Listings of Spanish nobility


Important notice:


Spanish characters: ñ is sorted in n, ll is sorted in l+l, ch is sorted in c+h.

Articles are written seperately (even if written with uppercase first letter) are not rated before the name but after the nobility rank: Marqués de La Solana to be found as Solana, Marqués de la



In newer files, filation of persons is indicated by “└─” for a child and by “├─ if there are more children. The sign “” is used to indicate a passing-by of other filations.

In other files: Every child is indented one tab

Persons, whose genealogical relation to former holders of the nobility title is unknown to me, are registered at the beginning of the line without tab.

The following lines then relate to this person.

The known succession of holders of the nobility title is ordinal numbered with 01, 02, 03, etc.

Persons, only mentioned because of the relative context but not being or have been holders of the nobility title, are marked with "<>" instead of an ordinal number.

The ordinal number 00 is used for holders of the nobility title whose position in numeral succession is unknown to me; multi-appearance is possible.

If it is not clearly recognisable to me if a person was holder of the nobility title, “??” is used instead of an ordinal number (which here does not mean “probably not”).

A single question mark means that the statement is doubted.


If there is no relationship between the holders of the nobility title, they are seperated by "---", and the relations between them are appropriately advised. At the margin, these persons are linked  with red > | >.


In new files, (one) additional name beside the name by which a person is generally called is written ibn brackets “{}”.

In older files: Among (first) names the name by which a person is generally called is written in italics. If this name is unknown to me, only two names are listed. If in the literature (which I have been using) more than two names appear, they are replaced by “[etc]”. The semantic value of numberless names is low, they are not necessary to identify a person.


Concerning family names, primer apellidos and segundo apellidos are listed, mostly connected by "y". Additional apellidos mentioned in the literature are replaced by “[etc]“. This, for me seems to be justified as the use of four apellidos only between 1870 and1957 was legally ordered (see Soler NE [2008]: 34) but was no practical use, regardless whether some authors constructed such four appelidos. It would be correct to list such additional apellidos if the use was enforced by legal reasons (e.g. if the possession of a mayoralgo depended) and the apellidos were really used.


These four apellidos are a source of errors, even for Spanish authors, because they construct parents who never existed with these names by a wrong combination of the apellidos.



Example: (sorry, but no longer in the Internet) had a person called Antonio Jaramillo y Contreras, who by is named

Manuel Antonio Jaramillo de Contreras y Pérez del Prado Espinosa. names his parents, resolving the 4 apellidos, as N. Jaramillo y Perez and N. Contreras y Espinosa. But in reality his parents were Manuel Jaramillo de Contreras y Espinosa and Josefa Pérez Cuesta y Prado.



Occasionally the surname of the father or mother is set in brackets “[]“ because it really was not used by the person concerned (regarding Spanish customs on surnames see e.g. Soler NE [2008]: 32), but for reasons of clearness (so to say as proper surname) it is listed. Some authors are substituting this name as surname automatically.


Some general remarks on the numbering of holders of Spanish titles of nobility:


There is no official numbering of holders of Spanish titles of nobility.


The numbers used in litterature vary. There are different reasons:



If the denomination of an title has been changed, sometimes the numbering is continued, sometimes renewed with 1.


Some holders of Spanish titles of nobility would have been entitled to the heritance but for different reasons did not sack the necessary carta de sucesión but nevertheless they used the title.


Titles which were provided for the primogénito are by some authors automatically attached to the firstborn children who in reality did not obtain a carta de sucesión.


The cartas de sucesión of the Diputación de la Grandeza during the republican time of Spain between 1931 until 1948 are occasionally counted (of course if there was a convalidación after 1948).


There are titles deprived by juridical sentence. In some cases persons concerned are not counted as holder of the title.


Some authors construct successions which did not take place in reality.


Some authors did not notice short times of possession of a title although the publication is traceable in the “Gaceta de Madrid“.


Some authors mixed up holders with same name(s) of a title of nobility or counted a single holder twice, sometimes caused by second marriages or by different names of primer and segundo apellido which were fitted“ although this form of name has not been used.


There are authors (or printers) who have difficulties in translation of Roman numbers (which are mostly used in Spain mainly for the numbering of  holders of titles), e.g. XI for IX



Example: Fernando Henríquez de Luna y Serrano, [jur.obsol] 11. Conde de Miravalle [Es1690], is named IX Conde in Muley GN [1943-1944]: 322.



The husband of a female holder of a title of nobility who only jure uxoris used the title is counted.


It is possible that one person is counted twice because he hold a title of nobility twice.



Example: Joaquín Fernández de Córdoba y Osma, 9. Duque de Arión [Es1725], b1870 d1957, succeded in 1902 as second Marqués de Griñón [Es1862]. He resigned in 1920 in favour of his son Gonzalo (Joaquín) Fernández de Córdoba y Mariátegui, 3. Marqués de Griñón [Es1862], b1913 d1934. After his death without issue he regained the title in 1951 and thus he became fourth Marqués de Griñón.




Different from this is a case that the holder of a title resigned it and got it again later: Rafael de Burgos y Domínguez, 4. Marqués de Montemorana [Es1728], d1882, succeeded his father in 1825, resigned in 1841 “alegando la falta de caudales“ but the Queen then annulated the annulation of the title, and another „carta de sucesión“ was issued in 1866.




Here titles of nobility are dated by the year of the first royal resolution for the creation of the title of nobility. The year when a diploma was issued (“dipl“) is named separately if it occured in another year. This year corresponds to the issue of the carta de sucesión and is to be regarded as the legally relevant date. It should be mentioned that this is not handled consequently by the "Guía de la Nobleza" and other publications. Read to this topic an article by Baron Cobos de Belchite in Hidalguia RG 5[1957]: 799





For example, Guia GT [1975]: 273 and still Elenco GT 44[2011]: 454 give the creation date may 20, 1834 for Francisco (María de la Luz) de Arango y Parreño [etc], 1. Marqués de la Gratitud [Es1834], b1765 d1837, but this was not executed (no carta de sucesión) while Domingo de Arango y Herrera, 2. Marqués de la Gratitud [Es1834], b1858 d1924, succeded and got a carta de sucesion june 10, 1880 (Nieto DNC [1954]: 259-260).



The succession in a title of nobility („succ“) is named by the date of the year. It is generally the year in which the carta de sucesión was issued. If two differend years are named or one ends with a slash "/", the (first) number is the year in which the issue of the carta de sucesión has been mandated ("B.O.E."). The second number is the year of the carta de sucesión. In newer files, the data are signed with d for successions granted by the Deputación de la Grandeza, with m (for the mandate) and c (für the carta) respectively.


Foreign titles of nobility (mainly of Sicily, Naples, Both Sicilies, Spanish Netherlands, Sardinia, Italy) to which in Spain a rehabilitación was decreted, are as Spanish titles of nobility named by the year of the rehabilitación, the holders are counted from then.


A word concerning the denomination especially on titles of the Holy See [SS] whose use was allowed in Spain:

It seems generally, that there were granted only the nobility ranks with the equivalent title, which could be used on the family name like an Italian titulo sul cognome. Following this, for example Ramón Otero y Cotón Gil Porras y Turnes, who 1906 got a papal title of a count, should be “Conte Otero” as this was his family name (primer apellido) while “Cotón” (segundo apellido) was the family name of his mother, “Gil Porras” his father’s mother’s name and “Turnes” was his mother’s mother’s name, which quite clearly shows that the Spanish permission of 1907 to be “Conde de Turnes” could scarcely be followed.


Falsifications: The Spanish legal use of rehabilitación is a source for falsifications. There are some general samples:


One of the real ancestors had a name (christian name and surname) which is identical to a person who could have been a legal successor to a title: see Oyra, Marqués de [rehab Es1983]


A pretended diploma has never been issed: see Gavín, Barón de [Ara1130]