How do we politely explain that we are not interested in, actually not even aware of, any involvement in the politics of Malta vs. Italy vs. England? Now that I have done some research, I see that that was Baron Strickland's personal thing because he married a Maltese woman, although it seems that now, because his heirs were mostly daughters, that they are not actually Stricklands anymore, so how can they continue a title that really does not get its castle from Malta? And also we Stricklands in the USA, having left England in the 1600s or 1700s, do not fall heir to any such title or castle, needless to say. Many titles go extinct for want of direct relevance and that is nothing unusual. Do the Stricklands in the U.S. want the old Baron's Maltese headaches? Probably not. Do we want to bear the financial expense of an English castle? Beautiful as the place may be, no, probably not. It seems logical then that the National Trust of England should pay for that, I guess. I really didn't know one thing about that, but since you asked.
And if I should someday travel in Europe, I have no reason to exclude any of these places, Malta or Italy or England, from my travel itinerary. I am sure these are all very nice places to visit as a tourist but I have no reason to live there. The people who live there are the ones who have to decide what they are going to do about holding elections and that sort of political thing. But tourists don't care about that. We tourists just want to be sure that it is safe to go there and visit all the museums and eat in the restaurants without any risk of violent character assassination plots.
