Talk:Lord of Mann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Archive 1

[edit] Lords versus Kings

In a constitutional sense, all the rulers of Man from 1399 onward were lords. The grants of Richard II and Henry IV bestowed 'lordship' and other feudal rights and did not describe the recipients as kings. It appears that English-grant 'kings' before 1504 used the style 'Lord of Man' as often as not; see, e.g. http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/manxsoc/msvol04/v3p013.htm , even though by tradition Thomas, 2d Earl of Derby, who succeeded to the lordship in 1504, "relinquished the title of king of Man, as he preferred 'being a great lord to being a petty king'," (according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed. [1888], 9:454). Henry IV's grant of 1406 governed the tenure and succession of the Isle of Man without emendation all the way down to the time of the succession dispute which was resolved by regrant in 1610 (see John Parr, An Abstract of the Customs and Ordinances of the Isle of Man, [Manx Society, vol. 12, Douglas, 1867], pp. 28-40 on the succession dispute and the review of tenure of the Stanleys under Elizabeth I and James I). See Dickinson and Sharpe on the infrequency of use of the royal title outside the Island well before 1504, and the continuity of its use within the island much later: J. R. Dickinson and J. A. Sharpe, "Courts, Crime and Litigation in the Isle of Man, 1580-1700," Historical Research 72 (1999), pp. 140-59, at 142: "The Lord of Man wielded quasi-regal powers, being in effect de jure king of Man. The regal title was, apparently, not used outside the island after its annexation by England in c.1333, but the Stanleys continued to be styled Rex Manniae et Insularum in the island's court records until at least the later seventeenth century. Outside the island, perhaps understandably, the Stanleys were content to be styled Lords of Man." Most lists of Manx rulers reflect this, e.g. http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/people/lords/index.htm, where all grantees from the English crownfrom 1399 on are simply listed as 'lords'. Therefore, why make such a distinction of kings before 1504 and lords after? Shouldn't material on the two pages King of Mann and Lord of Mann be redistributed to reflect the scholarly consensus? 68.166.238.18 (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mauls has suggested in an edit that the 1504 date of transition from king to lord is widely accepted, but Dickinson's 1996 book on the Stanley lords of Mann seems to contradict this. It says in effect two things: first the Stanleys only ever called themselves 'lord of man' except for traditional usage in internal documents. Second, the style 'King of Man and the Islands' was used fairly regularly on some internal documents until at least 1505 (which is in the time of Thomas, 2d Earl of Derby); and thereafter in certain ceremonial legal boilerplate until the later 17th century. Based on these things, I don't think the division of the Stanleys into two lists, some of them in King of Mann and some in Lord of Mann makes sense. I would revise this article and King of Man to have the list of 'Lords of Man' begin with William de Montacute in 1333. The stuff in King of Mann on the alleged transfer of suzerainty by Edward III, apparently justifying why Montacute, Percy, and the early Stanleys should be seen as sovereign kings (when in fact they were grantees of the lordship of Man by the English king) was all merged on 24 December from the tainted standalone article on David Howe, and does not reflect the way these people are referred to in the current scholarly literature. I know the original list as posted over a year ago was divided in this way at 1504, but it's not warranted in the standard sources. Comments? I may try out some more significant edits if no one seems to object. After all, this article is supposed to be just a list. 68.166.235.228 (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

The ongoing edit war is actually very easy to resolve by referring to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

It matters not a hoot whether the disputed claims are true or false. All that matters is whether the claims have been published in reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources, the material must go. If there are reliable sources, then the material can stay - but still would be subject to NPOV, Undue Weight, and other style guidelines and policies. For now, since there are no reliable sources, I am deleting the material. Sbowers3 22:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree to the deletion for the policy reasons you cite and will not insist on my additions. Thanks for your help in clearing this up. 216.143.251.162 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And I'm okay with this action as well. But for the record here Howe's claim to being the King of Mann has been the subject of at least two news articles in the Isle of Man Today paper and on Manx Radio. All considered reliable sources and verifiable.--Theisles 20:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the items in the Manx media; they certainly "report" Howe's claim but I don't think they could be cited in any way to validate that claim. Heraldic 22:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldic (talk • contribs)

There also now appears to be an online petition to the Manx Government objecting to Howe's claims.

http://www.petitiononline.com/kingoman/petition.html Heraldic 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Heraldic

Yes, the online petition with 66 signers to date is not notable according to verifiability standards. To that end, in 1862, as noted on Howe's websited [www.royaltyofman.com] Simon Thomas Scrope, of Danby, some 500 years later attempted to restore the Earldom of Wiltshire originally granted to William Le Scrope(see Wiltes Claim of Peerage (1869) 4 HL 126); once King of Mann-- interestingly enough. His attempt was rejected by the House of Lords in 1869 because he was not a descendant of the 1st Earl of Wiltshire. The point here, is that even though Simon Thomas Scrope's claim was disputed and rejected on those grounds, his claim is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. King David, aka David Howe, in contrast to the issue above, is a descendant of the last King of the Isle of Man and his claim put forth to HM Queen Elizabeth II and published in HM's paper of record -- the London Gazette -- on 19, January 2007 was not disputed by the Queen nor any other possible heir -- not 90 days later in keeping with the term required by law or to this date.--Theisles (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the London Gazette entry is a total red herring. The fact that the announcement appeared DOES NOT mean it has official sanction or recognition. Firstly, Howe was just making a "claim" which has not been validated. Secondly, I not sure that the 90 days notice period applies to claims of Dominion. To get back to Verifiability, true a claim has been made that can be verified but it has not be Validated. It is also verifiable that Howe has linked up with a "title merchant". That particular fact alone is enough for me to question both his motives and authenticity. Money making scam or a true Royal? Heraldic Heraldic 12:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldic (talk • contribs)

Heraldic, I agree. Anyone can claim to be anything, and just because no one objects, does not make the claim legitimate. How do we know that those who might have a legitimate countering claim had the opportunity to review and digest Howe's claim? Perhaps another has made a claim that neither we nor Howe know of?? His selling fake titles should require ANY reasonable person to question the authenticity of his claim. Newguy34 (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pretender to the Throne

History is full of people claiming hereditary rights. The term "Pretender to the Throne" is one that has been used to describe such instances. At times there have been multiple Pretenders to a single throne. It's all part of the vetting process.

I don't think it would be unreasonable to add a one paragraph section stating that David Howe of Maryland presented himself as the Pretender to the Throne of the Isle of Mann, with links to his arguments and arguments of those that oppose his claim.

I would also give Mr. Howe about 90 days to obtain a letter from Burke's Peerage stating their opinion on his lineage or I would remove the section. As to the rest of the claim, I haven't seen any official UK royal office making comment one way or another which I find odd. Mensch (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Chief Minister of the Isle of Man, Tony Brown responded to the claim by saying "As far as the Isle of Man Government is concerned the Isle of Man's sovereign is Her Majesty the Queen, as Lord of Mann."[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabbler (talk • contribs) 00:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As Mr Howe has in recent days stated that he is not seeking to displace the Queen from her position as Lord of Mann, but is instead seeking the title King of Mann, I'd contend that the issue isn't relevant enough to this article for a mention. The King of Mann article maybe. Mauls (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)