TINE Forums
 SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
start blogging your Cornwall now...
Welcome to TINE Cornwall. Discussing the future of Cornwall. Forum Index - View unanswered posts
What makes Cornwall unique ?
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Discussing the future of Cornwall. Forum Index -> Cornwall as a historic nation - Cornwall as a county of England?
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Jack Sparrow



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 49
Location: Kernow


Network this topic
Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:17 pm    Post subject: What makes Cornwall unique ? Reply with quote

What makes Cornwall unique ?

Is it true that Cornwall was a kingdom?

Absolutely true, and accepted by all historians. Originally it was part of the kingdom of Dumnonia that may well predate the Roman occupation. This covered the whole of the south-western peninsula as far as a north-south line linking the Rivers Axe and Parrott. The advance of the Wessex Saxons caused the border to retreat westward until, by the 8th century o­nly Cornwall was left. It must be remembered, though, that even then and until the 10th century, Cornwall extended to the Exe.

Do we know anything about the kings?

Some of them, although details of most are scanty at best. Fragments of a king-list survive, naming those who reigned from about 450 AD to around 650 AD and who would have been associated with the royal citadel at Tintagel, roughly dated to 450-700 AD. The earliest of these was Gurvor, then Tudwal. His successor was Cynvor, who flourished in the early to mid-6th century. Could he be the Cunomorus named o­n Fowey’s Tristan Stone (Cunomorus is a Latinised form of the Celtic name Cynvor), the lettering of which is dated to 530-570 AD? Could he also be the man mentioned in the 9th century Breton monk Wrmonoc’s Life of St Paul Aurelian as the king Quonomorius, also called Marcus? Was he, therefore, the famous King Mark of Cornwall?

The next king, Constantine, was king when the monk Gildas wrote around 540 AD. He castigated five contemporary British (Celtic) kings and called Constantine: “the tyrannical whelp of the unclean lioness of Dumnonia”. Welsh records refer to him as Custennin Gorneu (“of Cornwall” – an early reference to the native name Kernow). He is said to have abdicated when elderly and gone into the Church. He was succeeded by Erbin, another name which crops up in Welsh tradition as does the name of the next king, Gerent I.

He might have been the Gerent rac Deheu (“Gerent for the south”) who fought against the English at Catraeth (Catterick, Yorkshire) in 598. The next king was Cado, remembered by Geoffrey of Monmouth as Cador of Cornwall. After him come Peredur and Theudu.

The king list fizzles out at this point but we know of Gerent II, possibly Theudu’s successor. In 705, the Synod of Wessex wrote to “Gerontius Rex”, demanding that the Celtic (Columban) Church in Cornwall conform to the doctrines of Rome. That demand was never fufilled.

After Gerent II is a huge gap of 170 years before we find records of another Cornish king, Donyarth, recorded by the Annales Cambriae as having drowned in 878 AD. The Annales refer to him as “rex Cerniu” (“king of Cornwall”). Fifty years later, we find another o­ne, Huwal, called by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles “king of the West Welsh”, a term exclusively used to describe the British Celts of Dumnonia and Cornwall (this was not Hywel Dda of South Wales). He was o­ne of several kings who signed a treaty with Aethelstan of Wessex in 928 at Egmont Bridge, following which (and after he’d forced the Cornish from Exeter), Aethelstan fixed the border between Cornwall and Wessex at the east bank of the Tamar – exactly where it remains today in constitutional law (in spite of the unlawful alterations to it by the Boundary Commission and the Ordnance Survey).


So, was Huwal the last Cornish king?

We don’t know, but it appears that at the time of the Norman Conquest a man named Cadoc, described as the last of the Cornish royal line, became the first Earl. After him, the Norman authorities cleverly appointed Celtic-speaking Bretons to the Earldom; men like Count Brian, Robert of Mortain and Count Alan. There are indications that, under this system, the Cornish regarded the Normans as allies.


Are you saying that Cornwall was not conquered by the English and absorbed into Wessex?

No, it wasn’t. If it had been, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles would not have failed to shout it. Instead, there’s not a word, not in any record and the fact that some “historians” assume – even insist upon – its conquest by, and inclusion in, Wessex reflects rather badly upon their own integrity. Cornwall’s continued independence is strongly supported by the fact that it has enjoyed special status, as Earldom and Duchy, ever since.


So, you don’t believe that Cornwall is part of England ?

No, and for many reasons. First of all, Cornwall was portrayed o­n numerous maps, including the famous Mappa Mundi, as separate from England right up until the mid 16th century. Henry VIII even listed England and Cornwall separately in the list of his realms given in his coronation address and, interestingly, Elizabeth I stated that she did not rule Cornwall (but Cornish was among the languages she was reputed to speak). 1549 changed many things. No longer do we find Anglia et Cornubia in official documents; the British Sea suddenly became the English Channel and Cornwall as a separate entity was omitted from the maps. No record exists of any formal annexation of Cornwall to England, nor were we party to the Act of Union in 1707. More reasons will crop up later.


So the Cornish people are not English?

No, they can be no more English than the Welsh are, and for precisely the same reason. Modern archaeology now admits that the Cornish and Welsh of today are the remnants of an ancient race native to these islands since at least the Neolithic period, between 4,000 and 6,000 years ago. They also now believe that the Celtic language came into being during that same period as a common language of sea trading communities along the Atlantic coasts of Europe from Spain to the Hebrides. Cornish is a direct descendant of that early language. All in all, a heritage to be truly proud of even though officialdom seeks to erase it by dubbing monuments of those periods “English” Heritage. The English peoples, o­n the other hand, hail from what is now Germany and the Low Countries and did not begin to migrate into Britain until the mid 5th century AD. They had little or no contact with Cornwall until the 8th century. In 1937, Bartholomew published a Map of European Ethnicity prepared by the Edinburgh Institute of Geography which featured “Cornish Celtic”.


I note that you never refer to Cornwall as a “county”.

It’s officially a Duchy and that’s the title recommended by the Kilbrandon Report back in 1973 to be used instead of “county”. The imposition of official county status imposed o­n Cornwall in 1889 (a year after the rest of the country) was not lawful. Interestingly, the Duchy Charters and other documents refer to the old Cornish Hundreds as “shires” and “counties”. Now, how can any county contain counties?


The name Kernow, you say, is old?

Very old. The Ravenna Cosmography, compiled c700 AD from Roman material 300 years older, lists a route running westward into Cornwall. o­n this route is a place then called Durocornovio (Latinised from British Celtic duno-Cornouio-n – “fortress of the Cornish”). This has been identified as Tintagel (long before Earl Richard built his castle there) and in the Cornish of today would be rendered as Dyn Kernowyon. In 878, the drowned king Donyarth is recorded in Welsh annals as rex Cerniu, and you will find the present spelling – Kernow – as early as 1400. Remember that there was no such entity as England until just before the year 900 when it first appears o­n record (as Englaland). So the invading Romans did not occupy England, as too many TV presenters state – how could they, unless they had a time machine that could jump 850 years into their future?


What about Cornwall’s much-vaunted Parliament? Surely that’s just a joke?

Far from it. Even in King John’s day, Cornwall’s Stannary Parliament was believed to stretch back into antiquity – no o­ne knows how far back it goes. After Cornwall’s brief war with England in 1497, part of the cause of which was due to the English king suspending the Stannaries, Henry VII relented and in 1508 restored it under the Charter of Pardon (for a price – the greedy king demanded and got £1,000). This gave the Stannary Parliament additional powers, still valid to this day. The Stannary has power of veto over any Statute or Act of Parliament. People think that the Stannary Parliament applied o­nly to tinners but the terms of the Charter include the words, “their heirs and successors”. You don’t have to be a tinner to be an heir or successor. The terms of the Charter apply to the entire Cornish people.


Yes, but 1508 was a long time ago.

Sure it was, but there are extant English laws that date back even further. In 1977, in answer to a question from Plaid Cymru, the then Attorney General, Lord Elwyn Jones, confirmed that the powers of the Stannary remained intact at law. At a later date the Hansard Library also confirmed that the Charter of Pardon can o­nly be repealed by the Cornish people themselves (as contrasted with “the people of Cornwall”).


That’s not very democratic.

Depends o­n how you look at it. The Charter of Pardon was meant for the Cornish people alone. I don’t see that it’s any different from the present situation in Andorra where Andorrans o­nly make up about 40% of the population but o­nly they are allowed to vote in its elections.


So why haven’t we got that Parliament and its right of veto?

Because the establishment in London doesn’t want it. In fact, it took o­nly 41 years for London to trample all over the Charter with the forcible imposition of their state religion and language. It is not often mentioned that this contempt for the Charter and the Cornish people was a major reason for the war in 1549 (not ‘rebellion’ – you can o­nly rebel against a legitimate authority). The attitude persists to this day. During that war, the Cornish took Plymouth without a shot being fired, then laid siege to Exeter for 5 weeks. We fought five of the biggest and bloodiest battles ever fought o­n British soil. Thousands died, including 900 unarmed Cornish prisoners (figure from Edward VI’s own chronicler, John Hayward), and yet ‘English’ Heritage refuses to recognise the battle sites and enter them o­n the Register of British Battlefields. For that organisation, as it told visitors to Restormel Castle 6 years ago, there was no war – just “wicked rebels” opposing a “good king”. Sadly, we came second but I still think that our general, Sir Humphrey Arundell, should be placed alongside Josef an Gof as the greatest of our heroes.


What about the Duchy? Is it true that it is just a collection of private estates?

That’s what we are told and Duchy representatives have been very liberal with the truth in that respect. The real and lasting truth lies in the successful submission by the Duchy’s Attorney General, Sir George Harrison, in the late 1850s in a spat with the Crown over the latter’s greedy attempt to land-grab Cornwall’s foreshore. Harrison’s submission stated plain fact, describing Cornwall as a Palatine state that had always been held apart from England and that the entire jurisdiction of the Crown within Cornish borders was held by the Duke. In other words – and uniquely in Britain – the reigning monarch’s writ does not extend to Cornwall. Here, the Duke is the ruler. This is why Henry VIII listed England and Cornwall separately in the list of his realms given in his coronation address. He ruled England as King, and Cornwall as Duke. In fact, the title Duke of Cornwall is vastly senior to that of Prince of Wales. As Duke, the incumbent is a ruling sovereign; as Prince of Wales he is merely a figurehead. Under Duchy Charters, the Duke appoints the Sherriff: elsewhere in Britain, including Wales, this appointment is made by the monarch. Harrison also pointed out that, irrespective of external land holdings, the Duchy covered the entire area of Cornwall – including the bed and waters of the Tamar. This confirms the ancient boundary fixed by Aethelstan 900 years previously as, indeed, does the Tamar Bridge Act 1998 that also confirms the power of the Duke. This truth has not been altered since by change or amendment of any Act. It can be tested. If you die intestate o­n Cornish soil, your estate will pass to the Duchy. The entire foreshore of Cornwall belongs to the Duchy. If a sturgeon is caught in Cornish waters, it must be offered to the Duke, who also enjoys right of wreck in Cornish waters. All four examples are unique in Great Britain – elsewhere these are rights of the Crown - and I must mention o­ne other stipulation of the Duchy Creation Charter that remains law today: no agent of the Crown can even set foot o­n Cornish soil to carry out Crown duties unless with the express permission of both the Duke and the Cornish parliament.


Whoops – that opens a can of worms!

Yes, doesn’t it just. It explains exactly why Cornwall’s rights have been deliberately ignored for 450 years, and why the ongoing stream of official untruths. Just look at the organisations that operate in Cornwall in direct breach of the Duchy Charters: HM Inspector of Taxes, the Crown Prosecution Service, Crown Courts and even the quangos created by recent governments: English Heritage, English Nature, English Estates. The Government, acting in the name of the Crown, does not allow Cornish children to be taught their own heritage. It even teaches them they are “English” and there have been recent complaints against teaching staff who have punished or humiliated Cornish children for insisting upon their true Cornish identity. London would be the first to condemn any other nation that was treating a legitimate minority in this way - and this situation has o­nly been achieved, ever since 1549, by the exertion of “might is right”. o­ne day, this may well be challenged, perhaps in Europe or to another international court – up to now, Cornwall hasn’t had the money to do it – and the London establishment can never win such a case. The evidence against it is overwhelming. Westminster has operated in complete contempt of its own law for ages and to undo what it has done will create utter chaos – but whose fault is that? Not ours.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tregenna



Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 87


Network this topic
Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Q) Is Cornwall a Separate Country from England?

This is the paradox that fuels all the arguments over what Cornwall is, or is not. Following a time-line from a Cornish legal and historical perspective, Cornwall is both distinct from England, and the Crown. The paradox arises from the fact that we have all been tutored to believe that Cornwall is no different to an English county, and, as a consequence, in England.


Q) So Cornwall is historically distinct from England but not officially or constitutionally recognised?

That is Correct. Cornwall is legally a Royal Duchy not an English county, although it would contain within it, an equivalent civil administration. Royal Duchies were created as semi autonomous States within the State. Cornwall (Duke as Heir to the Throne) and Lancaster (the reigning Monarch) are the only Royal Duchies within the United Kingdom. The 'official' promotion of the Duchy of Cornwall as "a Private Estate and nothing to do with Cornwall", is not legally correct.


Q) How did we get to the point where people in England, and Cornwall, accept (or acquiesce) to a de facto status of Cornwall as an English county?

Over the years the English government has surreptitiously included Cornwall in its borders. There has been no conquest or agreement or law defining that Cornwall is a part of England.

It has been a subtle change over time because the Duchy (and the former Earldom) of Cornwall, when there has been no Duke (or Earl) is held 'in trust' by the Crown as a 'Territorial Honor' - Terra de Cornubia. During such occasions, the Honor is held as the Comitatus (Earldom), which translates as County.

Also, the civil government termed as the vicecomitatus also translates as 'county' and it is this latter definition, which has passed into general modern usage and fossilised perceptions. Most people identify with paying tax and, if they are lucky, land/property ownership. This is the normal focus for relating to civil government etc.

Most people, therefore, have accepted the lack of distinction because they have been made unaware that there is a genuine distinction.


Q) Doing my research its pretty clear that there is lots of evidence for both sides.

That is very true, but where would you place the moral obligation, when the obvious contradictions show that the suppressed history and constitution of a distinct people have knowingly deprived that people of their rights. It is only the Cornish peoples awareness of themselves that have endured and fuelled the cultural, political and intellectual renaissance.

It is very easy to throw-up 'evidence' in an attempt to negate the Cornish argument or to imply that there is 'no distinction'. The following examples are some of the pitfalls to be avoided, or taken into account, when doing so:

whether or not there was a Duke (or Earl) 'in full possession',
whether the issue in question was at that time a matter of dispute,
whether it is simply an issue of tax/land/property,
whether it relates to an instance of Royal Jurisdiction,
whether the context is England (the Kingdom) or England (the country)
whether there is a Dis-annexing Act to sever the civil government of Cornwall from the Duchy of Cornwall.


Conclusion: This is the condensed version of the "ping pong" Jim and I have been having over the weeks - if you want to go into heavy details then I recommend Jim's website and the wikipedia as good starting points. When I started looking into this, I had scant knowledge of the arguments for Cornish nationalism. I am now pretty convinced that, if you had the cash, time and power you could put down a far more certain case that Cornwall is distinct from England than that it is a part of England.

What is clear is that there are many people believe that Cornwall is a separate country that has been subsumed into England, but there is nobody who can claim that Cornwall is an undisputed territory of England.

(The forum is at Cornwall24 is very good for debate with "Cornish Nationalists" as well as people just interested in Cornwall and its wellbeing...)


http://midcornwall.blogspot.com/2007/08/interview-with-cornish-nationalist.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Scottish Republican



Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 707


Network this topic
Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From responses I've seen round the place, it is clear that while some people have no problem accepting that Cornwall was not part of England, they think "It is different now" - there's the challenge.
_________________
Scottish not "British"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tregenna



Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 87


Network this topic
Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Question for a Cornish referendum

"Will you please vote on whether you would like the Government to tell the constitutional and historical truth (de jure) about the Duchy of Cornwall and the Cornish Nation?"

Cornwall has a Celtic language, known the whole world over as Kernewek. The vast majority of its place names (>85% average) are based on this language. It's very land is therefore indelibly registered as Kernewek, Brythonic, Celtic, Cornish. A huge number of Cornish first names and surnames are also based on Kernewek. Etched on the people. This is what nowadays defines Cornwall as a modern Celtic nation. This is recognised by the Celtic League, Celtic Congress, and of course, by the Celtic Gorseth. Cornwall is represented in FUEN and many other European organisations. Many other organisations pertaining to Cornwall could be mentioned.

It has a political party, MK, based on Cornish determination, which has about 30 elected councillors. It also has the biggest expression for devolution (devolution petition, Mori, etc) in the remaining undevolved UK.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tregenna



Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 87


Network this topic
Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew George MP - House of Commons Hansard Debates 22nd May 1997

"Michael Joseph, 'An Gof', marched to London with a band of 15,000 Cornishmen. Sadly, he was summarily hanged, drawn and quartered and dragged through the streets of this city.

In defiance of the then King, he said, roughly translated:

"I shall have a name perpetual and a fame permanent and immortal."

To prove that, the celebration of that uprising will start from my constituency at the weekend. It will be an important commemoration for us. I believe that I am supposed to mention my predecessors on this occasion--the then local Member, William Antron, supported the rebellion. In 1508, the Charter of Pardon, resulting from the rebellion, gave the Cornish Parliament the right to allow or disallow

"any Statute, Act, ordinance, provision, restraint or proclamation . . . made by the King, his heirs, successors, or the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cornwall, or their council."

That charter represented an accommodation of the distinctiveness of Cornwall."


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo970522/debtext/70522-17.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tregenna



Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 87


Network this topic
Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cornwall is unique in having a Stannary Parliament that, whilst established by prescriptive usage, cannot be repealed by a Westminster Parliament without the consent of the Cornish themselves. The 1508 Charter of Pardon constituted a treaty offered to the Cornish after the Anglo-Cornish wars of 1497. The Charter states, "No [Westminster] Act or Statute shall have effect in the Stannaries without the assent and consent of the twenty-four stannators." Acting in its capacity as appeal court for the colonies, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has declared that any reference to The Stannaries means the whole of Cornwall.

http://www.restormel.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=4837
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic
Page 1 of 1


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Random Information. 
 For many Cornish people and Cornwall, the Duchy, as shown by the Officers of the Duchy of Cornwall in 1855 in its dispute with the Crown over the ownership of the Cornish Foreshore, has quite a different significance, based on the original Acts and Charters of its creation. Cornwall itself in this framework is described, de jure, as a Duchy (as opposed to an ordinary county), and the Duchy estates are distinguished from the Duchy itself, having themselves been annexed and united to "the aforesaid Duchy". The Duke of Cornwall may even be described as Cornwall's head of state.  


Powered by FTI
There are a total of visits to this site since 13th July 07.