Talk:Maltese nobility

Adjusted links

Is there an independent reference to indicate there was a British Colonial Royal Commission? I think this article needs some authoritative referencing.

Referring to something as "the" Royal Commission suggests it was a specific organisation. I'd suggest "a Royal Commission" -- isn't a royal commission a commission of inquiry into a particular issue anyway? So, there can be, for example, the Royal Commission into Titles for Maltese Nobles and so on, but no single body called the Royal Commission.

Are there any references to this particular royal commission online? Ampersand77 (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

On good advice from the Vfd page, I'm moving some of your pages, those that preëmpt the names of Saints. The links here therefore had to be adjusted. Best, Bill 23:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Bill. No problems. User:Tancarville 1.46pm 27 Oct 2004.

Proposed mergers

I'm proposing that the following articles should be merged into this one:

Count of Santi

Count of Meimun

Marquis of Taflia

Barons of Grua

Barony of Gomerino

there are plenty of others but I haven't the time or energy to work through them at the moment - maybe some other kind soul will do it.

Reasons:

1. These articles are virtually identical to each other, differing only in their title and a few details such as dates.

2. Most of each article is unreadable - large chunks of Latin copied verbatim from the original sources

3. Most of the references are identical

andy (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Refer to this please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Maltese_nobility I am totally against your so-called merger. User Talk: Tancarville 21:36, 25 May 2008.
• 1. It was Wikipedia who asked Tancarvile to improve the articles.

Tancarville has started to do this. The emphasis is to highlight the historical relevance and issues concerning each title.

2. All recent updates contain a precise reference to the grants. Checking each and every reference for this arcane subject, in no less than five languages, is no easy task. Postitive criticism from a Wikipedia administrator is appreciated but vindictive undermining is not. There is always room for improvement.

3. Each title has its own history. In regard to those which were created by the Grand Masters who ruled Malta, the "remainders" vary in their meaning and effect. For this reason it was thought best to quote verbatim the respective remainders, and this in Latin i.e. the original text.

4. The fact that titles are no longer recognized at law in Malta, does NOT mean that they have been abolished.

5. In regard to the foreign titles of nobility which were recognized by the Grand Masters, these are by far even more complex, not only because of the 1739 ad 1795 legislation, but also because the most of the original fons honorum have long gone (with the exception of the King of Spain).

6. It is a useless exercise to merge all titles into one group. At best, one can identify different classifications. (For example, the 1878 Royal Commission classified Rohan's creations into 3 groups). - But in fairness's sake, this is an exercise which could only be done once all the relative information is up and runnning.

7. If anybody has issues with the fact that by 1800 Malta had an advanced form of Nobility, that is his/her problem. - Facts are facts.

8. Tancarville has also made available the FULL texts in *.pdf format of the 1878 Royal Commission and official correspondence.

9. Whilst the 1878 Commission's findings are regarded as authoritative, some aspects required revisiting not only because of some apparent errors and contradictions found in the Report itself, but also because of subsequent developments.

10. Moreover, at the end of each title's description, there is a list of direct and indirect proofs of each title's legitimacy and authoritative documentation, emphasising the Primary source and moving downards in terms of (relative) importance.

11. It is definitely not true that the only difference between one title and the other is "a change in the date an heading". Some may be very similar, but others are radically different.

12. Old general legislation (i.e. pre-1800) is quoted in full for the convenience of the reader. If anybody ventures a argument or claim in respect of any one of the titles, he/she might as well be reminded of the general pitfalls. This "problem", which is common to all updated entries, can be solved by the simple expedient of setting up a separate page.

13. If Wikipedia's administrators want to get some sort of warped pleasure out of creating unnecessary polemics, simply because they are jealous of the Maltese nation's historic identity, let them please delete the whole lot. User talk:Tancarville 1:08;, 26 May 2008 (EST)

Well, while Tancarville is cutting-and-pasting from one of the pertinent AfDs, so shall I:

• Comment: Alright ... here we go. First off, almost all the non-self-published sources Tancarville cites are unavailable for review to the vast majority of Wikipedia editors, which debars them from qualifying as reliable sources. For the non-English language texts, WP:V holds the following: "Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher ... Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors."

Secondly, while Tancarville holds himself out as a renowned geneaologist on his own and a number of websites, no reliable sources say so. A G-search for "Charles Said-Vassallo" turns up only 83 unique hits, all of them various webpages. There are zero hits on Google Scholar for him, something of an ominous sign. WP:V further holds:

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." (emphasis in the original)

So far, and in violation of WP:V, we are taking Tancarville's unsupported word for the existence of the sources he claims and for the accuracy of the information he gives on his website ... and startlingly, we have been doing so for years now. It's also an ominous sign how readily he accuses anyone questioning his sources or seeking to apply Wikipedia policies and guidelines to his articles of being "vindictive" or having some animus towards Malta, and I'd appreciate some answers that don't boil down to "How dare you?"

... there. As pertinent to this discussion, I'm familiar with Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Maltese_nobility. It was a terrible, misguided decision, and I'm heartened by the knowledge it wouldn't happen now, as witness the almost unanimous global consensus to delete on the AfDs. We haven't even touched the notability issue.  RGTraynor  11:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've cleaned up the language, added some wikilinks, deleted many others to AfDed/prodded articles. I also struck out references to the Commission for Privileges, seeing as it's a private club without any official connection seeking to "rule" on titles that were abolished by the Maltese government decades ago.

I also struck out the section on those titles not allowed by the 19th century British Royal Commission. One would imagine that the only reason they weren't allowed was that they were spurious, and as such, have no place here.  RGTraynor  13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, I'm afraid. They were excluded for purely political reasons. Nobody has an agenda quite like the British. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And you have a reliable source for that, I assume?  RGTraynor  10:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I found these at http://www.archive.org/stream/nobilitiesofeuro01ruviuoft/nobilitiesofeuro01ruviuoft_djvu.txt] "He is the Premier Marquess of Malta, and is also a Patrician of Venice, though the latter title is not recognised by the British Government."

"He is also 9th Baron of St. Paul (Barone di San Paolino) in Sicily (16 July 1638), but that, being a Foreign Title never recorded in Malta, is not recognised by the British Government."

"The 1st Marquess was also, by letters patent dated at Chambery 13 July 1717, cr. by Victor Amadeus, King of Sicily and Duke of Savoy, a Marquess (Marchese di Testa- ferrata) [Sicily], but this title was never recognised or recorded in Malta, and, though vested in the present Marquess, is not recognised by the British Government, though his succession to the title was established by the Court of Appeal 8 June 1886."

"TESTAFERRATA. Noble Mariano Testaferrata was cr. a PATRICIAN OP MESSINA for himself and his descendants by the Senate of that city 20 Dec. 1553 (diploma registered at Messina 17 Apr. 1554, and recorded in the Civil Acts of the Inquisitorial Office at Malta 27 Aug. 1689); and his descendant Paul Testaferrata sue. his uncle Monsignor Don Leonardo Abela, Bishop of Sidonia, as a PATRICIAN OF ROME, that dignity having been conferred on the said Bishop and his brothers Placido and Alessandro Abela, and his three nephews ex sorore, Pietro di Ferro, Ascanio Sudo, and Paolo Testaferrata, and their descendants for ever, by the Senate of Rome 11 June 1590 (registered in the Civil Acts of the Inquisition of Malta 26 Aug. 1689) ; and these honours are now held by his descendants"

"Giacomo Testaferrata de Robertis, another descendant of the above-named Mariano, was cr. a HEREDITARY KNIGHT OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE by the Emperor Ferdinand III. 6 Nov. 1637, and a PATRICIAN OF ROME 6 July 1674 ; and these honours are now enjoyed by his descendants"

NAVARRA. Joseph Stagno (Navarra), Count della BAHRIA [Malta 1743], claims to be a HEREDITARY PATRICIAN OF MESSINA (PATRIZIO MESSINESE) and COUNT OF CASANDOLA (CONTE DI CASANDOLA) [Sicily], which latter title was granted to his ancestor 6 Jan. 1685 by Charles II., Kong of Spain and Sicily, with rem. to his heirs. 3 See p. 13.

I don't like conspiracy theories but this does sound like a real British agenda. Red taxi (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• It certainly sounds like that - if that source is accurate - the British didn't recognize the title, and the reason why is even mentioned; come to that, an article on Maltese nobility shouldn't be about non-Maltese titles. A "real British agenda" would also, I fancy, come with some indication as to what that agenda is. It is a hallmark of conspiracy theorists to imagine that there's always some ulterior, sinister motive for every decision, and failing reliable sources attesting to the same, there's no reason to presume that titles were turned down by the Royal Commission for any cause beyond failure to meet their standards of proof.  RGTraynor  11:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from but it doesn't make sense. It talks about Maltese titles and foreign titles incorporated in the Maltese Peerage and then mentions titles not recognised by Britain.

I found this in the same book "The list which follows is compiled from the Reports of the Commission appointed to inquire into the Claims of the Maltese Nobility, and laid before both Houses of Parliament 1878, 1883, and 1888. The Commissioners add, however, that they do not mean to infer that no other titles were granted by the Grand Masters besides the twenty-one they enumerate, and state, " on the contrary, we do not hesitate to affirm that several other titles were at different times created, some of which have been determined by the death without issue of their holders, whilst others were granted to the applicants to hold to themselves alone. Other titles of which we have no notice may perhaps also exist, but we are only called upon by our instructions to consider such claims as have been referred."

And this "All these recognitions by the Government are made subject to any subsequent decision of a competent Court of Law."

3 reports and provisional recognitions? More than 21 titles? Sounds terribly confusing. British colonial policy at its best. Someone please explain. Red taxi (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well, if we were to speculate, one could infer that the whole reason a Royal Commission was appointed in the first place to sort out Maltese titles was because a whole whopping lot of people demanded recognition of this title and that purportedly granted to some ancestor or another by the crowned head of some ephemeral state or another. It'd also be interesting to know why the British bothered at all, instead of dismissing the whole business as gimcrackery from a tiny island with a contemporaneous population similar to Southwark, which would have been consistent behavior from them. Of course, speculation is beyond our scope, and we can only report on the sourced facts.  RGTraynor  20:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, that sounds really disrespectful and I think you should strike your last comment. Malta is old as in REALLY old. We could speculate that the americans were selling scalps in 1600 whilst the Maltese were wearing liveries of sorts but that won't get us very far will it? Red taxi (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the comment is not only disrespectful, but intensely ignorant. I would question the editors ability to work in a spirit of cooperation and intelligence on this project with these sorts of attitudes. What a pitiful display - I hope it can be explained (though in no way excused) by youthful immaturity, or a lack of education. In either case, please refrain from such racist comments in future, and do some reading. History is a wonderful subject. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So, basically, he suggested you to find some sources? Might have been a littly pointy, but find some, or get over it. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So, you're supporting this kind of attitude? And what's a "littly pointy"? Thanks for contributing. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)