HMG and David Drew Howe
StephenP
any, representation HMG had made to the US Govt. in respect of Howe's
claims given that the UK Govt is responsible for Manx external
affairs. Links to both royaltyofman and unrealroyal were supplied.
It should be remembered that this was before Howe's current
incarnation of "it was all just for fun" and in the middle of his
sockpuppetry at Wikipedia.
HMG's reply is addressed to my MP as below;
-------
From Michael Wills MP
Minister of State
Ministry of Justice
Dear Mr Arbuthnot
Thank you for your letter of 22 January, enclosing a copy of an email
from your constituent on Mr David Howe's claim to the titles of King
of Man(n) and/or Lord of Man.
HM government does not recognise any adverse claim to the Sovereignty
of the Isle of Man and is satisfied that all such rights and powers,
including the titles King of Man(n) and or Lord of Man(n) which in
latter centuries appear to have become interchangeable, are vested in
the Crown. Titles granted by Her Majesty The Queen of Her Royal
predecessors cannot be sold or transferred and no purported disposal
will be recognised under UK law.
There are many precedents for the sale or transfer of titles of a
feudal nature in England and Wales, but as these were not granted by a
Sovereign they are unregulated. The bona fides of any titles which Mr
Howe purports to have authority to create or convey are a private
matter between him and the purchaser. The value of any such
transactions reside solely in the opinion of the purchaser.
HM Government has not made any representation to the US Government
over MR Howe's activities nor does it propose at this time to take any
such steps with the intention of curbing his actions as it regards
such transactions as being without value.
Michael Wills MP
-------
I think it demonstrates that the UK authorities do not take Mr Howe
serious enough to warrant any formal rebuttal. It also answers those
who claim it must be valid because the government would have said so
if he were not. It also shows that any claims of recognition by the
London Gazette, HMSO or HMQ is, at best, wishful thinking.
Yours aye
Stephen
Turenne
Quite a good letter from Michael Wills as well. The content shows that
he at least took Arbuthnot's original letter seriously.
Richard L
Nathaniel Taylor
<ea5cebf0-4d64-4aa2...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
StephenP <plo...@uk2.net> wrote:
> From Michael Wills MP
> Minister of State
> Ministry of Justice
>
> Dear Mr Arbuthnot
<...>
> There are many precedents for the sale or transfer of titles of a
> feudal nature in England and Wales, but as these were not granted by a
> Sovereign they are unregulated. The bona fides of any titles which Mr
> Howe purports to have authority to create or convey are a private
> matter between him and the purchaser. The value of any such
> transactions reside solely in the opinion of the purchaser.
It is understandable that the minister would not wish to take a position
on the titles Mr. Howe may have offered for sale without examining them
in more detail, since the first sentence in this paragraph implies that
the titles might in fact be legitimate.
It is true that the sale of feudal titles is 'unregulated', but the
offer to sell things which do not exist *is* in a sense regulated--by
criminal law. It is too bad the minister did not take the trouble to
ascertain (and state) that Mr. Howe has no titles to sell, but it seems
that that was not the issue he was asked about.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Doesn't anybody at the so-called 'Ministry of Justice' know anything
about history? Feudal baronies are grants by the Crown; the very
essence of a barony was that it was held in chief. What is more, as
creations of the Crown they can only be destroyed by the Crown and
since they have never been destroyed by the Crown they still exist -
and they can be sold of course. Simple really (unless, like Gordon
Brown and the EU constitution, you refuse to recognize what is staring
you in the face and is obvious to everybody).
Nathaniel Taylor
<nltaylor-C9923C...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Nathaniel Taylor <nlta...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
> In article
> <ea5cebf0-4d64-4aa2...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> StephenP <plo...@uk2.net> wrote:
>
> > From Michael Wills MP
> > Minister of State
> > Ministry of Justice
> >
> > Dear Mr Arbuthnot
>
> <...>
>
> > There are many precedents for the sale or transfer of titles of a
> > feudal nature in England and Wales, but as these were not granted by a
> > Sovereign they are unregulated. The bona fides of any titles which Mr
> > Howe purports to have authority to create or convey are a private
> > matter between him and the purchaser. The value of any such
> > transactions reside solely in the opinion of the purchaser.
>
> It is understandable that the minister would not wish to take a position
> on the titles Mr. Howe may have offered for sale without examining them
> in more detail, since the first sentence in this paragraph implies that
> the titles might in fact be legitimate.
Oops. I meant 'unfortunate but understandable'...
Derek Howard
<gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > HMG's reply is addressed to my MP as below;
> > -------
> > From Michael Wills MP
> > Minister of State
> > Ministry of Justice
> > Titles granted by Her Majesty The Queen of Her Royal
> > predecessors cannot be sold or transferred and no purported disposal
> > will be recognised under UK law.
>
> > There are many precedents for the sale or transfer of titles of a
> > feudal nature in England and Wales, but as these were not granted by a
> > Sovereign they are unregulated. The bona fides of any titles which Mr
> > Howe purports to have authority to create or convey are a private
> > matter between him and the purchaser. The value of any such
> > transactions reside solely in the opinion of the purchaser.
> > Michael Wills MP
<snip>
> Doesn't anybody at the so-called 'Ministry of Justice' know anything
> about history? Feudal baronies are grants by the Crown; the very
> essence of a barony was that it was held in chief. What is more, as
> creations of the Crown they can only be destroyed by the Crown and
> since they have never been destroyed by the Crown they still exist -
> and they can be sold of course. Simple really (unless, like Gordon
> Brown and the EU constitution, you refuse to recognize what is staring
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yawn, yawn. Not again, please. We have been there and done that to
death. Graham has floated this unfounded theory of his ad nauseam. It
ceases to have any humour. New readers should look up the long debates
on this group on feudal barons nicely preserved on the Google Groups
archive, where they will see a huge volume of detailed evidence why
this is not the case.
The truth of the matter is that the feudal baronies (lordships held
per baroniam) disappeared in the 14th century (with Edward III's
military revolution including moves away from feudal armies to
contracted forces, and also moves towards peerages by writ and
patent). They were certainly already extinct and of purely antiquarian
interest when Selden was writing in the early 17th century. In
addition the 1660 Act effectively killed any possible residue of
lordships held in baroniam. The Act of course received Royal Assent
being in fact passed in the personal presence of King Charles II, so
it is a nonsence that the Crown has done nothing.
Mr Wills, when mentioning "titles of a feudal nature", was probably
referring to such as lordships of manors and similar rights and
obligations, a few of which survive (and where "title" means a
property right and does not mean title of honour).
Both the feudal baron and the titles of a feudal nature are really red
herrings in discussing the claims by a fantasist to the Man(n) title.
They are unfortunately all too relevant to the continuing criminal
offences relating to on-line fraud - selling something which does not
exist and which is not owned by the vendor, while the vendor or agent
claims they are bona fide.
Derek Howard
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am sorry. We can 'do' this debate as ofen as you like; it won't make
you right. I repeat, in law feudal baronies are creations of the
Crown, in law they can only be destreyed law by the Crown, in law they
have never been so destroyed; ergo, in law they continue to exist.
Saying 'the truth of the matter' is so-and-so doesn't make it so.
Given that feudal baronies were created by the Crown and can only be
destroyed by the Crown (I trust we can all agree on that), it remains
for you to establish how they were destroyed by the Crown, which you
have never done. If you can prove it then I will accept it. You can 't
be more reasonable than that (except, of course, I happen to know that
you can't prove it).
Derek Howard
>
> - Show quoted text -
Graham. It s not the number of times you repeat yourself that makes it
true. It is the strength and weight of the historical and legal
evidence. You have not proved your case, indeed we have examined every
stitch of the clothing of your idol and found it to be no better than
the Emperor's.
Derek Howard
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
It remains for you to establish how they were destroyed by the Crown,
which you
have never done. If you can prove it then I will accept it.
The argument is incredibly simple. Given that feudal baronies existed,
how were they destroyed? Answer?
Graham
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Didn't parliament do away with feudal tenure? That would, as I
understand it remarkably effect the status of baronies.
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
>
> - Show quoted text -
Parliament did not do away with feudal tenure. All land in England is
still held of the Crown. Ask any solicitor. The 1660 Act was a
contradiction. It purported to abolish all tenures in chief but simply
made all such holdings tenures by socage held immediately of the
Crown; so the feudal holding of land of the Crown continued. Because
of this there was still something for feudal baronies to be attached
to (i.e. the land) and a tenure by which they could be held (socage).
And since the Act preserved feudal baronial titles and did not make
them personal titles and did not abolish feudal tenure (but merely
replaced one form of tenure with another), feudal baronies still exist
and they are still attached to the land - all of them ever created.
Seriously. They are all out there waiting to be resurrected. And
because they are property rights they are protected by the European
Convention on Human Rights which guarantees freedom of enjoyment of
property. Not even the Labour Party can get rid of them.
What fun!
Oh, and there's more. These titles carried with them a right to a seat
in the House of Lords since their consent HAD TO be obtained for
feudal extraordinary aids (i.e. most taxes). This right was preserved
by the 1660 Act. And since they are not hereditary peerages under the
terms of the House of Lords Act 1999 (they are heritable not
hereditary) they still carry with them a right to a seat in the House
of Lords.
Even more fun!
I didn't invent this stuff. I am merely stating the facts of history
and the law. If it was otherwise I would say so - but it ain't
otherwise.
I would go out and acquire one straight away.
For instance, the caput of the feudal barony of Basing (Basing House)
is owned by the Hampshire County Council (as far as I can see). So,
there we are. One feudal barony with one owner. The Leader of
Hampshire County Council should turn up at the House of Lords and
demands his seat.
Graham
Derek Howard
Graham has failed over the last several years to prove that any one
single supposed feudal barony has existed post 1660. As feudal
baronies were held per baroniam and have all been identified pre-1327;
as no more were created after the 12th century; and as all were by the
later-14th to 15th centuries were held by knight service and _not_ per
baroniam, Graham's fantastic ideas are irrelevant. We have been in
great detail through his arguments about supposed rights to sit in the
House of Lords and I showed this was not so, they had an _obligation_
_if called upon_ by the king, but so did others, this is not a
distinguishing factor. I have also cited in the past chapter and verse
for each and _every_ feudal aid to show that the vote of the feudal
baronage was _not_ subject to the consent of the FBs. I have also
dealt in detail with his claims about socage. I have dealt with his
claims regarding the supposed preservation of FBs by the 1660 Act and
also the aspects as to whether the FBs were or had ever been titles of
honour (they were not). All recycled rubbish he wishes were so but
simply was and is not. However, Graham has admitted himself that he
says things because he likes a good argument, so we know where he is
coming from. I do not mind his "humour" at times but these obsessive
points about FBs that he constantly returns to are just tedious. I
wish he would accept the evidence, not from me but from the countless
authorities I have cited in the past - people who have studied the
matter in far greater depth than he. A pity that someone apparently so
interested in the subject has read so little and looked at so few
original sources.
Derek Howard
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
I have proved that in law feudal baronies have never been
extinguished. Saying that you 'have dealt with' x, y and z is just
wishful thinking on your part. On the contrary, I have dealt with all
your arguments. You cannot answer the central question, which is how
feudal baronies were extinguished in law (of course they never have
been). I challenge you to answer it. All you will come up with is the
usual rubbish about baronies falling into dissuetude (which cannot
happen in law) or something similar. You make the ridiculous assertion
that baronies were 'converted' into holdings by knight's service -
and, pray, exactly how did this happen - in law? I have dealt with
these points before but in the interests of truth am prepared to state
the obvious indefinitely. And extraordinary aids did require the
consent of the barons; the ordinary aids were payable (1) to pay the
ransom of the superior if he was captured in war, (2) on the knighting
of his eldest son, and (3) on the marriage of his eldest daughter;
everything else was extraordinary (i.e. all taxation). So, basically,
if the King wanted money to do anything he required the consent of the
barons. He couldn't govern without them and when he tried he had a
civil war on his hands and then... Magna Carta. When will you accept
the obvious? Haven't you worked out yet WHY Magna Carta happened. It's
staring you in the face for heaven's sake. The King wanted money and
couldn't get it. Why couldn't he get it? Because the barons wouldn't
CONSENT to it. Their consent was required and they wouldn't give it
(for the hundredth time). Let me quote the 'Reports from the Lords
Committees touching the Dignity of a Peer of the Realm' (1819) which
states (p. 54) that: 'the records of the reign of King John seem to
give strong ground for supposing that all the King's tenants in chief
by military tenure, if not all tenants in chief, were at one time
deemed necessary members of the common councils of the realm, when
summoned for extraordinary purposes, and especially for the purpose of
obtaining a grant of any extraordinary aid to the king.' Their
Lordships would have been able to be more definite if they had thought
through some basic facts of the feudal contract.
So, back to the challenge. How were feudal baronies extinguished? You
have, say, 10 lines to explain.
mj...@btinternet.com
>
> I do not mind his "humour" at times but these obsessive
> points about FBs that he constantly returns to are just tedious. I
> wish he would accept the evidence,
I just wish he'd stop. The obsessive idee fixe has gone well beyond
tedious. It seems that nothing further of use or interest can be said
on the topic of feudal baronies, and Graham's position has been
sufficiently rehearsed as to defy the need for repetition.
MA-R
StephenP
concerned with modern non-existent titles. It is about David Howe not
Graham Milne.
Yours aye
Stephen
gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk
Are you under the impression that you can 'win' an argument just by
saying you have won or by saying 'I wish the other side would stop' or
by descending to making personal comments? The speed with which you do
all of these things just tells others that you have no arguments left.
Like the 'anti-racist' brigade, your immediate response to it try to
shut down the debate. The explanation should be a simple one and yet
you decline to provide it. How were feudal baronies destroyed in law?
I challenge you again to provide an answer. Go on,10 lines should do
it. Surely you can manage that? Think what a triumph it would be for
you!
Graham
StephenP
This thread WAS NOT about English feudal baronies, it WAS about HMG's
response to David Howe.
I have no interest in English feudal baronies so why should I "rule"
upon them, extant or extinct? All I will say is that if you are so
sure they are still valid go and actually DO something about it. It
is pointless going through the arguments here again & again. Even if
the rec.h community unanimously accepted your position it would still
mean nine tenths of knack all. Go and test your theory in the REAL
legal world. Put your money where you mouth is and fight for your
position in the courts. You may win! Think what a triumph it would
be for you!
Yours aye
Stephen
PS Please let us know when you have instructed your legal team.
Greg
Graham,
I'm afraid I side with Stephen on this one. I think you bring up an
interesting topic, but that's not what's happening here.
Start a new thread. I'm sure there are others who would enjoy reading
it.
David
Michael Wills MP is quoted as having said:
"Titles granted by Her Majesty The Queen of (or) Her Royal
predecessors cannot be sold or transferred and no purported disposal
will be recognised under UK law."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article788736.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article788726.ece
Well, as anyone can clearly see, apparently Mr. Wills, as well as a
few other here, missed the news.
Beyond that, after I conducted an investigation in the way some
British public officials have been doing business with the Cash for
Honours scandal, in what seems to be a fraudulent practice and an
attempt to circumvent the laws of Great Britain, it became apparent to
me that some people might confuse my effort with the nefarious actions
of some of these British public officials. Therefore, so as not to
confuse the public with this scam being perpetrated at their expense,
I ended my campaign before having conferred any honour, awards or
peerages. Furthermore, and despite what some here would have you
believe, it is important to note that I had no involvement in the
British cash for honours scandal and I am not a member or supporter of
any political party in Great Britain. The actions of these public
officials, past and present, as well as the actions of their
supporters -- including the public official one Mr. Michael Andrews-
Reading (known here in USENET World as MA-R in roughly 500 comments
per month, with 393 devoted to smearing and harassing yours truly) and
others that have attempted to link me, King David, to this scheme, is
reprehensible.
Finally, the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 of the United
Kingdom does not apply to the Isle of Man, nor does any parliamentary
act apply to me, King David. However, in considering the gross
injustice by these officials to circumvent the laws of the United
Kingdom, in which the British Crown must have been an unintended co-
conspirator, I felt the most prudent thing to do was to take a stance,
ending any possible misconception that I could be linked to these most
dark days in British history. I simply ask all to consider the
diversionary tactics that some here have employed in order to confuse
and divert your attention away from the real fraud and vice that has
been perpetrated. May God forgive them as they continue to attempt to
make me a patsy for their despicable behavior.
D
David
Hopefully that gave a couple people a good laugh. It sure did me.
And, Michael, relax I told you I'd make you a Knight. All you have to
do is ask.
D
Nathaniel Taylor
<53357224-566f-464f...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
David <prince...@gmail.com> wrote:
< . . . >
> . . . I simply ask all to consider the
> diversionary tactics that some here have employed in order to confuse
> and divert your attention away from the real fraud and vice that has
> been perpetrated. May God forgive them as they continue to attempt to
> make me a patsy for their despicable behavior.
>
> D
I suppose it hardly need be pointed out that Howe's post is a textbook
example of precisely the sort of diversionary tactic he is alleging to
have been used against him. Not a very clever diversion -- say B- for
its lack of subtlety -- but a clear example of the genre nonetheless.
StephenP
> In article
> <53357224-566f-464f-83c4-dd80409e3...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Nat
I may be wrong here but it does strike me as odd that HMG are trying
to set up David Howe as a "patsy" by saying his actions are not worthy
of note or action. I rather thought that a "patsy" was meant to take
all the blame not to be ignored.
Yours aye
Stephen
Nathaniel Taylor
<38634067-52eb-405a...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
StephenP <plo...@uk2.net> wrote:
Maybe he meant 'pasty' --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cornish_pasty.jpeg
-- ?
Vivat rex.
Turenne
>I conducted an investigation in the way some
>British public officials have been doing business with the Cash for
>Honours scandal
If you conducted an 'investigation' you will have discovered that no
charges have been brought.
BTW what form did your investigation take?
>Therefore, so as not to confuse the public with this scam being perpetrated at their expense,
>I ended my campaign before having conferred any honour, awards or
>peerages.
You ended your campaign because you were caught out.
Are you comparing your dodgy dukedoms with a British peerage?
>Furthermore, and despite what some here would have you
>believe, it is important to note that I had no involvement in the
>British cash for honours scandal and I am not a member or supporter of
>any political party in Great Britain.
Don't flatter yourself; no one as far as I know ever suggested
otherwise.
>The actions of these public
>officials, past and present, as well as the actions of their
>supporters -- including the public official one Mr. Michael Andrews-
>Reading (known here in USENET World as MA-R in roughly 500 comments
>per month, with 393 devoted to smearing and harassing yours truly)
I think that you've over-egged the pudding on the numbers, but that
said, he did a hell of a job exposing you and your pathetic efforts
to make money out of your unbelievable claim to a non existent
kingdom.
>others that have attempted to link me, King David, to this scheme, is
>reprehensible.
You're *not* a king.
Richard Lichten