Talk:Lord of Mann/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

01 – Archive 05

Contents

Mann or Man?

The Isle is spelled "Man", with one "n". The official royal website also lists with only one "n"". http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5658.asp

There isn't a reference to back up the claim that the title "Lord of Mann" is officially spelt in that way. There's the Isle of Man, a Bishop of Sodor and Man, a Lieutenant Governor of the Isle of Man, and other examples were it is spelt Man. There should be a "citation needed" to be placed after the title "Lord of Mann[citation needed]" until it can be clearly proved otherwise. Cwb61 15:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Both spellings appear acceptable: According to Google, there are 32 'Lord of Mann' references on .gov.im and 31 as 'Lord of Man'. There are 14 and 23 respectively on .gov.uk.

Heir Apparent

I have deleted reference to Prince Charles as "Charles III" as it is not known what style he will adopt when he ascends the Throne. He may chose "George VII" out of respect to his maternal grandfather.

I have deleted the reference to "Price Charles" and replaced it with "Charles, The Prince of Wales", as he is officially styled, unless in Scotland. 76.187.9.84 21:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Notes: Heir and Claimant

Last edit was reverted because the edit was not a neutral point of view. The claim has two or more external sources and one linked source. Refer to NPOV for guidelines.--Theisles 00:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Question, does the newsgroup link that points to a discussion by several anonymous posters violate NPOV guidelines?--Theisles 15:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, why should it violate NPOV? It points to a relevant discussion by several posters (not all of them anonymous and, moreover, one of them claiming to be the claimant in question)?
BTW, since you mentioned NPOV, may I ask you if you are David Howe-Stanley or his close relative, friend or follower? Have you ever been in bussines or other connection with this Petitions Service that claims that the legitimate Royal King of a European Island is mentioned on two official websites which are recognised as authority style websites, one of them being Wikipedia? Please do not consider this to be an assumption of bad faith, I am just curious. Regards, Pavel --80.95.254.1 17:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I've asked the question regarding NPOV because I am not sure. I am a member of Mec Vannin and support an independent sovereign state. But I am also interested in Mr. Howe's claim as a titular head. It is historically accurate and fits with our tradition. I don't know about this petition issue. I don't see the connection to Mr. Howe. Now are you Manx?--Theisles 17:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. As your edit history on Wikipedia to this day seems to be centered on this issue I just wanted to be sure whether you are the person in question or not. Thanks again. For the record, I would like to state that while I was intrigued by the newsgroup discussion that is now linked from the article (and therefore, at least for me, there really is a time connection you have noted), I did not take any part in it. Also I've never been to Man (shame on me) nor I have any ancestral connection to the island (at least AFAIK).
The Howe connection with "Titles of Nobility" seems to be quite obvious to me: European based Island renown as a tax haven; King is a legitimate Royal King of a European Island; King is mentioned on two … websites - note that David Howe is presented at one of them to be the King of the Isle of Man and I do not see any other "monarch" there that fits to above-mentioned criteria (Kingdom of the Two Sicilies is not what I would count as Kingdom of a European Island renown as a tax haven, now Isle of Man on the other hand …).
Regarding the claims of Mr Howe, IF we accept the "forced sale" argument (But why should we? Many things happened through violence or threats - you could similarly denounce any peace treaty and resulting state of the world as "forced" even if it was agreed by both parties) THEN there would still remain the problem whether HE would be entitled to raise the issue. I think that when inheritance plays prominent role in such cases (and Mr Howe certainly bases his claim to Mann on descent and inheritance) then only the lawful heir could benefit from such situation, not any of (presumably) junior descendants. I am not sure whether I follow your comparison with France as each of the claims (be it Bourbon, Bonaparte or Orléans) has some clearly defined point in history - on the other hand it seems to me that Mr Howe's claim is based on nothing more than "I am one of numerous descendats but I am shouting in belief that I could outshout those that have better right than me!", to put it bluntly. I would therefore be very glad if you could elaborate on your statement that Mr Howe's claim is historically accurate and fits with our (ie. Manx, I suppose) tradition. Pavel --80.95.254.1 15:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Pavel, forgive my error in assuming you came from the newsgroup. Based on what I see, his claim is based on two things. One issue of being an heir-general and that is also what it appears the Manx case law has cited as being how the Isle of Man (kingdom) was to pass. He has that cited on his website. I'm not a legal expert but it would seem that in this case any descendant is a potential heir and a senior vs. junior claim would be based on birth order. This was how the kingdom's heirs were decided in a similar case in 1599. I saw in that newsgroup discussion a bit about how the Queen is also blood heir along the same lines as Mr. Howe-Stanley. The conclusion of the person who posted that was she was the senior and rightful heir. Assuming the Queen is senior because of birth order may be correct but rules as a result of the Isle of Man being a crown dependency since the revestment and not by right of birth. I don't suppose she has to make a right of birth claim provided there was no other. It seems now that there is another claim. The issue of revestment and the sale of the Isle of Man in 1765 looks like something an international court would decide.--Theisles 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, no problem with assumptions (and yes, I _came_ to this article from that newsgroup, I just did not participate in the said discussion). Frankly, looking at your edits I originally assumed that you are Mr Howe himself (and that was the reason of my previous question), now – based upon your reply – I assume that you aren't (and please correct me if I am wrong).
The problem with Mr Howe's claim is that of inconsistency – he claims the descent of the Manx Crown according to certain rules, but ignores the fact that those rules do not point at him as a rightful heir. Any descendant surely could (in accordance with rules set for the succession) be potential heir, but the adjective potential signals that certain conditions must be met to transform the position into rightful claim. For inheritance of titles, these conditions are usually that other descendants with stronger claim (i.e. senior) die, not that they do not press their claim actively at the moment (clearly several generations of his ancestors did not press their „claim“ and he does not think of it as a bar to his pretensions, right?). I would love to see any specific provisions in Manx law that would defy this concept. At the moment, I do not have any reason to challenge Mr Howe's genealogy shown at his website, but I note as well that the claimed seniority of the Queen was not (and still is not) disputed by Mr Howe (that was the reason why I removed the mention of him being heir from the article). That would mean that she has better right to rule over Mann than him in accordance with his own claimed system of succession. The fact that she is also heir of the buyer in the „illegal“ purchase of 1765 does not change a thing (BTW I do not think you would find any international court with jurisdiction ratione temporae, i.e. who would have the right to decide the 250 years old case). Either way, what would the solution be? We could try to find out who is gender-blind heir ("to be found amongst the descendants of Charles, 1st Earl Cornwallis" according to Mr Andrews-Reading - anyone knows birthdate of the Earl's daughter Mary, wife of Samuel Whitbread?), or we could divest the Queen of her position as an unlawful ruler and invest her again, now as a lawful one as she certainly presses the claim to rule over Mann? That seems a tad complicated to me. But there still is not any space for lawfullness of Mr Howe's candidature, unless the Kingdom of Mann had some elective element in its laws of succession, which I sincerely doubt. Sorry, I still fail to see historical accurateness of his claim. As a postscriptum, my interpretation of the 1599 findings presented at [1] is not the decision between senior vs. junior, but between two different sets of heirs (heirs male vs. heirs general).
Returning to the original issue of a link to the discussion, you could certainly argue that it falls into category of Links normally to be avoided (No. 10 of the list), but I would oppose to its removal for the same reasons as Heraldic does. Its inclusion is important for the NPOV - it represents a discussion of the merits of Mr Howe's claims and he himself played important role in it. I therefore believe that we should give priority to the official policy over guideline.
On an unrelated note – is the name of the island with the double „n“ really used? I have never seen it before. Pavel --80.95.254.1 09:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I missed one other issue in his claim. That issue precedes the claim of illegal revetment. This first issue is that his great uncle, Thomas III, in effect, abdicated his throne by abandoning his title of King in favor of the lessor title of Lord. This would mean that the throne, if it was agreed it had been abdicated by Thomas III with his title choice and change, would have passed to the next living heir. In this case that would be Lady Jane Stanley, Howe-Stanley's great great.. grandmother. Under those conditions the act of revestment is a minor issue not a major one.--Theisles 16:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
With respect to the discussion group being important for NPOV, I'm inclined to disagree. The discussion group seems to be set up for the purposes of knocking down claims, among other things, but they do not appear to be properly equipped to do so. The group does not represent any expert opinion on the topic of law in the Isle of Man. One of the more frequent posters referred to British law to back his opinion, and that is completely wrong. For 600 years or more the laws in the UK have never generally extend to the Isle of Man. No effort was ever made to cite any Manx case law as they freely gave of their opinions. There is no opinion that represents any authoritarian views on the issue of the letters patent and how the island was to pass. Also, The opinion given on that issue was wrong. The general opinion in the group regarding that issue is completely opposite Manx case law regarding inheritance as cited. Finally -- all of the people that would have been in the best possition to decide if Howe-Stanley was to be the righful heir are dead.--Theisles 00:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever the merits or demerits of the discussion group, the fact remains that Howe-Stanley's claim is no more valid than many others - possibly less so. As the article is presented it implies that a) the claim has some validity and b) that Howe-Stanley is the main claimant. For a NPOV all mention of his claim has to be removed or, if it is retained, there has to be reference to the fact that it is subject to some dispute. If the same NPOV logic you seem to favour had been applied to Michael Lafosse and his claim to the Scottish Crown, there would have been no opportunity for others to point out he was a fraud. Regards Heraldic 10 March 2007, 18:09 (GMT)
Heraldic, this is not the case at all. a)the validity of the claim can't be decided by your newsgroup discussion. Noone there are Tynwald or UK judges. So in fact you have no idea how legal the claim is. b)The notes in this article at current show him to be a claimant. Not the only claimant nor the main claimant. The remaining is all hot-air and your whiskey is a few shots of water short. I encourage you to follow your own link about the Prince Michael of Albany. You will see in the discussion that the NPOV has been stressed by Wikipedia that any edits must adhere to the policy of Biographies of living persons. Your position that Howe-Stanley should be considered a fraud are libelous and without basis. You have no valid source that points otherwise. See Biographies of living persons. In addition Howe-Stanley's ancestry seems to have stood up to the "experts" in your newsgroup. At minimum it places his claim far above the usual fantasy claimant.--Theisles 20:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Insults now is it? No NPOV? I have not disputed Howe-Stanley's ancestry nor said he was a fraud. I have, however, questioned the high profile of his claim here at Wikipedia. I can accept the rec.heraldry/alt.royalty are not the most balanced venues. Until such time as there is another critique of his claim available on the Internet, it is the best there is. (It is interesting to note that in his pedigree he lists himself as simply David Howe. Yet he now uses Howe-Stanley. The use of a maternal surname after a gap of 500 years. A bit more froth to add to his claim?) Regards Heraldic 10 March 2007, 21:00 (GMT)
I'm not insulting you personally. I should have attrib'd that comment to the newsgroup discussion itself. Sorry for the mistype on that. I'm also sorry if I mischarcterized your possition. I remember the word "fraud" was typed by you in an earlier post here regarding the inclusion of his claim. I must have misunderstood. I'm not sure high profile is the proper characterization of the claim as it's been presented here. He doesn't have his own article, yet. At some point when more information is available or something of greater note is available, perhaps. On the use of "Stanley" in his name, yes, froth perhaps. It is rather obvious though so I don't find any intentional deception there. Perhaps just some familial homage of sorts.--Theisles 22:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I do find it a bit odd that it is acceptable that David Howe-Stanley's claim can be included but the fact that the validity of that claim has been questioned might not be acceptable. Mr Howe-Stanley may well be a descendant of the Kings of Mann but it is very questionable that he is the senior claimant. Regards Heraldic 7 March 2007, 08:49 (GMT)
We have the Queen and she is in place by right of a forced sale. Then we have Mr. Howe-Stanley's claim. Is there another claimer to the Isle of Man?--Theisles 13:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Is the "forced sale" a proven fact? NPOV? It must also be remembered that the King of Mann was a vassal of the Crown of England. The two identities are now combined in Queen Elizabeth II.
With regard to Mr Howe-Stanley's claim. I know of no other claimants but that does not mean there is no-one closer to the "throne". As the discussion group link shows, by his own "gender blind" descent, Mr Howe-Stanley is a junior claimant to the Queen. Furthermore, it would appear someone is now trying to sell noble titles on the basis that they are to be "granted" by Mr Howe-Stanley as King of Mann [[2]Noble Titles]. It is not clear whether or not this is with the blessing of Mr Howe-Stanley. If it is being done without his sanction he needs to get it stopped so as not to devalue his claim. If it is being done with his blessing then it does rather tarnish things. Regards Heraldic 7 March 2007, 14:36 (GMT)
Having gone through the various edits I think it was Theisles who introduced the Howe-Stanley claim to the article. May I ask what exactly prompted the addition? Regards Heraldic 7 March 2007, 15:21 (GMT)

It is considered common historical knowledge that England forced the sale of the Isle of Man by military blockade of its ports in 1764. Offers prior to that had been rejected. If we are arguing for or against inclusion of the claim based on it being junior claims vs. senior claims I reference the multiple claims to the French throne. I believe there are three and I believe none recognize the others claim as being senior to theirs. France is one but I know there are others. Multiple claims or junior claims etc., don't seem an issue with respect to inclusion. On the issue of gender blind descent, citing Mr. Howe-Stanley's website which references the "Manx Law Reports at 51 MLR 154," it addresses that the Isle of Man descended to John Stanley's heirs-general and not specifically heirs-male and this was in accord with the letters patent from Henry IV. On the selling of titles it doesn't seem clear that this has any connection whatsoever to Mr. Howe-Stanley. It certainly isn't something that he seems to be promoting. I have to laugh though at the idea that any claim to a throne didn't hold an element of being a money grabbing exercise. As for the sale of titles or honors, like what just happened in the UK, there have been many monarchs throughout history that have sold titles of one form or another -- if memory serves this would be the case in France and Germany maybe Italy.--Theisles 15:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, The current UK example is a red-herring because is not the Queen who has “sold” honours.
Secondly, where monarchs may have raised extra cash by the sale of titles, I presume that they were recognised as de facto monarchs at that time. Mr David Howe-Stanley cannot claim to be anywhere close to that status.
My concern here is that this article is being hijacked in order to promote Mr Howe-Stanley’s claim. From the evidence provided I could easily put forward my name as a claimant and have equal validity to the claim as Mr Howe-Stanley – as indeed could you. Only independent scrutiny of our pedigrees would show how good a claim we have. To lay claim to any title, right or privilege before such scrutiny would be, at best, foolish. It is unfortunate for Mr Howe-Stanley that one very dubious venture appears to be acting on his behalf and that his name can be found linked to at least one fantasy royalty site.
As a matter of interest, does Wikipedia have a policy regarding what might be described as "fantasy royalty"? Being involved in the possible promotion of fantasy (or even fraud) does not seem wise to me. Regards Heraldic 7 March 2007, 16:44 (GMT)
It would be fantasy for you or I to put forth this claim assuming that neither of us have any connection to the throne. I agree that promoting that would be foolish. That is obviously not the case here. It is important to point out that Wikipedia pages aren't meant to be opinion based. The are supposed to demonstrate a neutral point of view. I think that has been done here as this claim has survived numerous edits over the last 5 months. Doing a brief search of the newsgroup that is linked to the article it seems that this latest activity is a result of a posting that showed up the same day as User:80.95.254.1 edited the article. The increased interest appears to be fueled by that. The original discussion that is linked also does not represent a neutral point of view.--Theisles 17:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
To keep a NPOV you have to include the fact that a given statement does have its detractors. It is the opinion of Mr Howe-Stanley that he has a claim and it is the opinion of others that he does not. Thus it could be stated in the article that Mr Howe-Stanley's claim is disputed. If you include a link to his opinion (as is the case) there needs to be a link to the alternative viewpoint. As has been mentioned above, Mr Howe-Stanley does himself appear in the discussion and so had another opportunity to state his position. Regards Heraldic 7 March 2007, 20:21 (GMT)

It should be noted that Mt Howe-Stanley has now had himself "crowned" as King of Man on 30th March 2007. His website now makes the claim "A gazette notice was published week ending Friday 19th January 2007 after some four weeks investigation by the London Gazette & the Crown of England, they finally conceded and published." The Managing Editor of the London Gazette pointed out that it was published in the Miscellaneous section rather under State Notices and inclusion in the Gazette can no way infer official recognition.Regards Heraldic 02 May 2007, 15:26 (BST)

The managing editor of the London Gazette informed me when I contacted him that the matter was initially forwarded to Her Majesty's Stationary Office (HMSO), which acts on behalf of the Crown in all matters of copyright, for their "approval" prior to the notice being published. According to the editor, sometime later, the HMSO sent it back to the Gazette with their "approval" for publication. It is also worth noting that, according to his website, Howe received a Barrister's opinion on the matter of his crowning. It is stated, “In short, I do not believe that it is unlawful for Mr Howe to claim to be the King of Man or to pursue that claim through lawful means”. In conclusion, the Barrister fully supported the legal rights of HM King David I and is the opinion of the highest legal authority in this case.--Theisles 19:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the status and legal implications of such publications in the Miscellaneous section of the London Gazette? It is IMHO also worth noting that Barrister's opinion pertains to Mr Howe's right to claim and to pursue that claim through legal means - I believe that these "legal rights" has anyone, irregardles of the legality of such claim. Pavel --80.95.254.1 13:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
First, according to the editor of the Gazette, they "have no Miscellaneous section." Second, the Barrister's opinion was regarding the rights of Mr. Howe, no one else. I suspect that such an opinion might be different if I or anyone else with no ancestral link to the crown attempted to promote ourselves as King. We would most definitely be categorized as usurpers with no legal rights.--Theisles 23:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. It is called "Other Notices", not Miscellaneous, thanks for pointing this out. Nevertheless, having in mind this correction, I would still be interested in the answer to my question. What is the relevance of such notice for claiming the title to Man?
Furthermore, the Barrister's opinion was about pursuing the claim through legal means, not about the claim's merits. I do not believe that the "categorisation" of such claims is about ancestral link, but simply about particular right of particular person. Mr Howe claims the royal crown of the Kingdom of the Isle of Man and the associated styles and any non-regnant authority merely because he is descendant of previous Kings of Man and because he claims knowledge of no other similar claim (which in my opinion is nonsense as the Queen - descendant senior to Mr Howe - certainly claims to be Manx head of state; BTW did he ask all other living descendants of John Stanley or is this an example of wishful ignorance on his part? What if there was some claimant in previous generations?) and I am quite curious about his asserted legal right to the title and crown based on such claim. Descent does not automatically mean entitlement. Succession to the title is regulated by certain rules. What are these rules in regard of lordship of Man and do they point to Mr Howe as best candidate? I note that the question of descendants with better rights due to their seniority was not yet addressed in spite of more than three months that elapsed since I raised this issue here. Unless this is resolved, I do not see how Mr Howe could be anything other than usurper. Regards, Pavel --80.95.254.1 12:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The relevance of such a notice I do not know. I can only guess that it meet with some legal requirement to file the claim in the official public record England and, it would seem, provide an opportunity for counter-claims to be filed. This was much the same case I believe with Queen Elizabeth II's announcement of her claim and intention to be crowned in the Gazette in 1951. Counter-claimants had something like 60 or 90 days to file their claim to the crown in the Gazette. At which point it became a legal matter. After that notice period, any claim, even a senior claim, no longer had rights to the crown. I suspect this is the relevance of the notice. And, apparently, not even the Queen countered.
It should be noted to, based on the line of descent that was posted in your newsgroup, the Queen is only a senior claimant based on birth order to Howe. Should a male preferred comparison be done, Howe is senior to the Queen as he descends through Edmund Sheffield, 1st Earl of Mulgrave, while the Queen descends through Edmund's sister Elizabeth. By male preference she becomes the junior claimant to Howe.
As for the rules regarding the lordship of Man, Howe's claim is based on the fact that the Isle of Man is a Kingdom and not a principality likened to a barony. This opinion is shared by many a Manxmen and is historically based where as most who have been schooled in Mann know, the lordship is very clearly not. If it is rules that one is to be concerned then the Manx argument will always be that the British Crown governs with no respect to that rule. The 1765 act of revestment is looked upon as being a clear military action by which the Crown of England was the usurper. But, still many look to 1504 and the King calling himself a mere lord as being the true beginning of the end of the Kingdom. History classes here teach that it was the English crown's pressure and ego that caused this to happen.
So Pavel, unless you have been educated here and understood the historical significance of the Kingdom -- one can't possibly begin to resolve such matters. If Howe is a usurper then the Queen (who rules over the Isle of Man by way of usurpation) had her day to counter his claim -- about 120 days from the time the Gazette apparently passed on to the HMSO. I've stopped checking the Gazette as it has been some time since his notice and the Crown of England never countered. Like it or not, by all legal requirements it would seem that Howe is the de jure King.--Theisles 20:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for response.
It seems to me bit strange to think that you can divest anyone of anything simply by publishing a notice in the "Other Notices" section of the Gazette. This is not the case of unknown property owner as we do know who the head of Manx state currently is, right? Isn't there a court system for dealing with such cases? I would therefore be more than interested in the QEII announcement you mentioned, although I do not think that she made such announcement before the death of her father.
Regarding the rules - I probably did not make clear what my concern is, so let me try again: What are the rules regarding the succession to the dignity of King of Man? Let me quote from Mr Howe's page: On the death of Prince George Stanley in 1497, daughter and first born, Princess Jane Stanley was an heir based on the original letters patent from Henry IV. This seems to allude to Mr Howe's belief in birth order without male preference, in which case your argument is not sustainable and the Queen has stronger claim. Do you know that de jure means "based on law"? What I am asking is - on what law? If the succession goes through primogeniture regardless of sex, Mr Howe is not legal heir. If it goes through male-preferred primogeniture, he is not legal heir either. So why should he be considered to be de jure King?
Turning to the issue of English military action that should presumably be ignored as illegal - I hope that in Manx schools it is taught that Stanleys came to the possession of island thanks to "illegal" action of English crown against Scrope few years earlier, isn't it? If you accept such "illegal" investment of Stanleys, why you do not accept similarly "illegal" revestment? Pavel--80.95.254.1 06:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The issue of heirs general vs. heirs male is from a case reported by Keilway and first published by Jean Croke (1602). It was discussed in the year 1599 in the Isle of Man case (1599), 2 And 115; 123 ER 575 and again referenced in Manx Law Reports at 51 MLR 154 the Judgement in re Robinson. The case was about property law. Amoung other things, the judges in the case cited that passing by letters patent to Sir John Stanley and his heirs, was descendible to his heirs according to the course of the common law, for the grant itself by letters patent was warranted by the common law in this case: and therefore, if no other impediment existed, the Isle in this case should descend to the heirs general, and not to the heir male. This is referenced on Mr. Howe's website as one of the several things he based his claim on.
Henry IV didn't act against Scrope. It was against Henry Percy, 1st Earl of Northumberland whom he acted against. He had granted the Kingdom to Percy after Scrope left no issue. Percy committed treason against Henry IV, after which Mann was given to the Stanley's. Percy tried to overthrow Henry IV. Percy was the attempted usurper.--Theisles 12:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Umm, okay, but the problem is that Mr Howe is not heir general, so what right do you invoke by the de jure formula?
Then how would you call Scrope's beheading without any trial before subsequent retroactive condemnation to death and Man's treatment as a forfeited property before English retroactive legalisation of seizure of Kingdom, which I think was not part of England at that time (but I admit that I am not well versed in the issues of English-Scottish-Montacute-Manx relations of early 14th century) if not acting against? Moreover, while William Scrope dsp, there certainly were his heirs - was Scrope's tenure limited simply to heirs of his body (then how and by whom?) or was it free, sovereign property descendible to collaterals? Pavel --80.95.254.1 15:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure how anyone at this point could claim that Howe isn't the heir general except for another claim to being the heir general; at which point it becomes an issue for a court. Regardless, and this is becoming a bit repetitive so I'll simply close with this, he made the claim and the claim in the official paper of record went unchallenged. A Gazette editorial staff member explained to me that the issue apparently has been interpreted much like that of unclaimed property to wit a claim to the property published in the Gazette has 90 days from the date to be challenged; adding that the claimant must show cause to have the claim published. I was also told that no such counter-claim was ever published, including that by the British Crown that apparently knew about the claim a full 4 weeks prior to allowing it to be published. I also confirmed that newsgroup postings on the internet were not sufficient to disputing property claims as so far as the Gazette and the British Crown are concerned. I can't speculate on the other issues you questioned but they don't seem material to Howe's specific claim.--Theisles 17:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but that would be strange rules for heirship general, if they twist the position of sex vis-à-vis primogeniture for each generation. Either Mr Howe accepts that eldest child comes first regardless of its sex (then Mr Howe is not heir general as the Queen and bunch of other people have certainly stronger claim) or males are preferred (then again Mr Howe is not heir general as Jane Stanley had brothers with issue to these days). Mr Howe cannot have it both ways. If you want another claim to heirship general of John Stanley according to rules as generaly understood (and without the idea of alleged forfeiture of King's title) then try look into descendants of daughters of Ferdinando Stanley (presumably the Earl of Jersey and the Earl of Loudoun are his co-heirs); if the forfeiture argument were accepted (but I do not see why), then the current Earl of Derby would be the heir general. Yours, Pavel --80.95.254.1 06:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Stronger claims or not, it seems the issue is closed. The British Monarchy was given the time to counter, even refuse to publish the claim, and they did neither. To suggest they thought nothing of it wouldn't be true because the claim was investigated by the HMSO for 30 days prior to publishing. Had Howe, now King of the Isle of Man, had no claim at all it would not have been published. Claims stronger or weaker, etc., and the remainder is of little matter now as he has been crowned.--Theisles 20:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Theisles, it is clear to me from your commentary that you recognize the claim of the American, David Drew Howe, to be the "rightful" sovereign of the Isle of Mann. As a Manxman, do you pledge allegiance to him or to HM The Queen, Lord of Mann? Newguy34 22:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mann has always been a Kingdom; King David recognizes this. Our Lord of Mann doesn't see it this way and she is wrong. If / when I am able to decide I will pick King David. At the very least he seems to care about the Island. I doubt the Lord of Mann could find us on a map.--Theisles 02:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your thoughts on that. How many times has David Howe been to the Isle of Mann? Have you met him? Newguy34 14:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know him but I know someone who works for him in London. He was in London about 3 weeks ago and I was told he had plans on spending a few days on the Island but there was some kind of security concern as a result of either the Manx Radio story or the Newspaper story..not sure which, and the police advised him to reschedule. I don't think he has visited before, but that is only one time less than the Lord of Mann and as many times as several of his Stanley ancestors.--Theisles 02:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Just curious, but what sort of "security concerns" might there be for a guy from Maryland that owns an automotive glass repair franchise? Speaking of Howe's Stanley ancestors, how do we know that he is descended as he claims? What proof can he or others offer that give him a right to this lineage? Newguy34 02:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought so too. I don't know what the origin of the security concerns were. I'm told he also owns part or all of two restaurants in Washington, DC. I found his lineage on his website. Easy enough to disprove if it weren't true I would imagine.--Theisles 13:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I, too, looked at the lineage he claims on his website (thanks for the tip). While it looks impressive, it is not very easy to either verify or disprove, which I suspect works in Mr. Howe's favor. Verifying it or disproving it would require birth records, marriage records, etc. that are not easily accessable. Anyone, for that matter, could copy the lineage on his website, change a few names, and make the same claim as has Mr. Howe. Do you know, has Mr. Howe renounced his U.S. citizenship in order to claim the Manx crown? Newguy34 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually I found it very easy to verify his claims at least up to his grandparents. I did it using my Ancestry.com account. From there I simply cross referenced it with the public records listed on the site. It was pretty easy to follow. Don't know if he has renounced his citizenship.--Theisles 21:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Grandparents, sure. I'm talking about going back a couple hundred years. I wonder how we can find out about the citizenship, cause I think he'd have to renounce U.S. citizenship to claim Manx citizenship and the Manx crown. Newguy34 03:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Right. I was able to trace back every name in his pedigree he lists. I also confirmed the relation to Lizzy. Up to that point I had been a skeptic.--Theisles 15:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
And his current status of U.S. citizenship? Newguy34 (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does Theisles object to edits to this page?

All, user Theisles and I have been engaged in an edit war over content of the article as it relates to David Drew Howe's claims. As one can see from both our talk pages and the edit history, Theisles claims that my point of view is not neutral and includes information that is not relevant. I disagree with Theisles on several points that are at the heart of the dispute. Firstly, Theisles points out his/her assertion that Mr. Howe's claim "was published in the London Gazette of January of this year, vetted by Her Majesty's Stationary Office and the British Crown." The plain fact is that the claim Mr. Howe published was not vetted by Her Majesty's Stationary Office and the British Crown; only his submission of the claim was. There is a distinct legal difference here that one must be careful to comprehend.

Secondly, I have stated that Mr. Howe has not provided any evidence admissable in any relevant court as to the veracity of his claim. Simply, there is no legally binding writing in the public record, and therefore, there is no legal claim. Theisles has stated that the on-line petition I referenced "is not material to his claim and violate NPOV." I believe that the on-line petition is highly germane as it contradicts Mr. Howe's claim. The contradictory information (in the form of a petition) is not superior to Mr. Howe's claim nor inferior. It is merely another claim. Given that there has been no opinion from a court of legal competancy, the counter-claim (in the form of the petition) is merely another claim, equal to all others (in the eyes of the law).

So, it goes to you, the court of my peers, to help us resolve this battle. I have made numerous attempts to discuss this with Theisles on our respective talk pages to no avail. We have both been warned about violating Wikipedia's 3RR, and Theisles was temporarily blocked for failing to heed the warning.

Collective thoughts? 216.143.251.162 21:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.