Ask a cross-section of people what they understand by the phrase..... "Duchy of Cornwall"
Their responses will range from:-			The Truth:-
Not the same as 'the county'				Not True!    [Comitatus = County] now Ducatus!
Nothing to do with the territory of Cornwall				Not True!  'Vice-Comitatus' First Item in Enumeration!
A Royal Title				Yes!   With Royal Prerogative & Seignorial Rights
A 'landed estate'				More!  A Distinct non-English Territorial Possession!
Just a romantic term for Cornwall				Much, Much, Much More Than That!
The true constitutional status of Cornwall				Politically Repressed - But True!

There is an obvious contradiction between what is officially presented, and publicly perceived, as "the Duchy of Cornwall" and what the Officers of the Duchy of Cornwall submitted as conclusive evidence to support the Duke's right to the ownership of the foreshore, around Cornwall, between high and low water mark back in 1856-57.   This was in a case of private arbitration between the Crown and the Duchy where the Duchy successfully showed title to 'the soil of Cornwall'.

Some of these 'official' views are given in the 650th Anniversary publication   "The Duchy of Cornwall"(1987) where we see such incredible statements as : "To confuse matters even more, the Duke owns more land outside Cornwall than he owns in the county.   His Duchy is not the county and the county is not the Duchy....... the largest part of the Duchy that the visitor is ever likely to see is the beach upon which he disports himself.   The Duchy owns less than three per cent of Cornish land, only twelve per cent of its total land holding." [Crispin Gill, Editor, Introduction p.14] and : " Many people confuse the Duchy with county, but the two had, and have, different identities; only about seventeen per cent of the land surface of the county has ever belonged to the Duchy." [Graham Haslam, Archivist 1987 Chapter 1, p.24] who also says on page 21 : " On a spring day in 1337 Edward III created the first English duchy.   It was accomplished with all the solemnity and dignity which could be mustered;   the King proclaimed the charter before the nobility and commonality assembled in open Parliament making his son and heir, Edward of Woodstock, Duke of Cornwall.   The origins of the Duchy are not, as are so many other important English institutions, obscured by the mists of time.   It did not grow, develop or evolve from modest arcane features.   On 16th March 1337 it did not exist;   on 17th March it did."

The Royal Duchy of Cornwall did evolve, in fact, by augmenting the existing Cornish Earldom and this was at a date prior to the 16th March 1337.   The First Duchy Charter, inappropriately called 'the Charter of Creation', dated 17th March 1337, does, in fact, refer to the Duchy as having already been created - as does a Patent creating the new Earl of Salisbury dated 16th March 1337 - and even states when : "..being in our present Parliament, convened at Westminster, on Monday next after the feast of St. Matthias the Apostle last past, ...." The Officers of the Duchy, during the arbitration over the foreshore, estimated this to be: "The particular time of this investiture, that is to say, that it preceded the 1st Duchy Charter, and was on some day between the 24th of February, the Feast of St. Mathias, and the 16th of March, is demonstrated by the patent of creation of the Earl of Salisbury, who, with others, was at that time created Earl in honour of the Prince, as stated by Lord Coke." The original Act of creation 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 First Charter was only intended as an enumeration as to what comprised the Duchy in terms of possessions and rights for the reason it states: ".. lest hereafter in any wise it should be turned into doubt, what or how much the same Duke, .... ought to have in the name of the Duchy aforesaid, we have caused all things in kind, which we will to pertain to the same Duchy, to be inserted in this our charter...." The enumeration was deemed to be necessary because some earlier grants of certain rights and possessions away from the whole could be construed as a severance from the former Earldom and thus the simple phrase of : "Earldom now a Duchy" was not considered sufficient in itself to prevent the existence of any 'doubt'.   Hence the purpose of the enumeration was to reaffirm and bring all things back together again under the honor of the Duchy. It should be noted that the first item to be enumerated in the first Duchy Charter was, in fact, the "vicecomitatus" of Cornwall "with the appurtenances" and the right, according to custom, of appointing the Sheriff of Cornwall.   This can only be construed as confirming the grant of both the territory and Government of Cornwall to the Duke.   In both the Duchy and the former Earldom the Sheriff was the officer of the Earl or Duke and not the officer of the King as is the case elsewhere.   The next enumerations identified the rights, revenues and possessions within Cornwall followed by those things which were located outside Cornwall and yet still part of this territorial honor. All things enumerated were inextricably linked to the honor known as the Duchy of Cornwall with the words: "...we do by this our present charter, for us and our heirs, annex and unite to the aforesaid Duchy, to remain to the same for ever, So that from the same Duchy they may at no time be in anywise separated..." The reason for this limiting clause was in order to protect the Duchy from future predatory monarchs.   How about predatory parliaments? There are those who have argued that because items 'were enumerated' that only those items specifically mentioned actually passed to the Dukes.   This was more than adequately shown, by the Officers of the Duchy not to be the case!   The Duchy Rights to the Foreshore being a clear example of the fallacy of such a superficial view and one which - together with the first item enumerated - is also immediately at odds with the bizarre views expressed in 'the anniversary' publication regarding how much land was ever a part of the Duchy!   How can the British (alias English) Government, and others, say that the Duchy is only a landed estate and has nothing to do with what they, and their puppets, ignominiously refer to as 'the county'?   Perhaps the Duchy, and the Crown, Establishments could be invited to make a public statement about this and other matters within this site?

The 2nd and 3rd Duchy Charters had the effect of transferring away from the Crown all Crown rights and fees in Cornwall which, for what ever reason, had not been parcel of the former Earldom, except those classified under Royal Jurisdiction (treason, ecclesiastical patronage etc.), and which clearly illustrates the full extent, and intent, of the Honor known as 'The Duchy of Cornwall'.   The Officers of the Duchy, in 1856, had no hesitation in stating that the Duke was   "quasi-sovereign within his Duchy".   A Duchy which they so adequately revealed was the whole territory of Cornwall.   Contrary to the official propaganda, and high level lies from those who still dominate us, the Duchy is 'Cornwall' as shown and not merely the private estates of the Duke.

The reasons for the creation of the Honor of Duchy of Cornwall were given, inter alia, as: "the restoration of old ones", viz. the Honor (of Cornwall) "over which a while ago Dukes for a long time successively presided as chief rulers" ..... and, "desiring that places of note of the same kingdom should be adorned with their pristine honors". Another reason given being that "... lands subjected to our dominion, may be more securely and fitly defended against the attempts of enemies and adversaries......" It must be noted that the king was not referring to the time when Cornwall had its most powerful Earls, Richard and Edmund, but referred to the time prior to the subjugation of Cornwall by Athelstan. The Officers of the Duchy were able to bring to the arguments many extant documents which clearly indicate that the focus of the grant was not merely a collection of estates but was a territorial grant as is obvious from the following extract from their evidence: "About 60 years after the creation of the Duchy, we find in the Charter of 1st Henry IV. to Prince Henry, the eldest Son of that King, as follows : "We have made and created Henry our most dear first-begotten Son, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Earl of Chester, and have given and granted, and by our Charter have confirmed to him the said Principality, Duchy, and Earldom, that he may preside there, and by presiding, may direct and defend the said parts.   We have invested him with the said Principality, Duchy, and Earldom, per sertum in capite et annulum in digito aureum ac virgam auream juxta morem."

A further point of constitutional interest and importance, already mentioned under 'Cornish Milestones' is the legal fact that Cornwall was considered as distinct from England and the Crown.  It is sad indeed that a Cornish historical perspective is wilfully denied by Anglocentric retrospective superficiality.  Likewise, to call the creation of the Duchy of Cornwall an "English institution" based, as it was, on contemporary continental lines, or alternatively to reflect Cornwall's status prior to subjugation, is arrogant and dismissive. The Duke of Cornwall within his Duchy was a vassal of the English king.   This corresponded with the period when Norman kings of England - as Dukes of Aquitaine - were vassals of the king of France.  This did not imply that Aquitaine was anything other than Aquitaine.   Are we to assume, also, that the Principality of Wales is an "English institution".   It is an overwhelming fact of history that Cornwall, as a non-English 'British Province', whether as the Earldom of Cornwall or the Dukedom of Cornwall, never merged in the Crown in the absence of an Earl or Duke but was, and is, held 'ut de honor' [Comitatus or Ducatus] 'in manu regis existente'.

Another point worthy of mention and discussion - and there are many! - is the statement, in the aforesaid 'anniversary' publication, that: " Richard's son, Edmund,succeeded to the Earldom in 1272, but he died eight years later and the estates according to law reverted to the Crown.." [Graham Haslam, Archivist 1987 Chapter 1, p.23]. This is incorrect on three important points! 1 - Edmund actually died in the 28th year of the reign of Edward the First (1272 - 1307) - "on the morrow of St Michael, in the 28th year ending".   This makes Edmund's death circa AD 1300 and, in truth, twenty eight years as Earl of Cornwall. 2 - it was the 'Earldom of Cornwall' - NOT "the estates" - which passed to Edward the First. 3 - that whilst the territorial possession did pass to the King "according to law" this should not be construed as simply "reverted to the Crown" like some homeless escheat.   It passed to the King as a true inheritance because the King was Edmund's next heir (his cousin) - a line of succession which prevailed up to the creation of the Duchy.   The whole of the archivist's statement gives a clear indication of the subjectivity and questionable treatment given to the subject!

The following extracts from 'the Arbitration' show the preamble to, and the conclusions drawn from, an analysis of the Duchy Charters and other relevant material by the Officers of the Duchy of Cornwall as part of their Preliminary Statement. "But the full and real effect of the Duchy Charters themselves will be more satisfactorily and conclusively shown by considering the construction put upon them in early times, not only in grants and legal proceedings in which they are recited or noticed, but also by the Courts of Judicature and the Legislature of the Country." The analysis proceeds...... "In conclusion, it is submitted that the facts and authorities before referred to are sufficient to establish,- 1st. That Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest, and was subsequently treated in many respects, as distinct from England. 2nd. That it was held by the Earls of Cornwall with the rights and prerogatives of a County Palatine, as far as regarded the Seignory or territorial dominion. 3rd. 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 greater extent than had been enjoyed by the Earls. 4th. That when the Earldom was augmented into a Duchy, the circumstances attending its creation, as well as the language of the Duchy Charter, not only support and confirm the natural presumption, that the new and higher title was to be accompanied with at least as great dignity, power, and prerogative as the Earls had enjoyed, but also afford evidence that the Duchy was to be invested with still more extensive rights and privileges. And lastly. That 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. Duchy of Cornwall, Somerset House, May, 1855." As these extracts are taken from the 'Preliminary Statement' of the Duchy - an arbitration that spanned some three years! - the following extract from the Duchy should serve to show that subsequent argument strengthened, rather than weakened, the claim on behalf of the Dukes of Cornwall. "Since this subject was under the consideration of the Law Officers and Counsel of the Duchy in the spring of last year, further searches have been made amongst the ancient records of the Country, which have resulted in the production of some additional evidence, which seems materially to support the conclusions previously arrived at, and has enabled the Duchy Officers to present the Case of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cornwall in a more precise and definite form than was done in the Preliminary Statement prepared in the spring of 1855. Duchy of Cornwall, Somerset House, 12th February, 1857."

In a spate of letters to the Editor of the West Briton newspaper, September 2000, to which reference was made to this particular case of Arbitration, there was a letter from a particular gentleman whose quality of life seems to be totally dependent upon trivialising the Cornish Debate.   He is the pioneer of fallacious argument and ludicrous statement and offers nothing but the opportunity to maintain an ongoing dialogue.   On this occasion he makes the comment: "The actual judgement as to the precise grounds of the Duchy's success" namely, in the arbitration over foreshore rights - "is never quoted." and poses the mischievous question: "I wonder why?" My offer to be allowed to enlighten him by quoting from the actual award of Sir John Patteson's arbitration on 10th June 1857 was not printed but is included here for the benefit of others: "...I have carefully considered all the Statutes, Charters, documents and cases which have been produced or referred to by the Counsel for the Crown and for the Duchy ; and also all the arguments which they have adduced...  ...I am of the opinion and so decide that as between the Crown and the Duke of Cornwall the right to the Minerals between High and Low Water marks has passed to and is vested in the Duke of Cornwall as part of the Soil and territorial possessions of the Duchy... " The lucrative nature of the ownership of the property had caused the Crown to make a predatory claim of prima facie right of ownership of the property.   The main thrust of the Duchy argument was - and I quote : "...It is contended, on the part of the Duchy, that this general prima facie right of the Crown has not application, as against the Duke of Cornwall, within his Duchy or County of Cornwall, and, consequently, not to the particular property forming the subject of the present question..."

The Duke of Cornwall in his Foreword to the 650th Anniversary publication "The Duchy of Cornwall (1987)" states that "The Duchy is above all else a landed estate and will continue to be so".   In my opinion the Rights of the Cornish to be seen to be Cornish - not English! - are implicit in the creation of the institution which gives him his title and it is a sad day indeed, for democracy, when a future king shows such little respect for the Rights of his subjects.   The constitutional chicanery which has hidden from view the true status of the Duchy of Cornwall has also wilfully removed the institution which enshrines our Cornish Rights, without affording any form of compensatory political accommodation. This is a situation which cannot be allowed to continue and some measure of redress and accountability must be demanded.

Another independent glimpse of the Duchy as it 'do belong to be' is given to us by Richard Pearse within an essay on "The Ancient Duchy of Cornwall" contained within his book "The Land beside the Celtic Sea - Aspects of Cornwall's Past" (1983) [ISBN 0 907566 48 0 or 0 907566 49 9].  The observation is concerning the establishment of the Prince's Council in 1343 and is as follows - my square brackets: "In 1343 the council quickly became a centralised system of government on similar lines to the King's Council.   It welded the widely spread lands into a closely-knit whole.   It was staffed by civil servants of high rank who were often trained in and drafted from the King's Exchequer and Chancery, the highest departments of state.   The functions of the prince's council were advisory and to a lesser extent legislative and executive.   Its ordinances had the effect of law within its territories. The council was flexible, and adapted itself to rule in the name of the prince the three distinct, separate and virtually independent territories: the earldom of Chester, the duchy of Cornwall and the principality of Wales, and eventually the fourth - the principality of Aquitaine.   Each was governed as a separate entity according to its ancient traditions and customs, each under the supervision and control of experienced civil servants.   Prince Edward thus became the direct ruler of large parts of England [sic], Wales and France.   His territories constituted individual states within the state. ...This measure of autonomy has never been as great as it was during the first duke's lifetime.   It has disappeared, but a desire for a limited measure of autonomy has persisted ever since, backed by a strong tradition of an ancient Celtic cultural background.   This cultural background has tended to isolate Cornwall from the rest of England[sic].   Yet there has been no isolation from the outside world."

Another aspect worthy of further consideration, given the dubious nature of the Crown's chicanery over Duchy Rights, is a claim made by the Duchy at the end of the 18th-century to appoint an Admiral for Cornwall.  The Crown offered 'an opinion' on the claim but, for some reason, the matter was not pursued further by the Duchy nor developed within the above arbitration because "...the fact can have little or no bearing upon the present question.". The relevance here is that the Duchy felt that they had a claim of right over the seas around Cornwall but not, presumeably, worth the effort of proving it.

Considering that there was a principal focus during the 19th Century to diminish the integrity and impact of the Duchy of Cornwall, it does not require much of an imagination to appreciate that the last thing that the Crown, or Paliament, wanted was an in-depth legal debate into what comprised the honor known as the Duchy of Cornwall.   It is my opinion that the case of arbitration, referred to above, was contrived by the Crown in order to ensure a compromise which whilst giving - because it was known to be incontestable! - the award between high and low water marks to the Duchy, awarded the most beneficial portion - that of mining beyond the low water mark - to the Crown.   Had the whole matter been decided simply upon 'legal ownership' then it is most probable that both properties would have been found in favour of the Dukes of Cornwall in right of the Duchy.   The value, however, to the Cornish people was in the form and depth of the Duchy argument. Given that the 'official' view of the Duchy of Cornwall seems to be built upon rather dubious foundations and that this can be shown to have consequences which are sinister and repugnant to the rights of the Cornish people within their own territory, then there is an urgent need for an external agency to intercede on behalf of the Cornish people! With the inexorable tendency towards a form of British Republican State, it is imperative, therefore, that the real truth about the marginalisation - to use a euphemism! - of the Cornish people is subjected to the deepest possible academic and judicial analysis before Cornish Rights are irrevocably swept aside by 'English' political and constitutional change.   It is indeed ironic that the so-called 'Mother of Parliaments' should have learnt the art of democratic debate through the existence of the Duchy of Cornwall!!       The Duchy Charters   Are you lost?   Go to Main Index and Home Page