At any point throughout history there have existed those who evoke new thoughts and offer new sources of enlightenment or, at least, other ways of seeing things.   Invariably such people have challenged the commonly held perceptions of their time and, because of vested interests and ignorance, are persecuted by those who prefer to dwell within what I call the 'Santa Zone' of self-denial!

This is still as true today as at any other time in the past. This is particularly so when it comes down to a debate about our very unique Duchy of Cornwall.   At a superficial level this seems to present us with a true paradox of identity in that some see our territory as an administrative county, and in England, (de facto) whereas others identify with a Cornwall which is seen to proudly represent one of the indigenous peoples of Europe, and world-wide, and far from being an administrative county is in fact a Royal Dukedom which is constitutionally distinct from England (de jure).

Many people, and not least politicians, superficially refer to Cornwall as 'the county' and in recent times much greater use has been made in political and media circles of a generic phrase 'the shires'.   Even closer to home there is the obnoxious reference to Cornwall as a 'shire county' and they point to the existence of Establishment impositions such as 'a sheriff', 'administrative county status, or, the scant artefacts of 'shire-dom' as the foundations of their very shaky tower.   What indeed makes a county a 'shire' county?   Is use of 'shire' just another example of trying to make something out of an inadequate language in seeking to make 'county' seem less of a boring - or, in Cornwall's case, less demeaning - description than it is?

This page, therefore, searches for truly tangible evidence of 'Cornwall-shire' (sic) within a territory whose internal Cornish political culture says nay!   Needless to say, this aspect of repression over the perceptions of the Cornish people and how they relate to their territory is one of the mechanisms of genocide which may be exposed by solving the puzzle of the Cornish Paradox.   But first let us look at a simple example which represents, in my opinion, a microcosm of the Cornish Cultural Genocide being enacted against us and which, by comparison, may be applied to explain the greater picture of the Cornish Paradox.

As you read this, how would you pronounce the Cornish place-name 'Liskeard'?   There will be the correct Cornish pronunciation which places the emphasis on the descriptive portion 'keard' or the non-Cornish pronunciation which incorrectly places the emphasis on the first syllable 'Lis'.   This is a significant problem both with placenames and Cornish surnames because in ignorance of how the words are constructed or what they mean they will, over time, result in the coercive destruction of what I would consider as Cornish cultural property.   A more insidious variety of this phenomenon is where - because of ignorance of what the Cornish names actually means, the meaning of the name becomes changed.   A simple test may put the matter into some sort of context.   Now then, is Tideford pronounced Tiedford or Tiddyford?   Well it is the ford over the river Tiddy, but… it is also tidal!   As you read this, some will say 'of course it is T----ford' based upon your particular source of information.   Since the responses would split unevenly between both possibilities, but only one can be correct, we have a created paradox.   The historically correct answer is, of course, Tiddyford which invariably places quite a large number of people within the 'Santa Zone'.

What the created paradox implies is that some assumed credible authority (persons or documents) has initiated the misuse of Tideford=Tiedford and that this incorrect form has swamped the vernacular usage of Tideford=Tiddyford.   This could only have happened over a period of time and, in order to prevail, must have commanded the attention and propaganda of the 'opinion-creators'.   It is only by an examination of the available primary source material that we may determine the real truth (de jure) rather than an imposed coercive lie which is accepted as de facto.   Early references to the place-name, as recorded by Gover, show variants of the name which can only reaffirm that it takes it name from the name of the river, viz., Tudi, Tody,Tuddy,Tuddye becoming Tyddie in 1613.   The place itself being referred to as Todiford, Tuddeford, Thudeford, Todisford, Tuddyford becoming Tudyford in 1615.   The change of the vowel sound over time is acceptable because it does not - unlike the 'Tiedford' implication - change its original meaning (q.v. Flora - v - Furry).

There you have it in a nutshell!   A microcosm of the story of Cornwall!   A created paradox born out of an immaculate deception.   A deception of high-level lies from the top down and a tutored ignorance of Cornwall from the bottom up but a territory, nevertheless, which commands an enduring identity and a loyalty bound to history from those it chooses to embrace and those who choose to embrace it.   How do we, apart from our inner sense of identity and belonging, prove what is the greater Cornish Truth de jure?   Why, indeed, should it be even necessary to do so?

The function of identity and - where history or the will of the people supports it - nationality, has always been to relate to territory and this requires a committed political and cultural affinity with that territory.   If this were not to be true then there can be no valid application of the gentile adjective anywhere.   How could it ever be possible to describe what is meant by the epithet 'English' or 'Scottish' and others.   The problem is that people nowadays seem to want to examine in the most narrow clinical detail what is meant by such terms as 'Cornish' but it can only ever be definable in the general sense as 'of Cornwall(the nation)'.

To seek to dig deeper will cut across individuals' perceptions of themselves, create confusion over identity and, consequently, can only ever become a sterile debate and, has already been shown, will be used against us by the media.   'Cornish' is a historical non-racial description of the people of Cornwall and its meaning must never be allowed to be demeaned or become elitist.   The supplanting of a Cornish national consciousness with the concept of a tweedy English county patriotism is truly on a par with the unspeakable evils of English Imperialism and being 'of place' takes on an entirely different, and insidious, meaning for the future of the Cornish people.

A non-national epithet for a person from Cornwall could only be 'Cornwallian' in the same way as applies, for example, in Devonian (of Devonshire) or Padstonian (of Padstow) or similar equivalents.   If that should ever come about - God forbid! - then I think it appropriate that it should rightly be changed to 'Cornwallies' and the people of Cornwall should consciously refrain thenceforth from laughing at ethnic jokes.   Please! Please! Please!   Do not let us capitulate to those who have a distinct preference to refer to the 'people of Cornwall' as an opt-out euphemistic replacement for the 'Cornish people'.   Similarly, let us fight to prevent the English coercive use of 'Cornwall' in place of 'Cornish', particularly in the names of organisations.   Whilst it might avoid some short-term personality clashes it will destroy the epithet 'Cornish' for all time and make the Establishment's implementation of the 'Westcountry' mechanism of genocide infinitely easier to impose upon our obviously gullible minds.

This alternative phrase to denote 'of place' is literally just that and the above would become 'of Cornwall', 'of Devonshire', 'of Padstow' but this implies neither sense of time nor history.   If we look at a comparison between 'Kentish(man)' or '(man)of Kent' we see an example of where the simple phrase 'of place' has been introduced in order to distinguish between a former historical epithet and a more recent geographical realignment.   I have not acquainted myself with the definitive reasons for this but these epithets normally denote which side of the river Medway you live.   A superficial item eventually gleaned from a Kent website states-

"The River Medway flows through the county, inhabitants living to the east of the river are 'a man of Kent' and to the west 'Kentish man'…. "

The epithet 'Kentish' is often brought forward as a means of negativing the historical right for the national epithet 'Cornish' but in reality the existence of 'Kentish' is the exception which proves the gentile rule.   Kent derives its name from the tribal name of the Canti or Cantiaci who were the Celtic people of that area at the time of the Roman occupation of Britain.   The name persisted during the Anglo-Saxon period and became adopted by the Germanic invaders and we find that Kent, formed one of the original kingdoms within the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy.   Kentish may have been a true gentile adjective to describe the pre-English people of that geographical area but Kent became not only an integral part of the English state but would never have considered itself to be anything other than entirely English since the coming of Hengist and Horsa in the fifth century.   It would indeed be a legitimate epithet if historic Kent wished to be represented within any English form of devolved regional government based on the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy.   There is, at the time of writing, a movement called Kent Folc but historically Kent is not particularly well known for making such a case and its new geographical boundaries complicates matters somewhat - Kernow beware! - and the Heptarchy was relatively short-lived.

The epithet 'Cornish', on the other hand has a clearly recorded non-English 'gentes/provincia' history and identity and which is substantiated by a modern, spontaneous and transparent political culture.   Cornwall never formed a part of the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy and all constitutional treatment up until recent times, as have been referred to elsewhere, have either directly or indirectly recognised that historical fact.   Whilst Cornwall is generally misrepresented as being 'in England', it is only the 'English' - whoever they might be? - or those who aspire so to be - and the gullible? - who say so and it is the objective of The Cornish Paradox to give the reasons why!   It is unlikely that the concept of 'Kentish', or its contemporary equivalent, ever pervaded the minds of the Cantiaci.   Its use has probably only ever been administered by the conquering Germanic invaders upon themselves long after the historical event but originating only from the historical existence of 'the kingdom of Kent' and having no tangible link to a non-English identity.

The fall from grace of the kingdom of Kent - if I may say that? - into the heady status of English county is another thorny argument which has been used in an attempt to give credibility and legitimacy to the quite erroneous view that "Cornwall is merely an English county" (sic).   A brief look at the formation of the English counties is therefore necessary.   According to professor Sir Keith Feiling "A History of England" (1st Edition 1950) :

"By the end of Edgar's reign, the shire system had been extended from the south over all England, except for the distant and half-independent regions which were later to make Lancashire, Cumberland, Westmorland and Northumberland.   In Wessex this division had taken root, it seems, before Alfred's death ; some were old kingdoms like Kent, some like Berkshire the endowment of a royal prince, others a conquered land like Devon."

The particular references to both Kent and Devon suggest an interesting comparison in that the name for Devonshire derives from 'Dumnonia'.   This was, in fact, the Roman name for the Celtic territory of what eventually became referred to alternatively as West Wales or Cornwall but which ultimately became whittled down to the rump of the Celtic British province we know today west of the Tamar.   Devonshire was in no way coextensive with the territory described as Dumnonia and, in fact, had no existence until the name was formally adopted and there is a need for a more objective analysis as to why, in its modified form, it was adopted for that English county.   Both these English counties adapted old Romano-British territorial names for Kent and Devonshire respectively but Devonshire did not - as was the case of Kent - acquire a distinctive gentile adjective to describe its inhabitants.   There were, in fact, several centuries between these historical events and there is a world of difference between the developed status of Kent, an established kingdom, as the first appropriated territory by the Germanic invaders in the fifth century, and the eventual piecemeal encroachment into Cornu-British territory by Wessex.   Devonshire was, without doubt, entirely within the expanding boundaries of Wessex as 'misappropriated Cornish land', rather than the mind-boggling concept of 'a conquered land'.   This description can only be reserved for the final subjugation and segregation of Cornwall within a territory acknowledged by a contemporary English King as "this province of the Britons".

Whilst acknowledging the existence of English domination and the eventual subjugation of Cornwall it is not unreasonable to assume that there would be a rapid move to apply some commonality of forms and methods of government.   The question is - what form did this take in the case of Cornwall?   When, in fact, did Cornwall become - if it ever did! - "merely an English county" (sic)?   If we were looking for some clues from the good professor, it could be argued that all the definitions for the origins of the Wessex shires could be judged equally valid for the origins of a shire of Cornwall, but, since Alfred died in 899AD, Cornwall was subjugated in 936AD and was described in 944AD by Edmund, king of Wessex as "this province of the Britons" and, not forgetting much later references showing Cornwall to be distinct from England, we must look elsewhere for the beginnings of a Cornwall-shire as opposed to the superficial references which presumes it to be so.

By the time of Athelstan, Wessex was the only remaining Anglo-Saxon kingdom left having absorbed all the adjacent Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the south of what eventually was to become England as England moved towards unification.   One website on "The Anglo-Saxons" (September 1998) kindly prepared by Mark Furnival, in his section on "The Seven Kingdoms" explains:

"It was, though, the Kingdom of the West Saxons - Wessex - which was destined ultimately to unite the English under a single crown.   Wessex, originating in Hampshire and Wiltshire, expanded like Mercia at the expense of its neighbours.   At its greatest extent, Wessex incorporated the whole of England south of the Thames, except for Cornwall.   It was Wessex which was to give England its greatest kings, such as Alfred the Great, Edward the Elder and Athelstan, as well as its worst, Æthelred."

It is interesting to note that Mark, quite correctly, excepts Cornwall out of Wessex yet implies, incorrectly, that Cornwall is 'in England'.   Ruled and dominated by the English Crown?   Yes!   In England?   No!   A definite case of retrospective application of modern perceptions.

Back, however, to the Cornwall-shire search and professor Feiling's other comment regarding Edgar, who died in 975AD, as having extended the shire system to the rest of England with some exceptions in the north.

We could just ignore this as a matter of a simple fact which applies to England from which Cornwall is distinct, or, for the sake of argument only, pursue this point based upon a presumption of retrospective perception that Cornwall may, somehow, be construed as being 'in England'.   Here it would be only necessary to restate the constitutional fact advanced by the Officers of the Duchy of Cornwall, circa 1858, that as a dominion territory, Cornwall was not simply an administrative county for the purpose of civil administration but was a territorial possession - the Earldom of Cornwall! - distinct from the Crown, as discussed elsewhere, within which the office of sheriff was considered to be normally an integral part of the Earldom.

Whilst the form of administering civil government may have been applied, as if Cornwall were a county in the simple meaning of that word, its peculiar circumstances dictate that it was not.   The relative size of Cornwall is similar, but only coincidentally similar, to that of the English counties and without a strong Cornish leadership can only seek to endure the oppressive nature of external domination.   This coincidence of size suggests another avenue of consideration insofar as within a kingdom the civil government is carried out by subdividing the realm into counties each with the office of a sheriff.   It seems, therefore, that if Cornwall was significantly larger it to would also have been subdivided [see next paragraph] into 'shire' - or administrative - divisions and there would have been then no confusion over applying the correct status to the whole of Cornwall.   Cornwall is where local and national coincide and it is small-minded in the extreme to ignore and demean what is our right.

There are some other factors which also need to be born in mind in that Cornwall is a notable exception to the 'shire' rule when considering the adjacent plethora of shire-suffixed English counties.   Also the fact that within the Earldom of Cornwall there existed six divisions of land, now called hundreds, which in some mediaeval records are identified as 'Triggshire', 'Wivelshire', 'Poudershire', 'Pidershire', 'Penwith' and 'Kerrier'.   This leads me to present the only too obvious argument that Cornwall was a country in miniature with an administrative structure to match.   A history of the Cornish Constabulary written at the time of its submergence into another identity, in 1967, illustrates that peculiarly Cornwall had a parish constable whereas elsewhere this was at the higher administrative level of the hundred.

The Earldom, or Comitatus, of Cornwall when there was no Earl, and subsequently the Dukedom when there was no Duke, was held in trust "ut de honore in manu regis existente" - using the pre-Duchy definition of 'Comitatus' as a territorial possession - by the reigning monarch and all accounts answered to the Crown by the sheriff.   It is my contention that the existence of the office of 'a sheriff' represents an office which was based more on what the person did as a job description, when compared to contemporary duties outside of the Earldom, which together with such long periods when this territorial possession was held by the Crown - despite the peculiar circumstances which surrounds that particular office within Cornwall - which has brought about the popular misconception that Cornwall was/is an English shire-county and, even worse, in England!

To this search for the source of misinformation must be added the various disputed rights and acts of fragmentation, or implied severance, from the Earldom during the periods when there have been limited grants of certain possessions of the Earldom to individuals and which might have served to highlight an artificial difference between the Comitatus (presided over by the Lord) and the Vicecomitatus (presided over by the Sheriff but as an officer of the Lord).   The Lord when there was no Earl could only be the King.   It is clear that the creation of the Duchy sought to bring back together [within the first Charter] all things which might be misconstrued as a severance etc. and that this included, principally, the vicecomitatus and the right 'according to custom' of appointing the Sheriff.   When the first Duke of Cornwall died the Officers of the Duchy, in 1856, had this observation to make:

"On the death of the Black Prince on the 8th June 50th, Edward III. 1376, the King granted the Shrievalty of the County of Cornwall, which said County (the writ proceeds to state), "by the death of our most dear eldest son Edward, late Prince of Wales, deceased, has come into our hands".   There can scarcely be any more conclusive proof of what the Prince had taken from the King as parcel of his Duchy than what upon his death reverted to the King, not as his heir, for his son Richard was his heir, but according to the special limitations of the Charter.

This we find from the document above quoted to have been not only the seventeen manors and other things specifically named in the Duchy Charter, but the entire "Comitatus Cornubiæ"   The precision of language in this expression is remarkable, for it will be observed that it was not the "Ducatus" properly so called in the hands of a Duke, but actually the comitatus which reverted to the Crown on the death of the Duke, the Ducatus having in strictness under the special provisions of the Charter no existence under that name except when there is an heir apparent of the Crown being the eldest son of the reigning Sovereign."

The previous paragraph refers to "the special provisions of the Charter" and what must not be forgotten is that this apparent change from Ducatus (in the hands of the Dukes) to Comitatus (in the hands of the Crown) neither means, nor implies, a lessening of the status of the Cornish territorial possession which was a grant 'forever'.   In fact, it reinforces the constitutional right to refer to Cornwall, now in the hands of the Duke, as the Duchy - as was recommended by the Royal Commission on the Constitution in 1973!

It is conceivable that the creation of administrative county councils in 1888 might be construed as conferring a lesser status upon Cornwall and it is clear that the English Establishment - and the gullible! - had long considered this already to be a fact.   There is, however, a reference elsewhere drawing our attention to the fact that this process was implemented later in Cornwall than in England.   The reasons for this need to brought out into the open within any moratorium on Cornwall but which will no doubt be shown to represent some unstated accommodation of the Duchy.

Given the ongoing incompetence with regard to understanding the Cornish Duchy, we should be seeking some form of reconciliation and an investigation into the legality of the various enabling Acts of Parliament which may be shown to negatively affect the integrity of the Duchy.   Whilst acknowledging the right of Dukes of Cornwall to use Parliament which it shares with the Crown, the charters impose constraints upon both predatory Monarchs (and Parliament) and inadequate Dukes.   Whatever this turns up, the integrity of the Duchy and, integral to that, its civil administration, is as specified within the First Duchy Charter of the 17th March 1337:

"...and all other things above said, to remain to the same for ever, So that from the same Duchy they may at no time be in anywise separated, nor be, in any manner whatsoever, given or granted by us or our heirs to any other or any others than to the Dukes of the said place" .

It is perfectly clear that when the Earldom (or Comitatus) was complete, that there was no need to refer to the individual parcels which made up the Earldom - and neither were they - and the office of sheriff would have passed without specific mention within a grant of "...the whole Earldom of Cornwall".   For a number of reasons (including failed disputed rights by the Crown) some parcels of the Possession were occasionally granted separately and which might have been misconstrued as a severance from the Possession.   Such a misconception was clearly laid to rest when the Earldom of Cornwall was augmented to a Duchy and the enumeration - and subsequent charters - confirmed this to be what had previously been regarded as the 'whole Earldom of Cornwall'.

The County Councils Act of 1888 cannot legally sever the Sheriffdom, Vicecomitatus, Shrievalty - call it what you will! - from the Duchy nor imply a lesser status for the territory of Cornwall.   There can never ever be a Cornwall-shire unless it is made to be the focus of a deliberate policy of Cultural Genocide!   As long as the status of Cornwall is anomalous so will be the status of her people.   It is urgently necessary, therefore, that the Cornish people are seen to be standing up and being counted in the fight for Cornwall as being their 'province of the Britons'!

Are you lost?   Go to Main Index and Home Page