Tracing her descendants, the "true heirs" to the Manx claim according to Howe’s own original thesis, we find inter alia the following increasingly well-known pedigree:
6. Elizabeth Sheffield 1561-1600
7. Elizabeth Butler, only child & heir
8. Elizabeth, Lady Dingwall, only child & heir 1615-1684
9. Lady Mary Butler 1646-1710
10. William, 2nd Duke of Devonshire 1673-1729
11. William, 3rd Duke of Devonshire 1698-1755
12. William, 4th Duke of Devonshire d 1764
13. Lady Dorothy Cavendish 1750-1794
14. Lord William Cavendish-Bentinck 1780-1826
15. Revd Charles Cavendish-Bentinck 1817-1865
16. Cecilia Cavendish-Bentinck 1862-1938
17. Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon 1900-2002
18. Queen Elizabeth II b 1926, Sovereign of the Isle of Man
That is, according to Howe’s own ‘gender-blind’ succession argument, Queen Elizabeth II has a superior genealogical claim on the Isle on Man than he does.
[Sources: generation 6: ODNB entries for Douglas Howard and Thomas Butler; #7 & 8: ODNB entry for Elizabeth, Duchess of Ormond by M. Percevall-Maxwell; # 9: ODNB entry for William Cavendish, 1st Duke of Devonshire by David Hosford; #10-13: Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, sub dukedom of Devonshire; #14-17, Burke's, sub earldom of Portland; #18-19: Burke's, sub earldom of Strathmore & Kinghorne. NB Elizabeth II is not the 'gender-blind' heir, but she stands higher under this method of calculation than Howe's own ancestor and therefore she has a superior right.]
6. Edmund, 1st Earl of Mulgrave 1565-1646
Returning to Howe’s alleged pedigree, we come to the 1st Earl of Mulgrave. Let us put aside Howe’s ‘gender-blind’ succession laws and consider Edmund as the heir general of Jane Stanley; from here on we will consider heirs-general rather than ‘gender-blind’ heirs, since we know that the latter are not to be found amongst Edmund’s descendants, the part of the family from whom Howe claims to be descended.
Edmund married twice [ODNB]. By his first marriage he had six sons, as well as daughters, and by his second marriage he had further children. His son and heir-apparent came from the first marriage:
7. Sir John Sheffield d 1614
Immediately, we notice that Sir John Sheffield does not feature in Howe’s pedigree – that is, Howe does not claim to be descended from the 1st Earl of Mulgrave’s heir.
Sir John Sheffield married and had a son and a daughter. The son in turn fathered Robert Sheffield, 1st Duke of Buckingham and Normanby (1647-1721), who married three times but whose legitimate issue became extinct with the death of Edmund, 2nd Duke of Buckingham in 1735 [Sources: ODNB, entries for the 2nd Earl of Mulgrave by C.H. Firth & T. Venning, and the 1st Duke of Buckingham & Normanby by M.D. Sankey, plus Banks - see following].
We need to turn then to Sir John’s daughter to find his next heir. She was named Magdalen, and she married Walter Walsh of Castle Hoel in Ireland. We can find her heirs by looking at peerage directories.
One good source is Dormant and Extinct Baronage, T.C. Banks, London, 1837, vol IV, appendix, pp 29-34. It is available on google books.
Banks traces the heirs of the Sheffields from Magdalen Walsh. We can then bring the pedigree up to date by looking at the current edition of Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, sub Langrishe baronetcy. The senior line runs as follows:
8. Magdalen Sheffield, married Walter Walsh
9. Elizabeth Walsh, elder daughter and coheir
10. Robert Grace, of Courtstown, died 1691
11. Mary Grace, daughter and eventual heir
12. Robert Langrishe, died 1770
13. Sir Hercules Langrishe, 1st Bt, died 1811
14. Sir Robert Langrishe, 2nd Bt
15. Revd Sir Hercules Langrishe, 3rd Bt, 1782-1862
16. Sir James Langrishe, 4th Bt, 1823-1910
17. Sir Hercules Langrishe, 5th Bt, 1859-1943
18. Sir Terence Langrishe, 6th Bt, 1895-1973
19. Sir Hercules Langrishe, 7th Bt, 1927-1998
20. Sir James Langrishe, 8th Bt, born 1957
Here we have the heir of Jane Stanley. Rather than David Drew Howe, it appears to be Sir James Langrishe, who descends from a son of Edmund, 1st Earl of Mulgrave (Howe claims to be descended from a daughter). We have seen how, under the common law, a son inherits in preference to a daughter.
We return again to Howe’s alleged pedigree.
7. Frances Sheffield 1585-1615
As we now know, Frances was not an heiress, because we have traced the senior line in whom the genealogical representation of the Sheffield family is vested. In fact, she was the fourth of nine daughters, and she had no fewer than six brothers [Banks]. Frances married Sir Philip Fairfax (d 1613) and had two sons [ODNB, biography of Sir William Fairfax by A.J. Hopper]. The elder died without issue; the younger was:
8. Sir Col. [sic] William Fairfax 1609-1644
Howe commits a further solecism in referring to Fairfax as he does above; it should be "Col. Sir William" [see Honours and Titles], unless Howe thinks his first Christian-name was ‘Col’, which seems highly unlikely. As of 14 January 2008 Howe has emended his website pedigree to take this criticism into account.
Sir William Fairfax was his mother’s heir. He married Frances Chaloner in 1629 [ODNB].
According to Banks [pp 32-34], when the 2nd Duke of Buckingham & Normanby died, the Fairfaxes and others put in a claim on the Sheffield estates. However, they explicitly acknowledged they were not the heirs. Instead, the Grace family of Ireland succeeded to the property that the 1st Duke had not devised by will, since they were the genealogical heirs of Edmund Sheffield, 1st Earl of Mulgrave, as detailed above.
Howe adopts an unusual position in asserting to be the heir when his own alleged ancestor admitted that he was not.
Sir William left two sons and two daughters. The descendants of his elder son inherited the family estates at Steeton, Yorks, and were still there well into the 19th century [Burke’s Landed Gentry, 1875, p 415, Fairfax of Steeton]. They too have a superior genealogical claim as the heirs of Frances Sheffield than Howe does.
9. Isabella Fairfax 1637-1691
As we have seen, Isabella was not an heiress. She was not even the eldest daughter: her older sister Katherine married twice and had issue. Isabella married Nathaniel Bladen of Hemsworth, Yorkshire, and died in 1691, leaving several children [Life of Robert Fairfax of Steeton, C.R. Markham, London, 1885, pp 32-33].
10. William Bladen 1673-1718
William was an emigrant to America and thus links the Old and New Worlds in Howe’s alleged pedigree. [ODNB biography of Martin Bladen by R.T. Cornish].
He seems to have been his mother’s first son [Markham, p 33]. He married twice and had issue, including four sons [ODNB biography of Thomas Bladen by E.C. Papenfuse]. So, was Anne Bladen (afterwards Tasker), through whom Howe stakes his claim, William Bladen’s heir?
No, because William left sons whose descendants are easily traceable. For instance, his son Thomas had a daughter [ODNB sub Thomas Bladen] who, as we have seen, would have taken precedence over her aunt in any claims of heirship from the Fairfaxes, and who left issue of her own. Let us trace just one of these lines, each one of whom would have a better claim than Howe under the ‘heirs-general’ argument, just to demonstrate that people with genealogically superior descents even from this generation exist:
11. Thomas Bladen, MP 1698-1780
12. Harriet Bladen d 1821
13. John Capell 1769-1819
14. Arthur, 6th Earl of Essex 1803-1892
15. Arthur, Viscount Malden 1826-1879
16. George, 7th Earl of Essex 1857-1916
17. Lady Joan Capell
18. Martin, 2nd Viscount Ingleby, b 1926; has issue
[Sources: generations 11-12, ODNB, sub Thomas Bladen; #13-17, Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, sub earldom of Essex; #17-18, Burke's, sub viscountcy of Ingleden]
11. Anne Bladen 1696-1775
As we have seen, Anne Bladen was not an heiress. She married Benjamin Tasker [ODNB, sub Thomas Bladen, and biography of Daniel Dulany the younger by E.C. Papenfuse] and had at least one son, Benjamin Tasker the younger [National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, vol IX, New York, 1899, pp 188-189], and several daughters [ODNB sub Daniel Dulany].
12. Rebecca Tasker 1724-1822
According to her husband's article in ODNB, Rebecca was the second of her parents’ daughters. From the material that we have seen, there is no suggestion that she might have been her parents’ heir, since we know she also had a brother.
In 1749 she married Daniel Dulany (1722-1797), by whom she is said to have had two sons and one daughter [ODNB]. Much of Dulany’s property was confiscated as a result of his having remained loyal to the British crown during the American Revolution, and his widow died in exile in London [Maryland Historical Magazine, 1918, p 155 et seq].
13. Benjamin Tasker Dulany 1752-1811
Benjamin was his parents’ younger son, but his elder brother died unmarried in England in 1824. He married 1773 Elizabeth French, "leaving many descendants". [Maryland Historical Magazine, 1918, which however states that Benjamin died in 1816].
14. John Peyton Dulaney [sic] 1787-1878
It is unclear whether John Dulany altered the spelling of his family’s surname, or whether Howe has erred in calling him ‘Dulaney’.
Like many of the individuals in Howe’s alleged pedigree, he was apparently not his father’s heir. Although by this stage of the pedigree I have experienced considerable difficulty in locating even potentially useful secondary sources, the International Genealogical Index ["IGI"] credits 12 children to Benjamin and Elizabeth Dulany, of whom John is said to have been the third son; Benjamin Tasker Dulany and David [recte Daniel?] French Dulany are said to have been his senior by 12 and 6 years respectively. The latter is said to have left issue, all of whom would be in a better position to claim genealogical heirship than Howe. Additionally, according to various genealogical websites there was a third older brother, William Washington Dulany, who is also said to have had issue. I am not in a position to confirm the accuracy of these assertions.
John Peyton Dulany is said to have been a farmer [Men of Mark in Virginia, vol I, L.G. Tyler, Washington, 1906, p 72], and to have married Mary Debutts in 1812.
15. Julia Ann Bladen Dulaney [sic] 1816-1865
Julia was not an heiress. She had, for instance, a brother, Richard Henry Dulany (1820-1906) whose biography was published in Men of Mark in Virginia; he married and had five children.
According to the IGI she married Samuel Debutts in 1834.
16. John Peyton Debutts [sic] 1837-1912
The IGI claims a birthdate of 30 November 1837; no siblings are listed so it is not possible on the strength of the material seen to say whether he was the oldest son. He is said to have fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War [Southern Cavalry Review, Nov. 1985, A. DeButts (sic)], and is the rebel of whom Howe is apparently proud. He is to be found in the 1880 US Census, farming at Wicomico, Virginia, when he is shown with 8 children.
17. Henry Grafton Debutts 1876-1953
According to the US 1880 Census, Henry Debutts was the fifth child and second son of his parents [A. DeButts calls him the sixth child]. It therefore seems that he was not their heir – this was probably his older brother, John, born about 1868.
18. James Myers Debutts 1926-1970
There is a US Social Security register entry for a James Debutts of Virginia, confirming the above dates. The 1930 Census for Herndon, Fairfax County, Virginia shows that he was a younger child of a large family - his father was about 50 when he was born - and thus he was not his father's heir.
19. Janice Lee Debutts married David D. E. Howe
20. David Howe (claimant)
I have not endeavoured to confirm the final two generations, due to the lack of readily accessible sources and the likelihood that Howe would not misrepresent his own parentage.
However, it is worth noting that in the pedigree published on his website as at 8 January 2008, Howe claims his father was a "descendant of the Viscounts Howe". Debrett's Peerage confirms that the last male descendant of the Viscounts Howe died in 1814, when the title became extinct. It appears this claim was based on an erroneous and anonymous entry on Ancestral File online.
Findings
We can therefore mark the pedigree through which Howe claims his entitlement to be called King of Man as follows, showing the various stages at which we know the heirship has passed elsewhere:
1. Thomas Stanley
2. George Stanley
3. Jane Stanley not her father’s heir
4. Edmund, 1st Baron Sheffield
5. John, 2nd Baron Sheffield
6. Edmund, 1st Earl of Mulgrave
7. Frances Sheffield not her father’s heir
8. Sir William Fairfax
9. Isabella Fairfax not her father’s heir
10. William Bladen
11. Anne Bladen not her father’s heir
12. Rebecca Tasker not her father’s heir
13. Benjamin Tasker Dulany
14. John Peyton Dulaney not his father’s heir
15. Julia Ann Bladen Dulaney not her father’s heir
16. John Peyton Debutts
17. Henry Grafton Debutts not his father’s heir
18. James Myers Debutts not his father’s heir
19. Janice Lee Debutts
20. David Howe
NB In repeating this claimed pedigree, I am not endorsing it or accepting it, since Howe has failed to offer any reasonable evidence that several links in it are factual.
Howe himself admitted on 27 October 2006 in a posting on the google group alt.talk.royalty that his pedigree undermined his own claim, saying:
"I know there are cousins in the preferred male line that are closer and perhaps more ‘legitimate’ than I in bringing forth a similar claim."
Having looked at each step in Howe’s alleged pedigree, it still remains unclear whether he actually possesses a valid descent from the Stanleys of Man. We are left with some unreliable secondary or tertiary sources (such as the IGI), and Howe’s own word. Clearly this is deficient.
We can, however, state that, even if he could demonstrate that his alleged descent is factual, he is not the heir to the Stanleys, nor - it seems at each and every point that the pedigree changes from one family to another - to the Sheffields, nor the Fairfaxes, nor the Bladens, the Taskers, the Dulanys or the Debutts.
Howe has responded to this criticism by alleging that the seniority of his descent is not relevant to his pretension to the Manx crown. This part of his claim is covered in the following page - 'Title Sales'.
