Mec Vannin Make Believe

[Freggyragh]

I agree with Oldmanxfella and Albert's posts, but, when it comes to history, well Ok, Frances - I rise to the bait -

 

1765 - A naval blockade, British troops with fixed bayonets marching through the streets, military takeover of the government, striking down the Manx flag and hoisting up the English, imposition of a new regime that bankrupted the local economy (because we dared to have competitive rates of duty!) - barring Manx people from senior positions in our own civil service (the first Manx head of education was less than 20 years ago! - Still waiting for a Manx head of police!), and resultant poverty that forced hundreds upon hundreds into in the British Navy, and 300 into the army of occupation in Ireland, and set in motion the whole history of Manx emigration hmmm - your idea of good government?

 

The only real power left here after revestment was with the Atholl Governors, who used the power of patronage to milk whatever was left through the tithe system - until Thomas Shimmin and the boys forced a (slight) change for the better - nevertheless, my family (of methodists) had to pay a tithe until the 1950s. The English have continued to appoint governors and bishops who (though not all bad) have tended to have little or no connection to the island before their arrival. It is only since 1959 that we have started to gradually recover our sovereignty - thanks in large part to Charlie Kerruish (another controversial hero!) - and consequently we have gone from being one of the poorest parts of Europe to being one of the better off.

 

As you acknowledged, Illiam Dhone saved us a bloodbath - and Stanley had him murdered. The Lords of Mann (present incumbant excluded), Stanley, Atholl or English monarch - were we ever anything more to them than revenue or manpower for the press gang? Thank God we finally have a (flawed) democracy.

[Frances]

The naval blockade came about because of the illicit (as viewed by the English) running trade - in the 17th C indirect taxation could only realy be levied at the producer/importer level and the illegal (by English laws) of Manx running tea,brandy etc at night into Irish,Scots + English creeks was a problem (if you believe that the Island should only trade by breaking laws of adjacent Islands then fine but don't complain then that the adjacent islands might ignore Manx law) - the fixed bayonets were a display of force to prevent any disturbance (if you read around the history of the English customs vessells in manx ports probably a sensible precaution.

The English did not alter the import duties! only prevented (or reduced the illicit running trade) - English/manx import duties were not equalised for another 80 years - yes I agree that once London had bought the regalities and in 1777 modernised the law it neglected the Island with an outward flow of money towards London - however those who were bankrupted were the merchants (many of whom were not manx - a couple of the manx had been tipped the wink re revestment, others were bitter that they could not dispose of their goods (ie on an open market whereby they and any English competitors were required to pay the same import duty). Yes many manx joined the Navy (many had before 1765 as a typical court penalty when caught smuggling was impressment (read the wills on my site) - around the same time the African (slave) trade was developing from Liverpool and many manx joined these ships.

 

The tithes were universally detested, especially by the fishermen and then later small farmers when the Athol Bishop tried to restart the potato tithe though they did pay for schools - I have a thesis that the rapid spread of Methodism in Michael can be laid at the feet of Rev James Wilks who took the fisherman to court for fish tithes + also made sure of his own tithes elsewhere.

 

Can we please stop saying that WC was murdered - as you agreed earlier the trail could only have had one outcome given he didn't plead (and IMO the evidence presented was damming enough re treason (and as that Manx jurist James Gell agreed) - the penalties for treason were laid down in the 1422 statutes - a firing squad was actually a sop for a faster execution.

 

Don't continue to judge the 18th C by today's standards and what you wish had been the case

[Freggyragh]

Frances, Why don't you try judging the 18th C by the Manx 18th C standard ? You will find it expressed in ballads like Baase Illiam Dhone, which dates from around the time of what the 18th C Manx called Yn Chialg Mooar (The Great Swindle). Or, could you at least cut the patronising bits of your posts?

[Freggyragh]

By the way Frances - have you ever read Captain Crowe's log book? I read it 25 years ago, and haven't seen a copy since. It was a very good read and I'd love to take another look at it.

[Frances]

Freggyragh

I'm not trying to be patronising - the running trade was good whilst it lasted especially for a small group of merchants who became very rich (John Taubman, George Moore et al), it fed a lot of money into the Atholl purse but also killed many Manx who actually ran the material (both in ship wrecks + also court-imposed naval impressment). Many of the Manx clergy were strongly against the running trade (as were Methodists in the post 1765 era against the later smuggling) seeing it as debilitating to the agriculture and general development of the Island.

 

Re Crowe - are you referring to his posthumously published autobiography ? (he left money in his will to pay for it tho his executors were not happy as the slave-trade by then was seen in a rather different light) - I read a copy in Liverpool Library but have never managed to get hold of a copy myself, there should be a copy in manx Museum but I've never requested it - maybe another item for Manxnotebook. The only published log I know is that of George Cannon who was murdered by his crew (it would seem that he was involved in the slave trade after it was made illegal by the Brits) - this is available on the internet but have misplaced the reference.

[bluemonday]

The only published log I know is that of George Cannon who was murdered by his crew (it would seem that he was involved in the slave trade after it was made illegal by the Brits) - this is available on the internet but have misplaced the reference.

Frances, I think this is it.

http://www.georgeqcannon.com/Family%20Hist...annon%20log.pdf

[Skeddan]

I wasn't going to post in this thread but I've read what you have posted previously in your lofty position of not living here, reading a couple of threads, and then looking at our constitution and deciding we are being ripped off.

 

oldmanxfella, it appears as if you might be suggesting that only someone who lives on IoM is entitled to hold or express an opinion on Manx affairs. Evidently you don’t take issue with people on Manxforums posting opinions about international affairs, and as I see, consider yourself entitled to express an opinion on Russia (I take it you are not Russian yourself and do not live there). Your comment thus might seem to be somewhat hypocritical, but I trust I am right in thinking that this is only intended to stress your scorn and contempt and what you believe is an ill-informed opinion.

 

Of course you’re entitled to argue that I am poorly-informed in many respects of Manx affairs, and I have no difficulty with you having such an opinion, and I would even go so far as to say that I wouldn’t entirely disagree with you.

 

I will readily admit that I am not well informed about many of the details of the financial arrangements between the UK and IoM, but neither is anyone since these are shrouded in secrecy and there is no transparency or accountability in these. I doubt anyone who is properly informed could divulge the real facts without breaking the UK Official Secrets Act. You speak of “a rumoured £300m”. If all one has to go on is rumours, then I don’t think one can be particularly well informed, and I think that goes for most of the Manx electorate as well. Personally I’d be inclined to count the money before thinking I’d got the best end of the deal.

 

You might also bear in mind accounting ruses. The Ridley Scott film Alien, which was a major international blockbuster earning hundreds of millions, never went into profit. The film studio added all the paper costs they could and so those entitled to a share of net profits never saw any. ‘Paper costs’ of such a magnitude are a good way of making people think that they are ‘better off with Britain’.

 

However seeing as you’re so confident there is so much money flowing in thanks to the generosity of the UK government, perhaps you should be concerned that with the UK govt on track to get very cash-strapped over Northern Rock, that perhaps this generosity will end, leaving IoM in the kind of financial difficulties you describe. Funny how with such a risk exposure in its dependency on this rumoured money that IoM still gets a AAA rating. Perhaps the analysts don’t give as much credence to these rumours as you do.

 

Also as mentioned by Cheeky Boy - the oil and gas platforms are all UK territory anyway so again what is being plundered? We've no oil rigs and the fish and scallops dried up years ago!

 

Oil and gas fields stretch over miles and are not confined solely to the site of the well-head. In the North Sea oil is being extracted from the same fields on both sides of the Norwegian and UK EEZs. Oil and gas fields happily cross international borders and EEZ boundaries. As I said before, there are huge oil and gas reserves in the Irish Sea, perhaps not to the extent of Iraq or Alaska, or what the North Sea used to be, but still very significant. Look at the map and see for yourself how much of the Irish Sea would fall within a Manx EEZ. The existing platforms are not that far outside where the Manx EEZ would lie, and would no doubt be closer to the UK if the field ran there. I would think it far from unlikely that the field extends some way into what would be the Manx EEZ. The UK rigs are pumping out gas from a field which probably mainly lies within what would be the Manx EEZ, and getting all the benefits because IoM is not in on the act. I wouldn’t claim to be able to put a value on oil and gas rights within what would be the Manx EEZ, but the revenues that the IoM might earn from licenses, let alone other economic benefits, would probably be a mite bigger and more real revenue than your rumoured £300 million a year.

 

You say the fish and scallops dried up years ago. Was this because Manx fleets overfished these? Or was it because the fisheries in what would be a Manx EEZ were not protected, and hence these resources which would have been for the benefit of the IoM were exploited by others?

 

Perhaps unless one lives there one cannot assess whether IoM is getting value for money for its contribution to defence. Maybe this is reassuring if Manx would otherwise live in fear of Axis of Evil forces sailing up the Irish Sea and landing on the beaches of Chapel Bay. (Why they would want to when according to you IoM has no value or resources is to be wondered at). I take it that in your view the UK and UN would not take issue at this or take any action were it not for the payments being made. Here is another area in which I am ill informed, for despite all this money being paid I don’t know of any treaty incorporated by an Act of Parliament which binds the UK to act for the defence of IoM in return for such payments. It seems money is being paid for something the UK is under no obligation to deliver. Not worried by this oversight? I don’t think most people would be worried at a lack of response to such an invasion if not a penny was paid to the UK for ‘defence’. Historically the lesson is that the UK has always got more benefit from the IoM for support of its conflicts than vice versa. What would the UK do if IoM refused to pay? Make rumoured cuts in the “rumoured revenue”? Invade and occupy? It seems you haven’t noticed that they’ve already done that, some time ago. It used to be that IoM had this protection for only a token tribute of two falcons rendered at the coronation day, and had complete autonomy, now you pay nefgildi and are under the subjugation of the UK.

 

There are other points you raise that I’d be happy to address if you like, but let me turn to a point of potential misunderstanding. It would seem from your last statement that you think I am advocating independence and a complete break from the UK. As I admitted earlier, I am not well enough informed, and so would not be able to substantiate such a position. The information needed to make an informed assessment is, funnily enough, a matter of state secrecy and protected under the UK Official Secrets Act. (Presumably because it is not in the UK’s national interest for there to be informed debate on the topic). Ill-informed debate tends to break down and gets nowhere (apart from perhaps creating rifts, divisions and ill feelings). I would however advocate the right to self-determination as given by the UN - do you find that objectionable?

 

As I noted earlier I believe the constitutional relationship between IoM and the UK is that of a territory under the control of an ‘Administering Power’ and that the UK does not have legal title to the sovereignty of IoM. That is something I could go into detail about if you care to go into the legal ins and outs, and show that this explains the otherwise ‘positively bizarre’ and otherwise unknown legal status of ‘Crown Dependency’. It also explains, incidentally, why the Queen is not head of state of the Isle of Man and is never listed as such officially (contra to what you claim, presumably on the basis of being ill-informed by the Manx Administration).

 

I admit I may not have put forward “what the alternative to our position is”. The only alternative to your position I can suggest is being well informed and getting to the truth of the situation (which I trust you would admit has always been fudged, such as in Kilbrandon Report). Perhaps my analysis may turn out to be wrong and will be disproved. However until there is a mature and sensible exploration of the issues and an informed debate, there is not likely to be any alternative.

 

Perhaps oldmanxfella, you are better informed than I, and can give a satisfactory and coherent explanation of the constitutional and legal nature of the constitutional relationship between IoM and UK which does not parrot Kilbrandon’s non-answer. If not, then given your evidently strong feelings about being ill informed about Manx affairs, I am sure you would want to get to the bottom of this, and, whichever, agree or disagree, if you care and have something to say, and can offer informed insights, I’d sincerely welcome your input into addressing this question.

[Skeddan]

Frances, given some of the observations you make about the 1765 events and the peculiar fact that the English did not alter the customs duties, it may be worth observing that perhaps the ‘illicit trade’ might not have been the UK's primary concern. I think an interesting and perhaps fruitful line of inquiry would be to consider that perhaps the main motivation was that this offered a substantial resource of Manx seafarers and able seamen for the Navy at a time when there was a desperate and chronic shortage of crisis proportions. As I understand it, within a few decades nearly 1/5 of able seamen in the Royal Navy were Manx. I haven’t investigated this fully, but would be interested in whether you have any thoughts on this hypothesis.

 

On another point, can you offer any suggestion as to why the UK did not simply address the ‘illicit trade’ situation by an Act of Parliament (assuming the commonly held belief that the UK had Parlimentary authority over IoM prior to 1765). My view is simply that the UK Parliament did not have such jurisdiction at this time. Would you agree with that?

[Skeddan]

Re Illiam Dhone, it has been repeated several times here that his act saved significant bloodbath, thus making him a worthy national hero.

 

Had William Wallace surrendered to the English, it would have saved a lot of lives, both Scots and English. Would Wallace have been more of a national hero for surrendering to the English rather than fighting them? (Perhaps, but that depends…)

 

Despite what I’ve said, I think there could be a case to be made that WC was a true patriot and hero, but not for the make believe reasons presented by Mec Vannin.

 

WC clearly had a very astute understanding of law. As is clear from the record, WC also said that nothing he had done was meant to harm the Stanleys. How then might this be reconciled with his actions?

 

Given the peculiarities of his ‘surrender’ and according to principles of the Law of Nations recognised at this time, it might be noted that the effect of this was that there was no acquisition of the sovereignty of IoM by England. What WC did was sold them a pup. The English might occupy and exercise control over IoM, as they were almost bound to do anyway, but would not acquire sovereignty by right of conquest or deballatio, as might have been the case had they fought and conquered the territory. Possibly WC was in the pay of the English, but really acting as a double agent, serving the interests of the IoM first. Possibly his arrest for embezzlement might have been a result of his taking money from the English, and only delivering a hollow concession which deliberately did not deliver the goods. As Frances noted, “maybe he was paid by London and didn't deliver?”

 

Also, as I’ve already said, I think that WC was absolutely right in maintaining that a civilian should not be subject to trial by a military court martial, even for alleged offences committed while serving in the military.

 

Despite his legal astuteness, oddly WC seems to have made the fatal ‘mistake’ of refusing to plea, hence ensuring his conviction (A point Frances has noted, and which WC must surely have understood). Instead he should have appealed to the civilian court after the court martial, again, something he would have surely understood. How might his legal ‘blunder’ be explained? Perhaps because this posited legal strategy he used to preserve Manx sovereignty by selling the English a pup is a good and valuable one. He may thus have recognised the value of keeping this ruse hidden so that it could be used again in the Manx national interest (as it essentially was in 1765). His only defence in a trial, military or civilian, would be to reveal this. To admit guilt would be wrong, to save his life by revealing the strategy would weaken ‘national security’. Hence, as a patriot, he may have thus chosen to refuse to plead, albeit that this would mean sacrificing himself. If this was the case then his was the act of a patriot and a man of integrity.

 

This is a different kind of heroism from that propounded by Mec Vannin make believe. In this view he cheated the English of victory and acquisition by conquest, saving many Manx lives, preserving the nation’s sovereignty, and sacrificing himself in order to keep this cunning strategy available for use again in the future should it ever be needed to save the nation again. If so, it also shows his great astuteness, and his understanding that weapons of law can be more powerful than weapons of war, and one can overcome an enemy without bloodshed.

 

While this interpretation may seem something of a stretch, such a legal-military ruse is perhaps not entirely implausible from a cunning and legally astute Manxman, and could explain what are otherwise inconsistent peculiarities of the events. If there might be any substance to this, it would be proper, if possible, to give him the benefit of any reasonable doubt. Take it or leave it, that view does not go against what I said earlier – that the Illiam Dhone as presented in the Mec Vannin make believe account was no patriot or hero; indeed their faux history may be dishonouring the memory of a true Manx hero.

[The Old Git]

After reading all of that, I now can't help thinking of Illiam Dhone as a Manx version of Baldrick

[Frances]

what court martial ? - Manx law required an enquest before a trial - it was for this the depositions were made, there would have been a trial before the Deemsters and Keys but once WC refused to plead this was un-necessary as the Law was very explicit - in fact Earl Charles asked the Deemster (the other Deemster being a near relative of WC and didn't appear) + the Keys (minus those implicated in the revolt) what the law was and they confirmed WC was now thrown upon his mercy. Possibly Charles might have spared him - probably in retrospect the wiser course but don't forget his father had already warned him about treacherous Christians.

 

The English didn't need to re-conquer the Island that of the 13th C would suffice as the Stanleys held it in fief to the English Crown so that part of your 'explanation' doesn't apply - we will never really know why WC didn't plead, maybe he didn't feel confient that other accusations might surface in cout, maybe he felt bitter towards the Stanleys, maybe he felt after the depositions it was a foregone conclusion. As William Harrison says in his introduction what need do people have of history when they have ballads - I'm sure if you ask anyone in the street of their understanding of many important events it would be strongly influenced by inaccurate films.

[bluemonday]

Re Illiam Dhone, it has been repeated several times here that his act saved significant bloodbath, thus making him a worthy national hero.

That does it in my book. He could of course let the battle happen and then still kept his life - probably unlikely though. Instead he saved lives. It may well be for altruistic reasons but the act stands - lives were saved.

I think there could be a case to be made that WC was a true patriot and hero, but not for the make believe reasons presented by Mec Vannin.

Indeed - not an isolated case. Historical figures and their actions are frequently hijacked for politcal purpose. In this Mec V are by no means alone.

 

WC played a complex game on a complex field and in the end lost out. Politics was a very dangerous game in those times.

As for Mec V - as you say faux revisionist history adapted to fit their manifesto such as it is. Far as I'm concerned, it doesn't improve their standing really. They need to have a rethink. Times and circumstances have changed. They need to consider the meaning of pragmatism.

 

WC took a pragmatic view maybe?

[Skeddan]

what court martial ? - Manx law required an enquest before a trial

 

Military Jurisdiction is outside municipal jurisdiction (a subtle but important point). Once a military court asserts jurisdiction, municipal laws and civilian jurisdiction does not apply (there are numerous legal references on this point). The conduct of the trial was by its nature that of a military tribunal (and irregular had it been a civilian trial under Manx law). The is little discretion as to the manner of execution for treason in civilian law (as is more fully shown in English law, which though different, is also a common law system). The fact that he was executed by firing squad, which is a mode of exectution reserved for penal offences under military law is by itself strong if not persuasive evidence that WC was tried by court martial. Do you have evidence that clearly shows this was NOT a court martial? If so I'd be very interested to see this, and am of course open to be convinced otherwise given such evidence.

[Skeddan]

Frances - you said in an earlier post in this thread:

 

Earl James (who actually is not of any descent that I know of from Godred

 

FYI, you can see the line of descent through Isobel Lathom (wife of Sir John Stanley who was conceeded IoM in 1405/1406) at the following which gives her ancestors. You can also cross check this in other sources.

 

http://fabpedigree.com/latham2.htm

 

You will find Godred Crovan listed in Generation 12, A2676.

 

If you cross check with other more reliable sources going by this info, then I think you will accept that the Stanleys were indeed descended from Godred Crovan (whether one likes it or not, it is still a relevant historical fact which has been largely overlooked).

[Frances]

a 12th generation 'alternative' link doesn't count for much to me - marrying off daughters was a standard method of linking powerful families and the Stanleys were powerful - possibly having a more legitimate claims to the English crown than Elizabeth.

 

treason is not a common crime - the structure followed a standard path - enquest first to sort out the information then the trial - have you any info that the Manx followed English pattern, after all Charles checked with the Deemster + keys that the proceedings were correct by Manx law ? - as explained in the record given by Charles execution by firing squad was to save the widow's feelings (and no doubt an easier option than hanging, quartering + display of body parts as laid down in the statutes.

 

Any way it sounds as if you have already done significant research so maybe you can reference your own published work ?