Tyr-Gwyr-Gweryn

MERELY A COUNTY ?

For those interested in the historic identity of Cornwall and the ramifications that this has for the people who call themselves the 'Cornish', it is inconceivable and demeaning to note that the commonly perceived status of Cornwall is that of an English administrative county. This, not only denies the Cornish people their place in history, but also wilfully imposes the quite erroneous and repugnant concept that the Cornish must, somehow, be English?

Whilst we are coerced into working within an environment which is, de facto, a territory governed within, and by, the British State [Britain is NOT a nation!] (see note¹) as an administrative county of England [Cornwall is NOT an English county!] (see note²), it must be a matter - surely? - of personal pride that we resolve to defend our historic identity against the ravages of the Imperial State and its puppets?

Note¹ - Select link button to view correspondence re 'A British Nation?'. Note² - Select link button to view 'In Search of Cornwall-shire'?
Please use Back/Previous facility to return to this location.

A perfectly good cultural event within Cornwall every Spring was the 'Cornwall Music Festival' - as proven by the wording on the older Cups and Shields. For some, inescapable purpose, this has recently been renamed - within the past decade? - as the 'County Music Festival'. Such a decision beggars belief as to what people construe, or perceive, as identity! At least a 'Cornwall' - better still 'Cornish'! - music festival says something about one's desire to identify with territory, whereas a 'County' music festival is non-identifying, demeaning, dismissive and, literally, could be anywhere! Can you imagine the parallel implications of renaming the Camborne Music Festival to Town Music Festival or, similarly, the St Endellion Music Festival being renamed the Village Music Festival. Please, will someone protect us against, and from, these anonymous people?

Even at this distance it is possible to hear the negativity and prejudice which heralds any promotion of the word 'Cornish' - particularly where this is advocated within the names of organisations within the Duchy. This can range from immigrant rejection with the comment "I am not Cornish so it would not apply to me!" to the mistaken belief that to use the word Cornish, rather than Cornwall [qv 'Cornwall Tourist Board', 'Cornwall Family History Society' and 'Cornwall Heritage Trust'] somehow has a less inclusive objective. Such narrow perceptions do not seem to be similarly applied to the externally imposed 'English' gentile adjective!

What it does is to perpetuate the use of external language to misrepresent the Cornish people and all things which are 'of Cornwall' and for which there is the perfectly valid, perfectly clear, gentile adjective of 'Cornish' which we must insist on using for all things 'of Cornwall' in a totally inclusive context otherwise we are all denying ourselves a Cornish future. For the external view to prevail it must be shown that other gentile adjectives, qv., English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish, are similarly mistreated! There is a process of word abuse within the Duchy - media driven! - which is eroding both the concept of 'Cornish' and 'Cornwall'. This is being allowed to happen because it is we, the Cornish, who let them!
The Duchy of Cornwall page within this site draws attention to the repressed nature of the Cornish constitution within the British State and it is, perhaps, worth reviewing how the phrase "County of Cornwall" was considered by the Officers of the Duchy in the case of arbitration there referred to:

"To prevent a misconception which is likely to arise from the description of this possession as 'The County of Cornwall', it will be necessary accurately to define what is meant by this expression ; the division of the kingdom into counties by Alfred was for the purposes of civil government and administration of justice. A county simply as such was unconnected with the tenure of land as established in this country after the Norman Conquest. To say that lands were holden as of a county taken simply as above, would therefore be an unmeaning expression. All lands in England were presumed to be held originally of the king in capite as of his crown, or in other words, the Realm of England was a great seignory in the Crown, as of which lands were holden ; and Madox states that in this there were many subordinate seignories - to wit, honors and baronies (Mad. Exch. vol.1. p.107), and lands were held of the chief Lords of these honors or baronies in capite as of their honors or baronies, in the same way that lands were held in capite of the King 'ut de corona'. When, therefore, we find lands mentioned as being held as of a county 'ut de comitatu', it follows that the word county is not used in its simple sense, meaning a division of the kingdom for the purposes of civil government etc., but as denoting also an honor or land barony, to which the tenure of land was incident, and if such an honor became vested in the Crown, the lands would be held in capite of the Crown but still 'ut de honore in manu regis existente'...
...We find the County of Cornwall very frequently mentioned in this way...
...The Grants, therefore, of the Comitatus Cornubić to the Earls of Cornwall must be taken to be not of the County of Cornwall simply as a division of the kingdom, made for the purposes of civil government, etc., which is the sense in which, in Grants of the Comitatus ordinarily made to Sheriffs, the word is to be understood, but as a Territorial Grant, comprising a great honor or land barony of or to which lands situate in other Counties might be parcel or appertain...
...It appears also from numerous documents, that the possession of this honor called the County of Cornwall, confirmed upon its possessor the lordship of the territory from which the honor derived its name, which territory was called 'Terra de Cornubia' and comprised, as against the Crown, the territorial ownership of the County generally ; that is to say, of the whole County, with the exception of some particular estates, such as Terra Regis, etc."

I feel that it is prudent here to repeat a quote contained within the page on the Duchy of Cornwall:

The original Act, creating the Duchy, is no longer in existence but has been referred to extensively in later Acts of Parliament. The following extract, from these references, is very significant:

"...that the County of Cornwall should always remain as a Duchy to the eldest sons of the Kings of England... without being given elsewhere".

The Officers of the Duchy reinforced this point with the following item -

"Now in a Charter granted to the first Duke by the King who created the Duchy, we find part of the preamble as follows :-

"Considerantes itaque qualiter Comitatus Cornubiæ jam Ducatus Cornubiæ nuncupatus magnam a jam diu suorum jurium sustinuit sectionem et desiderantes ipsum Ducatum redintegrare et ejus jura recolligere sic dispersa."

There are two conclusions to be drawn from these words, strongly confirmatory of what has been previously stated ; first, that the Comitatus Cornubiæ had a different meaning from the expression County of Cornwall, taken as a division of the kingdom for the purposes of civil government ; the latter portion of the sentence quoted, as well as the subject-matter of the Grant, is entirely inconsistent with such a construction, but entirely consistent with the view that the comitatus was a great Honor or Lordship, from which properties and rights (not in Cornwall) previously appertaining to it had been severed. And, secondly, which is the main point in this part of the case, that the Ducatus Cornubiæ entirely corresponded with what had been the Comitatus Cornubiæ in every respect except in name."

The misrepresentative use of the term 'county' derives from the fact that when there is no Duke of Cornwall, the possession is held, in trust, by the reigning monarch until the precise circumstances of the grant are met, namely, the existence of the eldest son, heir to the throne, of the reigning monarch. Whilst there is no Duke there is no Duchy and the territory is held as the 'Comitatus' the latin for county whether this is a County presided over by an Earl, or an administrative county presided over by the sheriff. In the case of Cornwall, the sheriff is the officer of the earls and dukes - not the king! This is conveyed very clearly upon the death of the first Duke of Cornwall when it is recorded:

In the committal of the office of Sheriff, on the death of the Black Prince, it is stated that the "County" had by the death of the Duke come to the King's hands. That which was a "Duchy" being then again called a "County," there being then no Duke.

If it is true to say that Cornwall reverts to a 'County' - but with the full knowledge that we are talking about a territorial possession and not administrative county, when there is no duke, then it must be equally true to say that when there is a duke that it is legally correct to refer to Cornwall as The Duchy. This is immediately at odds with the de facto status of Cornwall=administrative county.

Since the sheriff of Cornwall is the officer of the duke and not that of the Crown - or Parliament! - we need to explore when the transition of the sheriff's duties of tax collections, on behalf of the duke, became the executive responsibility of Parliament as an agency of the Crown. There are a number of ways that this obvious constitutional anomaly could be researched but all involving an inordinate amount of valuable time and expense. The obvious thing to do, of course, was to go directly to the institution involved, viz., The Duchy of Cornwall. I drafted and sent the following letter which I felt sure would quickly resolve the difficulties:

22ans mys Est 1997		TGG9708B/EJP
Dear Sir, I am currently writing a paper on the Duchy of Cornwall and its relationship to the territory of Cornwall. I have some difficulty in determining two specific points and would please request some help and guidance from yourself as the archivist of the Duchy of Cornwall. The first point is regarding the sheriff as the officer of the Duke and his function of collecting the various revenues from within the Duchy and returning these to the Chancellor of the Duchy. Such revenues are now returned to the various agencies of Her Majesty's Government and I wish to determine when and how this transition took place. My questions on this point are, therefore:
a	At what point did the sheriff of the Duke cease to collect revenues from the Duchy institutions and people?
b	What mechanisms were used to transfer this right from the Duchy to the Crown (or Parliament)?
c	Why were these prerogative rights transferred to the Crown (or Parliament)?
d	Which Acts of Parliament relate specifically to this first point?
My second point is a more sensitive one but necessary nevertheless and relates to the constitutional position of Cornwall relative to England. It is clear from mediaeval documents that Cornwall and England were distinct entities and, in fact, this is confirmed by one of the first charters of the first Duke of Cornwall and, undoubtedly, by others. This is still the Cornish perception but no longer the official one. My questions to you, therefore, on this point are:
e	At what point did this particular distinction of Cornwall's integrity cease to exist?
f	Why did this particular distinction of Cornwall cease to exist if enshrined within the creation of the Duchy?
g	What mechanisms where used to remove this distinction?
h	Which Acts of Parliament relate specifically to this second point?
I have attempted to pursue these point by other means but which are extremely protracted and no guarantee of obtaining the information required. Since the Duchy of Cornwall is the focal point, I have made the assumption that these matters are simply a matter of record. I apologise if this request causes you any inconvenience but look forward to your reply.
		Lowena dhys
to:
The Secretary and Keeper of Records,
The Duchy of Cornwall,		E J Pengelly
10, Buckingham Gate,
London SW1E 6LA
England GB.

The following typescript of the response from Duchy Archivist shows this response to be ....... well, shall I just say.......Pathetic and derisory!

Duchy Letterhead [not copied]
		27th August 1997
Dear Mr Pengelly,
Thank you for your letter of 22ans mys Est. The questions which you ask are most interesting. Unfortunately, however, as you say, the research required to answer them would be extremely protracted and with no guarantee of obtaining the information. Under the circumstances, I regret that pressure of other work does not permit us to pursue them. Nevertheless, I will wish you success in your quest. Yours sincerely, Elisabeth A. Stuart Archivist and Records Manager

An ironical point to this predictable and superficial reply was the fact that the watermark of the paper upon which the reply was written bore the representation of a medieval knight on horseback with the word 'CONQUEROR' underneath.

Anyone reading this and who may have any points to make which will throw some light on the questions posed, please 'have your say' by emailing me with any reference information. There must be a point where the constitutional rights of the Duchy have been seriously compromised. Can we make the web work for the Cornish?

The creation of administrative County Councils in 1888 has had the most profound effect upon the ordinary, grass-root, Cornish person's perception of themselves. All 'county structures' of the time had the word 'County' engraved in granite bosses or lintels. Thereby ensuring that the natives were, daily, confronted with this, politically anti-Cornish, de facto imposed English status.

The following is a response to Fulub le Breton, posted by TGG to the Cornwall24 forum on "What is Cornwall" on 29th August 2005

Hi Fulub,
Congratulations on getting ‘something’ out of the Duchy – even if it only restates the official propaganda. The interesting aspect of this reply from 'them' is that it treads new ground by offering some opinion over the 'creation'. But beware the insidious English half-truth which superficially seems credible but used, invariably, to hide a deeper truth. The following are some of the thoughts that just popped into the head:

Duchy Quote 1) - "Cornwall is a county of England. "

As a dominion territory of the English Crown, in 1337, the ambiguity between of England (the Realm) and of England (the Country) is a half-truth which demands definition whenever the term ‘England’ is used. A similar situation exists today between the misuse, and contrived synonymity, of England and Britain. Likewise, references to the Tamar Border as a county boundary with Devonshire rather than a national border with England!

Whilst a dominion territory of England (Realm), Cornwall is not, and never has been, of England (Country). Therefore, if the Duchy comment is meant to be of England (Realm), then surely this would have been superceded, by the progression to the current Realm of the United Kingdom, to be a county of Britain (or United Kingdom)?

150 years ago, the Duchy proved that it was the County (Earldom/Comitatus) of Cornwall that had been erected into a Duchy and showed that it was distinct from the Crown and England. Within this creation we find that the civil government of Cornwall (vicecomitatus) was annexed forever to the Duchy. Surely, therefore, this civil government is clearly defined de jure as being in, and of, the Duchy of Cornwall – not England!

Duchy Quote 2) - "The Duchy and the County are not one and the same. many Duchy lands are outside Cornwall. "

We are faced once again with another insidious English half-truth. What, in fact, is meant here by “the County”? If we think in terms of territory, then the comment above is completely and mischievously incorrect. It was the Earldom (County) of Corwall which was to become the Dukedom. If, on the other hand, we construe it to be (as, I am sure, intended?) the civil administration, then we see from my above comment that this – like the estates – forms only a part of the whole and the mischievous reference to “Duchy lands” is a red-herring to direct you away from the truth.

Duchy Quote 3) - "The Duchy does have a more general relationship to the county ie it appoints the Sherif of Cornwall and has the right of advowson (presentation of incumbents). "

This wilfully, even criminally, understates the truth and implies that the Duchy is some distant entity – on Mars, perhaps? - whereas in truth the Duchy is specifically Cornwall as mentioned above. For example, all revenue from Cornwall, when an Earl or Duke was in existence, ceased to be answered to the Crown. The form of political chicanery that has changed that status has yet to be exposed!

Duchy Quote 4) - "The Duchy was probably founded for military reasons. At a time of increasing hostility with the French relm, Edward III created the Duchy inorder to protect a remote part of the English relm. Foundation charter 'lands subjet to our dominion may be more securely and fitly defended against the attacks of our enemies and adversaries'. "

The whole concept of Royal Patronage in the 14th century was geared towards rewarding loyalty and ensuring ongoing support in that bloody period of the English Empire. It was, therefore, not “probably” but a given. The quote offered to support this supposition has an even greater significance, however, in that it reflects the perceived perception of Cornwall at that time. This contrived mystery of ‘why Cornwall’ was created a Dukedom becomes clear by intelligent reading of the associated documents of creation and investiture. With, of course, less of a closed mind on the facts of Cornish history.

Duchy Quote 5) - "Edward III also created the Duchy in recognition of the fact that Cornwall was one of the 'remarkable places of our Kingdom'. "

We are left agog at what this quote refers to and from whence it came! Is it, perhaps, an attempt to euphemise a following comment in the charter preamble, referred to above, which states: “desiring that places of note of the same kingdom should be adorned with their pristine honors”. Consider this statement, also, within the context of the the Duchy as being, allegedly, only the private estates (sic)

I can only say: find the truth at www.kernowtgg.co.uk

TGG

Are you lost? Go to Main Index and Home Page