3) “In conclusion, Pier Felice degli Uberti has no real nobiliary title. Two of his titles – noble, count of Cavaglià – are assumed, the other two – feudal lord of «Valence, baron of Cartsburn – are bought. He is not noble at all, not even an untitled one. He is an artificial noble, fabriqué de toutes pièces, made of all the pieces, as the French say. On the other hand, this was obvious, because those who are truly noble do not need to make an effort to prove it; it is clear from the beginning and it is known, it is more or less of public and historical notoriety. But the president degli Uberti does not need neither nobiliary titles nor coats of arms, because his real titles and blazons are his indisputable skills in the fields he deals with. We always keep a sincere affection for his dear and distinguished person”.

I have always shown the greatest respect for the beautiful history of my family, and I wanted to deepen some heraldic-genealogical aspects in magazines of documentary sciences of history, always documenting my every assertions. But I have never written the history of the degli Uberti Family, because it was already written by others before I was born. I would like to remind you that my family is from Monferrato, and the major local historians (even if with a background of studies that are now obsolete for me) have dealt with the topic both in publications on the history of Monferrato, and in that of local countries, it is enough to go and read their texts and it is clear what they write, that is not different from what I wrote using those sources (to which I added the documents). I wondered where my slander lives because it would seem to come out of some appendix novels, given is way of writing that hasn’t existed for decades. I certainly live in the real world every day, in a reality in direct contact with the society in which I operate. And if we want to be more precise, in the reality of the Italian Republic where (I repeat) nobility does not exist today. ANONYMOUS would like to degrade me to the point of making me appear like a relic of the past that lives for a nobility that today has no legal relevance and therefore does not exist, or is still found in gossip magazines to make fun of it. I also see with satisfaction that the defamer does not attend me, because he would know that unlike many I do not have business cards with coats of arms, crowns and titles (even if in my case they would be of legally valid heraldic value), nor do I wear any of the family inherited chevaliers on my finger. I do not live in the dream, like him, given the tenor of his writing, because in ordinary and academic life I do not use what in the past were nobiliary titles, finding it naive.

FARINATA degli UBERTI AND the degli UBERTI/UBERTIS OF MONFERRATO

I do not waste time reporting the part of the blog that tackles this topic in a naive way, because everyone knows that I never give scientific value to the Family traditions that remain so for me (obviously I apply the same concept for all Families and certainly not only for mine).

In 2021 I was invited by the city of Florence to commemorate the 700th anniversary of the death of Dante Alighieri, and “to make ‘peace’ on behalf of degli Uberti with the city of Florence, joining the association DI PARTE GUELFA.

I am a serious person and I replied that my family has a tradition documented at least from the end of the 15^th century and the beginning of the 16^th century, even if famous scholars of the past centuries have always considered it a branch of the Florentine family (the same Goffredo di Crollalanza spent two years of his life to correct the story of the degli Uberti, written by Giuseppe Farinati degli Uberti who won the prize of the Royal Italian Heraldic Academy in 1895).

DI PARTE GUELFA told me that being the most representative of the degli Uberti, it was just fine for them if I accepted, which I did and, in my speech, I recalled the Family tradition defining it just as tradition, and the importance of the grandmother’s family of my wife, the Fortini del Giglio. Then I wrote the article (with the title that re-proposes the words with which they welcomed me) “DI PARTE GUELFA EMBRACES THE DEGLI UBERTI FAMILY”, in Nobiltà, January-February 2022, n. 166, pp. 57-68. Now I see that human envy has not digested this beautiful opportunity to talk about peace in a world full of wars.

THE THEFT OF OTHER’S COATS OF ARMS

I recommend to the ANONYMOUS, if he is really interested in the history of my family, to deepen the theme of the coats of arms, where he also demonstrates an absolute darkness on heraldry and its traditions.

He wrote: “The similarities between the surnames “Ubertis” and “degli Uberti”, between the original coat of arms of the Ubertis family of Monferrato – gold and blue chequy – and that of the degli Uberti family of Florence – per pale: in 1^st of gold, to the eagle of black, coming out of the pale; in the 2^nd gold and blue chequy -, they prove absolutely nothing” …

I would like to know exactly where I would have written that the use of coats of arms would be proof of the common ancestry of the de Ubertis of Monferrato and the de Ubertis of Florence? It is another free affirmation.

But he adds: “Thus, on pages 397-398, the coats of arms to which the family would be entitled are described: the first – gold and blue chequy, the original coat of arms of the Ubertis family – is of assumption (self-conferred), possibly usurped; the coat of arms of the Counts of Cavaglià – gold, with three blue lilies, two and one, with a blue head and a passing golden horse, harnessed and saddled in red – is certainly usurped (we will prove it afterwards); as well as the coat of arms currently used by Pier Felice degli Uberti – per pale: in the 1^st in gold, with the eagle in black, coming out of the pale; in the 2^nd gold and blue chequy -, stolen, centuries ago (as, perhaps, the first), from the Ubertis family of Monferrato, to the degli Uberti family of Florence, on the basis of an supposed relationship with that, as the the author admits: “This coat of arms is similar to that used by the degli Uberti family of Florence and was used [by Ubertis of Monferrato] in the mythical belief that it was linked to that lineage”.

But how can the ANONYMOUS afford to indicate (he uses the words stolen, usurped, a very grave and defamatory affirmation) as robbers my Ancestors who for centuries have signed with their real name and surname (look at the signatures from the early 1500s on my article quoted by the ANONYMOUS) referring to one coat of arms (per pale) that my ancestors document to use in various acts as early as the 16^th century, just one who, in order not to sign with his real name and surname, goes to use the identity of an unsuspecting covid dead? I add that my family has always used both the two 2 coats of arms for centuries, both the simple chequy and the per pale, maybe one branch used the chequy and another the per pale, but it is not so precisely established; then (as anyone who knows the subject well knows) there are often variations in colours, so much so that today I maintain that in heraldic descriptions, to be clear and certain of the colour, the number of the graphic pantone should be indicated in a note. Read what I wrote in: The tradition of Florentine origin in the Ubertis of Casale Monferrato, in Nobiltà, January-February 2001, n. 45, pp. 581-598; and particularly on p. 598. About the use, if I really did it (in everyday life I don’t use coats of arms) I would have the full right to do it, thanks to my heraldic certifications from State Heraldic Offices. The same goes for the Cavaglià coat of arms (Cicugnone branch) which was extinct in males in all the numerous lines in the 17^th century.

THE COUNTS OF CAVAGLIÀ

“Thus, again in the article “Genealogical notes on degli Uberti family”, the author speaks of a bushy family, with five branches with as many surnames (including “Cicugnone”) and with many dozen members, and claims that “all the spouses enjoyed the title of Count of Cavaglià” and that the succession of the title “was allowed for the benefit of males, females and even their husbands”. In other words, a small feud – Cavaglià – was held not by a single man, but – collegially – by dozens and dozens of people, all bearing the title of Count of Cavaglià! At the height of the family branch, there were no less than 50 counts of Cavaglià (the president wrote in a topic on the forum “I nostri avi”, corresponding to the organizations he directs)!”

To support my statement referring to the high number of members of the Consortile dei Conti di Cavaglià I report what Stefano Guazzo, author of La Civil Conversazione, writes in his work: “The description made by the Casalese patrician Stefano Guazzo in his work Civil conversation (1574) of the Monferrato condominiums is famous:” So if you look around these hills, you see, without going further, some castels so copious of gentlemen all consorts in that lordship, who hardly touches a blackbird for each, and they come out through several doors so in rows that they look like rabbits, and having founded all their intention on that little bit of smoke, they leave themselves either rotting in idleness or led by necessity to do unworthy and shameful acts, for which it can be said that they lose the nobility by remaining in lordship, and well often they lose both together …”.

By practicing the Longobard Law (where all the descendants inherited by continuously dividing the patrimony), logic makes it clear that they lived a situation of poverty as nobles (even if they studied law at the University, carried out liberal professions, made the few remaining lands work), therefore in that situation, what was the use of requesting an investiture of a feudal title (direct from the Holy Roman Empire) if there was nothing left of that territory? The Cicugnone family lived in Frassineto (the river port of the capital of Monferrato), for example the Ruffinenghi lived in Valmacca, I say this because I read another nonsense in the blog that makes me smile: “Moreover, if anyone had, however, the right to ask for the investiture for the title of Count of Cavaglià, this would certainly have been the husband of the eldest daughter of the last count, who died in the 17^th century, or his descendants for women, and certainly not the descendants of a Cicugnone married, around 1550, with an Ubertis. Or, if the last count of Cavaglià, who died in the seventeenth century, had no daughters, the descendants for women of a previous count, but after the marriage between Antonio Ubertis and Catalina Cicugnone”.

I repeat, if the ANONYMOUS knew the nobiliary law applied to feudal consortia in Piedmont, they would know that in the case of the Counts of Cavaglià (who did not practice the Salic law, but the Lombard one) there were always many and not just one. When the Ruffinenghi branch died out in Valmacca in the 17^th century (or better on March 23, 1625), the ANONYMOUS should know that the heirs were 2 women who married 2 members of noble families of the high aristocracy of Monferrato, one of the two from Mantua, the branch he mentions. In the seventeenth century and before and after and in Italy until December 31, 1947, the nobility was a concrete reality linked to the economic aspect and not the romantic dream of our days.

Knowing the history of my family, and seeing that the Cicugnone are extinguished twice in it, I was the first to want to claim the full heraldic right symbolically but with legal value, obtaining it in the proper way, that is with a coat of arms certification, genealogy and nobility granted by the last Cronista de Armas of the Kingdom of Spain, as Monferrato was considered part of the Comunidad Hispanica for the sovereignty of Charles V from 1533 to 1536 and the continuous wars of the seventeenth century (the Spanish army was located on the lands of my family).

I think I behaved correctly, claiming only an undisputed historical heraldic right belonging to my family. Then for the friendship with S.A.I.R. the Archduke Otto of Habsburg, Head of the Imperial, Royal and Apostolic House of Austria-Hungary, was given to me by him his private recognition of the right to the title of Count of Cavaglià, based (as he was inexperienced in nobiliary law ) on the aforementioned Certification of Arms, Genealogy and Nobility issued by the last Chronicler of Arms of the Kingdom of Spain, which I had shown him at my home in Casale Monferrato, thus obtaining a nobility, even private, recognition. As mentioned, the nobility has always and only a public validity and the recognition must be issued by a Sovereign on the throne, but I believe that it cannot be considered a crime to accept a moral gift from a Friend who was the last Crown Prinz of the Austro-Hungaric Empire.

I now invite the ANONYMOUS to study more the subject of the nobiliary consortiums (consortili nobiliari) in Monferrato, so that he could really understand what they are and how the successions were regulated. I am certainly not the one who takes the liberty of making considerations on the subject, because it was clearly treated by other prestigious scholars many centuries ago and even a few decades before my birth; among the many I remember only these names: Ferdinando Gabotto (1866-1918), Francesco Guasco Gallarati di Bisio (1847-), and I cannot forget Benvenuto San Giorgio (1450-1527) and Galeotto del Carretto (1455-1530).

I only say that in 1390 Lorenzo Radicati di Cocconato asked for the investiture as Count of Cavaglià for the sole reason of having married a daughter of the Count of Cavaglià. If Radicati had this right, why shouldn’t the degli Uberti family have it? The Holy Roman Empire ended in 1806 and it is not possible to ask for an investiture, but the inheritances linked to incorporeal rights remain indefinitely. If you intend to go and see all the documentation relating to what I affirm, go to the Turin State Archives where they will give you the opportunity to check all my statements on the subject.

Finally, I say, dealing with the whole “Cavaglià” topic, that the ANONYMOUS should not allow himself to make considerations or express opinions without having studied (as demonstrated) my family and viewed the documents. I personally have lost years and I have not finishes yet! But I forget that he is not moved by the desire for historical knowledge, but it would seem only by the will to damage my image as a scholar.

SOME WRONG CONSIDERATIONS AND LIES ABOUT THE DEFAMATORY BLOG

The ANONYMOUS writes: “In the same note 34, other revealing clarifications are also made: it is very clearly stated that, “unlike the near duchy of Savoy, in Monferrato there were never deliveries of coats of arms and demonstrations of belonging to the nobiliary class”; that “the title of noble [throughout the article, the president seems to confuse the untitled nobility with the title of noble, but let’s not go into details], in this land, was attributed to some families not by sovereign concessions, but it slowly formed and consolidated as a general and lasting recognition of a particular standard of living and high public consideration “(zero crossed out)”.

The ANONYMOUS is right to assign a zero crossed out grade to what he himself wrote, but if I had to attribute it to him, precisely because I’m good, I could increase it to one! In his case it is really “childish” to talk about something that it is clear he does not know. Nobiliary law in Monferrato was not codified by law and to have a conception of what nobility was we must go and consult the major authors of published works, such as Stefano Guazzo’s Civil Conversation, where the nobility in Monferrato is concerned. Also of interest is the publication by Lorenzo Caratti di Valfrei on the subject, preserved in the State Archives of Alessandria. And then there are the various marquis and ducal grida, which explain some aspects of the nobility. Unfortunately, however, ANONYMOUS once again proves that it has not read any of the existing sources. True scholars know that the Principality of Piedmont had different laws from Monferrato, as they were different in the Marquisate of Saluzzo, and in the Republic of Asti. The untitled nobility in Monferrato is very similar to the hidalgos and infanzones in Spain. For example, the more nobilium was enough to be admitted to the Noble Council of Casale, but they had to have 300 years old (with only 20 remediable).

The defamer continues: «that “the maxim number 21, in nobiliary matters, contained in an opinion given to King Carlo Emanuele III of Savoy [Monferrato became part of the Savoy dominions in June 1708], in matters of nobiliary law, from a special consultative body, formed by the first presidents of the Senate of Piedmont, of the Chamber of Accounts and of the Advocate General of the Senate of Piedmont, on 20 July 1738, states: ‘The title of noble used in ancient acts by families, even for a long period of time, was never believed to attribute nobility, having been given, in the seventeenth century, to all those who lived as nobles and without personal subjection to a feudal lord’”; and Pier Felice degli Uberti himself concludes: “the attribution of the title of noble, rather than a real nobiliary title, legally recognized, more simply denoted the distinct civilization of the family to which this title was attributed”».

As all those who force the truth for their personal purposes, the ANONYMUS extrapolates a sentence to distort the meaning of the discussion. I personally quoted this opinion in the article published in Hidalguia demonstrating my honesty and seriousness of thought, I’m sorry to contradict the ANONYMOUS, but in Monferrato (until it was a Sovereign State) what he understands as Distinct Civilization (existing then in Italy during the Kingdom of Italy) did not exist, there were the nobles (divided into 3 classes) and the others, or non-nobles.

How can he believe that I can think of seeing a nobility in my Family based on only 3 marital status documents (I mean for each generation)? The nobility in Monferrato was the expression of many privileges such as admission to the Noble Council of Casale Monferrato, the establishment of Jus Patronati, life in suitable palaces, the possession of substantial lands, the admission to Noble University Colleges, the appointment as Ambassadors, being Officers in the army, also the imperial notariat (but linked to other privileges), the administration for generations of civil offices of countries free from feudal lords, in addition to the possession, if possible, of feudal jurisdictions. I hope now the ANONYMOUS can understand his errors and stops basing his insinuations only on my study of a few pages for a Spanish magazine, a publication wanted by a dear friend, Dr. Lorenzo Caratti di Valfrei, to support his ideas regarding the nobility of Monferrato, which I am happy to have done.

However, it should be noted that this opinion that I mentioned was obviously valid for Piedmont but not for Monferrato, which had different laws (one for all: there were no tax payments for nobiliary recognitions that were not made); besides this opinion is referred to the seventeenth century, when Monferrato was a sovereign state. So what? The opinion given to King Charles Emmanuel III of Savoy regarding maxim 21 was just (as it is written) an opinion, rejected for political reasons sometimes. I continue by saying that a true scientist of the matter should then go to see and study the various recognitions referring to Piedmontese families and check if the maxim was applied or not (note that – as it is written – it was an opinion and not a law). In any case, there are recognitions of families that took place during the Kingdom of Italy that have the only qualification of noble on the documents in the seventeenth century, but also present other manifestations of the nobility to the Royal Heraldic Council such as: ecclesiastical patronates, admissions to Noble Councils, military ranks etc. Unlike the slanderer, I am used to going to the depths of the subject, looking for documentary comparisons, and not, like him, climbing mirrors. If I do not like falsehoods and counterfeiters, my defamer loves to live in lies (starting with his real name) and therefore prefers to lie shamelessly, as when he wrote: «And – always in any case – it is absolutely certain that the Ubertis have never been formally, juridically recognized as belonging to the nobility of the Kingdom of Sardinia. They are not even listed in the “Golden Book of the Italian nobility”, which included families recognized as noble after the full unification of 1870, that is, belonging to the nobility of the Kingdom of Italy, despite an effort in the 1920s by the Ubertis, to be included in this prestigious list, an effort failed due to the inability to provide the necessary historical documentary evidence. As regards the belonging of the Ubertis family to the nobility of the marquisate, later duchy of Monferrato, prior to the kingdoms of Sardinia and Italy, Pier Felice degli Uberti writes, as we have shown above, that “the title of noble, in this land, was attributed to some families not by sovereign concessions, but slowly formed and consolidated as a general and lasting recognition of a particular standard of living and high public consideration” (so blah, blah, blah…); that “the title of noble was not a true nobiliary title, with specific legal recognition, but only a qualification relating to a family that lived its ancient and distinct civil life” (bla, bla, bla …); and always Pier Felice degli Uberti mentioned the opinion of 20 July 1738, according to which “The title of noble used in ancient acts by families, even for a long period of time, was never believed to attribute nobility, having been given, in the seventeenth century, to all those who lived nobly and without personal subjection to a feudal lord”».

THE ANONYMOUS, who would like us to believe that he consulted archival sources, write another huge lie for defamatory purposes only, a total invention that can be easily unmasked, which I transcribe here: “despite an effort in the 1920s, by of the Ubertis, to be included in this prestigious list, an effort that failed due to the inability to provide the necessary historical documentary evidence”.

Too bad for him that thanks to the work of Dr. Giovanna Arcangeli in 2012-2013 all the material referring to the families who asked for and obtained the recognition of the State of their nobility was registered, and those who did not obtain it are also included. Well, THERE ISN’T ANY REQUEST FOR RECOGNITION FROM THE UBERTIS FAMILY of Casale Monferrato! Just go to the Central State Archives to see who is telling the truth.

The Ubertis during the Kingdom of Italy were so certain and proud of their nobility that they did not feel they had to seek recognition for a simple title of noble, which would not change their life, contenting themselves with their undisputed centuries-old historicity, well known to all.

However, as a scholar of the subject, my attitude is quite different because, as I pay for the television subscription, if I had lived between 1869 and 1947 I think I would have also paid for nobiliary recognition, perhaps without using it in society, as I do today.

LET’S COME TO MY BRITISH FEUDAL PROPERTIES:

Lord of the Manor of Benham Valence and Baron of Cartsburn

1) I acquired the Lordship of Benham Valence because a late dear friend of mine Cecil Humphery Smith asked me for information on the ancient owners, the Castiglione, and having an ancestor de Ubertis married to one of them, I decided to become the owner.

2) the Barony of Cartsburn, which is a barony with modern concepts as I like them, was the port from where the Scots reached North America. I acquired it because I have a very specific project linked to the baronies of which I do not want to say anything at the moment, but as soon as it is implemented, I will reveal it.

I won’t go too far because in the UK these rights are protected by law. Even any amateur of Scottish Baronies knows well that they can be bought and sold at will, and the succession happens as the baron wants, even excluding the children; they allow the registration in Burke’s Peerage, a repertoire recognized by law: in fact, the State accepts what here is written in order to include it in documents and passports. In the United Kingdom everyone knows that the British nobles are only the Peers (what in Europe is the high nobility) and that they sit in Parliament, all the others (minor nobles in the European concept) belong to the Gentry, and all, even the non-experts, should know that the Gentry is comparable in Italy to the minor nobility (from Marquis to down). To deepen the argument, I recommend the excellent study on the subject: https://diventarenobile.weebly.com/le-baronie-feudali-scozzesi.html and the answer to the livid objections of someone who suffers from envy, given the superficial contrary statements: https://diventarenobile.weebly.com/risposta-alle-obiezioni.html and again, if we want to be correct, you can read the current law in force on the matter: https://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/files/1712/8015/2730/26-07-2010_1458_725.pdf where the existence of feudal baronies appears. The ANONYMOUS writes: “As for the British titles of the president of the degli Uberti – feudal lord of Benham Valence (England) and baron of Cartsburn (Scotland) – just remember this: as he himself admits, these titles were bought, therefore, regardless of their legal validity, from the moral point of view they have no value”.

The clear demonstration that my ANONYMOUS defamer is certainly not an expert on the subject and lives nobility as something absolutely abstract that never existed in historical reality, can be found it in these 3 lines! Almost all feudal titles have always been bought and sold (since he loves Monferrato, he should know that the Gonzaga sold them to foreigners in Monferrato), and I add that in the Piedmont of the Kingdom of Sardinia there were sales of fiefdoms in the eighteenth century. After all, they have always been investments that allowed to enjoy some benefits or feudal rights, which led to the owner of the fiefdom an increase in his finances.

But not only that, the Pope often granted a nobiliary title to thank a benefactor (who built a church, for example). The last nobiliary title granted by the Pope is a baronial title granted by Paul VI to the donor of the furnishings of the Second Vatican Council. And there are other nations that have done the same.

Any person of common sense would have doubts about the reliability of the Moral lessons coming from an ANONYMOUS who even lies about himself, and does not mind to offend the deceased or using their identity.

“Furthermore, the way in which the president degli Uberti allows him to be presented, in various publications, as “the 15^th Baron of Cartsburn”, deceives readers consciounsly, who, reading these words, understand, of course, that the title of Baron di Cartsburn has been in the degli Uberti family for 15 generations”.

Here is the proof, in an attempt to defame me, of another lack of knowledge of the ANOMYMOUS on British titles that still makes me smile: it would be enough to read the site www.cartsburn.com where the 15 feudal barons of Cartsburn are listed, where it is clearly seen that they belong to various families also not related to each other by kinship; among other things, the thirteenth and fourteenth feudal barons who belong to different families are still alive.

The British feudal titles where possible are listed with the progressive number and this does not mean at all that they are of the same family, but that the numbers indicate the various owners of the feud over time, because – I repeat – the feudal titles are bought and sold like any property, whose seniority starts from the time of the sovereign concession.

I add that, for my usual correctness, even in Burke’s Peereage, unlike almost all foreigners, I do not insert nobiliary titles or orders of chivalry that are NOT recognized or recognizable by United Kingdom law, so you can only read what is legally permitted in the UK.

I close the comments on this sequence of false, inaccurate statements proving ignorance and bad faith by reporting again: “In conclusion, Pier Felice degli Uberti has no real nobiliary title. Two of his titles – noble, count of Cavaglià – are assumed, the other two – feudal lord of Benham Valence, baron of Cartsburn – are bought. He is not noble at all, not even an untitled one. He is an artificial noble, fabriqué de toutes pièces, made of all the pieces, as the French say. On the other hand, this was obvious, because those who are truly noble do not need to make an effort to prove it; it is clear from the beginning and it is known, it is more or less of public and historical notoriety .But the president degli Uberti does not need neither nobiliary titles nor coats of arms, because his real titles and coats of arms are his indisputable skills in the fields he deals with. We always keep a sincere affection for his dear and distinguished person”.

Ridiculous once again like the whole tenor of the anonymous writing, the attempt to produce praise to my person after such a protracted attempt to defame me, which shows only a certain fear of some legal consequence.

What a pity that the defamer is an ANONYMOUS who has reasons of hatred towards me who wants to keep secrets like his real name and surname and thinks of damaging me by staying in the darkness, because if he had signed his thought with his name and surname, if he was also a Scholar, he could have had a certain weight in the open, but so his words remain like jokes “in search of an author” that I put in good company with the other anonymous defamations received over time. Like those I am sure they will only bring me greater appreciation, esteem, consideration and respect among serious people for my loyalty, imperturbability and open-mindedness as a true scholar.

Moreover, if at this moment I have the presidency of two of the four most important world bodies that deal with heraldry, genealogy and orders of chivalry, enjoying the respect of the Scholars and amateurs of these subjects, there will certainly be a valid reason. Just to conclude, addressing once directly to this “no one knows who”: You do not believe that I have serious doubts about the real existence of the 4 interlocutors (at least for now four, namely Marcello, Giorgio, Riccardo and L. Papanti, but then you can expand the number as usual …) who post defamatory statements against me on your blog, after seeing that you love to speak through multiple identities? I note with pleasure that by loosening self-control, you now slip to reveal without a shadow of a doubt your defamatory intent towards me when in the blog created for me you also published a new article on a “Basilicò of Malta: impostor, adventurer, criminal, king”

https://ilgrandevecchio.wordpress.com/2022/05/03/basilico-di-malta-impostore-avventuriero-criminale-re/, or even when animating other “puppets” you gives voice to “8 responses to “Pier Felice degli Uberti, the race for the nobility” “outlining me as: “a vulgar impostor, like so many others”; adding: “Absolutely amazing! So president degli Uberti has been deceiving us all these years ?! Really shocking!”; and in an attempt to reduce the now clear defamation (being a deceiver) you still offend my Family and my skills as a world-renowned scholar by representing me as unable to discern the true from the false: “I would not say that he deceived us. He deceived himself, because he wanted to believe. Or, better yet, he was deceived by his family.”

Really heavy accusations for a scholar who has dedicated his life to fight document falsifications and restore the documentary disciplines of history to the dignity of true sciences.

I didn’t ask the websites where you posted your blog to remove it, to let all read my answer there.

But I have many commitments as you well know and I am not frantically obsessed with spending my little free time posting (as you do almost for an obsession) producing new episodes of your “novel” every moment on various sites. I have many more important things to do than to deal full-time with the chatter of an ANONYMOUS without scientific authority in the field of documentary sciences of history and, to satisfy you

 I would also add in nobiliary matter. Especially since I – unlike you – always sign with my beautiful name and surname the many works and publications I produce in this sector, where by those who have a real academic degree I am recognized as a true scholar. Now I have held out my hand to invite you to discuss this topic that seems to be close to your heart: prove that you are not that unpleasant person who throws the stone and hides his hand, but one who has the only interest in knowing the truth …

Surely, you too realize too that what a person who is “nobody” says in the Documentary Sciences of History and without even a scientific publication, does not find the approval of scholars and amateurs, and remains a useless voice in the desert. But you can certainly study and become an expert and then rely on your training to demonstrate how much wrong there is around, don’t you agree?

It may be that you, if infected with my loyalty and fairness, will decide to write one last episode, finally taking off those many masks you love to hide behind, to explain the real reasons that push you to such a persistent fight against me. Honestly, to let believe that being banned from a forum can justify a disproportionate reaction of this kind is an offense to the intelligence of the readers and mine.

Therefore, my dear, I tell you: “do not miss this opportunity”, it may be who knows that in the face of scientific honesty we can also become friends.

Some texts (I will not indicate many because they are more than sufficient) useful for developing a historical and social culture to be able to discuss peacefully on the subject to be treated:

Alexandria, Rivista Mensile della Provincia, Figure che scompaiono Luigi Ubertis, anno 4, numero 8, agosto 1936

Eugenio Capra, Frassineto Po nella Storia, nell’Arte, nel Folklore, Tipografia Casalese f.lli Tarditi, Casale Monferrato, 1931.

Vincenzo de Conti, Notizie storiche della città di Casale nel Monferrato, Casale Monferrato, 1938, v. 3, pp. 376.

Giuseppe Amedeo Farinati degli Uberti, Ricerche Storico Genealogiche sulla Famiglia degli Uberti, Giornale Araldico-Genealogico-Diplomatico Italiano, R. Accademia Araldica Italiana, 1898.

Roberto Girino – Duilio Pozzi, Frassineto Po, dagli albori della civiltà umana alle soglie del duemila, Volume I, 1989.

Roberto Girino – Duilio Pozzi, Frassineto Po, dagli albori della civiltà umana alle soglie del duemila, Volume II, 1996.

Roberto Girino – Duilio Pozzi, Frassineto Po, dagli albori della civiltà umana alle soglie del duemila, Volume III, 2008.

Stefano Guazzo, La Civil Conversatione del Sig. Stefano Guazzo Gentil’huomo di Casale di Monferrato, divisa in quattro libri. Nel primo si tratta in generale de’ frutti, che si cavano dal conversare. Nel secondo si discorre primariamente delle maniere convenevoli a tutte le persone nel conversar fuori di casa. Nel terzo si dichiarano particolarmente i modi, che s’hanno a serbare nella domestica conversazione: cioè tra marito e moglie. tra padrone e servitore. Nel quarto si rappresenta la forma della Civil Conversatione. Nuovamente dall’istesso Auttore corretta, & di molte cose, non meno utili, che piacevoli ampliata, In Vinegia, Presso Altobello Salicato, 1590. Si This is a very important publication useful to know the nobility in Monferrato, with an excellent explanation of the various types made by the author.

Annunziata Loredana Marzi, I giuspatronati degli Uberti a Frassineto Po. Onorare la memoria degli avi e dare un lavoro ad un membro della famiglia, Tesi di Laurea, Università di Bologna, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, Relatore, prof. Cesarina Casanova, anno accademico, 2008-2009.

Notizie della terra di Cutigliano e di altri antichi luoghi del Pistojese territorio – Date in luce in forma di dialogo da D. Atanasio Farinati-Uberti Governatore del Collegio Ricci di Pisa, Sebastiano Domenico Cappuri, Lucca, 1739.

Gian Luigi Rapetti Bovio della Torre, Diritto successorio in Monferrato, Vivant: https://vivant.it/2020/03/19/diritto-successorio-in-monferrato/

Rodolfo Renier, Liriche edite ed inedite di Fazio degli Uberti, testo critico preceduto da una introduzione sulla famiglia e sulla vita dell’autore, Firenze, 1883.

Giuseppe Aldo di Ricaldone, Monferrato tra Po e Tanaro, Gribaudo – Lorenzo Fornaca editore, Asti, 1999, v. I e II.

Ferdinando Rondolino, Cronistoria di Cavaglià e dei suoi antichi conti, Torino, 1882.

Giorgio Tibaldeschi, Un inquisitore in biblioteca: Cipriano Uberti e l’inchiesta libraria del 1599-1600 a Vercelli, Bollettino Storico Vercellese, anno 19, 1990.

Roberta Terzi, La narrativa di Teresah, Tesi di Laurea, Università degli studi del Piemonte Orientale, Amedeo Avogadro, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, Relatore, prof. Giuseppe Zaccaria, anno accademico, 2003-2004. La Famiglia Ubertis a Frassineto Po, pp. 10-13.

Eugenio Ubertazzi, Frassineto Po nei tempi, La Cartostampa, Casale Monferrato, 1977.

Pier Felice degli Uberti, I Cavaglià nell’Ordine di Malta, in Nobiltà, n. 32, 1999, pp. 375-378.

Pier Felice degli Uberti, La tradizione dell’origine fiorentina negli Ubertis di Casale Monferrato, in Nobiltà, n. 40, 2001, pp. 581-598-

Pier Felice degli Uberti, La nobiltà e le sue leggi in Monferrato, in Hidalguia, n. 351, 2003, pp. 945-954.

Pier Felice degli Uberti, Appunti genealogici sulla Casata degli Uberti, in Hidalguia, nn. 196-197, 1986, pp. 389-412.