King of Man

[wjhonson]

Due to a current Wikipedia controversy, I've created a new page here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... l_of_Derby

Showing how the lordship of the Isle of Man descended and also where
it was merged, and split from the title Earl of Derby.

There are no sources shown yet, as I've only just created this the
other night. Would appreciate any comments or criticisms on spelling,
format, style, etc. Also if you think I should include details left
out and so on.

Will Johnson

[John Foster]

<thumbs up>

Is there enough recent material around to show the "actual" factual ancestry
of the pretender enough to show that it does not connect to this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John C. Foster, retsof *at* austin.rr.com was retsof *at* texas.net
RETSOFtware, where QUALITY is only a slogan...

TX4.US
RETSOF.US
COKELEY.US
LOVE-M-ALL-PETCARE.TX4.US
----- Original Message -----
From: "wjhonson" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 1:30 PM
Subject: King of Man

Due to a current Wikipedia controversy, I've created a new page here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... l_of_Derby

Showing how the lordship of the Isle of Man descended and also where
it was merged, and split from the title Earl of Derby.

There are no sources shown yet, as I've only just created this the
other night. Would appreciate any comments or criticisms on spelling,
format, style, etc. Also if you think I should include details left
out and so on.

Will Johnson

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date:
12/1/2007 12:05 PM

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article <[email protected]>,
"John Foster" <[email protected]> wrote:

thumbs up

Is there enough recent material around to show the "actual" factual ancestry
of the pretender enough to show that it does not connect to this?

It probably does connect in the way shown (i.e. through Maryland gateway
ancestor William Bladen); but Bladen was in no way an heir to the
lordship of Man (or the allegedly distinct kingship of Man). In fact
the claim is made on a basis of 'first-come-first-served' (though
publication of a legal notice that he was laying claim to the abandoned
title). Previously it had been pointed out to Howe, on
alt.talk.royalty, that his alleged ancestor was not an heir by any
system of reckoning (and that Howe is apparently not an heir of this
ancestor by any system of reckoning either). Therefore Howe turned to
the strategem of publishing notice of his claim of the item in the
_London Gazette_, as if it were lost property.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[Hovite]

On Jan 11, 7:30 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

Due to a current Wikipedia controversy, I've created a new page herehttp://www.countyhistorian.com/ceci ... _of_Thom...

Showing how the lordship of the Isle of Man descended and also where
it was merged, and split from the title Earl of Derby.

There are no sources shown yet, as I've only just created this the
other night. Would appreciate any comments or criticisms on spelling,
format, style, etc. Also if you think I should include details left
out and so on.

Will Johnson

I'm reluctant to waste time on fakes, so (for the moment) I shall just
comment on one important sentence:

"Thomas Stanley became the first Stanley Lord or King of the Isle of
Man."

That does not seem right. The Handbook of British Chronology, 3rd ed.,
page 65 has:

"...

[The rulers of Man styled themselves Dominus ...

....

Henry Percy, 1st e. of Northumberland, 1399-1405 [Enfeoffed by Henry
IV, 19 Oct. 1399, Cal. of Pat. Rolls, 27.]

Sir John Stanley I, 1405-14. [Enfeoffed, 4 Oct. 1405, Rymer's Foedera,
viii, 419.]

Sir John Stanley II, 1414-37.

Thomas I, Lord Stanley, 1437-59.

...."

From The Complete Peerage, 2nd ed. vol. XII, part 1:

(page 248, within a black border)

"John de Stanley, yr. son ...

On 15 Aug. 1403 he was granted certain lands of William de Stanley,
'chivaler', his nephew, which had been forfeited for participation in
the rebellion of Henry Percy ...

(page 249)

.... On 4 Oct. 1405 William de Stanley, knight, or his lieutenant in
the Isle of Man, was ordered to deliver to John de Stanley, knight, or
his attorney, the Isle, Castle, peel and lordship of Man (Cal. Close
Rolls, 1405-09, p. 2) ...

John de Stanely, s. and h. ...

(page 250)

....

On Feb. 1414/5 he was a party, as lord of Man, to the general truce
with the King of France ...

(black border ends)

BARONY BY WRIT. I. 1456. 1. Thomas Stanley, of Lathom and Knowsley,
Lancs, s. and h. ...

[Gjest]

On Jan 13, 3:18 am, Hovite <[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 11, 7:30 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

Due to a current Wikipedia controversy, I've created a new page herehttp://www.countyhistorian.com/ceci ... _of_Thom...

Showing how the lordship of the Isle of Man descended and also where
it was merged, and split from the title Earl of Derby.

There are no sources shown yet, as I've only just created this the
other night.  Would appreciate any comments or criticisms on spelling,
format, style, etc.  Also if you think I should include details left
out and so on.

Will Johnson

I'm reluctant to waste time on fakes, so (for the moment) I shall just
comment on one important sentence:

"Thomas Stanley became the first Stanley Lord or King of the Isle of
Man."

That does not seem right.

That's correct - the first Stanley to be Lord or King of the Isle of
Man was Sir John Stanley, who had a grant for life in 1405, and then a
replacement grant to his heirs in 1406.

MA-R