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 is Cornwall? Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Discussing the future of Cornwall. Forum Index -> The legal status of the Duchy of Cornwall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Fulup le Breton



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 530


Network this topic
Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:44 am    Post subject: What is Cornwall? Reply with quote

Here is an old letter I wrote many moons ago and sent off to as many people as I could, thought I should stick it here.

Dear blah blah

I was hoping that you would be able to provide help with a question that puzzles many a Cornishman like myself and concerns the Duchy and county of Cornwall.

The question is a basic one and it is what is Cornwall?

Is it a county of England, a county of the UK (but not England) a Duchy or a combination of all of these. Perhaps it is part of the Kingdom of England like Wales (now replaced by the UK) but not part of the country of England.

It is still common for Cornish folk to describe Cornwall as a Duchy, are they misguided and if so should they be informed of their mistake and told once and for all that Cornwall is a County and not a Duchy?

Please could you answer my question taking into consideration the following facts.

1) This definition of county in the Complete Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd Ed 1989 p. 1044.

Whence county was gradually adopted in English ( scarcely before the 15th century ) as an alternative name for the shire, and in due course applied to similar divisions made in Wales and in Ireland, as well as the shires of Scotland, and also extended to those separate parts of the realm which never were shires, as The Duchy of Cornwall, Orkney and Shetland. Part definition of the term County.

This would seem to indicate that Cornwall was a Duchy, a county but not part of England.

2) The Duchy charters which are still law turned all of Cornwall into a Duchy.

3) Taken from Cornwall County Councils website:

In the 19th century the legal arguments of Sir George Harrison, Attorney General to the Duchy of Cornwall, defeat the Crown's aspirations of sovereignty of the Cornish foreshore. The Duchy that Cornwall argues the Duke has sovereignty of Cornwall and not the Crown. During the same case, Parliament defines the Cornish as "aborigines".

On behalf of the Duchy in its successful action against the Crown, which resulted in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act of 1858, Sir George Harrison (Attorney General for Cornwall) makes this submission.

That Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest, and was subsequently treated in many respects as distinct from England.

That it was held by the Earls of Cornwall with the rights and prerogative of a County Palatine, as far as regarded the Seignory or territorial dominion.

That the Dukes of Cornwall have from the creation of the Duchy enjoyed the rights and prerogatives of a County Palatine, as far as regarded seignory or territorial dominion, and that to a great extent by Earls.

That when the Earldom was augmented into a Duchy, the circumstances attending to it's creation, as well as the language of the Duchy Charter, not only support and confirm natural presumption, that the new and higher title was to be accompanied with at least as great dignity, power, and prerogative as the Earls enjoyed, but also afforded evidence that the Duchy was to be invested with still more extensive rights and privileges.

The Duchy Charters have always been construed and treated, not merely by the Courts of Judicature, but also by the Legislature of the Country, as having vested in the Dukes of Cornwall the whole territorial interest and dominion of the Crown in and over the entire County of Cornwall.

This legal case again would suggest that Cornwall (the county) is a Duchy.

4) Taken from Cornwall County Councils website:

In 1969-71 Kilbrandon Report into the British constitution recommends that, when referring to Cornwall - official sources should cite the Duchy not the County. This was suggested in recognition of its constitutional position.

5) Taken from Cornwall County Councils website:

In 1863 the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act confirms that the Duke possesses seignory and territorial rights befitting a king.

6) Taken form Cornwall County Councils website:

In 1889 (1st April) Cornwall county council is created by the Local Government Act of 1888.

This act however does not do away with the Duchy or state if Cornwall is a county of England.

As you can see there is much information that contradicts the common perception of Cornwall as a county of England and goes some way to support the opinion of many Cornish folk that Cornwall is in some way different.

Taken into account with the historic quotes and maps below it seems the status of Cornwall is not at all clear.

Many of these maps by cartographers such as Gerardus Mercator(1512), Sebastian Munster(1515), Abraham Ortelius and Girolamo Ruscelli, are contained on these BBC website Maps of Cornwall : http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A106867101360

Treaty of Brétigny: "John, by the Grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, Earl of Anjou, confirmed the aforesaid; and Richard, King of Germany and Earl of Cornwall, in like manner, confirmed the aforesaid".

The 15th century Croyland Chronicle states "In order zealously to carry out the same, he sent the venerable men of God, brothers Egelmer and Nigel, his fellow-monks, with relics of the saints, into the western parts, namely, Flanders and France. To the northern parts and into Scotland he sent the brothers Fulk and Oger, and into Denmark and Norway the brothers Swetman and Wulsin the younger; while to Wales, Cornwall and Ireland he sent the brothers Augustin and Osbert".

1485 : Polydore Vergil, an Italian cleric commissioned by King Henry VII to write a history of England, states that "The whole country of Britain is divided into four parts, whereof the one is inhabited by Englishmen, the other of Scots, the third of Welshmen, the fourth of Cornish people ... and which all differ among themselves either in tongue, either in manners, or else in laws and ordinances."

1509 : King Henry VIII's coronation procession includes "nine children of honour" representing "England and France, Gascony, Guienne, Normandy, Anjou, Cornwall, Wales and Ireland."

1531 : From the court of King Henry VIII, the Italian diplomat Lodovico Falier writes in a letter that "The language of the English, Welsh and Cornish men is so different that they do not understand each other". He also claims it is possible to distinguish the members of each group by alleged "national characteristics".

1538 : Writing to his government, the French ambassador in London, Gaspard de Coligny Chatillon, indicates ethnic differences thus: "The kingdom of England is by no means a united whole, for it also contains Wales and Cornwall, natural enemies of the rest of England, and speaking a [different] language".

1603 : Following Queen Elizabeth I's death, the Venetian ambassador writes that the "late queen had ruled over five different 'peoples': 'English, Welsh, Cornish, Scottish ... and Irish'".

1616 : Arthur Hopton [later ambassador to Madrid?] writes that "England is ... divided into three great Provinces, or Countries ... speaking a several and different language, as English, Welsh and Cornish".

It seems clear that the Duke of Cornwall still has fuedal rights over the territory of Cornwall even if the Duchy cliams to be little more than a private estate. I look forward to your help in the clarification of this subject

Many Regards
_________________
The Cornish Democrat
Cornish Against Racism
The Breton Connection
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fulup le Breton



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 530


Network this topic
Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also a very pertinent set of questions I nicked from the BBC Cornwall board, someone here will probably recognise their words.

Some questions:

1) In the book "The Cornish Question" by Mark Sandford that was published by the Constitutional Unit, School of Public Policy, University College London in 2002 it states that -

"The existence of the Duchy of Cornwall was once of constitutional significance, but is now essentially a commercial organisation".

Considering that this commercial organisation is the largest landowner in Cornwall and cliams to be nothing but a private estate and company, you would think it reasonable to expect there to be an official date of change-over from an official body of constitutional significance into a purely private commercial organisation.

In the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858 it states that the Duchy of Cornwall is a 'territorial possession' of Britain.

So, sometime between 1858 and the present day, a territory of Britain transformed into a private commercial organisation.

WHEN?

2) A court case in 1828, A trial at Bar (Rowe v. Brenton) it was affirmed that everything connected with the Duchy is "of public interest", and "all the Kingdom should take notice". Quite righly so considering the Duchy of Cornwall is a territory of Britain. Yet when Cornish MP Andrew George raised questions on the 16th June 1997 about the affairs of the Duchy he was told that there is an injunction in the House of Commons that prevents such questions being raised.

WHY?

3) In The Annual Accounts of the Duchy of Cornwall 1998, it states that `-

"Accounts are prepared in accordance with instructions issued by H.M. Treasury. The Duchy's primary function is to provide an income for present and future Dukes of Cornwall. The Duke is only entitled to the net income".

This means the Treasury deals with the Duchy as if it were a government department. So how can the Duke of Cornwall be the owner of a private estate?

4) In his book, "Charles, Duke of Cornwall", Michael William states that the Duchy of Cornwall owns 54,000 acres of mineral rights, 160 miles of foreshore, and 11,300 acres of fundus".

Now, the Royal Mines Act of 1688, which is still in force, presents a legal challenge to the royal claims to minerals in Cornwall as private property, since, the Act declares, "No mine of copper, tin, iron or lead shall hereafter be adjudged reputed or taken to be a royal mine although gold and silver may be extracted out of the same".

As a member of the royal family, the Duke of Cornwall, has, for the past three centuries at least, had no legitimate claim to base minerals, including tin, in Cornwall.

So how does The Duchy "own" 54,000 acres of mineral rights that include tin?

These are some of the questions being asked by the Cornish Stannary Parliament and groups like Tyr Gwyr Gweryn, and they should be deemed an important enough question to be answered by someone in authority, whether that authority be a Government office, Cornwall County Council or Duchy of Cornwall office. Anyone wanting to dismiss claims by Cornish nationalists should take up the chalenge of answering these question. After all, claiming a national territory and making it your own private business is no small affair - on a par with opening the newspaper this morning to find out that Richard Branson suddenly owns Gibralter as a private business concern - and then reading that it was once a UK protectorate but now it belongs to Virgin - as the only official explaination for the change over. More questions will follow as I build on this thread.
_________________
The Cornish Democrat
Cornish Against Racism
The Breton Connection
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
P_Trembath



Joined: 07 Apr 2007
Posts: 80
Location: Praa Sands


Network this topic
Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fulup, did you det any replys from your letter?, and if so, who from?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fulup le Breton



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 530


Network this topic
Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will see if I can find the link on Cornwall 24 and then you can read all about it: http://www.cornwall24.co.uk/module-pnForum-viewtopic-topic-317.htm

Basically nobody would give me a direct answer which addressed all the facts I sited.

I asked the Duchy, The Department of Constitutional Affairs and Cornwall County Council among others.

I have re-pasted my question on the Talk Democracy forum: http://www.talkdemocracy.org.uk/talk/viewtopic.php?t=101
_________________
The Cornish Democrat
Cornish Against Racism
The Breton Connection
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fulup le Breton



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 530


Network this topic
Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This thread should be in the "legal Status of the Duchy of Cornwall" section really.

Its a little bit more official now! Wink

Lady Mary Holborow the Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall and representative of the Queen in Cornwall has made frequent referrences to the territory of Cornwall as a Duchy in an interview in this edition (April/May No 51) of Cornish World.

Then there are the interesting words of Lord Tyler in this Lords debate: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2005-06-30b.348.6&s=stannary#g358.0
_________________
The Cornish Democrat
Cornish Against Racism
The Breton Connection
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fulup le Breton



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 530


Network this topic
Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Then we have Lord Teverson with the words 'Cornwall is a nation, a duchy and, of course, a county as well': http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2007-01-25a.1206.7
_________________
The Cornish Democrat
Cornish Against Racism
The Breton Connection
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jack Sparrow



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 49
Location: Kernow


Network this topic
Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2007 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In Privy Council records of 1632. It declares -

"The stannaries extends over the whole of Cornwall"

This is a judicial declaration that means that the royal claim to "Our Stannaries" extended Duchy territory to cover the whole of Cornwall. This was a necessary precondition to secure a legal income for the heir to the throne from the Cornwall-wide stannaries.

Because the Privy Council made this judicial declaration, the charter became an Act of Parliament, according to 'The Prince's Case' in 1606. It remains so today.

Another Judicial Declaration from 'The Prince's Case' -

"Cornwall should always remain as a Duchy".

Although the Charter is current law, the authorities have failed to implement the provisions in it for the benefit of the indigenous Cornish 'foreigners'.

The constitutional Duchy is being secretly commercialised as a royal private estate - which goes back to one of my original proper Cornish questions, when did this take place? That date would be a deciding factor that would declare when Cornwall's special constitutional status ended and it became more like "just another county of England".

No one seems able to answer this simple question 'when did the Duchy stop being a constitutional territory and became a private estate'?

As I've mentioned before, this subject is so Taboo it leads to petty theft charges becoming a subject of national security - hence the PII gagging order imposed on the CSP's historic court hearing over the removal of English Heritage signs from Cornish momuments.

My answer is that the commercial claim is false, the Duchy still is the whole of Cornwall, as declared, and Charles Windsor continues to reap his benefits from the original deal laid out in the Duchy Charters.

The fact that Cornwall is administrated as an English county does not mean it is officially a county of England. Otherwise Charles Windsor is breaking the law. He and his English government can't have it both ways, but try telling that to your average English imperialist.

So although many like to make claims that Cornwall is a county of England, constitutionally it is a territory of Britain, until that is, the official date is established when the Duchy stopped being the whole of Cornwall and became nothing more than Charles Windsor's property development business.

(The Duchy Charters involved 'Letters Patent', these are used in international treaties between countries, they are not what you find in 'county' set-up arrangements).


http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/england/F2770282?thread=4102768&skip=40&show=20#p48563128
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jack Sparrow



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 49
Location: Kernow


Network this topic
Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2007 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's another interesting quote from Baroness Rendell of Babergh in a House of Lords debate
on 21 March 2001...

"I have never lived in the Royal Duchy but I have spent quite a lot of time there. Many members of my family come from Cornwall and many still live there. I know from them that, half seriously, half jokingly, the Cornish think of themselves as "not English". One of my cousins, at school in Truro, told me of the day when the headmaster announced to the assembled school that a certain member of staff would be leaving and taking a job on the other side of the Tamar, the river that divides Cornwall from Devon. "Mr So and So", he said, "will be leaving us, to our great regret, to take up a post in England"."

That is a remark which might be made by a Scot, a citizen of Wales or someone from Northern Ireland but not, I think, by anyone living in any other region of the United Kingdom. It underlines Cornwall's peculiar and unique position.

"The Prince of Wales has referred to it not as a county but a country, for it has many distinct features which set it apart from the rest of Great Britain. It has, for example, its own language."

(But then he would because the Duchy Charters that provide him an income were a legal arrangement between two Countries. Anglia and Cornubia.) Very Happy

21 Mar 2001 : Column 1440
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200001/ldhansrd/vo010321/text/10321-04.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fulup le Breton



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 530


Network this topic
Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looking at the Bona Vicantia website I found the following: http://www.bonavacantia.gov.uk/default.asp?PageId=1324

v) If the company's last registered office and the asset was in the Duchies of Cornwall or Lancashire its assets fall to be dealt with by Messrs Farrer & Co, Solicitors, of 66 Lincolns Inn Fields, London WC2A 3LH. The Duchy of Cornwall comprises the County of Cornwall. The Duchy of Lancaster comprises the Counties of Lancashire, Merseyside and parts of Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Cumbria. Further details as to the precise boundaries of the Duchy can be obtained from the Duchy Office, 1 Lancaster Place, Strand, London WC2E 7ED (tel: 020 7836 8277).

So the territory of Cornwall is a Duchy when it suits the Duke but just an English county when not. Is the Duchy a territorial body of governance or a private property company? Wouldn't it be great if Cornish companies could have the same benefits for their businesses?
_________________
The Cornish Democrat
Cornish Against Racism
The Breton Connection
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Scottish Republican



Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 707


Network this topic
Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The question is a basic one and it is what is Cornwall?


An anomaly (not my view, but the most neutral one I could think of).

The British Empire was never one for parity.

For example, Scotland, the Isle of Man, Wales and Northern Ireland are all in slightly different constitutional positions. None are equal... and it's not all one way. Scotland has legal, ecclesiastical and educational "privileges" which Wales doesn't (or hasn't had til recently), but Wales has better language laws. The Manx are treated like part of England by TV, but are not in the EU. The Six Counties aren't even a proper country, and have had a military and intelligence presence, and rely on Irish laws going back centuries, and British influence, and have a strange relationship with the Republic now, thanks to the GFI.

The Duchy is a strange thing - I don't fully understand it. Charlie has plenty of land outwith Cornwall, supposedly some of which falls into the "duchy" but is not in "county" boundaries. Then there's the issue of the Isles of Scilly, which they seem to be trying to divorce from Cornwall, while simultaneously creating Devonwall or Devocornoset.

"So the territory of Cornwall is a Duchy when it suits the Duke but just an English county when not. Is the Duchy a territorial body of governance or a private property company?"

Probably both. The Channel Islands are part of England when it suits the Establishment, and not part of it, when it suits them. Gibraltar is connected to the EU, when it suits them.

The Falkland Islanders were being deprived of employment rights in the UK, until the invasion, and then they suddenly became of propaganda value...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3


 
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. 
 An Gof and Flamank were executed on 27th June 1497 and suffered the traitor's fate of being hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn. Audley was beheaded on the 28th June at Tower Hill. Their heads were displayed on pike-staffs ("gibbeted") on London Bridge. An Gof is recorded to have said before his execution that he should have "a name perpetual and a fame permanent and immortal". Thomas Flamank was quoted as saying "Speak the truth and only then can you be free of your chains".  


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