Talk:Cornwall/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

NPOV

This article lacks neutrality, and is written as if Cornwall is a seperate country, rather than a mere county of England. Cornwall is not independent in any sense, and is and has always been a part of England. Astrotrain 11:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it's scrupulously fair, actually, and I speak as somebody who (if I'm honest) thinks the Cornish claims of nationhood a little silly. Perhaps you could be more specific? --Khendon 13:16, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do not remove the NPOV tag until it has been addressed. The article states that Cornwall is not a part of England, when it clearly is. Any notion of indepednece can be dealt with at the Cornish independence page of which a link to would suffice. The page is biased towards Cornish indepedence movements. Astrotrain 14:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV tag because it should be justified - baldly asserting it to be POV is not enough. Anyway. There are genuine disputes about the status of Cornwall, and that being so we should make no definitive statement on it, whatever our opinion on the "truth". --Khendon 17:10, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting the article back to what is POV, when you insist on justification? Your version states that "most people regard Cornwall to be a part of England" when in fact "it is a part of England". If someone disputes POV, you cannot simply dismiss it and then seek to revert changes made to address the POV areas, that is simply vandalism. Astrotrain 17:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've not reverted anything; I edited to a different intro to try and get a consensus. "It is a part of England" is not an acceptable change, for the reason I already gave - there is a genuine dispute and therefore we shouldn't make a definitive statement. --Khendon 18:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, "it is a part of England" is acceptable, because Cornwall is part of England legally, ceremonally and administratively. If Cornwall was not part of England, Cornish independence would already have been achieved. Proponants of Cornish independence will, I'm sure, agree with me and Astrotrain that Cornwall is a county of England, but that they would like it to be a country/region of the United Kingdom. There is no POV in saying that Cornwall is, currently at least, a county of England, and I don't see why you think there is. I'm also strongly against using the phrase "considered to be a county": the word county is well defined, it is not a fuzzy area. Joe D (t) 20:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was under the impression Cornwall was a duchy and not a county! Surfgatinho 00:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a Duchy of Cornwall, but this is just the estate of Prince Charles, and although it includes a significant area in Cornwall, it also includes land throughout the country.

To add to Steinsky's comments, it is clear to eveyone that Cornwall is a county of England. The article even states so in the table on the right, and in the table of English counties below. I think Steinsky's reverted introduction is a neutral and acceptable viewpoint which should be retained. There may still be some POV comments in the main sections of the article that could be re-written. Astrotrain 09:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To all disputants please see the websites run by the Cornish Stannery Parliament, Tyr Gwyr Gweryn and even the Cornish time line on the website for Cornwall 'County' Council. Proponents of Cornish independence do not agree with you and in fact often raise the issue of the constitutional nature of Cornwall. The Cornish Stannery Parliament claims to have evidence that Cornwall is not part of England and therefore wrongly administered as a county of England. "Ceremonially" when the Queen visits Cornwall she acts as a visiting head of state and the Duke takes the role of head of state. "Ceremonially" when a sturgeon was caught of Cornwall it was offered to the Duke, Prince Charles not the Queen. Finally many Cornish folk consider Cornwall a Duchy not a county. Fulub le Breton

The Duke of Cornwall has nothing to do with the administration of Cornwall. The Duchy of Cornwall is the estate of the British monarch's eldest son, which includes land in Cornwall, but much of it is outside the county. Cornwall is governed by Acts of the British Parliament. No seperate reference to Cornwall exists in any British legislation. The Queen visits Cornwall as Queen of the United Kingdom, which includes Cornwall. Astrotrain 19:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Duchy estates should not be confused with the actual Duchy of Cornwall. What you are providing is the line given by the Duchy and the government at the moment, but this is not born out by the constitutional paper work. An investigation in the commons of the constitutional nature of Cornwall and the Duchy was blocked. Fulub le Breton

1855-58 The legal arguments of Sir George Harrison, Attorney General to the Duchy of Cornwall, defeat the Crown's aspirations of sovereignty of the Cornish foreshore. The Duchy that Cornwall argues the Duke has sovereignty of Cornwall and not the Crown.

1856 On behalf of the Duchy in its successful action against the Crown, which resulted in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act of 1858, Sir George Harrison (Attorney General for Cornwall) makes this submission. That Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest, and was subsequently treated in many respects as distinct from England. That it was held by the Earls of Cornwall with the rights and prerogative of a County Palatine, as far as regarded the Seignory or territorial dominion. That the Dukes of Cornwall have from the creation of the Duchy enjoyed the rights and prerogatives of a County Palatine, as far as regarded seignory or territorial dominion, and that to a great extent by Earls. That when the Earldom was augmented into a Duchy, the circumstances attending to it's creation, as well as the language of the Duchy Charter, not only support and confirm natural presumption, that the new and higher title was to be accompanied with at least as great dignity, power, and prerogative as the Earls enjoyed, but also afforded evidence that the Duchy was to be invested with still more extensive rights and privileges. The Duchy Charters have always been construed and treated, not merley by the Courts of Judicature, but also by the Legislature of the Country, as having vested in the Dukes of Cornwall the whole territorial interest and dominion of the Crown in and over the entire County of Cornwall. Thenceforth mineral rights above the Low Water Mark belonged to the Duchy and below it to the Crown.

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

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

1974 Reform of Cornish Stannary Parliament

1977 The Stannators right to veto Westminster legislation is confirmed by Parliament.

2001 (April) A sturgeon is caught off Cadgwith and is offered to the Duke of Cornwall. When landed in other parts of Britain the fish is customarily offered to the monarch.

In contrast to every English and Welsh county the High Sheriff of Cornwall is appointed by the Duke of Cornwall not by the Crown. For reference see page 72 of Cornwall a history by Philip Payton of Exeter university. Fulub le Breton

• What crap! Cornwall is a county of England, it is not connected to the Duchy of Cornwall, except in name. The Duchy of Cornwall has legal rights in order to generate income for the Duke of Cornwall (who becomes the British King in anycase). Cornwall cannot veto British legislation, it elects MPs to the British Parliament, pays British taxes, is administered by a County Council established by British legislation. Any notion of independence is dillusion. The Duchy of Cornwall is established by British legislation, and has no bearing on the geographical area known as Cornwall. Astrotrain 14:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Yes thank you Astrotrain but i think you are confusing what you would like history to be with in fact the actual events. You will excuse me if i chose to take more seriously the findings of the following two groups on separate investigations into the constitutional nature of Cornwall than your foul mouthed out burst that has no evidence to support it.

Independent of my account details of these two events can be found on the Cornish history time line as provided by Cornwall County Council.

I will agree with Sir George Harrison (Attorney General for Cornwall) when in 1856 he fought and won the case against the crown for the Duke to have control of all sea and river beds in Cornwall by using the argument that all the territory of Cornwall is a Duchy as defined by the three original Duchy charters. These three charters where enough to win the case and they are all still to this day law.

Also you will forgive me if i side with the 1969-71 Kilbrandon Report into the British constitution which concluded that Cornwall should be referred to as a Duchy.

Once Ireland, America and even Calais returned MP's to Westminster and came under British rule but they have never been England.

Finally the Sultan of Brunei could own huge amounts of land outside of the territory of Brunei as estates but that would not mean he would stop being leader of all Brunei or that Brunei would stop being a sultanate, the same goes for the Duke and his Duchy.

Above Astrotrain you stated that Cornwall is a county and always has been, please provide evidence to prove the 'always has been' part. Can you? Or are you just inventing history and making statements that you like as opposed to the truth.

Again you might not like this as in fact the current Duchy and Westminster government do not like this but that does not make it false, so please feel free to find evidence to refute my points on the constitutional nature of Cornwall or keep your obscenities to yourself! Fulub le Breton

Forgive me for butting in, but I do think that NPOV is within the bounds of attainability here. First of all, I think all parties could agree to language to the effect that "Cornwall is administered de facto as a county of England" (Cornwall County Council itself will tell you so, after all), "but there is an ongoing dispute into its de jure status" – then link to an article on the controversy over Cornwall's constitutional position. Then we could maybe point out that "Many Cornish (and other) people regard Cornwall as culturally a distinct 'country' from England" (might I invite comparison to well-known geocultural units like the French provinces, the Provinces of Ireland or the Eight Provinces (Korea) (or for that matter Wales before 1997), that also have no de facto administrative autonomy?).

Second of all, I really think that language to the effect that "Cornwall is a ceremonial and administrative county of England" sounds so adamant that it can only be interpreted as trying to present a (unionist) POV. For the same reason, highlighting the expression Anglia et Cornubia (mentioned elsewhere in this talk page) is only relevant if you're trying to prove a Cornish nationalist POV. And the language "Some Cornish nationalists dispute Cornwall's status; see Cornish independence" really seems intent upon marginalizing Cornish nationalists – both with the word "some", which minimizes them, and the reference to "Cornish independence", which misrepresents them (most Cornish nationalists are autonomists). So it seems to me that we should try to craft an introductory section free of either nationalist or unionist talking points, but that provides the basic background for people wanting to learn more about the controversy. QuartierLatin1968 23:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I, as the one pointing out the facts about the Duchy's constitutional nature (see above) totally agree and would add that unionist anglocentric histories of this archipelago have done the most damage to our historical perspective. The current page has moved toward a more neutral point of view, however i still expect individuals with their own agendas to revert and change the page back to a more unionist point of view. Fulub le Breton 28/01/05

• There is no official source that confirms the view that the Duchy has rights over the county of Cornwall. These facts disputed. It is fact that Cornwall is: considered a county of Enlgand, elects MPs to the British Parliament, pays taxes to the UK Exchequer, is governed by British legislation. Cornwall is not referred to sepreatly in any constitutional legislation, there is no Cornwall Act that refers to its situation. The Duchy of Cornwall, by their own admission, is a property holding company, governed by Acts of the UK Parliament, the income of which is the property of the British monarch's eldest son. Any legal privledge of the Duchy is done so by the command of Act of Parliament. The Duke of Cornwall does not live in Cornwall, the Duchy owns less than 4% of the County. All these facts confirm the status of Cornwall as a county of England.

Astrotrain

• • But listen, even if your conclusion is 100% true, it's not through Wikipedia that you're going to prove the validity of that conclusion. Producing facts that, in your opinion, support your POV doesn't make alternative POVs go away. What Wikipedia must do, in the case of an ongoing controversy, is to state relevant points of the argument. Simply because you believe strongly in your position doesn't mean that it is impossible to dispute it – the fact is, there is a dispute, and you're in it. According to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, we're supposed to "present conflicting views without asserting them". There's no Cornwall Act – good! This is relevant! This is important! So point it out, where appropriate. But it doesn't delegitimize or nullify the feeling of large numbers of Cornish people that they do have a special identity apart from England. (One that evidently doesn't require a Cornwall Act for its existence.) I'm completely happy to work with you, or anybody else, on producing NPOV language to describe the complicated legal/ethnic/cultural status of Cornwall; but I'm afraid you will not be able to just shut out other sides of the controversy. QuartierLatin1968 04:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The artice already states Cornwall is an administartive and ceremonial county of England in the table at the top, and the English counties template. Therefore it is correct that this is the opening paragraph. We can't simply add in any conspiracy theories to main articles when the cannot be proved. There is no complicated legal status of Cornwall, it is governed as part of England under the British Parliament. End of story Astrotrain 16:08, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Astrotrain wrote; "There is no official source that confirms the view that the Duchy has rights over the county of Cornwall"

• Wrong, the Duchy charters successfully used in case law, see above, confirmed that the Duchy has rights over the whole of Cornwall. A situation again supported some what be the Kilbrandon report.
• The Duchy has bona vacantia rights over all of Cornwall.

"It is fact that Cornwall is: considered a county of England"

• By who? Many in Cornwall when asked -is Cornwall a County or a Duchy?- will respond that -it is a Duchy- It is a popular opinion in Cornwall. Now you seem to be providing the current governments and Duchy's opinion however i don't think it is Wikipedias position just to report on issues taking only the current governing regimes version of events and states as truth.

"elects MPs to the British Parliament, pays taxes to the UK Exchequer, is governed by British legislation"

• As i have said Calais and Ireland once returned "MPs to the British / English Parliament, payed taxes to the UK / English Exchequer, where governed by British / English legislation" but they where never part of England. Additionally any profits the Duchy makes from the territory of Cornwall via for example bona vacantia, go through the Duchy's Exchequer, the Duke does not have to pay tax on this.

"Cornwall is not referred to separately in any constitutional legislation"

• Track down the 'original Latin versions of the Duchy charters read them and see what you think, remembering that the office of Duke was created in order to replace the office of Earl, the Earl as viceroy governed Cornwall, Devon as an example of an English shire county did not experience this.

"The Duchy of Cornwall, by their own admission, is a property holding company, governed by Acts of the UK Parliament, the income of which is the property of the British monarch's eldest son. Any legal privilege of the Duchy is done so by the command of Act of Parliament"

• It is favourable for both the Duke and current government (though i would say not for the Cornish people) to pursue this story. A private property holding company that can appoint the sheriff of Cornwall, claim right of wreck in Cornwall, has bona vacantia over all Cornwall and does not have to pay tax, sounds like a good deal to me.

"The Duke of Cornwall does not live in Cornwall"

• And?

"the Duchy owns less than 4% of the County"

• Private estates that change nothing when considering the original purpose of the Duchy which is as a body of governance. Why can the Duke summon his own exchequer and have an attorney general (who does not have to be a member of the bar). These positions though little used today seem to be the arms necessary for a body of governance and a bit pointless for a just an honorary title or private estate. If you then conclude that the Duchy was a body of governance for Cornwall but is no longer you must ask when did this change occur and which legal documents or acts parliament relate to this change.

• Now i don't think that this article should say 'Cornwall is a Duchy'. However as i said a popular opinion in Cornwall maintains that Cornwall is a Duchy and for all the "facts" that support the private estate and county description there are also "facts" that call this description into question. This main page should reflect this and then direct readers to another page that provides more detail. Fulub le Breton

With Anonymous's final point, I absolutely agree. Wikipedia is simply not going to arbitrate the final legal status of Cornwall. The most it can do is describe the dispute. A propos, I've requested an article on the Constitutional status of Cornwall, which is long overdue, and where people can lay all of these arguments out – the Stannaries, the devolutionists in the Cornish Assembly mould, the Just-an-Ordinary-County position, the various approaches to the Duchy. I'm sure we can find plenty of raw material for such an article just on archived wikipedia talk pages! (Not all of it sourced, unfortunately.) In the meantime, I maintain, this article should give a brief, even-handed description, along these lines:

Cornwall (Cornish: Kernow or occasionally Curnow) is the part of Great Britain's south-west peninsula that is west of the River Tamar. Also associated with Cornwall are the Isles of Scilly. Cornwall is administered as a county of England, although there is some controversy over the constitutional status of Cornwall, and a Cornish independence movement seeks to gain the area greater autonomy. Cornwall's motto is "One And All".

How does this sound? QuartierLatin1968 16:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It is silly to say "administered as a County of England", when all maps etc show it geographically in England (at the end of the day, it is not a seperate country, it is not a colony or dependancy, therefore it is part of a country (UK). The rest of the article places Cornwall as "an adminsitrative and ceremonial county of England", and it is in the County of England template. It is essential to say that it is a County of England, even if this is disputed. But the dispute should only be mentioned briefly, as I can find no official mention of any dispute over cornwall. Astrotrain 20:00, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

• • The test case is Tim Saunders (taking the position of the Stannators) against the Crown (under the Major government – or was it still Thatcher then?) over the poll tax. I'm no lawyer, but from what I understand, the revived Stannary Parliament claimed authority to annul the poll tax, so Tim Saunders, figuring he's under Stannary jurisdiction, doesn't pay it, and he gets taken to court. The case was thrown out, so we don't have the satisfaction of a definitive legal judgement.
  • I don't think anybody disputes that Cornwall's part of the UK. If it's a separate country from England, then it's a fifth home country. And this isn't necessarily a question that could be settled on the basis of official administrative practice. In 1950, was Merionethshire really treated any differently from Nottinghamshire by the government? The only way you'd know it was Wales not England was if you went there and asked people on the ground. And many people on the ground in Cornwall today do seem fiercely certain that they're not in England.
  • Cornwall is part of de facto administrative England, I'll agree with that. For that reason, it just makes sense pragmatically to include the English county template and the rest of it. Mind you, stannators and their supporters will argue that Cornwall is treated as just another county in contempt of the actual legal standing to which it is entitled. I'm in no position to give much of an opinion on the subject, and as I say, Wikipedia is not the authority to arbitrate the dispute. QuartierLatin1968 02:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just to add yet more fuel to the fire .... From where I am standing, it does seem to be that Cornwall was once a seperate politcal entity from England. In 936 the Tamar river was agreed upon as the border between England and Cornwall. Would it not be more correct to say that Cornwall is part of Britain or the UK but not England?

And I don't agree at all with Astrotrain's point that because Cornish people speck English and share many English cultural points that that makes them English. My people (the Irish) do the same yet we have never claimed to be English, even when ruled (abysmally, at best ...) from Westminister.

Furthermore, leaving aside the agruments of County Vs. Dutchy (which fascinates me), such things as these are rarely decided in matters of law but at a more emotive leval in people's hearts. If most Cornish people see themslves as seperate political unit from England (yet still within the UK .... or not!) what's the problem? Vive la differenceFergananim. 23:37, 6 Feb. 2005.

• The difference between the Irish and Cornish is that Ireland is/was a seperate politcal entity from England, joining the UK as a home country under the Act of Union 1800. Ireland has never been considered a part of England, although the rulers of England ruled the area. Cornwall became part of England through conquest/amalgamation. It is the case that some people in Cornwall do not wish to be English, would like automony or independence, but they are still English, subject to the laws of England and Wales, governed by the English courts. Likewise, I am not giving an opinion on whether Cornwall should be a part of England, I am just saying it clearly is. Astrotrain 21:05, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Can you provide the date for this "conquest/amalgamation" please? Bearing in mind that the 19th century court case, that you again choose to ignore, clearly describes Cornwall as a Duchy not a County and as extra terratorial to the English Crown. It appearers clear to you because you like most others have been mislead as to the history of these isles. Wales was conquered and officially incorporated into England, but that does not mean Wales is England. No such official incorporation of Cornwall into England exists on record. The creation of the Earldom and then Duchy really only point to the fact that Cornwall was considered apart from England, a client state, but a state none the less.

If you want to argue that between Athelstans victory over the Cornish in 936 and the Norman invasion of 1066, Cornwall became a shire (county) of Wessex (later to contribute to the formation of England), then you will need to address the following points.

Of a cultural nature.

• Cornwall would have spoken Cornish, with Saxon being a tiny minority.
• From this period nearly only Cornish pottery is found in Cornwall.
• The Cornish had different measurement systems than the Saxons at this time.
• Cornwall showed a very different type of settlement pattern than Saxon Wessex
• Places continued (even after 1066) to be named in the Celtic Cornish tradition not Saxon tradition.
• Saxon architecture is very rare in Cornwall.

On a legal Front

• Cornish religious institutions at this time paid no Saxon land tax.
• Cornish industries like fishing and tin paid no Saxon tax.
• Vast ares of Cornwall paid no Saxon land tax.
• Only a very small tribute was paid to London, the rest probably going to the native Celtic ruler.
• There is next to no evidence of Saxon manorial law in Cornwall at this time. Cornish law was probably in operation.
• There is next to no evidence of Saxon moots, Saxon justice, centres of Saxon administration or the collection of Saxon customary dues in Cornwall.
• The Normans then created the Earldom of Cornwall and governed it with a viceroy (colonial governor), England on the other hand was governed directly by the King. Cornwall was therefore treated as part of an empire but separate from England.
• Cornwall has never been a shire and indeed had shires of its own.

"""John, by the Grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, Earl of Anjou confirmed the aforesaid, and Richard, King of Germany and Earl of Cornwall, in like manner, confirmed the aforesaid""" Treaty of Bretigny 1360.

• It is clear from this address that refers to nations of Europe not counties of England, that when Richard was viceroy (1227-72) Cornwall was not part of England. If Cornwall had been part of England at this time it would have been incorrect to devise such an address. It would be like saying Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and Scotland, the latter half being redundant because Scotland is part of the United kingdom.

Finally it is you POV that we are English. I have a British passport, i recorded my ethnicity as Cornish on the 2001 census (quite properly) and our children can record themselves as Cornish as opposed to English at school. Bretagne 44 9/2/05

Hello again. Might I state for the record that Ireland becomeing part of the UK in 1800 was only achieved by bribes in several cases, and because those who wished to see it occour were representative of a minority in Irish society. We never wished to join, did not we to be merely 'a home country' and were happy to part.

Now, to the matter which here concerns us: I think to convince me that Cornwall is indeed part of England you need to fully debate the case of The Crown Vs. Harrisson (1856) and its subsequent findings. Hand on heart, I cannot see the case of Cornwall being part of England as being proven. Part of Britain, yes, and the UK, yes again; but England?

Conquest or amalgamation really only counts if the people accecpt it. Anglo-Saxon rule of England ended in October 1066; yet the people of Cornwall still see themselves as linguisticly, culturally and ethnicly distinct. Added to that I honestly have yet to see any legal basis for Cornwall as part of England.

A further point (and if you don't mind I'll quote you):

• "Cornwall cannot veto British legislation, it elects MPs to the British Parliament, pays British taxes, is administered by a County Council established by British legislation. Any notion of independence is dillusion. The Duchy of Cornwall is established by British legislation, and has no bearing on the geographical area known as Cornwall. Astrotrain 14:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)"

All well and good, but what is the relationship between being British and England? Is not Westminister based in England? Don't Scotland and Wales have their own national assemblys? Why should paying taxes and sending MPs to a British Parliment (as Cornwall is of course part of Britain) make it part of England?

Lads, this is getting to be real fun! We ought to meet up for a few pints one of these nights! Fergananim

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

Part definition of the term County. Complete Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd Ed 1989 p. 1044. Bretagne 44 26/2/05

Politics and language

'Although the Cornish people have always had their own distinctive culture, identity and language'.

Perhaps this was the case hundreds of years ago, but it is not the case today.

The sentence is misleading and is from the point of view of Cornish nationalists rather than NPOV. It does make it explicit that today there are very little/no real differences in culture and identity of the cornish people from the rest of England and the language is virtually extinct - spoken by 3,500 out 508,412 cornish people (0.68%). Deus Ex 22:47, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your own experience is POV. They do have a distinctive culture, but how distinctive is arguable. The language isn't dying out, it's resurrecting itself.

links

It seems like a couple of the external links from this page are very low quality resources compared to the extremely large amount of quality, relevant Cornish interest sites out there. Cornwall ranks 3 or 4 in the DMOZ for number of sites in county and I could name at least 10 sites that are quality resources off the top of my head. I'm not going to point out which links I'm referring to as I think they are fairly obvious - they seem to be light on information and heavy on advertising. I'm sure one is a scrape of the DMOZ. I'm not sure of the process to remove spam from Wikipedia and am not sure if this is the right place to bring it up. However, if I can't figure it out it seems reasonable to edit it myself and wait for a response!

Sorry, got too impatient: Removed external (IMHO spam) links - www.plymouthcity.com/Directory/Cornwall/index.html Cornwall Web Directory and www.thereabouts.co.uk/cornwall/ I guess they should be removed from here aswell! I will however put up some quality resources of which there are many (not self-interest) in the near future

I'm not sure if http://www.csep.co.uk/ is a particularly valid link so I have removed it. It isn't really general (or relevant) enough for this page. 81.5.173.1

I have added the following links recently

• Cornwall County Council See a Cornish Time Line
• The Institute of Cornish Studies
• Real Cornwall Explores the themes of Food & Drink, People & Places, Sports & Games and Arts & Media.
• Combined Universities in Cornwall
• Cornish Heritage
• Cornishnews The news in Cornish
• Cornish history by Dr Mark Stoyle Look for The Cornish: A Neglected Nation?
• The Trevithick Society A charitable organisation involved in Industrial Archaeology and the industrial past in Cornwall
• The London Cornish Association
• Kernewek lowender South Australia's Kernewek Lowender - the world's largest Cornish Festival
• Cornish World Cornwall's biggest independent magazine
• Cumpas A charitable organisation which aims to protect, research and promote traditional Cornish music

There is much room for links to Cornish societies and associations around the world and links to Cornish sporting groups, environmental groups etc. Bretagne 44 8/2/05

Roman name

Does anybody actually use the Roman name? It's already mentioned in the history section, is it really notable enough to go in the introduction? --Joe D (t) 12:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is of some interest as many pre Tudor maps of Britain clearly show Cornubia marked as one of the nations of Britain along with Anglia, Scotia and Wallia. Cornubia is used to describe Cornwall in all the Duchy charters and other legal documents produced in Latin. Fulub le Breton

Yes, which justifies its inclusion in the history section. This is an encyclopedia though, not a history textbook, what justifies its inclusion in the introduction? --Joe D (t) 16:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Very true the "Latin" name Cornubia is not used currently and maybe you should move it to the history section. I does deserve inclusion on the history page however because it enables users to read old maps of the isles. Final point, the Duchy charters which are very much still law today use the Latin Cornubia. Fulub le Breton

Cornubia is still occasionally used in the same way that Caledonia/Scotia, Hibernia, Cambria and Albion are used... i.e. poetically or romantically. It is uncommon, though not unheard of, to see 'Cornubian' used as an adjective. Curnow is an alternative Cornish spelling for the native name, and I am about to include that.

Religion

I think more could be said about the religious development of Cornwall. At the moment the article just contains information on Celtic Christianity. Catholicism and Methodism have both played a big part in Cornwall and mention of the prayer book rebellion of the south west is surely warranted. Fulub le Breton

Language

The main page for Cornwall and the Cornish Language page contain conflicting information about the numbers of Cornish speakers today and their levels of fluency. 3500 fluent speakers on the language page. 2000 speakers of which 100-150 are fluent on the main page. So what is it to be? Fulub le Breton

It's unfortunately not so simple. Estimates vary wildly, and who is an actual speaker is subjective. The source should be given.

Cornish identity and History

I have juts added information on recent developments in the recognition of Cornish identity (nationality or ethnicity). Feel free to reword or improve on my text. Bretagne 44 3/02/05

I think a lot more needs to be said about Cornish history, The Earldom, Duchy and rebellions all spring to mind. Fulub le Breton 8/2/05

Other culture

A bit of reorganising plus the addition of information on Rugby and Cornish food. Bretagne 44 5/02/05

Cornish people Cornish ethnicity

I would like to invite any knowledgeable individual to create a page along the lines of this page Irish people or this page English (people) but for the Cornish.

It would be a page that describes the ancestors of the Cornish (Celts and Germanic's), it would explore in more depth the heritage of Cornish family and first names and it would be a good place to explore the controversial topic of Cornish ethnicity or nationality. It would provide more room for the above subjects and draw together information that at present is scattered across a number of different pages therefore lightening said pages. At present there is just the List of Cornish people which is insufficient, some on the list could well have considered themselves English or British and not Cornish in the national sense. The more i work on Cornish subjects the more it becomes clear that one page for the county and one for the language are insufficient to explore all the subjects that arise around the words Cornwall and Cornish. Bretagne 44 8/04/05

"Many residents think of Cornwall as a separate home nation...."

This is misrepresentation. Less than 10% of the Cornish population signed the petition for a devolved assembly. How is that "many"? By the way, the article should mention 41,650 Cornish people signed the petition, not 50,000. The rest were from outside Cornwall [1]. Deus Ex 12:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And this is misrepresentation too. As Cyr below says, the petition did not reach many Cornish, but 10% is a hell of a large chunk for what was effectively a private petition. The idea has much more support in Cornwall than a bureaucratically inspired South West England "monster" assembly. --MacRusgail 11:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with Deux Ex on this point, for example, I strongly believe in some form of devolved government for Cornwall and yet I knew nothing about this petition and did't sign it. I would suspect that if there was a referendum for a Cornish assembly the vote would be strongly in favour of it. A visit to Cornwall, and a chat to some of the residents would show that many residents think of Cornwall not only as a seperate home nation, but an individual country. --Cyr 15:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well this just an anecdote, but I've been to Cornwall several times on holiday, but I've never noticed the degree of identity/difference from "Englishness" that's obvious in most of Scotland and Wales. Anyway, my experience isn't important, but the revelant parts of the article must be based primarily on the quantitative data that is available, i.e. the petition, not speculation. Deus Ex 15:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As have I. I am a Scot myself by the way, and although there isn't the same assertion of identity as here, there is definitely some. Other than the flags, the placenames and local surnames are noticeably different, although I find the accent similar to Devon's (English accents have also infiltrated parts of Wales too). As for quantitive data, there is some on the Constitutional Status article, which reflects the legal state, and I think there is something on Cornish ethnicity (something different again). The health service in Cornwall certainly offers a Cornish tickbox for ethnicity. I doubt any other "English county" health service does likewise. --MacRusgail 11:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Did you not notice the huge number of Cornish flags plastered throughout Cornwall? e.g. all the snack bars on the A30, most churches fly Cornish flags instead of English ones and the bumper stickers! Regards the petition, don't you think a petition that received around 10% support from the population should be taken serious? --Cyr 15:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I noticed Cornish flags on the beaches... I haven't been for about 4 years though, so I guess things may have changed even in that period. I think the petition should be taken as a serious indication of support for Cornish devolution, but I don't think a petition signed by less than 10% of the population (even if a significant amount of people were not informed of it) can be interpreted to say that "most" Cornish people support devolution/independence. And the Cornish language, despite being presented as a cornerstone of Cornish identity is spoken fluently by 0.07% of the population, compare that to 20.5% in Wales. Deus Ex 17:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re the Cornish language, I think that many people know a phrase or two, but haven't gone to the lengths of learning it. Cornish has certainly been picked up by the tourist industry, and it also provides a great deal of the distinct nomenclature in the area. --MacRusgail 11:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Considering Cornwall a separate home nation is not the same thing as being in favour of a devolved parliament. England is a home nation without its own parliament. Much of the movement is support for greater ceremonial independence, with limited support for greater administrative independence. Joe D (t) 18:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I think the petition should be taken as a serious indication of support for Cornish devolution, but I don't think a petition signed by less than 10% of the population (even if a significant amount of people were not informed of it) can be interpreted to say that "most" Cornish people support devolution/independence.

• You will find that two independent opinion polls carried out in Cornwall showed support for devolution to Cornwall at just over 50%.

• You do not have to be a nationalist to think Cornwall a home nation, this is just your judgemental POV and i have removed it. It is a fact that there is a sense of national identity among the Cornish, that many residents think of Cornwall as a Duchy and refer to England as being across the Tamar. Additionally this sense of Cornish national identity has been expressed long before 1950, read Mark Stoyle's book "Cornish identities in the early modern period". Bretagne 44 25/6/05.

Disagree. I think England never lost its parliament. It merely absorbed others. The old English parliamentary traditions are still carried on in it. The same can't be said for pre-union Welsh and Scottish traditions. --MacRusgail 11:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"the queen"

Is "the queen" mentioned at the end of the article Queen Elizabeth? if so should I change the link and write it in capitals?

Register as a Cornish Wikipedian

At these two pages:

[2]

[3]

Bretagne 44 27/7/05.

Reduce the Cornwall pages

I think the Cornwall page could be reduced now that the Culture of Cornwall and Cornish people pages exist, why double up on the information?

Bretagne 44 27/7/05.

National?

In the sport section: "Cornwall's other national sport is hurling", yet it says at the top of the article that Cornwall is a county and not a nation. So therefore how can it be a "national" sport? Surely it should be a "county" sport? -Jasoncart 19:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Jason, I suggest you go through the backlog of stuff here, there's been a hell of a lot of argument on this topic. There's also several articles. I consider Cornwall to be a nation (treated like a county), but many consider it to be a county (sometimes talked of as a nation!!!)--MacRusgail 15:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't really mind what it is called as long as it is consistent. The article (or indeed Wikipedia as a whole) can't contradict itself! Jasoncart 18:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Country or County?

Isn't Cornwall legally an English county? Why then does it use the country template? It looks like Cornish nationalism and seperatism are very strong here on Wikipedia. GrandfatherJoe 18:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Where does it say that? SqueakBox 18:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The article broadly resembles Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. This template is for countries only. All other English counties use a different template. So what should be done about it? I mean all this is stemming from the inclusion of Cornish ethnicity as an option in a census. This means nothing, it is like the Jedi Knight as a religion option. There is no evidence to suggest that Cornwall is a country and not an English county. No legislation, nothing. This is plainly Cornish nationalism. GrandfatherJoe 18:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

2) The Duchy charters which are still law today turned all of Cornwall from an Earldom into a Duchy. "...that the County of Cornwall should always remain as a Duchy to the eldest sons of the Kings of England... without being given elsewhere"

3) Taken from Cornwall County Councils website:

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

On behalf of the Duchy in its successful action against the Crown, which resulted in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act of 1858, Sir George Harrison (Attorney General for Cornwall) makes this submission. That Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest, and was subsequently treated in many respects as distinct from England. That it was held by the Earls of Cornwall with the rights and prerogative of a County Palatine, as far as regarded the Seignory or territorial dominion.

That the Dukes of Cornwall have from the creation of the Duchy enjoyed the rights and prerogatives of a County Palatine, as far as regarded seignory or territorial dominion, and that to a great extent by Earls. That when the Earldom was augmented into a Duchy, the circumstances attending to it's creation, as well as the language of the Duchy Charter, not only support and confirm natural presumption, that the new and higher title was to be accompanied with at least as great dignity, power, and prerogative as the Earls enjoyed, but also afforded evidence that the Duchy was to be invested with still more extensive rights and privileges. The Duchy Charters have always been construed and treated, not merely by the Courts of Judicature, but also by the Legislature of the Country, as having vested in the Dukes of Cornwall the whole territorial interest and dominion of the Crown in and over the entire County of Cornwall. This legal case again would suggest that Cornwall (the county) is a Duchy.

4) Taken from Cornwall County Councils website:

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

5) Taken from Cornwall County Councils website:

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

6) Taken form Cornwall County Councils website:

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

This act however does not do away with the Duchy or state if Cornwall is a county of England. Now grandfatherjoe do try and find out a bit more about the subject will you.

Bretagne 44 17:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Phrasing of opening paragraph

The new version is substantially different. It removes the info that Cornwall is a county of England, SqueakBox 01:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Please read it again. It says "for all practical and official purposes it currently has the status of a county of England". You can't get much clearer than that. Look, in my experience many, maybe most, indigenous Cornish people do not think of themselves as English. In fact, they can get quite cross if you insist otherwise. Now you may think they are daft to feel that way, but nevertheless that is the way they feel. In this respect (if no other) the nature of the Cornish identity differs from, for example, the nature of Yorkshire or Kentish identities. Can you not see that starting the article off with a bald, unqualified, definitive statement that Cornwall is a part of England would be offensive to such people? It is inviting trouble. Are there any factual errors in the "sensitive" version? If not, other than bloody-mindedness, I can't see any justification for reverting to the "insensitive" one. GrahamN 01:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Most people in England think it is a part of England, and might be offended to see the county being removed from being a part of England. To describe your version as the sensitive version is not accurate as it is only sensitive to Cornish patriots but insensitive to English patriots, SqueakBox 02:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see. GrahamN 02:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

In my latest version we simply state it is a part of England in the 1st sentence and simply state not all Cornish feel English in the 2nd. I think this is NPOV as it allows both POV's to be expressed in simple encyclopedic terms, SqueakBox 03:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

About 2% of the Cornish don't feel English according to the cansus mentioned in Cornish people. Gee, I guess that must mean that most of the inhabitents of Cornwall do not view themselves as English. I don't think that the truth would offend anyone (except of course a few Cornish nationalists who find the truth distressing and harmful to their agenda). GrandfatherJoe 15:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

If what you say is true we should remove the second sentence Many Cornish people do not consider themselves to be English, and regard Cornwall as a Celtic home nation of the UK. I would support it's removal, SqueakBox 16:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

So would I, or we could say About 2% of Cornish people do not consider themselves to be English, and regard Cornwall as a Celtic home nation of the UK. It reflects reality! REX 17:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I see that the page has been corrected. Excellent, it seems that NPOV is creeping ever so cautiously back into Wikipedia. GrandfatherJoe 17:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Cornish people article says that According to a recent Morgan Stanley Bank survey, 44 per cent of the inhabitants of Cornwall believe themselves to be Cornish rather than British or English. [4] I think this qualifies as "many". Given that a large percentage of the population of Cornwall are actually recent incomers, rather than indigenous Cornish, this statistic is remarkable. If the survey was somehow restricted to indigenous Cornish there can be little doubt that most would deny being English. The principle of NPOV is that where there is a difference of opinion about a fact, the article should report the difference without editorially taking sides. So the article should no more report as fact the notions of crackpot self-declared "Cornish Patriots" than the opposing ideas of crackpot self-declared "English Patriots". GrahamN 15:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Even if 90% of Cornish thought Cornwall was not part of England wikipedia cannot indulge in such fantasies. I have added the 44% statistic, but Cornwall is a part of England (and hence of the UK), and this must be stated in the opening, SqueakBox 17:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

2) The Duchy charters which are still law today turned all of Cornwall from an Earldom into a Duchy. "...that the County of Cornwall should always remain as a Duchy to the eldest sons of the Kings of England... without being given elsewhere"

3) Taken from Cornwall County Councils website:

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

On behalf of the Duchy in its successful action against the Crown, which resulted in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act of 1858, Sir George Harrison (Attorney General for Cornwall) makes this submission. That Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest, and was subsequently treated in many respects as distinct from England. That it was held by the Earls of Cornwall with the rights and prerogative of a County Palatine, as far as regarded the Seignory or territorial dominion.

That the Dukes of Cornwall have from the creation of the Duchy enjoyed the rights and prerogatives of a County Palatine, as far as regarded seignory or territorial dominion, and that to a great extent by Earls. That when the Earldom was augmented into a Duchy, the circumstances attending to it's creation, as well as the language of the Duchy Charter, not only support and confirm natural presumption, that the new and higher title was to be accompanied with at least as great dignity, power, and prerogative as the Earls enjoyed, but also afforded evidence that the Duchy was to be invested with still more extensive rights and privileges. The Duchy Charters have always been construed and treated, not merely by the Courts of Judicature, but also by the Legislature of the Country, as having vested in the Dukes of Cornwall the whole territorial interest and dominion of the Crown in and over the entire County of Cornwall. This legal case again would suggest that Cornwall (the county) is a Duchy.

4) Taken from Cornwall County Councils website:

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

5) Taken from Cornwall County Councils website:

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

6) Taken form Cornwall County Councils website:

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

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

There are serious questions of British case law concerning the constitutional status of Cornwall!

Bretagne 44 17:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean that there are serious questions of British case law concerning the constitutional status of Durham which was a County palatine and a Bishopric? And does that also apply to Lancaster? Technically, it does! So I guess that these places should not be referred to as counties, but as Duchies or Bishoprics. REX 20:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, SqueakBox, you have made it abundantly clear that in your opinion Cornwall is part of England. (As it happens, I agree, but that is not important). It is also clear that there is also a substantial body of opinion (deluded or not) that considers Cornwall not part of England. It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to adjudicate on such matters, merely to write a neutral, factual encyclopaedia article. GrahamN 15:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that your or my personal views are not relevant here. If Cornwall wanted independence I wouldn't go out of my way to oppose such a move, and might even be supportive f it enough people supported it and noone in Cornwall opposed it. But that is not the case. I haven't seen any serious evidence that it is not a part of England (which is not a nation state anyway) and it clearly iss a part of the UK, regardless of what people might think. I do believe that to write a neutral article does mean Cornwall is a part of England. This is what the overwhelming majority of British people think, and there are no credible sources contradicting this, SqueakBox 16:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean that there are serious questions of British case law concerning

REX I don't know or care, all that i do know is that Cornwall was described in British case law as a Duchy, with a Duke as sovereign over the whole of Cornwall.

enough people supported it and noone in Cornwall opposed it. But that is not the case

SqueakBox, Cornwall Council's Feb 2003 MORI Poll showed 55% in favour. The Assembly petition was signed by 50,000 people, which is the largest expression of popular support for devolved power in the whole of the United Kingdom. This coupled with the fact that all Cornish MP's are Lib Dem and the Lib Dems support the call for devolution and the language. So we can count on your support now then?

and there are no credible sources contradicting this

I remind you of the Cornish Foreshore Case and Kilbrandon Report that described Cornwall as a Duchy, please tell me what is not reliable about these sources? See above for information on these and others instances that question the Constitutional nature of Cornwall. Full transcripts of the Foreshore case are avaliable here [5]. Bretagne 44 16:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

If and when Cornwall becomes independent the article will have to change to reflect the new reality. The fasct that so many people want an independent is a clear sign that it is not independent. I have reworded the opening to incorporate the 55% figure and make some sense of the varying figures for how many support independence, SqueakBox 18:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact that so many people want an independent is a clear sign that it is not independent

This is not a logical argument; a country could have legal status as an independent territory but be occupied illegally. However due to the ignorance of the majority of UK citizens and many Cornish residents the issue never comes to a head. The fact remains more over that in British case law Cornwall was described as a sovereign Duchy. That when it was created a Duchy it was part of the realm of England (like Wales, Calais or any numbers of other territories on the continent) but not part of the country of England. Cornubia appears next to Anglia on the magnacarta by the way. No act of union has ever annexed the Duchy to the Crown like Scotland or Wales.

Read this carefully:

That Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest, and was subsequently treated in many respects as distinct from England. That it was held by the Earls of Cornwall with the rights and prerogative of a County Palatine, as far as regarded the Seignory or territorial dominion. That the Dukes of Cornwall have from the creation of the Duchy enjoyed the rights and prerogatives of a County Palatine, as far as regarded seignory or territorial dominion, and that to a great extent by Earls.That when the Earldom was augmented into a Duchy, the circumstances attending to it's creation, as well as the language of the Duchy Charter, not only support and confirm natural presumption, that the new and higher title was to be accompanied with at least as great dignity, power, and prerogative as the Earls enjoyed, but also afforded evidence that the Duchy was to be invested with still more extensive rights and privileges. The Duchy Charters have always been construed and treated, not merely by the Courts of Judicature, but also by the Legislature of the Country, as having vested in the Dukes of Cornwall the whole territorial interest and dominion of the Crown in and over the entire County of Cornwall.

Nothing has changed, all that has happened is that, together Westminster the Duchy authorities have decided to ignore this legal status of Cornwall because they know they can and because it makes their lives simpler. Cornwall is a county of England de facto but not de jure. If you can find any documents that prove otherwise i and most in the Cornish movement would be very interested in them as, i am sure, would be the government because the would for once be able to repudiate our claims, something they have never even attempted. Bretagne 44 13:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

A treatise on neutrality

Squeakbox, you said above

"If and when Cornwall becomes independent the article will have to change to reflect the new reality. The fact that so many people want an independent Cornwall is a clear sign that it is not independent."

I understand exactly what you mean by this. If you look at the history of this talk page you will see that I made more or less the same point some time ago:

"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." [6]

But that was before I had grasped the full significance of the concept of Neutral point of view. It may sound odd, but the success of the Wikipedia project depends on its editors valuing the neutrality of a statement more highly than its truth. If we try to restrict ourselves to what is true about any subject, the arguments will be literally endless. (If we can't agree on a simple thing like whether Cornwall is a county of England, what hope is there of ever agreeing whether life resulted from Darwinian evolution or Divine creation?) The quest for truth has lasted millennia and it will continue for millennia to come, but Wikipedia has no part to play in that quest. We don't insist that everything in Wikipedia is true. Instead, we concentrate on the manageable task of ensuring that all our articles are neutral. Provided the statements that are made in Wikipedia articles are presented in a neutral way, we should affect indifference as to whether or not they are true.

You also said

"I haven't seen any serious evidence that it is not a part of England (which is not a nation state anyway) and it clearly is a part of the UK, regardless of what people might think. I do believe that to write a neutral article does mean Cornwall is a part of England."

Again, I see what you mean, and I've said similar things myself on this page in the past, but I now see it's a mistake to think that way. When considering if a statement is neutral, evidence really doesn't come into it at all. For example, all the evidence shows that life on earth evolved. There is no serious evidence to suggest that it was created. One of those ideas is true, and the other is false. But nevertheless I hope you agree that to be neutral, an article on the origins of life should neither contain a bold unqualified statement that life is a product of natural selection nor a bold unqualified statement that life was a product of divine creation. To comply with NPOV policy all ideas must be treated with equal indifference, regardless of their intrinsic merit. That is what NPOV means. Without it, Wikipedia would not be able to function.

So even if we had the evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Cornwall is an English county rather than a separate Duchy, that should not have the slightest effect on the phrasing of the article.

GrahamN 02:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

If most people believe in evolution and only a small minority believe in divine creation the ideas shouldn't be given equal weight. Same with Cornwall. Most people believe it is a part of England, it is a part of England, and some Cornish people want it to be Cornish, SqueakBox 02:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I said that all ideas should be treated with equal indifference - I never said they should all be given equal weight. Weight is to do with balance, not neutrality. Sure, as a rule of thumb, it's a good idea to aim to arrange things so that the amount of space given over to a particular idea is roughly in proportion with the number of people who believe in it. But that doesn't give you licence to introduce an editorial POV in favour of the majority idea.

To extend the evolution parallel, I think I'm right in saying that quite a large majority of people in the world believe that humans were created by God. So consider this: "Humankind is part of God's creation ... between 2% and 55% of people do not consider themselves to be created in God's image, and regard humanity as a product of Darwinian natural selection". Surely nobody could think that was NPOV? But it is precisely analogous to these statements taken from the current version of this article: "Cornwall is a county of England ... between 2 and 55% of Cornish people do not consider themselves to be English, and regard Cornwall as a Celtic home nation and Duchy of the UK."

Please respond, SqueakBox. I want to know whether I have convinced you, or if I have to keep on arguing. Is it safe to edit the article now, or will you revert my edits again? GrahamN 00:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You haven't convinced me. For a start there are also all the people in the UK but not of or from or having lived in Cornwall (people like me) who would call it a part of England, and I would need to either see Cornwall having a special relationship with England that is substantially different from that of other counties (I don't believe it is a special case in any way) or I would want to see other counties treated in the same manner. Both Devon and Buckinghamshire mentionm the counties are a part of England, and I can't see any reason why Cornwall should be a special case, SqueakBox 01:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why Cornwall should be a special case

• That SqueakBox is because:

1) You are choosing to ignore the constitutional status of Cornwall which i have written about and you have not responded to. I have supported this with British case law as evidence, but for some reason you ignore this, why? 2) You are ignoring the Cornish culture and language, Cornwall has its own language and a competing national identity next to British or English. Bretagne 44 15:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It was pointed out by someone else that the constitutional status of Cornwall is no different from that of many English counties. I don't have any objections to your starting a paragraph (not in the opening) explaining the constitutional status of Cornwall with British case law as evidence.

What Cornish language and culture? I remember reading in the papers as a boy about the last person fluent in Cornish dying of old age. I have never (many visits up to the mid nineties) come across the Cornish language, and I don't know what you mean by Cornish culture. There is a strong accent (eg Mousehole) but no competing culture and no sense of their own culture that one gets in Wales and Scotland. I am not anyway ignoring the culture and language because I have never removed any references to Cornwall's culture and language from this article, SqueakBox 15:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It was pointed out by someone else that the constitutional status of Cornwall is no different from that of many English counties

Pointed out by who and what evidence did they provide. I have provided evidence from multiple reliable sources that contradicts this view.

As to your ignorance about Cornish culture, language and identity what can i say, try reading the articles you want to edit, try following a few links provided. Bretagne 44 15:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Constitutional status of Cornwall

Bretagne 44, you have said many times that there are serious questions of British case law concerning the constitutional status of Cornwall! Firstly, there is no such thing as British case law. Even if there were, that would mean that you are excluding statutes from consideration, but oddly enough, most of your "evidence" seems to be statutes. In other words, that sentence is meaningless. You are talking about English law as a whole, not just English case law. You are blindly juggling with the words on these statutes. If you took the purposive approach, which is now required of all courts of England and Wales, you would have to take in to consideration the intentions of the legislators (MPs) when passing the Local Government Act 1988. The question is did the legislators intend to exclude Cornwall from the rest of England. And the answer is "no". Leaving aside the fact that the word Cornwall is never mentioned in the Act, the establishment of Cornwall County Council under the statutory provisions for England and Wales while there was no separate reference to Cornwall, prove that Cornwall is nothing more (as far as English law is concerned) an English county just like any other. It is treated as such by law and given that all statutes dating at least back to 1988 have treated it as such prove that, at least through the purposive approach, any former status that Cornwall may or may not have had have long since been repealed. All subsequent (and possibly many previous Acts) have treated Cornwall as an English county and have done so without any separate reference to Cornwall. Through the purposive approach, it is perfectly clear that there are no serious questions of "British case law" concerning the constitutional status or Cornwall or any other English county for that matter. You are just playing games and wasting our time. Britannica, Encarta, the Hutchinson Encyclopedia and even the legislature of the United Kingdom call and treat Cornwall as an English county. Forgive me if I'm going too far here, but I sense Cornish nationalism here at the expense of NPOV. Your "British case law" (lol) is not evidence, but something relatively irrelevant. If we are ignoring the Cornish culture and language because Cornwall has its own language and a competing national identity next to British or English, then I must say that Britannica, Encarta etc are also guilty of this grave offence, because they also view Cornwall as an English county. If you take the time to read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research you will see that Wikipedia policy requires us to treat Cornwall as an English county because fellow encyclopaedias treat it as such, and even if the were questions in law regarding the constitutional status of Cornwall we would have to ignore them because Wikipedia policy requires it, and treat it as an English county. REX 16:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I will get back to you shortly, can see you have been doing work outside of school. Bretagne 44 16:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

For proof of our existence see the Cornish language and Cornish people pages, how many English counties can claim the same?

Secondly if the case law of the 19th centuary in which Cornwall was described as a Duchy has been repealed please find evidence of this. The Duchy authorities still benefit from the outcome of this legal case to the mineral rights of the Cornish foreshore, so what has changed? Oh and don't forget the 1967 Royal Kilbrandon report that suggested that Cornwall be refered to as a Duchy in light of its constitutional position.Bretagne 44 17:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

For proof of our existence see the Cornish language and Cornish people pages, how many English counties can claim the same? proves that there are people who want an independent Cornwall, which is something the article covers already. I have been in pubs where erveryone speaks Welsh. Can Cornwall say the same? and if so which part? SqueakBox 17:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Bretagne 44, I can see that you haven't read Wikipedia:No original research yet. This is a Wikipedia official policy which directs us on what can and cannot be used in articles. Britannica and Encarta (at least), call Cornwall a county. According to that policy, even if you spent ten years in the law library in the Houses of Parliament with Giovanni Di Stefano and found some loophole which says that Cornwall is not an English county, that would be original research on your part and Wikipedia policy says that only what can be verified (see Wikipedia:Verifiability) through reliable sources can be used in articles, in other words what other encyclopaedias and other reliable sources say. Britannica seems to indicate that the Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate consisting of lands, honours, franchises, rights, profits, etc., held by the eldest living son of the British sovereign, in other words, something distinct from the modern county of Cornwall. This concurs with the statutory interpretation of the Local Government Act 1988. If Cornwall is not an English county, then why was Cornwall County Council (see, a county council) established under the statutory provisions for England and Wales, not England, Wales and Cornwall? Quite simply, because Cornwall is part of England, it is an English county. This does not mean that it cannot have its revived regional identity, of course it can. Every English region has its own distinct regional identity; there is no doubt about that. Even if you are right, and some loophole in the law exists and makes Cornwall a separate country from England (lol), that can only be proved through original research and will be inserted in the article without proper verifiability, in other words it cannot be used in the article. I know that this is the last thing you want to hear, as it conflicts with your agenda, but those are the facts. As for Cornish identity, no one denied it. Just know that placing pro-Cornish nationalist propaganda on Wikipedia is inappropriate and wrong. Wikipedia is not the place for that kind of thing. And SqueakBox, believe me, Cornwall has a looooooooong way to go before they have pubs like that. REX 17:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to express my opinion that it seems to be perfectly clear that Cornwall is an English county and that there are no questions regarding the constitutional status of Cornwall. These only exist in the far away fantasies of Cornish nationalists and not in real life. I'm actually quite surprised that Bretagne 44 is so insistent in promoting this stuff. Well, Bretagne 44, it's time to wake up! Cornwall is for all purposes an English county; you can shout, scream, even burn yourself alive in protest, and Cornwall will still be an English county. Cornwall has no special status that all other English counties lack. I appreciate the fact that it makes Cornish nationalists feel important when they feel that Cornwall is singled out from amongst the chaff (the other English counties), but this is not the case. Cornwall does indeed have its reconstructed language and its revived culture, very very good! That does not change the fact that the status of Cornwall is an English county just like all the others. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• The Report of the Royal Commission [Kilbrandon] on the Constitution (Cmnd. 5460, HMSO 1973), which your council has never followed up, advocates:

"The creation of the Duchy of Cornwall … established a special and enduring relationship between Cornwall and the Crown. Use of the designation on all appropriate occasions would serve to recognise both this special relationship and the territorial integrity of Cornwall."

• If a Crown Commission can legitimately recommend its use, who are you lot to say otherwise?

To prove that Cornwall is just an English county you have to answer this point and the case law from the 19th century which is still in effect. You lot might want Cornwall to be just another English county for transparent English nationalist/imperialistic reasons but that does not attend to the case law or Kilbrandon Report.

• What is clear, however, is that legislation from Westminster can only have the effect of an ordinance, meaning, it can only modify existing law. As crazy as this seems, much of the Westminster enactment of Law has no legal foundation within the Duchy.

• Forgive me if I'm going too far here, but I sense Cornish nationalism here at the expense of NPOV. Your "British case law" (lol) is not evidence, but something relatively irrelevant.

• I would suggest that the accusation, and exposure, of culpable suppression of the Cornish people should be a more serious concern to the UK government than any perceived threat from 'nationalism'. Perhaps Wikipedia as 'the peoples' encyclopedia should be reaching beyond the existing propaganda of English Imperialism.

• any former status that Cornwall may or may not have had have long since been repealed

• The fact that Cornwall is "The Duchy of Cornwall" cannot simply be repealed by ignoring that it ever existed and manipulating the history of an indigenous national group. You must show how and when this happened if you wish to prove it.

• as to Encarta and Britannica etc well it is clear that dictionaries and encyclopedia are not interested in truth but only the power of might and it seems things are redefined to suit the majority.

Bretagne 44 16:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Even if what you say is true, Wikipedia policy requires us to use what reliable sources (Britannica and Encarta) say and not what you can prove on your own (original research). If you have a problem with this, you should take it up with whoever established these rules and tell them that your Magnificence does not wish to be bound by such silly rules. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that wikipedia should be reaching beyond the existing propaganda of English Imperialism as that would open the floodgates for people to fill this encyclopedia up with their POV's (and let's face it we all have different ones). I can understand a desire to be independent from the UK, but all this stuff about English imperialism? SqueakBox 16:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Bretagne 44, I think that you have failed to notice that Britannica (who undoubtedly knows better than you) seems to indicate that Cornwall the county and Cornwall the duchy are distinct bodies and not the same thing. Therefore the Kilbrandon Commission was not refering to the county but to the duchy (ie a private estate consisting of lands, honours, franchises, rights, profits, etc., held by the eldest living son of the British sovereign). In other words, it is irrelevant. I have noticed that you have failed to explain why Cornwall County Council was established under the stautory provisions for England and Wales, if Cornwall is not part of England or Wales. I can explain why you didn't, you didn't because you can't. Cornwall is an English county. Wikipedia policy requires only what can be verified can be used in articles. What Britannica and Encarta say can be verified, as they are reliable sources, whereas what you say, can not; it is original research and is prohibited under Wikipedia policy. No established body says what you say. You are isolated in saying this and it is just your POV. If you like though, you can take the case to court, and give us all a good laugh :-) You should observe Wikipedia policy on what can and cannot be included in articles. If the British Parliament, Britannica and Encarta can treat Cornwall as a county, then it must be true. If you want to promote such lies, then you should start you own encyclopaedia, the "Encyclopaedia of Cornish Nationalist Fantasies". REX 17:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that while you are accusing us, Britannica, Encarta and the British Parliament (where Cornwall has 5 MPs) of "English Imperialism", you see fit to profess and write the most outrageous lies in your own language, and when in the English Wikipedia, present yourselves as innocent paschal lambs about to be slaughtered. This blatant hypocrisy has got to stop. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 13:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I notice that Bretagne 44 seems to have lapsed into Absolute Silence ever since we opened his eyes to the truth and showed him the massive holes in that fairy tale called "the questionable constitutional status of Cornwall". I will take it that his silence indicates approval and acceptance of Cornwalls status as a county of England. If you check his contributions, you will see that he has been active and is choosing not to answer. Hmmmmmm... REX 19:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires us to use what reliable sources (Britannica and Encarta) say and not what you can prove on your own

• So are you saying we have to ignore the Royal Kilbrandon report, Duchy charters and 19th century case law and in fact just copy Britannica? The evidence i have provided is not my own reaserch it is documented legal fact.

floodgates for people to fill this encyclopedia up with their POV's

• Who else has a Royal report, case law and duchy charters to spill through your flood gates?

I think that you have failed to notice that Britannica (who undoubtedly knows better than you) seems

• That's your POV.

Therefore the Kilbrandon Commission was not refering to the county but to the duchy

• Nope, the report was refering to all of Cornwall and suggesting that it be called a Duchy in light of its constitutional position, after all why would they be advising the government that they should refer to the Duchy as the Duchy?

ie a private estate consisting of lands, honours, franchises, rights, profits, etc

• Then why does the Duke appoint the sherif of Cornwall, have right of wreck on all Cornish shores and Bona Vicantia rights over the territory of Cornwall? Why was the whole territory of Cornwall described as a Duchy in the 19th century and again in 1967?

I have noticed that you have failed to explain why Cornwall County Council was established under the stautory provisions for England and Wales

• The act was illegal, really you are nieve to think governments would never do such a thing just to make their lives easy. Hopefully in time this will be proved in Strasbourg.

Encyclopaedia of Cornish Nationalist Fantasies

• So what is fantastic about the RK report and the 19th century foreshore case that the Duchy still profits from. For all your childish insults and hot air you have still not been able to address these facts.

you see fit to profess and write the most outrageous lies in your own language, and when in the English Wikipedia, present yourselves as innocent paschal lambs about to be slaughtered. This blatant hypocrisy has got to stop

• I have not contributed to the Cornish language page other than links; so if you do not apologise i will make a complaint against you, are you unwell again?

I will take it that his silence indicates approval and acceptance of Cornwalls status as a county of England.

• I mean really how old are you lot? Hands up who's in the CEP, english democrats or ECC?

• This is really getting us no where and you are decending into rather childish insults and provocations so i think mediation is called for, what do you think?

Bretagne 44 17:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If you can back your claims up with sources (eg that the UK/English government acted illegally) we can add them to the article, but what we cannot do is change the opening to say that Cornwall is other than a countyu of England. IMO the only way to change is to change the actual legal status of Cornwall within England&Wales, a struggle in which I wish you all the best, SqueakBox 17:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW what is the ECC? I am not personally involve4d in any English politics as I live in Honduras, but that is no bar to being an encyclopedia writer, SqueakBox 17:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

'If you can back your claims up with sources' OK, and can i just say thank you for your reasonable tone after the childish behaviour of others on this board. However The Kilbrandon Report, The Foreshore case and the Duchy Charters all describe Cornwall as a Duchy, they are my sources and not one of you has been able to dismiss them. All these documents are available if you want to check them. This is why we are arguing in circles and why i think mediation would be a good path to follow.

In the mean time i have added the following to the beginning of the page: It should be noted that Cornwall, the county, has been described as a Duchy on a few occasions be official bodies Bretagne 44 17:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Britannica would appear to disagree with you. They view Cornwall the duchy as something distinct from the county. A Royal Commission is not law, it is merely advice to the government, and in this case they chose to ignore it. Also, if Parliament is not authorised to pass laws over Cornwall, why do they send MPs there? GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 17:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

First) you need to apologise for your accusation against me, like i asked are you unwell again? Secondly) they pass laws and enforce them in Cornwall because it is easy to do so, easy to ignore the true constitutional status of Cornwall and easier for the establishment this way. Thirdly) the foreshore case of the 19th century was law and still is law as are the Duchy charters where it is made quite clear that the comitas/vicecomitas (county/earldom) where changed into a Duchy for all time. Britannica could be wrong you know. Bretagne 44 18:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Bretagne 44, your views are original research and Wikipedia cannot use them (see WP:NOR). Can you provide us with a link to a website which confirms your views as true like Wikipedia policy requires (see Wikipedia:Cite sources). Royal Commissions are nothing more than suggestions to the Government and are not accorded the same status as an Act of Parliament, such as the ones I have cited above. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability: It's important to note that "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors regard that material to be true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources. In other words, even if what you say is true (something which I highly doubt) as no reliable source endorses it and even the British Parliament contradicts it, then as far as Wikipedia policy is conserned, you are wrong. According to WP:RS Britannica and Encarta qualify as reliable sources and what they say is assumed to be correct. I am aware that you are trying to change the subject by talking about what Grandfathejoe said, which in my opinion was not a personal attack as he was not explicitly refering to you. I would also like to say that I agree with him, I cannot say much in Cornish, but I know that England is called Pow Sows and that word doesn't exist in the Kernow article. What was it you were saying about integrity? Maybe you should have a word with whoever wrote that article. Or is that just for us? I urge you to read Wikipedia policies and apply them to our circumstances and recognise that at least for the purpose of verifiability, what you say doesn't stand. REX 19:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey REX and GrandfatherJoe here is an interesting article for you both: Sock puppet.

It is not original research because the research has been done by Cornish groups such as the Cornish Stannary Parliament and Tyr Gwyr Gweryn, you can check their websites here for the details [7] and [8].

Additionaly the information for the Kilbrandon Report, Duchy charters and Cornish foreshore case (plus much more) can be found on the Cornwall County Council website if you look under Timeline of Cornish History 1800 AD to date [9]. Check the entries for 1969, 1971, 1855 and 1863 for starters. Bretagne 44 12:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, but do you think that those obscure groups carry as much weight as Parliament, Britannica or Encarta. As far as our government is conserned, Cornwall is an English county. When Cornwall achieves independence, then we can change it. You still haven't told me, why does Cornwall have MPs in Parliament if Parliament is not authorised to legislate in Cornwall. What are they doing there? As for your accusations of sockpuppetry, ha! You are desperatly trying to change the subject. If you suspect something, feel free to report it :-) REX 12:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You said it was original research that i had provided, i proved that it was not. It is you who yet again tries to change the subject. It is your POV that these groups are obscure or nationalistic. Additionally the time line provided by Cornwall County Council makes it quite clear that the Cornish Foreshore Case and Kilbrandon Report (plus others) are very real facts. You still haven't told me, why does Cornwall have MPs in Parliament if Parliament is not authorised to legislate in Cornwall This really is missing the point, i don't have to. If the government is acting illegally or if the foreshore case, duchy charters, kilbrandon report etc are all wrong then that is not my problem. The fact remains that Cornwall (the county) has on a number of occasions been described as a Duchy and that laws which turned the county/earldom into a Duchy are still law to this day, they have not been repealed. A government can ignore constitutional legal status and in fact governments often do but this does not change the true constitutional legal status. I am not alone in my suspicions but i will leave it up to your conscience to hopefully prevail Bretagne 44 13:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, until a court ruling, the British government is presumed innocent. If or when this case reaches the International Court of Justice and it is proven that the British government is acting illegaly, then Cornwall will receive its "true" constitutional position. Until now, all legislation relating to Cornwall passes through the British Parliament and has come into effect as if Cornwall is a county of England. I have no problem in mentioning that the status of Cornwall has been questioned, but I think that it would be ludicrous to say directly that it isn't a county, because for official purposes at least, it is. This is all speculation that it may not be a county. No one has admitted anything. So you cannot impose those commissions' and groups' POV here. Their views are not officially established. REX 14:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Bretagne 44, I think you may have misunderstood me. I was not accusing you, I was accusing the users of the Cornish Wikipedia (who presumably are Cornish nationalists). You cannot believe that what is written in that article is true. If you get a freelang Cornish dictionary and translate a few words of that text, you will see what I mean, "propaganda". Is your name anywhere in the accusation? I was speaking in the plural; unless you perceive yourself to be royalty and use the Royal We, I would say that you are been overly sensitive. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem in mentioning that the status of Cornwall has been questioned

• Well good then we agree and that is just what i have done.

because for official purposes at least, it is

• Well if that is true why does the Duke of Cornwall have rights of governance and honours over the whole territory of Cornwall but not Duchy lands outside Cornwall? For instance the right of wreck on all Cornish shores, the right of Bona Vicantia / treasure trove for the county of Cornwall, the right to Swans and Sturgeon caught in Cornwall, the duty to appoint the Sheriff of Cornwall and preside over the Stannary Parliaments.

• Why Did the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act confirm that the Duke possesses seignory and territorial rights befitting a king in 1863 if the Duchy is just a landed estate?

• Why did the Tamar Bridge act in 1998 confirm the power of the Duke over the territory of Cornwall.

Bretagne 44 17:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

If it is a Duchy, that doesn't stop it being a county of England. Lancaster is also a county of England AND a Duchy. The fact that Cornwall is a county of England has been proved by the Local Government Act 1988 and the existance of Cornwall County Council is living proof of that. Also, I find it quite interesting that you are citing Acts of Parliament, which according to you, are illegal when legislating for Cornwall. Or does than only apply in selective cases? REX 20:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Well considering that it was described as apart from the country of England (but part of the realm of England) well into the 16th century and that there is no evidence of an act of union changing this status i don't see how de jure it can be a county of England, de facto yes but this does not reflect its constitutional status.

The kilbrandon report questions the legality of the creation of the county council.

Whether the acts of parliament are legal or not does not really change my point but what the do do however is reflect a particular legal status that is being reacted to. So please try and concentrate on the debate as opposed to being purile.

I would like to point out that while you are accusing us, Britannica, Encarta and the British Parliament (where Cornwall has 5 MPs) of "English Imperialism", you see fit to profess and write the most outrageous lies in your own language, These are your words REX so apologise and grow up. Bretagne 44 17:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Well considering that it was described as apart from the country of England (but part of the realm of England) well into the 16th century and that there is no evidence of an act of union changing this status i don't see how de jure it can be a county of England, de facto yes but this does not reflect its constitutional status says Bretagne 44.

• What were all other counties of England called well into the 16th century? Peanuts? They were also described as parts of the realm of England and are now called counties without Acts of Union. Northumbria, Wessex, Mercia etc (see Heptarchy) were all joined together to form what is today England without Acts of Union. According to you, we could say that North-East England constitutionally is not part of England because it was never formally incorporated into England, but conquered by Wessex. Oops, isn't that similar to what happened to Cornwall? Also, what you see is not important (WP:NOR remember), what the British Government officially sees is important and what Britannica and Encarta see is important. They don't seem to be having the same doubts as you.

The kilbrandon report questions the legality of the creation of the county council says Bretagne 44.

• Are you sure that that report questions the legality of the creation of CCC. I thought it only commented on protocol ie referring to the county as a Duchy, much like Lancaster is referred to as a Duchy in statutes (witness the Law of Property Act 1925). I don't believe that it says that Westminster is not authorised to pass laws over Cornwall.

Whether the acts of parliament are legal or not does not really change my point but what the do do however is reflect a particular legal status that is being reacted to. So please try and concentrate on the debate as opposed to being purile says Bretagne 44.

• Of course it does. You are pretending to have your claims backed up by statutes (that bit about the Duke possessing rights of a King) while at the same time dismissing other statutes as illegal (ie double standards). There are two possibilities. Either all statutes passed by the British Parliament over Cornwall are legal (in which case it is a county of England, for reasons I have already said), or they are not (this is an absurd possibility, because the report you mention, doesn't say that, or does it?). Anyway, given that Parliament on passing a bill, requests that the Queen (or King) give the Royal Assent (ie his/her permission) for the bill to come into force, then the establishment of CCC under the statutory provisions for England and Wales was something that the King then was eager to agree to. Are you saying that the British monarch does not have the right to pass laws over Cornwall? Do I need to remind you that the King of England created the post of Duke of Cornwall?

I would like to point out that while you are accusing us, Britannica, Encarta and the British Parliament (where Cornwall has 5 MPs) of "English Imperialism", you see fit to profess and write the most outrageous lies in your own language, These are your words REX so apologise and grow up says Bretagne 44.

• I say: if you suspect sockpuppetry, you are right. I already have a sockpuppet, User:Rexhep Bojaxhiu, but then again I have always admitted that he is my sockpuppet by virtue of the sign always present and added by me. If you believe that User:GrandfatherJoe is my sockpuppet, feel free to report me; I could do with a good laugh :-D REX 18:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

No it does not, the acts could be legal or illegal, but they still show provision is being made for the Duchy and county of Cornwall being one and the same. If you read the Duchy charters the Duke has all rights over Cornwall and the agents of the King are only allowed to opperate if the Duke (and stannary parliament) agree to it. The sheriff of Cornwall, which was the law back in the day, carries the Dukes writ not the Kings. If you can find the date and act that annexed Cornwall to England i would be most interested, remember late into the 16 century Cornwall was referred to as being seperate from England and also represented as such on many maps. So when did it become part of England? The King of England augmented the Earldom of Cornwall (which was not part of Wessex or the country of England) into a Duchy.... to remain for ever as such! Bretagne 44 16:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This may sound silly, but when Oliver Cromwell came became Lord Protector, he declared that all previous legislation passed by the King was to be null and void. That is why the Jews were allowed to come back to England. They had been banned from England about 300 years earlier (I think) by laws passed by the King, and then when they had been cancelled the Jews had returned and have remained in England ever since. The previous legislation has never been returned, the fact that the Jews have been living in England ever since is proof of that. According to this theory, the legislation you are mentioning will have been cancelled (that bit about it being a Duchy for ever). Of course this is just my original research just like your theory is yours. No official body supports your claims, not even that kilibranon commission. Therefore we must observe Wikipedia policy and say that Cornwall is a county of England. REX 16:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, there is no conclusive evidence that Cornwall the county and Cornwall the Duchy are the same bodies. Britannica says that they are not and that the Duchy is a private estate. According to WP:RS what Britannica says is assumed correct according to Wikipedia policy. According to WP:V we are looking for verifiability, not truth. What you are saying is original research and cannot be published by Wikipedia. What Britannica says is verifiable according to Wikipedia policy. REX 16:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Look REX i know that many sources say the Duchy and county are different but there are some sources, legal and constitutional not least the Duchy charters that say Cornwall the county is also a Duchy. This article sums up my points[10]. Now i don't want the article to say that Cornwall is a Duchy and not part of England but i do want it to say that there are some sources that seem to point to this. In fact that is what the article does already with my recent additions. What you say about copying Britannica is Rubbish and you know it, i have not provided original research, i have given links to websites that provide all the information, the website of Cornwall county Council being one of them.

You say we are looking verifiability, not truth as if you talk for Wikipedia, well to be sure of that lets get the mediators in and see what happens. Bretagne 44 19:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't know if Wikipedia:Mediation would be accepted. You have to show that you have attempted to solve the dispute using other means, such as WP:RFC. I don't even know what we are arguing about anymore, administrators have said that Wikipedia articles should state all POV's and support none. Why can't that be done here? My greatest fear is that this article become like the article kw:Kernow, a base for propaganda and POV. Anyway, If you want mediation or rfc, go ahead and request it, I have no objection. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

So are you joe now or Rex or Rex ting a me bob? Bretagne 44 15:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What? Look Bretagne44, if you have any evidence, please "sing" it to the world; otherwise shut up, you are not funny. How is your sockpuppet GrahamN by the way? If we want to get this over with it will have to be established what we are disagreeing over. What are we disagreeing over? What do you want? GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 17:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

No, i'm happy with the article as it stands, thank you come again. Bretagne 44 16:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Cornish History

Added yet another great link. [11] Bretagne 44 17:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

The Coat of Arms used on this page are the Arms of 'the Duke of Cornwall'. I think I'm right in saying that Cornwall as a 'County' doesnt have a coat of Arms?

Talskiddy 17:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Britannica says that Cornwall is a county. Britannica also says that the Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate consisting of lands, honours, franchises, rights, profits, etc., held by the eldest living son of the British sovereign, in other words, something distinct from the modern county of Cornwall. I guess Talskiddy, I (and Britannica) agree with you. Rex^(talk) 17:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Settlements

This section says it is a "list of the main towns and cities".

I have deleted Newtown. I confess to having to look it up and found Newtown-in-St-Martin (in Meneage) as the only place called Newtown in Cornwall. If there is another, larger Newtown that I have forgotten, I apologise.

In any case, I think that some of the other places could hardly be called a "main town or city" - e.g. Coverack, Charlestown. There is another list of places in Cornwall, so in the Settlements section why don't we stick to the major towns -- e.g. Launceston, Liskeard, Bodmin, St Austell, Truro, Redruth, Camborne, Falmouth and Penzance, etc.

Therefore, I've changed the list to include only the most populous towns as per the 2001 Census. The threshold is a population of 8000, but I have used a bit of licence where there seemed to be anomalies caused by parish boundaries. I'm sorry if this has removed your home town, but in a spirit of altruism I have also excluded my spiritual home of Looe (pop. 5280). --Portnadler 18:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not objecting, I wish I could understand what you are doing... Issues like this thow me into a lot of confusion :-) Rex^(talk) 18:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

All I'm doing is to list the "main towns and cities" in Cornwall (in fact, there is only one city – Truro), and exclude some eclectic places that I suspect were put in by people with a personal interest in their home town or village, or whatever. --Portnadler 23:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)