King George III's reign in the Isle of Man - began in 1765, NOT 1760!

Here is proof of why this is the case;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man_Purchase_Act_1765 .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Isle_of_Man#Revestment .

Aidan.

Please ALWAYS link the URL of the error you spotted!

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/ruler.php?id=267

Don't you confuse Reign and feudal rights? Wasn't he king even there in 1760?

Compendium

Don't you confuse Reign and feudal rights? Wasn't he king even there in 1760?

No, as the Isle of Man was privately owned by nobility from England & Scotland.

Aidan.

Your point seem a technicality 

The Revestment Act was necessary to bring the Isle of Man under the British Crown's jurisdiction.

If that had not occurred, the Isle of Man would have remained a semi independent separate territory outside the dominions of the Crown.

Aidan.

I would need sources proving this interpretation of yours

Here is a reliable source to prove that George III only became Lord of Mann in 1765:

https://www.worldstatesmen.org/Isle_of_Man.htm

If you look at the coins, you'll see that they were issued in the name of the lords before 1765, such as this ½ penny (the monogram is actually DA, standing for Duke of Atholl). In addition to changing George III's start date to 1765, we also need to add the the following lords (who both issued coins) as rulers:

James Stanley (Earl of Derby, 1702-1736)

James Murray (Duke of Atholl, 1736-1764)

The monograms on the 1758 coins have now been fixed. Thanks to the referee, @MMowiec.

@Compendium : Having initially been rejected, do we need to start a new thread to reactivate this request now that sources have been provided?

It's still rejected as coins name the issuer as king not lord. The date range depends on the very title. 

The list of events you link does not change this

In what way do the “coins name the issuer as king not lord”? Are you saying lord is too low a title to be considered an issuer? By that rule, we should list the Holy Roman Emperor (who also held the title of King of Germany) rather than the Lord of Jever for this coin? If not, what is the difference between the two cases?

No I mean he is referred as king not lord on coins

N#17886

Compendium

No I mean he is referred as king not lord on coins

N#17886

Look at the coins before 1765. They were issued by earlier Lords of Mann. On this one, the monogram is DA. That stands for Duke of Atholl. This one has the inscription ID, standing for James of Derby (this Lord was also the Earl of Derby). As you can see, all of the Lords used other titles on their coins, so why should we refuse to acknowledge the earlier Lords' existence and pretend George III's Lordship began in 1760?

Because it's not what we do for other parts of the catalogue. Several kings were also lords somewhere and issued coins accordingly. See Béarn for instance.

We don't base Numista's title on what we know but on what the collectible describe

George would be titled Lord of Man on Numista if used on coins. Its not.

It's my understanding of the guidelines and I won't spend more time on this debate about pure technicality.

Feel Free to reach out to other admins or Xavier who may have other interpretation. 

@Xavier @Jarcek As requested, could you please take a look at this? I can't help feeling this is a clear case where the guidelines are being either misunderstood or misused or simply weren't created with this kind of situation in mind. We have coins issued by two Lords of Mann but we can't have these Lords listed as the issuers! It makes no sense and does not appear to be a “technicality”. The Lord of Mann was the hereditary ruler of the Isle of Man, so why treat them differently to other rulers?

No it's not the issue, the 2 missing lords I created them 

Compendium

No it's not the issue, the 2 missing lords I created them 

 

Thank you, I hadn't seen that. This does now arguably come down to a technicality. It still seems a bit pointless to have George III overlapping with the last Lords of Mann but at least the Lords can be properly assigned.

ceh2019

…the monogram is actually DA, standing for Duke of Atholl

I verified and both IOM coins catalogues (Mackay and Southall) says that actually it's  AD = "Atholl Dux" from latin. I move back monogram from DA to AD and will update unabridged legend + translation.