Are you lost? Go to Main Index and Home PageThere will be many occasions, during the reading of the various bits of argument, comment and legal evidence, which will give some succour to those whose 'denial of the truth' see the Cornish people as dispensable to English Imperial interests. These notes will identify some of these and add a comment which, hopefully, will allow the reader, the ones with integrity and an open mind, at least, to distinguish between Imperial retrospective misrepresentation and to view a particular comment from a 'Cornish' context.
Despite the arguments of the Officers of the Duchy of Cornwall and various legal documents produced to show that the Duchy and County are co-extensive, there still seems to be references made which suggest that the status of Cornwall remains ambiguous. This is seized upon by those who seek to undermine the uniqueness of Cornwall's true constitutional status as proving, regardless of other 'higher status' information, that Cornwall is merely an 'English' county!
The previous TGG Comment 'A' attempts to show that Cornwall comprises a 'county' within the Duchy of Cornwall for which the sheriff answers to the Duke of Cornwall. This entity should not be seen as comparable to the counties within England, for which the sheriff answers to the King of England, except within the context of form and function.
In seeking to understand why the First Duchy Charter, for example, when enumerating Launceston & Trematon states:
we need to consider what the mindset of the time would have been. There would seem to be following possibilities:"...And also the castle, borough, manor, and honor of Launceston, with the park there, and other their appurtenances in the counties of Cornwall and Devon ; the castle and manor of Tremeton, with the town of Saltash, and the park there, and other their appurtenances in the counties aforesaid..."
01 - What, in fact, did the original (i.e. untranslated) Latin text say?
Was there any differentiation between the terms 'comitatus' and 'vicecomitatus'?02 - that Cornwall is, merely, a county, like any other!
Therefore, matters of tax, land and property fall within the administrative norm.03 - that Cornwall is, uniquely, a county within the Duchy of Cornwall!
Therefore, matters of tax, land and property fall within the administrative norm.04 - the situation, at the creation/restoration, necessitated use of transparent references!
Therefore, matters of tax, land and property fall within the administrative norm.05 - With the knowledge that the land and property was, or about to be, annexed and united to the Duchy, how else could the items be referenced?
Therefore, matters of tax, land and property fall within the administrative norm.Thus we have an administrative norm which grossly misrepresents the status of the Duchy without being untrue - yet another English half-truth and significant factor in creating the Cornish Paradox! Where this gross misrepresentation occurs, is in its presenting Cornwall as a county in England (sic). Given the coincidence of size and the occasions where the Duchy has been dormant within the Crown, the administrative norm has also misrepresented the true territorial identity of the Cornish people. If we are talking about Cornwall we should say 'Cornwall', in the same way that if talking about Scotland, Wales or England, one should refer to Scotland, Wales or England. The coincidence of size in Cornwall's case, also make it right to make universal reference to 'the Duchy' and remove 'county' from the vocabulary completely!
| Are you lost? Go to Main Index and Home Page |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
