03 Sep 2009
Back in February 2008 I blogged for OurKingdom concerning the Duchy of Cornwall. The article was called Duchy or County – how would a modern Magna Carta look in Cornwall? Over a year later there seems to be a certain effervescence around this Cornish constitutional question. Okay it’s not on the same level as the global economic depression, but perhaps an update is in order anyway. Hopefully it will give some of our democratic republicans something to mull over as well.
In February this year an article was published in Cornish World magazine by Cornish law researcher and Notary Public John Kirkhope. In -The Duchy of Cornwall, a very peculiar ‘private estate’- Kirkhope lists the array of unusual rights and prerogatives the Duchy has over the territory of Cornwall. In his blog article Graham Smith describes one of these rights, namely Bona Vancantia, but it’s far from the whole picture. Kirkhope goes into much greater detail listing for example:
The right to appoint a sheriff; the rights not to pay tax; the rights to funds and foreshore; the right to wreck; the right to summon a parliament; the rights to crown immunity and the right to intervene in court cases and demand a trial at bar amongst others.
Did someone say ‘just a private estate’?
Prior to publishing Kirkhope sent copies of his findings to all five Cornish MPs. Two, Andrew George and Dan Rogerson, responded and arranged to meet Kirkhope in Westminster so that the researcher could expand on his findings. Both MPs shared Kirkhopes frustration at governments unwillingness to answer questions about the Duchy. It should also be noted that Andrew George has shown a previous interest in our constitutional affairs.
In the same month, and perhaps prompted by Kirkhopes presentation, Andrew George raised a number of questions in parliament concerning the Duchy. These and the responses they received can be viewed on the new blog from the Duchy of Cornwall Human Rights Association (DCHA). Intelligently commented by Cornish activist John Angarrack the government responses give the impression of officials more than ready to use doublespeak.
So what can be deduced from these Ducal rights? What constitutional arrangement do they find their foundation in? Even if the Tamar and its estuary almost severe us from Devonshire, geographically, Cornwall is part of the island of Great Britain. Furthermore, in an administrative sense, Cornwall is clearly run as a county of England with a soon-to-be Unitary Authority. No doubt on these two points.
Cornwall’s de jure constitutional position is another story though. Is it part of the United Kingdom? Angarracks response is simple. On the big island the Queen/Crown is sovereign accepting that is Cornwall where a second sovereign sits obscured by the government’s and establishment’s disinformation. A Duke happy to benefit from his extensive powers but unwilling to assume responsibility for the territory and people of his Duchy. The evidence and arguments are complex but clearly explained on the DCHRA blog.
So where next? The British Islands other constitutional anomalies may be regretting the good old days before the credit crunch, but what about our hidden Cornish Crown Dependency operated as a tax haven for one man? Shouldn’t the people of Cornwall be fully informed as to the nature of the Duchy?
I’ll leave the last words to John Kirkhope who writes:
This entry was posted on Thursday, September 3rd, 2009 at 9:04 am and is filed under Bona Vacantia, Constitutional reform, General, The Duchies. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.At a time when Cornwall, economically, needs bolstering and the government of Cornwall is in apparent upheaval perhaps the legal status of Cornwall and the monies generated by the Duchy need to be made transparent rather than suffer the murkiness of misinformation.
Facebook
Twitter
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Good article; embarrassing lack of copy-editing.
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
My apologies, put it up in a rush this morning. I think I’ve corrected everything, let me know if there are any typos on the post.
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:55 pm
I think that democratic republicanism is part of a bigger movement to create a shift in power in Britain towards not only a system of government that is more obviously representative of the people (in all of their diversity including cornishness) – but also encouraging more representative hmmm representatives (!) Saying goodbye to the relationship between the Windsors and the state (financially and legally) is part of a comprehensive movement towards a mature democracy. The Duchy in terms of local government and democracy is an anachronism and this particular example of the WIndsor family’s ridiculous involvement should be consigned to a the quaint corner of history where it belongs. Cornwall faces real challenges in securing good employment opportunities and affordable housing for locals and I am sure that this could be best achieved by a modern approach to regional government with the help of Britain as a whole and the EU. I am reminded of how the west of Ireland was developed and encouraged throughout the eighties and nineties with infrastructure projects and by making regional investment attractive with tax breaks – have we seen much evidence of progressive thinking from Clarence House ?
September 4th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Put simply:
Cornwall is a suppressed nation – conquered and annexed by the English over 1,000 years ago. It has its own history, culture and once had its own parliament. It is one of the most neglected and economically deprived parts of the UK, largely due to remote English-centric rule from London.
Cornwall should have its own parliament, just like Scotland. There is a strong democratic and economic argument for Cornwall to also declare itself a republic and seize back the stolen Duchy lands from the Duke of Cornwall / Prince of Wales, which could then be used for the benefit of the Cornish people.
See my Guardian article on Cornish rights from last year:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/10/cornwall
September 4th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
To concur with the above and to relaunch the debate a little: yes the Duchy is an anachronistic feudal relic with far too much power and influence. However simply abolishing it so that in all constitutional terms Cornwall just becomes yet another English county would in my view be equally as unjust as maintaining the status quo.
Yes the Duchy was created in 1337 as a means to support the heir apparent and relieve the English tax payer. A role it plays today. Yes it was created as a practice kingdom for the heir apparent to learn how to rule. I don’t deny this but why Cornwall? Why was Cornwall made a Duchy? I don’t think this can be understood unless you take into consideration the non-English Celtic Cornish residents of the territory. It’s increasingly accepted that the Duchy was also an accommodation of Cornish specificity and a way to bind this rebellious region into the growing state whilst bowing to its difference and previous independence. As a Cornish man I believe we still deserve some form of accommodation.
What I suggest is that all democratic reformers, republican or not, should, together, simply campaign for a full investigation of the Duchy and its relationship to the territory of Cornwall. Then let the people of Cornwall decide what to do with it. Only at this decision making stage would my republican preferences come into play. Before this why split off into republican and non-republican factions.Stay as one and demand light be shed on this feudal body.
September 4th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
I was going to start my previous blog entry with a discussion about the Isle of Wight (where I am originally from) which faces many of the same difficulties as Cornwall – Peter’s Guardian article is quite right but I would add that government, culture, media and business have been very focussed on south east england – often I think to the detriment of allowing local solutions to particularly local problems across the regions outside of south east england – Where there has been more local control – think of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, devolved assembies in Scotland,Wales and recently Northern Ireland the outcomes have been generally good. But the clincher has to be the Republic of Ireland which has been able to function much more effectively at an international level as a separate state than would have ever been possible when in union with the rest of the British Isles. Would the Cornish vote for the continuance of the Duchy as Charles Windsor’s ‘play state’ if asked ?
September 4th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
To be frank, and I’m only giving my point of view, but if the choice was between keeping the Duke but handing all the Duchies powers over to an elected Cornish assembly or simply becoming an English county in an English or British republic then there is no choice.
I would vote to keep the Duke and then once Cornish autonomy and national recognition were established facts I would campaign for a republic.
So simply don’t force this choice. All of us together should call for a full investigation of the Duchy and then a Cornish referendum on its future.
September 5th, 2009 at 10:26 am
I have some extra thoughts on this:
(1) Nationalism in the sense that we might currently think about it is very much a product of the nineteenth century – and most probably a product of the vying between the great powers which defined the nation state as being the fundamental building block of geopolitics. I don’t think we live in that time now and the reality is that even a political entity such as Britain needs to devolve some of its sovereignty to the EU, NATO etc etc. Economic sovereignty is really around such issues as tax regime and public spending – but where and how the money flows is really out of control of national governments acting alone. So although I am a strong believer in local democracy we can’t get away from the fact that we need to be able to act in larger units – in our case the EU – I wonder where an area such as cornwall would fit ?
(2) I was very interested in my family heritage and traced my family tree. I thought that there might be evidence of a mediterranean recent ancestor on the basis that several members of the family have very mediterranean skin – I found nobody for several hundred years who was from outside of England (In fact on my mum’s side very few people from outside of the Isle of Wight) ( but within that group there were English Celts (from the lake district) plenty of Vikings, Norman French, Cornwall, Anglo Saxons, Jutes (the Isle of Wight). I expect if I had a DNA swab I would be protypically english in the modern sense as being from many different groups of Europeans who moved here after the end of the Ice Age. My understanding is that the DNA evidence across the British Isles shows a fair degree of mixing over the last two thousand years. Which is not an argument about regional autonomy or the survival of languages and cultures just my doubts around ethnicity as being a good basis on which to define a national area.
3. As this blog is about republicanism – one aspect of the monarchy is that it exists to symbolise a pseudo-unit that is meant to pull us all together. My sense is that when the British Empire was at its height the crown and monarch was a brand that could be used to identify the British unit – I am sure that there are better approaches in the 21st century and I see popular sovereignty as being by far the most stable and successful model – I am a fan of the Swiss confederation (ultra stable and very devolved) and Ireland.
Sorry if this is a bit rambling – but these are the things that come up in my mind when I think of nationalism.
September 5th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
I would say that great nation and large state nationalism was a product of the 19th century. Of course between this form of nationalism, often right-wing, imperialist and aggressive, there are some connections to minority group nationalism but very tenuous ones. Compare for example majority group British, Russian or Han Chinese nationalism with Tibetan or Welsh nationalism.
Personally if a minority groups finds that it is getting a bad deal in its current state then political nationalism is a perfectly respectable response and perhaps the only one. I’m a Cornish nationalist today to ensure greater home-rule for Kernow as well as national recognition. Once this is obtained my nationalism would end.
Any Cornish individual in a future free Kernow who attacked immigrants and wanted out of Europe would be at the opposite end of the political spectrum from the vast majority of today’s Cornish nats.
As for Europe you’ll find that Mebyon Kernow (MK) are very good Europeans. A con-federal Europe of a thousand flags has been a long quoted end goal. You are aware that MK along with Plaid and the SNP are members of the left of centre pro-subsidiarity European Free Alliance, which itself is allied with the European Greens. A very different kettle of fish compared to the BNP, UKIP or English nationalists.
Your remarks about ethnicity and DNA need to be examined. In modern Europe it is impossible to find any real genetic frontiers and for me DNA (blood) is simply not the basis for ethnic or national identity. What you honestly feel yourself to be, what your community and family has instilled in you, is your ethnicity. That is why I can fully accept the idea of a Black Cornish person for example. Beyond this inclusive form of ethnicity I would also add an inclusive civic identity i.e a Citizen of Cornwall of whatever declared ethnicity (or not declared if that was their choice).
I too favour the Swiss model and I’m very wary of the French republican model which is little more than a centralised state that sponsors the franco-french ethnicity, language and culture at the expense of all others.
We all live on a small Island of the coast of Europe so forms of governmental cooperation are clearly essential between the different nations. No one is calling for total isolationist Cornish independence. National recognition and sovereignty resting with the Cornish people is not too much to ask considering the damage our culture has suffered over the centuries at the hands of this centralised regime.
Between British Republicans and, for want of a better phrase, Celtic Nationalists there is some suspicion I know. Perhaps CN look to the centralised French Republic with horror and BR doubt CNs commitment to republicanism.
They way I see it is this. Nationalists like the SNP, Plaid and MK are wary of the ‘republican’ label for two reasons. 1) They want to distance themselves from the negative image held by Irish Republicanism and 2) Why bother with such a divisive issue before the national question is resolved. That being said I can’t see the progressive democrats that are MK, SNP and Plaid supporting a Monarchy after the national question is answered.
September 5th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
What a shock, people here seek to undermine England and the United Kingdom. You people are not just against the monarchy, i am sorry but your intentions towards this country are rather alarming.
It appears to me alot of you are just separatists of some form and attack the monarchy because of it. Most people do not share any of your views when it comes to the UK and Cornwall. Cornwall is a county of England.. nothing more, many counties have different historical roots.
Thank goodness the overwhelming majority of the British peoplea are not republicans like yourselves, you clearly do not care about the country you are meant to be “freeing” from an evil monarch.
September 5th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
@ Simon
There is no way on this earth that us republicans are seeking to undermine England or the UK. It is the monarchy that undermines the UK by telling its people that they are too thick to choose or be the head of state – the decision needs to be made by the royal womb.
Therefore, I refute any accusation that I am unpatriotic.
Can you please tell us why you are in favour of the monarchy and what reasons you have for opposing a democratic republic?
September 5th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Simon
Unlike you we don’t oppose free speech and we welcome open and honest debate.
Republic doesn’t campaign for any separatism, but we also allow for the fact that some republicans believe the UK should be turned into a number of republics instead of one.
The key issue is the health of our democracy. If the majority of people want a united Britain then you have no grounds for objecting to a genuinely democratic constitution that would allow the people to make those decisions for themselves.
September 5th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
@ Simon
Hmmm a fairly typical response from a monarchist visitor – devoid of logic and unwilling to discuss and debate. Simon this is a blog to think things through not the letters page of the daily mail.
@ Phillip
I appreciate what you are saying – I am very interested in what will happen over the next couple of years when Scotland has a chance to debate and think seriously about whether or not to stay within the current Union – I really hope that the SNP is a bit more upfront about the possibility for a republican constitution for Scotland – from my experience of Scotland republicanism would get a measured and sensible debate. I will reiterate that I think that a more devolved approach to government across Britain would be welcome – but I do think we are stronger together – but as you say people need to feel that the relationship with their more populous neighbours is fair. Can I just say that Simon’s comments above typifies an approach that many British people (irrespective as to his actual gender or nationality or age etc etc ) take to others which is dismissive and irritating – I genuinely believe that this approach rather than that of most of the people who blog here gets the British a bad name overseas.
September 6th, 2009 at 9:10 am
@ Tim
We agree I think on most things. I too look for cooperation between people and peoples it’s just that I take a bottom up approach. Independence first then we can work at hammering out a fairer form of cooperation and shared government.
I will add though that the best chance of seeing any part of the UK become a republic in the near future is via Scottish independence, and who knows what constitutional change this would bring about in the rest of the Kingdom.
@ Simon,
As far as I’m aware Republic supports neither Celtic separatism nor British state nationalism or English nationalism. It is simply a pressure group that promotes republicanism as the best form of government in these Atlantic isles.
It seems clear from your comments that you are a British nationalist, perhaps not of the knuckle dragging BNP variety, but someone who considers Britain (UK V England do you know the difference?) to be their nation. I am also concerned for my country it’s just that my primary territories at heart are Cornwall and then Europe.
September 6th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
“Most people do not share any of your views when it comes to the UK and Cornwall.” Simon Wright
Too general to be taken seriously, along with the rest of the ’separatist’ nonsense. Arguably, no-one is able to say that the views of one group of people are wholly oppositional or not shared to an extent with another group. What on earth are you saying? Did you want to debate anything? If so perhaps you might explain why you are in favour of the monarchy and what reasons you have for opposing those who feel a democratic republic would be a more inclusive and egalitarian system in what is currently referred to as a democracy?
September 6th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
None of these comments address my concerns about Republicans feelings towards the United Kingdom. I posted a question elsewhere but i will ask it here, its a very simple question and id love honest answers from you all.
Would you rather live in an independent Republic of England / Scotland / Wales or in the United Kingdom with our system of constitutional monarchy?
If your answer is a Republic rather than the United Kingdom, im sorry but i honestly dont understand how any of you have our countrys future interests at heart. The fact that Republic Scotland are unwilling to oppose separatists that seek to destroy the United Kingdom, really does draw into question how loyal you are to this country.
I do support the monarchy for many reasons. If i was forced to make a choice between the UK becoming a Republic or the UK breaking up (with England keeping the monarchy) then i would accept a republic but it seems to me that Republicans are less loyal to the United Kingdom. We saw that in Scotland recently when Her Majesty went to open the parliament, quite a few of the SNP and sadly even labour MSPs “accidently” had other things to do on the day, such people are not patriotic about our country and as far as im concerned they violate the oaths they take.
September 6th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
I do not support the British National Party, i strongly oppose their radical views and think they do far more damage to this country than good. I am proud to be British, i consider the United Kingdom my country, not England. I know the difference between the two and i understand how usage of England to mean Britain is offensive and unhelpful, the British government should do far more to address these problems internally and around the world.
Despite being a unionist and proud to be British, if the BNP ever came to power in this country (Which will never happen), i would rather move to Scotland and support a break up of the United Kingdom than live under such a radical regime.
That being said, whilst i strongly oppose their policies and methods, many of the issues they raise are serious problems for this country that needs to be addressed, just in a far more moderate way.
Immigration
Radical Islam
Law and Order
Lack of patriotism
These are some of the things where the BNP do have valid concerns but the next conservative government would address these problems in a more responsible way although they will not do enough, its better than the BNP extreme.
Also something that may shock people, i strongly support Britains membership of the European Union (although i strongly oppose joining the Euro)
September 6th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Philip Hosking Says: September 4th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
“Yes the Duchy was created in 1337 as a means to support the heir apparent and relieve the English tax payer. A role it plays today.”
Whilst agreeing with most of what Philip argues, I believe that the constitutional significance is, and was, considerably more than simply finance and the first part of that statement is incorrect. This can be gleaned by reading the various legal documents creating – more correctly, restoring! – the Duchy of Cornwall, in 1337.
The latter ‘official’ point, stated as a comparison, is simply the State’s attempt to control current, and historical, perceptions of the masses. There is an urgent need to be able to ‘open up’ the Duchy archives and, also, to bring the ‘alleged private estate’ within the Freedom of Information Act. This needs to be done in parallel with a critical analysis of the true Cornish Constitution.
The whole cover-up operation surrounding the Duchy of Cornwall is, undoubtedly, a compelling reason to get rid of the monarchy – the Duke, the Crown, and the Government knows the truth! However, to create a republic without first establishing the truth about the Cornish constitution could only further marginalise the Cornish people and exacerbate any chance of achieving the hitherto denied Cornish Rights.
It is clear that the United Kingdom has failed in its duty to respect and unite (hence Celtic nationalism) and needs to seriously think about the way forward. If there is a very long-term aim to establish a collection of republics, then why does it have to be the United “British” Republics, for example? Why not simply think at the European level and remove an unnecessary tier of Government?
September 6th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
So thats another Republican supporter that is a separatist. Seems to be an emerging pattern here really doesnt there?
September 6th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Simon, if you wish to challenge what I have said, then please pose it as a question, or counter-argument.
I am simply stating things as I see them from a perspective of 50 years campaigning for Cornish Rights and the fact that the ‘good things’ only seem to emanate from Europe. More correctly, the Council of Europe with the many conventions & protocols on Human Rights, which the UK Government only seem to pay lip service to, with respect to the Cornish. I have no thoughts at all on republicanism. That would be down to a democratic consensus. Where do you draw the conclusion that I am a separatist from?
September 6th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
I see no reason to bother challenging what you said, im just keeping count of the numbers here that along with being republicans seem to want to undermine the United Kingdom and your comments certainly sound like you have such motives.
As for you having no thoughts at all on republicanism, you suggested their actions over Cornwalls status are a compelling reason to get rid of the monarchy, thats hardly no thoughts.
Cornwall is a county of England, i am sorry you feel differently but this is fact. Where will it all end, do you campaign for Geordies rights too? As for the Council of Europe, let us not forget the British government chooses to sign up to these things. Its not like Europe decides and we act. Although this incompetent labour government and its Human Rights Act have caused huge problems, thankfully once the tories take power they will address this matter and get rid of the awful Human Rights Act.
September 6th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
@ Simon
“Would you rather live in an independent Republic of England / Scotland / Wales or in the United Kingdom with our system of constitutional monarchy?”
You really do seem to have a thing about separatism don’t you, Simon! As I have already said (I think) I do not wish to see separatism because I believe that we are stronger together. This is one of the reasons why I am quite strongly in favour of the European Union and Britain joining the Euro. Frankly, I am reluctant to answer this particular question you have posed because I don’t understand why we could not live in a British Republic. Why do you believe that a republic would only be possible if the Union broke up?
Nevertheless, if you are forcing me to answer this question I would have to opt for an English republic because there is simply no justification whatsoever for the monarchy.
With regard to separatism, it is obvious that we are both in favour of the retention of the union. Despite this, I believe that the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and even the Cornish if necessary deserve the opportunity to decide for themselves. It does not appear that you share this view and thus I question your democratic credentials.
“im sorry but i honestly dont understand how any of you have our countrys future interests at heart.”
We have the country’s future interests at heart because we want to create a system of government which is truly democratic. We want anybody in the country to be given the chance to become head of state and for everybody in the country to be given teh chance to choose the head of state. We believe that the British people are intelligent enough and of good enough judgment to make this decision. Do you?
We are against a system which robbed the British taxpayer of £183.2m in the financial year 2008-9. We are against a system which is bad for British tourism, identity and patriotism. We are against a system which makes one family unaccountable simply on account of the fact that they are that particular family. This is completely unacceptable in 2009.
“The fact that Republic Scotland are unwilling to oppose separatists that seek to destroy the United Kingdom, really does draw into question how loyal you are to this country”
Republic Scotland, like this organisation, is an umbrella group aimed at gathering together people from different sides of teh political spectrum who share a common belief in democracy. Republic does not campaign on any other issue and neither should it do – it exists to campaign for an elected head of state and to represent those who strive to make this a reality in Britain. Why should those who believe in Scottish independence be barred from campaigning on a political issue? Would you advocate those who believe in Britain’s withdrawal from the EU being barred from voting in an election? Again: do you believe in democracy or not?
“I do support the monarchy for many reasons”
Give us those specific reasons. I guarantee you that we will be able to counter them.
You accuse us of a lack of patriotism:
One of the most difficult things to counter about the monarchy is the lie that to be patriotic, you must support the monarchy. This, in my opinion, is an example of a despicable hijacking of patriotism by the Windsor family and monarchists.
I believe that patriotism is a love of one’s country, like everybody else. But it is also a duty towards that country to make it a better place. In his thoughtful book, The Progressive Patriot, Billy Bragg talks of how we can think of a country as we would think of one of our own children: we love our child without question and we devote our lives to the child. However, we also make sure the child knows the difference between right and wrong and teach him to learn from his mistakes, so that he does not grow up to become a spoilt brat. That, for me, means that it is our duty to say where we think our country is going wrong and to put it back on the right track.
Unfortunately, many people view any criticism of an aspect of a country as unpatriotic, when, as alluded to above, it is quite the opposite. The monarchy is one aspect of Britain that is not only morally, legally and practically wrong but also one of the most unpatriotic aspects of this island. The monarchy tells people that the British people are inferior to the Windsor family not on account of their skills, abilities, judgement, views, character – no – but on account of their birth. It dictates to us that out of the sixty million people in this country, not one of them is clever enough, honest enough, capable enough of ruling the country better than the buffoons who hang on the Windsor family tree. Not one of the sixty million is grown-up enough to decide for themselves, choose for themselves and lead themselves.
“This country stands for the values of freedom, democracy, equality and tolerance that, by broad political consensus, are said to be at the heart of a modern Britain. The monarchy stands for none of these. It is the monarchists who are least patriotic – they favour loyalty to a single privileged family over loyalty to our nation. They routinely rubbish our nation by claiming that we are dull and incapable of managing our own affairs – arguing instead we need the Windsor family… to provide us with a head of state” (7). What an insult to the people of Britain the monarchy is.
Oaths:
There are many people in Britain (NB not Northern Ireland, where the oath to the monarch is deemed too divisive and offensive to many) who must swear allegiance to Elizabeth before working in their jobs. Politicians, judges, clergy, police officers and foreigners upon becoming British citizens must all declare their undying devotion and adoration for Lizzie (74), instead of to those who they work for: the British people. In other words, if I were to be elected as the MP for, say, Sedgefield, I would have to lie through my teeth and declare that I would work for the benefit of Mrs Windsor rather than on behalf of the people who had elected me in order to be able to sit in Parliament. If I wished to become a magistrate in order to benefit my community, it would be the old woman in Buck House who I would pledge to do justice on behalf of, not the old woman who was mugged of her pension last Thursday when walking home from the local post office. If I were an American who wished to express his love of the UK by becoming a British citizen, I would be forced to deny one of the most fundamental aspects of my identity – a belief in popular sovereignty – by swearing to uphold a drag on democracy in order to be naturalised.
September 6th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Simon Says: September 6th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
“I see no reason to bother challenging what you said, im just keeping count of the numbers here that along with being republicans seem to want to undermine the United Kingdom and your comments certainly sound like you have such motives.
As for you having no thoughts at all on republicanism, you suggested their actions over Cornwalls status are a compelling reason to get rid of the monarchy, thats hardly no thoughts.”
Making judgements, without understanding what the argument is about is hardly an enlightened approach to issues. Neither should pointing accusatory fingers at the monarchy & government be construed as necessarily having thoughts on republicanism, or as seeking to undermine the UK. Good luck with the poll. I am sure that you will accept that it might possibly become a democratic mandate. Where would that take you?
Simon Says: September 6th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
“Cornwall is a county of England, i am sorry you feel differently but this is fact. Where will it all end, do you campaign for Geordies rights too? As for the Council of Europe, let us not forget the British government chooses to sign up to these things. Its not like Europe decides and we act. Although this incompetent labour government and its Human Rights Act have caused huge problems, thankfully once the tories take power they will address this matter and get rid of the awful Human Rights Act.”
Please do not confuse ’fact’ with ‘de facto’ or what is ‘the truth’. Perhaps you can please enlighten me as to where the legitimacy to categorize the status of Cornwall as a ‘county of England’ derives from – especially considering the substance of the opening article? It was clearly the principal item enumerated and “united forever” to the Duchy of Cornwall, which today is erroneously misrepresented – ‘officially! – as nothing more than a ‘private estate’.
I do understand the workings (almost) of the two great European institutions and I also understand how the UK Government has made an absolute joke of the COE’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities – a legally binding Convention – by ‘losing it’ within the Race Relations Act.
You are entitled to your opinion, but that does not make it right
September 6th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
The history of Cornwall as a separate state(let) probably pre-dates the creation of the Duchy in the 14th century.
Here goes another pedantary ramble…….:-
As the Romans left Britain in the Dark Ages (5th and 6th centuries), the European invaders pressed westwards and forced the pro-Roman indigenous population into Wales, Cumbria and the West Country (Cornwall and Devon). The Southern advance was delayed by the Battle of Badon (493 CE? where the Britons were possibly led by Owain Ddantgwyn, the legendary “King Arthur” [Philips & Keatman]). Whilst the conquest was postponed rather than avoided, Cornwall wasn’t ceded to the English until 926 CE.
It is therefore undestandable that the territory of Cornwall could be regarded under similar terms to that of Wales although I am not sure how far back you’d have to go to draw on this as still applicable today.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:41 am
Martin G Says: September 6th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
“It is therefore undestandable that the territory of Cornwall could be regarded under similar terms to that of Wales although I am not sure how far back you’d have to go to draw on this as still applicable today.”
—————————————–
The creation – more correctly, the restoration! – of the Duchy of Cornwall, in 1337, was (amongst other things) to restore Cornwall to its “pristine honor” refering back to the time before Athelstan. In 1351, the first Duke, clearly illustrates that Cornwall is distinct from England. There has been no constitutional event that has, or could, change that, and the current de jure status remains suppressed in the so-called UK democratic State. The DOCHRA website recommended in the above article, should be required reading.
September 7th, 2009 at 7:47 am
@Simon
What makes you think ‘republicans’ all have the same feelings towards the UK? The one thing we agree on is the need for a republican form of government, the issue of the Union is quite separate.
Monarchists are also divided on the issue of the Union, with many supporting independence for Scotland and Wales for example.
These are separate issues – what this post has raised is the fact that Cornwall has a very peculiar constitutional position that is linked directly to the issue of the monarchy.
The issue for Republic is that Britain must have a republican constitution, one in which the monarchy has no part to play. The fact that there are Cornish, Scottish, Welsh separatists who agree with us on that doesn’t change a thing.
It would seem you have no arguments in defence of the monarchy so instead want to deflect attention from the real argument and instead obsess over whether or not we all agree on a different issue.
For the record, UK-wide, the vast majority of republicans support the Union, just as the vast majority of monarchists do.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
This is getting very interesting.
@Jim
I see what you are saying in relation to my comments on the Duchy being created to provide an income for the heir apparent, but please note that I also gave other reasons for the creation of the Duchy, one being that Cornwall was (is) populated by non-English Celtic Cornish Britons. It is Cornwallia (Corn-wales), the horn of strangers, after all.
@Simon
I did not accuse you of being a member of the BNP or some other far right group. However if you consider that GB (UK) is you nation then you are a British (State) Nationalist. From this perspective the Labour, Lib Dem and Tory parties are also British nationalists.
Perhaps in Cornwall you, and the big three parties, could be considered English nationalists (and a rather aggressive form of this latter) as you and they both push an English identity onto the Cornish at the great expense of the indigenous Cornish national identity.
A republican constitution would hopefully (sadly it hasn’t in France) ensure, via legal equality, that no one national identity or ethnic group is favoured over another.
September 7th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
“Simon”, with his rhetoric about patriotism and loyalty to the state, sounds a lot like “BritishWatcher”, a user of Wikipedia that in an almost militant fashion seeks to remove all and any references to a separate Cornish identity from the site. He also spends a lot of time on YouTube (username BritishWatcher) making racist comments about the Cornish on Cornish videos. He is an extremist British nationalist and you all would do well to ignore his arguments, as no matter how much time you spend presenting logic and facts to him, he won’t be swayed by reason.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Hi Phillip
Damn yet again I have entered something into this box and it has been cleared by the browser. I wanted to run this past you with a view to saying that Cornishness, Englishness, Welshness, Scottishness and Irishness are likely a choice and an experience rather than an accurate re-enactment of the the myth of a saxon takeover – even Simon had better get his DNA checked out before saying another word. My understanding of the spread of Anglo Saxon and later English within these Islands was that it was convenient and whilst I wouldn’t argue that there wasn’t oppression and bloodshed in the process (because there was) the reality is that gradually some of us identified as being germanic or celtic on the basis of the languages that most suited out lifestyles – so we ended up with some of us falling into speaking proto-english and some of us falling into speaking celtic dialects. The reality is that the bulk of the British and Irish are pretty similar genetically speaking with a few areas showing a somewhat stronger tendency towards vikingness or saxonness. The DNA evidence is that the indigenous brits are pretty homogenous and we are basically Spanish fisherfolk -
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/celts-descended-from-spanish-fishermen-study-finds-416727.html
September 8th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
@Philip
All understood Philip, but this erroneous ‘financial’ comment keeps surfacing and is part of the ‘official’ brainwashing. It is constitutionally irrelevant and, as with the general thrust of ‘external’ discussions on the Duchy and/or Cornwall, is purely another diversionary tool.
There is no specific mention of finance within the charters, only grants of land, prerogatives and incumbent burdens – all of which relate to public and private responsibilities and obligations relating to the honor and status of Duke of Cornwall. The charters are quite clear about why the Duchy was created despite a contrived confusion about it, in order to talk it down.
—————————————————————————————–
@Sam
Your observations may well be correct, but there are, sadly, a lot like Simon out there, with their own brand of paranoia, which specifically focuses on undermining legitimate activities aimed at creating a greater awareness of the Cornish Question. Does any other national group have a similar problem, I wonder?
—————————————————————————————-
@Tim
What you are presenting is a good summary of what possibly went on within these islands over the past 2000 years and the reason why DNA & genetics have no place within any discussion on peoples’ rights, or constitutional issues. I would replace ‘Spanish’ with ‘Iberian’ to avoid an obvious confusion with a modern identity. Identity is about choice, but it has to be a choice free from covert forms of attrition.
I would like to suggest that a study of Cornwall over that period – or at least the past 1500 years! – and particularly within the last 100 years would provide a reasonable model as to how the change occurred. It was a progressive process of various forms of attrition amounting to cultural genocide, with the transition from a Celtic-speaking population to a teutonic-speaking population with pockets of linguistic (eventually cultural and political) resistance to the attrition by imperial domination. That is precisely what is still happening in Cornwall today.
September 8th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
@Tim
That sound pretty plausible to me, and perhaps yes being Cornish is a choice but a very deep and fundamental choice of an existential nature.
As to the Germanic takeover in the British/Irish Isles I did read a very interesting paper that suggested multicultural Kingdoms such as Wessex (not including Cornwall of course) that contained Britons and Germanics operated with a taxation system that favoured the ruling Saxon ethnic group. A system of compenation for the death of someone I believe.
Just to revisit the words separatism and separatist that have been bandied about in this debate.
The mainstream face of Cornish nationalism, Mebyon Kernow, is not a separatist party. MK simply call for devolution to Cornwall and the creation of a Cornish Assembly. Perhaps some will say that this is just the beginning of a process that will lead to independence, but that would be pure conjecture. Incidentally MK have not recently voiced support for republicanism either. Under a previous leadership they did describe republicanism as a logical position for Cornish nationalists to take but has not been reiterated recently.
That being said even if separatism a l’ecossais was on the cards what would this separation mean? Border controls, a big wall, an end to the flow of people and goods? No, of course not. It would be business as usual with the change being that the Cornish would be very much more empowered.
Just to point out there is a Liberty Central article on the Cornish: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/sep/08/cornwall-national-minority-race
September 9th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
On the issue of Cornwall never having been formally assimilated into England / the UK, I would like to ask a question, out of genuine interest, not in order to make any political point.
After Wales became assimilated into England in 1536, when Scotland became a partner in the Union in 1707 and when Ireland became part of the Union in 1800 the three countries gained the right to send MPs to Westminster. On that basis Cornwall has been part of England/ UK since the day the first Cornish MP took his seat in St Stephens’ Hall, so since when has Cornwall been sending MP’s to Westminster?
September 9th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
The Royal Commission on the Constitution 1972 recommended that Cornwall be referred to as a Duchy, and not as a county. I think that a Royal Commission recognises Cornwall’s true status rather better than our friend does, and carries rather more clout, too.
The Cornish are not English. Their history on this soil goes back several thousand years before the English peoples ever began to settle in these islands. Their entire history is different, their native language is different, even they way they think is different.
It deeply insults the Cornish to be referred to as being assimilated into a larger collective, like victims of the Borg. It deeply insults them to see their pre-English and non-English heritage being marketed as someone else’s. It further insults them to be imposed upon by organisations with overtly political names, such as Natural “England’, ‘English’ Heritage, Sport ‘England’ and so on. They have no influential champions, other than spokespersons of other Celtic nations – and yet they survive against all the odds.
Cornwall was a kingdom. A patchy king-list survives. Two of those kings are referred to in conjunction with the native name for Cornwall: the 6th century ‘Custennin Gorneu’ (Constantine of Cornwall); and the 9th century Donyarth, described as ‘rex Cerniu’ (king of Cornwall). We even went to war with England twice: 1497 and 1549. There was no Saxon conquest of Cornwall – the annals of the time mention no such thing, even though some ‘historians’ assume it.
As someone very rightly said: It’s not that Cornwall is part of England – it’s more the fact that England forgot that it wasn’t.
September 9th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
DAH Says: – September 9th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
“On the issue of Cornwall never having been formally assimilated into England / the UK, I would like to ask a question, out of genuine interest, not in order to make any political point.”
“After Wales became assimilated into England in 1536, when Scotland became a partner in the Union in 1707 and when Ireland became part of the Union in 1800 the three countries gained the right to send MPs to Westminster. On that basis Cornwall has been part of England/ UK since the day the first Cornish MP took his seat in St Stephens’ Hall, so since when has Cornwall been sending MP’s to Westminster”
—————————————————————————————
So that it is possible to understand the context of your comment, it would help if you defined what you mean, specifically, by ‘England’ in your post quoted here?
It is interesting that you actually use different qualifiers, namely, “assimilated”, “partner” and “part of”, in order to make your point. I am sure that you can also easily produce the texts of the legal documents that gave rise to such ‘qualifiers’. However, can you produce anything, other than speculation, similar to any of these in respect of Cornwall, since you seem to imply that there is some form of parity with Ireland?
It is interesting, I think, that it was the existence of the Duke that was partly responsible for legitimising the principle of ‘opposition’ within Westminster. Even more interesting is the comparison that in the beginning there was Britain (Brutus) and Cornwall (Corineus) and today we have Britain (the Crown) and Cornwall (the Duchy of).
September 9th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
@ Phillip
Thanks for you respose and I hope that you appreciate that I also understand that identity is a very important part of life and is very probably existentially essential to good mental health. My point is that we create our identities – and one of the struggles that we face as republicans is pointing out that some aspects of our identity especially around the time immemorial nature of monarchy and the rituals used to sustain it are the product of a group of people who are essentially avoiding the struggles that the rest of us have to face in life and expect to hand on taxpayers money and undue deference to their offspring.
When we look at the research of people like Bryan Sykes and Stephen Oppenheimer we are forced to see that what we have been sometimes taught as facts for example the distinction between ‘anglo saxon’ england and the celtic fringe is really a product of nineteenth century racism which would in same breath regarded the celtic irish as feckless and the hard working anglo-saxon protestants as the true drivers of civilization with the engineering minded but fiery scottish race at their trusty side. Even in this blog – after I have quoted the DNA evidence which is pretty hard to to dispute we still have Craig (who I am not cross with) repeating the same old story – bottom line is that it is wrong – there is far more evidence for a settled population of celts coming in waves over several thousand years than there is for a mass movement of saxons from the near continent displacing the original brits to the edges of the country. This is not a unique story – as new evidence such as this is turning over myths all over the world.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:08 am
@Tim
We still have the references to “Anglo-Saxons” as misrepresenting, erroneously, the people of this island and alluding to some form of superiority intellect over others.
I am not sure where you are coming from with your comment regarding Craig’s post? He only seems to refer to when the English settled on this island, which they undoubtedly did, with quite a considerable imperialistic(?) presence, even if the number are now being disputed. The effect, nevertheless, has been the same irrespective of how it evolved over time and completely overturned what had existed before, in a way that the Roman occupation did not.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:14 am
@ Graham
You asked for instances of typos in the article and I would like to suggest that the word ‘accepting’ in the third para from the end should be ‘excepting’!
“Cornwall’s de jure constitutional position is another story though. Is it part of the United Kingdom? Angarracks response is simple. On the big island the Queen/Crown is sovereign accepting that is Cornwall where a second sovereign sits obscured by the government’s and establishment’s disinformation.”
September 10th, 2009 at 1:11 am
@ Jim
Sorry if I am being obtuse – (1) I am saying that the DNA evidence is that Saxon (North German) representation in modern British DNA samples is very minimal and that the bulk of the modern British population date from the waves of immigration that started around 6000 years ago via the Iberian peninsula. The evidence is that whilst the germanic speaking groups were influencial politically they were not demgraphically and it makes no sense to talk of the arrival of the anglo saxons being equivalent to the arrival of the english (we were already here and speaking celtic languages but lost our celtic languages – the strugggle in cornwall and wales and the west of ireland being part of that process of celts opting or eventually being pushed in the c 19th for english as a language) (2) What no doubt happened was that there was a linguistic drifting within that homogenous population so that in the east we have brits who end up speaking germanic languages and in the west continue to develop celtic languages welsh, cornwall and the now extinct lake district dialects. My third point is that fairly minor and accepted differences between UK british regional groups was accelerated in the 19th century because of racial theory, It hardly occurs in 18th century literature as diversity was largely taken for granted and accepted as part of the cultural landscape.
I have absolutely no dispute with the idea that cornwall is culturally and economically different and needs local solutions. I am proposing as Craig has that the English have forgotten they are Cornish not vice versa. I am also disputing thhe germanic credentials of the rest of the english. I am also trying to show thhat the notion of a modern germanic group east of the devon border and a celtic group west is not supported by thhe best possible science.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:41 am
Thanks Craig and Jim for not answering my question. As I noted I have no political point to make in posing it, it was just as a mater of interest. If I were to make a political point it would be made as a supporter of MK/PC/SNP
Whether you like it or not Cornwall is de facto a part of the UK / England. The reason that I used Assimilated in the case of Wales is because Wales was “incorporated, annexed, united and subject to and under the imperial Crown of the Realm, as a very member and joint of the same.” So Wales is part of the UK by virtue of being assimilated into England rather than as a Kingdom in its own right as is Scotland and as was Ireland. Rather than having parity with Ireland Cornwall seems to have parity with Wales having been annexed into England.
As Wales, Scotland and Ireland started to send MPs to Westminster as a result of being “united” with England, it is fair to assume that Cornwall was considered to be united with England when Cornwall was permitted to send MPs to Westminster. So when was that?
September 11th, 2009 at 8:14 am
Not an answer DAH but:
1) Cornwall had its own parliament in the form of the Cornish Stannary Parliament and courts which had the right of veto over Westminster. The laws which provide for the Stannary Parliament are still in existence so why can’t we use them?
2) Cornwall was ‘the’ part Britain with rotten boroughs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornish_rotten_boroughs
September 11th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
@Tim – re September 10th, 2009 at 1:11 am
Please accept my apologies for dragging this out. Many thanks to you for your more descriptive qualification, but I fear that we may well be at cross-purposes? I do, and did, agree with your take on the probable historical evolution regarding DNA & genetics.
I do not believe that historical DNA, or genetics, is anything to do with how we choose to relate to territory, culture or politics. It might have a subjective influence on how some might get off a particular fence, but the relationship of identity, to such tangible things mentioned, is down to how we, as individuals, think and act collectively in view of the prevailing politics – and implicit conflicts that derive from this? – of identity over time. I just could not see where Craig’s comment had cut across either your views or, indeed, mine?
I suspect that this comment in your post, namely,
“The evidence is that whilst the germanic speaking groups were influencial politically they were not demgraphically and it makes no sense to talk of the arrival of the anglo saxons being equivalent to the arrival of the English”,
is at the heart of our different perceptions of cause and effect. It seems to me to be full of contradictions and drawing a false conclusion. I do not believe that this is the place to expand on this, as much as a I would like to do so, but I would, for the sake of further thought, suggest that a look at the analogy of how a business/commercial take-over change is pursued.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
@DAH – re September 10th, 2009 at 2:41 am
I must confess to being a bit flippant with my reference to Ireland, because you had used the phrase “part of” in connection with both Ireland & Cornwall. I also sought to draw you out on a definition of ‘England’, within the context of your post, because there is a need to differentiate between England the nation and England the kingdom and its parliament as a political entity, namely, the State. There is also a need to better understand the varying relationships between the nations that participate in that parliament and whose parliament, in fact, it is and that the State is a different political entity. England/English, as synonymous with Britain/British, seem to be terms that take on a different mantle dependent upon uncertain perception and dubious political influence.
To answer your question: Cornwall has been a territory subjected to the protection and dominion of ‘the Crown’ since the early 10th century. There has been no annexation, unification, conquest, but the dubious form of assimilation that causes so much conflict, is a reason why Cornwall is rarely out of the news and, indeed, the background to the above article. The creation/ restoration of the Duchy of Cornwall in 1337 had identified and set the constitutional position of Cornwall in granite. The evidence and argument produced by the Duchy, in support of this position, 150 years ago, has remained hidden until recently but will now lead, increasingly, to a public exposure of the Crown’s suppression of Cornish Rights – the reason why this has to be clearly established and built into any move to establish a Republic.
It would be more correct to view Cornwall as a Protectorate, or Crown Dependency. The Duchy of Cornwall is neither in England, nor is it an English county.
September 13th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Mebyon Kernow managed to get 3 out of 123 seats on the new unitary council. Hardly a ringing endorsement of separatism!
September 13th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Yes and New Labour, UKIP, Greens, BNP, got none. At the last elections MK got about 17% of the vote (average) across the Duchy. Not great but not ignorable either.
A petition of 50,000 calling for devolution isn’t half bad either.
Equally don’t forget that all our elected Lib Dem MPs have supported Dan Rogersons Government of Cornwall Bill which calls for the creation of a Cornish Assembly.
To go back to an earlier topic. Cornwall like Wales has been sending MPs to parliament for quite some time, but as has been said we need to examine the differences between state, country and nation.
Perhaps the description of the Cornish as a ‘nation’ didn’t arise until the 19th century but when it did it was not just the spontaneous flight of fancy of some Victorian gentleman. It found its roots and origins in the popular perception of the Cornish as being other than English and/or as being original Britons.
Yes Cornwall and Wales came under English influence if not outright control. Yes they became part of the Kingdom of England (ie the English State). Equally parts of continental Europe, not the least of which was Calais, also became, for a period of time, part of the Kingdom of England. Did Calais or other continental possessions send MPs to parliament?
Calais was part of the ‘Kingdom of England’ but did it become part of the ‘country’ of England? Did the people of Calais become recognised by themselves and by the rest of the Kingdoms subjects as English?
Wales was (is?) part of the Kingdom of England but is it part of the country of England and are its people English?
Ditto for Cornwall and the Cornish?
The general publics dumbed down understanding of concepts such as nation, state, country, nationality, ethnicity, race and citizenship has left the field wide open for the powers that be to engineer and manipulate our perceptions of our own identity.
Clearly if we look at Cornwall’s de jure constitutional position it is not and never has been a simple English (shire) county nor part of the country of England, so what has happened to the Cornish peoples perceptions of themselves? Why has the true constitutional status of Cornwall been hidden away under state lies and misinformation?
Personally this is why I support Republican popular sovereignty but only after the truth has been fully presented to the people of Cornwall as to their history and constitution.
Republicanism itself seems sadly to have provided little protection to national minorities in France where the centralising ethno-social engineering that started before the revolution was merely stepped up a gear by the Jacobin.
So equality before the law for individual people? Yes of course, but also legal equality between peoples!
September 13th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Paul Says: – September 13th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
“Mebyon Kernow managed to get 3 out of 123 seats on the
new unitary council. Hardly a ringing endorsement of separatism!”
—————————————————————–
Where has the term “separatism” sprung from, and what has it to do with Mebyon Kernow’s political aspirations or ideology?
September 13th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Philip R Hosking Says: – September 13th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
“….So equality before the law for individual people? Yes of course,
but also legal equality between peoples!”
————————————————————–
You must be thinking about a sincere implentation of the FCNM but not the arbitrary way that it is currently applied by the UK Government to further deprive the Cornish people of their rights? Would a Republic be equally intransigent, I wonder?
September 13th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Good question TGG. As I’ve said republicanism in France has done nothing for its national minorities so a role model not to follow. A different form of republicanism is required.
Of course if a new republic used and fully respected the Council of Europe’s framework convention for the protection of national minorities along with other international principles of good government like the right to self-determination we might be getting somewhere.
Republican con-federalism?
September 17th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
This debate seems to have slowed down a bit now so if any republicans want to visit a Cornish forum and continue to debate the merits of republicanism then they should click here: http://www.cornwall24.co.uk/forum/cornwall24-discussion-board/the-duke-is-bad-for-democracy/page-2/