Discussion:
'King of Man' clown makes the Telegraph
(too old to reply)
m***@btinternet.com
2007-12-19 21:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Oh dear, just the wrong kind of publicity for Little David Drew Howe:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/19/nisle119.xml

Hopefully this will pique the interest of the local constabulary - and
the Law Society.

MA-R
m***@btinternet.com
2007-12-19 22:33:46 UTC
Permalink
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/19/nisle...
Hopefully this will pique the interest of the local constabulary - and
the Law Society.
MA-R
And here is an excellent website detailing this pathetic fraud:

http://davidkingoftheisleofman.blogspot.com/
m***@btinternet.com
2007-12-21 03:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Here is the alleged pedigree of David Drew Howe, on which he
apparently bases his claim to be 'King of Mann'; it is taken from his
website, so the names and dates are his own:

1. Thomas Stanley d 1504
2. George Stanley d 1497
3. Jane Stanley 1485-1557
4. Edmund, 1st Baron Sheffield 1521-1549
5. John, 2nd Baron Sheffield 1538-1568
6. Edmund, 1st Earl of Mulgrave 1565-1646
7. Frances Sheffield 1585-1615
8. Sir Col. (sic) William Fairfax 1609-1644
9. Isabella Fairfax 1637-1691
10. William Bladen 1673-1718
11. Anne Bladen 1696-1775
12. Rebecca Tasker 1724-1822
13. Benjamin Tasker Dulany 1752-1811
14. John Peyton Dulaney (sic) 1787-1878
15. Julia Ann Bladen Dulaney 1816-1865
16. John Peyton Debutts 1837-1912
17. Henry Grafton Debutts 1876-1953
18. James Myers Debutts 1926-1976
19. Janice Lee Debutts married David Howe
20. David Howe - [the clown in question]

I will post some comments shortly.

MA-R
m***@btinternet.com
2007-12-21 03:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Here is the alleged pedigree of David Drew Howe, on which he
apparently bases his claim to be 'King of Mann'; it is taken from his
1. Thomas Stanley d 1504
2. George Stanley d 1497
3. Jane Stanley 1485-1557
4. Edmund, 1st Baron Sheffield 1521-1549
5. John, 2nd Baron Sheffield 1538-1568
6. Edmund, 1st Earl of Mulgrave 1565-1646
7. Frances Sheffield 1585-1615
8. Sir Col. (sic) William Fairfax 1609-1644
9. Isabella Fairfax 1637-1691
10. William Bladen 1673-1718
11. Anne Bladen 1696-1775
12. Rebecca Tasker 1724-1822
13. Benjamin Tasker Dulany 1752-1811
14. John Peyton Dulaney (sic) 1787-1878
15. Julia Ann Bladen Dulaney 1816-1865
16. John Peyton Debutts 1837-1912
17. Henry Grafton Debutts 1876-1953
18. James Myers Debutts 1926-1976
19. Janice Lee Debutts married David Howe
20. David Howe - [the clown in question]
Comments (part one):

Let's look at the alleged descent behind David Drew Howe's false
claim
Post by m***@btinternet.com
1. Thomas Stanley d 1504
He was the last of the Stanleys to use the title 'King of Man', the
1st Earl of Derby and the step-father of King Henry VII. He was not
sovereign of Man, but held (using the ancient title) subject to his
feudal overlord, the King of England, as per the original grant to
the
family.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
2. George Stanley d 1497
George did die during his father's lifetime - but in December 1503,
not in 1497 (source: ODNB, entry for the elder Thomas Stanley).

This is Howe's first factual blunder in his own pedigree, and should
indicate the low level of scholarship he has applied to his case.

Clearly George was acknowledged as the heir, and his rights were
transmitted to Thomas, his eldest son. The younger Thomas succeeded
his grandfather in 1504, but gave up the style of 'King' in favour of
Lord. It is important to note that there was no abdication or any
other change in relation to his holding of Man under the English
King;
it was merely substituting one word for another, describing the same
thing.

It is worth noting, again, that the same thing has happened many,
many
times in history: the Prince of Romania became a King (1881); ditto
Bulgaria (1908) and Montenegro (1910); as recently as 2002 the Sheikh
of Bahrain altered his title to King. The rise of Napoleon and the
fall of the Holy Roman Empire saw considerable changes to titles -
Baden, Bavaria, Saxony, Hesse to name but a few. Similarly, and in
the same historical context as the Isle of Man, we see the titles of
the Welsh rulers under English hegemony changing from King to Prince/
Lord, of Thai subject rulers doing the same, and so forth.

The pretence that somehow the title of 'King' was severed and put
into
abeyance, or that this represented an abdication by the younger
Thomas
is the first of Howe's logical fallacies.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
3. Jane Stanley 1485-1557
She married Sir Robert Sheffield of Butterwick, who died in 1531
(ODNB, sub 1st Lord Sheffield) According to ODNB, Jane was Sir
Robert's *first* wife. This means she was dead before 1531, and
thus
the 1557 death date is also wrong. This is Howe's second factual
error.

The birthdate of 1485 is also questionable - it would be unusual for
the time that noblewoman's first child should have been born when she
was 36 - but let's assume the date that Howe gives is correct.
According to ODNB (entry for the 3rd Earl of Derby), Jane's brother
Thomas Stanley, the 2nd Earl of Derby who succeeded to Man in 1504,
was born "before 1485" - i.e. this would make him older than Jane.
This is important, because one of the original planks of Howe's
argument was that Jane was older than Thomas, and should thus have
inherited the Isle of Man in 1504 (based on an allegation that under
Manx law succession favoured the eldest child, not the eldest son,
so-
called 'gender-blind succession' - this is also incorrect, but we
won't go into that here).

Thus, based on Howe's own material, here we see the second of Howe's
logical fallacies.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
4. Edmund, 1st Baron Sheffield 1521-1549
Edmund is said to have been Jane Stanley's only child He was born in
1521, and his mother was still living at the time that her brother
Thomas wrote his will (proved 1524); Robert Sheffield had not then
been knighted. ODNB states he had a younger brother, David, and a
sister Eleanor; these two may have been the children of Sir Robert's
second marriage, but it is possible that Eleanor may have been Jane
Stanley's eldest child. If so, this would have implications for
Howe's 'gender-blind' succession argument.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
5. John, 2nd Baron Sheffield 1538-1568
Born not long after his parents' marriage, John was clearly their
eldest child. He married Douglas Howard (see ODNB, sub Douglas
Howard) in 1560 and had two children: Edmund, born 7 December 1565
(see his own ODNB entry), who features in Howe's alleged pedigree,
and Elizabeth, who married in about November 1582 Thomas Butler, Earl
of Ormond & Ossory (ODNB sub Thomas Butler); John, Lord Sheffield
died
in 1568.

When was this daughter Elizabeth born? According to the IGI, she was
baptised at Bletchingley in Surrey, 28 September 1561. Thus, she was
the elder child and heir under Howe's purported 'gender-blind'
succession rules.

Breaking from Howe's alleged pedigree, let's trace her descendants,
the "true heirs" to the Manx claim according to Howe's own thesis, we
find inter alia the following:

6. Elizabeth Sheffield (1561-1600), married Thomas, 10th Earl of
Ormond (d 1614)

7. Lady Elizabeth Butler, only daughter and heir, married Richard,
Earl of Desmond (d 1628)

8. Elizabeth, Lady Dingwall, only child and heir (1615-1684), married
December 1629 James, 1st Duke of Ormond (d 1688); they had three
surviving sons and two daughters [amongst whom the true 'gender-
blind'
heir is to be found], including:

9. Lady Mary Butler (1646-1710), married 26 October 1662 William
Cavendish, 1st Duke of Devonshire (d 1707)

10. William, 2nd Duke of Devonshire (1673-1729), married 1688 Rachel
Russell (d 1725)

11. William, 3rd Duke of Devonshire (1698-1755), married 1718
Catherine Hoskins (d 1777)

12. William, 4th Duke of Devonshire (d 1764), married 1748 Charlotte,
Lady Clifford (d 1754)

13. Lady Dorothy Cavendish (1750-1794), married 1766 William, 3rd
Duke
of Portland (d 1809)

14. Lord William Cavendish-Bentinck (1780-1826), married 1816 Lady
Anne Wellesley (d 1875)

15. Revd Charles Cavendish-Bentinck (1817-1865), married 1859
Caroline
Burnaby (d 1918)

16. Cecilia Cavendish-Bentinck (1862-1938), married 1881 Claude, Earl
of Strathmore & Kinghorne (d 1944)

17. Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (1900-2002), married 1923 King George
VI
(d 1952)

18. Queen Elizabeth II (b 1926), Sovereign of the Isle of Man

It is by tracing this line that we find the Queen has a better claim
to the Manx throne that Howe does, using his own 'gender blind'
succession rules.

(to be continued)
Louis Epstein
2007-12-26 02:30:02 UTC
Permalink
***@btinternet.com wrote:
: On Dec 21, 2:15?pm, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
:> Here is the alleged pedigree of David Drew Howe, on which he
:> apparently bases his claim to be 'King of Mann'; it is taken from his
:> website, so the names and dates are his own:
:>
:> 1. Thomas Stanley d 1504
:> 2. George Stanley d 1497
:> 3. Jane Stanley 1485-1557
:> 4. Edmund, 1st Baron Sheffield 1521-1549
:> 5. John, 2nd Baron Sheffield 1538-1568
:> 6. Edmund, 1st Earl of Mulgrave 1565-1646
:> 7. Frances Sheffield 1585-1615
:> 8. Sir Col. (sic) William Fairfax 1609-1644
:> 9. Isabella Fairfax 1637-1691
:> 10. William Bladen 1673-1718
:> 11. Anne Bladen 1696-1775
:> 12. Rebecca Tasker 1724-1822
:> 13. Benjamin Tasker Dulany 1752-1811
:> 14. John Peyton Dulaney (sic) 1787-1878
:> 15. Julia Ann Bladen Dulaney 1816-1865
:> 16. John Peyton Debutts 1837-1912
:> 17. Henry Grafton Debutts 1876-1953
:> 18. James Myers Debutts 1926-1976
:> 19. Janice Lee Debutts married David Howe
:> 20. David Howe - [the clown in question]
:
: Comments (part one):
:
: Let's look at the alleged descent behind David Drew Howe's false
: claim
: to be the King of the Isle of Man:
:
:> 1. Thomas Stanley d 1504
:
: He was the last of the Stanleys to use the title 'King of Man', the
: 1st Earl of Derby and the step-father of King Henry VII. He was not
: sovereign of Man, but held (using the ancient title) subject to his
: feudal overlord, the King of England, as per the original grant to
: the
: family.
:
:> 2. George Stanley d 1497
:
: George did die during his father's lifetime - but in December 1503,
: not in 1497 (source: ODNB, entry for the elder Thomas Stanley).
:
: This is Howe's first factual blunder in his own pedigree, and should
: indicate the low level of scholarship he has applied to his case.
:
: Clearly George was acknowledged as the heir, and his rights were
: transmitted to Thomas, his eldest son. The younger Thomas succeeded
: his grandfather in 1504, but gave up the style of 'King' in favour of
: Lord. It is important to note that there was no abdication or any
: other change in relation to his holding of Man under the English
: King;
: it was merely substituting one word for another, describing the same
: thing.
:
: It is worth noting, again, that the same thing has happened many,
: many
: times in history: the Prince of Romania became a King (1881); ditto
: Bulgaria (1908) and Montenegro (1910); as recently as 2002 the Sheikh
: of Bahrain altered his title to King. The rise of Napoleon and the
: fall of the Holy Roman Empire saw considerable changes to titles -
: Baden, Bavaria, Saxony, Hesse to name but a few. Similarly, and in
: the same historical context as the Isle of Man, we see the titles of
: the Welsh rulers under English hegemony changing from King to Prince/
: Lord, of Thai subject rulers doing the same, and so forth.
:
: The pretence that somehow the title of 'King' was severed and put
: into
: abeyance, or that this represented an abdication by the younger
: Thomas
: is the first of Howe's logical fallacies.
:
:> 3. Jane Stanley 1485-1557
:
: She married Sir Robert Sheffield of Butterwick, who died in 1531
: (ODNB, sub 1st Lord Sheffield) According to ODNB, Jane was Sir
: Robert's *first* wife. This means she was dead before 1531, and
: thus
: the 1557 death date is also wrong. This is Howe's second factual
: error.
:
: The birthdate of 1485 is also questionable - it would be unusual for
: the time that noblewoman's first child should have been born when she
: was 36 - but let's assume the date that Howe gives is correct.
: According to ODNB (entry for the 3rd Earl of Derby), Jane's brother
: Thomas Stanley, the 2nd Earl of Derby who succeeded to Man in 1504,
: was born "before 1485" - i.e. this would make him older than Jane.
: This is important, because one of the original planks of Howe's
: argument was that Jane was older than Thomas, and should thus have
: inherited the Isle of Man in 1504 (based on an allegation that under
: Manx law succession favoured the eldest child, not the eldest son,
: so-
: called 'gender-blind succession' - this is also incorrect, but we
: won't go into that here).
:
: Thus, based on Howe's own material, here we see the second of Howe's
: logical fallacies.
:
:> 4. Edmund, 1st Baron Sheffield 1521-1549
:
: Edmund is said to have been Jane Stanley's only child He was born in
: 1521, and his mother was still living at the time that her brother
: Thomas wrote his will (proved 1524); Robert Sheffield had not then
: been knighted. ODNB states he had a younger brother, David, and a
: sister Eleanor; these two may have been the children of Sir Robert's
: second marriage, but it is possible that Eleanor may have been Jane
: Stanley's eldest child. If so, this would have implications for
: Howe's 'gender-blind' succession argument.
:
:> 5. John, 2nd Baron Sheffield 1538-1568
:
: Born not long after his parents' marriage, John was clearly their
: eldest child. He married Douglas Howard (see ODNB, sub Douglas
: Howard) in 1560 and had two children: Edmund, born 7 December 1565
: (see his own ODNB entry), who features in Howe's alleged pedigree,
: and Elizabeth, who married in about November 1582 Thomas Butler, Earl
: of Ormond & Ossory (ODNB sub Thomas Butler); John, Lord Sheffield
: died
: in 1568.
:
: When was this daughter Elizabeth born? According to the IGI, she was
: baptised at Bletchingley in Surrey, 28 September 1561. Thus, she was
: the elder child and heir under Howe's purported 'gender-blind'
: succession rules.
:
: Breaking from Howe's alleged pedigree, let's trace her descendants,
: the "true heirs" to the Manx claim according to Howe's own thesis, we
: find inter alia the following:
:
: 6. Elizabeth Sheffield (1561-1600), married Thomas, 10th Earl of
: Ormond (d 1614)
:
: 7. Lady Elizabeth Butler, only daughter and heir, married Richard,
: Earl of Desmond (d 1628)
:
: 8. Elizabeth, Lady Dingwall, only child and heir (1615-1684), married
: December 1629 James, 1st Duke of Ormond (d 1688); they had three
: surviving sons and two daughters [amongst whom the true 'gender-
: blind' heir is to be found], including:
:
: 9. Lady Mary Butler (1646-1710), married 26 October 1662 William
: Cavendish, 1st Duke of Devonshire (d 1707)
:
: 10. William, 2nd Duke of Devonshire (1673-1729), married 1688 Rachel
: Russell (d 1725)
:
: 11. William, 3rd Duke of Devonshire (1698-1755), married 1718
: Catherine Hoskins (d 1777)
:
: 12. William, 4th Duke of Devonshire (d 1764), married 1748 Charlotte,
: Lady Clifford (d 1754)
:
: 13. Lady Dorothy Cavendish (1750-1794), married 1766 William, 3rd
: Duke of Portland (d 1809)
:
: 14. Lord William Cavendish-Bentinck (1780-1826), married 1816 Lady
: Anne Wellesley (d 1875)
:
: 15. Revd Charles Cavendish-Bentinck (1817-1865), married 1859
: Caroline
: Burnaby (d 1918)
:
: 16. Cecilia Cavendish-Bentinck (1862-1938), married 1881 Claude, Earl
: of Strathmore & Kinghorne (d 1944)
:
: 17. Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (1900-2002), married 1923 King George
: VI
: (d 1952)
:
: 18. Queen Elizabeth II (b 1926), Sovereign of the Isle of Man
:
: It is by tracing this line that we find the Queen has a better claim
: to the Manx throne that Howe does, using his own 'gender blind'
: succession rules.

She would be ahead of him,but not at the head of that line...
the Queen Mother was ninth of ten children.

Rosemary Elizabeth Leschallas is the gender-blind heir of
Cecilia Nina Cavendish-Bentinck Countess of Strathmore & Kinghorne.

Lord William Charles Augustus Cavendish Bentinck's two elder brothers
were both named William Henry...from the eldest,the 4th Duke of
Portland,descend senior heirs through a daughter who married the
6th Baron Howard de Walden.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
m***@btinternet.com
2007-12-21 05:56:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Here is the alleged pedigree of David Drew Howe, on which he
apparently bases his claim to be 'King of Mann'; it is taken from his
1. Thomas Stanley d 1504
2. George Stanley d 1497
3. Jane Stanley 1485-1557
4. Edmund, 1st Baron Sheffield 1521-1549
5. John, 2nd Baron Sheffield 1538-1568
6. Edmund, 1st Earl of Mulgrave 1565-1646
7. Frances Sheffield 1585-1615
8. Sir Col. (sic) William Fairfax 1609-1644
9. Isabella Fairfax 1637-1691
10. William Bladen 1673-1718
11. Anne Bladen 1696-1775
12. Rebecca Tasker 1724-1822
13. Benjamin Tasker Dulany 1752-1811
14. John Peyton Dulaney (sic) 1787-1878
15. Julia Ann Bladen Dulaney 1816-1865
16. John Peyton Debutts 1837-1912
17. Henry Grafton Debutts 1876-1953
18. James Myers Debutts 1926-1976
19. Janice Lee Debutts married David Howe
20. David Howe - [the clown in question]
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 -
as
he seems to have done when it suited him - 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. He married
firstly Ursula Tyrwhitt "before 13 November 1581" (ODNB) and
secondly,
in 1619, Mariana Irwin. By his first marriage he had six sons who
all
died before their father, and two daughters, and by his second
marriage he had a further five children. From the first marriage he
had a son and heir:

7. Sir John Sheffield (d 1614), married Grizel Anderson. They had a
son and a daughter:

8a. Edmund, 2nd Earl of Mulgrave (1611-1658), married 1631 Lady
Elizabeth Cranfield (d 1672); he had a daughter, Elizabeth, who died
young, and an only son and heir, John, 1st Duke of Buckingham &
Normanby (1647-1721), who married three times and had three sons and
two daughters who died young without issue; with the death of the
last
of the three sons in 1735, Edmund's legitimate descendants became
extinct.

8b. Magdalen Sheffield, daughter and eventual heir in her issue,
married Walter Walsh of Castle Hoel; they had issue; the descendants
of their younger daughter eventually succeeded as genealogical
representative of the Sheffields:

9. Ursula Walsh, younger daughter and coheir, married John Bryan of
Bawnmore

10. Elizabeth Bryan, only surviving child and heir, married Oliver
Grace, MP, of Gracefield (d 1708); she had two sons, the younger of
whom was ancestor to the Grace baronets, and the elder of whom was:

11. Michael Grace (1682-1769), ***found in 1759 to be the heir of the
Sheffields***; married Mary Galway (d 1736)

12. Oliver Grace (d 1781), married Mary Dowell (d 1765); had two
sons,
the elder of whom left one daughter who died without issue, and the
younger of whom was:

13. John Grace, of Mantua House, Roscommon (d 1811), married 1783
Mary
Hussey

14. Oliver John Dowell Grace, MP, of Gracefield (1791-1871), married
1819 Frances Nagle (d 1826)

15a. John Dowell FitzGerald Grace, JP, born 1 July 1821; living in
1889; married 1855 Grace Thistlethwayte "and had issue" (Burke's
Landed Gentry, 1863)

This is as far as I have traced the heir-general of Edmund Sheffield
so far; he had a niece, Frances Mary Grace (died 29 December 1940)
who
married Captain J.H. Lachlan White of Bredfield House, Woodbridge,
Suffolk in 1886.

It will be noted that this line is far removed from the ancestors
claimed by Howe.

(to be continued)
m***@btinternet.com
2007-12-21 08:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Here is the alleged pedigree of David Drew Howe, on which he
apparently bases his claim to be 'King of Mann'; it is taken from his
1. Thomas Stanley d 1504
2. George Stanley d 1497
3. Jane Stanley 1485-1557
4. Edmund, 1st Baron Sheffield 1521-1549
5. John, 2nd Baron Sheffield 1538-1568
6. Edmund, 1st Earl of Mulgrave 1565-1646
7. Frances Sheffield 1585-1615
8. Sir Col. (sic) William Fairfax 1609-1644
9. Isabella Fairfax 1637-1691
10. William Bladen 1673-1718
11. Anne Bladen 1696-1775
12. Rebecca Tasker 1724-1822
13. Benjamin Tasker Dulany 1752-1811
14. John Peyton Dulaney (sic) 1787-1878
15. Julia Ann Bladen Dulaney 1816-1865
16. John Peyton Debutts 1837-1912
17. Henry Grafton Debutts 1876-1953
18. James Myers Debutts 1926-1976
19. Janice Lee Debutts married David Howe
20. David Howe - [the clown in question]
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 -
as
he seems to have done when it suited him - 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.  He married
firstly Ursula Tyrwhitt "before 13 November 1581" (ODNB) and
secondly,
in 1619, Mariana Irwin.  By his first marriage he had six sons who
all
died before their father, and two daughters, and by his second
marriage he had a further five children.  From the first marriage he
7. Sir John Sheffield (d 1614), married Grizel Anderson.  They had a
7. Frances Sheffield 1585-1615
*Not an heiress*. As noted above, Frances had several brothers, one
of whose issue inherited the Mulgrave title and others of whom in
whom
the genealogical representation of the family is vested. This,
therefore, is Howe's third logical fallacy. Frances married Sir
Philip Fairfax (d 1613) and had two sons; the elder died without
Post by m***@btinternet.com
8. Sir Col. (sic) William Fairfax 1609-1644
Howe commits a solecism in referring to Fairfax as he does above; it
should be "Col. Sir William" - unless Howe thinks his Christian-name
was Col. At least he was his mother's heir. According to his
article
in the ODNB he married Frances Chaloner in 1629.

It is interesting to note that, according to Banks's Extinct and
Dormant Peerages (1817), pp 32-34, when the 2nd Duke of Buckingham
and
Normanby died, the Fairfaxes (inter alia) put in a claim on the
Sheffield estates - however, they 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, i.e. they were
the
genealogical heirs of Edmund Sheffield, 1st Earl of Mulgrave, as
detailed above.

Sir William Fairfax had 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 have a better genealogical
claim to be heirs of Frances Sheffield than Howe does.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
9. Isabella Fairfax 1637-1691
*Not an heiress*. Married Nathaniel Bladen of Hemsworth, Yorkshire.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
10. William Bladen 1673-1718
For what it is worth, the ODNB says William Bladen's birthdate was
1670 (ODNB, sub Thomas Bladen). He is the emigrant to America.

He seems to have been his mother's first son. He married twice and
had issue. But was Anne Bladen (afterwards Tasker), through whom
Howe
stakes his claim, William Bladen's heir?

No, because he left sons whose issue is extant. For instance, his
son
Thomas had a daughter, who would take precedence over her aunt in any
claims of heirship from the Fairfaxes. Let us trace just one of
these
lines, each one of whom would have a better claim than Howe under the
'heirs-general' argument:

11. Thomas Bladen, MP (1698-1780), married 1737 Barbara Janssen
12. Harriet Bladen (d 1821), married 1767 William, 4th Earl of Essex
13. John Capell (1769-1819), married 1792 Lady Caroline Paget (d
1847)
14. Arthur, 6th Earl of Essex (1803-1892), marr. Lady Caroline
Beauclerk
15. Arthur, Viscount Malden (1826-1879), married 1853 Emma Meux
16. George, 7th Earl of Essex (1857-1916), married 1893 Adela Grant
17. Joan Capell, m. 1922 Osbert, 1st Viscount Ingleby (d 1966)
18. Martin, 2nd Viscount Ingleby, born 31 May 1926; has issue

So, we have identified yet another line with numerous living
descendants who stand higher up than Howe in the genealogical
representation of Jane Stanley.

(to be continued)
m***@btinternet.com
2007-12-21 09:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Here is the alleged pedigree of David Drew Howe, on which he
apparently bases his claim to be 'King of Mann'; it is taken from his
1. Thomas Stanley d 1504
2. George Stanley d 1497
3. Jane Stanley 1485-1557
4. Edmund, 1st Baron Sheffield 1521-1549
5. John, 2nd Baron Sheffield 1538-1568
6. Edmund, 1st Earl of Mulgrave 1565-1646
7. Frances Sheffield 1585-1615
8. Sir Col. (sic) William Fairfax 1609-1644
9. Isabella Fairfax 1637-1691
10. William Bladen 1673-1718
11. Anne Bladen 1696-1775
12. Rebecca Tasker 1724-1822
13. Benjamin Tasker Dulany 1752-1811
14. John Peyton Dulaney (sic) 1787-1878
15. Julia Ann Bladen Dulaney 1816-1865
16. John Peyton Debutts 1837-1912
17. Henry Grafton Debutts 1876-1953
18. James Myers Debutts 1926-1970
19. Janice Lee Debutts married David Howe
20. David Howe - [the clown in question]
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 -
as he seems to have done when it suited him - 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. He married
1stly Ursula Tyrwhitt "before 13 November 1581" (ODNB) and 2ndly
in 1619, Mariana Irwin. By his first marriage he had 6 sons who all
died before their father, and two daughters, and by his second
marriage he had a further five children. From the first marriage he
7. Sir John Sheffield (d 1614), married Grizel Anderson. They had a
7. Frances Sheffield 1585-1615
*Not an heiress*. As noted above, Frances had several brothers, one
of whose issue inherited the Mulgrave title and others in whom
the genealogical representation of the family is vested. This,
therefore, is Howe's third logical fallacy. Frances married Sir
Philip Fairfax (d 1613) and had two sons; the elder died without
Post by m***@btinternet.com
8. Sir Col. (sic) William Fairfax 1609-1644
Howe commits a solecism in referring to Fairfax as he does above; it
should be "Col. Sir William" - unless Howe thinks his Christian-name
was Col. At least he was his mother's heir. According to his ODNB
article he married Frances Chaloner in 1629.
It is interesting to note that, according to Banks's Extinct and
Dormant Peerages (1817), pp 32-34, when the 2nd Duke of Buckingham
& Normanby died, the Fairfaxes (inter alia) put in a claim on the
Sheffield estates - however, they acknowledged they were ***not the
heirs***. Instead, the Grace family of Ireland succeeded to the
property that the 1st Duke hadn't devised by will, i.e. they were
the genealogical heirs of Edmund Sheffield, 1st Earl of Mulgrave,
as detailed above.
Sir William Fairfax had 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 have a better genealogical
claim to be heirs of Frances Sheffield than Howe does.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
9. Isabella Fairfax 1637-1691
*Not an heiress*. Married Nathaniel Bladen of Hemsworth, Yorkshire.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
10. William Bladen 1673-1718
For what it is worth, the ODNB says William Bladen's birthdate was
1670 (ODNB, sub Thomas Bladen). He is the emigrant to America.
He seems to have been his mother's first son. He married twice and
had issue. But was Anne Bladen (afterwards Tasker), through whom
Howe stakes his claim, William Bladen's heir?
No, because he left sons whose issue is extant. For instance, his
son Thomas had a daughter, who would take precedence over her aunt
in any claims of heirship from the Fairfaxes.
(Part 4)
Post by m***@btinternet.com
11. Anne Bladen 1696-1775
*Not an heiress*. She married Benjamin Tasker (d 1768) (ODNB, sub
Thomas Bladen and Daniel Dulany). They had, inter alia, a son,
Benjamin Tasker the younger (d 1767), sometime acting Governor of
Maryland, and several daughters.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
12. Rebecca Tasker 1724-1822
She was the *second* of her parents' daughters, and thus it is unclear
whether she was her parents' heir (assuming that her brother did not
leave issue). In 1749 married Daniel Dulany (1722-1797), by whom she
is said to have had two sons and one daughter (ODNB, sub Daniel
Dulany). Much of Dulany's property was confiscated as a result of his
having been a Loyalist during the American Revolution, and his widow
died in exile in London.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
13. Benjamin Tasker Dulany 1752-1811
Second son and his mother's heir in his issue; his elder brother died
unmarried in 1824 (Maryland Historical Magazine, 1918, p 155 et seq,
which however states that Benjamin died in 1816). He married 1773
Elizabeth French, "leaving many descendants".
Post by m***@btinternet.com
14. John Peyton Dulaney (sic) 1787-1878
Apparently not an heir. By this stage of the pedigree I have
experienced considerable difficulty in locating even potentially
useful secondary sources. The IGI (which is not reliable) 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 left issue, all of whom would be in a
better position to claim genealogical heirship than Howe.
Additionally, according to websites there was a third older brother,
William Washington Dulany, who is also said to have had issue.

John Peyton Dulany was a farmer. He is said to have married Mary
Debutts in 1812.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
15. Julia Ann Bladen Dulaney 1816-1865
*Not an heir*, like so many of the individuals in the preceding
generations of Howe's alleged pedigree. She had, for instance, a
brother, Richard Henry Dulany (1820-1906) whose biography was
published in 'Virginia Men of Mark', 1906, p 72; he married and had
five children.

According to the IGI she married Samuel Debutts, 13 September 1834
Post by m***@btinternet.com
16. John Peyton Debutts 1837-1912
The IGI claims a birthdate of 30 November 1837; no siblings are listed
so it is impossible to say whether he was the oldest son. He is
documented as having fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War.
He is in the 1880 Census, farming at Wicomico, Virginia, when he is
shown with 8 children.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
17. Henry Grafton Debutts 1876-1953
According to the 1880 Census, Henry Debutts was the fifth child and
second son of his parents. It therefore seems unlikely that he was
their heir - this was his older brother, John P. Debutts, born about
1868; he is probably the John Peyton Debutts who died in 1954.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
18. James Myers Debutts 1926-1970
There is a Social Security entry for a James Debutts of Virginia,
confirming the above dates. I cannot comment on his parentage or
whether he was his father's heir, although if Henry was 50 when James
was born it seems distinctly possible that there would have been older
issue.
Post by m***@btinternet.com
19. Janice Lee Debutts married David Howe
20. David Howe - [the clown in question]
I have not endeavoured to confirm the final two generations, due to
lack of accessible sources and the likelihood that not even Howe would
lie about his own parentage.

MA-R
Louis Epstein
2007-12-26 02:43:15 UTC
Permalink
***@btinternet.com wrote:
: On Dec 21, 7:02 pm, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
:>
:> > On Dec 21, 2:15 pm, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
:>
:> > > Here is the alleged pedigree of David Drew Howe, on which he
:> > > apparently bases his claim to be 'King of Mann'; it is taken from his
:> > > website, so the names and dates are his own:
:>
:> > > 1. Thomas Stanley d 1504
:> > > 2. George Stanley d 1497
:> > > 3. Jane Stanley 1485-1557
:> > > 4. Edmund, 1st Baron Sheffield 1521-1549
:> > > 5. John, 2nd Baron Sheffield 1538-1568
:> > > 6. Edmund, 1st Earl of Mulgrave 1565-1646
:> > > 7. Frances Sheffield 1585-1615
:> > > 8. Sir Col. (sic) William Fairfax 1609-1644
:> > > 9. Isabella Fairfax 1637-1691
:> > > 10. William Bladen 1673-1718
:> > > 11. Anne Bladen 1696-1775
:> > > 12. Rebecca Tasker 1724-1822
:> > > 13. Benjamin Tasker Dulany 1752-1811
:> > > 14. John Peyton Dulaney (sic) 1787-1878
:> > > 15. Julia Ann Bladen Dulaney 1816-1865
:> > > 16. John Peyton Debutts 1837-1912
:> > > 17. Henry Grafton Debutts 1876-1953
:> > > 18. James Myers Debutts 1926-1970
:> > > 19. Janice Lee Debutts married David Howe
:> > > 20. David Howe - [the clown in question]
:>
:> > Comments on the alleged pedigree (Part Two):
:>
:> > > 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 -
:> > as he seems to have done when it suited him - 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. He married
:> > 1stly Ursula Tyrwhitt "before 13 November 1581" (ODNB) and 2ndly
:> > in 1619, Mariana Irwin. By his first marriage he had 6 sons who all
:> > died before their father, and two daughters, and by his second
:> > marriage he had a further five children. From the first marriage he
:> > had a son and heir:
:>
:> > 7. Sir John Sheffield (d 1614), married Grizel Anderson. They had a
:> > son and a daughter:
:>
:> Comments (part three):
:>
:> > 7. Frances Sheffield 1585-1615
:>
:> *Not an heiress*. As noted above, Frances had several brothers, one
:> of whose issue inherited the Mulgrave title and others in whom
:> the genealogical representation of the family is vested. This,
:> therefore, is Howe's third logical fallacy. Frances married Sir
:> Philip Fairfax (d 1613) and had two sons; the elder died without
:> issue, and the younger was:
:>
:> > 8. Sir Col. (sic) William Fairfax 1609-1644
:>
:> Howe commits a solecism in referring to Fairfax as he does above; it
:> should be "Col. Sir William" - unless Howe thinks his Christian-name
:> was Col. At least he was his mother's heir. According to his ODNB
:> article he married Frances Chaloner in 1629.
:>
:> It is interesting to note that, according to Banks's Extinct and
:> Dormant Peerages (1817), pp 32-34, when the 2nd Duke of Buckingham
:> & Normanby died, the Fairfaxes (inter alia) put in a claim on the
:> Sheffield estates - however, they acknowledged they were ***not the
:> heirs***. Instead, the Grace family of Ireland succeeded to the
:> property that the 1st Duke hadn't devised by will, i.e. they were
:> the genealogical heirs of Edmund Sheffield, 1st Earl of Mulgrave,
:> as detailed above.
:>
:> Sir William Fairfax had 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 have a better genealogical
:> claim to be heirs of Frances Sheffield than Howe does.
:>
:> > 9. Isabella Fairfax 1637-1691
:>
:> *Not an heiress*. Married Nathaniel Bladen of Hemsworth, Yorkshire.
:>
:> > 10. William Bladen 1673-1718
:>
:> For what it is worth, the ODNB says William Bladen's birthdate was
:> 1670 (ODNB, sub Thomas Bladen). He is the emigrant to America.
:>
:> He seems to have been his mother's first son. He married twice and
:> had issue. But was Anne Bladen (afterwards Tasker), through whom
:> Howe stakes his claim, William Bladen's heir?
:>
:> No, because he left sons whose issue is extant. For instance, his
:> son Thomas had a daughter, who would take precedence over her aunt
:> in any claims of heirship from the Fairfaxes.
:
: (Part 4)
:
:
:> 11. Anne Bladen 1696-1775
:
: *Not an heiress*. She married Benjamin Tasker (d 1768) (ODNB, sub
: Thomas Bladen and Daniel Dulany). They had, inter alia, a son,
: Benjamin Tasker the younger (d 1767), sometime acting Governor of
: Maryland, and several daughters.
:
:> 12. Rebecca Tasker 1724-1822
:
: She was the *second* of her parents' daughters, and thus it is unclear
: whether she was her parents' heir (assuming that her brother did not
: leave issue). In 1749 married Daniel Dulany (1722-1797), by whom she
: is said to have had two sons and one daughter (ODNB, sub Daniel
: Dulany). Much of Dulany's property was confiscated as a result of his
: having been a Loyalist during the American Revolution, and his widow
: died in exile in London.
:
:> 13. Benjamin Tasker Dulany 1752-1811
:
: Second son and his mother's heir in his issue; his elder brother died
: unmarried in 1824 (Maryland Historical Magazine, 1918, p 155 et seq,
: which however states that Benjamin died in 1816). He married 1773
: Elizabeth French, "leaving many descendants".
:
:> 14. John Peyton Dulaney (sic) 1787-1878
:
: Apparently not an heir. By this stage of the pedigree I have
: experienced considerable difficulty in locating even potentially
: useful secondary sources. The IGI (which is not reliable) 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 left issue, all of whom would be in a
: better position to claim genealogical heirship than Howe.
: Additionally, according to websites there was a third older brother,
: William Washington Dulany, who is also said to have had issue.
:
: John Peyton Dulany was a farmer. He is said to have married Mary
: Debutts in 1812.
:
:> 15. Julia Ann Bladen Dulaney 1816-1865
:
: *Not an heir*, like so many of the individuals in the preceding
: generations of Howe's alleged pedigree. She had, for instance, a
: brother, Richard Henry Dulany (1820-1906) whose biography was
: published in 'Virginia Men of Mark', 1906, p 72; he married and had
: five children.
:
: According to the IGI she married Samuel Debutts, 13 September 1834
:
:> 16. John Peyton Debutts 1837-1912
:
: The IGI claims a birthdate of 30 November 1837; no siblings are listed
: so it is impossible to say whether he was the oldest son. He is
: documented as having fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War.
: He is in the 1880 Census, farming at Wicomico, Virginia, when he is
: shown with 8 children.
:
:> 17. Henry Grafton Debutts 1876-1953
:
: According to the 1880 Census, Henry Debutts was the fifth child and
: second son of his parents. It therefore seems unlikely that he was
: their heir - this was his older brother, John P. Debutts, born about
: 1868; he is probably the John Peyton Debutts who died in 1954.

Is the John DeButts who headed AT&T in the 1970s from this family?

Who's Who in America 1952-53 includes a Harry Ashby DeButts,
born 1895,whose father was Dulany Forrest DeButts...sounds like
a relative?

:> 18. James Myers Debutts 1926-1970
:
: There is a Social Security entry for a James Debutts of Virginia,
: confirming the above dates. I cannot comment on his parentage or
: whether he was his father's heir, although if Henry was 50 when James
: was born it seems distinctly possible that there would have been older
: issue.
:
:> 19. Janice Lee Debutts married David Howe
:
:> 20. David Howe - [the clown in question]
:
: I have not endeavoured to confirm the final two generations, due to
: lack of accessible sources and the likelihood that not even Howe would
: lie about his own parentage.

Well,recall Michel Lafosse...

: MA-R

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
m***@btinternet.com
2007-12-26 22:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Here is the alleged pedigree of David Drew Howe, on which he
apparently bases his claim to be 'King of Mann'; it is taken from his
1. Thomas Stanley d 1504
2. George Stanley d 1497
3. Jane Stanley 1485-1557
4. Edmund, 1st Baron Sheffield 1521-1549
5. John, 2nd Baron Sheffield 1538-1568
6. Edmund, 1st Earl of Mulgrave 1565-1646
7. Frances Sheffield 1585-1615
8. Sir Col. (sic) William Fairfax 1609-1644
9. Isabella Fairfax 1637-1691
10. William Bladen 1673-1718
11. Anne Bladen 1696-1775
12. Rebecca Tasker 1724-1822
13. Benjamin Tasker Dulany 1752-1811
14. John Peyton Dulaney (sic) 1787-1878
15. Julia Ann Bladen Dulaney 1816-1865
16. John Peyton Debutts 1837-1912
17. Henry Grafton Debutts 1876-1953
18. James Myers Debutts 1926-1976
19. Janice Lee Debutts married David Howe
20. David Howe - [the clown in question]
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 -
as
he seems to have done when it suited him - 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.  He married
firstly Ursula Tyrwhitt "before 13 November 1581" (ODNB) and
secondly,
in 1619, Mariana Irwin.  By his first marriage he had six sons who
all
died before their father, and two daughters, and by his second
marriage he had a further five children.  From the first marriage he
7. Sir John Sheffield (d 1614), married Grizel Anderson.  They had a
8a. Edmund, 2nd Earl of Mulgrave (1611-1658), married 1631 Lady
Elizabeth Cranfield (d 1672); he had a daughter, Elizabeth, who died
young, and an only son and heir, John, 1st Duke of Buckingham &
Normanby (1647-1721), who married three times and had three sons and
two daughters who died young without issue; with the death of the
last
of the three sons in 1735, Edmund's legitimate descendants became
extinct.
8b. Magdalen Sheffield, daughter and eventual heir in her issue,
married Walter Walsh of Castle Hoel; they had issue; the descendants
of their younger daughter eventually succeeded as genealogical
9. Ursula Walsh, younger daughter and coheir, married John Bryan of
Bawnmore
I can now present the heir of the elder daughter and coheir, the older
sister of Ursula Walsh. This line runs as follows, and shows us the
senior coheir of the Sheffield family.

Guess what? It isn't Howe!

9a. Elizabeth Walsh, elder daughter and coheir
10. Robert Grace, of Courtstown, died 1691
11. Mary Grace, married John Langrishe of Knocktopher
12. Robert Langrishe d 1770
13. Sir Hercules Langrishe, 1st Bt, d 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

Mary Grace (line 11) succeeded her nephew in 1764; he had been served
as coheir of the Sheffields in England in 1759, along with his cousin
Michael Grace. The elder line had been attainted in Ireland by
William III ***but not in England or elsewhere***.

In terms of reputable sources, there is an excellent article entitled
"The line of the heirs-general" as an appendix to the entry on the
Earl of Musgrave in 'Dorman and Extinct Baronetage, T.C. Banks, vol
IV, London, 1837, pp 29-32; it is available on google books. This
traces the two Grace lines. We then add the Langrishe material from
the current edition of Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, sub Langrishe.

My thanks to Stephen Plowman, who has been generously assisting in
tracing the junior line of the Sheffield coheirs, the Graces of
Gracefield. It seems the direct line became extinct in 1940, but now
that we know the senior coheir (Sir James Langrishe) it seems further
tracing of the junior line is redundant.

Regards, Michael Andrews-Reading
m***@btinternet.com
2007-12-26 22:53:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
In terms of reputable sources, there is an excellent article entitled
"The line of the heirs-general" as an appendix to the entry on the
Earl of Musgrave in 'Dorman and Extinct Baronetage, T.C. Banks, vol
IV, London, 1837, pp 29-32; it is available on google books. This
traces the two Grace lines. We then add the Langrishe material from
the current edition of Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, sub Langrishe.
Recte: the article's stated subject (not title) is to trace "the line
of the heir-general representative" and the citation should be to "The
Dormant and Extinct Baronage" (not Baronetage), vol IV, appendix, pp
29-34.

MA-R
Will Johnson
2008-01-10 20:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Michael perhaps this has already been mentioned, but this James
Debutts (born 1926) son of Henry Grafton Debutts, appears in the 1930
census of Herndon, Fairfax County, Virginia, where we can definitely
identify him as his father is there indexed (at Ancestry) as
"Grafter". Strangely enough....

At any rate, you can see there that James Myers Debutts is way down in
the children list, definitely not his parents *heir* unless there was
some kind of cataclysm that wiped out the rest of the family.

Will Johnson
Turenne
2008-01-10 22:01:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Johnson
At any rate, you can see there that James Myers Debutts is way down in
the children list, definitely not his parents *heir* unless there was
some kind of cataclysm that wiped out the rest of the family.
David Howe has shown that primogeniture isn't a word with which he is
entirely comfortable.

Richard L
m***@btinternet.com
2008-01-10 22:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by Will Johnson
At any rate, you can see there that James Myers Debutts is way down in
the children list, definitely not his parents *heir* unless there was
some kind of cataclysm that wiped out the rest of the family.
David Howe has shown that primogeniture isn't a word with which he is
entirely comfortable.
Richard L
Oh when it suits him he knows what it means:

Q) As a descendant of Thomas II, isn't the Queen the hereditary ruler
of the Isle of Man making her a senior claimant to King David and both
the de facto, as well as, the de jure ruler?

A) HM Queen Elizabeth II is the hereditary Lord of Man based on the
1765 Act of Revestment by which the British government forced the sale
of the Isle of Man. This act is considered by many historians to have
been an illegal action. She is also a descendant of Thomas II, the
last King of the Isle of Man. However, while the original letters
patent provided for the Kingdom to pass to heirs general and not
specifically heirs male (see IOM case law), with male preference from
Lady Jane Stanley, HM Queen Elizabeth II's claim is junior to that of
HM King David. HM Queen Elizabeth II and HM King David's closest
great...great grandfather and the grandson of Lady Jane Stanley, was
John Sheffield, 2nd Baron Sheffield. However, HM King David is a
descendant of Lord Sheffield's son, Edmund Sheffield, 1st Earl of
Mulgrave, whereas HM Queen Elizabeth II is a descendant of Lord
Mulgrave's sister, Elizabeth Sheffield.

(from his website, www.royaltyofman.com 11 January 2008)

Howe first line was: I know I am not the senior heir, but I don't
claim by virtue of primogeniture: I claim by virtue of being the only
heir who has claimed the crown.

It was shown that another heir had already staked a claim: the Queen.

Howe then suddenly became a fan of primogeniture.

It is strange how desparate he is to maintain this charade. I wonder
why?

MA-R

m***@btinternet.com
2007-12-21 22:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Here is the alleged pedigree of David Drew Howe, on which he
1. Thomas Stanley d 1504
2. George Stanley d 1497
died 1503
Post by m***@btinternet.com
3. Jane Stanley 1485-1557
died before 1531; not an heiress
Post by m***@btinternet.com
4. Edmund, 1st Baron Sheffield 1521-1549
5. John, 2nd Baron Sheffield 1538-1568
6. Edmund, 1st Earl of Mulgrave 1565-1646
not his father's 'gender-blind' heir
Post by m***@btinternet.com
7. Frances Sheffield 1585-1615
not an heiress
Post by m***@btinternet.com
8. Sir Col. (sic) William Fairfax 1609-1644
9. Isabella Fairfax 1637-1691
not an heiress
Post by m***@btinternet.com
10. William Bladen 1673-1718
11. Anne Bladen 1696-1775
not an heiress
Post by m***@btinternet.com
12. Rebecca Tasker 1724-1822
13. Benjamin Tasker Dulany 1752-1811
14. John Peyton Dulaney (sic) 1787-1878
not an heir
Post by m***@btinternet.com
15. Julia Ann Bladen Dulaney 1816-1865
not an heiress
Post by m***@btinternet.com
16. John Peyton Debutts 1837-1912
17. Henry Grafton Debutts 1876-1953
not an heir
Post by m***@btinternet.com
18. James Myers Debutts 1926-1976
19. Janice Lee Debutts married David Howe
20. David Howe - [the clown in question]
Not terribly convincing, is it?

MA-R
Donald4564
2007-12-21 22:50:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by m***@btinternet.com
20. David Howe - [the clown in question]
Not terribly convincing, is it?
MA-R
Is there a law in the United States under which the clown in question
could be prosecuted? Having seen the web blog referred to in earlier
posts, I see he is domiciled there engaged in business as a windscreen
repairer. (If he was a British subject I am sure H.M. would have had
him whisked off to the tower).

Regards
Donald Binks
N***@gmail.com
2007-12-22 01:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by m***@btinternet.com
20. David Howe - [the clown in question]
Not terribly convincing, is it?
MA-R
Is there a law in the United States under which the clown in question
could be prosecuted? Having seen the web blog referred to in earlier
posts, I see he is domiciled there engaged in business as a windscreen
repairer. (If he was a British subject I am sure H.M. would have had
him whisked off to the tower).
Regards
Donald Binks
Nope. He can say whatever he wants because of the First Amendment.
There can't be a criminal action because there's no victim, to sue in
Civil Court you need "standing," the only way to get that is prove the
defendant has hurt your pocketbook illegally. "King David's" fantasy
has clearly annoyed a lot of people, but until it costs somebody cold,
hard cash the US legal system can't get involved.

Nick
Graham Truesdale
2007-12-23 12:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald4564
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Post by m***@btinternet.com
20. David Howe - [the clown in question]
Not terribly convincing, is it?
MA-R
Is there a law in the United States under which the clown in question
could be prosecuted? Having seen the web blog referred to in earlier
posts, I see he is domiciled there engaged in business as a windscreen
repairer. (If he was a British subject I am sure H.M. would have had
him whisked off to the tower).
NIII - Nope. He can say whatever he wants because of the First Amendment.
There can't be a criminal action because there's no victim, to sue in
Civil Court you need "standing," the only way to get that is prove the
defendant has hurt your pocketbook illegally. "King David's" fantasy
has clearly annoyed a lot of people, but until it costs somebody cold,
hard cash the US legal system can't get involved.


GT - such as somebody who bought a title in reliance on his false
statements? £90,000.00 for a dukedom sounds like quite enough
cold hard cash to me!
--
Somebody has said, that a king may make a nobleman, but he cannot make a gentleman.
Edmund Burke
N***@gmail.com
2007-12-24 04:33:24 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 23, 7:47 am, "Graham Truesdale"
Post by Graham Truesdale
Post by Donald4564
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Not terribly convincing, is it?
MA-R
Is there a law in the United States under which the clown in question
could be prosecuted? Having seen the web blog referred to in earlier
posts, I see he is domiciled there engaged in business as a windscreen
repairer. (If he was a British subject I am sure H.M. would have had
him whisked off to the tower).
NIII - Nope. He can say whatever he wants because of the First Amendment.
There can't be a criminal action because there's no victim, to sue in
Civil Court you need "standing," the only way to get that is prove the
defendant has hurt your pocketbook illegally. "King David's" fantasy
has clearly annoyed a lot of people, but until it costs somebody cold,
hard cash the US legal system can't get involved.
GT - such as somebody who bought a title in reliance on his false
statements?  £90,000.00 for a dukedom sounds like quite enough
cold hard cash to me!
--
Somebody has said, that a king may make a nobleman, but he cannot make a gentleman.
Edmund Burke
As far as the US Legal system is concerned all titles are imaginary,
so the fake "Duke" got exactly what he paid for.

Fraud is tricky to prove in the US. You'd have to prove that David
Drew Howe does not believe he is a legitimate King. There's only one
person who really knows what "King David" believes.

Most the legal concepts we're talking about will be completely new to
a US Court. "Manx law" is not well-known this side of the pond, and
the judge would have to rule on whether Manx law applies. If it does,
the Judge would then have to decide what Manx law says.

And none of this really matters. I doubt any prospective Dukes are
willing to admit they were defrauded by a small businessman from
Frederick, MD.

Nick
m***@btinternet.com
2007-12-24 10:32:35 UTC
Permalink
I have made a start on a website detailing Howe's charade here:

www.unrealroyal.com

I have a good deal more to post, and some fine-tuning and referencing
still to do, but I would appreciate any initial comments/corrections.

Please feel free to have a first look and let me know any thoughts.

Regards

Michael Andrews-Reading
William Reitwiesner
2007-12-25 17:30:37 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by m***@btinternet.com
www.unrealroyal.com
I have a good deal more to post, and some fine-tuning and referencing
still to do, but I would appreciate any initial comments/corrections.
I suppose it's just me, but I'd point out that William Bladen (number
10) is a long-standing gateway immigrant (i.e., a colonist with a
well-documented Royal ancestry). His ancestry is available in printed
sources -- see Roberts *Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants* pp. 186-188,
Richardson *Plantagenet Ancestry* p. 112, and Richardson *Magna Carta
Ancestry* p. 91, for instance.

William Bladen's descent from the Stanleys is not under question (at
least not by you) -- what is under question is whether Bladen could be
(and thus any descendant of his could be through him) a
*representative*, i.e., an (or the) heir, of the Stanleys who were Kings
of the Isle of Man.

The actual heir of the Stanley Kings of Man was Ferdinando Stanley, 5th
Earl of Derby (d. 1594). See
"http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/castlehaven.html" for an attempt
to determine Ferdinando's heir.
m***@btinternet.com
2007-12-26 10:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Reitwiesner
In article
Post by m***@btinternet.com
www.unrealroyal.com
I have a good deal more to post, and some fine-tuning and referencing
still to do, but I would appreciate any initial comments/corrections.
I suppose it's just me, but I'd point out that William Bladen (number
10) is a long-standing gateway immigrant (i.e., a colonist with a
well-documented Royal ancestry).  His ancestry is available in printed
sources -- see Roberts *Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants* pp. 186-188,
Richardson *Plantagenet Ancestry* p. 112, and Richardson *Magna Carta
Ancestry* p. 91, for instance.
Many thanks, WAR; I agree that Bladen's descent from the Stanleys
appears bona fide -although I have to say that, while I have seen the
secondary sources such as Richardson's two books (which have identical
entries) I have not seen a primary source actually proving he was
Nathaniel's son.

The two salient points here are that (a) there is no evidence that
Howe descends from Bladen, and (b) Bladen was not an heir of the
Stanleys, regardless of how one views it, and Howe is not an heir of
Bladen.
Post by William Reitwiesner
William Bladen's descent from the Stanleys is not under question (at
least not by you) -- what is under question is whether Bladen could be
(and thus any descendant of his could be through him) a
*representative*, i.e., an (or the) heir, of the Stanleys who were Kings
of the Isle of Man.
The actual heir of the Stanley Kings of Man was Ferdinando Stanley, 5th
Earl of Derby (d. 1594).  See
"http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/castlehaven.html" for an attempt
to determine Ferdinando's heir.
Good stuff. It is interesting to speculate how the island's
proprietorship could have been split in three between Ferdinando's
coheirs. In any case, this was rendered irrelevant because of the
settlement within the family agreeing that William Stanley the 6th
Earl should stand as the heir, which was confirmed by an act of
parliament in 1610.

Cheers, Michael
Louis Epstein
2007-12-26 02:47:13 UTC
Permalink
***@btinternet.com wrote:
: I have made a start on a website detailing Howe's charade here:
:
: www.unrealroyal.com

With a URL like that I hope you will expand it to debunking other frauds.

: I have a good deal more to post, and some fine-tuning and referencing
: still to do, but I would appreciate any initial comments/corrections.
:
: Please feel free to have a first look and let me know any thoughts.
:
: Regards
:
: Michael Andrews-Reading

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
m***@btinternet.com
2007-12-26 10:13:45 UTC
Permalink
:www.unrealroyal.com
With a URL like that I hope you will expand it to debunking other frauds.
One scam at a time - but you never know!

Cheers, Michael
m***@btinternet.com
2007-12-24 01:36:16 UTC
Permalink
The 1406 grant by Henry IV is missing from this html online ed., for
some reason
Never mind, we have it from other sources. An abstract is contained
in the Calendar of Patent Rolls, HMSO, under an entry for 6 April 1406
[the date of the patent] but it is elliptical and thus slightly
defective.

The full text may be found in Manx Society, vol 12, 1866, pp 28-29

An online copy on google books may be seen here [apologies for the
length of the link]:

https://proxify.com/p/011010A1000110/687474703a2f2f7777772e676f6f676c652e636f6d2f626f6f6b733f69643d68666f48414141415141414a2670673d504132382664713d253232706174656e742532322b25323277617272616e7465642b62792b7468652b636f6d6d6f6e2b6c6177253232

It reads as follows:

6 April 1406: Grant to John Stanley, knight, and his heirs and
assigns, in lieu of a grant to him for life, surrendered to be
cancelled, of the island, castle, peel and lordship [sic] and all
islands and lordships pertaining to the island, not exceeding the
value of £400 yearly, to hold with royal rights, royalties,
franchises, liberties, etc, by service of rendering to the King two
falcons immediately after doing homage and to the King's heirs two
falcons on the days of their coronations as fully as William le
Scrope, knight, or any other lord (sic) of the island held the same.

This is considerable importance, because it shows that the grant to
John Stanley and his heirs was in 1406, not 1405.

The 1405 grant was for life only. The text does not appear in the
Calendar of Patent Rolls, and may not have survived - indeed the 1406
patent states it was "surrendered to be cancelled" - but we know it
existed and what its terms were because it is clearly referred to in
the 1406 grant above. We know that this first grant (for life only)
was made in 1405 because that was the year that the island's previous
proprietor, the Earl of Northumberland, rebelled, and the Stanleys
were sent to take Man, eg Calendar of Patent Rolls, 11 June 1405: safe
conduct for Sir William Stanley and others, going on the King's
service to take the Isle of Man into the King's hands.

The patent rolls may be seen online here:

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls

I will post shortly why this is of crucial importance in further
demonstrating the emptiness of Howe's fantasy.

Michael Andrews-Reading
m***@btinternet.com
2007-12-24 01:48:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
The full text may be found in Manx Society, vol 12, 1866, pp 28-29
6 April 1406: Grant to John Stanley, knight, and his heirs and
assigns, in lieu of a grant to him for life, surrendered to be
cancelled, of the island, castle, peel and lordship [sic] and all
islands and lordships pertaining to the island, not exceeding the
value of £400 yearly, to hold with royal rights, royalties,
franchises, liberties, etc, by service of rendering to the King two
falcons immediately after doing homage and to the King's heirs two
falcons on the days of their coronations as fully as William le
Scrope, knight, or any other lord (sic) of the island held the same.
This is considerable importance, because it shows that the grant to
John Stanley and his heirs was in 1406, not 1405.
The 1405 grant was for life only.
Let us now turn to the paid advertisement which Howe put into the
London Gazette of 16 January 2007. It reads:

DAVID DREW HOWE
Notice is hereby given that David Drew Howe claims incorporeal
hereditament rights to the independent Kingdom of Mann or Man,
together with fons honorum through ancestral descendant of Sir John
Stanley; through the passing by letters patent of 1405 to his heirs,
according to the course of the common law, for the grant itself by
letters patent was warranted by the common law in this case: and
therefore, if no other impediment existed, the incorporeal
hereditament rights in this case have descended to the heirs general,
and not to the heir male. All enquiries through Leonard Warner
(Solicitor), of Green Wright Chalton Annis, 60 High Street, Steyning,
West Sussex BN44 3RD.

(London Gazette, Issue 58221, p 541)

This is interesting for two reasons:

(a) we find that most of the text has been lifted from Manx Society
vol 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
(citing 4 Coke's Institutes, App No 2):

"It was resolved that a fee simple in this Isle passing by the letters
patent to Sir John Stanley and his Heirs, is descendible to his heirs
***according to the course of the common law, for the grant itself by
letters patent is warranted by the common law in this case, and
therefore if there be no other impediment, the Isle in this case shall
descend to the heirs general and not the heirs male***." [my emphasis
- MAR]

It is available on google books here:

https://proxify.com/p/011010A1000110/687474703a2f2f7777772e676f6f676c652e636f6d2f626f6f6b733f69643d68666f48414141415141414a2670673d504133392664713d253232706174656e742532322b25323277617272616e7465642b62792b7468652b636f6d6d6f6e2b6c6177253232

Howe is the cut-and-paste King, as has been suggested elsewhere - or
at least he would be; unfortunately he has a habit of cutting material
that he does not really understand.

(b) We note in the London Gazette item that Howe's claim is predicated
on the "letters patent of 1405" - yet we now know, from consulting the
primary documents, that the patent of 1405 was to John Stanley ***for
life***. The grant to his heirs was an entirely different one, on 6
April 1406. Furthermore, we now know that the 1405 patent was
"surrendered and cancelled".

Applying this knowledge to Howe's claims, we see that his argument to
be an heir to the 1405 patent is void ab initio, regardless of the
consequent genealogical arguments [which also fail] ***because the
1405 patent was for John Stanley's life only*** AND was cancelled in
1406.

This is an excellent example of Howe's inability to conduct research
or understand the details of his own pathetic case.

Michael Andrews-Reading
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...