Talk:King of Mann

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Lords versus Kings[edit]

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, was said to have renounced using the title 'king', 'preferring to be a great lord rather than a petty king'. 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 of 1595, 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). 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 crown 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) 05:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Howe-Stanley, claimant to the throne[edit]

I have removed mention of this claimant from the page because his claim is only supported, it seems, by himself. He is mentioned on Lord of Mann as a claimant, but inclusion on this list and by a link would violate the 'undue weight' section of WP:NPOV. Sam Blacketer 20:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently, this has changed and his claim has been verified (?). I'll leave it to more informed people to re-instate information about his position. Tfleming (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His claim has not be verified by other than his own news releases. Newguy34 (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verification of David Howe's Claim[edit]

After a 4 week investigation conducted by the London Gazette and the Crown of England, both conceded and published a notice of this claim in the London Gazette dated Friday 19th January, 2007. The gazette notice went unchallenged, and HRH David was crowned the undisputed King of the Isle of Man on Friday 30th March 2007 becoming King David of the Isle of Man thereby restoring the hereditary legacy for future generations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martylunsford (talk • contribs) 03:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such entity as the "Crown of England" and no comment about a ludicrous claim does not imply acceptance of it. Secondly, if this man claims to be Head of State of a foreign entity and/or holder of a foreign title, what does this do to his American citizenship? Presumably he has no Green Card and should be deported from the US. Should I report him to the Immigration Service? 192.75.48.150 (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The QUEEN OF ENGLAND recognizes David Howe as the King of Man. What more do you want? Martylunsford (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence that the Queen of the United Kingdom recognises the claim, perhaps? (Note - there is no 'Queen of England'). Just because a newspaper published a notice doesn't mean the claim had any foundation.Mauls (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that at this point (noted in Manx newspapers, causing some outrage on the Isle itself, as well as a story on CNN.com) that regardless of whether or not he has any _real_ claim to the throne (or for that matter -- if there even still _IS_ a throne to be claimed), the fact that he is _attempting_ to seriously claim it has become notable enough to be listed on this page. Jimduchek (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added David Howe's name back to the list, with a note that it is disputed. However, I honestly don't know who is disputing it other than some people who have no legal standing to dispute his claim. The Queen isn't disputing it. The British Government isn't disputing it. Apparently there are many UK/Man citizens who dislike the fact that an American citizen is the rightful heir to the Manx throne, but their dislike of the fact does not mean that it is not still a fact. Instead of trying to hide the info, why don't you expand on it so that everyone can be educated about the facts behind his claim. Tell the other side of the story, if there is one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.58.18 (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Isle of Man Government, who represent the Queen in this matter, do dispute it, most explicitly. The Queen doesn't comment personally on such matters, that's what her governments are for - see constitutional monarchy. The 'British Government' (by which I presume you mean the United Kingdom Government) aren't really terribly relevant, just as the London Gazette was't terribly relevant. The Isle of Man is a separate jurisdiction with it's own government. Mauls (talk) 12:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One can read about it at The Telegraph, at the link provided. He is offering noble titles, and is claiming to have re-started the Knights Templar, which both are money making schemes. The Telegraph explains the truth: "The Queen is the official monarch of the Isle of Man, where she is known as the Lord of Man." The Telegraph article.--Craxd (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no claim to dispute. Howe and his obvious sock-puppets (Theisles, Martylunsford, etc.) have consistently (and fraudulently) tried to knowingly misrepresent the business of the paid legal notice in the London Gazette, as evidence that Howe's claim has been accepted by the UK government. The 'notice-in-the-Gazette' trick has regularly been used by fraudulent title-sellers to try to convince gullible buyers that they had something legitimate and accepted to sell (when in fact the titles might be nonexistent or might not belong to the sellers at all). Howe's case has been discussed at length on the Usenet groups rec.heraldry and alt.talk.royalty (groups frequented by eccentrics but many of whom have a good deal of specialized knowledge about this stuff), as well as here in Wikipedia, most notably now on the page "David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)." Howe has now generated enough publicity (ultimately, I expect, to his detriment) that he should I suppose be mentioned here, but it seems obvious to me--especially by his determined evasion of legitimate rebuttals to his fantasy over the past fifteen months--that he has done it all with intent to commit fraud by selling nonexistent noble titles. The google archives of the newsgroups mentioned above document the shifting bases of Howe's claim(s), and also how he has sought (via intermediaries) to profit from his fraudulent royal claim by selling titles of nobility to gullible buyers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.238.103 (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no skin in this game, and to call me a "sock-puppet" is just silly. I heard a story on the radio, did a little research, and then updated this page. I provided links to the sources I used. The people who have been continuously reverting changes, or using non-NPOV comments such as "Pretender" simply need to show some type of documentation of their claims that he is a fraud. So far, no one has done that. It appears that there are some people out there who are simply pissed off that an American is claiming the title, and they want to do whatever they can to stop him from doing so, even if he is the rightful king. All I know is what I've heard on the radio and read online, and I haven't seen any documentary evidence that this guy is a fraud. If he is, then just edit the article with a NPOV, cite your source, and the dispute will be settled.Martylunsford (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
, fishing. Quite an inapripriate generalization from an Anon IP (68.166.238.103, 68.166.238.103), Who has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.--Hu12 (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)--Hu12 (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Howe is using this to head up two scams. The first one is selling noble titles, at a high expense, which are not worth the paper they are written on, and secondly, he claims he has re-started what supposed to be the Knights Templar, and is calling it the Order of the Temple of Solomon, which is impossible by itself. He asks for a $777 dollar admittance fee, then a regalia fee, and then 10% tithing, along with donations whenever asked for them. He claims you have to be knighted in an orthodox church, which everyone knows is not the correct church, and he would not be the one to do it, if it were real. You don't even get a printed certificate, only a digital one for printing yourself. See here; Sovereign Magistral Order of the Temple of Solomon.. Also, see my post above, with the article in The Telegraph about it.--Craxd (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear to all that this Howe character is a merely a charlatan, swindler and con man, preying on the gullible. He has as much right calling him King of Mann as I do, which is no right at all. A pithy he isn't charged with fraud and convicted by the courts. As to include him in the article: that is too much praise for a petty swindler. The article should just ignore him. -- fdewaele, 28 November 2014, 9:35 CET.
It seems to me that Howe is dumb enough to really believe his claims, but those claims are based entirely in ignorance. One thing is very clear -- he has absolutely no idea how to be a king. Also, he has no comprehension of history. For example, from the show Suddenly Royal, he thinks that the various Kings of Mann are members of one family who became King of Mann by inheriting the title from the previous King and so he claims the first King of Mann as kinfolk! 2001:1890:1263:AF0:5417:93D2:F7D2:DEDE (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no disputing that H.M. the Queen is the Lord of the Isle of Mann. I'm only an American, but before the Conquest, were there not certain rulers of various British tribes known as "sub-kings," that is kings who did homage to other, superior kings for their fiefdoms? And, also, although Prince Albert of Monaco is a sovereign prince, his country's treaty with the Republic of France stipulates that if he should fail to produce an heir, his territory is automatically ceded to France. What I'm trying to get at is that there may be more than one variety of king or sovereign. So perhaps the present-day soi-disant King of Mann would be understood as a subject of the British Sovereign who retains the rights to be informed, to give advice, etc. and also subject to the British government, which continues to retain the supreme authority to command and to be obeyed within Her Majesty's territories, including the Isle of Man. Perhaps this liegeman would function as a sort of viceroy, serving at the Her Majesty's pleasure, but owing to the (admittedly rather dodgy) genealogical claims enjoys the title "King of the Isle of Mann." Ivain (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've just elaborately re-described the position of the Stanley Lords of Mann, occasionally styled Kings of Mann, as suzerains (not sovereign)s. Howe isn't their heir by any consistent scheme of descent (applying absolute primogeniture or otherwise), so he shouldn't "be understood" as anyone but a peddler of fake titles. Choess (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All well and good. However, one might ask whether in 1483, Henry Tudor earl of Richmond was the rightful heir to the throne of England "by any consistent scheme of descent," absolute primogeniture or otherwise. . . ? Or whether in 1065, the pedigree of the duke of Normandy made him the premiere claimant to the English crown? Schemes of descent did matter back then, but it was their victories at Bosworth (1485) and at Hastings (1066) that won for Richmond and for Normandy their respective accessions to the Throne of England. Schemes of descent matter today, as well, of course. And the likelihood that the Isle of Man will ever again become a military theatre with David at the head of a handful of mercenaries hired by The Learning Channel Cable and Television Network (TLC), vs. the British Army, is thankfully, infinitesimally small. But why should not a claimant with a Stanley descent and the backing of TLC claim the suzerainty? Ivain (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To compare the risible claims made by Mr Howe with those made by Henry Tudor and William of Normandy is frankly ridiculous. Apart from the aforementioned persons noble titles (Earl and Sovereign Duke respectively) and their genealogical proximity to the crown of England, there is also the tiny matter that they invaded England with an army and killed the preceding monarch (Richard III and Harold II respectively) and thus could claim their title by right of conquest. Unless Mr Howe is planning to depose or murder our Queen (who is Lord of Man) then I suggest he takes some time off and have a much needed rest. I think the appropriate Manx phrase is "you and whose army" 90.196.189.76 (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entertaining self-promotion attempts in this article have not remained unobserved in debates of scholars and aficionados, such as those who regularly discuss about medieval genealogy. It looks like there are failures in Howe's claims also in regard to how he could inherit "Isle of Mann" through an arguable younger daughter of an owner who left sons and elder daughters. Henq (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, is User:Hu12 really an abusive administrator, or is that "Rogue" template on his personal page just a Spam? Henq (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Rouge admin is Wikipedia humor, however the decree isn't ;)--Hu12 (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretender[edit]

Pretender is not a negative POV about the claim. It is a technical term for someone who has made a claim on a throne - see the article page for more info.

On the other hand 'controversy' suggests there is some kind of big fuss over this, which - frankly - there isn't. As a word, it's got a lot more of a value judgement tied up in it. Mauls (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Pretender" is most definitely a negative POV. "Pretender" implies that he is not the king and has no right to claim that he is. "Modern Dispute" simply implies that the issue has not been settled. If you have any evidence whatsoever that he is not the rightful king, just post the info. Give us a link to a newspaper article in which Queen Elizabeth is quoted as saying his claim has been rejected. I've spent a great deal of time recently looking for anything like this, but I can't find it. Apparently you can't either, if so, I'm sure you would show us.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Martylunsford (talk • contribs)
A Pretender is a claimant to an abolished throne or to a throne already occupied by somebody else., as explained above. --Hu12 (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of that definition of "pretender", and I was surprised to find an entire Wikipedia article on the subject. I have linked to it on the main page, however I am still not sure that David Howe is a pretender based upon the Wikipedia definition. According to the Wikipedia article, a pretender is a claimant to an abolished throne, or a throne already occupied by someone else. Howe's argument is that the throne was never legally abolished.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Martylunsford (talk • contribs)

It's a word in the English language, albeit a technical one. As for abolition, I would have thought the Privy Council voiding (in 1598) the original 1406 grant to John Stanley would make a case for abolition, if one doesn't accept the other theory that the title was merely altered to 'Lord of Mann' (monarchs being able to call themselves whatever they feel like!) Mauls (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fail to see how this merits more than a sentence. I have trouble seeing how this merits even that. I tried to condense it but I was reverted. 192.75.48.150 (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Drew Howe[edit]

Two questions regarding the current (20Jan08) Pretender details;

  • Should his full name be given so as to ensure no confusion with other David Howes in the area?
  • Would it be more correct to state where he currently resides, Frederick MD, rather than his State of origin? --Heraldic (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there will be confusion as to his identity. MrsBucket (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Merge information from David Howe article[edit]

This used to be just a list. All the stuff in here 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, and really belong in the list at Lord of Mann) was all merged here on 24 December from the tainted standalone article on David Howe, now known to be a mess of COI work by David Howe's own sockpuppets, and headed for deletion. It does not reflect the way these people are referred to in the current scholarly literature (e.g. other encyclopedias, Dickinson's 1996 book on the Stanley lords of Man, etc. ). I know the original list as posted over a year ago was divided in this way at 1504, with kings before 1504 and lords after 1504, but it's not warranted in the standard sources. Constitutionally, everyone from 1333 onward held the 'lordship' (dominium) of the isle of Man as a grantee by the English king. The title 'king' continued to appear in some documents as late as 1505 (e.g. under Thomas, 2d Earl of Derby) and even in some other contexts as late as the later 17th century. This usage of the word doesn't reflect constitutional bases of power. All these English barons--the Montacutes, Percy & the Stanleys, should be listed under Lord of Mann, not here. If no one objects, can we go ahead and trim the tainted WP:OR back to what it had before the 2007-12-24 merge? 68.166.235.228 (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold. --CarbonLifeForm (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the enouragement, CarbonLifeForm. Well, I tried, but got reverted by Hu12. Whatever. 68.166.235.228 (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 1504 division into Lords and Kings is not some invention, but is the accepted common naming, depite what you have claimed here, and whatever the de jure situation might be, or might not be. For example, look at the Manx National Heritage publications, or the naming conventions used by the Isle of Man Government when making historical references. Discussion of the exact historical legal situation is best added as additional text.
The additional text that padded out what was a bare list was added both here and at the David Howe page by a range of people, and is clearly an improvement to what was an inadequate article.
I'm therefore not surprised that Hu12 reverted what was clearly a POV-pushing edit. Trying to discredit Howe by skewing articles is as inappropriate as trying to insert information that overstates his claim.
84.65.78.227 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My POV is that even without the Howe episode the page would be best served as being a list, and have a discussion of the constitutional status of the island in a history page where it is more likely to attract attention and conform to scholarly consensus. I take a point that not all this was added by Howe; for example Mauls added the Latin quotation here. But it has no cited source, and indeed the quotation is grammatically imomplete; it lacks its principal verb; and it does not precisely illustrate the point it's supposed to make. I do think that there's merit to the idea of pruning this back and starting over. But if others don't agree I'll leave it alone. Sorry I started the next section without seeing the above comment. 68.166.235.228 (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources[edit]

www.royaltyofmann.com and homestead.com are not reliable sources. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are this case because the sites are the property of the subject and they are statements made by the subject of the entry. See WP:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source states, Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself.
The sources giving the Isle of Man government and Buckingham Palaces statements do not reject Howe's claim to be the King of the Isle of Man. They simply state that they recognize the Queen as the Sovereign. Howe does not claim Sovereignty or dispute the Queen as the Sovereign. He has only claimed the title of King.--76.100.195.121 (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistent. The Sovereign is the fount of all honour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarbonLifeForm (talk • contribs) 09:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David Howe has said it is not written by him. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Howe says that his web site, Royaltyofman which links to hmkingdavid.homestead and his myspace page are his official statements. It says this on his own web site.--76.100.195.121 (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David. His? I agree - let us delete it altogether. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point, the Manx people cannot have two Sovereigns. There is only one Sovereignty and so only one fount of honour. The internationally recognised sovereign of the Isle of Man is HM Queen Elizabeth II. --Heraldic (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


(OD) I am in agreement with CarbonLifeForm here. This information has a long history of self-promotion, misinformation, and tendentious editing. The best course is for Howe to restrain himself and try to build good-will by editing unrelated articles. The Wikicommunity does not look with great favor on editors returning to resume past disruption.Wjhonson (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If not to be deleted then reverted to the wording as at 25Jan08. --Heraldic (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as though some people just don't know when enough is enough. The reference to the unfortunate Howe episode has been deleted, appropriately so IMO. Newguy34 (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose if it is not there then there is no temptation to "tweak" or expand it. --Heraldic (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List & commentary of English-grant rulers should be simplified[edit]

In the spirit of WP:BRD I'm responding to a reversion of my attempt to simplify and correct this page a little while ago. This page is a list, and in all valid references (including recent books like Richardson's on the history of the Island and its rulers), all English-grant rulers from Salisbury onward are commonly called 'Lords' of Man; and, more importantly, their constitutional position has always been referred to as identical to each other--that is, they held Man as grantees of lordship, albeit palatinate lordship, by the English kings. The extra material on this page, including the out-of-context Latin quotation, is put in to argue a particular form of independent sovereignty of the rulers under English grants in the period 1344 through the 15th c., which is a nonstandard reading of the history here. I propose removing the text arguing for sovereignty in the grant of Edward III, and the particular language by which Henry IV is alleged to have hedged his bets in regranting the island to Percy and then the Stanleys, and simplifying the list to lump the English rulers from Salisbury down to the Stanleys under the same heading, "English rule, 1344-present. Ideally these should be listed together in the page 'Lord of Mann' but for the moment they could stay divided between the 1st & 2d earls of Derby. Any comments? 68.166.235.228 (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As above, including where I dispute much of what you are claiming here, especially as to what the most widely accepted version of this situation is.
Also, I would contend that the quotes are referenced - there are citations given to the original documents. If there has been a transcription error in one that you can see, it'd be best to correct it. The Latin quote is in context, as it refers to the English position vis-a-vis the Kingdom of Mann in 1333.
The page at present also does not appear to claim any constitution difference between the per-1504 'Kings' and the post-1504 'Lords', merely a difference in the style that was most commonly used. It also doesn't argue for sovereignty, but explicitly indicates that the relationship was palatinate - that the Lords were mere surezains and not sovereigns. That they were legally mere tenants-in-chief or lord-proprietors cannot surely be seriously disputed.
However, this does not justify attempts to strip useful information from what is currently an article on the history of what were commonly known as 'Kings of Mann down into a mere list. If the concern over the slightly misleading style of 'King' has become a concern due to the fanciful claims of a certain individual, then it is better dealt with by clearer explanation in this article, not by trying to hide bits of history that don't happen to agree with your particular view on things. 84.65.78.227 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Feature quote[edit]

Umm, featured quotes should be in, you know, English, not Latin. Please translate it. Use Modern English.

69.7.41.230 (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunbar Lords of Mann[edit]

What about the Earls of March who held the title Lord of Mann? Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

tv-shows/suddenly-royal/all-hail-the-king[edit]

~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent reign for William Montagu, 2nd Earl of Salisbury and William Scrope, 1st Earl of Wiltshire[edit]

This page states that the reign of William Montagu, 2nd Earl of Salisbury, ended and the reign of William Scrope, 1st Earl of Wiltshire, began in 1392, while the pages for both of them state that the transition occurred on 3 June 1397.

Both pages state that, in 1393, William Scrope acquired the title. But did he take the throne in 1393 or on William Montagu's death? Vasusrir429 (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:King_of_Mann&oldid=1208151907"