"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
![]()
![]()
* 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.
|
Special Terms (Grant): (According to 1878 Report, the patent is identical to the terms of San Marciano which reads: 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...
|
Also note that this web site may be viewed with, other
then Netscape