Talk:Cornwall/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Cornwall in England/UK?

For more of the same, see Talk:England/Cornwall.

Refactored: Various commentators have made comments about the status of Cornwall. In summary, some see Cornwall as an integral part of England / United Kingdom; others don't. sjc

- Is that 'some' or 'most'? But, regardless, see my suggestion below. Andy G 21:39 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Peninsula(r) - sorry about that, English is rapidly becoming my third language.sjc

Are we sure about the ancient tin? I've seen claims that the ancient tin mines were actually in the Scilly Islands. Vicki Rosenzweig

Vicki, there is no real proof one way or the other, but certainly it would have been easier for the traders to have found Cornwall than the Scillies, given the uncertainties of navigation in those times... sjc

---

GrahamN, Cornwall is NOT in England; we have brokered (after much debate) a coherent form of words which is acceptable to most of the players in this debate. This IS not negotiable and I do not propose to waste time going over this ground again. Changes to this page will be reverted with extreme prejudice. user:sjc

Hi, sjc.

I'm sorry if I trod on your toes.

You are absolutely right. Cornwall is not in England. And I never said it was. To say that Cornwall is "a county of England" is not to say that Cornwall is in England. Corsica is a département of France, but it is clearly not in France.

As it happens, I am quarter Cornish (my maternal grandfather came from the Lizard), and I have a good deal of sympathy with ambitions of the Cornish to gain independence from England. But in the interests of producing a good encyclopaedia article, I think we should amend the sentence Cornwall … is a duchy and (administratively speaking) the southernmost county of Great Britain, for two reasons.

Firstly, the Channel Islands are further south than Cornwall, and are arguably part of Great Britain.

Secondly, the phrase "County of Great Britain" is meaningless. The United Kingdom is a union of a variety of countries, principalities, bailiwicks, provinces and such, some within Great Britain and some outside it. Some of these territories are divided into counties. England has counties, Scotland has counties, Wales has counties, Northern Ireland has counties, but "Great Britain" does not have counties.

Please go to the site www.cornwall.gov.uk It is the web-site of Cornwall County Council. I believe this to be a real institution. It is not merely a front for a Cornish Government, designed to fool the English. You may wish that Cornwall was not administered as "a county of England" (and I would agree with you), but saying that it is not so doesn't change the fact that it is so. In fact it is likely to be counter-productive. Pretending that an injustice doesn't exist is not a particulary sharp way to proceed if you want to see the injustice remedied.

May I respectfully suggest the following revision:

Cornwall … is a region at the extreme South-West of Great Britain. Although technically a duchy and not part of England, currently it is administered exactly as if it were an English county.

GrahamN 22:54 Sep 6, 2002 (UCT)

GrahamN:

That would do if only it were true. However, it isn't administered exactly as if it were an English county. Close, but "English" Heritage no longer uses the word "English", for example; moreover there are certain pieces of legislature which are peculiar to Cornwall; Stannary law is still (technically if not de facto, since it has never been repealed) applicable within Cornwall. Try this and see what you think:

Cornwall [..] is a region at the extreme south-west of Great Britain. Although technically a duchy it is administered primarily as though it were an English county.

Excuse my cynicism but I get the distinct impression (again) that we are going to go through this whole lifecycle in about 6 months with someone else. We are now back to an earlier form of words of about 8 months ago. Here is the argument (all over again):

Cornwall as a contemporary geographical entity is entirely different from Cornwall (historico-geographical entity). Cornwall once stretched as far east as Bristol, with Cornish language prevalent in parts of Devon immediately anterior to the Prayer Book Rebellion. Cornwall.

The Cornish Stannaries form part of the Duchy of Cornwall and are at present vested exclusively in Prince Charles, in right of his Duchy of Cornwall. The constitutional position rests upon the Charters of 1337 whereby King Edward III created the Duchy of Cornwall and appointed his elder son, Prince Edward, known as "The Black Prince", as the first Duke of Cornwall. There is a Duchy Council which consists of high officials appointed by the Monarch or Duke of Cornwall for the time being. One such official, whose concern is supposed to be the administration of the S

tannaries, is called the Lord Warden of the Stannaries. The Lord Warden of the Stannaries used to exercise judicial and military functions in Cornwall, and is still the official who, upon the commission of the Monarch or Duke of Cornwall for the time being, has the function of calling a Parliament or Convocation of Tinners in Cornwall. The last Stannary Parliament convened by a Lord Warden of the Stannaries sat in 1753. The first Lord Warden of the Stannaries of Cornwall (and Devon) was William de Wrotham who was appointed during the reign of King Richard I of England on 20th November 1197. During the year 1198 juries of miners were convened at Launceston in Cornwall before William de Wrotham to declare the Law and Practice of the tin mines, and the Royal Tax on the tin which was mined was known as the "coinage of tin". The Writ appointing William de Wrotham confirmed the "just and ancient customs and liberties" of miners, smelters and merchants of tin. It was from those sessions of jurymen sitting under a Royal official that the Parliaments or Convocations of Tinners of Cornwall (and Devon) originated.

Further Royal Charters affecting the administration of the Stannaries of Cornwall (and Devon) and the rights and privileges of tinners were those of King John in 1201, King Edward I in 1305, King Edward IV in 1466, and the Charter of Pardon of King Henry VII in 1508.

The Charters of King John and King Edward I granted privileges to tinners to be tried by their own Courts and substantial exemptions from taxation. The 1508 Charter of Pardon affected only Cornish tinners who paid the sum of £1,000.00, then a huge sum of money, to King Henry VII, and that sum was raised by a general levy on all tinners. In return for the payment the King included in the Charter provisions for the self-government of the Stannaries and a right for the tinners to veto statues and ordnances which affected them and the Stannaries.

Convocations or Parliaments of Tinners (now known as "Stannary Parliaments") were convened from time to time over several centuries in accordance with the procedures stipulated in the Charter of Pardon of 1508. Commissions were issued to Lord Wardens of the Stannaries for the time being, who by virtue of such commissions, required the Mayors and Councils of the four Boroughs of Truro, Lostwithiel, Launceston and Helston in Kerrier, to elect six Stannators for each such Borough, to serve as Members of such Parliaments and to determine the Laws affecting tinners and the Cornish Stannaries. Such Parliaments had great authority and their enactments passed into Law after receiving Royal or Ducal assent.

Unfortunately, since the decline of tin mining in Cornwall, and the abolition of the coinage duty, the Royal interest in and protection of the Cornish Stannaries has been withdrawn. The tin coinage was abolished in 1838 and Queen Victoria, and subsequent Monarchs and Dukes of Cornwall, have been compensated by a perpetual annuity. That annuity was charged to the Duchy of Cornwall. Customs duties were imposed on imported tin ore and refined tin to make good the loss of revenue.

The revenues and perquisites enjoyed by the present Duke of Cornwall in right of his Duchy are very substantial. Apart from occasional ceremonial functions, the present Duke of Cornwall appears to have abdicated from all his constitutional functions as Duke of Cornwall. It is currently suggested that the Duchy of Cornwall is a mere property agency which has to be run at a profit and has nothing to do with the constitutional position of Cornwall and its relationship to England. That is wholly false.

A number of attempts have been made to persuade the Duke of Cornwall to issue a commission to the Lord Warden of the Stannaries to convene a Stannary Parliament so that Stannary Law can be brought up to date and stated in modern terms. All approaches have been rejected without any explanation. Cornish tin miners have been affected to their detriment and have suffered the denial of their rights and privileges as provided by Law as a result of the withdrawal of any Royal interest. In Cornwall, tin miners have the right to pitch bounds in land belonging to other persons provided that strict conditions are observed. Stannary Law is supposed to be enforced in the Truro County Court. Attempts to register tin bounds have been largely frustrated.

This is just a sliver of the argument. It gets far more tendentious yet.

Interestingly Part VI, The Tamar Bridge Act 1998, Section 41, Crown Rights, contains the following provision for the Duke of Cornwall:

“Nothing in this Act affects prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege, authority, exemption of the Crown including (without prejudice to the general law concerning the applicability of statutes to the Duchy of Cornwall) the Duchy of Cornwall…..”!

Something of an own goal from the mandarins in Whitehall. What is being inadvertently admitted here is that there are legal precedents for a discrete legislature pertaining in Cornwall. This is pre-emptive face saving legislation in the event of a later assembly in Cornwall questioning the validity of the Act.

The Cornish Stannary Royal Charter of Pardon of 1508 is also revealing. This Charter is still in force and effective according to the latest Butterworths reissue of Halsbury's Statutes, Vol.10, Constitutional Law, 1995, Royal Mines Act 1693, 5 Will & Mar, c.6, [HMSO Ed. 1978, ISBN011801661X], which made this guarantee just five years after the more generally known, Bill of Rights 1688:

"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".

user:sjc

Might there be some virtue in treating this in the same sort of way as the debate over the nationality of Copernicus? ie, just briefly mention that the situation is complicated on the main Cornwall page with a link to a page that discusses all these things that sjc's just posted (which are actually quite interesting, I think). I think that all the people involved in this Cornwall debate are much more reasonable than some of those who were in on that one. Bth

The Copernicus nationality thing was a mere footnote to the bloodbath edit-war that at times has characterised this one, Bth. We however managed to hammer out a form of words which was neutral, i.e. which offended no-one whilst satisfying no-one, and restored a veneer of civilised debate to the subject. Every so often someone comes along and rocks the boat, and bang goes a number of other articles more in need of urgent attention. I think that your suggestion, however, has considerable merit and maybe we need a new type of subpage e.g. in this case Cornwall (jurisdictional and nationhood debate).

We also need a mechanism for flagging up where forms of words have been agreed so that this kind of foot-in-it editing is immediately apparent: perhaps an agreed typeface or font colour which shows where a compromise has been achieved. user:sjc

Once the text on this page is agreed on and clear, any future debates on Cornwall can just be resolved according to waht's here. -- Tarquin

Theoretically correct. In reality it will return. It is a pity we lost the original debate in the move because exactly that was said last time round and we agreed to refactor this page to excise the bloody dispute. user:sjc

Firstly, my apologies for underestimating how bad this had been in the past; I'm slightly surprised, but never mind. I don't think I like the idea of a special typeface or font colour marking "text that shouldn't be changed" because a) it could well look ugly and b) it probably wouldn't mean anything to a newbie, who would go ahead and change things anyway and quite possibly leave the formatting intact so that it looked like their new version was the "agreed" one. Perhaps an italicised comment at the top of a controversial paragraph along the lines of "(The following paragraph has been a source of considerable controversy and the form of words below is the result of a compromise acceptable to all parties. Please do not edit it without discussing your proposed changes on the talk page first)" would be clearer, and would give implicit authority to someone reverting a change that had been made without discussion.--Bth

That would certainly fit the bill, Bth. user:sjc

I've read the whole foregoing discussion, so I don't want to reopen old issues. However, there is one fundamental ambiguity in the introductory paragraph I'd dearly like to see cleared up. It's the failure to make explicit the difference between separateness from England and outright independence from the UK. A very widespread point of view (gaining recognition outside Cornwall too, I believe) is that Cornwall constitutes a "land" and a "people" (even a "nation" in the sense of the Home Nations) distinct from England, although assuredly within the UK. This distinction is key. To deny that Cornwall is an inherent part of England, is something very different from alleging it to be in fact a nation-state independent of the UK. The latter would be merely a fantasy, and I've never heard it seriously advanced by anyone (maybe the more extreme Stannators are an exception).

On a lighter note, the Cornish language wikipedia now has more than 100 articles! Everybody who's interested in Cornwall, please do check out Wikipedia yn Kernewek. A small number of us have been working hard to build this, but we could really use more and more contributors (and viewers!). Feel free to add whatever you can, even if you've only got a smattering of Cornish. Heaven knows mine's not perfect! QuartierLatin1968 04:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Other Encyclopedias

---

SJC, how can you justify saying Cornwall is not in England:

Cambridge Encyclopedia:

County in SW England, divided in to eight districts and the Isles of Scilly...

Encylopedia.com:

County (1991 pop. 469,300), SW England. The county seat is Bodmin, although most administration eminates from Truro.

Encarta:

CORNWALL (ENGLAND), in full Cornwall and Isles of Scilly, county in southwestern England.

Brittanica:

Cornwall, administrative and historic county, southwestern England, occupying a peninsula jutting into the Atlantic Ocean. Truro is the seat of the county's administration

According to Brittanica, the duchy is a separate entity:

Cornwall, duchy of:

a private estate consisting of lands, honours, franchises, rights, profits, etc., held by the eldest living son of the British sovereign. The holdings and perquisites are found not only in the modern county of Cornwall but also in Devon, Somerset, and elsewhere in the southwest of England.

Heritage doesn't use the name because nationalist groups kept ripping up their signs, not because they believe it not to be a county. Jeremy

AAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

Heritage removed their signs because they were fighting a losing battle. I wonder why the Cornish people were removing them if they thought they were in England?

Please read thoroughly what is said in the block above. The (manifestly English) editors of these august publications can say what they like. It doesn't make it correct. These are gross oversimplifications for people who can't be bothered to ascertain the facts of a matter for themselves.

Cornwall is not, never has been, never will be in England, moreover it was a nation and state before England ever existed. The legal and administrative status of Cornwall is a matter of considerable debate; this is core/periphery stuff: "If we say it doesn't exist then perhaps it will go away?" It won't. Much like the English said that the Irish would never achieve Home Rule or the Scottish independence.

Some of the indicators as to the very nub of this debate are set out above. It is not acceptable to most Cornish people to say that Cornwall is in England. It might suit the overweaning arrogance of the English to think that it is. Please reread what is set out above and engage your brain before regurgitating facts. user:sjc

Or are you just another internet troll, Jeremy? user:sjc

Not a troll. I am sorry to cause you so much grief and I did read the paragraph above. My argument was that a consensus of respected publications seems to think that it is a county of England. A royal charter from 1508 is entirely irrelevant today. There are hundreds of obscure laws which have never been revised, that doesn't mean they are still in effect. Nor can you prove that it is "not acceptable to most Cornish people" to say so. We've had this with science articles - if it is debated, defer to what the consensus think. I don't know of any Cornish encylopedias so I looked at respected British and American ones.

Fundamentally I don't think it is a big point so I won't push it. Jeremy.

Ok, apology accepted and not really necessary. I just get rather tired of going over the same old ground time and time again. I accept that there are big question marks which is why we brokered a half-way house which neither says that it is or isn't in England.

Your assertion that "A royal charter from 1508 is entirely irrelevant today" is entirely incorrect in law. If it is a law it is a law. It either has to be revised or it is extant. If the law is not absolute, anarchy lies around the corner.

I further think that a signed petition of more than 50,000 Cornish people asking for an independent assembly for Cornwall is kind of indicative of the way the consensus of opinion in my corner of the world is going (it would be much bigger now, btw). user:sjc

I can't remember exactly but I think there is an ancient law allowing one to kill a welshman in norfolk after sunrise (or something!) I don't think anyone would get away with it today. Again, a signed petition of less than 10 percent is not "most people Cornish people". This goes towards making a case for the independance of Cornwall, but it doesn't change its current status. Fundamentally Cornwall has a county council and MPs to the English parliament. Until that changes it will still be a county. Jeremy.

OK, here we go again. The adult population of Cornwall is fewer than 350,000. This petition was not readily available for signature in all areas of Cornwall (in fact only in some of eastern Cornwall, where resistance to a Cornish assembly would probably be higher and with a greater %age of English immigrants). It is a representative petition and makes a very telling point.

I suggest that the next time you are down in Cornwall you ask around and see if you can find anyone who disagrees with the idea of a Cornish assembly. The majority of the English inhabitants are also supportive of the idea. I live down here, please don't patronise me by suggesting that I do not understand what the consensus of opinion is in my own country. I would recommend, however, that you do not recycle your views.

You can say it is a county till you're blue in the face. This does not change the simple facts which confound the English authorities, and which they are manifestly reluctant to address for fear of stirring a sleeping tiger. You obviously have read the foregoing block without understanding a single word of what it contains. The reason we brokered the neutal statement was to bypass the inherent ambiguity in the legal/jurisdictional situation which is and will continue to remain unresolved until the nettle is grasped. user:sjc

Opening paragraphs

I think maybe if the opening paragraphs of the article were to read more smoothly, then random people would be less likely to burst in and disturb the carefully contrived balance.

My reason for the making edit that started off this latest unpleasantness was more aesthetic than anything else. Whether it is technically wrong or not, the phrase "County of the United Kingdom" sounds wrong, because it is such an unfamiliar formulation. "County of Great Britain" is no better.

To deter meddlers, I would like to attempt to re-write the opening three paragraphs without changing any meanings, but making the style as silky smooth as I can. I will wait a few days before attempting this. If anybody has objections I won't do it.

GrahamN 16:19 Sep 7, 2002 (UTC)

OK, that sounds sensible albeit that to accomplish it is technically impossible. I think you are seriously away with the fairies, GrahamN, but you are more than welcome to attempt to convince me. Moreover, the facts of the matter are complex and there will always be a Little Englander with an axe to grind. This will now run and run, you mark my words. user:sjc

I had an interesting conversation about all this last night down the pub, and the following things were shaken out: Unlike England, Cornwall doesn't belong to the queen. However, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Houses of Parliament. So I suppose the "in England" question depends on whether "England" is defined as "land that belongs to queenie" or "what Westminster administrates". I'm not sure which definition is correct, given the way that this country has crept towards democracy, no constitution, etc etc, whatever. I'm not sure about "county of Great Britain", since Great Britain goes to some lengths to say that GB is just a geographic entity (we must be the only country in the world that doesn't know what it's called). How about the following. -- Tarquin

Cornwall (Cornish: Kernow) is a peninsula in the south-east of Great Britain. Its administrative status is the subject of much confusion and debate. (new para, present the whole kaboodle, duchy, country, historical overview, etc...)

That would be fine but for the salient fact that it is in the south-west, unless, of course, London and its grim hinterlands have crept that little bit closer whilst I slept :-) user:sjc

Oops! Well, that only goes to show that I'm completely impartial on this issue -- I can't even get its location right! (relax... I do know it's not in Kent! It was a typo of sorts...). -- Tarquin

On the fringes of any nation the melting pot effect is less pronounced. The homogenisation of England did not permeate beyond the Tamar into the Cornish peninsular until the later half of the 19th century, and it is this fact that gives rise to a separate Cornish identity. In the rest of England the Celtic identity of the Britons was subsumed by the waves of Anglo-Saxon, Danish and Norman invasions, but the King on the throne of England has been the Cornish people’s overlord for some 1200 years. Even so, the Cornish language aside (of which there has not been one native speaker for 150 years), I wonder if this identity is any really any stronger that that of Yorkshire. A Yorkshireman has a distinct identity different from much of England but very few would not claim England to be the nation of their birth.

In the 19th century a Cockney and a Geordie meeting for the first time would have found great difficulty communicating, though they were speaking the same tongue, but both would have been sure they were living in England. England was a land of containing many regional identities and has only relatively recently started to become a blurry single entity. What is England and Englishness anyway? Is it drinking tea?, or eating roast beef?, or playing cricket? or a sense of fair play?, or belief in trial by jury?, or a particular sense of humour? If it is any one of these I don’t see how the Cornish differ from the English.

Leaving aside these philosophical issues and returning to the realpolitik as sjc calls it the situation is clear. The Cornish nation ceased to exist some 1200 years ago and the duchy of Cornwall is irrelevant to the governmental administration of the region. It is administered by a county council fairly elected by the inhabitants many of whom are happy to call themselves English. Some are not, but some Scots nationalists dislike being called British, the fact remains that Scotland is in Britain (UK) similarly those Cornish people may dislike being called English cannot get away from the fact that as it stands Cornwall remains a county in England until a Cornish nation is re-established. Despite the aspirations of Cornish nationalists/separatists and despite the anachronistic state of affairs regarding the Duchy of Cornwall, Cornwall is currently a county in England and to fail to describe it as such is simply erroneous. It would be a misrepresentation of the facts to state otherwise.

As for the arguments regarding the specific wording of this article, as long as it continues to state that 'Cornwall is a county of Great Britain' or similar avoidance of the words 'county in England', new readers will continue to try to correct it back to 'county in England' because rightly or wrongly, that's what everybody apart from a small minority (and as far as Wikipedia is concerned I think it's a minority of one), perceive it to be.Mintguy 00:41 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)

I find your points most revealing Mintguy. England has had no real existence in terms of realpolitik since the Act of Union, and is administratively a component part of the United Kingdom, ergo there should be no references to England as a distinct nation state. Nevertheless the English (whom, I might add have been around as a nation for considerably less time than the Cornish) are insistent upon their national status. I think that if you are going to wipe out the Cornish with a flick of a pen (nice try) then exactly the same thing should be done to the "parcel of rogues in a nation". They have no distinct language, no common cultural core, and in fact are a a miserable bunch of misfits no different from the Scots, Welsh, Cornish and Northern Irish.

If your arguments are taken to their logical conclusion English counties will simply have to be redefined as being counties in the United Kingdom. user:sjc

Nonsense. Cornwall is administered as an English county, Scotland isn't. The Act of Union is irrelevant to the status of Cornwall as a county, don’t try to cloud the issue. Furthermore from a cultural point of view, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have national sporting teams recognised by the International community. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the same applies to Cornwall. Mintguy 22:56 Sep 14, 2002 (UTC)

I don't think that sports teams are much of an indication. I certainly don't count sport as cultural anyway. sjc's point that England no longer exists is a curious one, worth investigating, and while it's not relevant to the status of Cornwall, it's relevant to the question of whether there is an entiry named England for Cornwall to still belong to. If we're going by mere cultural impressions and desires, then Cornwall is a duchy because sjc and others who live there wish it to be. Persoanlly, I think that the whole issue of the UK, its bits that aren't bits (Jersey, Man), its bits that are bits (Wales, Scotland), its bits that don't entirely want to be bits (Ulster) and bits that want to be recognized as bits (Cornwall), and bits that have names that imply they might be bits (Duchy of Lancaster) -- it's probably the subject of a whole article unto itself. I'm thoroughly confused, and damned if I know which country I live in. I'm off to lovingly stroke my French passport. -- Tarquin 23:37 Sep 14, 2002 (UTC)

In the context of High Culture perhaps you are right,some might argue otherwise. However in the context of culture as an expression of identity, of course sport is cultural. I expect I will learn that sjc doesn’t cheer on the England football/cricket team. Tarquin I take your point, but Britain is hardly unique in this situation. Should the article on Spain say that Gibraltar is IN Spain because the Spanish want it to be? Should the article say that the Basque country is NOT in Spain(or France for that matter) because the Basque people don't want it to be? Should the article on Germany describe Prussia as a separate country in Germany? The answer is obvious, the article should describe the political state of affairs as it exists at the time of writing and declare any territorial disputes as appropriate. Mintguy 07:07 Sep 15, 2002 (UTC)

The "Cornish People" - i.e. those of Celtic Cornish extraction - most certainly do constitute a national minority, and an ethnic minority under the definition set down by Lord Fraser in the case of Mandla v. Dowell Lee 1988 which is used to define "ethnic group" for the purposes of the Race Relations Act. The Cornish are a nation with its own law (Stannary Law), based on pre-conquest Cornish common law, which has not been, and cannot be repealed or amended by the UK Government as it proceeds from a Royal Charter (The Charter of Pardon 1508). The English government would dearly love to repeal it but are plainly unable to.

I'd like to dispute this last point. The UK Government acts in the name

of Her Majesty - Royal Charter or not, they can supersede its provisions

with no special problem that I am aware of. Perhaps they have more

important things to do with limited parliamentary time than fix

trivial adminstrative anomalies? - Khendon 14:17 Sep 18, 2002 (UTC)

Cornish history

The Cornish are a formerly independent nation, finally conquered by Athelstan, King of West Saxons, in 936 AD. He misappropriated all Cornish lands east of the River Tamar and established the boundary of Cornwall for all time as the East Bank of the Tamar. Until the 14th Century, all legal references were made to "Anglia et Cornubia" - England and Cornwall, as Cornwall was not incorporated in England, despite having been conquered. In 1351, the Black Prince, first Duke of Cornwall, initiated a survey of his property in "Cornwall and England". The establishment of the Duchy of Cornwall contains the words "we do by this present charter, for us and our heirs, annex and unite to the aforesaid Duchy, to remain the same for ever, so that from the same Duchy they may at no time be in any wise separated". There has been no constitutional change to the Duchy which can be construed as changing either the national identity of the Cornish people nor Cornwall's distinct segregation from England. The UK Government are obliged need to address the development of the Cornish language and culture. I am pleased to report they are beginning to do so.

To quote the Grand Bard, addressing a recent Gorsedd, "Cornwall is not England, and never will be, despite what Government Departments may say". Actually, they are now saying that it actually is a unique situation: (again) Part VI, The Tamar Bridge Act 1998, Section 41, Crown Rights, contains the following provision for the Duke of Cornwall:

“Nothing in this Act affects prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege, authority, exemption of the Crown including (without prejudice to the general law concerning the applicability of statutes to the Duchy of Cornwall) the Duchy of Cornwall…..”

user:sjc

- Would it not be better to be honest about the difference of opinion in the article, rather than try to maintain a form of words that suits everyone? Surely it's clearer to begin 'Cornwall is a county in the south-west of England, according to most works of reference, and it is now largely administered as such. But its constitutional position is historically very complicated and many of those who have studied it are clear that... Cornwall (jurisdictional and nationhood debate).' etc. That means we can express both points of view and the subtleties lie only in whether we say 'some' or 'many' hold them. Andy G 21:39 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

- Did it (or something like). Much of the material on this talk page deserves to be in an article. Andy G 02:43, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

- Did that too. See Cornish independence. Wot no edit wars? Andy G 01:10, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Patron Saint

"The patron saint of Cornwall is St. Micheal" or is St Michael meant? -- SGBailey 23:46 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

I just did a Google search on the phrase "Patron Saint of Cornwall". Of the top ten results, eight say St P, two say St M. One says St. P is the "popular replacement for St Michael as patron saint of Cornwall", another says "St. Michael the Archangel was the Patron Saint of Helston" Personally, I'd always thought St Piran was yer man. There is "St. Michael's Mount", of course, but then there is a similar "Mont St Michel" over the channel in Normandy. All very confusing. I have put in some words to say that it is disputed. GrahamN 00:59 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Cornwall as a County

"Cornwall was never a shire, it had shires of its own" Explanation, anyone? Andy G 20:31, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My interpretation of this sentence is "because there were at one time counties/shires within Cornwall, therefore it cannot be considered ever to have been a county/shire itself". I cannot comment on the truth or falsity of the assertion in the sentence, but the logic seems questionable to me. GrahamN 19:53, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Huntingdonshire is now part of the county of Cambridgeshire. North Lincolnshire is not now part of the county of Lincolnshire. The logic is questionable. --Henrygb 23:04, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Flag

I have removed St. Piran's flag from the box at the top of the page. It is already included with an explanation lower down the page. Adding it to the top of the page made it look like it was an official symbol of Cornwall, which since it is also claimed by Cornish seperatists is likely to cause offence. How about adding the Cornish Coat of Arms (the 15 besants, fisherman, miner, chough and "one and all")? fabiform | talk 22:00, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)