Evidence Reference
The National Archives, Kew — Anderson v De Nar Bey, C 16/693/A113 (1871)
Associated with Joseph De Nar Bey
Citation
The National Archives, Kew, C 16/693/A113. Court of Chancery, Clerks of Records and Writs Office, Pleadings 1861–1875; cause number 1871 A113. Short title Anderson v De Nar Bey. Plaintiff: Arthur Anderson. Defendants: Joseph De Nar Bey (commonly called Prince De Nar Bey); Annie Elizabeth De Nar Bey his wife (commonly called Princess De Nar Bey). Documents extant: bill; interrogatories. Open record; three working days' notice to produce. Retrieved via TNA Discovery, 2026-09-27.
Supporting claim
supported
A person named Joseph De Nar Bey — styling himself "Prince De Nar Bey" — appears as a defendant in the 1871 English Court of Chancery case Anderson v De Nar Bey (TNA C 16/693/A113). The Chancery catalogue phrasing "commonly called" is the Victorian legal convention for registering an assumed honorific without endorsing it: the styling was currently in use in his social and commercial circles when the plaintiff filed. That specific point — pre-1878 British use of the Nar Bey princely styling in a named individual — is documented at tier-1 depth. Identity with the Royal House of Lusignan post's "Yusuf / Joseph Nar Bey" is `probable` (onomastic match and no other candidate identification), and biological-brother relation to Ambroise and Khoren is `possible` (RHL institutional literature and Pierfit's separate Georges-Youssouf page, countervailed by Manoukian's two-brother reconstruction and the absence of primary baptismal or Ottoman population-register records). Neither the identity claim nor the biological-brother relation is admitted at the canonical layer by this fixture; both are held open in the audit and the scholarship note.