| Do
you want a fully independent Cornwall? |
|
|
 |
| Protesters
against the south west assembly |
|
|
How
should our county be run? Have
your say on self-government, a south west assembly, Westminster
and the EU.
How can we preserve our unique culture and move forward in the 21st
Century?
|
|
Do
you support the aims of Mebyon Kernow for a legislative Cornish
Assembly for self-government within the UK?
Or
do you think greater independence could put off investment from
the rest of the UK?
Would
we be better off as part of a south west assembly or would we
end up being governed by Bristol and Exeter?
Do
you feel Cornish, British or both?
*latest mail from the top
Click
here to have your say now.
Phil T – I was in the midst of gathering together the
information concerning the Stannaries, which you requested,
when Sandman posted his piece having a go at me. I therefore
used some of that information to correct his misinformation.
It is quite clear to me that Sandman knows virtually nothing
about the history and laws of the Stannaries, apart from the
bit about the (so called) Stannary Three, who themselves probably
know as much about tin mining as I do about Tibetan Monasteries,
i.e. next to nothing.
Before I start, I should perhaps present my own credentials.
I am currently the vice president of a national mining history
society, which has about 450 members from all over Britain
(including Cornwall) and overseas, including many people in
the metal mining industry and university professors specialising
in mining, geology etc. My own area of specialism is the Tamar
Valley Mining Field (in both Cornwall and Devon).
The first Charter pertaining to the tinners of both Cornwall
and Devon was drawn up in 1198. It is clear from this charter
that the tinners of Cornwall and Devon had enjoyed many rights
and privileges, by custom and practice, for many centuries
before this date. In this Charter, the Archbishop of Canterbury
required the Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall to order the current
administrator of the Stannaries (Lord Geoffrey Fitz-Peter)
to hand over his responsibilities to William de Wrotham, who
was given the title of Chief Warden of the Stannaries. There
then follows a section covering the prescribed method of weighing
the extracted tin following the first and second smeltings
for the purposes of determining taxes to be paid to the King.
Then comes the pertinent section:- "All miners and buyers
of black tin, and first smelters of tin and merchants of tin
of the first smelting have just and ancient customs and liberties
established in Devon and Cornwall. Likewise just and ancient
weights of the first and second smelting of tin, determined
by the oath of the above-mentioned jurors, and marked with
the stamp of the Lord King, shall be kept. Also all men have
the common right of buying tin by just, ancient, and free
customs, as they are accustomed to have and ought to have,
by the mark from any thousand weight of the second smelting."
The Stannary Charter of 1201 is a little more specific concerning
the rights of the tinners:- "The King to the Archbishops,
etc., greeting.... John, by the grace of God, King of England,
etc., to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons,
judges, sheriffs, foresters, and to all our bailiffs and faithful
people, greeting. Be it known that we have granted that all
tin miners of Cornwall and Devon are free of pleas of the
natives as long as they work for the profit of our ferm or
for the marks for our new tax; for the stannaries are on our
demesne. And they may dig for tin, and for turf for smelting
it, at all times freely and peaceably without hindrance from
any man, on the moors and in the fiefs of bishops, abbots,
and earls, as they have been accustomed to do. And they may
buy faggots to smelt the tin, without waste of forest, and
they may divert streams for their work just as they have been
accustomed to do by ancient usage.
Nor shall they desist from their work by reason of any summons,
except those of the chief warden of the stannaries or his
bailiffs. We ha! ve granted also that the chief warden of
the stannaries and his bailiffs have plenary power over the
miners to do justice to them and to hold them to the law.
And if it should happen that any of the miners ought to be
seized and imprisoned for breach of the law they should be
received in our prisons; and if any of them should become
a fugitive or outlaw let his chattels be delivered to us by
the hands of the warden of the stannaries because the miners
are of our ferm and always in our demesne. Moreover, we have
granted to the treasurer and the weighers, so that they might
be more faithful and attentive to our service in guarding
our areasure in market towns, that they shall be quit in all
towns in which they stay of aids and tallages as long as they
are in our service as treasurers and weighers; for they have
and can have nothing else throughout the year for their services
to us."
The Charter of Edward I (1305) separated the Stannaries of
Devon and Cornwall (which had previously been administered
as one), but both Stannaries remained under the auspices of
the Chief Warden of the Stannaries, and the ancient rights
of the tinners were reaffirmed. In 1337, Edward III conferred
upon his elder son the title of Duke of Cornwall, entitling
him to estates in Cornwall and Devon, which had previously
been held by the Earls of Cornwall. According to the late
Paul Laity, the Duchy estates in Cornwall were based on "Ancient
British Royal Territory".
His source for this statement is not given, nor is it stated
how anyone at the present time knows what was ancient British
royal territory. The estate in Devon, which the Duke inherited
from the Earls of Cornwall, was the Parish of Lydford, which
was the largest parish in England, as it included the whole
of the central part of Dartmoor, known as the Forest of Dartmoor.
The Parish of Lydford had been granted by Henry III to his
brother Richard, Earl of Cornwall. In addition, further estates
outside Cornwall (or Devon) were granted to the Duke. One
of the chief officers of the Duchy was given the title of
Lord Warden of the Stannaries, whose function it was to take
over the dut! ies of the previous Chief Warden of the Stannaries,
i.e. the governance of the Stannaries of Cornwall and Devon.
In 1496 there was a dispute between the Cornish Tinners and
the Duke of Cornwall, which resulted in the suspension of
the Cornish Stannaries (this did not affect the Devon Stannaries).
In 1508, Henry VII signed the Charter of Pardon, which reinstated
the Cornish Stannaries upon payment of a bond of £1,000, which
was raised by a general levy on all Cornish Tinners. The Charter
of Pardon reiterated that the Westminster Parliament could
not institute statutes and ordnances, which infringed on the
ancient rights of the Cornish tinners or the Cornish Stannaries.
Evidence that the Stannary Charters continued to be exercised
is contained in the 1688 Bill of Rights, which included the
clause:- "Provided always that nothing in this Act shall alter
determine or make void the Charters granted to the Tinners
of Devon and Cornwall by any of the Kings and Queens of this
realme or any of the liberties, privileges or franchises of
the said tinners or to alter determine or make void the laws,
customs or constitutions of the Stannaries of Devon or Cornwall
or any of them".
Stannary Parliaments, in both Cornwall and Devon, were convened
from time to time over many centuries, in accordance with
the procedures stipulated in the Stannary Charters, by the
Lord Warden of the Stannaries. In Cornwall, each of the four
boroughs of Truro, Lostwithiel, Launceston and Helston elected
six Stannators to serve as Members of the Cornwall Stannary
Parliament. In Devon, each of the four Stannary Towns of Tavistock,
Plympton, Chagford and Ashburton elected twenty-four Stannators
to serve as Members of the Devon Stannary Parliament. Such
Parliaments had great authority, and their enactments passed
into law after receiving Royal or Duchy assent.
The last Devon Stannary Parliament convened in 1749, and the
last Cornish Stannary Parliament convened in 1753. Stannary
Courts were convened in both Cornwall and Devon for the purpose
of administration of the Stannary Laws. The tin coinage (taxation)
was abolished in 1838 and Queen Victoria, and subsequent Monarchs
and Dukes of Cornwall, have been compensated by a perpetual
annuity, which was charged to the Duchy of Cornwall. None
of the Stannary Charters have ever been repealed, so they
are still valid today in both Cornwall and Devon.
As far as I can tell, the argument for Cornish independence,
which has been extracted from the Stannary Statutes, Charters
etc. is based on the premise that as the Stannary Laws encompass
all tin extraction, smelting, weighing and valuing activities,
and that as tinners have the right to carry out such activities
in any part of Cornwall, then the whole of Cornwall comes
under the jurisdiction of the Stannaries and therefore the
Duchy of Cornwall (via the Lord Warden of the Stannaries).
Whilst this may be theoretically correct, it must be borne
in mind that Stannary Law only takes precedence over English
and Welsh Law where it has direct bearing on such tin extraction
activities. It could be argued that extrapolating Stannary
jurisdiction to all activities in Cornwall, is stretching
the boundaries somewhat beyond the intended and defined limits.
Any such extrapolations would also apply to Devon of course.
If Phil T (or anyone else) can find anything in the Stannary
Charters and Laws, which would support a case for violation
of human rights to be taken to the European Courts, then I
am sure that the people of Cornwall (and Devon) would be very
interested to hear about it. Incidentally, it is interesting
to note that in the Charter of 1198, reference is made to
the Sheriff of Devon and Cornwall. Surely, if Cornwall had
been regarded as a separate country at that time, such a title
would not have existed. This does not mean that I would not
support devolution for a Cornish Region, if that is what the
Cornish people want.
Bob Burns,
Barton-upon-Humber |
|
Steve Garrett, none of us is disputing the fact that Liverpool,
or any other part of the UK for that matter, has experienced
extreme poverty and decay in recent years. However, your
argument that your area is poor is not a justifiable reason
why the Cornish people should remain silent and accept their
situation as being unchangeable. If you are not happy with
your own situation then try and do something about it but
do not condemn us for trying to improve our own standards
of living by whatever means is necessary. If devolution
is the answer for us then we shall pursue it. Bob Burns,
the same applies to you. Cornwall has an undeniable historical
AND economical reason for self determination. Devon could
also make a similar case if the people of Devon wished it.
Whether MOST Devonians want it or not, has not been successfully
argued on this site, but it may well have been argued successfully
on the Devon site. But, just because you have a grievance
with the British Government, don't condemn us just because
we ARE trying to doing something about it. By the way, I
work in Oman, but I still live in Cornwall, where I have
a wife and four kids.
Phil T, Cornishman in Oman
|
|
Tim, below is an economic comparison with some small countries
throughout the world. Luxembourg is the most relevant as
it is almost identical in size and population to Cornwall.
It is also a Duchy. Cornwall earns a relatively high proportion
of its GDP from three sectors – mining and quarrying; distribution,
hotels and catering; and agriculture. In 1996 Cornwall's
Gross Domestic Product was estimated to be £3,680 million.
Cornwall had a population of 485,600 in 1997. Cornwall's
population has grown by 27% since 1983 and its working population
has risen by 24% in this same period.
Tourism
is the only traditional industry which is currently expanding.
There are now an estimated 4 million visitors a year spending
some £930 million, although only about a third of this is
retained in Cornwall. The industry accounts for around 30,000
jobs with many more at the peak of the season. In 1997 87.1%
of Cornish employees worked in small firms with fewer than
10 employees, more than the 83.6% equivalent for the UK.
In 1996/7 21% of the workforce were self employed, nearly
double the UK average of 11.6%.
Cornwall National name: Kernow Area: 1370 sq.mi (3550 sq.km)
Population: 485,600 in 1997 Density per sq mi: 1.4 people
per hectare, 363 per sq. mi Economic summary: GDP/PPP: 1996
Gross Domestic Product est.£3,680 million ($6 Billion) ;
per capita: £7,614 ($12,410) Real growth rate: 1.9% Inflation:
2.3%. Unemployment: 4.8% Jan 2001 Industries: Distribution
& catering (25.3%), Other Services (30%), Construction (9.3%),
Banking & Finance (7.7%), Agriculture Forestry & Fishing
(6.0%), Other manufacturing (5.4%), Manufacturing metal
etc (5.1%), Transport (5.1%), Mining (2.8%), Energy & Water
(1.2%)
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Ruler: Grand Duke Henri (2000) Premier: Jean-Claude Juncker
(1995) Area: 998 sq mi (2,586 sq km) Population (2002 est.):
448,569 Density per sq. mi.: 449 Economic summary: GDP/PPP
(2000 est.): $15.9 billion; per capita $36,400. Real growth
rate: 5.7%. Inflation: 7.8%. Unemployment: 2.7%. Labour
force: 248,000 (of whom 70,200 are foreign cross-border
workers primarily from France, Belgium, and Germany) (2000);
services 83.2%, industry 14.3%, agriculture 2.5% (1998 est.).
Industries: banking, iron and steel, food processing, chemicals,
metal products, engineering, tires, glass, aluminium. Natural
resources: iron ore (no longer exploited), arable land.
Exports: $7.6 billion (f.o.b., 2000): machinery and equipment,
steel products, chemicals, rubber products, glass. Imports:
$10 billion (c.i.f., 2000): minerals, metals, foodstuffs,
quality consumer goods. Major trading partners: EU, U.S
Republic of Iceland
National
name: Lydveldid Island President: Ólafur Ragnar GrÃmsson
(1996) Prime Minister: David Oddsson (1991) Area: 39,768
sq mi (103,000 sq km)1 Population (2002 est.): 279, Density
per sq mi: 7 Economic summary: GDP/PPP (2000 est.): $6.85
billion; per capita $24,800. Real growth rate: 4.3%. Inflation:
3.5%. Unemployment: 2.7% (Jan. 2001). Labour force: 159,000
(2000); agriculture 5.1%, fishing and fish processing 11.8%,
manufacturing 12.9%, construction 10.7%, other services
59.5% (1999). Industries: fish processing; aluminium smelting,
ferro-silicon production, geothermal power; tourism. Natural
resources: fish, hydropower, geothermal power, diatomite.
Exports: $2 billion (f.o.b., 2000): fish and fish products
70%, animal products, aluminium, diatomite and ferro-silicon.
Imports: $2.2 billion (f.o.b., 2000): machinery and equipment,
petroleum products; foodstuffs, textiles. Major trading
partners: EU, U.S., Japan.
Principality
of Liechtenstein
Ruler: Prince Hans Adam II (1989) Head of Government: Otmar
Hasler (2001) Area: 62 sq mi (160 sq km) Population (2002
est.): 32,842 Density per sq mi: 532 Economic summary: GDP/PPP
(1998 est.): $730 million; per capita $23,000. Real growth
rate: n.a. Inflation: 0.5% (1997 est.). Unemployment: 1.8%
(Feb. 1999). Labour force: 22,891 of which 13,847 are foreigners;
8,231 commute from Austria and Switzerland to work each
day; industry, trade, and building 45%, services 53%, agriculture,
fishing, forestry, and horticulture 2% (1997 est.). Industries:
electronics, metal manufacturing, textiles, ceramics, pharmaceuticals,
food products, precision instruments, tourism. Natural resources:
hydroelectric potential, arable land. Exports: $2.47 billion
(1996): small speciality machinery, dental products, stamps,
hardware, pottery. Imports: $917.3 million (1996): machinery,
metal goods, textiles, foodstuffs, motor vehicles. Major
trading partners: EU and EFTA countries.
Principality
of Andorra
National name: Valls d'Andorra Head of Government: Marc
Forné Molné (1994) Area: 181 sq mi (468 sq km) Population
(2003 est.): 69, Density per sq mi: 379 Economic summary:
GDP/PPP (1996 est.): $1.2 billion; per capita $18,000. Real
growth rate: n.a. Inflation: 1.62% (1998). Unemployment:
0%. Labour force: 30,787 salaried employees (1998); agriculture
1%, industry 21%, services 72%, other 6% (1998). Industries:
tourism (particularly skiing), cattle raising, timber, tobacco,
banking. Natural resources: hydropower, mineral water, timber,
iron ore, lead. Exports: $58 million (f.o.b., 1998): tobacco
products, furniture. Imports: $1.077 billion (c.i.f., 1998):
consumer goods, food, electricity. Major trading partners:
France, Spain, U.S.
Principality of Monaco
National name: Principauté de Monaco Ruler: Prince Rainier
III (1949) Minister of State: Patrick Leclercq (2000) Area:
0.75 sq mi (465 acres) (1.95 sq km) Population (2002 est.):
31, Density per sq mi: 42,485 Economic summary: GDP/PPP
(1999 est.): $870 million; $27,000 per capita. Real growth
rate: n.a. Inflation: n.a. Unemployment: 3.1% (1998). Labour
force: 30,540 (Jan. 1994). Natural resources: none. Exports:
n.a. Imports: n.a. Full customs integration with France,
which collects and rebates Monegasque trade duties; also
participates in EU
Most
Serene Republic of San Marino National name: Repubblica
di San Marino Captains Regent: Giuseppe Maria Morganti and
Mauro Chiaruzzi (2002) Area: 24 sq mi (61.2 sq km) Population
(2002 est.): 27, Density per sq mi: 1,174 Economic summary:
GDP/PPP (2000 est.): $860 million; per capita $32,000. Real
growth rate: 8%. Inflation: 2.2% (2000). Unemployment: 3%
(1999). Labour force: 18,500 (1999); services 60%, industry
38%, agriculture 2% (1998 est.). Industries: tourism, banking,
textiles, electronics, ceramics, cement, wine. Natural resources:
building stone. Exports: trade data are included with the
statistics for Italy: building stone, lime, wood, chestnuts,
wheat, wine, baked goods, hides, ceramics. Imports: trade
data are included with the statistics for Italy: wide variety
of consumer manufactures, food.
State
of Qatar
Emir: Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani (1995) Prime Minister:
Abdullah bin Khalifa al-Thani (1996) Area: 4,416 sq mi (11,437
sq km) Population (2002 est.): 793, Density per sq mi: 180
Economic summary: GDP/PPP (2000 est.): $15.1 billion; per
capita $20,300. Real growth rate: 4%. Inflation: 2.5%. Unemployment:
n.a. Labour force: 233,000 (1993 est.). Industries: crude
oil production and refining, fertilisers, petrochemicals,
steel reinforcing bars, cement. Natural resources: petroleum,
natural gas, fish. Exports: $9.8 billion (f.o.b., 2000 est.):
petroleum products 80%, fertilisers, steel. Imports: $3.8
billion (f.o.b., 2000 est.): machinery and transport equipment,
food, chemicals. Major trading partners: Japan, Singapore,
South Korea, U.S., UAE, UK, Italy.
State
of Bahrain
Emir: Sheik Hamad ibn Isa al-Khalifah (1999) Prime Minister:
Sheik Khalifah ibn Sulman al-Khalifah (1970) Area: 257 sq
mi (665 sq km) Population (2002 est.): 656, Density per
sq mi: 2,742 Economic summary: GDP/PPP (2000 est): $10.1
billion; per capita $15,900. Real growth rate: 5%. Inflation:
2%. Unemployment: 15% (1998 est.). Labour force: 295,000
(1998 est.); industry, commerce, and service 79%, government
20%, agriculture 1% (1997 est.). Industries: petroleum processing
and refining, aluminium smelting, offshore banking, ship
repairing; tourism. Natural resources: oil, associated and
non-associated natural gas, fish, pearls. Exports: $5.8
billion (f.o.b., 2000): petroleum and petroleum products,
aluminium. Imports: $4.2 billion (f.o.b., 2000): non-oil,
crude oil. Major trading partners: India, Saudi Arabia,
U.S., UAE, Japan, South Korea, France.
State
of Brunei Darussalam
Sultan: Haji Hassanal Bolkiah (1967) Area: 2,228 sq mi (5,770
sq km) Population (2002 est.): 350,898 Density per sq mi:
158 Economic summary: GDP/PPP (2000 est.): $5.9 billion;
per capita $17,600. Real growth rate: 3%. Inflation: 1%
(1999 est.). Unemployment: 4.9% (1995 est.). Labour force:
144,000 (1995 est.); note: includes foreign workers and
military personnel; government 48%, production of oil, natural
gas, services, and construction 42%, agriculture, forestry,
and fishing 10% (1999 est.). Industries: petroleum, petroleum
refining, liquefied natural gas, construction. Natural resources:
petroleum, natural gas, timber. Exports: $2.55 billion (f.o.b.,
1999 est.): crude oil, natural gas, refined products. Imports:
$1.3 billion (c.i.f., 1999 est.): machinery and transport
equipment, manufactured goods, food, chemicals. Major trading
partners: Japan, U.S., South Korea, Thailand, Singapore,
UK, Malaysia.
Bermuda
Status: Overseas territory Governor: Sir John Vereker (2002)
Premier: Jennifer Smith (1998) Area: 21 sq mi (53.3 sq km)
Population (2002 est.): 63,960; Density per sq mi: 2,817
Economic summary: GDP/PPP (2000 est.): $2.1 billion; per
capita $33,000. Real growth rate: 1.5%. Inflation: 2.7%.
Unemployment: negl. (1995). Labour force: 35,296 (1997);
clerical 23%, services 22%, labourers 17%, professional
and technical 17%, administrative and managerial 12%, sales
7%, agriculture and fishing 2% (1996). Industries: tourism,
finance, insurance, structural concrete products, paints,
perfumes, pharmaceuticals, ship repairing. Natural resources:
limestone, pleasant climate fostering tourism. Exports:
$56 million (2000 est.): re-exports of pharmaceuticals.
Imports: $739 million (2000 est.): machinery and transport
equipment, construction materials, chemicals, food and live
animals. Major trading partners: UK, U.S., Mexico.
Republic
of Estonia
National name: Eesti President: Arnold Rüütel (2001) Prime
Minister: Siim Kallas (2002) Area: 17,462 sq mi (45,226
sq km) Population (2002 est.): 1,415, Density per sq mi:
81 Economic summary: GDP/PPP (2000 est.): $14.7 billion;
per capita $10,000. Real growth rate: 6.4%. Inflation: 4.1%
(1999 est.). Unemployment: 11.7% (1999 est.). Labour force:
785,500; industry 20%, agriculture 11%, services 69% (1999
est.). Industries: oil shale, shipbuilding, phosphates,
electric motors, excavators, cement, furniture, clothing,
textiles, paper, shoes, apparel. Natural resources: shale
oil (kukersite), peat, phosphorite, amber, cambrian blue
clay, limestone, dolomite, arable land. Exports: $3.1 billion
(f.o.b., 2000): machinery and equipment, wood products,
textiles, food products, metals, chemical products (1999).
Imports: $4 billion (f.o.b., 2000): machinery and equipment,
chemical products, foodstuffs, metal product, textiles (1999).
Major trading partners: Finland, Sweden, Russia, Latvia,
Germany, U.S., Japan.
Phil T, Cornishman in Oman
|
|
First, Happy New Year to One and All!
Second, congratulations to 91Èȱ¬ Cornwall for revising the
introductory texts leading to this web page.
Third, poor old Steve Garrett is proving what a poor debater
he is by completely ignoring (or, more likely, failing to
grasp) Sandman's susbtantive points. I wonder if 'Private
Eye' might take a more intelligent view, Sandman, and print
such a piece? They would certainly be interested in the
inappropriate (and highly unusual) use of a Public Interest
Immunity Certificate in the case of the Truro Three. And
they would probably investigate this abuse of state power
by the authorities in London, in the public interest for
all in the UK and not only Cornwall.
Fourth,
thank you, Bob, for a very measured response to Sandman,
and, yes indeed, lets get back to the debate about the Government's
plan to abolish Cornwall (and Devon) and replace it with
a giant new Region based in Bristol serving the interests
of Swindon more than Plymouth or Penzance (and physically
much closer to Dover than to Penwith). And thanks, Tim,
too, for common sense as ever.
For
all those in Cornwall, or outside, who wish to stop the
Government from trying to abolish Cornwall, and prefer to
see a devolved, directly elected more powerful new Cornish
Assembly to replace the current very weak County Council,
you can sign an e-petition to John Prescott demanding a
referendum on the question in Cornwall by visiting the website
of the Cornish Constitutional Convention. Or you can write
to John Prescott. Or do both. Apparently the Deputy Prime
Minister is consulting the public currently on these questions,
although you would be forgiven for not noticing!
Kernow bys vikken!
Adrian Watts, Flushing, Falmouth
|
Tim, thanks for the clarification concerning the ownership
of the Duchy lands. That obviously makes a difference. Bob
and Adrian, some of the historical facts that you have been
pointing have led me to think that maybe we could take our
case to the European Court of Human Rights. It seems to me
that there are some basic rights here which are not being
met. Could this be a way of forcing the British Government
into listening to the Cornish demands? It's just a suggestion.
Phil T, Cornishman in Oman |
Interesting point about Cornwall and the Czech lands, Adrian,
because Richard of Cornwall was also king of Bohemia! I've
seen charters signed by him issued to towns there. Luckily,
I don't suppose for a moment that Blair, Two-Jags et al. are
planning to exterminate us - they merely intend to push through
their plans as if we weren't there. My experience in talking
with ordinary English people is that the overwhelming majority
wish us well and thing that it is only fair for us to administer
our own affairs. The problem is that their will counts for
nothing with their political masters. The status of Cornwall
is far from being the only manifestation of the democratic
deficit that afflicts our neighbours quite as much as it inflcts
us. It just occurs to me that I may have missed a crucial
point that concerned Phil T. The thing is, Phil, that Charles
Windsor is not the owner of the Duchy Patrimony in the way
that you own your house, or Lord St. Edgecumbe owns his estate.
Windsor's lackey's spin the tale that the Duchy is a private
estate with no Cornish connections because it is in fact by
way of a stipend, vested in him to enable him to carry out
his duties in defence of the Cornish and their rights. This
is established law, which the Duchy's legal officers have
successfully defended against the Crown of the Protecting
Power. It's ineresting, however, that they are prepared to
acknowledge the truth when it suits them. During Charles Windsor's
divorce proceeding, his lawyers succesfully fought off claims
from his then-wife for a larger share of the loot on the grounds
that the Duchy asstets are NOT his private property.
Tim, Caerdydd |
Yes indeed, Tim. As I understand British, Cornish and European
constitutional law, the Prince of Wales as Duke of Cornwall
(uniquely in mainland Britain) is the Sovereign in Cornwall,
and takes precedence over the King or Queen of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when they both
persons are present in Cornwall. If only the House of Commons,
and the the Queen's present Ministers, understood that Cornwall's
sovereignty has never been displaced by British sovereignty,
we would all be much better off. Messrs Secretaries Prescott
and Raynsford will just have to learn the hard way, when push
comes to shove over any firm proposals for a devolution referendum
here in Cornwall ... Cornwall's position is surprisingly similar
to that of Bohemia and Hungary in the old Austro-Hungarian
Empire. The Austrian Emperor was never Emperor in Bohemia
or Hungary. Before he could exercise his powers and rights
in either of those countries he had to act as King of each.
It really mattered which specific Crown - that of Bohemia
or of Hungary - he wore in each country's capital on State
occassions. Subsequently, as a result, the Nazis got into
a real mess over the Crown of Saint Stephen, for example ...
and Heydrich, the Butcher of Prague, paid the ultimate price
for his many crimes when he was assasinated. By contrast,
Edward 1st of England was surprisingly crafty in the way he
combined the titles and sovereignties of Wales and Cornwall
in the person of his own heir as would-be King of all the
kingdoms, principalities and other sovereign territories of
the British Isles. So far that has helped the Cornish avoid
the fate of the Czech people ... but for how much longer,
I wonder?
Adrian Watts, Flushing, Falmouth |
Phil, I'm not sure what we should do with the Duchy lands
outside Cornwall if we don't return them to the people from
whom they were wrested by deceit, threats, or force in the
first place. If we oppress other people, we won't be taken
seriously when WE complain about oppression. As it's not up
to us how other peoples conduct their affairs, the most sensible
thing would be to leave the decision to the democratically-elected
representatives of the people in the places concerned. You're
quite right that the results from the recent survey of Cornwall
Council were very encouraging. It's up to us as an electorate
to make sure that they're even better next time. We can never
have enough informed public debate. And yes, the environmental
'achievements' ARE depressing. With our history and the expertise
present amongst us, they ought to be exceptionally good. What,
in your opinion, would be the best steps to take?
P.S - By the way, the current Head of State in Cornwall is,
legally, Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor, as opposed
to his mother.
Tim, Caerdydd |
I've just been reading the Governments figures concerning
Council Performances for 2002 and was pleased to note that
Cornwall County Council has been rated as excellent for this
period.
The only area where there was concern was for the Environment.
All other areas were rated 3 and 4, with 4 being the highest
that can be achieved. What does this tell me? It tells me
that our councillors are not the incompetents that some people
seem to think. It also tells me that these people should be
given the chance to look after our affairs, after all, do
you think the British Government would be rated as excellent
if they were assessed in the same manner? B
By the way Bob, Devon was also rated as good, slightly less
efficient than Cornwall, but nearly as good, and Dorset was
also excellent. It seems to me that our local councils are
doing their jobs well and seem to have our interests at heart.
More than you can say for Central Government. Tim, I disagree
with the idea of taking lands away from The Duke and giving
it to the people. It smells of communism or socialism to me.
Where would we stop?
In my area there are three other major land owners apart from
the Duchy. They are Lord Eliot, the Earl of Mount Edgcumbe
and Richard Carew-Pole. Would we seize their lands too? I
think not. All we need to do is take away the special privileges
and powers that The Duke enjoys then he becomes just another
land owner. I must admit though, I'm in a quandary because
I'm actually a Royalist. I know it's a contradiction with
the concept of an independent Cornwall, but I think the British
Royal Family should remain Head of State for Cornwall.
The thought of a President Blair-type figure frightens me.
Still, it'll be a long time before we have to confront that
situation, if ever. The next step I think is for everyone
interested in achieving a Cornish Assembly is to write to
their MP's to let them know your feelings. Four out of the
five Cornish MP's have already shown their support for a Senedh
Kernow (I assume they were the Lib.Dems) and it would be nice
if we all gave them our support too.
Phil T, Cornishman in Oman |
I
take Bob's point about having part of your territory under
another jurisdiction. We're trying to escape from this, and
certainly don't want to inflict it on somebody else. The answer,
I believe, is simple. All Duchy property in Cornwall should
be appropriated for its proper purpose, viz., the better givernance
of Cornwall. All Duchy property outside our territory should
be handed over to the peoples of the countries concerned,
to do with them as they will.
Tim, Caerdydd |
Many thanks to Adrian Watts, but I was aware of the existence
of the Kingdom of Damnonia (sometimes spelt Dumnonia) in what
is now Scotland. I have never fallen into the trap (as some
people have) of believing that it was in any way connected
with Dumnonia in the South West, any more than I have ever
considered Cornwall to be named after the Cornovii tribe of
the North West Midlands (as some have).
I agree with Adrian that everyone living in the South West
should make their views known to their MPs concerning the
proposed mega South West Region, and I do mean everyone, not
just the Cornish. If only the Cornish register their opposition,
the Government may think (incorrectly) that most of the rest
(from Plymouth to Swindon) are in favour of the proposal.
However, my instincts tell me that they will not listen, and
in the end it will come down to voting against the proposal.
That is the easy bit. What is going to be much more difficult
to achieve, is to persuade the Government to hold referenda
concerning Cornwall or Devon Regions (or anywhere else for
that matter). This is the aim, which needs to be addressed
and one, which no one has yet come up with a satisfactory
solution for. How does one persuade a dogmatic Government
(which always knows what's best for us) to hold such referenda?
One cannot answer 'yes' to this question, unless it is asked
in the first place.
Likewise, I don't think that Tim's proposal, for 'abolishing'
the Duchy Estates, is likely to find much favour with either
the Government or the Duke, seeing as how it provides a nice
little income for the heir to the throne. They are not going
to give it up without a fight. I don't think that Gary's proposal
for moving Plymouth into Cornwall would work, but it does
raise the important point that people do feel an affinity
with nearby areas (regardless of boundaries) rather than with
areas more remote, even if the 'remote' areas concerned are
in the same county.
This is particularly true in both Cornwall and Devon, due
to the large distances between the extremities of both. Certainly
most of the people living in the Tamar Valley feel an affinity
with each other, whichever side of the Tamar they live on.
People living west of Truro may not realise this, but the
intensity of mining activity in the Tamar Valley was almost
as high in the 19th Century as it was in the Camborne-Redruth
area, which gave the inhabitants of the valley a sense of
unity. However, if this aspect determined what was considered
to be a viable region, there would probably be as many different
proposals as there were voters. The end result would be chaos.
Any suggestions ! on a way forward anyone (no pie-in-the-sky
ideas please)?
Bob Burns, Barton-upon-Humber |
From Bob Burns' earlier posting I had assumed one of his geographical
points impeding Cornish devolution (or independence) was the
fact that there were, in ancient history, two Celtic kingdoms
in Britain, one in the North as well as here in the South
West, both called Dumnonia (sometimes spelt Damnonia).
If he was not aware of this perhaps I can help educate him.
There were two British tribes known to the Romans each described
by them as 'Dumnonii'. I will just cite one source: 'Roman
Britain' by Peter Salway, Oxford University Press, 1981. For
example Salway's Map V, of Second Century Britain, shows DUMNONII
across the area we now know as Cornwall and West Devon. It
also shows DUMNONII immediately south of the Antonine wall
in what we now call Scotland. I doubt very much if these were
the same people, but were just given the same name by the
Romans.
But this concerns me much less than whether or not all readers
of this Website have made their views known to their MPs concerning
the Government's current proposals for a Seven County South
West Regional Assembly. If not, why not? If not, it's not
too late ... yet. Write to your MP, or better still tell him
or her face to face, that you will vote NO to a Seven County
Monster, but YES to a devolved elected Regional Assembly for
Cornwall. Cornwall is a region in its own right, and does
exist as a natural economic, political, cultural and administrative
entity.
The Seven County South West Region is a fiction artificially
being created by Whitehall civil servants and ministers. If
proof were needed of this, just look at the failure of the
South West Regional Development Agency to meet its own performance
targets, especially in Cornwall, and in Devon, and in most
of the other English counties. Not only did they set themselves
unrealistic targets for economic development, but they are
trying to make a region work that simply doesn't exist in
functional or practical terms. It might be possible for a
Regional Development Agency to get somewhere if it concentrated
on a natural region. One covering Bristol and its natural
hinterland (i.e. parts of South Wales, Gloucestershire, parts
of Wiltshire, and the Northern half of Somerset) might do
very well.
Another Regional Development Agency might stand a chance of
succeeding if it just concentrated on Cornwall. One for Devon
alone might also work. Maybe one for Plymouth and Cornwall
might work (but I doubt it) and one for the rest of Devon,
West Somerset, and West Dorset. Or maybe one for Devon, Dorset
and Somerset.
Either way, Cornwall needs and deserves an economic development
agency of its own with much more substantial powers and resources
than those currently available to Cornwall County Council
and the Cornish District Councils. Only such an agency under
the aegis of a fully devolved Senedh Kernow (in place of the
County Council, but perhaps with the same members, if they
are good enough to win election) stands a chance of reversing
more than a century of economic decline in Cornwall, and really
starting to build on Cornwall's economic strengths.
Overdependence on downmarket tourism, and continued reliance
on decisionmakers in London to treat Cornwall fairly, are
a recipe for disaster for our children and their children.
Unless we win fully devolved powers to a Senedh Kernow, within
the UK, we are doomed to continue to suffer from the kind
of exploitation and colonialism that Cornwall enjoyed under
the Roman (and British) Empire! And at least neither the Ancient
Romans nor the Victorian British ever planned to ABOLISH Cornwall,
as New Labour are now proposing! Kernow bys Vikken! Save Cornwall
NOW! Vote No in Labour's Seven County Referendum! Vote Yes
in a Senedh Kernow Referendum!
Adrian Watts, Flushing, Falmouth |
Cornish Nationalism will not be taken seriously by central
government as Cornwall does not have a significant enough
population. However, the answer is on our doorstep - quite
literally. Plymouth should be moved into Cornwall. Not only
would this benefit Plymouth's battle with Exeter with attracting
businesses to the region (Plymouth would benefit from additional
incentives for Cornwall), but it would also give Cornish people
significant clout. Plymouth has always had more affinity with
Cornwall than Exeter and east Devon. The idea is not as silly
as it first sounds. In 1974 Bournemouth was moved from Hampshire
into Dorset for economic reasons which has given them mutual
benefit. Gary, Plymouth |
I take Bob's point about having part of your territory under
another jurisdiction. We're trying to escape from this, and
certainly don't want to inflict it on somebody else. The answer,
I believe, is simple. All Duchy property in Cornwall should
be appropriated for its proper purpose, viz., the better givernance
of Cornwall. All Duchy property outside our territory should
be handed over to the peoples of the countries concerned,
to do with them as they will.
Tim, Caerdydd |
I am not sure why Adrian Watts gets the impression that I
was talking about a Northern British Kingdom when I referred
to Dumnonia (in references I have seen, that kingdom is called
Damnonia). I was, of course, referring to Dumnonia in the
South West, which included the present day counties of Cornwall,
Devon and parts of Somerset and Dorset. Dumnonia was an independent
kingdom with its own Brythonic Celtic language, and therefore
fitted Fooboo's criteria for independence claims, which he
would be willing to support.
Bob Burns, Barton-upon-Humber |
I think that Phil T has missed the point that I was trying
to make in response to Fooboo’s post. Firstly Fooboo
stated that he would be prepared to support any claim for
independence from any region, which had a historical claim
to nationhood and its own language.
I think that he assumed that this condition only applied to
Cornwall, so I was pointing out to him that it could equally
apply to Northumbria (which would encroach on Scotland) and
to Dumnonia (which would include Cornwall). Therefore his
support may not be as forthcoming as he stated. Secondly,
Fooboo seemed to think that Cornwall could make a clean break
from the rest of England, without any consequences for the
people of other counties. I was merely pointing out to him
that this was not the case, because of the Duchy's ownership
of estates in 21 other counties (primarily in Devon), and
also its jurisdiction over the Devon foreshore and riverbeds.
Thus if Cornwall were to become a separate nation, a major
part of Devon would, by definition, come under the jurisdiction
of a foreign nation. What would the people of Cheshire think
if a major chunk of land, in the middle of their county, was
a part of Wales? Therefore one can imagine what the Devonians
would think. If however, Cornwall (and Devon) became separate
regions within the UK (a slightly more likely scenario), questions
of national land ownership would not arise. But as an act
of goodwill and neighbourly friendship, it would be a very
nice gesture if a large estate on Bodmin Moor were gr! anted
to the Earl of Devon (said with tongue in cheek).
Bob Burns |
Bob's question about the future of the Duchy of Cornwall today
has a simple answer. It should be nationalised! This has happened
before. During the Commonwealth it was nationalised by Parliament,
i.e. abolished and, as far as I know, incorporated into the
English Republic. It was then re-established after the Restoration
of the monarchy in 1660.
The best way forward now, assuming that Cornwall eventually
secures an elected Regional Assembly with devolved powers
from Parliament, a Senedh Kernow, would be for the title and
honours of the Duke of Cornwall to remain (as with all other
Royal Duchies) as it is now, but for the landed estate and
all other property assets owned by the Duchy (which is a separate
institution which operates when there is no Duke) to be transferred
to democratically elected bodies.
Those very substantial lands and other assets which lie within
the current boundaries of Cornwall should, in my view, be
transferred to the ownership of the Senedh Kernow, where the
revenues they generate could be used to offset local taxes
in Cornwall (or even income tax, if the Senedh had tax varying
powers as in Scotland). Scilly should become their own landlords,
too! After all, how do the Isles of Scilly (Tresco excepted)
benefit from being owned by an archaic feudal institution
based in London, which has by ! no means always acted as a
good landlord should?
Those even more extensive Duchy lands and assets east of the
Tamar could be transferred to whichever body was appropriate,
e.g. the equivalent Regional Assemblies or local authorities
in those areas (so Dartmoor might go to Devon, and the Oval
Cricket Ground might go to the Greater London Assembly) or
continue as part of the rump Duchy if Parliament so decided.
It would certainly need primary legislation which would alter
various parts of the current British Constitution.
Phil: I'm not sure I would vote for Prince Charles von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
aka Windsor as anything official to do with a future Senedh
Kernow. He may have been a good landlord, as Duke, but I think
the people of Cornwall deserve the benefits of all that rental
income more than the Heir Apparent of the British Monarchy,
whatever his or her personal merits (or otherwise).
Also, Bob Burns' suggestion that the Dumnonia that existed
in Northern Britain in ancient Roman times was part of the
same kingdom as the South Western Dumnonia (which included
Cornwall) seems highly improbable, in historical terms. It
seems to me more likely that they were two entirely separate
Celtic kingdoms which had similar names for themselves, which
were misrecorded by the Romans as the same name simply because
they, being foreigners, couldn't tell the difference. There
is no 'v' sound in Latin, for example, so the 'f' in 'Defnas'
or the 'v' in 'Devon' was recorded as 'mn'. Add to that the
fact that most indigenous Devonians pronounce Devon today
as 'Debn' or 'Demn' and it is at least possible that their
ancestors had a similar sounding name for their territory
in Roman times.
Celtic Kingdoms in the Iron Age didn't operate like Grand
Duchies in medieval or even modern Europe, with bits here
and there separated by hundreds of miles but managed as a
single fief or estate. For a start, the whole concept of land
ownership was different in the ancient Celtic world, and,
for that matter, so too was the institution of kingship. The
Dumonians (North and South) of Britain in AD 60 would not
have recognised or found it easy to comprehend the modern
concept or form of either land ownership or monarchy ... let
alone the unique characteristics, assets and legal status
of the Duchy of Cornwall!!!
Adrian Watts, Flushing, Falmouth |
|
Bob, you are correct when you say that 50% of Duchy lands
are in Devon. In fact about 25,000 hectares of the 51,000
hectares of the estate are on Dartmoor, the rest lies in
another 21 counties, including Cornwall. However, I disagree
that this would cause a problem. Why would it? The Prince
(Duke) would be just another land owner (albeit with exceptional
rights). I see no problem with that. The Prince already
pays a voluntary tax contribution of 40% from his profits
and he employs quite a large number of staff. Most of his
income comes from farm and property tenancy rents (almost
13 million of the total 15 million income). I think Prince
Charles would make an ideal candidate for a Head of State
for an independent Cornwall, after all, we don't want a
President do we?
Realistically though, we are more likely to achieve regionalism
than nationalism and I think that we should concentrate
on that first. Once we have a Cornish Regional Assembly
then we can begin to fight for an independent Cornish state.
One step at a time is what's needed.
Bindatek
where do you get this idea that a regional Cornwall would
be an economical disaster? There is no evidence that this
would be so and is totally unfounded. What makes you think
water and electricity rates would double or treble? Where's
the proof? You are just guessing and your comments are not
based on anything factual. As for upsetting muslims by putting
a white cross on our roads signs I'm sorry but I don't think
that that is an issue. How come you do not complain about
the English red rose currently on the signs. They are both
symbolic emblems. Remember, you are in Cornwall, not Pakistan
or any other muslim country, so you are bound to see signs
of English or Cornish nationalism somewhere. You'll be wanting
us to ban Christmas decorations next, like they did in Birmingham,
for fear of upsetting our ethnic minority neighbours.
Phil T, Cornishman in Oman
|
Hilary - are you then saying that we should (a) maintain the
status quo, or (b) abolish Cornwall entirely, as the present
British Government intend? Do you think that either of these
options would improve our situtation, or merely prevent it
getting worse? And why do you think that control over our
own affairs would make things worse than by remote control
from people and institutions that know little about us and
care even less?
Tim, Caerdydd |
Cornish Nationalism is becoming a problem. The business over
the tourist signs - Should we have St. Pirans Cross - No .
St. Pirans flag is not internationally recognized it is a
regional 'fun' flag and always will be. By putting a whit
cross on the signs we would be grossly offending Muslims -
we don't want to do that do we? I have suffered racial attacks
in Cornwall by nationalists - it is a disgusting state of
affairs. Cornwall is a region of UK and Europe it is not a
country - to be so would be a totally economic disaster. Rates/Water/Electric
are already the highest in UK - The Country of Cornwall would
just double and even treble those costs.
Bindatek, Port Isaac |
back
to talk indexÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý
back to previous comments
More comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
