Presented by HG Archbishop Council Nedd II

Since 2007, when HM Queen Elizabeth II’s paper of record, the London Gazette, gazetted HRH King David’s claim as the de jure King of the Isle of Man, much has been written about David in newspapers and posted in various blogs, message boards and websites. As might be expected there was mixed reaction to the news regarding his rights as the King of Mann. Some people loyal to HM Queen Elizabeth II thought is was taking away her right as “Lord of Mann” so they voiced their disapproval.

As an Anglican Archbishop, I have been involved with several Royal and Noble families serving in various capacities. I assist both as a royal family representative and ambassador and serve several Chivalric Orders in the capacity of US Prior and Grand Chaplain. As a result, I have extensive knowledge in the history and practices of many of the royal and noble families throughout Europe and the rest of the world. But, probably the most important qualification I possess is the discernment regarding both targeted and random Internet postings on topics of Royalty, Nobility and Chivalric Orders. It may not be apparent to someone new to this area of study but typically a person’s frequency of postings in newsgroups and the like is inversely related to their actual knowledge in the real world of Royal and Noble families and their practices.

People often mock what they do not understand and perhaps this is to be expected for an American who is also a royal. And, while his gazetting by the British Crown is the beginning and the end of any debate regarding David, I felt it was important to provide some explanation of how we arrived here with David, the King of Mann.

History of the Kingdom of the Isle of Man (Mann)

Historically ambiguous as the Kingdom of the Isle of Man and its succession may seem, the following is meant to provide a brief history as well as a logical look at King David’s succession as the de jure King.

In 1333, Edward III of England granted the Kingdom of the Isle of Man to William de Montacute, 1st Earl of Salisbury, in recognition of his decent from the first King of Mann and for Montacute's services to the Crown. Montacute's son later sold his rights to collect from the Island's land barons to William Le Scrope who eventually was executed and had his property seized by English Parliament and given to Henry IV of England. (While Scrope claimed the title of king during his tenure, this was never affirmed by Royal Grant from England.) Later, the Stanley Kingdom of the Isle of Man was created through a Royal Grant by King Henry IV of England to Sir John Stanley in the1405/06 grants. As with the original grant to Montacute, the grant to Stanley acknowledged the Island’s history and provided that the Isle of Man was a sovereign kingdom recognizing Stanley as King with all the rights, privileges and recognitions appertaining thereto. While it could be argued that the Isle of Man shared a suzerain relationship with England, namely its Kings were citizens of England, the grant fully recognized it as a sovereign kingdom.

Subsequent King’s, and latter Lords of Mann, in the Stanley line ruled the Isle of Man until the 1765 Act of Revestment, by which the British Parliament seized the Island giving control to George III. Scholars and historians are divided on the issue but there are many that do not view this as having been a voluntary surrender of sovereignty, sighting that the Island was surrendered to George III only after a blockade of Island ports restricted trade. Given that the Sovereign of Mann, the Duchess Atholl, did not have the ability to defend Mann from the British navy, she was forced to surrender under this pressure. Subsequent payments made to her by the British government for the Island could be viewed as simply a matter of formality. While the Duchess received some compensation, Parliament couldn’t violate sovereignty if it had been purchased, or at least this was the intent.

Some historians have maintained that the Act of Revestment was, in effect, 18th Century window dressing for what was really a hostile seizure. Despite the British government’s view of this being a legal action, a modern day equivalent of this would have British Parliament passing an act to revest the United States of America. As ludicrous as this may seem in present day, some have proposed that this is exactly what happened and was a clear violation of sovereign rights even after the checks were drafted and deposited. This is important in establishing future de jure rights. If the Island was purchased in a legal and honorable transaction by the British government then no de jure rights remain. If, however, the Kingdom was the victim of a hostile aggressor and the forced removal of the sovereign, then de jure rights remain.

In 1821, 56 years after the British government assumed control of the Isle of Man, and on the occasion of the coronation of King George IV, John Murray, Duke of Atholl and son of the Duchess Charlotte, gave TWO MANX PEREGRINE FALCONS to the new King. This was in keeping with the only condition set forth by Henry IV’s grant to Sir John Stanley; the gift of two Manx Peregrine Falcons on the coronation day of each new Monarch of England. The gift to George IV could be viewed as a ceremonial gesture as well as a protest. Either way, it was most certainly a sovereign exercise.

Monarchy Succession History and the Isle of Man

Using England and Scotland as examples, historically, succession rights to the monarchy were void of any fixed rules. A claimant could have relied on inheritance, statute, election by parliament, nomination by a reigning sovereign in his/her will, conquest and so on. It was seldom clear which of these issues would have a greater significance over the others, but almost always the political following of a claimant mattered most.

Of course, in more modern times, and as the importance of a stable government became paramount, several acts and laws of Great Britain came to establish the rules for succession. Specifically, the 1701 Act of Settlement, the 1800 Act of Union and the 1689 Bill of Rights have all come to collectively establish the British line of succession. However, none of these acts or laws applies to the Isle of Man because the Isle of Man is not part of Great Britain nor is it considered part of the United Kingdom. Instead, the Isle of Man’s relationship to the United Kingdom is referred to simply as a “Crown Dependency.” In practice this has come to mean that the Island is self-governed but at the pleasure of the British Monarch. Regardless, no laws of succession or any laws relating to the dissolution of the de jure sovereign rights of the Stanley heirs were ever passed. And for that matter the same can be said for Edward III's grant to Montacute and his heirs. These have all simply and, according to international law standards, incorrectly been assumed since the 1765 Act of Revestment.

Presently, all living branches of the Montacute lines and of the House of Stanley (defined as descending from Sir John Stanley, King of Mann), including that of Earl of Derby, are considered cadet branches and no one branch is senior to another. However, regardless of the assumed sovereignty over the Isle of Man by George III and that of subsequent British Monarchs, the de jure soverign rights, and specifically the rights of fons honorum (font of honor) created as a result of the respective grants, remain intact so long as there remains a living descendant. These rights have long been affirmed by international law. See THE
PRINCIPLES OF POLITIC LAW, J. J. BURLAMAQUI, [1748]. CHAP. IV. Paragraphs IV. and VI.

Claim of HRH King David Howe of Mann

In 2006 David Howe was promoted by group of British citizens interested in supporting the royal house of the Isle of Man. The basis for promoting David’s claim rested with several factors and included the following:

+Under international law, de jure sovereignty remained intact dating as for back as the 1333 Montacute Grant by Edward III and subsequent Henry IV / Stanley grant.

+Independent verification of the genealogy established David was a direct descendent of William de Montacute and Sir John Stanley, Kings of Mann.

+David met the succession requirements under both the Edward III and Henry IV grants.

+No law or act by British Parliament relating to succession or peerage law applies to the Isle of Man.

+And, with all these issues addressed, nothing restricted David from assuming the de jure Sovereign rights as the King of the Isle of Man.

As a result, David’s claim was presented for legal review receiving Barrister's Opinion and presented to representatives of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Subsequent to a 4 week investigation into David’s claim, on 16 January, 2007, the Queen’s representatives acting under her authority published David’s claim in the Queen’s paper of record, the London Gazette, assigning David as the de jure King and right of fons honorum. This effectively established David as the de jure King and gave him the full rights of a de jure sovereign under the generally accepted and historically established practices.
 
Since that time, David has been assigned the official and correct style and title of His Royal Highness King of Mann. Additionally, David has received the international support and recognition of several well established and recognized royal and noble houses as well as the support and recognition of various chivalric orders.