Talk:Lord of Mann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)