"Libro d'Oro di Melita"

"Titles of Baron of Gomerino as granted to Paolo Testaferrata and his wife The Most Illustrious and Noble Beatrice Testaferrata

(1710 Grant including the 1737 amendment/subformation approved by the Grand Master in favour of Ercole Martino Testaferrata, as well as the 1744 private nomination by Fabrizio Testaferrata which was upheld in 1882)”

All Corrections/Additions are Welcome

 

To see the ancestry of Paolo Testaferrata, go to Capo di Ferro (Testaferrata).

cid:image001.gif@01C80789.CD637360

* Paolo Testaferrata, (1656-1713), married 1674 to Beatrice Cassia, Baroness of Castel Cicciano, (See That Title) Most Illustrious and Noble, Both Jointly Created Baron and Baroness of Gomerino in 1710.

Paolo and Beatrice Testaferrata were created joint Baron and Baroness of Gomerino in 1710.
Published sources show Fabrizio as having succeeded Paolo after his death (in 1714, not 1713 – see inscription in Cospicua Church and Convent of St. Theresa (Discalced Carmelites).
However the truth is that Fabrizio was never invested in the title of Gomerino.
Ercole Martino was invested on the 1st May 1737 as Baron of Gomerino (National Library of Malta Collections – Archives of the Order Volume 541, f. 184r) and this with reference to a private deed dated 1734 referring in turn to a primogenitura established in 1714.
Moreover, it was only in 1744 that Ercole Martino (already Baron of Gomerino) received the property of Gomerino by virtue of Fabrizio’s will.

It appears that there has been some confusion in published sources between the ownership of the property of Gomerino and the succession of the title of Gomerino.

As Ercole was formally invested after Beatrice, it follows that the enumeration should be as follows:

1. Fabrizio Testaferrata,  (See Below) married 1704 to Antonia Cassar-Falsone (died 1711), (For complete issue see Castel Cicciano.

1.1 Pietr'Antonio Testaferrata, (Died 1730), married Pulcra Testaferrata, with issue.
1.1.1. Elisabetta Testaferrata, (1727-36), d.inf
1.2. Clara Testaferrata, Baroness of Castel Cicciano, married to Michele Sceberras, with issue
1.2.1. Pasquale Sceberras Testaferrata, (1735-1812), Baron of Castel Cicciano, married 1755 to Lucrezia Dorell, with issue
1.2.1.1. Antonio Sceberras Testaferrata, (1756-1843), Baron of Castel Cicciano, married 1792 to Gerolama Trigona dei Baroni di Montagno di Marzo, with issue
1.2.1.1.1. Sir Pasquale Sceberras Testaferrata, KCMG, (1793-1869), Baron of Castel Cicciano, Barone di Montagna di Marzo, married firstly in 1811 to Rosalea D'Amico Inguanez, dei Baroni di Djar-il-Bniet e Buqana,(died 1841) with issue
1.2.1.1.1.1 Alexander Sceberras D'Amico Inguanez, (1821-80), 15th (recte: 6th) Baron of Castel Cicciano, Barone di Montagna di Marzo, Married 1864 to Frances Ann Whittuck, with issue see Castel Cicciano.

2. Ercole Testaferrata, 2nd Baron-See Below.
3. Pier Giacomo Testaferrata Cassia, Prelate of the Order of Saint John within the German Langue. He was also on the recommendation of Emperor Leopold I despatched by Grand Master Zondadari to hold the commandery of Saint Peter in Carniola with power to “godere qualunque bene dell’ Ordine Gerosolimitano in Germania, come fosse nativo” , Noble and Patrician of Citta’ del’ Castello (1739)

4. Eugenia Testaferrata, married Ignazio Bonnici (See Qlejjgha), with issue.
5. Giovanna Testaferrata, married Pietro Gaetano Perdicomati Bologna (See Catena), with issue.

 

 

This enumeration is not followed by most published books. In fact, most published sources do not even mention the 1737 succession, and instead describe Ercole Martino as having in 1744 “succeeded” his elder brother Fabrizio in the said Barony of Gomerino by means of a nomination. It appears that the same books overlook the fact that Beatrice (who was a co grantee) survived her husband by more than 20 years.

The 1737 investiture specifically links the possession of the title of Gomerino to a deed made on the 5 November 1734 whereby the original cograntee Beatrice Testaferrata ordered that the title of Gomerino was annexed to the Testaferrata “Ta’ Xbiex” primogenitura. (Beatrice was also the recipient of the honour “Most Illustrious and Noble” in 1725 where she was addressed by the Grand Master as the “Baroness of Gomerino” http://www.maltagenealogy.com/SME/mostillustriousandnoble.html) 

Now, by 1734, the other cograntee (Paolo Testaferrata) was already dead. Beatrice’s act, as approved by the grand master in 1737, could have either of two meanings: (1) that as last-surviving cograntee, succession could only be calculated after Beatrice’s death meaning that Fabrizio’s “succession” was premature and therefore null, or (2) either that the 1737 decree effectively amended the 1710 grant to allow two holders, or is tantamount to a new grant altogether. (In fact Fabrizio who also received the 1725 honour of “Most Ilustrious and Noble”, was not indicated as “Baron of Gomerino” but merely as “Baron of (Castel) Cicciano” http://www.maltagenealogy.com/SME/mostillustriousandnoble.html – this implies that the Grand Master did not accept Fabrizio as having succeeded the title of Gomerino after Paolo’s death)

It is therefore no surprise that by the time of the Royal Commission of 1878, this title was being claimed by the then holder of the “Ta’ Xbiex” Primogenitura (Pietro Paolo Testaferrata Abela Moroni) and the holder of the Gomerino property (Augusto Testaferrata Abela). No decision was given by the Royal Commissioners, nor were these two descendants of the princely Capo di Ferro allowed to present their respective cases. - A court case did ensue, whereby Augusto Testaferrata Abela successfully proved that he succeeded the title by a series of nominations calculated from Fabrizio’s succession in 1714. The court case could not and did not invalidate the 1737 succession and annexation to the “Ta’ Xbiex” Primogeniture in favour of Ercole Martino. In this way, the published sources are correct where they describe Ercole Martino as having succeeded Fabrizio in 1744 in terms of the 1882 judgment, but they are incorrect because they only describe transmission from one cograntee.

It follows that if Fabrizio did succeed the cograntee Paolo in 1714 (as per judgement of 1882) and Ercole Martino succeeded the surviving cograntee Beatrice in 1737 (as per order of the Grand Master of 1737), then there are two Barons of Gomerino!

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

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

 

1.Fabrizio Testaferrata, (died 1744) “2nd Baron of Gomerino” (deemed to have succeeded Paolo in 1714 as confirmed by Court case 1882), Baron of Castel Cicciano-See Castel Cicciano.  See also Below.


2. Ercole Testaferrata, 2nd Baron of Gomerino (succeeded Beatrice 1737 as per Grand Master’s Decree of 1737) OR 1st Baron Testaferrata sive “The holder of the Testaferrata Ta’ Xbiex Primogenitura referred to in the deed of 5 November 1734 who is by the sovereign’s order, the Baron of Gomerino” (cr. 1 May 1737), ALSO 3rd Baron of Gomerino (succeeding Fabrizio in 1744, as per court judgment of 1882-See Below.

 

3. Pier Giacomo Testaferrata Cassia, Prelate of the Order of Saint John within the German Langue. He was also on the recommendation of Emperor Leopold I despatched by Grand Master Zondadari to hold the commandery of Saint Peter in Carniola with power to “godere qualunque bene dell’ Ordine Gerosolimitano in Germania, come fosse nativo” , Noble and Patrician of Citta’ del’ Castello (1739)

 

4. Eugenia Testaferrata, married Ignazio Bonnici (See Qlejjgha), with issue.

 

5. Giovanna Testaferrata, married Pietro Gaetano Perdicomati Bologna (See Catena), with issue.


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

It is interesting to note that the grant of Count of Catena by Grand Master Pinto, by a patent of the 20th January 1745, to Pietro Gaetano Perdicomati Bologna (Paolo and Beatrice’s son in law) provides that the title of Catena was to follow another primogenitura established earlier by Canon Alessandro Perdicomati Bologna http://www.maltagenealogy.com/SME/catena.html . Similarly, in the 1778 extension of the 1777 Barony of Buleben, provision was made by the Grand Master to attach that title to a primogenitura enjoyed by the Azopardi family http://www.maltagenealogy.com/SME/buleben.html .

 

 

Footnote#1: The title of Barone di Gomerino was created by Grand Master Perellos, by a patent dated 24th December 1710, and granted to Paolo Testaferrata and Beatrice Cassia, his wife, with succession to one of their legitimate and natural descendents for ever. The terms of the patent of creation read as follows: 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. (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 Gomerino was one) were broadly similar in reading [even though they have some (significant) differences between them]: 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). 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 Testaferrata and Cassia’s diploma was the most ancient among the titles they were enquiring into which were conferred by the Grand Masters. 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 Beatrice Testaferrata, nee Cassia, was one of the very first recipients of 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 )- It is not amiss to note that of the first six titles granted by the Grand Masters, all the recipients of those titles (with the exception of Ignazio Bonnici – See Qlejjgha) were also granted the right to Most Illustrious and Noble. As this practice only commenced in 1725, Paolo Testaferrata could not have received this right.

Footnote#4: The 1878 Commissioners had already remarked in regard to the title of Barone di Gomerino that in that grant it is provided that the power of nominating a successor of the title may be made in favour of Paolo and Beatrice’s “male descendants” . It is unclear, at this stage, why the Commissioners excluded the possibility of any female being nominated to succeed to the title when the text cited by them allows for a succession by a female. Perhaps more remarkable is that elsewhere in their report the same Commissioners observed that at the time of the 1878 Commission, the primogenial descendent of Paolo and Beatrice Testaferrata was Alessandro Sceberras Testaferrata Damico Inguanez described as first-born descendent in the primogenial line of Paolo Testaferrata and Beatrice Cassia Baronessa di Castel Cicciano his wife, who by a deed of donation stipulated before notary Benedetto Vassallo, on the 8th February 1695, granted to Fabrizio Testaferrata their first-born son… (See:- Correspondence and Report of the Commission appointed to enquire into the claims and grievances of the Maltese Nobility, May 1878, presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty (C.-2033.) (See Report Para. 106). Moreover, the 1878 Commissioners stated that this title was being disputed between Pietro Paolo Testaferrata Abela Moroni and Augusto Testaferrata Abela: The Royal Commissioners decided not to express any opinion, limiting themselves to saying that it would be prudent not to hear the claimants. The Commissioners did however go as far as outlining the history of this title and the validity of the 1710 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. 24-26).

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: The 1710 grant differs from the other five grants particularly because instead of using the usual formula  nominatus et electus Primogenitus the grant to Paolo and Beatrice reads nominatus et electus ipsorum Primogenitus. That is to say the “immediate first born”. In this case taken to mean the person closest to the last “possessor”.

Footnote#8: 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)).

cid:image001.gif@01C80789.CD637360

* Fabrizio Testaferrata, (died 1744), “2nd Baron of Gomerino” (deemed to have succeeded Paolo in 1714, as per court judgement of 1882- see footnotes above) Baron of Castel Cicciano-See Castel Cicciano. (for issue see Castel Cicciano)

Footnote#1: There appears to be no historic basis in asserting that Fabrizio Testaferrata succeeded the title orginally granted in 1710. He merely held the property known by the same name. Moreover, and significantly, he was not even acknowledged by the Grand Master as Barone di Gomerino in 1725 (see above). Moreover, he was never invested in this title: it was his brother who succeeded Beatrice in 1737. If it is determined that Farbrizio did come to hold the title after his father’s death in 1714, then the effect of the 1737 act in favour of Ercole Martino is that there were two holders of the title of barone di Gomerino. It is therefore not clear why Fabrizio did in fact nominate Ercole Martino to succeed in the barony in 1744.

Footnote#2: On the other hand, and assuming that Fabrizio validly held the title of Gomerino until 1744, and in the hypothesis that Fabrizio’s 1744 nomination had not taken place, it follows that Fabrizio’s title would have been succeeded by his own descendants whilst Ercole Martino’s descendants would have continued in their possession as approved by the Grand Master in 1737. At the time of the 1878 Report, Fabrizio’s primogenial descendant was Alessandro Sceberras Testaferrata Damico Inguanez  (See:- Correspondence and Report of the Commission appointed to enquire into the claims and grievances of the Maltese Nobility, May 1878, presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty (C.-2033.) (See Report Para. 106)

Footnote #3: The Corte Civile di Sua Maesta’  Prim’ Aula 9 gennajo 1882 decided as follows (See Testaferrata Abela vs Testaferrata Abela Moroni (4 January 1882)): Che non e’ diffettosa la nomina nel titolo, per parte di Pietro Paolo Testaferrata e di Francesco, perche’  nella stessa si e’  ritenuto essere il detto titolo annesso al giardino del Gomerino, e la nomina e’ stata fatta nel giardino coll’ annessovi titolo baronale, siccome risulta bastantamente della intenzione dei detti Pietro Paolo e Francesco di nominare la stessa persona, e nel possesso del Giardino, e nel titolo; molto piu’ che questa era la volonta’ di Fabrizio Testaferrata, primogenito di Paolo e Beatrice, espressa nel di lui testamento del 12 agosto 1744,

cid:image001.gif@01C80789.CD637360

* Nobile Ercole Martino Testaferrata, (1684-1748), 2nd Baron of Gomerino (succeeded Beatrice 1737 as per Grand Master’s Decree of 1737) OR 1st Baron Testaferrata (cr. 1 May 1737), ALSO 3rd Baron of Gomerino (succeeding Fabrizio in 1744, as per court judgment of 1882), married 1735 to Veneranda dei Baroni Abela, with issue.

1.Paolo Testaferrata Abela, (1736-60) – See below  married 1752 to Vincenza Matilda Perdicomati Bologna dei Conti della Catena, with issue

1.1.Pietro Paolo Testaferrata Abela, – See below  Married 1781 to Maria Manduca Piscopo Macedonia dei Conti di Mont'Alto, and dsp.married Secondly 1786 to Contessa Laudonia Moroni, with issue (see below). Married Thirdly 1803 to Contessa Teresa Buzi Ranieri, with further issue (see below).

(Second Marriage)

1.1.1. Giuseppe Testaferrata Abela Moroni, (1792-1869), – See below  married 1826 Vincenza Gauci Ducoss (See Baron Gauci), with issue.
1.1.1.1.Dr Pietro Paolo Testaferrata Testaferrata Abela Moroni, LL.D, (1830-82), – See below  married 1863 to Maria Angelica Testaferrata Viani dei Baroni di Tabria, with issue
1.1.1.1.1.Salvatore Testaferrata Moroni Viani, – See below -(See Tabria)., (1866-1911), married 1886 to Caroline Barbaro dei Marchesi di San Giorgio, with issue.
1.1.1.1.1.1.Pietro Paolo Testaferrata Moroni Viani, – See below, (1886-1954), married 1922 to Carmela Cremona, with issue.
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Salvatore Testaferrata Moroni Viani, (1930-, See below  married 1962 to Monika Ammerman, with issue.
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Christopher Testaferrata Moroni Viani, (1964- , married 1991 to Daniela Vinci, with issue
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Stephen Testaferrata Moroni Viani, (1994-
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.Petra Testaferrata Moroni Viani
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.Martin Testaferrata Moroni Viani, LL.D, (1969-., married 2004 to Stephanie Apap Bologna Sceberras d'Amico Inguanez (See Djar il-Bniet)., with issue.

1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Nicholas Henry Testaferrata Moroni Viani., (2005-.

1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.Carmen Petra Testaferrata Moroni Viani, (1963-66), dunm.

1.1.1.1.1.1.2.Mario Testaferrata Moroni Viani, (1932-2007), married 1957 to Jane Borg Hampton, with issue.
1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.Peter Paul Testaferrata Moroni Viani, (1960-, married 1985 to Theresia Vincenti Kind, with issue
1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.Sarah Testaferrata Moroni Viani, (1986-
1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.Mark Testaferrata Moroni Viani, (1988-
1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.3.Peter Testaferrata Moroni Viani, (1994-
1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.Paul Stephen Testaferrata Moroni Viani, (1965-, married 1990 to Clara Galea, with issue
1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.Luke Testaferrata Moroni Viani, (1994-
1.1.1.1.1.1.2.3.Caroline Testaferrata Moroni Viani, (1958-, married Gerald Zammit, (His late Brother married to Maria Galea-Testaferrata)., with issue.
1.1.1.1.1.1.2.3.1.Matthew Zammit
1.1.1.1.1.1.2.3.2.Amanda Jane Zammit
1.1.1.1.1.1.3.Maria Testaferrata Moroni Viani, (1923-99), married 1948 to Lino Testaferrata Bonici (See Qlejjgha), with issue.

1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1. Agnese Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq, (married 1973 to Alfred Gera de Petri, B.Pharm, with issue
1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1. Daniele Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq, KM, (1974-., married 2003 to Dr Enyd Pisani BA., LLD.
1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.2. Dr Andrea Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici, LL.D, (1975-, married 2003 to Kate De Cesare., with issue.
1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.2.1. Georgia Gera de Petri, (2004-.

1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.2.2. Sophia Gera de Petri, (2006-.
1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.3. Giulia Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici, (1982-,  married 2007 to Dr Mark Attard Montalto (See San Paolino)

1.1.1.1.1.1.3.2 Caren Testaferrata Bonici., (1952-,  married 1978 to Dr Josef John Preziosi MRCS (See Preziosi)

1.1.1.1.1.1.3.2 1. Marie Christine Preziosi, (1980-,
1.1.1.1.1.1.3.2 2. Fabrizia Preziosi, (1983-

1.1.1.1.1.1.3.3. Anna Maria Testaferrata Bonici., (1961-., married 1984 to John Spiteri-Debono., with issue.

1.1.1.1.1.1.3.3.1. Michela Consiglia Spiteri-Debono., (1985-.

1.1.1.1.1.1.3.3.2 Jean-Paul Spiteri Debono

1.1.1.1.1.1.4.Beatrice Testaferrata Moroni Viani, (1927-2007), dunm.
1.1.1.1.1.2.Maria Testaferrata Moroni Viani,(1899-1954), married 1921 to Victor Denaro, (Also see Maltese Families) with issue
1.1.1.1.1.2.1.Marcelle Denaro (1922-), married 21-11-1943 to Joseph Bonici Mallia
1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.Louisetta Bonici Mallia (1946-), married 24-4-1965 to Chev.John Mary dei Conti Sant Manduca, (see Count Sant for descent)
1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.Dr John Bonici Mallia MD., (1945-.
1.1.1.1.1.2.1.3.Paul Bonici Mallia (d.2000), married Margaret Curmi, with issue
1.1.1.1.1.2.1.3.1.Simon Bonici Mallia, (1985-.
1.1.1.1.1.2.1.3.2.Michael Bonici Mallia, (1988-.
1.1.1.1.1.2.1.4.Victoria Bonici Mallia, married Louis Camilleri, with issue

1.1.1.1.1.2.1.4.1.Louisa Camilleri, (1981-.

1.1.1.1.1.2.1.4.2.Juliana Camilleri, (1985-.
1.1.1.1.1.2.1.5.Anna Bonici Mallia, married Maurice Meli Bugeja (See Cassar-Torreggiani, Maltese Families for descent)
1.1.1.1.1.2.1.6.Charmaine Bonici Mallia, married David Attard, with issue

1.1.1.1.1.2.1.6.1.Christopher Attard, (1983-.

1.1.1.1.1.2.1.6.2.Adrian Attard, (1985-.

1.1.1.1.1.2.1.6.3.Felicity Attard, (1989-.
1.1.1.1.1.2.2.Dr Donald Denaro MD, married May Camilleri
1.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.Victor Denaro, (1956-, married 1983 to Elizabeth Mary Pace, with issue.

1.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.Alex Denaro, (1984-.

1.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.2.Marie Claire Denaro, (1986-.
1.1.1.1.1.2.2.2.Helena Denaro, (1962-.
1.1.1.1.1.2.2.3.Christianne Denaro, (1958-., married 1980 to Ian Wirth Trigona, with issue

1.1.1.1.1.2.2.3.1.John Wirth, (1984-.

1.1.1.1.1.2.2.3.2.Elaine Wirth, (1987-.

1.1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.Bernadine Wirth, (1992-.
1.1.1.1.1.3.Beatrice Testaferrata Moroni Viani, married Salvatore Cremona., with issue.
1.1.1.1.1.3.1.Dr John Cremona, married with issue.
1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.Alfred Cremona.
1.1.1.1.1.3.1.2.Robert Cremona.
1.1.1.1.1.3.1.3.Susan Cremona, married to Dr.Klaus Vella Bardon
1.1.1.1.1.3.2.Col.Dr Anthony Cremona, married to Rosemary Bonello, with issue.
1.1.1.1.1.3.2.1.Jennifer Cremona, married to Peter Zammit.
1.1.1.1.1.3.2.2.David Cremona.- Real Estate Web site Press Here., married to Joanna Gatt, with issue.

1.1.1.1.1.3.2.2.1.Hannah Cremona.

1.1.1.1.1.3.2.2.2.Samuel Cremona.
1.1.1.1.1.32.3.Kathleen Cremona, married to Wolf  vom Schloss

1.1.1.1.1.3.2.4.Peter Cremona, married to Eva NN, with issue.

1.1.1.1.1.32.4.1.Antonio Cremona.

1.1.1.1.1.3.2.4.2.Daniella Cremona.
1.1.1.1.1.3.3.Mary Cremona, married to Cesare Benvenuti.

1.1.1.1.1.4.Suor Inez Testaferrata Moroni Viani (nun), dunm.

1.1.1.1.1.5.Elvira Testaferrrata Moroni Viani married Meme’ Scicluna, with issue:

1.1.1.1.1.5.1 Anne Scicluna married nn Baal

1.1.1.1.1.5.2 May married Joseph W Micallef

1.1.1.1.1.5.2.1 Richard Micallef

1.1.1.1.1.5.2.2 Elizabeth Micallef

1.1.1.1.1.5.2.3 Patrick Micallef

1.1.1.1.1.5.2.4 Danielle Micallef married Robert Sant

1.1.1.1.1.5.3.Tony Scicluna married nn Dingli

1.1.1.1.1.5.4.Joseph Scicluna married

1.1.1.1.1.5.5.Lilian Scicluna married Alfred Sant Fournier

1.1.1.1.1.6.Laura Testaferrata Moroni Viani married George Bryon

1.1.1.1.1.6.1.Inez Bryon married Frank Calleja

1.1.1.1.1.6.2.Mary Bryon married Giovanni Paolini

1.1.1.1.1.6.3 Edith Bryon married Thomas Zerafa

1.1.1.1.1.6.4.Eileen Bryon married Alfred Fsadni

1.1.1.1.1.6.4.1 Ivan Fsadni

1.1.1.1.2.Rosario Testaferrata Moroni Viani, (1871-1935),  -(See Tabria).Married 1895 to Maria Mizzi, with issue.
1.1.1.1.2.1.Mary Violet Testaferrata Moroni Viani, “married 1921 to Marchese John Scicluna with issue.
1.1.1.1.2.1 1.Joseph Scicluna,  Marchese Scicluna
1.1.1.1.2.2.Patrick Scicluna, “
1.1.1.1.2.3.Marie Corinne Scicluna (1923-, married 1947 to Lt.Cmdr Robert Ramsay de Miniac, R.N.with issue
1.1.1.1.2.3.1.Marie Christine Ramsay de Miniac Scicluna, (1948-, married 1974 to Umberto Pergola, with issue.
1.1.1.1.2.3.1.1.Justine Corinne Melita Pergola, (1979-
1.1.1.1.2.4.Maria Angela Scicluna, (1924-, married Alan Marshal, with issue.
1.1.1.1.2.4.1.Marcus Marshall Scicluna, (1956-, married Marion Lapira, with issue
1.1.1.1.2.4.1.1.Marcus Marshall Scicluna
1.1.1.1.2.4.1.2.Mathew Marshall Scicluna
1.1.1.1.2.4.1.3.Luke Marshall Scicluna, (1985-
1.1.1.1.2.4.2.Romina Marshall, (1959-, married 1985 to Charles Alan Short.

1.1.2. Maria Testaferrata Abela Moroni., married 1816 to Aloiseo Lazzarini., with issue.

1.1.3. Vincenzo Testaferrata Abela Moroni, dunm.

1.1.4. Laura Testaferrata Abela Moroni, dunm.