Non User
Index: > A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z	Business Non User Industries Finance Tax

Home > Cassar Desain

The Marquises Cassar Desain (Cassar De Sain)

• Titled: Mark Cassar De Sain, as the 12th Marquis
• Heir: His son, Max, as the Marchesino Cassar De Sain.

Mario Testaferrata who became the Marquis di San Vincenzo Ferreri had three sons, two were in lower grades of the Order of St John. Both the Marquis and his brother, Canon Testaferrata, admitted on various occasions that it was always there intention that the cadets of the family would accept an eccelesiastical life. Lorenzo, the 'secondogenito' of Mario, was the first to become a cleric, being encouraged to do so by a promise made by his father and uncle to present his family benefices which , they claimed, provided 500 scudi annually. On the Morning of the 11 April 1797, Mario and his son Lorenzo returned from Messina. Two days after the arrival, the Marquis wrote several letters to his eldest son Giuseppe, who had remained in Messina. The Marquis complained that Lorenzo does not want to wear black socks and, moreover, he parades the streets of Valletta wearing white socks, slippered shoes and long hair tied at the back like a layman. His uncle, the Canon, was also very disturbed and wrote that 'the whole city was gossiping, and referring to Lorenzo as Mad'. At the age of 27, Lorenzo decided that he could no longer comply with the wishes of his father and those of his 'stupid and foolish uncle'. He declared that he had never wished to become a cleric and he 'did not want to have anything to do with black clothes or ecclesiastical property'. This made the Marquis and the Canon furious and their subsequent letters are full of references to Lorenzo as 'PAZZO'. They quickly decided that Filippo, the 'terzogenito' must become a cleric, and they instructed him to approach Bishop Labini with a request that he may receive the first tonsure. They argued that 'Filippo' had said on various occasions, that he would gladly receive the benefices. Filippo subsequently became a cleric. The Testaferrata, like other noble families, were thus able to retain most of their benefices.

Marquis Gilberto Testaferrata made strong representations to the bishop because a painting of his aunt, Camille, a benefactress of the Church, was removed from the sacristy of the church of St Paul Shipwrecked in Valletta, on the pretext that ' it was a painting of a woman'. The Marquis pointed out that a portrait of another benefactress, Gusmana Navarre, was displayed in the sacristy. The portrait of Camilla was restored to its former place in the following year.

The Title of Marquisate Cassar-Desain is one of the formations along with the Marquisate di San Vincenzo Ferreri, Testaferrata, Testaferrata-Olivier, which were created in 1717 to Mario Testaferrata de Robertis at Chambray by Victor Amadeus, King of Sicily, and Duca di Savoy. The remainder was to all his legitimate and natural descendants.

The title of Cassar-Desain was never registered in Malta, However the Grand Master de pinto addressed the grantee’s younger son Gilberto Testaferrata-Castelletti as Marquis when appointing him a jurat in 1749.

Gilberto Testaferrata-Castelletti was the 1st Marquis , succeeded by his son Mario, who married a co-heiress of the Barony of Tabria in 1762 and produced several sons.

The elder son succeeded the Barony of Tabria (see Tabria) and the younger son succeeded to the Marquisate Testaferrata-Castelletti.

The Marquis Mario Testaferrata had three sons, two of whom, Lorenzo and Filippo, did nothing to enhance the family name. Lorenzo, a cleric, fathered 'several children' by Angela Attard, the daughter of the family coachman. Filippo, also a cleric, had 'bastard sons' by one of the family maids, Vincenza Falanca. Eventually both brothers married the mothers of their children, this nearly drive their father completely mad. Fortunately for these noble cadets, as Lorenzo and Filippo are described-the Marquis who was 'feeble-minded and scarcely capable of managing his own affiars, was on even worse terms with his eldest son, Giuseppe the Baron di Tabria. Resulting from all the bad feelings towards the eldest son, Lorenzo was granted the prerogative of the family benefices and also allowed, by his father, to buy the family palazzo in Valletta, together with all its contents. On the other hand, Filipo was their heir to the Castelletti entail. These actions appear rather strange in view of the Marquis's former attitude towards his younger sons, and would appear to bear out the above statement on his mental state. This is even more astonishing since Mario, in his will, had excluded all bastards, even though they may have been legitimsed at law. He appears, however to have, possible inadvertantly, left a loophole by withdrawing the exclusion in the case of those bastards legitimised by subsequent marriage, provided that the marriage was not contracted with an ignoble female. Filippo Testaferrata had children prior to marrying his bride Vincenza Falanca in 1807, which legitimised his children. Filippo Testaferrata started his education at the seminery at Notabile, he then went as a continuation to study in Messina. He travelled with his grandfther Marquis Mario. On the 25 November, 1792 he became Captain with the Regiment of Jerusalem, he won his promotion in the provincial battle at last on the 13 April 1805, where he join the Real Malta Regiment and was ordered to Capri to defend it against the French. The regiment was under the orders of the English Coloniel Bryce. They carried out an assault on the near city of Diamonte in this province against the French they arrived in Capri on 4 October 1808, the French fought a terrible battle and most were killed or made prisoners where he remained for two years on the 26 April, 1811. He left his regiment which was disperced through lack of recruits.

On the 19 of August, 1807 he married Victoria Falanca, the daughter of Francesco Falanca, who was the family coachman. When his wife died he returned to Pisa, where after six years he dies on the 15 November 1821 at an early age of 47. Filippo was buried in the parish of Campo Santo, outside Porto Novo in Pisa.

Filippo’s son Lorenzo Antonio, later succeeded as the 4th Marquis, and married in 1822 to Maria Teresa Cassar-Desain which was the stem to changed the surname and title to Cassar-Desain

In 1848, the 5th Marquis legally changed his surname from Testaferrata to Cassar-Desain in order to inherit the wealthy primogenitura Cassar-Desain which carried a Name and Arms Clause.

Salvatore dei Marchesi Testaferrata was nominated the heiir of one of the largest ential by his grand-uncle, Giovanni Battista Cassar-Desain. However, before Salvatore could inherit the jewels, gold, silver, precious metals paintings, furniture, fields, lands and houses' he had to fulfil certain conditions, including a change of name to Cassar de Sain. Also, he had to find a wife, and untill he married, he was only allowed an annual income of 100 scudi. This placed him on the same income level as 'Maria Teresa' a family slave who had been liberated.

Filippo Giacomo married the daughter of the 4th Marquis de Piro. Since the 5th Marquis the Title went from father to son untill the 6th Marquis, died in 1870, succeeding by his brother Lorenzo Antonio Cassar-Desain as the 7th Marquis. Again, when Lorenzo Antonio dying in 1886, succeeded by his eldest son Philip George as the 8th Marquis, and dying without an heir, and succession went to his brother Richard George.

Perhaps one of the strangest cases ever to come before the 1878 Royal Commission was the title of Marquis Testaferrata.

The decision of the Royal Commissioners concerning this title as presented in their report was undoubtedly correct.

However, the petition subsequently presented by the Committee of Privileges of the Maltese Nobility, together with its acceptance by the Colonial Government must surely rank amongst one of the most absurd happenings in the history of the Maltese Nobility!

Marquis Testaferrata

On 13th, July 1717, Victor-Amadeus, King of Sicily and Duke of Savoy conferred the title of Marchese Testaferrata upon Mario Testaferrata. This was the same Testaferrata who had received the non-title of Marchese di San Vincenzo Ferreri in the Kingdom of Naples on 10th. November 1716 at the hands of King Philip V of Spain, at a time when that Sovereign lacked any territorial Sovereignty over Naples as a consequence of the Treaty of Utrecht-see my article concerning this title which also appears on this website.

Certain points need to be to be made here concerning the grant of Marchese Testaferrata (underlining is mine)

• 1. The title was granted by Victor-Amadeus as King of Sicily (which he then undoubtedly was thanks to the Treaty of Utrecht) NOT as Duke of Savoy. Thus, The concluding words of the patent were “Given at Chambery, on the 13th. July, in the fourth year of our reign”

Victor-Amadeus ascended the throne of Savoy in 1675, 22 years before the grant in question; he ascended the throne of Sicily in 1713, as a direct result of the treaty of Utrecht, that is four years before the grant in question; this latter is the time scale referred to in the grant. Victor-Amadeus ordered that the patent be registered in the Principal Secretariat of State for his Dominions; in pursuance of that command, the patent was registered and not simply recorded in the Registry of the Privileges of the Kingdom of Sicily and NOT in the Duchy of Savoy

• 2. The title was granted to “Don Mario Testaferrata and his legitimate and natural descendants successively…” note;

• 3. The title was never registered in the Chancellery of the Order of St. John in Malta

The Succession The Royal Commission was faced with a rather comical situation! SEVEN gentlemen claimed the right to use this title simultaneously on the premise that it was open ‘to all descendants of Mario Testaferrata’ not just to the first-born male in the primogenial line. One gentleman (primogenial male line) claimed it exclusively.

The Royal Commissioners made some preliminary comments on this claim- see the Royal Commission Report, page 27 paras. 127 & 128 We will not reproduce here the lengthy legal arguments gone into as these can easily be read in the Royal Commission report by anybody with the time to spare! However, the salient points, which emerged from these arguments, were;

• 1. The grant was never registered in Malta, and it was not recognised in Malta therefore no one could claim it! When King Charles V ceded Malta to the Order of St. John, he ceded the Order the dominium utile-thus, the Grandmaster, as Sovereign Prince held the fons honorum over Malta and he had to officially recognise all foreign grants.
• 2. Various documents were produced to show that one or other of the claimants ancestors were recognised as Marchesi by the Order despite the lack of registration; The two with the most documents were Gio. Paolo Testaferrata Olivier and Lorenzo Cassar Desain-but most of the documentation also applied in common to the other claimants. Amongst the ‘most important’ (!) documents which Gio. Paolo Testaferrata Olivier produced were,

In point of fact, most of the documents presented by the petitioners were considered to be totally irrelevant since they were in the nature of either private and /or unofficial correspondence.

A couple of documents were produced which, the claimants felt were very important to their cause since they referred to the fact that their ancestors were styled Marchese when their election to the post of Jurat was announced by the Order. The documents relating to the claim entered by Gio. Paolo Testaferrata Olivier are dealt with first; (see page 31 paras. 146, 147) (Document 3) Unfortunately, the Royal Commissioners did not share the petitioner’s enthusiasm and they summarily dismissed these documents as being both irrelevant and unimportant. Most of the other claimants who relied on virtually similar documentation were similarly dismissed. Lorenzo Cassar Desain had also attached great importance to the fact that his ancestor was styled Marchese when his election to the post of Jurat was announced by the Order. (see page 33 paras. 156-158) The conclusion of the Royal Commissioners was pretty conclusive, referring to all the various claimants, including Gio. Paolo Testaferrata Olivier and Lorenzo Cassar Desain, they said;

Other documents were then analysed by the Royal Commissioners. These documents were offered as proof by Gio. Paolo Testaferrata Olivier and by Lorenzo Cassar Desain that the British Crown had actually recognised their titles.

A whole assortment of letters, press cuttings as well as school certificate from the Lyceum was presented.

This motley collection also failed to impress the Royal Commissioners who stated inter alia (on page 36 para 165) that;

and (in para 166)

Having proven that this title of Marchese Testaferrata had not been recognised either by the Order or by the British Crown, the Royal Commissioners then (para. 166a) categorically rejected the argument that the title allowed for several simultaneous lines of succession by virtue of the jure longobardum as opposed to jure francorum since it was granted in Sicily not in Savoy.

Under the jure longobardum, operating in Germany, Lombardy and in other parts of Italy including the Duchy of Savoy, titles of nobility annexed to fiefs (which in those countries were divisible) as well as those which were purely nominal descended after the death of a title-holder to all his sons who all assumed the title.

In Sicily, where the jure francorum operated, as a general rule, fiefs were not divisible and the joint possession by more than one person was unknown in that country. So in summary, what the Royal Commissioners said was that

• 1. The title of Marchese Testaferrata, (which I hasten to add was a perfectly legitimate title) was never recognised in Malta by the Order and therefore it should not be given recognition by the British Crown
• 2. Even if it were recognised (which it wasn’t) there could not be more than one holder since it was granted in Sicily not Savoy. The rightful line would then be found in the primogenial male line.

By this line, the title would have devolved to Emanuele Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq (1843-1903) all other lines being irrelevant to the succession.

Thus the title of Marquis Testaferrata was disallowed. None of the claimants, including Gio. Paolo Tetaferrata Olivier and Lorenzo Cassar Desain were recognised as title-holders.

This decision not surprisingly led to howls of protest.

The Committee of Privileges of the Maltese Nobility, newly formed after the 1878 Royal Commission report, sent a petition to the British Colonial Government, in May 1883. This report, entered specifically, on behalf of Gio. Paolo Testaferrata Olivier and Lorenzo Cassar Desain, stated that

And again the Committee of Privileges report refers to

It bears stating that these documents were the very same documents which had been presented to the Royal Commissioners and which had been dismissed by them as totally irrelevant! The Committee of Privileges then state in their petition that Gio Paolo Testaferrata Olivier’s title of Marchese should be recognised from 1745 since his ancestor was addressed as Marchese by the Order of St. John in that year (the ‘Jurat’ document referred to above).

They also stated that Lorenzo Cassar Desain should be recognised from 1749 for the same reason (the other ‘Jurat’ document-also referred to above).

In effect they were asking that the Colonial Government should regard these two ‘titles’ as having been created in 1745 & 1749 respectively by Grandmaster Pinto while the ‘parent title’ of Marquis Testaferrata would remain unrecognised even though both gentlemen actually drew their status of title-holders from that unrecognised title.

The fact that the Grandmaster in question never signed anything even vaguely resembling a patent of creation did not seem to trouble the members of the Committee!!

Thus the ‘titles’ of Marquis Testaferrata Olivier and of Marquis Cassar Desain were conceived as a face saving exercise.

It bears stating that all the arguments in the Committee’s petition had already been examined in great detail by the Royal Commissioners and found to be totally spurious! It also bears stating that Lorenzo Cassar Desain was a very active member in the Committee of Privileges; he became its Hon. Secretary for a number of years. He was a member of the Council of Government (1881-1882) and was in fact appointed CMG in 1885. He carried considerable clout, both in the nobility and in government. Enough clout, it would seem for the Colonial Government to backtrack on its acceptance of the Royal Commissioners’ report and to accept this rather silly petition presented by the Committee of Privileges which contained nothing they had not already heard, and previously rejected out of hand. In my article (on this Website) concerning the title of Count of Beberrua,

In order to get the Committee of its back-you can just feel the exasperation of the British Civil Servants screaming at you from the official correspondence - the British Government decided to re-instate a number of titles, which its own Royal Commissioners had disallowed. This resulted in some very strange titles getting through. This statement applies equally to the ‘titles’ of Marquis Testaferrata Olivier and Marquis Cassar Desain both of which were, and indeed still are, totally fictitious. These two ‘titles’ were conceived by the Committee of Privileges and delivered into this world by the British Colonial Government! Would the British Government have dealt in this way with a British Peerage?! Let us be absolutely clear about the precedents set here:

• 1. A title bestowed on a grantee with remainder to “his descendants’ (“successively”) was taken to mean that all his descendants could hold the title simultaneously, and

• 2. Any form of communication emanating from the Government of Malta which contained a reference to a title of nobility was to be taken as an official act of recognition; there was (is) no need for a specific act of recognition. Richard George, before inheriting the title, the 9th Marquis used the surname of de Branchefort-Testaferrata. Since Richard’s death in 1927, the succession was from father to son,

11th Marquis Anthony De Sain died 16 August 2000, succeeded by his son, The Most Noble Anthony Richard, 11th Marquis Cassar De Sain, passed away on August 16. Like all who knew Anthony closely, I feel a great void which hurts at the sudden and unexpected loss of so beloved a gentleman. For this man, a nobleman by birth, was indeed noble by his own deeds and very character. Anthony was a rare being of unparalleled gentleness and gentlemanliness. Loving family man, honest friend to many, patron of the arts, photographer of international standing... where does one begin to measure the calibre of this outstanding yet touchingly unassuming man? The Maltese Association of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta has lost one of its staunchest pillars and outstanding emissaries, both on the local as well as the international front. A knight of Honour and Devotion in obedience, a Commendatore and recently elected Chancellor of the Maltese Association, this man was a paragon of knightly qualities in the modern sense. When I think back on the many discussions and chats Anthony and I indulged in, it was always evident the SMOM was one of Anthony's burning passions. As was Marnisi, his beautiful and extensive property in Marsaxlokk, which he daily visited, beckoned as if by some deep and instinctive fascination. One joke among his friends was that after his wife Vivien, Marnisi was his next flame. How my heart aches in remembrance, dear Anthony, when, on the Saturday, you effusively and excitedly guided us through every square foot of your family's extensive grounds!

Marquis Cassar De Sain was also well known and well loved abroad where he inevitably and unceremoniously flew the Maltese emblem, always with distinctive honour. His chivalric duties often took him out of the country, the SMOM Lourdes Pilgrimage being the acme of his pride and joy. He was also a hereditary knight of the Holy Roman Empire, Patrician of Rome and of Messina and knight of Justice of the Sacro Militare Ordine Costiniano di San Giorgio.

His professional international commitments in photography also put De Sain's and Malta's name on the map. He brought honour to his name and his country's, and yet, completely unspoilt, he maintained his typically winsome quiet manner. On the other hand, Anthony's diplomatic equanimity in face of the occasional infuriating and unjust wrongdoing to himself, could be both legendary and quasi pertaining to sainthood!

We owe much to this man, who through the eye of his camera, has been an unofficial ambassador of Maltese heritage in many international publications of great academic standing. Much magic of Maltese lore and history has been exported world wide through De Sain's gifted photographic work. On a more local sphere, one should also remember Anthony's involvement with the Agrarian Society and his duties as treasurer of the Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. Whatever Anthony did, he did well and always selflessly. His eldest son, Mark Cassar De Sain has succeeded as the 12th Marquis Cassar de Sain.

This Research was researched by

(Text originally based on that of a website by Charles Said Vassallo, by permission.)

Politics	Business	Finance

Topics: Cassar Desain Marquis Testaferrata Lorenzo Mario Title...

---

Cassar DesainThe Marquises Cassar Desain (Cassar De Sain) Titled: Mark Cassar De Sain, as the 12th Marquis Heir: His son, Max, as the Marchesino Cassar De Sain. Mario Testaferrata who became the Marquis di San Vincenzo Ferreri had three sons, two were in lower grades