>Please visit this new web site,
>regarding the ethics of Maltese
>titles. " http://www.maltarock.itgo.com/people.htm "
While not being in any way an advocate of the individuals who claim the titles
questioned by this commentator, neither do I know them or any other member of
the Maltese nobility, I must point out that �Damocles� makes several erroneous
assumptions.
Firstly, �Damocles� is mistaken in his claim that by the Treaty of Utrecht
(this is the 2nd Treaty of that name, signed between Spain and Great Britain 10
July 1713 and ratified by Britain 31 July and Spain 4 August 1713), Spain ceded
the Crowns of Naples and Sicily to the Emperor. No such cession was made. Spain
was not a party to the Treaty of Utrecht of 11th April 1713 and so could not
cede anything to anyone therein, nor be required to do so. The April treaty
was between Britain and France, and contained quite different terms and
requirements.
Article XIV of the 2ndTreaty, of July 1713, states: �His Majesty does also
hearken to the entreaties of Her Britannic Majesty and does herein admit Her
request that the Realm of Sicily be ceded to His Royal Highness Victor Amaedo,
Duke of Savoy, and Her Britannic Majesty shall undertake to use Her good office
to ensure that, should the male line of the House of Savoy at any time cease to
enjoy proper continuance, this Realm shall revert to the Crown of Spain and She
does hereby enter into an obligation to guarantee that the said Realm shall
never be made over in gift to another Head of State, for whatever reason and
whatever pretext, unless that other person be His Catholic Majesty the King of
Spain or one such among his Heirs and Successors.�
Article XXI �All the agreements reached on that same day between His Catholic
Majesty and His Royal Highness, the Duke of Savoy, shall be deemed to form part
of this present Treaty and Her Britannic Majesty does hereby pledge Herself to
observe all agreements so reached.�
This is the limit of the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht regarding these two
Kingdoms � nothing at all is said about the Kingdom of Naples.
The King of Spain then signed a separate agreement ceding Sicily to the Duke of
Savoy, with the reversion to his own line.
While both kingdoms had been occupied by Austrian troops, the Emperor refused to
accede to the Treaties of 1713 and 1714, which recognized Philip V�s possession
of Spain. This was a fundamental problem that also served to negate the
renunciations of the Dukes of Berry and Orleans to the Spanish throne, although
these were appendixes to the Treaty between France and Britain earlier that
year, as they were made on the basis of a reciprocal renunciation of the
Imperial claim. Indeed, by the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, the Emperor had
reaffirmed his claim to Spain and attributed to his daughters the right to
succeed thereto. Thus Philip refused to give up his claims to either Sicily or
Naples because the crucial part of the final peace negotiations between the
Powers, that he would be guaranteed possession of Spain by all of them, was not
fulfilled.
Despite the cession to the Duke of Savoy, Austrian troops remained in Sicily.
The Spanish were furious at the continued occupation of Naples, and by 1718
what they perceived as an attempted Imperial attempt to dispossess the Duke of
Savoy. On 5 July 1718, Spanish troops captured Palermo from the Austrians, but
the Spanish King affirmed (25 July 1718) that he would continue to recognize
the Duke of Savoy as King of Sicily. Shortly thereafter the British attacked
the Spanish fleet, and inflicted a terrible defeat; Spain now threatened to
declare war on Britain but still left herself open to negotiations. The Spanish
were still theoretically at war with the Emperor, never having made peace,
although a temporary armistice had been declared on 14 March 1713 between the
Spanish and Austrian forces, the former expecting a peace treaty would follow.
Britain was in secret discussions with the Emperor and on 27 Dec 1718 declared
war on Spain.
Britain, France (unwillingly), the Emperor and Savoy (although the Duke did not
ratify it and they had to call in the Dutch estates General) had already joined
in the Quadripartite Alliance, which demanded that Spain permanently renounce
Sardinia to the King of Sicily (Duke of Savoy) with no subsequent claim by the
Spanish heirs, and also permanently renounce Sicily, which would revert to the
Emperor, while the elder son of the Spanish Queen (Philip�s 2nd wife, and
therefore 3rd son) should inherit eventually Tuscany and Parma . Spain was not a
party to this treaty, but in 1720 was forced to accede to it (and Sardinia was
handed over to the Duke of Savoy, whose eventual rights to Spain in the event of
the extinction of the line of Philip V were recognized and confirmed) � however,
this Treaty required that the Emperor �shall formally renounce ... all claims to
the Spanish Throne and to that of the Indies� and furthermore it was declared in
the 1720 supplementary treaty that all points of dispute would be discussed and
settled at the Congress of Cambray � the dispute over the Golden Fleece,
however, derailed that accord. Both the Emperor and the Spanish King drew up
renunciations � the former to Spain, the latter to �all the rights, kingdoms and
colonies in Italy which in other times were part of the Spanish Crown�. He also
renounced the possessions in Flanders.
However, the exchange of these renunciations still needed ratification, and
furthermore the Emperor, despite his renunciation, still maintained the
Pragmatic Sanction of 1713. Within a year the agreement had unraveled and Spain,
France and Britain now signed what was effectively a mutual defense alliance by
which they agreed to confirm the rights of the Duke of Parma (whose heir was the
Infante D. Carlos). This was designed against the Emperor, although it did not
say so directly, because it was by now clear that he had no intention of giving
up his Spanish claims and was still intent upon on aggressive expansionist
policy in Italy.
This situation remained essentially unresolved, with the Emperor still
maintaining the Pragmatic Sanction, until 1734. Austria, weakened over divisions
in Germany, was defeated by an invading Spanish army at the battle of Bitonto of
1734 and Philip, who had never given up his claim to the two Kingdoms, knowing
that the Powers would never permit the actual union again with Spain placed his
son Carlos on the throne of both kingdoms (1734, not 1735 as �Damocles� states).
This was recognized by Austria in 1736, as the Emperor needed French and Spanish
co-operation in achieving his plan to have his daughter Maria Teresa succeed him
in the hereditary estates. Carlos gave up Parma and Tuscany, the former
unwillingly, and it was recaptured in 1747 and accorded to Carlos�s next brother
Philip by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle of 1748, which largely satisfied Spanish
ambitions.
The title of Marquess of San Vincenzo Ferreri was not the only title given by
the Spanish king as a Neapolitan title in the years 1713-34. These titles were
accorded by the King as claimant to the Neapolitan Crown, using the title of
King of the Two Sicilies, which he had not surrendered. As such these titles are
included in the listing of foreign titles granted by the Spanish Crown, which
may be rehabilitated in Spain as Titles of the Kingdom.
The determination made by the Italy Consulta Araldica is actually entirely
irrelevant to the legitimacy of this title, which if it was to be claimed
legally should have been claimed through an application for rehabilitation or
recognition made via the Spanish Ministry of Justice. In 1901 this should not
have been a difficult procedure, provided the claimant was not himself
disqualified (for example, if he was a convicted felon, or bankrupt).
One need not be surprised that in 1901 the Italian Consulta Araldica took a
strong position against de jure claimants, preferring instead de facto
sovereign! After all, the last reigning King of the Two Sicilies, Francis II,
had never given up his claim either and had made many creations of titles of
nobility while in exile, none of which were recognized in Italy. His brother and
successor still maintained the claim and, indeed, there was still an Ambassador
of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies accredited to the Holy See (until 1903)!
�Damocles� expresses surprise that the British Royal Commission recognized the
title in 1878, but why not � Britain had not formerly recognized the Emperor�s
claim to the Crown of Naples at the date of the conferral of this title.
The argument that this has anything to do with Gibraltar is ridiculous. One may
as well argue that since both parties have abjured the Asiento clause, in
article XII (by which �His Catholic Majesty does hereby cede to Her Britannic
Majesty and the Company of her subjects for the period of thirty years from the
first day of May 1713, exclusive rights to import negroes into his colonies in
the Americas��) the whole treaty has failed! Or that Gibraltar should be
surrendered since Her Britannic Majesty was in breach of the condition of the
cession of Gibraltar (which required that �Her Britannic Majesty does hereby
enter into an undertaking that no jews nor any Moors shall enjoy the right to be
elected to positions of authority in the said township and fortress nor to
reside therein��) over the grant of residence to Jews!
�Damocles� is clearly ignorant of International Law in its application of the
conditions of treaties, in which each article stands on its own and not
separately. He also writes nonsensically about the alleged contravention of the
Treaty of Utrecht by the Grand Master of the Order of St John in recognizing the
title in his capacity as sovereign of Malta (the fact that Malta was a fief of
Sicily did not limit his authority in this regard). Furthermore, he writes of
the title being �worthless in International law�, merely demonstrating that he
does not understand what is the nature of International law (the law of States,
created by International Treaties), that has no jurisdiction in the awards of
titles by States upon their citizens, or upon the citizens of other states.
He has also missed the point that the title was granted as �King of Naples�,
while the title granted by the Duke of Savoy was made as �King of Sicily� and,
as such, feudal overlord of Malta.
He also seems unwilling to accept that the Maltese Royal Commission which
recognized the title, was acting under the Prerogative of the Crown as Sovereign
of Malta, and that this Commission was established to determine such matters and
found in favor of the appellant. Whether or not this accorded with Italian
nobiliary law, which had no say whatsoever in Malta, is entirely irrelevant. One
may criticize this decision if it is merely based on the informal recognition of
the Grand Master in 1725 (just as Peerage historians can criticize the decision
of the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords at Westminster), but one
cannot deny its legality. Even if �Damocles�s� hypothesis that the Royal
Commission had recognized a non-existent title was true (and the issue of
International law and Gibraltar has no relevance whatsoever), that does not
alter the fact that having been charged with the responsibility of making
recommendations recognizing titles, it did so recommend the recognition of this
title.
As for the title of Marques de Piro, this is an example of one of those several
individual creations that have effectively become two. Every Spanish titleholder
has to pay a levy to the Spanish Crown upon succession, then and now. No-one can
succeed by right, without such a levy being paid and without formal succession
announced by decree in the Bolet�n Oficial del Estado. However, the titles
granted in the former Spanish Kingdoms and colonies, follow the rules of those
states thereafter also � thus there are creations in the Two Sicilies of titles
which have passed since 1860 according to the new law of the nobility introduced
by the Savoy Monarchy (requiring male line succession, with the female only
succeeding by new letters patent), while in Spain such titles have been
rehabilitated as Spanish Titles of the Kingdom, often in the person of a
different title holder.
Thus there is no inherent conflict between there being one heir to the title of
Marques de Piro under Spanish law, and a different heir under Maltese nobiliary
succession law. I have no comment to make on the convoluted issues regarding the
latter, except to state that once the Republic had abolished titles, the
so-called Commission�s actions have no effect other than privately and can be
given credit or not according to the personal view of whoever wants to do so. It
is certainly amusing, however, that �Damocles� writes of Colonel Charles Gauci�s
behavior being �Byzantine� as this gentleman is one of the leading supporters of
the self-styled Prince Henry Paleologo, aka Enrico Vigo, Pretender to the
Byzantine throne, disponent of numerous fantasy Orders and even a distributor of
a spurious �Order of St John�.
�Damocles� appears willing to accept the dispositions of Spanish law in regard
to the title of Marques de Piro, but ignore them in respect of the title of
Marques de San Vincenzo Ferreri, which would fall into the category of titles
rehabilitable as a Title of the Kingdom.
