Libro d'Oro di Melita

"Libro d'Oro di Melita"

"Title of Baron of Budack granted to the Most Illustrious and Noble Gio Pio De Piro (1716)"

All Corrections/Additions are Welcome

To View the Marquises de Piro - Click Here.

Also note two web sites of Note for this family.

- Casa Rocca Piccola - the Home of the Barone de Budack.

* Dr. Gio Pio de Piro, JUD.(1670-1752) 1st Baron di Budaq (Cr:1716), Most Illustrious and Noble (Cr: 1727), Marquis de Piro, (Cr:1742) Married 1693 to Anna Gourgion, with issue
Also had issue from Mistress

1. Angelo de Piro, Canon of the Cathedral, dunm.
2. Rev. Giulio de Piro, dunm.
3. Antonio Felicissimo de Piro, Baroncino di Budaq, (died 1738), married (2) 1733 to Eleanora Constazo (See Paganica), and dsp., Married (1) 1729 to Caterina Dorell and also dsp. Married (3) 1736 to Elena Grech Balsani, with issue.

(Second Marriage)
3.1. Francesco Saverio de Piro, (1731-died as an infant).

(Third Marriage)
3.2. Vincenzo de Piro, (1736-99), 2nd Baron di Budaq, 2nd Marquis de Piro, Married 1757 to Maria Testaferrata Abela (See Gomerino) with issue

3.2.1. Antonio de Piro, (1758-1806), 3rd Baron di Budaq, married 1790 to Teresa Campanella nee dello Re.
3.2.1.1. Vincenzo de Piro (1785-1840), married 1810 to Loreta Mallia, with issue.
3.2.1.1.1. Giuseppe de Piro, married 1845 to Maria Antonia Mizzi, with issue
3.2.1.1.1.1. Loreto de Piro, married Annette Mizzi, with issue
3.2.1.1.1.1.1. Aida de Piro, married 1906 to Major. F. Stivala, with issue
3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1. Alfred Stivala de Piro, (1912- , married Rose Saydon, with issue
3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. Francis Stivala (1946-. (primogenial descendant in the line of Vincenzo De Piro)

3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.2. Marquerite Stivala (1944-, married Hon. Anton Tabone, MP. with issue
3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1. Dr Anton Tabone. LLD, married 2006 to Anne Marie Bianchi.
3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2. Marc Tabone.
3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.3. Robert Tabone.
3.2.1.1.1.2. Antonio de Piro, married firstly to Louisa Borg (with issue); Married secondly to Florence Cowley, with further issue.
(First Marriage - Antonio)

3.2.1.1.1.2.1. (First Marriage) Emma de Piro, married with issue.

(Second Marriage - Antonio)
3.2.1.1.1.2.2. (Second Marriage) Joseph de Piro, married Emily Bell-Irvine, with issue
3.2.1.1.1.2.2.1. His Honour, Judge. Alan de Piro, Q.C. (Eldest Male descendant descending in the male line of the De Piro family), married 1947 to Mary Elliott, with issue.

3.2.1.1.1.3. Fortunato de Piro, married 1893 to Ersilia Leone-Ganado, with issue
3.2.1.1.1.3.1. Joseph de Piro, married 1930 to Antonia Caruana Dingli dei Marchesi del Fiddien, and dsp.
3.2.1.1.1.3.2. Jane de Piro, married 1928 to Joseph Buttigieg, with issue.
3.2.1.1.1.3.2.1. Marquis Anthony Buttigieg De Piro.- Marquis de Piro
3.2.1.1.1.3.2.2. Capt. Joseph Buttigieg De Piro, RMA, (1934-, Married 1969 to Corinne Eminyan, with issue.
3.2.1.1.1.3.2.2.1. David Buttigieg De Piro, B.Sc (1974-., married 2005 to Priscilla Vassallo, B.Com. (Hons.), MBA, with issue.

3.2.1.1.1.3.2.2.1.1. Isaac Buttigieg De Piro., (2005-.

3.2.1.1.1.3.2.2.1.2. Malcom Buttigieg De Piro, (2007-.
3.2.1.1.1.3.2.2.2. Victoria Jane Buttigieg De Piro (1971-., Married Roman Krejci., with issue.
3.2.1.1.1.3.2.2.2.1. Pavel Jan Krejci., (2004-.
3.2.1.1.1.3.2.3. Cecil Buttigieg de Piro (1936-
3.2.1.1.1.3.3. Victoria de Piro, married Paul Fenech-Gasan, with issue.
3.2.1.1.2. Antonia de Piro, married 1841 to Gio Batta Mamo-Mompalao, with issue
3.2.1.2. Sir Giuseppe Maria de Piro GCMG, (1794-1870), Baron of Budaq, Married 1842 to Antonia Moscati-Gatto, 3rd Baroness of Benwarred, dsp.

3.2.1.3. Francesca de Piro, Baroness of Budaq (by Nomination), (dunm. 1877)

3.2.2. Giuseppe de Piro-Gourgion, CMG. 3rd Marquis de Piro, (died 1857), married 1810 to Gaetana Borg Madiona, with issue
3.2.2.1. Adriano de Piro-Gourgion, (1817-1866), dunm.
3.2.2.2. Dr Carmelo de Piro, MD,(1820-69), married 1844 to Gerolama Sceberras D'Amico-Inguanez (See Djar il-Bniet and Buqana) , with issue.
3.2.2.2.1. Giuseppe de Piro-Gourgion, Baron of Budaq, (1845-1916), CLAIMED THAT THE TITLE WAS EXTINCT (SEE BELOW) dunm
3.2.2.2.2. Alessandro de Piro, (1848-98), married 1868 to Ursula Agius-Caruana, with issue
3.2.2.2.2.1. Dr Carmelo de Piro MD, (1871-1912), married 1908 to Dolores Dyer-Lester, with issue.
3.2.2.2.2.11 Maria Pilar De Piro married Alexander Apap Bologna

3.2.2.2.2.1.1.1 Carmelo Apap Bologna Sceberras D' Amico Inguanez, (primogenial descendant in the line of Alessandro De Piro) (See Djar il-Bniet and Buqana for issue) ,

3.2.2.2.2.2. Igino de Piro-D'Amico-Inguanez, Baron of Budaq- (1874-1942), married 1901 to Nicolina Apap-Bologna dei Marchesi di Gnien-is-Sultan, with issue
3.2.2.2.2.2.1. Jerome de Piro D'Amico-Inguanez, Baron di Budaq, (1914-97), married 1938 to Philomena Cassar Torreggiani, with issue.

3.2.2.2.2.2.1.1. Nicholas de Piro D'Amico-Inguanez. Baron di Budaq, ( 1941-,married 1970 to Frances Wilson, with issue
3.2.2.2.2.2.1.1.1. Cosimo de Piro D'Amico-Inguanez, (1971-, married with issue.
3.2.2.2.2.2.1.1.2. Clement de Piro D'Amico-Inguanez, (1972-
3.2.2.2.2.2.1.1.3. Anton Joseph de Piro D'Amico-Inguanez, (1985-
3.2.2.2.2.2.1.1.4. Mary Louisa de Piro D'Amico-Inguanez, (1974-, married Hugh Preston, with issue.
3.2.2.2.2.2.1.2. Rosemary Madeleine de Piro, (1943-, married 1974 to Dr. John O'Connell M.R.C.P, with issue
3.2.2.2.2.2.1.2.1. Thomas Augustus O'Connell, (1975-
3.2.2.2.2.2.1.2.2. James Plunkett O'Connell, (1976-
3.2.2.2.2.2.1.2.3. Victoria Adelina O'Connell, (1978-
3.2.2.2.2.2.1.3. Mary Theresia de Piro, (1946-, married 1974 to Simon Bailey, with issue
3.2.2.2.2.2.1.3.1. Sebastian Bailey, (1975-
3.2.2.2.2.2.1.3.2. Paul Jerome Bailey, (1977-
3.2.2.2.2.2.1.4. Mary Elizabeth de Piro, (1950-, married 1977 to Ralph Bianchi, with issue
3.2.2.2.2.2.1.4.1. Mark Bianchi, (1980-
3.2.2.2.2.2.1.4.2. Giulia Bianchi, (1978-
3.2.2.2.2.2.1.4.3. Philippa Bianchi, (1982-
3.2.2.2.2.2.1.5. Mary Margaret de Piro, (1951-, married 1978 to Architect Paul Bianchi B.E&A., A.&C.E, with issue.
3.2.2.2.2.2.1.5.1. Alexander Bianchi, (1982-
3.2.2.2.2.2.1.5.2. Catherine Bianchi, (1979-, married 2001 to Justin Zammit Tabona, with issue.

3.2.2.2.2.2.1.5.3. Angela Bianchi, (1985-.

3.2.2.2.2.2.1.5.4. James Bianchi, (1988-.

3.2.2.2.2.2.2. Marie de Piro, (1902-, married Nicolino Trapani-Galea-Feriol, with issue. (See San Marciano)
3.2.2.2.2.2.3. Cecilia de Piro, (1904-), married firstly to Count Nazzareno Zimmermann-Barbaro, with issue. (See Zimmermann). Married Secondly to Professor John Pick.
3.2.2.2.2.2.4. Monica de Piro, (1909-2004), married Col. John Edward Toole Nelson, dsp.

3.2.2.2.2.3. Rev. Santo de Piro, (1873-1929), dunm.
3.2.2.2.2.4. Alberto de Piro, (1877-99), dunm.
3.2.2.2.2.5. Rev. Mgr. Giuseppe de Piro, (1877-1933), dunm. (Web Site Press Here).
3.2.2.2.2.6. Dr. Guido de Piro MD, (1879-., married Berta Capone, with issue.
3.2.2.2.2.6.1. Francoise de Piro,(1909-), married 1953 to Eduardo Romeo Leopardi. dsp.
3.2.2.2.2.6.2. Marie de Piro, O.M., (1908-). Mother-General of the Dorothean Congregation.
3.2.2.2.2.7. Gio Pio de Piro, (1881-), married Emma Gauci-Tramblet (See Barony Gauci), with issue.
3.2.2.2.2.7.1. Dr Alessandro de Piro Gourgion LLD, (1917-died), married to Doris Sultana (d. 2006), dsp.

3.2.2.2.2.7.2. Bertha de Piro Gourgion., married Anthony Cassar Torreggiani, with issue.

3.2.2.2.2.7.3. Miram de Piro Gourgion, married NN. Pace.

3.2.2.2.2.8. Maria Teresa de Piro, (1869-1920), married the Paolo Apap Bologna (See Gnien is-Sultan)
3.2.2.2.2.9. Maria de Piro, married Dr. Alfredo Stilon MD, with issue.

3.2.2.2.3. Filomena de Piro, married Emmanuele Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq (See San Vincenzo Ferreri)
3.2.2.3. Teresa de Piro, married Alessandro Sceberras D'Amico (See Castel Cicciano) and dsp.
3.2.2.4. Francesco Saverio de Piro, CMG, Marquis de Piro (1824-94), Married 1856 to Adelaide Testaferrata (See Cassar Desain), with issue.
3.2.2.4.1. Giuseppe Lorenzo de Piro Marquis de Piro, married 1891 to Georgina Galea Naudi, with issue

3.2.2.4.1.1. Adelina de Piro, Marchesa de Piro, (1892-1962), married to Kenneth MacPherson, and dsp.
3.2.3. Anna de Piro, married Salvatore Testaferrata Olivier (See Testaferrata Olivier)
3.2.4. Veneranda de Piro, married Emmanuele Moscati Cassia (See Grua)
3.2.5. Maria Teresa de Piro, married Salvatore Cassar Desain (See Testaferrata Olivier for other issue)

3.2.5.1.Annunicata Testaferrata, married 1818 to Dr Bartolomeo Grech Delicata, with issue.
3.2.5.1.1. Rev. Mgr Don Salvatore Grech-Delicata, Baroncino di Budaq by the 5th Baroness di Budaq. dunm

3.2.6. Antonia de Piro, married 1797 to Romualdo Barbaro (See San Giorgio), dsp.

3.3. Eugenia de Piro.
4. Maria Antonia de Piro, married 1713 to Bartolomeo Vella-Mompalao, dsp.
5. Eugenia de Piro, married 1729 to Ferdinand de Ribera (See San Paolino), with issue

(Other issue not within the remainder see below)
6. (illegitimate)(*1) Margarita Celestri, married 1716 Salvazio Caruana, with issue
7. (illegitimate)(*2) Guiseppe de Siero sive De Piro, married 1722 to Teresa Debono., with issue

7.1. Matilda de Siero, (1725-)., married 1746 to Luigi Preziosi (See Preziosi)

7.2. Aloisea de Siero, (1728-)., Nun, dunm.

7.3. Giovanni Battista Desiero, (1730-1802), "Alleged" migrated to Imperia Russia and Created Baron Desiero and to his descendants by Tsar Paul I 1799 and Knight of St George of Russia and St John of Malta, married 1799 to Baroness Marie Bode-Kolgtcher., with issue.

Footnote#1: The title of Barone di Budack was conferred by Grand Master Perellos, by a diploma of the 23rd April 1716 to Gio Pio De Piro, and to such of his descendents as the last holder should name, and, in default of nomination, to the first born child, not being a member of the clergy, secular or regular. The 1878 Commissioners described the terms of the patent of creation as being nearly identical with that contained in the charter of the Barone di Gomerino. The terms of this patent of creation read as follows: 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... (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.) From a reading of the 1716 grant, it is clear that Gio Pio’s descendants who do not also descend from his wife Anna Gourgion are not included within the terms of the remainder. 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 Budack 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 De Piro’s diploma was the second 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 De Piro 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 that the only gentleman who claimed this title was Monsignor Don Salvatore Grech Delicata, a lineal descendent of Gio Pio De Piro, who was nominated to the succession of the title by the last holder of it, Baronessa Francesca De Piro. Although not other person has appeared to claim the present title, Giuseppe DePiro, however, who is also one of the descendents of the original grantee, has laid before the Commission an oppository nota accompanied by several documents, calling in question Monsignor Delicata's claim, and contending that the title of Barone di Budack, having since a long time become extinct, the estate annexed thereto had devolved upon him by the title of a Primogenitura. The Royal Commissioners decided not to express any opinion, limiting themselves to saying that it would be prudent not to hear the claimants. The Commissioners did however go as far as outlining the history of this title and the validity of the 1716 grant. 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. 27-28).

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.

* Vincenzo de Piro, (1736-99), 2nd Baron di Budaq, married 1757 to Maria Testaferrata Abela (See Gomerino) with issue (see above)

* Antonio de Piro, (1758-1806), son of Vincenzo, 3rd Baron di Budaq, married 1790 to Teresa Campanella dello Re with issue (see above).

* Sir Giuseppe Maria de Piro GCMG, (1794-1870), second son of Antonio, 4th Baron of Budaq, Married 1842 to Antonia Moscati-Gatto, 3rd Baroness of Benwarred, dsp.

Footnote#1: Giuseppe Maria De Piro (3.2.1.2.) had an elder brother Vincenzo (3.2.1.1.) who was born prior to their parents marriage. According to the terms of the 1716 patent, Vincenzo (3.2.1.1.) could not have succeeded the title of Barone di Budack because the terms read: filiabus legitimis et naturabilibus. Consequently, it follows that Sir Giuseppe Maria was the primogenial descendant of Gio Pio De Piro.

* Francesca de Piro, sister of Sir Giuseppe, 5th Baroness of Budaq, (dunm. 1877)

Footnote#1: After the death of her brother Giuseppe Maria, Francesca De Piro (3.2.1.3) became the primogenial descendant of Gio Pio De Piro within the terms of the 1716 grant (on the assumption that Vincenzo (3.2.1.1.) is excluded for reasons explained above). By means of a series of wills made between 20 April 1874 and 13 November 1875,Francesca nominated her cousin Monsignor Grech Delicata (3.2.5.1.1.) to succeed her in the 1716 barony as well as the property which was entailed by Lorenzo Antonio De Piro in 1717.

Footnote#2: As noted by 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.) (See Report Paras. 27-28)) , Giuseppe De Piro (who was the next in line after Francesca) contested the nomination in favour of the Monsignor.

Footnote#3:. Giuseppe De Piro’s claim rested on two main points, the first that according to him, all titles of nobility had become extinct and secondly that Francesca’s mental state was questioned. It appears that for Giuseppe, his goal was not the title per se but rather the enjoyment of a primogenitura. Giuseppe explained that the father (Lorenzo Antonio) of the original grantee Gio. Pio De Piro had set up an entail by means of a deed made in the acts of Notary Gaspare Domenico Chircop of the 30 April 1717, whereby the usufruct of certain properties were to be enjoyed by the possessor of the title granted in 1716 with the proviso that should Gio. Pio’s descendants no longer enjoy that title, then the properties would be erected into a majorat stemming from the same Gio Pio preferring all agnatial descendants to female descendants. Giuseppe Depiro further claimed the title was extinct by reason of the French occupation (which abolished titles of nobility) and also because although Gio Pio was duly invested, his successor and the latter's descendants (namely Antonio De Piro, Vincenzo Depiro, Antonio Depiro the junior and Giuseppe Maria Depiro) were never so invested and never paid relative homage consisting of two guns and that although each one of them abusivamente used that title, they enjoyed the properties not by virtue of the 1716 barony but by virtue of the 1717 deed.

Footnote#4: The Court of Appeal dismissed Giuseppe De Piro’s first claim that the title had become extinct on the grounds that the French decrees had no effect because in 1800 Malta reverted to its rightful owner the King of Naples: La cessione, quindi, che il Gran Mastro e I Cavalieri di S. Giovanno fecero il 12 Giugno 1798, alla Repubblica Francese, non aveva, come tale, alcun effetto legale; poiche’ subito che essi abbandonarono Malta e le altre due isole, questi ritornarano al Re di Napoli, some successore di Carlo V nel Regno delle Due Sicilie. The Court also dismissed Giuseppe’s other claim based on the fact that the holders were not duly invested because that requirement, said the court, had fallen into desuetude. 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. The Court did however uphold Giuseppe’s other claim that her wills made between 1874 and 1875 were invalid for no other reason but her incapacity of mind.

Footnote#5: In arriving at its conclusion that Francesca was mentally infirm, the Court considered that non era capace di comprendere la lettura di una novella o di una comedia di Goldoni and proceeded thereafter to examine the reasonableness of Francesca nominating somebody who albeit related was not descended in the agnatial line from Gio Pio DePiro. The Court of Appeal gave much importance to the consideration that l’oggetto della disposizione nel caso presente non era un lascito di una cosa di poco momento che avesse potuto essere data a chichissia senza dare torto ad alcuno, ovvero senza privarne alcuno il quale avesse ragionevole motivo di aspettarsela. E un titolo di nobbilta’ conceduto dal Gran Maestro a Gio Pio De Piro, pel lustro di lui stesso e della sua famiglia, e dotato dal padre dello stesso Gio Paolo pel decoro della stessa famiglia nella persona del possessore, con usufrutto di beni i quali erano stati dal padre medesimo, insieme con altri irrivocabilmente donati a tutti i suoi figli. The Court eventually declared Francesca mad.

In the file of the court proceedings, one only finds a genealogical table exhibited by the parties showing that Giuseppe Depiro was descended in the primogenial line from Gio Pio only through Antonio and Vincenzo and thereafter he was descended from Vincenzo’s second son Giuseppe and from Carmelo son of the said Giuseppe, whilst the Monsignor was only descended from the said Vincenzo’s daughter’s daughter. That is to say, the genealogical table shown to the court does not take into account the line of descent from Vincenzo de Piro (3.2.1.1.). This is probably due to the fact that the said Vincenzo was not born legitimate for the purposes of the 1716 barony and the 1717 deed, his parents only marrying in 1790.

On the other hand, published sources report that on the 5 December 1807 the courts of Malta upheld the primogenial and fedecommissary rights due to Vincenzo and his descendants. (See Gauci Charles, The Genealogy and Heraldry of the Noble families of Malta, Vol. 2, PEG Publications, 1992, Table 74. On the basis of the latter information, Giuseppe De Piro and the Monsignor should have known better than produce an incomplete family tree.

It need not be pointed out that had the Monsignor defended himself by invoking Vincenzo’s senior descent, the Monsignor would have implicitly acknowledged that Francesca could not have nominated him in the first place. Equally, had Giuseppe mentioned the existence of Vincenzo’s legitimated status, he would have risked having his own case thrown out altogether.

* Giuseppe de Piro-Gourgion, 6th Baron of Budaq, (1845-1916), dunm

Footnote#1: It appears that Giuseppe De Piro made use of the right to nominate a successor by nominating in his last will and testament his younger nephew Igino De Piro D’Amico Inguanez. See notes below

* Igino de Piro D'Amico-Inguanez, son of Alessandro, 6th Baron of Budaq, (1874-1942), Married 1901 to Nicolina Apap-Bologna dei Marchesi di Gnien-is-Sultan, with issue (for issue see above).

See also: * Jerome de Piro D'Amico-Inguanez, (1914-97), ‘Baron of Budaq’ (See footnotes below), Married 1938 to Philomena Cassar Torreggiani, with issue. (for issue see above).

See also: * Nicholas de Piro D'Amico-Inguanez, (1941-), ‘Baron of Budaq’ (See footnotes below), Married 1970 to Frances Wilson, with issue. (for issue see above).

See also: barone Carmelo Apap Bologna Sceberras D'Amico Inguanez., (1939-, ‘Baron of Budaq as per 1716 grant with exclusion of line of Vincenzo De Piro’ (See footnotes below), Married 1962 to Ann Cassar Torreggiani, with issue (for issue see above).

See also: Francis Stivala (1946-, ‘Baron of Budaq as per 1716 grant with reference to a judgment of 1807’ (See footnotes below).

Footnote#1: This gentleman Igino De Piro D’Amico Inguanez is noted as having been ‘nominated’ in the title of Budack by his uncle Giuseppe De Piro. On the basis of the genealogical chart, Giuseppe was Gio Pio De Piro’s primogenial descendant (subject to the reservations in regard to the lien of Vincenzo De Piro) but Igino was only his younger nephew. Consequently, the reservations expressed above about the validity of a ‘nomination’ without the Sovereign’s assent apply in this regard with the proviso that such testamentary ‘nominations’ appear to have gained general acceptance notwithstanding such failure In the hypothesis that the ‘nomination’ by Giuseppe De Piro in favour of Igino De Piro D’Amico Inguanez was invalid, it follows that it was Giuseppe’s eldest nephew, Carmelo Igino De Piro D’Amico Inguanez, who succeeded the title of Budaq instead , as Carmelo would have been the then primogenial descendant of Gio Pio De Piro (subject to the reservations in regard to the lien of Vincenzo De Piro). If on the other hand, the judgment of 1807 described above reintegrated Vincenzo De Piro in his rights, then in the said hypothesis that the ‘nomination’ by Giuseppe De Piro in favour of Igino De Piro D’Amico Inguanez was invalid, it follows that Aida Stivala who succeeded the title of Budaq instead , as she would have been the then primogenial descendant of Gio Pio De Piro.

Footnote#2: The aforesaid Igino De Piro D’Amico Inguanez’s son is also noted as having held the title of Budack. On the basis of the genealogical chart, he was at the time only a junior descendant of the original grantee. Consequently, the reservations expressed above about the validity of a ‘nomination’ without the Sovereign’s assent apply in his regard with the proviso that such testamentary ‘nominations’ appear to have gained general acceptance notwithstanding such failure. In the hypothesis that the ‘nomination’ in favour of the said son was invalid, it follows that it was the primogenial descendant of the original grantee who succeeded the title. See decision of the Privy Council (Strickland/Apap) and also http://www.maltagenealogy.com/SME/catena.html.

Footnote#3: It 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, even if the ‘nomination’ in favour of the aforesaid Jerome De Piro D'Amico Inguanez is valid by way of the said practice of testamentary dispositions, he in turn is precluded from making any further ‘nomination’ after 1975.

Footnote#4: On the basis of the genealogical chart, it appears that the person next in vocation as primogenial descendant of Gio Pio De Piro is Francis Stivala. However if the aforesaid judgment of 5 December 1807 does not apply to the rights under the 1716 grant, then the person next in vocation as primogenial descendant of Gio Pio De Piro is the barone Carmel Apap Bologna Sceberras D’Amico Inguanez.

Titled, De Jures and Heirs.

* Titled (In the line of Vincenzo De Piro (died 1840): Francis Stivala, as the present Baron of Budaq
* Successor: (his sister) Marguerite Tabone

* Titled (In the line of Alessandro De Piro (Died 1898) and by excluding the line of Vncenzo De Piro): barone Carmel Apap Bologna Sceberras D’Amico Inguanez, as the present Baron of Budaq
* Successor: (his eldest son) Francesco Apap Bologna

Special Terms (Grant): "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....

Press Here to Back

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