1. Dr Michael Kitson Attard Montalto, M.B., B.S. (1949- , 9th Baron of Benwarrad, PRIMOGENIAL DESCENDANT OF SAVERIO GATTO , Married 1973 to Susan Partridge, with issue.
2.1.1.1.1.1. Paul Kitson Attard Montalto, (1978-.
2.1.1.1.1.2. David Kitson (1980-
2.1.1.1.1.3. Anna Louise Kitson (1976-
2.1.1.1.1.4. Sara Kitson (1982-
2.1.1.1.2. Philip Kitson, B.Sc. (Hons), AMI.Mech. (1960-, Married 1985 To Diane Hipperson
2.1.1.1.3. Susan Maria Kitson, (1950-, married 1977 to Martin Lee, with issue
2.1.1.1.3.1. Anthony Lee, (1979-
2.1.1.1.3.2. Louise Lee, (1982-

2.2. Paolino Attard Montalto (c 1875, married 1896 to Annette Manduca, with issue
2.2.1. Dr Angiolino Attard Montalto M.D (c 1898-, married Jesy Attard Montalto, with issue.
2.2.1.1. Mavina Attard Montalto, married Major Bernard Portelli

2.2.1.2. Josie Attard Montalto, 12th (recte: 11th) Baron di San Paolino-(died 2002), Married Myriam Despott, with issue
2.2.1.2.1. Dr John Attard Montalto LL.D,  Member of the European Parliament, 13th (recte 12th) Baron di San Paolino, married (1),(div) Doreen Hoare, Married (2) 2004 to Rose Farrugia
2.2.1.2.1.1.(by Second wife) Rebecca Attard Montalto  
2.2.1.3. Dolores Attard Montalto, married Maurice Verzin
2.2.2. Dr Joseph Ivo Attard Montalto LL.D, (c 1901-, married Mary Cassar Torreggiani, with issue
2.2.2.1. Paul Attard-Montalto., married Lydia Vassallo, with issue.
2.2.2.1.1. Martin Attard-Montalto.
2.2.2.1.2. Prof. Simon Attard-Montalto, MB.ch.B, MD..., married to Jane Berry, with issue.

2.2.2.1.2.1.  Edward Attard Montalto.

2.2.2.1.2.2.  Nicholas Attard Montalto.

2.2.2.1.3. Marie Attard-Montalto.
2.2.2.1.4. Andrew Attard-Montalto.
2.2.2.2. Reno Attard-Montalto., married Madaline Stennard, with issue.
2.2.2.2.1. Nicholas Attard-Montalto.
2.2.2.2.2. Laurence Attard-Montalto., married Elisabeth Duke, with issue
2.2.2.2.2.1. Peter Attard-Montalto
2.2.2.2.3. Anna Maria Attard-Montalto., married Anton Cachia, with issue
2.2.2.2.3.1. Daniel Cachia
2.2.2.2.3.2. Rebecca Cachia
2.2.2.3. Austin Attard-Montalto, married in 1960 to Marlene Apap-Bologna , with issue.
2.2.2.3.1. David Attard-Montalto ( 1960-
2.2.2.3.2. John Attard-Montalto ( 1967-
2.2.2.3.3. Christopher Attard-Montalto ( 1967- , married to Anna Marie Dimech, with issue
2.2.2.3.3.1. Emma Attard-Montalto
2.2.2.3.3.2. Nicola Attard-Montalto, (2002-
2.2.2.3.4. Dr Mark Attard-Montalto LLD, ( 1972-, married 2007 to Giulia Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici.
2.2.2.3.5. Veronica Attard-Montalto ( 1963-
2.2.2.4. Dr. Philip Attard-Montalto LL.D, (1935-2004), married in 1958 to Marie Sant-Fournier, with issue.
2.2.2.4.1. Edward Attard-Montalto ( 1960-, married Susanne Nilsson.
2.2.2.4.2. Patricia Attard-Montalto ( 1959-., married in 1983 to Thomas Aguis-Vadala A.C.C.A., with issue (See Marquises de Piro)
2.2.2.4.3. Victoria Attard-Montalto ( 1962-, married David Grech.
2.2.2.4.4. Deborah Attard-Montalto ( 1966-
2.2.3. Mary Victoria Attard Montalto (c 1886

2.2. Chev Achille Attard Montalto (c 1841-89), married firstly to Maria Briffa, without issue, married secondly 1886 to Emilia Sant Fournier, with issue
2.2.1 Jesy  Attard Montalto (1890-1946), married Angliolino Attard Montalto - see above
2.2.2. Gioacchino Attard Montalto (c 1888-, married Lina Pullicino., (See Pullicino in Maltese families)
2.2.3. Ann Attard Montalto (c 1887-., married 1926 to Biagio Galea Testaferrata, with issue
2.2.4. Arturo Attard Montalto, (1892-)
2.3. Amabile Attard Montalto (c 1849-89), married Luigia Sant Fournier, with issue
2.3.1 Alessandro Attard Montalto (c 1877-., married 1901 to Mary Beatrice Cassar Desain, dsp..
2.3.2. Alfred Attard Montalto (c 1884-
2.3.3. Carmelo Attard Montalto (c 1892-
2.3.4. John Attard Montalto (c 1892- , married 1921 to Annette Bugeja Fontani, with issue

2.3.4.1. Joseph Attard Montalto, married to Doris Sceberras Trigona dei Baroni di Castel Cicciano, with issue.

2.3.4.1.1. Hugh Attard Montalto.

2.3.4.2. Alexander Attard Montalto, married to Doris Olivieri Munroe.
2.3.5. Francis Attard Montalto (c 1895-
2.4. Carolina Attard Montalto (died 1944) , married firstly 1869 to Salvatore Manduca, with issue (see Manduca), secondly 1888 to Annunziato Destefano Zanghi

 

Footnote#1: It is to be remarked that after the Commissioners Report a lawsuit was instituted by a lady by the name of Formosa Montalto against Giuseppe Attard Montalto( 2.1.1.). The plaintiff based her claim to the title on the fact that Antonia De Piro died in 1856 childless and without issue, saying that once her father Saverio was living at the time of Antonia De Piro’s death in 1856, and that Saverio was older than Angiolino Attard Montalto’s mother (Mariantonia) and that these were in the same grade, then the title should devolve to her. The Court of first instance as well as the Court of Appeal (13 November 1895) rejected her claim on the grounds that where no nomination is made, then the title is to follow the rules of regular primogeniture. In this way, the court worked out the primogenial line commencing from Saverio Gatto and confirmed that the possessor Attard Montalto was indeed in a better line. Thus: Che passando all’ applicazione delle suesposte regole al caso presente, si ha che morto Saverio Gatto, primo investito nel detto titolo, lasciando superstiti due figlie, di diritto doveva succedere, come succedette per nomina la sua figlia primogenita Paola Gatto in Muscati.Intanto, secondo le regole di primogenitura, sua sorella Mariantonia Montalto Ribera e ciascuno dei suoi discendenti, nascendo, avevano acquistato, in spe, il diritto di succedere, avvenuto il caso nella detta baronia, ed i maschi di ciascun grado, discendenti da lei, avevano il diritto di preferenza alle femmine dello stesso grado, ed il macshio maggiornato a quello minornato, e se la linea del prima fosse estinta, questo ultimo od un suo discendente avrebbe il diritto di succedere in preferenza anche di maschi maggiori di lui, ma avente per stipite una femmina. Che estinta la linea di Paolo Muscati nel 1856, colla morte di Antonia De Piro, ed entrato il detto feudo nella linea di Mariantonia Montalto Ribera, sarebbe succeduto, se fosse tuttora in vita, Francesco Saverio figlio primogenito di essa Mariantonia, od un dei discendenti di lui, frai quali era soltanto allora in vita la baronessa Maria Antonia Sciberras, la quale, pero’  mori’ improle in luglio 1872, onde estinta la linea di esso Francesco Saverio, doveva di regola succedere l’ altro figlio di essa Mariantonia, Paolo Montalto, in esclusione delle discendenti delle sue sorelle; ma non essendo egli nemmeno frai vivi, il feudo spettava a Vincenzo Montalto, suo unico figlio maschio, ed essendo costui morto prima del 1872, cioe’ nel 1856, il titolo passo’ nella linea di Mariantonia Attard sorella di lui, indi al di lei figlio primogenito Angiolino, l’ ultimo possessore di quel titolo. Per la cosa seguendo la prerogativa di Primogenitura, stabbilita pel detto capitolo si aliquem cioe’ la prerogativa della linea, il titolo in controversia passo’ al convenuto Giuseppe Attard Montalto, figlio primogenito dell’ ultimo possessore.

 

Footnote#2: It appears that the titles of Benuarrat was never the subject of a ‘nomination’. Consequently, there is no need to enter into the considerations described above. In any case, it also appears that since Maltese Law legislated in 1975 (Act XXIX of 1975) against recognition of nobiliary titles in any form whatsoever, that it is not legally possible to make any more ‘nominations’ because such recognition is contrary to law, and also because it is against Public Policy. Consequently, and at least since 1975, the succession of a title purportedly disposable by ‘nomination’ can only follow the terms of the grant without anybody’s intervention. In this regard, it may be worthwhile recalling what the 1878 Commissioners had stated about a private transaction in regard to a title which was not recognized by the Government of the Grand Masters:  - ‘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’. See: http://www.maltagenealogy.com/SME/testaferrata2.html  and 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.)  Consequently, the present holder is precluded from making any further ‘nomination’ after 1975.

Footnote#3: On the basis of the genealogical chart, it appears that the person who is presently the primogenial descendant of Saverio Gatto is Michael Kitson Attard Montalto.

 

Press Here to Back

Also note that this web site may be viewed with, other then Netscape