Rydhsys rag Kernow lemmyn?
Bubble — By Fulup Hosking on July 26, 2010 7:00 am
Is Kernow on the march?
NATIONALITY exists in the minds of people, its only conceivable habitat. Outside people’s minds there can be no nationality, because nationality is a way of looking at oneself, not an entity in itself. Common sense is able to detect it, and the only human discipline that can describe and analyse it is psychology. This awareness, this sense of nationality, this national sentiment, is more than a characteristic of a nation. It is nationhood itself.
The creation of the European Union, along with other pan-European bodies such as the Council of Europe, has produced a need for greater regionalisation, decentralisation and subsidiarity in the organisation of a European politic. In tandem with this new regionalism both the European Union and Council of Europe have developed human rights legislation specifically aimed at the protection of minority groups, their languages and their cultures. Taken together the above developments seem to promise a much brighter future for the national minorities and historic nations which abound on the European continent (more on the national minorities of Europe can be found here).
The Cornish are an ethnic group and historic nation of the southwest of Great Britain. They have their own lesser-used Celtic language, related to Breton and Welsh, and more distantly to Scottish, Manx and Irish Gaelic. Alongside the Cornish language, there are specific sports and sporting tradition: Cornish music, dance, cuisine and a distinct political culture. These phenomena are all bound up together with a popular self perception as being other than English, as being Cornish Britons.
The ethnic data from the 2009 Cornish schools survey showed that 34% of children consider themselves to be Cornish rather than British or English. The results from the 2001 UK population census show over 37,000 people hold a Cornish identity instead of English or British. On this census, to claim to be Cornish, you had to deny being British, by crossing out the British option and then write ‘Cornish’ in the “other” box. This does not represent a mere clerical error or poorly thought through wording. This represents a denial of the right of the Cornish to describe themselves in terms of their identity. It might seem trite to complain about something that happened years ago, but the 2001 census will remain relevant until the next one in 2011. How many more people would have described themselves as Cornish if they did not have to deny being British or if there had been a specific Cornish tick box? How many people knew that writing ‘Cornish’ in the “other” box was an option? This was extremely poorly publicised. How many ticked British but feel Cornish British would have been closer to the truth.
Over the last few years various Cornish groups and individuals have been campaigning for the Cornish to be recognised for protection under the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM). Such recognition would be a powerful tool to ensure correct treatment and protection of the Cornish national minority and its culture. The UK’s Commission for Racial Equality in its shadow report on the FCNM produced in March 2007 advised the government that the treaty could be extended to protect Cornish culture and also raised concerns about the lack of legal equality for minorities in the UK. Recently the Council of Europe has also suggested that the FCNM could be extended to include the Cornish.
This officially sanctioned silence on the existence of a Cornish identity must stop. Why will the government not ask the Office of National Statistics to include a Cornish tick box on the 2011 census? The Life in the United Kingdom handbook, required reading for all who wish to immigrate to the UK, quotes the census heavily when describing the regions and ethnic diversity of the UK. Why are the Cornish not mentioned once? Why has UK government so far blocked all attempts at ensuring the Cornish are recognised under the FCNM and ignored the advice of the CRE and CoE?
In 2008, a group of Cornish people decided that enough was enough and started to collect funds for a court action to challenge the Government’s decision to exclude the Cornish from the FCNM. The purpose of the fund was to pay much of the costs involved in pursuing a legal action against the UK Government. The action was deemed necessary after government’s constant, dogmatic and wholly irrational refusal to include the Cornish within an international treaty designed to, among other things, introduce educational pluralism in their traditional homeland and thus bring to an end the forced assimilation of the Cornish people. Sadly, not enough pledges of money were forthcoming.
Currently a new campaign has been launched to challenge the Commonwealth Games Federation’s refusal to allow a Cornish team, the reasoning being that if constitutional territories such as Jersey, Guernsey and the Ilse of Man are allowed a team each then so should the Duchy and historic nation of Cornwall.
With the arrival of the New Labour government in the United Kingdom in the mid 1990s, a process was begun that resulted in devolved governmental bodies being given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. At this time the Government also made the offer of devolution to any ‘English region’ that could prove an interest. Following a popular campaign for a Cornish assembly, supported by a petition of 50,000 signatures, the government reneged on its promise, adding that only what it considered to be a ‘region’ could be offered an assembly. For ministers, Cornwall was but a subdivision of a larger and somewhat artificial Southwest region. For many Cornish residents, however, Cornwall is one of the six Celtic nations of the European Atlantic arc and a constitutional royal duchy.
Over the last three centuries, Cornwall has gone from being on the leading edge of the industrial revolution to being one of the poorest regions of Europe. In recent history Kernow has qualified for Objective One Funding from the EU, as have many regions of the former communist block. Today little has changed, with Cornwall still qualifying for European funding. Low wages, unskilled ‘McJobs’, poverty, social problems, drugs, and rocketing housing prices provide an often hidden face to the optimistically-named “English” Rivera. Coupled with this, Cornwall has seen the centralisation of services, institutions and government bodies, followed by the skilled jobs they entail, out of the Duchy. This process has been much to the benefit of various undemocratic and faceless ‘South West of England’ unelected governmental bodies and quangos.
To begin to address the above problems, many in Cornwall, including Cornish nationalists Mebyon Kernow, have called for decision making powers to be devolved to a Cornish body of governance. Cornwall Council’s February 2003 MORI Poll showed 55% in favour of a democratically-elected, fully-devolved regional assembly for Cornwall, (an increase from 46% in favour in a 2002 poll). In 2000, The Cornish Constitutional Convention launched a campaign that resulted in a petition signed by 50,000 people calling for a fully devolved Cornish assembly. The campaign generated support from across the political spectrum in Cornwall. To date it has been the largest expression of popular support for devolution in the whole of the United Kingdom. The UK government has ignored all requests for greater Cornish home rule.
So it must be asked why UK governments are so stubborn when it comes to giving the Cornish any form of devolution or recognition? Perhaps the answer rests in out constitutional subsoil.
Even if the UK government, Duchy authority, or history curriculum are loathed to touch the subject, Cornwall does in fact have a distinct constitutional history as a Duchy with an autonomous parliamentary legal system called the Stannaries. The Duchy is a “well-managed private estate which funds the public, charitable and private activities of The Prince of Wales and his family. The Duchy consists of around 54,648 hectares of land in 23 counties, mostly in the South West of England”.
However this seems to fly in the face of the 19th century legal arguments of Duchy officials, which defeated the UK Crown’s aspirations of sovereignty over the Cornish foreshore. The Duchy of Cornwall at that time argued that the Duke had sovereignty of Cornwall and not the Crown. 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) made 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.
In the report The Cornish Question, by Mark Sandford (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 claims 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.
The charters that created the Duchy, the first of 1337 being published in 1978 as Statutes in Force Constitutional law, give the Duke the powers of: “The King’s Writ and Summons of Exchequer” throughout Cornwall. These powers of the Duke of Cornwall represent the powers of government and they are certainly not what you would expect from a simple private landed estate. Research reveals that the public-spirited Crown Estate provides cultural support and housing for the public everywhere in the UK except Cornwall. It is also subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The Duchy of Cornwall is the analogous body in Cornwall but, in a departure from its historical role, it now claims to be a private estate with exemption from the Freedom of Information Act 2000. A stratagem designed to deter investigation into Duchy constitution and Cornish history perhaps?
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, if at all, did this happen? When Cornish MP Andrew George raised questions on June 16, 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.
These are questions that should be considered important enough to be answered by someone in authority, whether that authority is a Government office or the Duchy of Cornwall. Claiming a national territory and making it your own private business while denying the indigenous population its history and identity is no small affair. An attempt has been made to separate the Duchy of Cornwall, which is not subject to English tax legislation, from the territory of Cornwall with the argument that the Duchy has a separate existence to the geographical area of Cornwall and holds property outside the area. The argument is spurious and flies in the face of the Duchy case of 1856. It seems no coherent description of the Duchy is available and all attempts to obtain a clear picture of this strange Janus-faced body have been ignored.
In present day Cornwall the playing field is tilted against the indigenous Cornish identity. The impression promoted is that the Cornish nation has only ever been an insignificant sub-division of some awe-inspiring, all-powerful, fully homogeneous, fixed and eternal England. With the English education system encouraging English nationalism in Cornwall at the expense of the indigenous Cornish identity, the exploitation of Cornwall has become acceptable to the state while the absence from English law of the international right to an enforceable equality before the law has protected the Duchy authority from an effective legal challenge. The result is that the Duke of Cornwall’s fortune from Cornish assets continues to relieve England of paying tax to support the heir to the throne while all moves that would empower the Cornish, hence threatening the Duchy, have been stifled. The Duchy of Cornwall Human Rights Association website explores these Cornish constitutional issues in much greater detail. Equally the revived Cornish Stannary Parliament acts as a pressure group focusing on Cornish rights and constitutional issues.
When the UK government and Duchy authority finally decide to be honest about the autonomous position of the Duchy of Cornwall within the UK perhaps then an open debate about Cornish devolution and our future governance can begin. We await with interest, if also a little cynicism, a positive response to the Cornish question from the new coalition government.
Tags: Cornwall, Europe, identity, independence, Kernow
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
64 Comments
I notice that Private Eye has been running a few stories about Prince Charles (or Brian, as they like to call him) and his doings in the Duchy of Cornwall. Hasn’t there been some spat between Natural England and the Duchy? I reckon you should get Heather Brooke on the case. She’d flush some of this stuff out!
Cornwall should be treated on an equal footing with Wales, being similar in almost all cases that matter (Language, border, ethnicity, Principality/Dutchy is the same geezer etc) It is criminal that it is not the case.
And it’s not just Westminster… us, every one of us, is party to this. That we can laud Scotland, and show solidarity to it, even celebrate it, while ignoring the plight of the Cornish is shameful. They are just as poor as we are, moreso even. On a basic human level, they need all the support they can get.
(And then you can campaign literature from the independent PPCs saying “don’t vote for the local Plaid Candidate, he spent the summer in Cornwall helping them” – good, all the more reason for me to vote for him!)
Kernow bys vykken/Cernyw am byth/Cornwall Forever
For shame, Al, Cornwall may be a Duchy but Wales is not a principality. Fact!
I have been in touch with Heather Brooke about the Duchy but little came of it. Simply a few lines of advice on how to get information on the Duchy.
Essentially, until the DoC is recognised, as it should be, as a body of governance and therefore a public body we won’t be able to access its records via the FOI act.
An interesting attempt to force this issue is being made by the author of the Confirm or Deny blog: http://www.confirmordeny.org.uk/ You can find some interesting stuff here: http://www.confirmordeny.org.uk/?cat=104
The Libertarian Party has long argued that Kernow should be a seperate entity to that of the United Kingdom, in the same way that the Isle of Man and the States of Guernsey and Jersey are.
The ability to offer lower tax rates personal and corporate as per these independent jurisdictions would attract business and investment. Campaigning on the issue of getting larger grants from Whitehall and Brussels is not gaining independence, but subservience.
Andrew Withers
Libertarian Party
Wessex & Kernow
Great to see such an interesting article on Cornish nationalism on a Welsh news site. It would be interesting to hear the opinions of Welsh people to the Cornish question and although there are links between the Cornish and Welsh movements through the Celtic League and between Plaid Cymru and Mebyon Kernow, how can these be built upon and improved?
Yes, in fact in a legal constitutional sense all of Cornwall is a Duchy with a position similar to a Crown Protectorate. Wales however, apart from having its ownAassembly today, has, for much of its history, been part of the Kingdom of England.
In Wales the sovereign is Lizzy like in England and Scotland. In Kernow it’s her son.
“Wales however, apart from having its own Assembly today, has, for much of its history, been part of the Kingdom of England.”
Hang on a minute! It’s debatable whether Edward I made the defunct principality of the Princes of Gwynedd a part of England in 1284 as some claim. Like the Marcher Lords he introduced a hybrid law and taxation system, not an English one. It’s probably more accurate to say that large parts of Wales came under the rule of the English crown.
It’s an interesting contrast between Wales and Cornwall (as we’ve discussed before) that the Establishment is happy to peddle the myth of principality while doing its best to obscure the constitutional arrangements of the Duchy of Cornwall.
Not being a constitutional lawyer I have to ask about the pronouncements of the head of state. If the head of state calls it a principality, does that not give it some legal status under the slippery thing called the UK constitution?
Independence – Dreckly!
Its not for MK to self define as the voice of Cornwall. The vast Cornish majority is comfortable in their own skin, aware of the injustices the county faces, and keen to change things, but those who argue for independence or similar are a tiny handful. For another approach, which far better reflects the Cornish mainstream view, suggest readers have a look at Dan Rogerson MP’s Private members Bill from the last parliament. I recall it was entitled The Governance of Cornwall Bill, but I might be wrong.
This looks like what Dom is talking about:
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/Cornish-breakaway-Parliament/article-1159515-detail/article.html
Dan Rogerson has a Welsh mother and attended the University of Wales, Aberystwyth. He also used Cornish when he was sworn in as an MP in 2005 (along with fellow Cornish Liberal Democrat Andrew George).
Mr Thomas, the constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed…
… nothing slippery.
judging by John Tyler’s intervention in this discussion can we assume we shall soon be witnessing the launch of True Cornwall? And what about a True London, to rid Londoners of their meddling Assembly? And a True Manx to campaign for the abolition of the Tynwald? The UK’s other devolved bodies surely also require the True touch – so the launching of True Ulster and True Scotland are doubtless imminent. These are busy times for the True franchise..
Absolutely ridiculous idea that an English county should want some sort of independence or governance. Some nonsense talked about people suffering. They live in one of the most beautiful parts of the UK with the nicest climate.
Absolute gibberish. In some ways Cornwall is akin to places like West Wales, particularly Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire where there is a massive influx of English people. Lots of Londoners and Northerners live in Cornwall.
All this divisive talk about petty little nationalism or seperatism by the Politterati can filter through and cause tension and divisive attitudes. We should be forgetting about differences of any kind and the UK will go from strength to strength.
For what its worth I believe as a “Wilsonian” (Woodrow not Harold) democrat that if the Cornish wish self determination then they should have it. I would suggest that MK should work with those (if they dont do already) other Cornish Autominists (sp) to achieve recognition of this historic nationality. Possibly esatblishing a Cornish Covenant? (sounds quite historical)
I dont agree with John Tyler on many things but I would not regard him as anti Welsh. John may be antipathetic towards the Assembly, but he needs to be convinced in a reasonable civil manner. Actually I was going to ask him if he could play Payn De Turberville in my proposed reenactment of Llewellyn Bren’s attack on Caerfili Castle!
Mr Richards, since when did a defence of the Constitution warrants an attack on the person?
Fortunately our United Kingdom Constitution is a strong yet flexible scaffold that encourages change, even from those citizens that might be considered or consider themselves disaffected, it encourages individuals and groups to put forward issues that further develop and strengthen it. Issues of dissent found in Cornwall once again supports the Conservative-Liberal Democrat vision of a smaller central government being replaced by localism as a political philosophy……
…… what place nationalism in this “Brave New World” that celebrates diversity as opposed to the conformity of Huxley.
Mike …
… that would be Payn de Turberville of Coity, persecutor of the people of Glamorgan, I presume …
@Senn: “Some nonsense talked about people suffering. They live in one of the most beautiful parts of the UK with the nicest climate.”
Nice climate doesn’t put food on the table (well, maybe in the summer months). The other eight months of the year there is less down there than in *insert middle-of-nowhere Welsh village here*.
And yes, it is a “move-to” spot for Londoners etc – which is part of the reason they won’t want an Independent Cornwall. (Similarly in Wales). All these things are selfish, and from the point of view of little Englanders, not the people of Cornwall.
If *insert multi-millionare here* can move down there, plonk down a million for a house/shop, what hope has a sixteen year old Cornish lad/lass got? Oh, they can work in said shop? That’s ok then…
Just to address some general points.
This is not about being isolationist or divisive. This is simply about giving as much decision making power to all the residents of Cornwall as possible.
Why should recognising the Cornish national identity be considered divisive? It seems to be often the case that larger national groups, English, Russians, Chinese, are happy to point the finger at smaller groups and shout such accusations whilst at the same time homogenising out of existence said smaller nations. Equally you’ll notice that British and English nationalists are usually the most divisive and isolationist when it comes to the EU.
Isolation? No. Diversity and empowerment? Yes.
I don’t think anybody has mentioned independence yet. Devolution and/or recognition of our de jure constitutional position is what most want. A Cornish assembly equivalent to that of Wales is the objective of Mebyon Kernow.
It’s funny, really, when the LibDems (a Tory off shoot) try to slander MK and claim we are separatists. In fact the Lib Dems in Kernow have pinched not just a few of MK’s ideas and people.
Some of the latest press articles on the Cornish Constitutional Convention can be found here: http://www.cornwall24.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5742&start=0
Agree with Al. Whether or not you believe that independence or devolution is the answer, the problem is certainly peripherality.
I was a reporter covering Mid Wales in the mid to late 1990s, a time when farming suicides went through the roof. I lived in a beautiful valley, with views to the Black Mountains, picture postcard pub nearby, good school, local shop. One of the finest tracts in the area belonged to a farmer who kept a tumble-down house on his land, containing a few sticks of furniture, to where he would retreat from time to time. A mutual acquaintance asked why he didn’t do what many had done – renovate the place and make a tidy sum from it. “To be honest,” he replied. “If I didn’t have that place to go to, I think I’d kill myself.”
Speaking as an outsider and a novice, it appears to me that Cornwall has this issue of rural isolation and the ever-present problem of services, as well as having to contend with a legacy of failed industry (and remember – we have Cornish tin miners to thank for rugby coming to Wales). But, in addition, people in Cornwall have to deal with this quasi-feudal edifice in the form of the Duchy that appears to have hold over certain aspects of life down there, but without the accountability that would be expected as a right from any other form of government or administration in the UK.
This is no longer acceptable in this age and it is high time something was done about it. Happy to help if I can.
You don’t have to buy into Cornish nationhood (though I can’t see the problem myself) to question the situation with the Duchy of Cornwall. How many times have you read or been told that the heir to the British throne has no constitutional role? The Duke of Cornwall, on the other hand, pops up in some very unexpected places, including the Government of Wales Acts:
“The standing orders must include provision for securing that the Assembly may only pass a proposed Assembly Measure containing provisions which would, if contained in a Bill for an Act of Parliament, require the consent of Her Majesty or the Duke of Cornwall if such consent has been signified in accordance with the standing orders.”
He also has a special mention in the 1998 Scotland Act:
“The standing orders shall include provision for ensuring that a Bill containing provisions which would, if the Bill were a Bill for an Act of Parliament, require the consent of Her Majesty, the Prince and Steward of Scotland or the Duke of Cornwall shall not pass unless such consent has been signified to the Parliament.”
Like Nick Thomas, I’m no constitutional lawyer but I hardly think parliamentary draftsmen would include references to the Duke of Cornwall just for the fun of it. ‘Outing’ Charles’s constitutional role in itself may not make much difference in terms of the economic situation of Cornwall etc but why should he get away with such obfuscation?
The thing is Hendre if you out Charles’ constitutional role as Duke, i.e. sovereign of Cornwall, you automatically out Cornwall’s constitutional position i.e. not part of England, and the Crowns de facto sovereignty in Cornwall all falls apart.
Essentially the Crown, UK government, runs Cornwall as a county of England because the Duchy has acquiesced to this arrangement. You can imagine the unofficial deal: We the UK government will leave you to make a fortune with Duchy assets but you have to let us run Cornwall.
Think off the Isle of man or the Channel Islands as being run as off shore English (Welsh) counties but with all the constitutional previsions for their own parliaments and limited sovereignty still being in place. Then imagine only one man being able to benefit from these swept-under-the-carpet constitutional provisions.
Be careful what you wish for, the law of unintended consequences applies.
One of the better pages on Wikipedia, well worth a read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_status_of_Cornwall
@Al thanks for the reply.
I still maintain to talk about ‘suffering’ is nonsense. Many people growing up in a tower block of flats in south london would find Cornwall a great quality of life.
Even if it’s not the most prosperous area of the UK it has still a good quality of life.
The realpolitick of a nationalism in Cornwall is similar to that in Wales. An influx of people not born and bred and this is the root of both Welsh and Cornish Nationalism. The inability or unwillingness to think of the wider picture and finding ‘outsiders’ a threat .
We live in the 21st century, nationalists wake up.
“Essentially the Crown, UK government, runs Cornwall as a county of England because the Duchy has acquiesced to this arrangement. You can imagine the unofficial deal: We the UK government will leave you to make a fortune with Duchy assets but you have to let us run Cornwall.”
This statement I am afraid is nonsense. The Duchy is little more than a feudal remnant, and today it is little more than a property management company.
“The charters that created the Duchy, the first of 1337 being published in 1978 as Statutes in Force Constitutional law, give the Duke the powers of: “The King’s Writ and Summons of Exchequer” throughout Cornwall. These powers of the Duke of Cornwall represent the powers of government and they are certainly not what you would expect from a simple private landed estate.”
The same could be said of the Duchy of Lancaster, does this mean Lancashire is not part of England?
The status of Cornwall as part of England of course predates the Duchy and appears in the Doomsday book and before.
Yes we do live in the 21st century so why hang onto outdated products of the 19th century, namely the UK, French, Spanish (etc) states? They are pointless and prevent greater cooperation between the peoples of Europe. Give me a federal Europe of a hundred flags any day. Come on you British state nationalists! Wake up!
It really is funny that Senn says we fail to see the wider picture when in fact the Tories, and to a lesser degree Labour, have put self-interest before EU integration on so many occasions. Pure British state-nationalism.
Whereas on the other hand most of Europe’s democratic and progressive nationalist or regionalist parties, such as Mebyon Kernow, are committed Europeans. Small is beautiful Senn in a federal Europe.
@Cornish
All I can do is refer you to the Duchy’s own arguments that they used, successfully, against the Crown in which they state that the Duke is sovereign of Cornwall ie head of state. You can’t have two heads of state, or two sovereigns, over one territory (Cornwall).
The Duchy of Lancaster shares the same head of state with the rest of the UK, but equally here I would say that the powers this gives then Queen over the territory of her Duchy should be open to public scrutiny.
Your knowledge of Domesday is clearly limited. If anything such records show that the English kings had little power over Cornwall.
If you take a look at Cornwall Councils history timeline it should set you right on a few things.
Here: http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=19963
Here: http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=8992
I’d suggest you read the rest as well.
Why would the head of a property management company/farming estate need to be notified when a Church of England bishop decides a woman is not to be ordained, instituted or licensed. According to the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993 (No. 2):
(4) A copy of any notice given under subsection (2) or (3) above shall be sent to the following—
(a) Her Majesty;
(b) the Duke of Cornwall;
(c) the Lord Chancellor;
(d) the archbishop of the province concerned;
Were the General Synod of the Church of England just being kind? Go on… we’ll include Charlie boy so he doesn’t feel left out of things, or is this some sort of ‘feudal remnant’?
Phil wrong on both counts. The doomsday book includes Cornwall as a county of England.
In both Duchies the Duke nominally holds powers, that belong to the crown elsewhere. Of cause in practice this is of no importance. It certainly does not make either place separate from England.
As for your question as to why in the modern world the UK still exists. I answer for the best of reasons overwhelming popular consent.
Cornish Nationalists confuse different cultural characteristics for a separate identity. If that were the case nearly every region of England would claim national status.
Popular consent? Great, so you support the creation of a Cornish assembly then? After all opinion polls put support in Cornwall at around 55% and then of course there is the petition of 50,000 signatures calling for devolution, which brings me on to my next point.
Has any other ‘county of England’ produced such a movement for greater home-rule? Does any other part of England have a sizeable part of its population with a competing national identity other than English? Perhaps you can find an English county that has its own recognised and funded Celtic language?
No I think you need to taker closer look at what Domesday is saying about Cornwall. Make sure it’s not the Ladybird easy reader version.
It is true to say that Cornwall is the rump of Dumnonia but it did not shrink until inexorably nibbled away by the advance of Wessex. Also worth noting that Devonshire and Somersetshire did not exist at that time so only correct to refer to ‘the areas now called……’. The Anglo-Saxon chronicle for 823 & 878 are very relevant here.
Cornwall was distinct from Wessex and consequently from England and also, it would seem, although confused, to have been the case at Domesday where Cornwall came under a viceroy. Similarly, a brief survey of the Domesday survey for Cornwall and the adjacent ‘-Shires’ of SW England, clearly show that whereas the sheriffs held their estates of the king, within Cornwall they were held of the Earl of Cornwall.
If we look at some of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle entries, and later sources, we can begin to get a picture, but not the detail, of what happened, in AD 926.
ASC 926 Extract: – “This year appeared fiery lights in the northern part of the firmament; and Sihtric departed; and King Athelstan took to the kingdom of Northumbria, and governed all the kings that were in this island: — First, Howel, King of West-Wales……..”
ASC 942 extract: – “Here Edmund king, of Angles lord, protector of friends
Edmund’s Charter of 944: – “King of the English and ruler of this province of the Britons”
Extract from Act of The Duke of Cornwall – 1351, commissioning a land and property survey [when he reached 21 years of age]:
“On account of certain escheats we command you that you inquire by all the means in your power how much land and rents, goods and chattels, whom and in whom, and of what value they are which those persons of Cornwall and England have, whose names we send in a schedule enclosed
That this state prevailed, is borne out by a later extract from the equivalent to the modern Hansard relating to Edmund Burke’s Finance Bill proposals to curb the power of the Crown at the beginning of 1780:
“… the five several distinct principalities besides the supreme … If you travel beyond Mount Edgcumbe, you find him [the king] in his incognito, and he is duke of Cornwall … Thus every one of these principalities has the apparatus of a kingdom … Cornwall is the best of them…”.
About 60 years after the creation of the Duchy, we find in the Charter of 1 Henry IV. to Prince Henry, the eldest Son of that King, as follows :
“We have made and created Henry our most dear first-begotten Son, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Earl of Chester, and have given and granted, and by our Charter have confirmed to him the said Principality, Duchy, and Earldom, that he may preside there, and by presiding, may direct and defend the said parts. We have invested him with the said Principality, Duchy, and Earldom, per sertum in capite et annulum in digito aureum ac virgam auream juxta morem.”
Another point that, I feel, has some constitutional significance, is that when Edmund, the Earl of Cornwall died, the Earldom of Cornwall passed to the English king, Edward 1 as Edmund’s next heir. A territorial possession that progressed through to Edward III, until it was augmented to a Duchy.
Until there is free and open access to the archives of the Duchy of Cornwall, we can only speculate as to what might be uncovered. Despite being part of the Crown, its flawed misrepresentation as a private estate effectively removes it from the potential access implicit within the Freedom of Information Act.
Senn, a very simple set of questions for you
a) do you believe that the UK should forget it’s differences with Europe, forget the English language, laws and customs and make Europe great?
b) if you say no to the previous question, how can you expect all the Celts on this island to forget their nation and be assimilated into an homogenous UK state?
Be careful not to contradict your political philosophy in your answers.
As a Cornishman, I am very much for a devolved assembly for Kernow – as a first step. I believe this to be a necessary process considering the ever closer prospect of a Europe of Regions. It really does seem that the days of the old Nation states might be drawing to a close.
I was very interested to read recently that the current Defence Secretary, Dr Liam Fox stated that after the coming defence expenditure cuts, Britain would no longer be in a position to defend itself against all threats and would need to rely on allies, quoting France as an example. I therefore wonder if Nation states can really afford to exist any more ? Certainly, examining Belgian and Iberian politics, I wonder how much longer some states can hold together ? Loose Federalism/Confederation, so common in many European countries (Switzerland, Germany, Spain for example) is surely the way ahead, with states coming together when necessary for issues such as defence etc. I must say though that defence should be just that (based on the Irish, Swiss, Swedish concept) with no expensive offensive capacity thus removing the temptation to act as latter day Imperialists. (I estimate that Afghanistan will be Britain’s last war of intervention due to affordability and will signal a massive decline for the British state)
I was further heartened by the recent conference of the Cornish Constitutional Convention where MPs and Councillors representing all parties as well as independent Councillors all called for a Cornish Legislative Assembly and were applauded by many Cornish campaigners. Indeed, I am in possession of two letters from Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs who have constituencies within the Duchy who say as much. Cornwall Unitary Authority are now keen to take on extra powers and as Andrew George MP said this would bring democracy closer to the people as well as making politicians with executive powers more accountable.
People discuss the monarchy. Along with many others in Kernow, I regard them as a self serving luxury, long outdated although perhaps useful as a tourist attraction. Without doubt, sadly, they wield considerable influence in protection of their own incomes as is the case here, but the sooner our Monarchy are reduced to the level of the Royal Families of Europe, the better. I shall never forget the Queen of denmark cycling past me when I was in the Country a few years ago, out to buy bread before returning to her apartment.
Time after time down the years we have been told that Kernow has a strong case for devolution and indeed, during his recent visit to Cornwall, the Prime Minister said that he intended “to set Cornwall free.” As Mr Cameron has a holiday home in the Duchy, I for one shall hold him to that promise !
Is there a UK “deep state”? http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/anthony-barnett/is-there-uk-deep-state
An interesting article from Anthony Barnett of Our Kingdom that asks – does an ongoing, informal network that despises democracy and seeks to shape how Britain’s governed from the shadows – exist? Well worth a read as are the comments that follow.
Of course proponents of the meddling Duchy theory would probably cry out “yes” to the above question and cite the Duchy of Cornwall as being a feudal body with the power to pull various strings and influence peoples lives in unknown ways.
In fact, Domesday simply describes Cornwall as: ‘Cornvalge’ in its title. The opening line to the first page reads: “Hic annotanvr Tenentes Terras in Cornvalia” (Here Land Holders in Cornwall are listed) The word ‘county’ in its modern context did not exist in 1086 and ,in any case, Domesday was written in Latin, so that the English word “county” can never appear in it. A word from which ‘county’ is derived, but which had a very different meaning, was in use in the Middle Ages: this was ‘comitatus’ – literally “community” but which usually described territory held by a “comes” (count), as indeed Cornwall was, firstly by Count Brient of Brittany, succeeding Cadoc, last of the Cornish royal line, then by 1086, Count Robert of Mortain, half brother to William I, and born on the borders of Normandy and Brittany. The line of Counts, most of them Celtic-speaking Bretons, later became the line of Earls and, in 1337, the Duchy. The policy of appointing Celtic-speaking heads of state was undoubtedly deliberate and the writings of John of Cornwall c.1250 indicate that the Cornish rather regarded the Breto-Normans as allies against a common enemy – the Anglo-Saxon English. The difference between the Cornish acre and the English one is touched upon by Domesday, and is one sure sign of a very distinct identity. Of course, almost all residents of Cornwall spoke Cornish whereas, from Devon eastward, Middle English was the spoken norm.
The constitutional status of Cornwall is not that of a county, as in England, but a Crown dependancy in which all the powers of the Crown are vested in the Duke. The Channel Islands are the closest equivalent – and they’re certainly not part of England. There is no part of England that even distantly resembles this distinction. This is not just an historian’s opinion, but also that of a leading legal authority. “Cornish’s” argument palpably fails.
I would pay no attention to anything Domesday says. The Normans had the same regard for borders and nations that your average 1940s German Dictator did. When they landed in Hastings, they had conquered the whole Island Of Britain (in their mind), not just the kingdom of England, and domesday reflects that sentiment.
Cornwall (Kernow) is named centuries before England ever came into existence. It appears as Cornou c.400AD; Corneu c.600; Cerniu 875. The very first mention of any entity called England (as Englaland) was in 890. We could hardly be a part of a nation-state we pre-existed by at least half a millenium. Can “Cornish” show us the legally binding document that declared Cornwall to be part of England by agreement?
Neither can we.
@Cornish So which areas of England can boast they’re own language, identity, flag and constitutional history different to England? Not sure there can be any confusion.
Mr Tyler, if the constitution isn’t slippery why do we have so many constitutional lawyers?
Cegog, what’s a Celt for crumbs sake?
I was born a ‘Celt’ myself, whatever that means. We are no different to each other genetically. You’re making all these divisions, flag waving and all this carry on. In-group, out-group mentality.
Cegog, I’m a pro-European. In the next 50 years European Unity will be very important .
Notes from the Phillimore edition of Domesday for Cornwall give the reason for its compilation: “In 1084, an exceptionally heavy geld was collected. The King raised a large army of foreign mercenaries and, to meet a threatened Danish threat in 1085, billetted them on landowners ‘each according to his land’. Tax and billetting revealed evidence of out-of-date valuations and disputed claims to land and to exemptions. That experience was a main immediate cause of the Domesday survey, to discover how much cultivated land there was, what it was worth, and who held it, rightfully or wrongfully”.
Domesday is very skimpy. In the Land’s End peninsula, for example, only a handful of places are listed. Missing are the many places with names in Bos-, Tre- and Car-, which generally pre-date the Norman occupation. Extend this further and it’s doubtful that more than 5% of land-holdings actually appear in the survey.
Cegog – your very simple questions to Senn are brilliant. May I use them to the UKIP, BNP etc. people who argue the toss?
Senn, it was a simple couple of questions. Just answer them.
And Celts are genetically different, but that is beside the point.
And being pro-European doesnt mean that each country has to merge into a homogenous EU.
Answer the two previous questions I posted because, otherwise, your theories are blown out of the water.
Craig, you made me blush
.
I have found this post very interesting as I visited Kernow as a child and seeing a post card which I could understand even though it was in Cornish. I also had the set of the first Welsh encyclopedia and in it there was a map which had Wales as North Wales and Kernow as West Wales…and ever since I’ve been interested in the Cornish struggle (much to the dispair of my grandmother who was a very proud Devonian!)
What people like Senn fail to understand is that we can celebrate out differences without putting other people down. It is what makes the world interesting. I wonder if he thinks that people in the USA/Canada/Australia/UK should form a homogenous block and forger their differences? This is the logical step in his argument!
“All this divisive talk about petty little nationalism or seperatism by the Politterati can filter through and cause tension and divisive attitudes. We should be forgetting about differences of any kind and the UK will go from strength to strength.”
Change the words around a bit Senn, and that could’ve come from the Soviet Union. The best best for the UK to go from ‘strength to strength’ (ironically a scenario I don’t really want to see!) would be for it to become a genuine plurinational state, which would include implementing the kind of things Cornish nationalists want to see.
Senn, I know, how about if we all gave up on the English language and spoke Welsh over the UK. We could use the Scottish law system and have the government in Kernow. We could do a homogenous UK state based on that.
Ohhh, yes, I forgot…..you probably mean a homogenous UK state based on British/English way of the world.
Ahhhh, the contrary world of British Nationalists.
Cegog, you’re up a sausage!
Europe has many different states, peoples and languages which if kept merged into a Union in the next 50 years will be a success.
What we do not need is more division and little flags of disunity with claims that they are somehow genetically different when they are not.
“Europe has many different states, peoples and languages which if kept merged into a Union in the next 50 years will be a success.”
So, what’s wrong with another three states, peoples and languages?
“What we do not need is more division and little flags of disunity.”
Doesn’t that contradict your “Europe has many different states, peoples and languages” statement you made in the last sentence?
So, to paraphrase, what you’re saying is “Europe has lots of states and languages. But I would like them to all merge into one “United Europe” (presumably with English as the main language?). So there is no room for splitters in my grand Empire?” Didn’t Hitler try that?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m proudly European. But I think we, as Welsh, Scottish, Irish and Cornish parliaments, can take our own place at the European table without going through Westminster (when, like all agents, they take a large chunk of our metaphorical wages for themselves in “commission”).
Senn, just answer the questions I asked. Simples.
And, as I have previously said, celts are genetically different…..not that this is an issue.
Read a little on the subject, maybe.
p.s
In Origins of the British (2006), Stephen Oppenheimer states (pages 375 and 378 or p. 435/437 in 2007 paperback):
modern day people of Wales, Ireland and Cornwall are mainly descended from Iberians with lesser input from Germany and Scandinavia. Furthermore, Celtic split from Indo-European earlier than previously suspected, some 6000 years ago, while English split from Germanic before the Roman period. The Germanic language that become English was spoken by the tribes of what is now England long before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxon.[19][20]
Cegog I cannot be bothered to read up on such a pitiful subject as an English county wanting Nationalism.
More important subjects like poverty, environmentalism and health. I will restrict my comments in future to these subjects rather than getting into abstract debate.
Al I grew up partly with flags, bigotry and the in group-out group mentality to the fore in another celtic part of the UK so i know what a pointless exercise it all is.
Senn, what you fail to understand is that your beloved UK caused poverty, ill health and pollution. Its the legacy of being exploited.
And Senn, you raised the subject of genetics. I was just pointing out that you were wrong.
Nationalism isn’t an bad thing unless it manifests into a type which does not respect other people, cultures, languages and diversity. This seems to be your world view. It is your type of nationalism which causes trouble in this world.
As you admit, you don’t read about this subject. As I have suggested previously,you might benefit from picking up a book on the subject before patronising, and dismissing the existence of, millions of people and their countries.