Talk:Duke of San Donato

I have removed the link accrediting this title to the Holy Roman Empire [1] because the site is hosted by a very doubtful claimant to the Holy Roman Throne [2] "I can say, if you want to give me a gift, I can confer a title." is one phrase by the "new emperor" thati find particularly concerning. While some of the HRE titles listed on the site are genuine (The Duke of Marlnorough is indeed a prince of the Holy Roman Empire) others listed are a little harder to verrify. This page is becoming very concerning, and I think need to be closely examined. I do not say this Dukedom of San Donato does or has never existed, I would just like to see some more concrete evidence that it does today. Giacomo Returned 07:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have added some citation tags. These should not be replaced with links to the Lupis family website, privatly published genealogical studies (yes, I have spotted those and for the time being allowed them to remain) and dubious and spurious websites, but only with reputable and scholarly sources. I have also noted that many images on this page have been uploaded by sockpuppets of banned users, User:Villa Tatti and User:Giovanni Giove. Indeed, Giovanni Giove is the page's chief author. Interestingly, he claims to be the copyright holder of this image (his upload even gives the camera's details) the same image appears on the present claimant to the dukedom's own website [3] (under a GNU licence) perhaps the duke used a Wikipedia picture rather than take one of his own home. Giacomo Returned 09:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• I ave added few citations on the voice. About your various concern, I'd just would like to remember that actually, in Italy, as there was no Monarchy from longtime and no official "fons honorum" or Institutions, every noble title must be seen as a "claim", based on past historical and actual genealogical reasons, and can only be "recognized" by private Institutions whose "legitimacy" can only be based on the own Institution reputation. After the fall of the italian monarchy, infact, the new republican Italian Constitution stated - with the "14ma disposizione transitoria e finale" - that "Titles of nobility are not recognized. The predicates of those existing before 1922 shall serve as part of the surname" By the way, everyone that are used to understand legal matters, know that "not recognized" doesen't mean "not-existants", but only means that cannot be regulated and/or protected by the new Italian republic. In fact, to be precise and reading carefuly the statement of the "14ma disposizione" of the Republican Italian Consitution, can see that only titles bestowed after 28 October 1922 (after the rise to power of Fascism, in an effort to cancel every kind of "honour" originated by "fascist merits") were declared never to have existed. Those families bearing titles older that 28 october 1922 were permitted to use them and, if they ask for this, they can join the "predicato" (the name of the main fief) as part of their surname. For this reason, after a period of uncertainty, the Italian aristocracy continued to use their titles in the same way as they had in previous centuries. This behaviour was cemented by the continued publication of various directory of the nobility of Italy, of course that can only be privately-published all, like the Libro d'oro della Nobiltà Italiana [4], the Albo d'oro delle famiglie Nobili e Notabili italiane ed europee [5], the Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana [6], the Elenco dei titolati Italiani [7] and some more. --Marimbambito (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• I am very aware of the Italian Republic's views on titles. However, there is quite a strict etiquette about their useage, and you are quite wrong when you say "every noble title must be seen as a claim" as well you know. please don't try to bullshit me on this or sidetrack the issue because you will fail. If this page is going to remain, in its present form, it needs to be thoroughly checked and that is what is going to happen. Don't thnk that everyone on the English Wikipedia is an idiot with little knowledge of these matters because they are not. Even when a monarchy has ceared to exist, there is still an etiquette and code of conduct towards use of a title, and claiming validity from some latter day, self appointed Holy Roman Emperor flogging titles from a house in Teddington, is not good enough fro Wikipedia - nor is the page being helped by the constant editing of socks, banned users and single purpose accounts. So understand that and we might make some headway. Giacomo Returned 11:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Firstly you should change you manners, because phrases like "don't try to bullshit me" or "Don't thnk that everyone on the English Wikipedia is an idiot" are unacceptable in wikipedia and not only in wikipedia. Than, you should explain what means "there is quite a strict etiquette about their useage": define "etiquette", please. On the contrary, is a fact and not an opinion that nobility titles in Italy can only be part of a "private" domain and/or "recognition" , and not of a "public" domain and/or , recognition, because of the Italian republican Constitution. And for this reason is a fact and not an opinion that in a present constitutional situation, every noble title must be seen as a "claim", based on past historical and actual genealogical reasons, and can only be "recognized" by private Institutions whose "legitimacy" can only be based on the own Institution reputation, the same happens now in every republican nation in Europe, like France or Germany etc, except the few european nation like Austria, for example, that clearly stated by law that nobility tiles are forbidden. I dont mean to argue with you about this specific voice, I'm only trying to explain the right way to "check" this voice or others present in wikipedia about italian titles (i.e. like this [8].--Marimbambito (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Good because I am not arguing with you. As a single purose account and likely a sock too, I don't take much notice of you. The more I am reading up on this subject, the more interesting this dukedom appears. At resent, I think all references pertaining to the the present "duke" should be removed from this article. However, under Wikipdia rules, all dukes can have a page of their very own, and I am considering writing one for the present duke, but he appears not to want one. Now as a duke, he may not have a choice in that matter, I very strongly feel that European dukes should have pages just as much as the English ones - whether they like it or not because it is of great interest to many people. I will consider this further. it's a pity that the duke's previous page on Wikipedia was deleted because he was not notable, it obviously failed to mention this important fact. That can be rectified. Giacomo Returned 12:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• As I already told you, the wikipedia page about the present duke doesn't refer in any way to the title or the claims, but only refer to his professional activity as a journalist and media operator, and as been deleted because of the specific italian wikipedia rules, as clearly stated, because for this it-wiki rules "to be a journalist doesn't assure notability". In my opinion, this fact has nothing to do whit the present page and/or the family and/or the title history, I'm sure you'll agree whit my view here. In my opinion too, holding a ducal title cannot assure "notability" for itself, and cannot justifie a page in english wikipedia about any present holder or claimant, but this is only my opinion. I'd also like to tell you that in my view this page title should be rectified to the old one, hopefully, as "Duke and Duchess" o "Dukes of", because seem's to me quite ridiculous refer to a "Dukedom" in Italy, now in the XXI century, and under the present legal situation--Marimbambito (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid your view is not a consideration. The dukes previous page was not on the Italian wikipedia, but the English [9] (I don't think my good friend JHochman is an admin on the It Wikipedia). However this is the American|English Wikipedia where policy dictates that all dukes are elligible for a page dedicated solely to them. It cannot discriminate racially, therefore, Marco Lupis, Duke of San Donato, will have a page just like other dukes. After all, as you have provided so many references to him, how can he not be notable enough to have a page? We shall have to get that link blue as soon as possible. Giacomo Returned 13:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• you've right, sorry, I mistaked the editions. I'm not specially oriented on write a page about this specific person, because I'm only interested on the genealogical and historical side, due of my specific area of interest and knowledge of those matters, bit if you think to do it, I can help to find some independent informations, also because mostly are in Italian language, and - instead of your Italian nickname - I'm not aware if you are easy on manage Italian language.--Marimbambito (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but don't worry, I prefer to find my own sources - my Italian is quite good. It's amazing what one can track down without even leaving Wikipedia. [10][11]. Giacomo Returned 14:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I was aware, as i checked wikipedia firstly; I assumed you already did it too. Apparently the page - concerned only the present duke's professional side - has been proposed for deletion one time - and the result was kept - and then a second time - one year later - and the result was delete. I still remain in my original opinion.--Marimbambito (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• At present I am researching the dukedom and rewriting this page in user space, and using only verifiable or unchalengable facts. At present I am minded that there is unsufficient evidence to support Mr Lupis claim to the dukedom. I do not say he is not the duke; I say I have not been convinced by the evidence so far. I shall continue to slowly research and will continue to do so unless I come to a clear extinction of the title. I have already found some anomalies while translating the Italian Wikipedia's information into English. When I have completed my research, I will transfer my user space article into mainspace, but even the little I have written so far needs further verrification. We are very keen on verrification on the English wikipedia and I like playing the Devil's Advocate. I am also vain enough to think that my reputation on the English Wikipedia is such that others will be happy to beleive my conclusions. Regarding the current article, my natural inclination is to remove all references to Mr Lupis and his casa until his claim is proven beyond all reasonable doubt - which hopefully it will be. Giacomo Returned 12:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• One small anomaly, perhaps you can explain why this page does not have a duke dying 1901, as per his obituary in the, usualy very reliable, New York Times[12]. That would be helpful. Giacomo Returned 12:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with your and I'm happy to cooperate, if needed. Good finding, your, about the obituary, but I hopee you will not make some confusion. The obituary refer to one of the two claimant lines of this title, the line that becam to exinction precisely with the deat of the last claimant of the Sambiase line, Ladislao Sambiase Sanseverino, duke of Malvito and prince of Bonifati, born in Naples 14 February 1881 (and succeeded to his brother Paolo + 7 February 1929), (son of the one of the obituary) , who had no children from his marriage to Margherita Nardi (see "Libro d'oro della Nobiltà Italiana", ediz. XX, vol. XXII, 1990–1994, pag. 538). It is because of the extinction of this claimants line, that now only the line to the present claimant/duke Marco Lupis etc. remain. As clearly stated and documented by independents and scholars references (that you can double-check) this title succession have seen two claimants lines (non unusual in the italian nobiliary successions), as refereend in the voice too, when can read: "After the death of the last direct duchess of San Donato, Anna Sanseverino (at the age of 9), the Crown of Naples sold the fief only (not including the title) of San Donato, to the Ametrano family. But Mario Sanseverino, the nearest cousin of duchess Anna, claimed it for himself, referring to an old "privilegio" accorded and confirmed many times to the Sanseverino by the Kings of Naples stated that only the male heirs can inherit titles and fiefs. ""in quantumcunque remotus etiam decimo et ulteriori gradu ex quacumque linea trasversali, adscendenti seu descendenti... Et inter ipsos de cognomine de Sancto Severino progenitura et gradus servatur..." . This genealogy is fully documented, and with "Regio Decreto" on 5 October 1888, those rights were recognized by the former Kingdom of Italy. (see: "Genealogia di Ercole Sanseverino, barone di Càlvera, e suoi discendenti", Napoli 1902, and "Illustrazioni dell'albero genealogico della famiglia Cianci di Leo Sanseverino", Napoli 1906) Those facts originated two legal claims for the San Donato title, both legal and recognized. One referring to the Ametrano-Sambiase descendants, that BOUGHT the land/fief and obtained a NEW title, without any "blood" relation with the Sanseverino. And another referring to the (Mario) Sanseverino-del Mercato-Lebano descendants, that INHERITED the original feudal title by direct "blood" connection with the Sanseverino. But the "anomaly" stated below, were "resolved" in favor of the last line of succession (Sanseverino-del Mercato-Lebano-Lupis) because of the death, without children, of the last representant of the first line of succession (Ametrano-Cavalcanti-Sambiase), don Ladislao Sambiase, born in Naples 14 February 1881 (and succeeded to his brother Paolo + 7 February 1929), who had no children from his marriage to Margherita Nardi (see "Libro d'oro della Nobiltà Italiana", ediz. XX, vol. XXII, 1990–1994, pag. 538". --Marimbambito (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't see at all to be honest. We have a Duke of San donato reliably dying in 1901 - who was a very public and dominant political figure in Naples throughout the last half of the 19th century. I have great documantary references for him and his exploits, including being received by the King and the Queen, yet this Wikipedia article about the dukedom denies his existance and claim to the dukedom and makes no reference of him at all. You are seriously telling me, that during the last half of the 19th century, a fraudulant duke was able to hold high office in Naples and be received at court and the King knew he was a fraud? Giacomo Returned 14:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Important question - To add to the confusion: Is Mr Lupis claiming descent from the Ametrano family to whom the fiefdom (and possibbly the title) was sold? because if not, following the sale, it appears that the title was claimed by distant relations of the original holders (from whom I think Mr Lupis is claiming descent) who claimed it by (primogenture) exclusion of the female line, if this is the case then I don't see how Mr Lupis can be claiming it through his mother - or indeed how his mother could ever have held it, even if her family were entitled to it in the first place, which is looking very doubtful. Giacomo Returned 16:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you made a lot of confusion, even if can be understandable that it is not a "simple" matter here. Answering to your first question, nobody (I strongly hope!) ever said or simply thought that the representative of the Ducal line that come from the Ametrano to the Sambiase, (that include the duke in the obituary you are referring to, as well), are never been "fraudolent dukes" (!) Then, you made a mistake as well whit your assertion, sayng that the rules of succession in the past Kingdom of Naples contemplate the exclusion of the female line; on the contrary, the female succession of fiefs and titles, la "Successione Femminile Napoletana" (well know by every serious historian) has been ever legal and applied in the former Kingdom of Naples. And we should just remember here that both claimants lines inherited there ducal titles by female lines (!) so, if your assert was correct (but is not), both lines lost there rights several centuries ago. And is not. In fact, the Ametrano-Sambiase inerithed the title trough female, when Don Francesco Saverio Sambiase (1733-1791) (grand father of the duke in the nobituary) inerithed form his mother, Donna Maria Cavalcanti di Buonvicino (+ 1764) which herself inerithed the title from her mother, Donna Ippolita Ametrano, daughter of Don Francesco Ametrano. In the same manner, in the Sanseverino-Lebano-Lupis line of succcession, some passages happens trough female. Third, it is not exact that, following the sale of the San Donato fief to the Ametrano's (sale of the fief and not join with the title, because the fies has been sold under the rule ""extincto seu retinenti titulo") , the original feudal title on the dukedom, was claimed bu distant relations of the original holders (from which the present claimant non only claim to descend, but have proved by documents to descend) because the title was claimed by the nearest cousin of the last direch duchess, Annuccia Sanseverino (died 9), by her nearest cousin Don Mario Sanseverino (direct and documented ancestor of the present Duke Lupis) wich was related to the last original duchess Annuccia under the of the San Donato fief to the Ametrano's legal "degree" of relationship conteplate by the rules of succession at those times in the former Kingdom of Naples.

Must cite - in the present case - what wrote about the "double" lines of succession of the title of San Donato, the well know and reputed historian of the fiefs in South of Italy, the late prof. Mario Pellicano Castagna (author, bet. his many fondamental books, of the monumental "Storia dei feudi e dei titoli nobiliari della Calabria" )on "Studi Meridionali", Gennaio 1977, pag. 9: "In merito al titolo di Duca di San Donato, non deve far meraviglia la coesistenza di due diversi titoli infissi sullo stesso predicato, essendo essa perfettamente compatibile con le leggi feduali e nobiliari del Regno (di Napoli). - In relation to the title of Duke of San Donato, is not surprising the coexistence of two different titles on the same predicate, since it is perfectly compatible with the feudal and nobiliary law of the Kigdom (of Naples)" I can perfectly understand that the feudal and succession rules matters in the Kingdom of Naples are not so easy to follow and fully understand, but must say that when Ametrano in 1664 bought the fief from the creditors of the Sanseverino's, the Royal Assent on the January 25th, 1664 by King Philip IV of Spain, (recorded in Quinternione 118, f.75) declares that the sale of the fief-only to the Ametrano was made ​​under the 'extinct seu retinenti titulo' rule, as we seen. In other words, without the passage of the orignal Sanseverino's ducal feudal title to that buyer, and the title reamain into the possession of the old feudal possessors's successors, the Sanseverino blood relatives of the last original duchess Anna, already cited here, from whom the present ducal claimant Lupis directly and by documents descend. The reason for the denial of passage of the ancient feudal titles of Sanseverino to the Ametrano by the then reigning monarch, Philip IV, must be found precisely in the exisentence of another branch of the same Sanseverino (at the time represented by the young Horace Sanseverino, Baron of Calvera , Casaletto and Battaglia, 3rd degree cousin of the Duchess Annuccia, and father of Mario Sanseverino barons of Calvera, direct and documented ancestor of the Duke Lupis) legitimate pretender to the inheritance of the title which had already pointed out his rights and his reasons to the Court and therefore the Court itself "froze" any claim to the title itself. Some (big) confusion has been originated by the fact that, some years after the fief's sold, the Ametrano succeeded in obtaining a new grant of a NEW AND DIFFERENT TITLE (not a recognition of passage of the original feudal title) of the ducal title of San Donato, by the next King, Charles II (ascended to the throne 17 September 1665 only 4 years old and reigning a few years, until his death on November 1, 1700). Those facts, for people not used to "manage" those matters, could appear odd, but is not, because - on the contrary- was very normal that after the sold of a fief, the original title remain in a legitimate possession of the original holders successors, and usually, few years after the sold, the king "nobilitate" the new buyers whit a NEW title ON THE SAME FEUDAL POSSESSION (predicato). But usually, the "new" title concessed to the buyers, was almost ever DIFFERENT in the scale of "title degree" form the original one: i.e. the fief of Romagnano, sold by the ancient feudal family of "de Ligny" (that possessed the orignal feudal title of "Marquis of Romagnano"), sold in the same century to the new buyers family of "Torella": as a result the Ligny family REAMAIN in the possession of the "empty" "honorific" title of Marquis of Romagnano, and after some year, the king concessed to the buyers Torella's a new title of BARON of Romagnano". The "anomaly" presented by the San Donato case, must be seen on the quite unusual fact that the king conceded to the buyers a NEW title but in the same "level" of title degree, so, as effect, almost identical to the old one. Hope it can be enough explained now--Marimbambito (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. Adjudicating on claims of nobility is not Wikipedia's remit. I have looked very hard at the information available and decided there is unsuficient evidence to substantiate a claim that the title is not extinct. Perhaps at a later day that may change. However, Wikipeia can only present concrete fact, it is an encyclopedia not a Libro d'Oro, peerage or social register. If you disagree with me, please contact an arbitrator or admininstrator to check my conclusions. Giacomo Returned 21:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I respect your view, but is a fact that the Sambiase line became extinct and that the Lupis line has been recognized by several nobiliary institutions in Italy and in Spain, from the Regio Decreto of 1888, October 15th, to the present. In my humble opinion, even if I agree that Wikipedia cannot be a peerage register and must present concrete facts, those facts could be presented in the voice. Anyway, to make and end, I found your present revision very neutral, and I can agree with it, except some minor edits i made, that I hope you can agree. Just because it not correspondent to the historical truth (as largely explained and documented above) that the original title "reverted to the crown" and also that the claims of the descendants of the Sanseverino "remain inconclusive." I also appreciate the maintains of the large sources list so, everyone that like to deepen the title history and his succession lines and claims, can do it directly on sources. Has been a pleasure confronting with you.--Marimbambito (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I am glad we seeom to be reaching an agreement. I accept most of your minor edits, but have replace "inconclusive" the alternative is "unsubstantiated" which I suspect would be less agreeable to you. I intend to continure writing small paragraph biographies of various dukes, but these must be bios of men who were unchallenged holders of the title at least during their lifetime. Giacomo Returned 07:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Im glad too for the active collaboration. I'd like to precise one more time that i don't have any specific interest in sustaining or not everyones claims about the present title, a part an interest in keeping the historical truth, due to my activities in this historical domain. And it is in this direction-only that I must firmly disagree whit part of your last revision, because it is completely untrue that the title has been claimed by the line coming from the nearest line of the Sanseverino's "in the 21th Century" (!?) as you wrote. It doesn't correspond in any way to the historical and documented truth, because, (I already premised it several times ...) because shortly (can say immediately, compared to the "timing" of the 17th Century) the title was claimed by the nearest cousin of the last duchess (the duchess Annuccia Sanseverino, died 9 and many times remembered here) Orazio Sanseverino of the Barons of Calvera (b. 1640) and the by his firstborn Don Mario Sanseverino of the Barons of Calvera. Now I'll try one more time (...) to resume in a most possible clear, documented and historical way, the succession history and claims: I must make clear, fist of all, that the story of the descendants of the claimant, is not based on any "original research" (that I'm well aware cannot considered conclusive for the wipedia standards) but on secondary, independent, reputed, scholars, printed sources , mostly indicated in the voice sources list, and resumed here concerning the specific matter of the first, almost immediate and antique claim proposed by the descendants of the nearest Sanseverino line, starting from the moment of the fief sold to the Ametrano in the 17th Century. Those specific sources (not all but the mains) are the follwing: N. Cianci di Leo Sanseverino, Genealogia di Ercole Sanseverino, barone di Càlvera, e suoi discendenti, Napoli 1902, e idem, "Illustrazioni dell'albero genealogico della famiglia Cianci di Leo Sanseverino", Napoli 1906; A.V. Rivelli, Memorie Storiche della Città di Campagna, Salerno, 1894), pagg. 281-283 . In both his cited works, the historian Nicola Cianci, state - based on original documents cited in both of his cited works - that Mario Sanseverino, the nearest cousin of duchess Anna, clime the original feudal and historical Ducal title of San Donato for himself since the 17th century , referring to the old "privilegio" accorded and confirmed many times to the Sanseverinos, and he precise that the claimants descendants genealogy is fully documented and recognized by "Regio Decreto" on 5th October 1888, where those rights was recognized by the former Kingdom of Italy. The historian Cianci, document his statement based on several original documents kept in public and private archives, as the Napoletan "Grande Archivio di Stato di Napoli"; between other the mains are the follwing: *Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Real Camera di S. Chiara, Pretensori di cadetti (serie XXXV), vol. 52, fascicolo 70- 18th Century. "Supplica di don Orazio Sanseverino dei baroni di Càlvera" *Archivio di Stato di Catanzaro, Regia Udienza Provinciale di Catanzaro, Lettera S, fasc. 950, Anno 1762 *Napoli, Archivio privato dei Baroni del Mercato, Fondo Pacelli - Sanseverino, Busta 18 (this last recently cited in the book "L'Archivio privato del Mercato: una fonte privilegiata per la storia del Cilento. Esposizioni di carte, pergamene e manoscritti conservati nell'Archivio privato della famiglia del Mercato depositato presso l'Archivio di Stato di Salerno. Promossa da: Archivio di Stato di Salerno, Salerno, 8 aprile – 20 maggio 2006"). One more very important documents cited by Cianci is where Mario Sanseverino (son of the nearest cousin of the last Duchess Annuccia), with public acts of January 17, 1759 and later on 6 April of that year (both preserved in the State Archives of Salerno, Fondo Notarial, Notary District of Campagna (SA), busta 680, ff. 9r - 12v) and reported by Cianci di Leo, 1902, op. cit.) by the notary Blasio Cantalupo, took care to prove publicly his legacy succession, giving the right to broadcast the Sanseverino surname, properties and titles to his nephew, ex filia Francesco di Leo Sanseverino - son of his firstborn and uniqie daughter Donna Vittoria Sanseverino of Calvera and San Donato - "with the requirement that the descendants add titles and arm of the House Sanseverino, adding that his nephew Don Francesco " must unite to their surname the House Sanseverino "(f. 11r). (so, how you can write in your last edit that this line claims are "resurrected in the 21st century"?). But is not enough. It is also reported the photo of a documents referring to the "Capitoli Matrinoniali" (Marriage Agreements) of Donna Chiara di Leo Sanseverino, firstborn of the cited Don Francesco: "Fede notarile dei capitoli per il matrimonio tra "la S.ra D. Chiara di Leo Sanseverino de Duchi di S. Donato (!) della Città di Campagna" e "il S.re D. Alfonso Pacelli figlio del S.re D. Gerardo, Barone Pacelli, della Terra di Balvano", redacted on 16 aprile 1784, by Notaio Domenico Greco di Colliano (SA) (kept in the Archivio di Stato di Salerno, Fondo Notarile, Notai del Distretto di Campagna), where Donan Chiara di Leo Sanseverino is clearly and pyblicy stated whit the title "de' Duchi di San Donato" - "of the Dukes of San Donato" (!) (so, how you can write in your last edit that this line claims are "resurrected in the 21st century"?). But it son enough: The cited hitorian Rivelli, in his book Memorie Storiche della Città di Campagna, Salerno, 1894, at the pages. 281-283 state and document that ""Nel corso di questo secolo (il XVII, ndr) vennero a fissare il loro domicilio a Campagna (omiss...) don Mario Sanseverino duca di San Donato (!!) e barone di Casaletto, figlio di Orazio Sanseverino barone della Càlvera" - ""During this century (the seventeenth) were staring at their home Don Mario Sanseverino Duke of San Donato and Baron of Casaletto, son of Horace Sanseverino baron of Calvera". So, finally, I must repeat and cocnlude: how you can write in your last edit that the claims of the nearest Sanssverino's line (coming today to the documented descendants, the actual Lupis family) are "resurrected in the 21st century"?. I hope you agree whit the many printed sources cited and I reverted your last edit as result. Once again I whish to say my appreciation on confronting with you.--Marimbambito (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No, we are not going down that road. We will deal in fact and fact alone. We are not going to have any more of these great copy pasted blocks of text which are littering the internet. The claims of this one man have made it almost impossible to research the subject, fortunatly I have many other resources to call upon. You can either take what is on offer here, or we can do without the page. It would not be very difficult to have this whole page deleted as non-notable anyway. from my research there is one one notable duke [13] and he is one of those you did not even bother to mention as a duke because he did not fit comfortably into your version of the ducal history. Now, I suggest you quit this page while you have at least some recognition. Giacomo Returned 14:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

We are dealing in fact and fact alone, based on printed sources, that are all available and carefully cited, (and I'm referring to reputed, old, independent and scholar sources coming from historians like Cianci, Rivelli and Pellicano Castagna, i.e.). You can't argue whit this reality and should be your concern to check those sources, if you think. The list of the public italian libraries where those sources can be find is available here http://www.internetculturale.it/moduli/opac/opac.jsp. I spent a lot of my times confrontih politely and in a documented matter here with you, but you not seems to are acting in the same manner, and you are not in any position to make any "offer here". I onlu agree to the fact that in the voice the napotitan duke Sambiase must be cited, and I'll add it.--Marimbambito (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: and, please, don't revert the two web link I erased, because the first one is not available (I can try to find the right one in the web, but the cited printed book is enough) and the second one is a web source to a wikipedia clone, better not to be listed here. thanks--Marimbambito (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I almost forgot: I have no reasons to "push" on keeping or deleting this voice. Could only be a pity to lost rge time and effort in researching spent by both of us. I also noticed that this Italian "Dukedom" has remained almost the only one still listed in english Wikipedia. But I just would like to be suhre that, as i am no special or personal reasons to try to maintain the voice, you don't have any special or personal reasons to try to delete it ... This is not a "war" opposing us, but IMHO an effort (maybe a bit too "passionate" effort) to make a wikipedia voice the better we can do. thanks

• You are failing to understand this is a page about the Dukes of San Donato; it is not a page about pretenders to that title. Mr lups claim has been rejected for centuries and will continue to be so; it is not valid under the laws of heditory peerages of any European country. It is not worth documenting. Giacomo Returned 15:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Giacomo, only for curiosity. You wrote that your Italian is good enough. I leave these notes in Italian that a friend gave me with the authorization of publication here. I declare that it is GNU free licence. I hope you can understand.

Dopo la morte dell'ultima duchessa Anna, nessun altro ramo dei Sanseverino richiese ed ottenere di succedere al titolo vacante ed ai feudi di tale ramo.

Il titolo di San Donato fu quindi dichiarato estinto.

Infatti in base alle Leggi di successione feudale ordinarie non esistevano discendenti maschi in linea retta dai Sanseverino Duchi di San Donato e nè discendenti in linea collaterale che avrebbero potuto legalmente pretendere di succedere al titolo ed ai feudi per le Leggi del tempo (ovvero non vi erano parenti dell'ultimo duca entro il quarto grado).

Infatti il bene (titolo+feudo) sarebbe dovuto passare: A) ai discendenti maschi legittimi (che non c'erano); b) agli altri eredi del Duca Don Francesco (+ 10-8-1643), ovvero ai discendenti suoi, anche per via femminile, oppure ai parenti entro il 4° grado).

Il diritto alla successione sarebbe spettato quindi agli Spadafora, discesi da Donna Lucrezia Sanseverino, sorella del Duca Don Francesco. Ma costoro non furono riconosciuti in nessun diritto a succedere. In base però all'antico privilegio dei Sanseverino (confermato dall'imperatore Carlo V nel 1530) altri rami collaterali della casata avrebbero potuto invocare la successione al ramo dei Duchi di San Donato. Il Privilegio dei Sanseverino stabiliva che all'estinzione di un ramo i beni feudali di questa casata dovevano passare al parente maschio più prossimo della famiglia Sanseverino, previo regio assenso. Quindi altri parenti collaterali maschi dei Sanseverino di San Donato avrebbero potuto avanzare pretenzione al titolo ed al feudo di San Donato.

Invece nessuno di loro lo fece ed il sovrano non concesse a nessuno di loro la successione in virtù di tale privilegio. Infatti nel Quinternione 118, fol. 75, è espressamente dichiarato che “il vecchio titolo ducale dei Sanseverino è da considerarsi estinto”. Il feudo ed il titolo di duca di San Donato fu quindi devoluto (ritornò) al sovrano ed infatti Re Carlo II concesse agli Ametrano e loro discendenti il titolo ex novo di Duca di San Donato, con Privilegio reso a Madrid, esecutoriato il 20/12/1668 e registrato nel Quinternione 123, fol. 171t, come riferisce anche il Cedolario 74, fol. 334t. Quindi la famiglia Ametrano ottenne il feudo di San Donato ed il relativo e correlato titolo ducale, che fu concesso ex novo (perchè ex novo era stato concesso dopo l'estinzione dei Sanseverino e la devoluzione del feudo al sovrano).

Nessun Sanseverino ebbe quindi mai diritto ad "autotitolarsi" Duca di San Donato visto che il titolo ed il feudo di San Donato era stato dichiarato passato dunque gli Ametrano (1664) e da questi ereditato prima dai Cavalcante dal 1732 al 1764 e quindi dai Sambiase (1764-1780).

Anche nell'ipotesi che qualche altro Sanseverino avesse potuto invocare il detto privilegio nessuno non lo fece ricorrendo al sovrano o suo organo competente ed infatti il titolo fu intestato agli Ametrano e restò ai loro discendenti.

Cento anni dopo questi fatti (il passaggio del titolo agli Amtrano) vi fu la pretesa di Mario Sanseverino a rivendicare il titolo di San Donato (nel frattempo in capo ai discesi degli Ametrano).

Anche nell'ipotesi che Mario Sanseverino avesse potuto invocare un riconoscimento di tale titolo in virtù del famoso privilegio dei Sanseverino, non lo fece.

Oppure se lo fece non vi fu mai un atto sovrano che lo dichiarava Duca di San Donato, togliendolo agli Ametrano.

Allo stesso modo non vi fu mai un atto sovrano che come "risarcimento" permettesse a Mario di intolarsi Duca ed appoggiare il tiolo su altro feudo.

Per quanto riguarda la questione della successione di Mario Sanseverino (+ 13 settembre 1763) i termini della questione sono semplici.

Innanzitutto non era parente collaterale in 4° grado dell'ultimo duca di San Donato.

I gradi genealogici si contavano (e si contano) risalendo generazione per generazione fino allo stipite comune e quindi da questi a scendere.

La genealogia riportata sopra va quindi letta in questo modo:

Stipite comune      Marco Antonio Sanseverino 2° barone di Càlvera investito dal Principe di Bisignano
   4° grado                   con privilegio datato Cassano 7-6-1526
                            Sp. donna Vittoria Castrocucco D'Aquino
                         ___________________________________|______________________________
                        |                                                                   | 
 3° grado   Taddeo Sanseverino                                             Ettore Sanseverino                    5° grado
                        |                                                                   |                                                              
 2° grado   Ercole III                                                       Gio Geronimo Sanseverino            6° grado
                        |                                                                   | 
 1° grado     Francesco Sanseverino                                                 Gianfrancesco Sanseverino    7° grado
                        |                                                                   |
             Porzia Sanseverino                                              Orazio (Ercole) Sanseverino        8° grado                                                
       sp. don Francesco Sanseverino 2° Duca di San Donato                                  |
                        |                                                                   | 
           Anna detta "Annuccia" Sanseverino                                                |
    3° Duchessa di San Donato Policastrello e Roggiano                                    Mario Sanseverino            9° grado

Quindi in che modo poteva succedere ex lege?

Ed anche nell’ipotesi che avesse potuto invocare il privilegio dei Sanseverino non lo fece ed il sovrano non gli riconobbe tale diritto. Il titolo di Duca non gli fu mai riconosciuto.

Allo stesso modo non mi risulta che siano mai esistiti due titoli distinti di Duca di San Donato (quale documento ufficiale lo afferma?).

Infatti esistette un solo titolo, concesso prima ai Sanseverino e dopo (in seguito alla loro estinzione) concesso ex novo agli Ametrano e passato ai loro discesi.

Da sottolineare poi che nell'ipotesi che altri Sanseverino e loro discendenti avessero potuto invocare tale privilegio esso è da considerarsi ormai non più invocabile perchè non esistono discendenti maschi collaterali dei Sanseverino Duchi di San Donato.

Penso che gli unici collaterali maschi ancora viventi sono i Sanseverino di Marcellinara.

Nessun Sanseverino ebbe quindi mai diritto ad "autotitolarsi" Duca di San Donato visto che il titolo ed il feudo di San Donato era stato dichiarato passato dunque gli Ametrano (1664) e da questi ereditato prima dai Cavalcante dal 1732 al 1764 e quindi dai Sambiase (1764-1780).

Quando nel 1748 Mario Sanseverino si autotitolò Duca fu una indebita appropriazione.

Anche nell’ipotesi che ne avesse avuto il diritto occorreva il regio assenso a tale titolatura.

Quindi, allo stesso modo, nessun Sanseverino avrebbe mai potuto "cedere i suoi diritti" e concedere cognome e pretese ai suoi discendenti visto che il titolo non fu mai riconosciuto dai sovrani Borbone ad altre famiglie che a quelle degli Ametrano, Cavalcanti e Sambiase.

Anche perchè sarebbe sempre occorso il regio assenso per ogni intestazione e riconoscimento di titoli feudali e nobiliari.

Infatti, secondo le Leggi borboniche, tutto ciò che era regalia non poteva supplirsi "né per tempo, né per congettura e nè per equipollenza" (Regi Dispacci 16 aprile 1711 e 18 febbraio 1771) ed inoltre "la nobiltà non può essere concessa da altri che dal re mediante cedola regia" (Regio Dispaccio 28 ottobre 1758) e che per essa era indispensabile il regio esecutorato (regio exequatur).

Ed inoltre anche nell'ipotesi che Mario Sanseverino ed i suoi discendenti avessero potuto invocare tale privilegio esso è da considerarsi ormai non più invocabile perchè non

Esistono più discendenti maschi di Mario Sanseverino che potrebbero invocare il Privilegio dei Sanseverino nell’ipotesi di una eventuale successione ai Duchi di San Donato.

L’incomprensione è data dal problema che non si tratta di una successione del titolo per i discendenti diretti o collaterali (entro 4° grado) dei Duchi di San Donato.

Perché in tal caso non vi sono discendenti.

Si sarebbe trattato invece di una successione al titolo per parenti maschi Sanseverino extra 4° grado (in virtù del Privilegio dei Sanseverino).

Ma anche in tale ipotesi il pretendente Mario per esercitare tale diritto avrebbe avuto bisogno del regio assenso. E quindi essere riconosciuto dal sovrano come Duca di San Donato (oppure avere tale grado su altro feudo, ad esempio).

Ma in tal caso la pretesa alla successione extra lege (in virtù del Privilegio dei Sanseverino) della linea di Mario Sanseverino è da considerarsi caduta, visto che lo stesso non ha lasciato discendenti maschi.

Resta da dire però che gli eventuali discendenti per linea femminile di Mario Sanseverino potrebbero avere lecite aspirazioni ad una eventuale successione al titolo dei Duchi di San Donato come soli eredi del pretendente Mario Sanseverino.

Ma si tratterebbe di aspirazioni del tutto eccezionali. Non invocabili ex lege e non invocabili extra lege per il citato Privilegio.

Si tratterebbe di aspirazioni del tutto morali. Nella considerazione di essere costoro gli eredi di Mario Sanseverino e delle sue aspirazioni.

Ma attualmente si tratta di ipotesi puramente teoriche visto che l'Ordinamento italiano non riconosce titoli nobiliari.

E visto che anche nell’ipotesi che esistesse ancora una monarchia sarebbe a discrezione del sovrano considerare valide le ragioni dei discendenti per linea femminile di Mario Sanseverino e concedere quindi, in rinnovazione, il titolo di Duchi di San Donato (anche perché attualmente la linea dei Sambiase si è estinta).

RIASSUMENDO:

Il ramo dei Sanseverino di San Donato mantenne il paese fino al 1654, anno in cui muore l'ultima dei Sanseverino, la piccola Anna di appena 9 anni e il feudo viene incamerato dalla Reale corte di Napoli.

Infatti il titolo di San Donato fu dichiarato estinto e nessun altro ramo dei Sanseverino per mancanza di discendenti maschi in linea retta dai Sanseverino Duchi di San Donato e né discendenti in linea collaterale (ovvero non vi erano parenti dell'ultimo duca entro il quarto grado)in base alle Leggi di successione feudale ordinarie. Per queste il bene (titolo+feudo) sarebbe dovuto passare: A) ai discendenti maschi legittimi (che non c'erano); b) agli altri eredi del Duca Don Francesco (+ 10-8-1643), ovvero ai discendenti suoi, anche per via femminile, oppure ai parenti entro il 4º grado). Il diritto alla successione sarebbe spettato quindi agli Spadafora, discesi da Donna Lucrezia Sanseverino, sorella del Duca Don Francesco. Ma costoro non furono riconosciuti in nessun diritto a succedere.

In base però all'antico privilegio dei Sanseverino (confermato dall'imperatore Carlo V nel 1530) altri rami collaterali della casata avrebbero potuto invocare la successione al ramo dei Duchi di San Donato: il Privilegio dei Sanseverino stabiliva che all'estinzione di un ramo i beni feudali di questa casata dovevano passare al parente maschio più prossimo della famiglia Sanseverino, previo regio assenso, ma nessuno lo fece.

Nè Sanseverino, nè Spadafora, eredi del ramo di San Donato.

Altrimenti il titolo sarebbe PASSATO a loro, no?

Il feudo ed il titolo di duca di San Donato fu quindi devoluto (ritornò) al sovrano: messo in vendita all'asta, il feudo sarà aggiudicato alla famiglia Ametrano di Napoli nel 1664: [1]: in questo modo San Donato passò ad altri feudatari, dopo gli antichi Sanseverino.

Re Carlo II quindi concesse agli Ametrano e loro discendenti il titolo ex novo di Duca di San Donato, con Privilegio reso a Madrid, esecutoriato il 20/12/1668 e registrato nel Quinternione 123, fol. 171t, come riferisce anche il Cedolario 74, fol. 334t: il feudo di San Donato ed il relativo e correlato titolo ducale fu concesso ex novo (perché ex novo era stato concesso dopo l'estinzione dei Sanseverino e la devoluzione del feudo al sovrano) [2]

Gli Ametrano terranno il feudo fino alla fine della feudalità nel Regno delle Due Sicilie (1806) quando a loro volta si estingueranno nella famiglia Sambiase.

Le ultime casate feudali

Il feudo di San Donato, con titolo ducale, era quindi passato alla famiglia Ametrano (1664-1732). L'ultima di tale casata fu Donna Ippolita Ametrano Duchessa di San Donato, sposata a Don Lucio Cavalcanti 1º Duca di Buonvicino. Il ducato di San Donato passò così, per successione legittima e regio assenso, alla loro figlia Donna Maria Cavalcanti Ametrano Duchessa di San Donato, che sposò Don Paolo II Sambiase 3º Duca di Malvito. Dopo la parentesi della famiglia Cavalcanti (1732-1764) San Donato fu ereditato da Don Francesco Saverio Sambiase 4º Duca di Malvito e 5º Principe di Bonifati dal 1770, Patrizio di Cosenza, che divenne Duca di San Donato per successione alla citata madre Maria Cavalcanti Ametrano e ne ottenne regio assenso [3]. I Sambiase tennero San Donato per breve tempo [4], fino al 1780, quando il feudo di San Donato, ma non il titolo ducale, passò ai Campolongo. [5]. Infatti il titolo di San Donato, dopo l'eversione della feudalità, restò ai Sambiase. Infatti ebbero conferma dei vari titoli di famiglia, comprendente anche quello di Duca di San Donato, con Regio Rescritto del Re delle Due Sicilie dal 16-5-1853 per successione Ametrano e con anzianità dal 1668 [6]

In ultima nota, poi, sarebbe da chiedersi perchè il titolo sarebbe passato ai Lupis?

I Del Mercato non sono estinti, i Lebano nemmeno e la lina che porta a Lupis di certo NON è la primogenita.

Ed allora?

Quanta agitazione per questo titolo ducale: pensare che per capire tutta la questione basterebbe aprire l'Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana. Ma io non ho l'autorizazione a postare pagine della nuova edizione. ::: Ma penso che quello qui sopra basti ed avanzi per capire come stanno le cose.

BIBLIOGRAFIA

* Raffaele Bisignani: Lo stato di san Donato, in Calabria Citra, e la presa di possesso di esso da parte dei duchi Sambiase di Malvito, Studi Meridionali, fasc. 1-2, 1982

* Raffaele Bisignani: San Donato di Ninea, «Calabria Letteraria», 1979, 1-13.

* Raffaele Bisignani: Policastrello: la fine di un comune, Fasano, Cosenza 1985.

* Raffaele Bisignani: I Sanseverino ramo San Donato, «Calabria Nobilissima», 1989, 42-43, 33-70.

* Raffaele Bisignani: Il dialetto calabrese parlato a San Donato di Ninea, Comunità Montana Unione delle Valli, Malvito (Cosenza) 1999.

* Francesco Campennì: La patria e il sangue: città, patriziati e potere nella Calabria moderna, 2004

* Fausto Cozzetto: Città di Calabria e hinterland nell'età moderna: demografia e strutture - 2001

* Mario Pellicano Castagna: Le ultime intestazioni feudali in Calabria - 1978

* Pasquale Passarelli, Adele Falasca: Calabria: CS-KR-RC-VV, Istituto enciclopedico italiano, 2002

* Nicola Cianci di Leo Sanseverino, Genealogia di Ercole Sanseverino, barone di Calvera, e suoi discendenti, Napoli 1902

* Nicola Cianci di Leo Sanseverino, Illustrazioni dell'albero genealogico della famiglia Cianci di Leo Sanseverino, Napoli 1906

* Franz von Lobstein, Settecento Calabrese ed altri scritti, Napoli, 1977, Vol. II, pagg. 354, 494

NOTE:

1. ^ La famiglia Campolongo ottenne, nel (1753, il titolo di barone sul feudo di San Donato. vedi: F. von Lobstein, Settecento Calabrese ed altri scritti, Napoli, 1977, Vol. II, pag. 494.

2. ^ Non non sono mai esistiti due titoli distinti di Duca di San Donato, ma esistette un solo titolo, concesso prima ai Sanseverino e dopo (in seguito alla loro estinzione) concesso ex novo agli Ametrano e passato ai loro discesi.

3. ^ Francesco Campennì, La patria e il sangue: città, patriziati e potere nella Calabria moderna- 2004, Pagina 81: Nel 1732 i Sambiase ereditano per successione femminile (da Maria Cavalcanti Ametrano, madre del 4º duca di Malvito) il ducato di San Donato"

4. ^ Fausto Cozzetto, Città di Calabria e hinterland nell'età moderna: demografia e strutture - 2001, Pagina 69 ...i Cavalcante duchi di S. Donato dal 1732 al 1764, cui succedono ancora i Sambiase dal 1764 al 1780...

5. ^ La famiglia Campolongo, originaria di Altomonte, ottenne, nel 1780 il feudo di San Donato con Michele Campolongo che acquistò la terra di San Donato, con seconde e terze cause, portolania e zecca, dal S.R.C., contro il patrimonio del duca Francesco Saverio Sambiase, con regio assenso 31 agosto 1780, registrato nel Quinternione 314, folio 425, come dal Cedolario 79, folio 298. Da Michele il feudo passò Nicola (deceduto il 17 agosto 1790) e da questi al fratello Francesco, cui San Donato fu intestato il 27 settembre 1793, cedolario 79, folio 487. vedi: F. von Lobstein, Settecento Calabrese ed altri scritti, Napoli, 1977, Vol. II, pag. 494.

6. ^ Il titolo di San Donato restò quindi ai Sambiase. La successione degli intestatari del titolo è stata dunque: Don Giuseppe (* Napoli 27-3-1818 + ivi 26-9-1908), 6º Duca di Malvito, 7º Principe di Bonifati e Duca di San Donato dal 1840 (titoli riconosciuti con Regio Rescritto del Re delle Due Sicilie dal 16-5-1853); Don Paolo Sambiase Sanseverino (* 11-7-1877 + 7-2-1929), 7º Duca di Malvito e Duca di San Donato dal 1908 (titoli riconosciuti con il cognome Sambiase Sanseverino – in quanto discendente della famiglia Sanseverino – con Decreto inisteriale del 16-8-1909); Don Tommaso Ladislao (* Napoli 14-1-1881 + ivi 197…), 8º Duca di Malvito, 9º Principe di Bonifati e Duca di San Donato dal 1929. Adottò i nipoti acquisiti Giuseppe Minaci e Giuseppe Cembalo (mariti delle nipoti Angela e Maria Campenny) il 2-2-1951). In quanto costui non ha avuto discendenti maschi legittimi e visto che non esiste organo in Italia competente per attribuizioni di titoli nobiliari, giacché il nostro ordinamente non li riconosce, il titolo è da considerarsi estinto del tutto. --Kwana the minus (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I made some research about the Italian edit of the user above, and at his talk page I found some relevant edits, as follow, that should be considered in this discussion: "It seems that the user above just copied and deliberately altered the genealogical tree published here and deliberately omitting of reporting (and copying) the Note too, explaining the parental degree on the succession genealogies. At this century, was ever been calculated "adopting the so-called "Germanic system", wich count one degree for every generation, excluding the common ancestor, system of calculation fully legal at the time of the succession dispute on subject, system of calculation proved and confirmed by several succession issues raised under review by the Royal Chamber, as well as in the large majority of the "processetti matrimoniali" (marriage agreements) during XVI-XVIII century" (!) .

Today, however, it is in use to calculate the relationship degree with so-called "Roman system", or counting the grades going up and down to the common parent, but this happens only from the Napoleonic period". This is fully know and every serious historians of the XVI-XVIII century former Kingdom of Naples is perfectly aware of it! i.e., for references check here a short article about the "Germanic or Canon Degree Calculation System" on the http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/descent/cognatic/canon.html Californian Universty of Manitoba site, by professor Brian Schwimmer.

one more reference here: "La parentela e l’affinità nel diritto nobiliare (il computo dei gradi secondo il sistema romano; il computo dei gradi secondo il sistema germanico)", and here the article Genealogia e rappresentazione familiare by Roberta Corbellini, Director of the State Archive of Udine, page 2. etc etc etc etc etc ....."

Those edits seem's to me quite conclusive on the point about the kinship degree. Regards.--Restimp (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Edits above have been struck, as they are by a sockpuppet account. The article has already been semi-protected, as has another article related to Italian nobility, because of abusive sockpuppetry. Risker (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Dukedom or Duchy

Maybe a stupid question and maybe a bit off topic, but why is the page called "DUKEDOM of San Donato" instead of the more common "DUCHY of San Donato"? Or maybe even the "DUKES of San Donato". This is the first time ever I have come across the expression DUKEDOM. As far as I can see when I try to translat it, it means the same thing as DUCHY. Is there a difference, that gets lost when I try to translate it into Swedish?--Ulwencreutz (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ohhhhh, how interesting your question, it worth an answer, for sure! Or maybe not? Considering that an User "Ulvencreutz" in swedish wikipedia .. doesn't exist? And mosts interesting your English wiki user page stating that you " mostly contribute to the Swedish version of Wikipedia page"! A lot of contributions coming from a non-existent account, for sure! Oh, but I almost forgot, you also add: "but sometimes even to the English version": Do you means to create an account YESTERDAY, for a single-purpose-one-voice only .... THIS voice? Please, beam me up! We must admit, here, that sockpuppets has been blocked on ONE_SIDE ONLY!--Mistruzzo (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I don't understand what You are talking about. What do You mean by sockpuppet? I have mad several contributions to the Swedish site, BUT with two other nicknames. Same thing on the English version, a few years ago, but with just one nickname. I am now thinking about using my real name - Ulwencreutz - from now on on both the Swedish and English version, simpley because I never remember the right combination of nickname and password AND I think it looks better to use my real name instead of a nickname. AND I am still curious about my last question. --Ulwencreutz (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on, please! So, suddendly, you discover your enormous curiosity about the small Italian Dukedom of San Donato ... from ... Sweden! ( :=) :=) :=) Yes , of course, why not?! Please, beam YOU up!--Mistruzzo (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! Why? Because I am writing a series of books about European royals, part 2 and 3 are about the non-sovereign princely and ducal houses so I have made a lot of searches on Wikipedia when I suddenly came across this "Dukedom of San Donato" and I became curious, because it is never mentioned in any source outside of Italy. --Ulwencreutz (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of my humble opinions:

• 1) if you really where such a writer, why you even consider WIkipedia for your researches?
• 2) if you where such a writer, how you even think to be possible to make a research in the matter of Italian nobility without searching, checking and well know source "inside" of Italy?
• 3) even if you where such a writer "expert" in European Royals, and living in Sweden (!) how can be pretend to know a very small "dukedom" in the far south of Italy and his very complex feudal and succession history? and to know the reference books involved, that are not so easy to find even for Italian experts and writers in this domain?
• 4) if you are such a writer why, making research for a new book, you don't try to contact all the "actors" , scholars and descendants including the claimers to get documents, informations and data's to be checked, like any good researcher and even a good reporter must do?
• 5) et last, If you where a serious writer, why stating this kind of assertion in a matter where yourself admit not to have reached enough knowledge and sources? And referring to a private publication like the "Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana" and to a non-existant and never existed "Italian states version" of this pubblication, that has ever been privately-published? Is this your level of knowledge in the Italian Nobiliary matters? And if you are a serious writer, why you don't read and check carefully the many sources cited in this page, before making any judgments and/or assertion on the matter?--Mistruzzo (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all - I don't do research on Wikipedia, on the contrary. I do searches, and that is a big difference. When I search and find something interesting within my area of interest I also find a lot of good sources mentioned and THAT is what I am looking for. Second - there are two different books with almost the same name (a bit confusing for a non-Italian like me). "Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana" which is a private publication and "Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana" which is official. And as far as I can see, the "dukedom" of San Donato is not mentioned in the official one. According to the scholars I've spoken with (both Italian and non-Italian), only the official version has authority. And that is also why, as I've understand, the article has been deleted in the Italian version of Wikipedia. But none of this, or Your insinuations, is in anyway relevant to my question - Why "Dukedom" instead of "Duchy"?--Ulwencreutz (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, at least about the italian publication you are totally wrong, and I can understand that th situation is much more "confusing for a non-Italian like you": Both "Libro d'oro della Nobiltà Italiana" and "Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana" are and ever was private publications. You are made a confusion whit the register kept in the former Consulta Araldica del Regno d'Italia, with the identical name of the first publication mentioned, it is the "Libro d'oro della Nobiltà Italiana" as well, but has never been published nor updated because was a manuscript register for internal use of the former "Consulta Araldica del Regno", the past Italian State bureau in charge of heraldic matters. After the fall of the Monarchy in Italy, and with the new Republican Consitution, the "Consulta Araldica del Regno" has been closed (in force of the "XIV disposizione transitoria della Costituzione Italiana" that state "La legge regola la soppressione della Consulta Araldica"). As a consequence, the "Libro d'Oro" manuscript register, ceased to be updated, (BTW!), and now stay in the "Archivio Centrale dello Stato" in Rome where anybody can ask for and see it, as you can check here in the Archive official site. I'm aware that recently, under the direction of the same "Archivio Centrale dello Stato", two volumes of the manuscript has been published in a "faxsimile" or "photografic" reproduction, by the same Archivio Centrale dello Stato. those are the details: "Alle radici dell’identità nazionale. Prosopografie storiche italiane. Libro d’oro della nobiltà (I – II), sotto la direzione di Enrico Cuozzo e Guglielmo de‟ Giovanni – Centelles, con la presentazione del Sovrintendente Aldo G. Ricci, Roma, Società italiana di scienze ausiliarie della storia, 2009, pp. 291. cc.199,cc.199, ill. Riproduzione facsimilare per il 150° anniversario dell‟Unità d‟Italia, 1861 -2011." as you can check for yourself here, in the cited "Archivio Centrale dello Stato" official publications catalogue. Coming back on the two private publications, the "private" "Libro d'Oro della nobiltà Italiana" has been published and updated almost regularly (every 3-4 year, more or less) from more that a century, since 1910 to the present day (the most recent (24nd) edition was published in September 2010) by the publisher, the "Collegio Araldico" in Rome, an ancient and reputed institution (here the website. The second publication you mentioned, the "Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana", has been a totally private publication too, founded in 1878 by " Accademia Italiana d'Araldica", an other reputed institution, and has been published almost regularly has well, but just until 1905, when the "Accademia" has been closed and the Annuario ceased definitely to be published (due of the founder death). After almost a century, in the year 2003, a small Italian publisher, the SAGI publishing House (here the website) established a new publication with the same title and same style, adding "notables families" and families not resident in Italy. This new Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana has been published irregularly every two or three years and the latest edition, the fourth of the new publication, dated 2007–2010. In Italy at the present, exists some more publication or "Nobility register" like the "Libro d'oro" and the "Annuario" , all privately published as well, (BTW), they are the "Elenco dei Titolati Italiani" and the "Albo d'oro delle Famiglie Nobili e notabili Italiana ed Europee". Finally, about your assertion that this small italian "Dukedom or Duchy" of San Donato "is not mentioned", as for the evident confusion you made about the Italian "peerage" books, you should explain precisely at which publication you where referring to. I don't know if you are aware that all the Italian Nobiliary register are not conceiveid" like the British Peerage, listing by TITLE, but by FAMILY, as a consequence, if you are searching for a specific title or fief, you must firstly know the name of the family holders of the title. If can be of any interest of you, I cant assure that - about this "Dukedom or Duchy", for sure at least two of the cited publications, the "Libro d'oro della Nobiltà italiana" and the "Elenco dei titolati italiani" listed the families that hold the title, whit the only difference between the two that - due of the complex situation exposed above about the two titles enlisted to the two different lines of succession - the "Libro d'oro" listed the first line of succession, and the "Elenco dei Titolati" listed the other line. I hope this long explanation has been usefull for you. If you like, you can contact me and I'll be happy to send you by email the copy of both. Best regards--Mistruzzo (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank You! Yes, Your explanation was very usefull and cleared out some of my bigger confusions. Thank You. The publication I was reffering to was "Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana", the latest edition, and the fact that they refuse to mention this family and their claim to the title. But besides that, I still wonder if there is a difference between a DUKEDOM and a DUCHY, because if I translate it to Swedish they both mean the same thing, except that DUCHY seems much more common. And since, as You just explained, the Italian system follows the family and not the duchy, the article might be renamned to the DUKES of San Donato or maybe even the HOUSE of San Donato, just a suggestion. When I do my research for my books, I often search on Wikipedia for a specific house, duchy, dynasty and so on, just to find hints about sources I can use. It never crossed my mind to make a search on "DUKEDOM of...", until I stumble upon this article by accident and found it extremly questionable, especially since I couldn't verify anything of it in "Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana". So I asked around and heard that the claims were false and that's why they was refused to be published in "Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana" and why the Italian version of the article had been deleted. Personally I find "Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana" to be a very trustworthy source but I have not come across the other two publications that You mentioned, except that "Libro d'oro della Nobiltà italiana" has a bad reputation as a trustworthy source, at least up here in the north where we mostly use Almanach de Gotha to check out non-Swedish ducal and princely families and titles. Best regards --Ulwencreutz (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr Ulwencreutz, Thanks for your sincere reply. I whish to say sorry because of my previous "reaction", due of the inacceptable "tone" on the page. As you can check, in the meantime my account has been blocked, as a consequence of this "infective" situation. I have no further comments on it! Anyway, to reply to your ... reply (:D) I'm afraid you are making one more mistake, referring to the two publications and his reliability. By curiosity, from where do you get the "fame" of " bad reputation as a trustworthy source" for the "Libro d'oro della Nobiltà Italiana" (!!) this sound really INCREDIBILE to me and tothe large majority of the Italian historians and expert in the domain, really, I-N-C-R-E-D-I-B-L-E , please believe me! It is objectively totally unfounded, at least because of the fact that the Libro d'oro has been published regularly from more than a century (!) and for half of his publication history, must remember that it was published during the Italian Monarchy State, when titles of nobility and the related matters was legal, and protected by law; how a supposed untrastable publication on those matters can be published by the Collegio Araldico Insititution freely, and without the risk to be prosecuted by the past Italian Monarchy and the bureau in charge of a legal control like the former "Consulta Araldica del Regno d'Italia"? I can assure you - and you can check on it - that it's never happens. In the late 40s the "Consulta Araldica del Regno" simply ask the Collegio Araldico to slightly change the publication name from "Libro d'oro della Nobiltà Italiana" to "Libro della Nobiltà Italiana", only to avoid possible confusion whit the already cited manuscript register whit this name, kept by the same Consulta, but it's all. Second argument, objectively the Collegio Araldico has ever been a reputed institution whit a long and continuos reputation of scientificity and realiabilty, also based on the continuos publication of the "Rivista Araldica" (can check it here http://www.collegio-araldico.it/rivista.html ) form more than a century too (so, under the same consideration for the monarchic period) until the present day, whit the same faultless reputation....! And the "Rivista Araldica" has been, and still is - objectively - the most old, serious and reputed "magazine" on those matters published in Italy from very long time.

Coming to the "Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana": I really can't understand where "seat" your belief about a totally disputable reliability of the NEW edition of the "Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana" ? Has documented below, this publication has started only few years ago, without ANY history on his back, because it cannot be connected in any way to the old historical original Annuario (that was a very trustable and serious publication, that there!, but unfortunately ceased in 1905 !) except the fact that someone "wake up" after a century and decided to "resurrect" the same name and "copy-past" the same cover (!) and tried to continue to convince people that the two publications are ... the same (!) (almost everywhere and in Italian Wikipedia as recently in the English edition too starting from long time a VERY INCREDIBLE WAR whit large use of personal attacks, sockpuppets etc. versus everyone can try to opposite this very evident false assertion. Every almost " thinking" people, in fact, can see for itself that pretending that a publication "resurrected" after a century claim in a serious way to be the same of the old one, and most important, to have AUTOMATICALLY INHERITED the old publication reputation, for the only fact that he had the same name and cover, it is just impossible to believe (!!). And is not enough, because, In my view and in every serious historians view, the reputation of a publication in this domain it is certainly not based on copying name and cover of some century-previous ceased publication (!) but to the history of reliability and reputation of the Institution/Publisher in charge of it. Now, "under" this NEW "Annuario, there are no institution at all at his back, but only a very small publisher, seated in a very small village in North of Italy, whit no specific history of any kind. I'm not intend to mean any denigration on this publishing house, but they are facts that the Libro d'Oro can count at his back to a centenary reputed Institution like the Collegio Araldico Romano, his scientific committee and a centenary reputation coming to it by the continuous publication of the reputed and historical magazine like the "Rivista Araldica" where - on the absolute opposite - the NEW Annuario can't refer to nothing like this if not to the serious or less-serious (I'm non intent to enter in any judgment here, one more time) very recent work of his jung publisher! And then, even in my humble view, how a publication that started copy-pasting and hold historical publication ceased more than a century ago, can reach on a very first time a "good reputation"? Even surpassing a reputation of a previous centenary publication? This is just my questions, but a questions that everybody NEUTRAL AND OBJECTIVE reader should ask to thereself ... But still is not enough, because must also be known that at the first coming of this NEW Annuario, the publisher of the Libro d'Oro, the Collegio Araldico, started immediately a legal action against this new publishing house of the NEW Annuario, legal action still under judgment now in front of the Italian Tribunals, for copyright violation and plagiarism etc. I'm not intent, one more time, to make any judgment here about those legal action, but are facts that "SOMEONE" in Italian and English Wikipedia tried to hide those from longtime using the "edit war" already started in the Italian editon and now in both english and italians.

Finally, people readings of this page, could ask: "how those (incredible? but unfortunately real ...) "story" can refer to the present Wikipedia page about the history of a small Dukedom o Duchy in south of Italy and of his title claims and can AFFECT it?" It is very easy to explain, because readers must say that the present claimant of the "other" line of this title, Mr Marco Lupis Macedonio Palermo di Santa Margherita, is a journalist in his professional life, but it is too from long time a reputed Italian genealogist, President of the Società Genealogica Italiana, Professor at the Rome University in Heraldry and Henealogical Matters etc. Members of many Heraldic Italians and foreign Academies etc and, from LONG TIME, a reputed member of the COLLEGIO ARALDICO (!) so, maybe, everyone can come to the obvious conclusion on why he has been so aggressively attacked in the war started HERE and at the talk page of the "Annuario" both in Italian and English Wikipedia, why the page about him in Italian Wikipedia has been deleted etc. Must precise that the page was ONLY ABOUT HIS JOURNALISTIC CAREER AND NOT ABOUT THE DUKEDOM OF SAN DONATO, BECAUSE A PAGE ABOUT THE DUKEDOM OF SAN DONATO NEVER!(!) EXISTED IN ITALIAN WIKIPEDIA (everyone can check) so as a obvious resul, it cannot be deleted!. As a further confirmation - if needed - anyone can check the talk page of the Annuario here and see that Mr. Lupis has been recently forced to ask the English Wikipedia Board of Admistrator to ERASE the many PERSONAL OFFENSES inserted by someone that acted to "exalt" the Annuario and "denigrate" the Libro d'Oro ............... and him! And the same happens in his [biographic page http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Lupis (ONLY ABOUT HIS JOURNALISTIC CAREER, must be repeated] in Italian Wikipedia where the page has been "obscured and blocked after his legal request by legal action" due of the many offenses introduced and, as a result, the English page too. Finally, I'm sure everybody "thinking" people can understand WHY the new "Annuario" "avoid" (:D) to publish his line of succession and - OF COURSE - his claims ..... Cannot forget to say, last but not least, that due of his position as a member of the Collegio Araldico, Mr. Lupis chose to DELIBERATELY avoid to got published his claim in the Libro d'oro (everyone can check the page about his family on the last edition here, and prefer to ask for publish his lines claims and history about this "Dukedom" title, only a "third and neutral" publication like the "Elenco dei Titolati Italiani". Hope nobody will erase this edit and everybody can FINALLY get a CLEARER view about WHAT HAPPENS here and not only here. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejamper (talk • contribs) 15:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No one is casting aspertions on Mr Lupis credentials, but as you rightly say the Libro d'Oro does not record him as the Duke of San Donato [14]. When it does, then Wikipedia will readily review the situation. In the meantime, unreferenced fact cannot be added to Wikipedia, I am sure that you understand that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it cannot publish own research or contradic a book as reputable as the Libra d'Oro. Please try to understand that, this page is not going to denigrate Mr Lupis it is just not going to mention him at all because it would be against Wikipedia's rules on own research to do so. Giacomo Returned 16:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to read that this page "is not going to denigrate Mr Lupis" because - to be honest - i can't see how anyone could agree whit your assertion, reading some of your edit below, constantly defining any actual source soustaining his claim (at the present day) "dubious and spurious", "unrealiable", "untrastable" etc. and any past source soustainig his maternal ancestor climes "either fraudulent, deliberatly obtuse, by 19th and early 20th century authors who produced, for a fee, books to aggrandise a family, or personal genealogical studies" in your talk page here ........ And I'm the last here to pretend that wikipedia "contradic a book as reputable as the Libro d'Oro" ! Please, read carefully my preovius edit, that it is ALL oriented to sunstain the reputation of the Libro d'oro. But why you cannot try to "see" the extreme scholar and intellectual honesty and corrrectness of Prof. Lupis who could have easely used your influence as Collegio Araldico Member to have his claim stated in the book, and prefer not to follow this road, choosing to have it checked and reported in a different, neutral publication like the "Elenco dei Titolati Italiani"? Anyway, I appreciate the actual revision of the voice, and the fact that the historical claims of the maternal ancestral line of prof. Lupis has been maintained as simple short citation, (and this only because they correspond to the factual and historical documented truth, this must be clear), but I only ask you to made a small, honest and documented variation, changing the phrase "There have been successive claims over the centuries by distant kinsmen of the first holders to claim the dukedom; these remain unproven." erasing the word "distant" (because, has proved below, and instead of the altered genealogical tree, those Sanseverino's kinsmen are not "distant" in any way but the where related to the first holder by a perfectly legal kinship degree of succession at the time) and avoid too the last final "judgent" about the "proof", avoiding the prhrase "these remain unproven" and simply linking as a footnote the "Elenco dei Titolati" chapter. I hope it could be the more encyclopedic, neutral and objective decision to take. Hope you will agree as resumed here below:

There have been successive claims over the centuries by kinsmen of the first holders to claim the dukedom, until nowadays. Thanks --109.115.209.131 (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

In England, it is possibly more common to refer to the lands related to a duke as a "dukedom", by analogy with "kingdom" and "earldom" (presumably the domain of a king, duke, or earl). The word "duchy" is indeed a synonym, although not interchangeable in the English versions of certain full titles; for example the "Grand Duke of Xyz" would invariably be associated with the "Grand Duchy of Xyz" (note the capitalisation of a given title), as would be used in Eastern Europe. I can't offer you a rationale for why either word may be preferred in any particular case, unless there is a possibility that 'duchy' is of French origin and 'dukedom' is Anglo-Saxon? I would chose to refer to the "Duchy of Lancaster", but the "Dukedom of Northumberland". In summary, I don't believe there is a pattern in English that would help in deciding if renaming this page would be appropriate. --RexxS (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Finally an answer - Thank You =) --Ulwencreutz (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• If it's going to match the rest of Wikipedia, it should probably be changed to Duke of San Donato. Incidentally, the difference between a duchy and a dukedom is explained here [15]. Dukedom is probably best, as it was never a completely autonomous duchy and the pageis more about theholders of the titles (dukedom), although, I suppose, there is also an argement for duchy. Giacomo Returned 13:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Giacomo. That page explained the difference very well. --Ulwencreutz (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. I have now moved the page to keep it inline with pages on other ducal lines - it also neatly side-steps the debate on dukedom or duchy. Giacomo Returned 15:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The term "dukedom" is used in the British peerage system and implies that the duke has no feudal rights in the territory he is named for. In fact, there is usually no connection between the two aside from the name. Otherwise, the office of a duke is a "duchy". There are two duchies in England, Cornwall and Lancaster. Neither one is "completely autonomous," but the dukes do have some residual rights. See WP:NCROY#Other_cases. Kauffner (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This "dukedom" is actually not in Britain which funily enough does not rule the world on these matters. This page is also very much a page under construction. I see you have driven by and moved this page [16]. In that case, you had better stop driving by and finish writing the page. Furthermore, regarding your edit summary, I think I, rather than you, are better placed to know what I am writing about. I will finish the page when and if it is returned to the correct title. If not, i look forward to your completed version - please ask if you want to know the reference books required. Giacomo Returned 21:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't get your hopes too high. This user has recently renamed a number of articles to replace "π" by "pi", and has also made this change in the article text. Yet AFAICT the user has so far not shown any interest in mathematics articles that goes substantially beyond telling the mathematics project that they are all wrong about how this is usually handled in the best professional publications. Hans Adler 21:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record: Giano has renamed the article back to "Duke of ...", and this was correct. The passage in NCROY cited by Kauffner was added by Pmanderson, apparently without prior discussion, and I have seen no discussion since. I read it as referring to the regions generally known as duchies, which in the UK are often called dukedoms. I do not read it as contradicting the general observation (which we have in article space in several locations) that in English one usually refers to the region as a duchy and to the title as a dukedom. Of the two possible titles "Duke of ..." and "Dukedom of ..." the former is clearer and more in line with our general practice for other, similar titles. "Duchy of ..." was misleading as the article is not about the region at all but only about the title. Moving a lot of articles without prior discussion is almost always a bad idea. Hans Adler 21:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You have come to this page to rally support for the pi symbol? This is highly amusing. As for Giacomo's point, there is no distinction between "dukedom" and "duchy" in Italian, so there is only British usage to go by. Kauffner (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm While I haven't edited this article or its talk page before, it was on my watchlist because of the sock puppeting and edit warring. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Marimbambito/Archive. ("The recent nonsense at Libro d'Oro and Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana appears to have moved to Dukedom of San Donato now. [...] Hans Adler") That is why it did not escape my notice that you are again on a rename spree without prior discussion. I refrained from causing the initial escalating of the situation myself, as that could have made it appear like a personal vendetta, and instead just leant back and waited for the inevitable to happen.

However, I now see that the other articles in your series of "dukedom" moves were different. I am not sure what made you assert that an article that starts with "[...] was a noble title, first created in 1602 by the Spanish King Philip III for the Sanseverino family" and has no geographical information whatsoever in the lead is "about the domain ruled by a line of duke", but it appears that the other renames had better rationales. If I had been aware of that, I would not have mentioned π. Hans Adler 08:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Kaufner, indeed there is only British usage to go by, and you're quite wrong to suggest that The term "dukedom" is used in the British peerage system and implies that the duke has no feudal rights in the territory he is named for. An obvious counter-example is the Dukedom of Northumberland, which was created in 1766 when the Earl of Northumberland became a Duke. The Percy family has had is roots in Northumberland for centuries, and their feudal rights are clearly in that region. You think it should therefore be "Duchy of Northumberland"? - that's even more amusing. WP:NCROY is to help decide the title of biographical articles of individuals, and is no help at all for an article dealing with a lineage. A reference to the Italian title associated with Duca o Duchessa di San Donato could be translated into English as either a dukedom or a duchy and you should take care not to change style from equivalent form to another without reason - as you did in this article. Please take this as a collegial caution that such actions are strongly discouraged, and should be avoided in future. --RexxS (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you claiming that Percy had feudal rights associated with his title of duke? It doesn't sound like you are. If he had pre-existing rights from another source, that's hardly relevant to the meaning of the word "dukedom". I was just following WP:NCROY#Other_cases. If you don't like what it says, take it up there. Kauffner (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

References