"Issue I: Thomas III's ascension and forfeiture of the hereditary title 'King'"
The word Howe presumably meant to use here is "accession", which means to succeed to a throne. "Ascension" means a rising up, as to heaven. [Webster's Dictionary, 1962, pp 11 and 108].
"The Isle of Man was given by Henry IV to Sir John Stanley, who was called King of Man and granted the tenure of the Isle of Man under the title of King and so styled himself and all his successors to Thomas II, Earl of Derby, as appears by several writings under their own hands."
The original grant to John Stanley may be found at Manx Society volume 12, pp 28-29; we will look further at it shortly. We find that the actual wording is as follows: "Grant to John Stanley of the island and lordship of the Isle of Man" - that is, the grant names him as Lord, not as King. On 26 October 2006 Howe posted to the google group alt.talk.royalty that he had not seen the letters patent, although he had already formulated his arguments in which they were a key plank ("But I would like to see the letters patent too. I'll bet they don't exist."). It is unclear whether he has yet read them.
"On the death of Sir Prince George Stanley in 1497, daughter and first born, Princess Jane Stanley was an heir based on the original letters patent from Henry IV; which provided for heirs general and cited in Manx Case Law. However, with the death Princess Jane's grandfather, King Thomas II, in 1504, the throne was passed to Thomas III."
George Stanley was called 'Lord Strange" during his father's lifetime [e.g. wills of the 1st and 2nd Earls of Derby, the father and son of George Stanley, dated 1504 and 1521 respectively, printed in Testamenta Vetusta, N.H. Nicholas, 1826, pp 460 & 589]. The style 'Sir Prince X' appears to be a solecism, since a Prince who holds a knighthood is still called 'Prince X' (e.g. Prince Charles, who is a Knight of the Garter) [Honours and Titles, Aspects of Britain Series, HMSO, 1996, sub Forms of Address]. In any case, I am unaware of any instance in which members of the Stanley family were contemporaneously styled 'prince' - or 'princess'; we can see their own wills for this.
For what it is worth, M.J. Bennett's biography of the 1st Earl of Derby in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography ("ODNB") states that George Stanley died in December 1503, as opposed to 1497 as Howe asserts in his website (as at 14 January 2008).
Additionally, Howe calls his alleged ancestress Jane Stanley the "daughter and first-born" of George. He provides no evidence for this assertion. It appears, however (see 'Pedigree) that Jane was not the first-born; we shall examine the evidence that she was younger than her brother Thomas, and probably also had an elder sister.
Why does Howe advance this allegation?
When he first made his claims public [posting to google group alt.talk.royalty, 26 October 2006] he asserted that:
"in 1504 when Thomas III ascended to the throne, Manx law was the authority of all wills and inheritance. Manx law of wills and inheritance treated daughters equal to sons. The crown of Mann being hereditary property, it should have passed to Jane Stanley, the eldest child of George Stanley unless his will provided for Thomas III. I've not found any will in my research. I've not found a will for Thomas II either."
that is, as well as asserting that Jane was the eldest child [without citing any evidence], Howe is stating that because she was the eldest child she should have succeeded to the Lordship of Man, assuming that her father did not leave a will (he also admits he has not located any of the family wills detailed above). In stating this, Howe seems to have believed that Manx law provided for some kind of 'gender-blind' succession, where the oldest child inherits to the exclusion of younger children, regardless of gender.
However, as admitted in the public notice Howe placed in the London Gazette (Issue 58221, dated 16 January 2007, p 541), the Lordship of Man did not pass according to Manx law, but according to the English common law [Manx Society volume 12, p 39, quoting the decision of the law lords whom Queen Elizabeth had asked to adjudicate on the several claims of the Stanley heirs in 1598, and citing 4 Coke’s Institutes, App No 2 ]. We shall look at this more closely later.
So, how does the common law provide for property such as the Lordship of Man to pass? Firstly, it goes to the eldest son, then (if there are no sons) it goes to all daughters equally. If there are no children, it passes to the oldest brother, or (if no brothers) to all sisters equally, etc. Thus no daughter can inherit if there are brothers, and no one daughter can succeed to the exclusion of other daughters. Except among sons or brothers or other male relations of the same degree, birth order is irrelevant (i.e. it is irrelevant amongst daughters). We see this spelled out in the very 1598 case referred to in the preceding paragraph, when the 5th Earl of Derby died leaving three daughters (but no sons) and a brother. The judges ruled that the Isle of Man passed to the three daughters equally, and in the end the brother had to buy them out as part of his efforts to secure the succession.
Following the rules of the common law, Jane Stanley was not the heir to Man in 1504, because she had a brother Thomas.
Howe has attempted to overcome this difficulty by advancing a further argument, which he had also posted to alt.talk.royalty on 26 October 2006:
"When Thomas III renounced his title of King and remained sovereign, he did so without any basis or authority. This single act would have made another the de facto heir."
Howe does not explain why, by calling himself Lord rather than King, Thomas Stanley should be regarded as having abdicated any of his rights to the Isle of Man. In considering the application of the argument, however, it may be worth noting that in 1504 Jane Stanley was not her brother Thomas's heir under the common law. This would have been the next brother (assuming Thomas did not have any children of his own at that date); that next brother was James Stanley [Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, sub earldom of Derby] whose heirs did in fact later succeed to the earldom of Derby on the failure of Thomas's male line.
However, there is a further problem with this part of Howe's argument. It seems that the Stanleys did not drop their claim to the style of King in 1504. Rather, they continued to use it until at least the second half of the 17th century [J. R. Dickinson and J. A. Sharpe, 'Courts, Crime and Litigation in the Isle of Man, 1580-1700', Historical Research, vol 72, 1999, pp 140-159; I am indebted to Nat Taylor for locating this reference].
Howe makes one final attempt on his website to formulate a legal claim on Jane Stanley's behalf. He says:
"Taken from Judgment in Re Robinson In the High Court of the Isle of Man (Chancery Division) (Reported in the Manx Law Reports at 51 MLR 154) Note: This ruling applied specifically to the corporeal property, that of the Isle of Man itself, and not to the Royal titles and associated regalities exercisable but remaining in abeyance. It has become applicable to the rights exercised by King David... Specific is the ruling that the Isle of Man is an independent Kingdom and no Act of Parliament extends to the Isle of Man and that the Kingdom 'passing by letters patent to Sir John Stanley and his heirs, was descendible to his heirs according to the course of the common law."
That is, Howe is saying that Parliament had no power to affect the Manx succession. This appears to represent a misunderstanding by Howe of in re Robinson, which is reported here:
http://www.gumbley.net/robinson/htm
The case confirms in obiter dicta that the Stanleys' right to Man passed in accordance with the common law and it lays down the principal that an act of the English/UK parliament will only apply to the Isle of Man if it explicitly states that it does, unless a general application can be construed. This appears to be exactly the opposite of the conclusion that Howe seeks to derive from it.
Howe continues his case thus:
"Upon Thomas III's ascension [sic] he declared he was not the King of the Isle of Man. He assumed the style of "Lord of Mann" and maintained sovereignty under the new title."
As we shall see on the following page, the title 'Lord of Man' long predated the Stanleys, having been used interchangeably over the centuries. Thomas Stanley may have regularised its use, but it appears that he did not discontinue it, since it was used by him and his successors at least until the latter half of the following century [Dickinson & Sharpe, op. cit.].
"This act violated the original grant from Henry IV. Ordinarily, this wouldn't be accepted by the King's court however on this occasion it had the support of the Henry VII, King of England, and his parliament. Nevertheless, it violated Henry IV's grant..."
Howe does not explain in what way such an act would have violated the original grant by Henry IV. The text of the original grant spoke of the Lordship only, not kingship. Dickinson and Sharpe note that, rather than being unacceptable to the English crown, it was likely to be acceptable, since by emphasing the English monarch's title of 'king', the Lord of Man was consciously underscoring the superior status of his feudal overlord.
"...and should have resulted in his legal removal from the throne in place of his sister, Princess Jane. Thomas III, and his successors, became illegitimate by forfeiting the title as the "King" of the Isle of Man. Further, the title of "King," and associated royal family titles remained unclaimed incorporeal property for the next 500 years."
We have seen that this assertion of Howe's appears to be contradicted by the continued use of the regal style by the Stanleys after 1504
"In 1901, Lt. Governor James Gell wrote a letter to the Governor supporting the fact that the title 'King,' or Queen, was the only proper title for the sovereign of the Isle of Man, and that Thomas III never forfeited his sovereignty. Gell said, 'Sir John Stanley II, Sir Thomas Stanley I (created first Baron Stanley), Thomas Stanley II, the second Baron Stanley (created 1st Earl of Derby)... All these reigned in the Isle of Man as Kings thereof, and were so styled. But during the reign of the last Thomas, second Earl of Derby - he dropped the title of "King" and assumed that of "Lord." but the change did not affect his Sovereignty.'
It is difficult to see Howe's purpose in citing this material from Gell, since Gell explicilty affirms that the Stanleys' sovereignty was not affected by their change of style.
"Issue II: The Act of Revestment 1765, Isle of Man sold under duress
"In 1765, England purchased the Isle of Man from the Stanley "heirs," the Atholls. According to Manx history, The Act of Revestment was the act of the Westminster Parliament by which the English Crown bought back the regalities of the Island from the Atholl family for the sum of £70,000. This was paid for all the interest and privileges of the island, reserving, however, to the Athol [sic] family the landed property, with all their rights in and over the soil, with courts-baron, rents, services, and other privileges, together with the patronage of the bishopric, and other ecclesiastical benefices in the island, on the, payment of £101 5s. l ld. per annum, and rendering two falcons to the succeeding kings and queens of England, on the days of their coronations."
This 1765 Act, as we shall see, was the means by which the sovereignty of the Isle of Man passed back to the British Crown.
"However, the Atholls were not the rightful legal heirs based on the order of succession and Thomas III's act in Issue I. They did not have the right to sell something they didn't legally own".
In fact, it was the original grant of 1405-1406 that was considered to be invalid in the 1598 case cited above. As a consequence a further grant of the island was made to the Stanleys, backed by an act of Parliament in 1610 ['An Act assuring and establishing the Isle of Man in the name and blood of William, Earl of Derby', 8 James I]. It therefore appears that the later Stanleys and their heirs the Atholls held a better title to Man than the earlier Stanleys from whom Howe alleges he descends.
"Regardless of this fact, known or unknown, they entered into contract to sell the Isle of Man to England. The events that led up to the sale demonstrate that the family was under great duress and on that issue made the transfer of the Island and any rights illegal under International Law as well as against the Divine Right of Kings."
It is unusual to see a modern-day American appealing to the Divine Right of Kings as a justification of his arguments. Nevertheless, debates about the finer points of the events in 1765 seem to be irrelevant to Howe's case, given his stated belief that the senior line of the Stanley and their heirs were divested of legal rule in Man in 1504.
"Item: From 1736 to 1764, several attempts were made by England to purchase the Isle of Man. Item: Each offer to purchase was rejected by the 'heirs.' Item: In 1764, England began it's [sic] seizure of ships attempting to trade in or out of the Isle of Man. Item: The Revestment Act of 1765 became law, forcing the sale of the Isle of Man to England. The 'heir' of the period, James 3rd Duke of Atholl, was left with no other option and, under great duress, entered into contract with England. The Isle of Man came under the English Crown where it has remained to date".
Here Howe asserts that the transfer of sovereignty took effect in 1765. This appears to be common ground.
"Issue III : Sovereignty of Mann and Isles sold
"As a result of the forced transfer of the Island, by 1806, the sovereignty of the island was sold by the fourth Duke of Athol to the British Government, and in 1826, on receiving a further payment from the Crown of £416,000, the duke surrendered the remaining privileges of which he had 'possession'."
It seems that Howe is contradicting himself here, since what is conventionally referred to as the transfer of sovereignty took place in 1765 rather than in 1806. In this latter year, an Act was passed to transmute further rights and to provide for additional payments to the Atholls, because the 4th Duke had complained that the original settlement payment of 1765 had been too low. Both of these Acts are detailed on the following page ('The Facts').
"Claims of Merit: The succession of these issues provides for the following:
"First, in the event that Princess Jane wasn't the heir apparent Thomas III still had no legal right to forfeit his title of King without giving up his sovereignty. On that singular, Princess Jane should have legally replaced her brother as the sovereign. In addition, all future acts regarding succession, the sale of the Island and the sovereignty of the Isle of Man by Thomas III's heirs were without basis."
Dickinson and Sharpe have shown that the Stanleys did not give up their title of King, and Gell has stated that any regularisation of titles would not have affected their sovereignty. An examination of the common law inheritance rules indicates that Jane Stanley was not her elder brother's heir in 1504 and, as we shall see, the proceedings of 1598-1610 left the later Stanleys with a more secure title to the Isle of Man than the earlier members of the family with whom Howe alleges a connection.
"Second, the sovereign Isle of Man crown, including rights and title "Lord," purchased in 1826 by the British crown were not legally sold. This transaction was the remainder of the property sold as a result of the Revestment Act. However, the title of "Lord of Mann" which was sold under this contract and is currently held by the Queen of England [sic] is not a focus of contention."
The 1765 Act and successor actions transferred all of the rights that the Stanleys held in respect of the Isle of Man to the British crown.
"The titles King and Queen, the generally associated royal titles of the dynast heirs and any non-regnant authority remain. These titles were provided to the first Stanley King by Henry IV in his letters patent..."
As we have seen, the text of the letters patent refers to the 'lordship' of Man only.
"...and these titles remained undissolved and unchanged but have gone unclaimed since Thomas III's forfeiture. In addition, the titles were not sold and could not be changed into something else; i.e. an apple cannot become an orange. 500 years passed from Thomas III's forfeiture until 2005, and these titles, unclaimed, still remained property.
"HRH David Howe, 16th generation great grandson to Princess Jane Stanley and the Stanley Kings of Mann, on August 15, 2005 discovered his descent from the Stanley Earls of Derby while researching his Plantagenet ancestry. Several months after publishing these findings in an online blog, HRH David was contacted by a royal genealogist from England informing him that he was the King of the Isle of Man."
This is interesting, for as recently as 22 December 2007 Howe's website at this point read merely:
"HRH David Howe, 16th generation great grandson to Princess Jane Stanley and the Stanley Kings of Mann, on August 15, 2005, with knowledge of no other similar claim, formally reclaimed the royal crown."
That is, Howe stated that he claimed the Manx crown in August 2005. This was directly contradicted by a further claim he made in his interview with the Frederick News-Post on 16 December 2006, in which he stated that he had become aware of his 'right' only when contacted by an unnamed "royal genealogist" in late 2006.
The sentence about being contacted by an 'expert' several months after publishing his original research was added to Howe's website on 23 December 2007. This was shortly after it was pointed out (for instance in a google group rec.heraldry posting of 22 December 2007) that two incompatible claims had been made about this date.
There is no evidence that Howe had a blog in 2005/2006, and the 'royal genealogist' has not been identified by Howe, and therefore is not available to confirm or deny his alleged involvement or role.
There is, however, evidence that Howe had claimed an even earlier date for his assumption of Manx rights. An earlier website of his (which may also be seen on the internet archive at www.archive.net) appears here:
http://members.aol.com/princeisleofman/dir
It purports to be an article styled "Isle of Man - History of the Stanley Kings - Modern heir and claimant by on Issues" by "Patrick Dulaney" whose contact email is given as "isleofmancrownATaol.com". It also states that it was "originally published 3 March 2006" and asserts that Howe claims the title of "Prince of Mann and the Isles" as a "lawful inheritance" and "does not claim to exercise any other rights or powers".
This would seem to cast further doubt on Howe's subsequent assertions that his claim to the title dates from August 2005 or late in 2006.
Howe's current claim continues and concludes thus:
"Soon after, aided by a small group of early supporters and with knowledge of no other similar claim, King David formally reclaimed the royal crown of the Kingdom of the Isle of Man and the associated styles and any non-regnant authority, supported by the issues and claims of merit herein."
Now that we have seen Howe's claims, let us take a closer look at the relevant facts.
