The Duchy of Cornwall - a feudal remnant

Topical debate
Post Reply
Fulub-le-Breton
Posts: 5528
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Breizh
Contact:

The Duchy of Cornwall - a feudal remnant

Post by Fulub-le-Breton » Sun Nov 03, 2013 1:44 pm

So what do our Cornish constitutionalists make of John Kirkhopes research and conclusions? http://www.scribd.com/doc/181134529/The ... al-remnant
In 2011 70,000 Cornish schoolchildren were surveyed and 41 per cent indicated they saw themselves as “Cornish” rather than “English”

This indicates there is a growing sense that Cornwall is different. Since children are the future presumably the feeling will grow. Some of that sentiment is based on the evidence arising from “legal arguments” which do not support the case. For example, the claims, which are based in inadequate research, about the consent of the Duchy to proposed legislation, Crown Immunity and the Stannaries. That is not to say there are not distinguishing features. There are debates based on a broader analysis of the history of Cornwall and its relationship with the English state. Whether or not those who feel strongly will achieve their ambition of having “Cornish Distinctiveness” recognised in a “Cornish Assembly” will depend upon whether enough people agitate for the change. It will not be based on inaccurate assertions of the origins of various privileges which the Duchy and Duke of Cornwall have acquired.
He would seem to take apart many of your arguments.

User avatar
TGG
Posts: 1838
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:08 pm
Contact:

Re: The Duchy of Cornwall - a feudal remnant

Post by TGG » Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:36 pm



Fulub said» 03 Nov 2013 12:4

"So what do our Cornish constitutionalists make of John Kirkhopes research and conclusions?
An interesting document - not that I, personally, have finished reading it all yet. And it will need to be read more than once!. :) I doubt that the matter will be discussed on any forum, but I would say that to research such a 'mysterious' entity as our 'Cornish' Duchy, one must start at the beginning with the right premise, otherwise some things defy logic and cannot be explained irrespective of facts or legal opinion and conclusions should reflect this.

What seems clear, so far, is that examples of the 'Cornish Paradox' have been around for rather a long time - depending upon one's particular affiliation - but brought to a head in the 19th century. That, of course, is nothing new, but explaining it is quite another matter, especially in retrospect. The 'facts' will always support the state, but the truth may be something different. What is of particular interest is the observation that the Duchy seemed to be willing to compromise on prerogatives, within arbitration..... if the compensation was acceptable!? :shock:

A lot of interesting information, which should be read by everyone having an interest in Cornish Affairs.

TGGFor The (Real)Reason Why![/size]
STOP THE CORNISH GENOCIDE! -
They declare their Cornishness with pride
Whilst oblivious to our genocide
That England imposes
With smiles and Red Roses
Where the innocents, so gullibly, reside.


Gower
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 2:53 pm

Re: The Duchy of Cornwall - a feudal remnant

Post by Gower » Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:26 pm

The 'Duchy of Cornwall' is an oxymoron.

Like; ''The Crown dependencies are self-governing possessions of the British Crown.'

And it is no basis on which to build a constitution.

quote;

“…while drawing Cornwall tightly into the mechanisms of the English state the Stannaries’ (and Duchy) also afforded Cornwall a high degree of constitutional individuality, both deferring to and reinforcing a distinct Cornish identity.”

67

end

An independent state cannot be afforded anything. It is independent.

User avatar
TGG
Posts: 1838
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:08 pm
Contact:

Re: The Duchy of Cornwall - a feudal remnant

Post by TGG » Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:59 pm



Gower quoted» 03 Nov 2013 12:4

"...both deferring to and reinforcing a distinct Cornish identity."
A key phrase, perhaps?

TGGFor The (Real)Reason Why![/size]
STOP THE CORNISH GENOCIDE! -
They declare their Cornishness with pride
Whilst oblivious to our genocide
That England imposes
With smiles and Red Roses
Where the innocents, so gullibly, reside.


Gower
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 2:53 pm

Re: The Duchy of Cornwall - a feudal remnant

Post by Gower » Wed Nov 06, 2013 2:12 pm

TGG wrote:

Gower quoted» 03 Nov 2013 12:4

"...both deferring to and reinforcing a distinct Cornish identity."
A key phrase, perhaps?

TGGFor The (Real)Reason Why![/size]
I doubt that you believe a 'distinct Cornish identity' can be sustained by drawing Cornwall into an 'English mechanism'
more specifically;
“…while drawing Cornwall tightly into the mechanisms of the English state"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism which makes a pretence of deferring in order to 'reinforce' an identity it can co-opt and control.

User avatar
TGG
Posts: 1838
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:08 pm
Contact:

Re: The Duchy of Cornwall - a feudal remnant

Post by TGG » Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:39 pm



Correct! I believe that everything must be on our own terms.

I simply picked out that 'phrase' to highlight that throughout history that that seems to have been the result of genuine contemporaneous understanding, perception, and promotion, of our people and territory. Anything that the state says or does is purely for the benefit of the hegemony and, as your definition of 'euphemism' indicates.

There are, nevertheless, cases where such distinctive statements/observations are used, where it can only indicate something of real substance - as for instance the references given in the legal documents (and argument) associated with the creation/restoration of the Duchy of Cornwall, which, perhaps, it may not have been necessary to have even be stated.

Whilst the Duchy was most certainly protecting its vested interests (150 years ago) its recourse to, what today would be construed as 'nationalistic' rhetoric, is most telling, when today it has only been on the modern agenda for the past 25 years, as a consequence of that vested interest. We have an even bigger vested interest in protecting Cornish Rights.

Such references are invaluable markers in a genuine 'Cornish' timeline.

TGGFor The (Real)Reason Why!
STOP THE CORNISH GENOCIDE! -
They declare their Cornishness with pride
Whilst oblivious to our genocide
That England imposes
With smiles and Red Roses
Where the innocents, so gullibly, reside.


Gower
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 2:53 pm

Re: The Duchy of Cornwall - a feudal remnant

Post by Gower » Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:16 pm

The Duchy of Cornwall was created out of the former Earldom of Cornwall by Edward III in 1337 in order to provide an income for his heir, seven year old Edward of Woodstock (later known as the Black Prince). From that day to this, its purpose has remained the same.
An earl is a member of the nobility. The title is Anglo-Saxon, akin to the Scandinavian form jarl, and meant "chieftain", particularly a chieftain set to rule a territory in a king's stead. In Scandinavia, it became obsolete in the Middle Ages and was replaced with duke (hertig/hertug). In later medieval Britain, it became the equivalent of the continental count (in England in the earlier period, it was more akin to duke)
The Normans and Anglo Normans created by means of a cultural appropriation of Cornish history a ruling elite that holds power to this day. There is a King Donyarth but by the 9th century things were very bleak for what formerly would have been extensive territories and the claimed 'lineage' is to bolster elite rule.

The term Duke originates from 'Dux' and serves a specific function;

After Diocletian's Tetrarchy reform, the provinces were organized into dioceses each administered by a vicarius. As with the governors, the vicarius was assisted by a dux. This dux was superior to all of other duces within the dioceses and when the vicarius called the legions of the dioceses into action, all of the legions were at the dux's command. An example would be the Dux per Gallia who was the dux of the dioceses of Gaul. The office of dux was, in turn, made subject to the magister militum of his respective praetorian prefecture, and above him to the emperor.
The 'Earls of Cornwall' were Norman or English or French (even some from Spanish decent) overlords and their function from 1066 was to collecting revenue for the crown - by whatever means.
John of Eltham, 1st Earl of Cornwall (15 August 1316 – 13 September 1336) was the second son of king Edward II of England and his queen Isabella of France. He was heir to the English throne from the date of the abdication of his father (25 January 1327) to the birth of his nephew Edward of Woodstock (15 June 1330).
so therefore the title after 1337 moves to the eldest son (ie; the to-be monarch) rather than their vassals - though the vassals were always answerable to the monarch.

Today of course they shore up the same power structure with various titles to the same means such as the Lord Lieutenant and the High Sheriff - each to feebly give the impression of devolved power but in reality ensuring continuity;
The Office of High Sheriff is an independent non-political Royal appointment for a single year. The origins of the Office date back to Saxon times, when the ‘Shire Reeve’ was responsible to the king for the maintenance of law and order within the shire, or county, and for the collection and return of taxes due to the Crown. Today, there are 55 High Sheriffs serving the counties of England and Wales each year.
Of course being appointed by the crown they are neither non political nor independent.

Anyone who says the constitutional basis for the administration of Cornwall as part of England, arguing that the Duchy Charters of 1337 place the governance of Cornwall with the Duchy of Cornwall rather than the English Crown' is confused and mistaken because the Duchy of Cornwall always was either the Norman or the English read 'Anglo Norman' crown - (originating from and perpetuating foreign rule) and therefore has no legitimate jurisdiction.

User avatar
TGG
Posts: 1838
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:08 pm
Contact:

Re: The Duchy of Cornwall - a feudal remnant

Post by TGG » Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:41 pm



Having written a response last evening and losing it before I could post it, because of a faulty kettle (a long story), I had to abandon a response until this evening, which was fortuitous as a subsequent edit of your original post removed a slight hint of ambiguity about legitimacy. I now have no hesitation in fully agreeing with what you are saying in that posting.

The key, of course, is who should have legitimate jurisdiction and, more importantly, who has the definitive information as to how legitimacy may be restored to its rightful place, given the institutional hierarchy, you outline, that covertly (?) seeks to replace it? Does that not mean that it can only be deconstructed by basing remedial actions from where we are now, to expose the illegal process and its inevitable consequence of Cornish Genocide?

TGGFor The (Real)Reason Why!
STOP THE CORNISH GENOCIDE! -
They declare their Cornishness with pride
Whilst oblivious to our genocide
That England imposes
With smiles and Red Roses
Where the innocents, so gullibly, reside.


Trevorpen
Posts: 640
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:44 pm

Re: The Duchy of Cornwall - a feudal remnant

Post by Trevorpen » Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:44 pm

What a load of utter, utter tripe.
You are scratching around in history going back 700 years, trying to say Cornwall is somehow not the same as the rest of England .... in the 21st century. Many English counties can proclaim a similar history, but feudal times declined from the 14 century until its abolition in the The Tenures Abolition Act 1660.
Time you thoughts and energy moved forward to the 21st century.

Gower
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 2:53 pm

Re: The Duchy of Cornwall - a feudal remnant

Post by Gower » Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:07 am

Trevorpen wrote:What a load of utter, utter tripe.
You are scratching around in history going back 700 years, trying to say Cornwall is somehow not the same as the rest of England .... in the 21st century. Many English counties can proclaim a similar history, but feudal times declined from the 14 century until its abolition in the The Tenures Abolition Act 1660.
Time you thoughts and energy moved forward to the 21st century.
The Duchy of Cornwall was created out of the former Earldom of Cornwall by Edward III in 1337 in order to provide an income for his heir, seven year old Edward of Woodstock (later known as the Black Prince). From that day to this, its purpose has remained the same.
guess you missed this. Who is not moving forward?

Fulub-le-Breton
Posts: 5528
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Breizh
Contact:

Re: The Duchy of Cornwall - a feudal remnant

Post by Fulub-le-Breton » Sat Nov 09, 2013 4:34 pm

Second Reading - Rights of the Sovereign and the Duchy of Cornwall Bill [HL] http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id ... s=Cornwall

Gower
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 2:53 pm

Re: The Duchy of Cornwall - a feudal remnant

Post by Gower » Sat Nov 09, 2013 7:19 pm

1con·sent
intransitive verb \kən-ˈsent\

: to agree to do or allow something : to give permission for something to happen or be done


from above link;
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Whip, House of Lords; Liberal Democrat)


.....Then we come to the removal of the Queen’s and Prince’s consent—a rationalisation of one of the ancient practices of the two Houses of Parliament. It is a long-standing parliamentary requirement that the consent of the Queen and the Prince of Wales should be given for certain Bills. The parliamentary authorities decide which Bills require that consent, not the Government. Signifying the consent of the Queen and the Prince of Wales for certain legislation is a parliamentary requirement and the Government will continue to do that for as long as Parliament requires it. The Government’s role is to ensure that consent is sought for government and Private Members’ Bills when it is required by Parliament. This requirement reflects the unique relationship between the sovereign and the legislature which is rooted in the historical royal prerogative and provides for a formal parliamentary process by which the sovereign can be informed of, and consulted on, legislation which affects the sovereign’s prerogative and interests. The Government will generally seek consent for Private Members’ Bills even when they oppose the Bill on the basis that Parliament should not be prevented from debating a matter on account of consent not having been obtained.
.....The Bill’s proposal to place the assets of the Duchy of Cornwall in public trust is an unacceptable encroachment on private property rights as currently established.
Since it was established in the early 14th century, the Duchy’s main purpose has been to fund an income independent of the monarch for the heir apparent.
If the Duchy were to be taken away from the heir apparent, it would still be necessary to fund their activities through the sovereign grant.
The Sovereign Grant(1)A Sovereign Grant is to be paid by the Treasury to Her Majesty for each financial year.
(2)The purpose of the Sovereign Grant for a financial year is to provide resources for use for that year by the Royal Household in support of Her Majesty’s official duties (see section 13).

(3)The amount of the Sovereign Grant for the financial year 2012-13 is £31 million.

(4)The amount of the Sovereign Grant for each subsequent financial year is the amount determined by the Royal Trustees for that year in accordance with section 6.
(5)Section 9 (Duchy of Cornwall income) provides, in the circumstances mentioned there, for the amount of the Sovereign Grant to be reduced.
(6)The Sovereign Grant falls to be paid out of money provided by Parliament.


Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)

.....The first is consent. I was interested to read the excellent briefing put together by the House authorities. I had never realised that it is a convention that both Houses of Parliament consult the monarch or the Duke of Cornwall on legislation that would affect their interests. I find that quite strange. I was pleased to see that the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House of Commons made clear that there is no need for legislation, as this could be changed by resolution of both Houses.
Lord Cormack (Conservative)

There is one part of the Bill that I find particularly niggardly. It is the part dealing with travel. The noble Lord wants to restrict those who can have official travel to six members. He bases this on the fact that the Succession to the Crown Bill specifically mentions the six next in line who have to seek the permission of the sovereign to marry. We had debates on this and amendments were moved, including, if I recall correctly, by my noble friend Lord Lang, to extend the number to 12, but the Bill went through with six in it. However, there is no analogy. One has to realise that there are many members of the Royal Family who give unstinting public service and whose presence at public events is greatly welcomed. I do not want to be invidious and give a long list, but I single out particularly the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester. The Duke of Gloucester is punctilious in fulfilling a range of engagements. I have attended a number of engagements which he has attended. The pleasure that he gives by going and the interest that he takes in the people he meets are of enormous value and worth. I believe that it would be niggardly in the extreme to say that only six members of the Royal Family should be allowed to travel to fulfil their official duties at the taxpayer’s expense.
Lord Berkeley (Labour)

I have looked into the Duchy of Cornwall in a bit of detail and there is no way that a Private Member’s Bill could ever seek to change what is there because of all the historical issues that have been discussed today and probably many more. My purpose was to start a debate on it and I think we have had a good debate.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest