Marchesi di San Vincenzo Ferreri

Title of Marquis of San Vincenzo Ferreri
HISTORY
The title Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri is stated to be a title of Nobility. This title is described as forming part of the Maltese Nobility even though it was granted in the Kingdom of Naples by Philip V, King of Spain as King of Naples in 1716.

Writing in 1992, Charles A Gauci states that the King of Spain had no legal right whatsoever to grant any titles in Naples in 1716. Gauci explains that in 1713 by the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht Treaty_of_Utrecht Spain had in fact ceded Naples to the Holy Roman Empire Holy_Roman_Empire and Sicily was ceded to the Duchy of Savoy Duchy_of_Savoy . Thus in 1716 the King of Naples was not the King of Spain.

This title is therefore invalid.

However, some argue that as Grand Master de Vilhena issued a proclamation in 1725 in regard to the purported recipient of the title, it follows that the title must be regarded as a purely Maltese title created by direct Magistral fiat in 1725. However, this argument does not have any basis on the findings of a Royal Comission published in 1878. In fact that Commission describes this title as one not originating in Malta.

Since 1975, titles of nobility are no longer recognized in the Republic of Malta by Act 29 of 1975 dated 17 October 1975.

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF TITLE

The title of “Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri” is stated to have been conferred in the Kingdom of Naples Kingdom_of_Naples by Philip V, King of Spain and of the Two Sicilies upon the Hereditary Knight Mario Testaferrata, by a patent dated the 10th November 1716, registered in a book called “Privilegm Neap. X. fol. CCLVIII”. The following is an extract from that patent: “Tenore igitur praesentium ex certa scientia, regiaque auctoritate nostra, deliberato et consulto, ac ex gratia speciali maturaque sacri nostril Supremi Consilii accedente deliberatione, praefatum Don Marium Testaferrata, Sacri Romani Imperii equitem Tornearium, et cujus patria est insula Melitana, Illustrem Marchionem, in dicto Regno Neapolis Sancti Vincentii Ferreri ejusque haeredes et successores ex suo corpore legitime descendentes, praedicto ordine successivo servato, dicimus creamus et nominamus, ab aliisque in omnibus et quibuscumque actis et scriptures dici et nominari olumus et perpetuo reputari jubemus”

No land was attached to this title of nobility. The title was merely honorific and did not give rise to any right of possession of the land called San Vincenzo Ferreri.

Recognition by the Government of the Order of Saint John

As the title did not originate in Malta, it could not be held to form part of the Maltese Nobility. However, in 1725 the title was acknowledged in the person of the same Mario Testaferrata by Grand Master Manoel de Vilhena, who after having issued on the 30 April 1725 an order regulating the use of the Titles of Illustrissimo and Nobile amended it by subseqent decrees dated 11 May 1725 and 9 July 1725. By that third enactment the Grand Master also excepted Mario Testaferrata calling him Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri.

The first enactment reads as follows:-
Per I Titoli - Prammatica - S.A. Srma Padrone in virtu' della presente Prammatica, perpetuo valitura, volendo rimediare agli abusi, et inconvenienti da qualche tempo a questa parte introdotti in materia di Titoli, ordina e comanda che da oggi in avanti nessun Avvocato, Notaro, et Attuario di questo nostro dominio, ardisca dare il Titolo di Illustrissimo, ne' di Nobile, nelle scritture, contratti, ed atti pubblici, a veruno dei nostri Vassalli, eccettuato il Capitano della Verga pro tempore, e li due Magistrati delle nostre Citta' Notabile e Valletta, et il Milite Barone Marc Antonio Inguanez nostro Feudatorio, con la Baronessa sua consorte, e loro discendenti, sotto pena, in caso di contravvenzione, in quant' alli Avvocati di sospensione, ed in quanto alli Notari et Attuarj della prescrizione dell' officio, et altre pene arbitrarie a detta A. Serma. Die XXX mensis Aprilis 1725, data et pubta. fuit, et ego pns Prammatica in locis pubblicis, solitis et consuentis, Has Civitates Vallette Victoriose Sengle et Burmule sono Tubi, Populi parte congregata audiente, et intelligente, Actuario Hujus Mag. Cur Castelle legente, et Jose Vella Precone, alta et intelligibile voce preconizante, unde:-

The second enactment reads as follows:-
S.A. Sema Padrone, ordine e commanda che nella suddetta Prammatica s'intendono pure eccetuati il Barone di Cicciano, D. Fabrizio Testaferrata e la Baronessa del Gomerino D. Beatrice Cassia Testaferrata sua madre, e tutti i suoi figli maschi e femmine, con loro mariti e legittimi discendenti. Oggi li 11 Maggio 1725. Ita referent. - F.N. Nalvanus de Vajus, AUD

The third enactment reads as follows:-
S.A. Sema Padrone, ordine e commanda che nella suddetta Prammatica s'intende eccettuato il Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri Don Mario Testaferrata, e li suoi discendenti. Oggi li 9 Luglio 1725. Ita referent. - F.N. Nalvanus de Vajus, AUD

According to the 1878 Report described below, the aforesaid enactments and appointments were tantamount to the Government of the Order of Saint John accepting the title of Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri as one of the titles forming part of the Nobility in Malta.

The Royal Commisioners did not query how the title originated in the first place and were clearly unaware who the lawful King of Naples was in 1716.

PRECEDENCE ENJOYED BY THE HOLDER OF THE TITLE OF MARCHESE DI SAN VINCENZO FERRERI

In 1739, the then Grand Master Depuig enacted a law introducing the concept of extending a form of precedence to even holders of foreign titles. The relative law is reproduced hereunder:-

Hosplis Mgr et Hierlem Sti. Sepulchri. - Per togliere le differenze di precedenze tra le persone che saranno promosse alla giurazie dell’ Universita’ della Notabile e della Valletta, vogliamo, ordiniamo e comandiamo che tutte siano precedue dagli infrascritti, e che fra queti si regoli la precedena call’ ordine seguente cioe’: Primieramente, chi fu Capitano della Verga della Sudetta Citta’ Notabile e nostra Isola di Malta.; Secondo. Il Titolato che ha un titolo fondato sopra un feudo in realta’ esistente qui, benche’ non lo possegga.; Terzo. Il titolato che non ha un titolo fondato sopra fondo realmente esistente nel nostro Dominio, registrato che sia il titolo nella Cancelleria nella nostra Religione e nella Gran Corte della nostra Castellania, e pagato per i rispettivi registramenti il diritto di scudi cento sedici di questa moneta, da dividersi per meta’ tra la Cancelleria e la Castellania sudetta.; Quarto. Il discendente per linea mascolina da chi fu Capitano della Verga, se vive colle proprie rendite, e se i di lui ascendente intermedie vissero pure colle proprie rendite.; Quinto. Il discendente per linea mascolina da un titolo con titolo fondato sopra un feudo qui realmente esistente, se vive colle proprie rendite, e se i suoi ascendenti intermedie cosi vissero; Sesto. Chi fu primo Giurato della Notabile; Settimo. Chi fu primo Giurato della Valletta; Ottavo. Il piu’ anziani di Giurazia di quella Universita’ della quale sara’ creato giurato.; Nono. Chi fu Giudice d’Appello Criminale o Civile della Gran Corte della Castellania e della Corte Capitanale e Governatoriale; Diecimo. Il Dottore di Leggi ed il Dottore di Medicina.: - Dichiariamo che fra le persone d’un stesso grado si deve attendere l’anzianita’ del titolo primordiale e che chiunque fu Giurato, se sara’ fatto Console di Mare, fra i quali s’attendera l’anzianita d’ufficio. Dat. In Palatio, die xvi. Septembris 1739 (f. Despuig)

On the basis of this enactment it follows that the title should have been registered in the two registries. However, the title of San Vincenzo Ferreri was never registered. According to the same 1878 Report described below, the default of its registration is amply supplied by the aforesaid direct recognition of 1725.

The latter enactment was amended in 1795 by the then Grand Master Rohan as follows:

Hosplis Magr. Hierlem. Sti. Sepulchri, et Ordinis Sti Antonii, Viennensis Essendo una massima universalmente ricevuto, che il maggior lustro della Nobilta’ principalmente dipende dalla sua maggiore antichita’, niente che il piu’ giusto e ragionevole che il piu’ antico Nobile preceda il piu’ moderno. Siamo pertanto venuti nella determinazione di Ordinare che nel regolarsi la precedenza tra le persone Nobile di questo nostro Dominio, cosi’ primogeniti che cadetti indistintamente, si abbioa ad avere unicamente riguardo alla maggiore o minore antichita’ del titolo che nobilito le loro famiglie, e cio tanto se il titolo sara’ stato concesso da Noi o Nostri predecessori, che se lo avessero ottenuto da Principi esteri, purche’ pero sara’ stato questo debitamente registrato nella Nostra Cancelleria e Gran Corte della Castellania; nel consorso pero’ di ugual data quello nella di cui persona concorreranno piu’ titoli dovra’ essere preferito, all’ altro che ne avesse meno, secondo la graduazione stabilita nel Chirografo Magisteriale del Nostro Predecessore Gran Maestro Despuig di Gl. Em. Del 16 Sept 1739, quale in quelle parti che non contradicono la questa nostra disposizione intendiamo di pienamente confermare. Datum in Palatio die xvii Martii 1795 (f.) Rohan

THE ROYAL COMMISSION APPOINTED TO ENQUIRE INTO THE CLAIMS OF THE MALTESE NOBILITY

After the Capitulation of the Order of Saint John the new French Rulers formally abolished all titles of nobility. (General Napoleon Bonaparte issued two orders dated 13 and 16 June 1798 prohibiting the use of any title “ORDRE *(1) QUARTIER GENERAL DE MALTE, LE 25 PRAIRAL, AN VI (13 JUIN 1798): Le General en Chef ordonne……(ARTICLE 2.)… Toutes les armoires seront abbatues dans l’ espace de 24 heures. Il est defendu de porter dest livrees, ni aucune marque et titre distinctif de noblesse. ORDRE (2) AU QUARTIER GENERAL DE MALTE, LE 28 PRAIRAL, AN VI (16 JUIN 1798): Bonaparte Membre de l’Istitut National, General-en-Chef ordonne…(ARTICLE CINQUIEME)….Dix jours apres la publication du present ordre, il est defendu d’avoir des armoires soit dans l’interieur, soit a l’exterieur des maisons, de cacheter des lettres avec des armoires, ou de prendre des titres feodaux. ……(ARTICLE DOUZIEME)….Tous les contrevenants aux articles cidessous, seront condamnes pour la premier fois, a une amende du tiers de leurs revenus; pour la seconde fois, a trois mois de prison; pour la troisieme fois a un an de prison; pour la quatrieme fois, a la deportation de l’ile de Malte, et a la confiscation de la moitie de leurs biens. Il devra toujours y avoir 10 jours d’intervalle entre la recidive.”
Another Order was issued by Bosredon Ransijat, President of the Commission du Gouvernement dated 18 Messidor Year 6 (6 July 1798), where it was enacted that all honorary titles should be burnt on the 14th of that month and that every holder of a title should carry his patent at the Arbre de la Liberté.

The French in turn lost Malta in 1800 to a contingent raised by Captain Ball and Admiral Nelson. Malta later became a British Protectorate after the Treaty of Paris of 1814.

In time, the use of nobiliary titles was resumed. However, it appears that this use was unregulated.

In 1870 the Marchese Giorgio Crispo Barbaro published a compendium of the “Maltese Nobility and the Maltese Gentry holding Foreign Titles”. In that publication Giorgio Crispo Barbaro describes Emmanuel Testaferrata De Noto as a Maltese Gentleman holding the foreign title of San Vincenzo Ferreri. - See full text of the Crispo Barbaro’s book at

Eventually, the British Secretary of State for the Colonies commissioned a report in 1876, on those titles alleged to have been conferred to Maltese families before the annexation of Malta to the British Dominions, namely 1800. The Commissioners’ Report and Supplemental Report were published in 1878 together with relative correspondence. See full text of the 1878 reports at )

COMPETING CLAIMS OF EMMANUEL TESTAFERRATA, LORENZO ANTONIO TESTAFERRATA AND GIO. PAOLO TESTAFERRATA OLIVIER TO THE TITLE OF “MARCHESE DI SAN VINCENZO FERRERI”

In 1878, this title was claimed by the same Emmanuel Testaferrata De Noto (described as Emmanuele Testaferrata Bonici Asciack).

In explaining his claim, Emmanuel proved that he was in fact the first-born son in the primogenial line of Mario Testaferrata first Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri through Enrico who was Mario’s first born son.

However, Emmanuel’s claim was opposed by Lorenzo Antonio Testaferrata who this title as his own.

In explaining his claim, Lorenzo Antonio stated that Enrico Testaferrata and his descendents lost any right that they might have had to the title of “Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri” that title being hereditary, and Enrico having been by his father Mario disinherited therefore meaning that all rights vested in Lorenzo Antonio through his own descent from Gilberto Testaferrata, second-born son of Mario, the original grantee of the title.

A third claim was made by Gio Paolo Testaferrata Olivier another descendant of Enrico. Gio Paolo did not contest the claims of Emmanuel and Lorenzo. He merely said that he too, could be entitled to the title depending on the hereditary quality of such title.

In explaining his claim, Gio Paolo stated that past issues between the Testaferrata family had been resolved during the reign of the Grand Masters by means of a private agreement whereby all the members attested that the title of San Vincenzo Ferreri was to be enjoyed by all the descendants of Mario Testaferrata.

NO DECISION BY ROYAL COMMISSIONERS ON CLAIMS EMMANUEL TESTAFERRATA BONICI, LORENZO ANTONIO TESTAFERRATA AND GIO PAOLO TESTAFERRATA OLIVER

Presented with these different claims, the Commissioners thought that the matter will reach the courts. Consequently none of the three contenders appeared on the list of approved title holders.

FINAL OUTCOME OF THE COURT LITIGATION

Writing in 1981 and again in 2002, Charles A Gauci says that Emmanuele Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq was confirmed as the sole holder of the title of San Vincenzo Ferreri by decision of H.M. Court of Appeal (8-1-1887).

However and in fact this decision only says Che, dall’ altro canto, pero’ e’ giusto rimarcare che nella transazione seguita per atti del Notaro Vittorio Giammalva del 10 settembre 1773 tra i figli di Don Mario Testaferrata, il primo concessionario del titolo, di cui e’ qestione, dopo di avere menzionato solo due titoli di Nobilta’, quello cioe di San Vincenzo Ferreri, e l’altro di Testaferrata (alledendo a quello conceduto da Vittorio Amadeo) era stato convenuto che tutti i figli con loro discendenti dovessero essere in liberta’ di portare l’una e l’altra concessione.

CONTROVERSIES

The first controversy is the origin of the title.

It is not a Spanish title because grant clearly purports the title to be based in Naples. Moreover, as seen in the case of Marquis De Piro a Spanish Marquisate could only be granted if the grantee is already in possession of a title of Count or Viscount. In the grant to Testaferrata, there is no indication that he was ever in possession of either criterion.

Nor is the title of Neapolitan origin. Writing in 1992, Charles A Gauci states that on the 28 May 1901 the Italian Consulta Araldica gave a judgment no. 2408 stating that the Italian Crown disassociated itself from the titke since at the date of creation “il napolitano non era piu’ nel dominio del Re di Spagna”.

It follows therefore that the title has no origin and is therefore invalid.

The second controversy concerns the effects of the aforesaid enactment made by Grand Master Vilhena in 1725. Whilst Mario Testaferrata was most clearly addressed as “Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri”, the purpose of that enactment was solely intended to exempt Mario from the new law limiting the use of “Illustrissimo” and “Nobile”.

In the 1878 Report the Commissioners stated that they were of the opinion that an acknowledgment of a foreign title, made directly by a Grand Master must be taken to be, in its effects, equivalent to a registration. In default of an unquestionable recognition, a title could not be taken notice of unless it was registered in accordance with the 1739 and 1795 enactments. On the other hand, however, elsewhere in their Report, the same Commissioners said that they could give no importance to the circumstance where during the Government of the Order, Salvatore Manduca was styled in his appointment as a jurat in the absence of proof of that title. If the title is, as Gauci says, invalid then the 1725 enactment which styled Mario Testaferrata as “Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri” is of no consequence because the title does not rest upon an independent legal basis.

The third controversy concerns the remainder of the title. The aforesaid decision of H.M. Court of Appeal (8-1-1887) did not decide that the title is to be held by one person only.

The fourth controversy concerns whether females and males descending through females would be called within the remainder. However, this controversy may not be addressed before it is established where the title originated.

OTHER ENTITLEMENTS

The other entitlements described below are dependant on first establishing the origin and validity of this title.

As from the year 1886, the holder of this title of Nobility became entitled to be styled “The Most Noble”. (See: History of “The Most Noble” at

The presumed successor of this title is by custom entitled to be styled Marchesino di San Vincenzo Ferreri. (See: Value of the Maltese usage of “Marchesino, Contino and Baroncino” at

Other descendants of the various holders of this title are by custom entitled to be styled dei Marchesi di San Vincenzo Ferreri. (See Value of the Maltese usage of “dei Marchesi, dei Conti and dei Baroni” at

PRESENT DAY

Since 1975, titles of nobility are no longer recognized in the Republic of Malta by Act 29 of 1975 dated 17 October 1975.

GENEALOGY

The genealogy of Mario Testaferrata is as follows:

Date of creation (1716)
*• Mario Testaferrata
For full Genealogy please see [http://www.maltagenealogy.com/libro%20d'Oro/sanvincenzoferreri1.html]

REFERENCES

PRIMARY REFERENCES (GRANT/S):

*1. Patent dated the 10th November 1716 issued by Philip V, King of Spain and of the Two Sicilies in favour of Mario Testaferrata (Registered in a book called “Privilegm Neap. X. fol. CCLVIII”).

*2. Deed dated 10 September 1772 received by Notary Vittorio Giammalva

SECONDARY REFERENCES (HISTORY):

*(1) 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: Full text at
*(2) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES OF THE MALTESE NOBILITY ON THE CLAIMS OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THAT BODY WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S REPLY, AUGUST 1883, PRESENTED TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BY COMMAND OF HER MAJESTY (C-3812) (See: Full text at
*(3) Copies or Extracts of Correspondence with reference to the Maltese Nobility (In continuation of C3812, August 1883), presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty May 1886 (C-4628a) (See: Full text at
*(4) John Montalto, “The Nobles of Malta 1530-1800” (Midsea Books, Malta, 1980)
*(5) decision of H.M. Court of Appeal (8-1-1887)

TERTIARY REFERENCES (PUBLISHED GENEALOGY):

*(1) Crispo Barbaro "THE NOBLES OF MALTA, AND THE MALTESE GENTRY HOLDING FOREIGN TITLES AS AT PRESENT EXISTING BY GEO. G.C.’A. CRISPO BARBARO MARQUIS OF ST. GEORGE” MALTA:- A.D. MDCCCLXX (THE ANGLO-MALTESE PRESS, MALTA, 1870)" (See: Full text at
*(2) Charles Gauci "THE GENEALOGY AND HERALDRY OF THE NOBLE FAMILIES OF MALTA" (GULF PUBLISHING, MALTA, 1981)"
*(3) Charles Gauci A GUIDE TO THE MALTESE NOBILITY" (PEG PUBLICATIONS, MALTA, 1986)
*(4) Charles Gauci "THE GENEALOGY AND HERALDRY OF THE NOBLE FAMILIES OF MALTA VOLUME TWO " (PEG PUBLICATIONS, MALTA, 1992)
*(5) Charles Gauci "THE GENEALOGY AND HERALDRY OF THE NOBLE FAMILIES OF MALTA VOLUME ONE " (PEG PUBLICATIONS, MALTA, 2002)

OTHER:
*1. TABULAR VIEW OF PUBLISHED INCONSISTENCIES RELATING TO THE ORIGIN OF NOBILIARY TITLES CONNECTED TO MALTA

*2. FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE SEE:- Said Vassallo, C.M.,Charles Said-Vassallo's Research site and Maltese Nobility web site

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu