Talk:Constitutional status of Cornwall/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Constitutional status of Cornwall. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Nation issues

Northern Ireland a nation? Not sure about that, it's a complicated situation, and I think people on both the unionist and nationalist side consider it part of a bigger nation, though different ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.176.2.17 (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2005 (UTC)

Hence my amending the "home nations" to "home nations", "countries" or "parts". I didn't want to make too much of an issue of it, but you are spot on as regards the above. It's controversial, but I would suggest that regardless of what people (i.e. Unionists) think, Northern Ireland is part of the nation "Ireland" (not the state/Republic) but within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. So the problem is more to do with people equating the Republic of Ireland with the Irish nation, and suggesting that there is a UK nation (which realistically, there isn't). Oh, and "country" is ambiguous, variously meaning state or nation. zoney ♣ talk 17:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of the complicatedness of NI, crown dependencies are not part of the UK at all and Manx people, for example, will sometimes get quite miffed if you claim they are. (Also the Isle of Man is not part of the European Union either, so the legal life of the island is really quite different to that in the UK.) QuartierLatin1968 17:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Truro / English City Protest

Did anything actually come of this? Graldensblud 01:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing.Serpren (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Misc

Not having heirs is different from being intestate. Intestate simple means not having a will or refers to property not devised by will. Presumably, the UK has intestacy laws which identify legal heirs in cases of intestacy. Only after exhausting this process, ;and failing to identify a legal heir would property devolve to the Crown or Duke.

It would go to the Duke, he has those rights over all of Cornwall, what is your point, what don't you understand about the article?

Also, lots of these supposedly special things about Cornwall also apply in the Duchy of Lancaster, where the Duke of Lancaster has rights that the Crown would otherwise have. To my knowledge nobody tries to define Lancashire+Merseyside+Greater Manchester as a separate nation. Morwen - Talk 12:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Morwen then you should contribute to the page and say as much under the Cornwall shire county status section, that is what it is there for. I have done some reorganising moving information from the Cornish nationalism page to here and vice versa. Bretagne 44 22/3/05

Morwen Look up the definition of a nation. I think you will find it refers to a people not a land mass such as Lancashire+Merseyside+Greater Manchester. Many Cornish people feel themselves to be of the Cornish nation. The Duchy of Cornwall and Lancashire may well share many legal similarities but the nation of the Cornish identifies those of the Duchy of Cornwall as being the constitution of their country.

The nationalists seem to want to have things both ways here. When they talk about Prince Charles's Duchy they claim that he only controls 2% of the land mass of Cornwall. But when they talk about the Duchy of Cornwall, they claim the whole county as a Duchy. If Cornwall is a Duchy it is ruled by a Duke, in this case Prince Charles, Cornwall cannot be a Duchy otherwise . Can someone from the nationalist camp, clear up this confusion for us, is Cornwall a Duchy under the rule of Prince Charles or not?

As I understand it the 2 % figure quoted as the Duchy estate is akin to the position of the Crown Estate in the rest of the country (i.e the Crown estate directly controls x % of Great Britain, but that doesn't affect the Queen's role as monarch of the whole of Britain), therefore I don't see any contridiction here.Mammal4 07:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT VIOLATION

I added the the description of the legal case of George Harrison and i obtained it from the website of Cornwall County Council. If this has caused a problem then i am sorry and please feel free to remove what you need to. However the rest of the article is fine and should remain. Although the information was taken for the website of CCC the actual wording was not produced by an employee of CCC and is the legal summation of the court case open for the public to read so i do not see how i have infringed on the copyright of Cornwall County Council when it was not them who produced this text. Bretagne 44 23/3/05

CORNWALL AND THE VIKING EMPIRE

Thanks to whoever edited my piece on Viking leaders/kings Sweyn Forkbeard and Sweyn's son Canute, much appreciated. It is a fact that in 1013 the Vikings, under Sweyn's leadership, totally crushed and conquered Wessex, and that Sweyn annexed Wessex to his Viking empire which included Denmark, Norway and the "Danelaw". However, Sweyn did not annex Cornwall to his Viking empire, instead he accepted a small annual amount of tribute (danegeld) from the Cornish in return for Cornish autonomy.

Surely this proves that Cornwall was never part of Wessex. And yet, Anglo-biased historians never mention Sweyn Forkbeard. Hmm, odd that, isn't it? Nothing to do with the fact that their beloved Wessex was totally crushed and humiliated by Sweyn and his Viking army? And that Sweyn humilated the Wessex Saxons even further by turning them into a crushed subject people.

I forget to mention that Cornwall and the Danes were allies - as far back as 722 AD a combined Cornish/Danish army destroyed an invading Wessex army somewhere around Padstow. Also, the Cornish allowed their Danish allies to use Cornish habours as safe anchorages and to go and attack Wessex - which of course, they did. Is it possible that Sweyn knew that the Danes and Cornish were allies, and was therefore very benign to Cornwall? After all, Sweyn and his Viking army could have crushed Cornwall, like Wessex, but they chose not to. Sweyn's son Canute was also very benign to Cornwall, and only charged only a small amount of tribute to the Cornish during his reign (1016-1035) in return for Cornish autonomy. Again, Cornish friendliness with the Danes paying off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.42.156 (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In the early eighth century the Danish Vikings were making small-scale pirate attacks on Anglo-Saxon England. Their attacks on Wessex were opposed by the army of Wessex. That the army of Wessex was attacking Viking pirates in Padstow demonstrates that Padstow was a part of Wessex. Sweyn and Canute made use of a tribute system to control areas at the edge of their North Sea empire, and this looks to be what was happening on Cornwall. But this does not imply any real freedom for Cornwall, or that they considered it in any way different. Rather it was an accident of geography. Graemedavis (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall and the Roman Empire

When the romans invaded Great Britain, they took all of it apart from Scotland (Celtic/Pictish), Wales (Celtic) and Cornwall (Celtic). They established a trading post in Truro, and traded with Cornwall as a full autonomous nation. This trade, as well as the non-subjugating of Cornwall essentially proove that we were an independant nation at the time. You do not trade with a county. You do not take the time and cost invade a country, and then leave one county out. The romans saw Cornwall as a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMelonofTruth (talk • contribs) 06:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a refernce that says the Romans traded with Cornwall as an autonomous nation it would be interesting. Received wisdom (eg Peter Salway's authoritative "Roman Britain") has present-day Cornwall as an integral part of Roman Britain. Graemedavis (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to describe this as a debate?

If the national government and the county council both view Cornwall as simply a county, doesn't their view command more weight than the wishful thinking of Cornish nationalists? Don't two sides actually have to engage each other for there to be a debate? john k 00:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

More importantly, if the majority of the residents of Cornwall see their county as part of England, and the overwhelming majority of the UK population see it thus, and Cornwall continues to participate within county, intercounty, national and international politics as a county within England, then why should the cause of a minority of people overide the wishes of those within the county for it to be so? Should the "tyranny of the minority" be allowed to rule? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.153.2.2 (talk • contribs) on 9 September 2006.

That's a very fair question. The answer is that there have been several court cases in which this very dispute has been at issue – besides George Harrison's 19th-century case, the main recent test case is that of Tim Saunders (around 1980ish? – I've got the date somewhere or other), who argued he didn't have to pay the poll tax because the Stannary Parliament had vetoed it in Cornwall. His case was thrown out, so the dispute remains unsettled. Besides the revived Stannators themselves, I'd actually suggest the people of Cornwall as a whole are party to the debate – and I don't just say this as a Cornish nationalist, Britain's a democracy, so its constitutional questions are a concern of the people.

There's also a sense in which it doesn't matter whether Cornwall is an ordinary county or not, and that is the question of whether we should think of Cornwall as part of England in any kind of non-legal sense. Think about the status of Merionethshire in the 1880s. Legally it was just an ordinary county of England-and-Wales; yet it clearly belonged to a specific 'country', if you like, namely Wales. Conceivably, then, Cornwall could be (legally) an ordinary county of England-and-Cornwall, but a 'country' of its own in a different way.

I know what you mean, in a sense – it doesn't seem like much of a dispute if Cornwall County Council isn't taking part. But look at all the controversy surrounding this very article (and the first paragraph of Cornwall, from which this article springs) – if it isn't a debate, what do we call it? QuartierLatin1968 03:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

First off, the UK government is a state government, not a national government. There are several nations in the UK anyway, including Scotland, England and Wales. Secondly, self-determination is a UN recognised process, and if enough Cornish take this on, it is their choice. This needn't necessarily mean independence, but recognition as something slightly different to England. Is Tibet Chinese because Beijing says so, or because many Tibetans think otherwise? Thirdly, there is ample historical precedent, recognised partially by the Crown and Westminster to say that Cornwall is something unusual/unique, especially in regards to the Duchy itself. MacRusgail 16:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC) p.s. I'm not really a "Cornish nationalist", because I'm not Cornish!

The UK government is not a national government? What about the National Health Service, the National Gallery, and all the other things that have "national" in their name that refer to the whole UK? john k 19:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

And what about Welsh National Opera, National Trust of Scotland etc? Oddly enough the things that have "national" alone in them tend to be in England, whereas the Welsh and Scots are more upfront about what they are. That's because England thinks it is "Britain". You might also try the national sports sides while you're at it. Spain and Belgium aren't nations either, ever heard of the Basques, Flemish, Catalans etc? 193.39.159.3

The National Health Service is in England? Let me add that the Duchy of Cornwall bears only the slightest relationship to the County of Cornwall. john k 02:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Listen, you may feel that there's no controversy here. But there simply is. The fact that we're having a controversy over whether there's a controversy, proves that there is one. The Duchy is understood to mean Cornwall itself by a great many people (much as Wales is called a Principality), and by a great many others to mean Charles Mountbatten-Windsor's publicly subsidized private cash cow. England is understood by some people to mean all of Great Britain south of Scotland, by others the same area less Wales, by still others the same area less Wales and Cornwall. (The second is the meaning in official use at the present.) The purpose of this article is to lay all of these conflicted understandings out ... so that people can at least understand where the misunderstandings all come from! QuartierLatin1968 02:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The NHS is HQ'd in England. As for the Duchy, although it is more of another Royal tax scam than a "government body", the law of the land says that while bona vacantia goes to the monarch in England east of the Tamar, it goes to the Duke of Cornwall west of the Tamar. Just to annoy you, I could provide further examples of Stateless Nations, e.g. the Palestinians, Cherokee, Maori... Are these non-nations since they don't have an official state embassy in London? MacRusgail 15:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The NHS is a system for the whole of the United Kingdom. The nation represented by the NHS is the United Kingdom, not England. Its creator was a Welshman, and the man who ran it as Health Secretary until a few days ago was a Scot. Are you really saying that the NHS is an English institution? At any rate, I have no idea whether Cornwall is a nation. I do know that constitutionally Cornwall is no different from any other English country. There is a positive question here - is Cornwall constitutionally distinct from the rest of England; and a normative one - are the Cornish people a nation. The two questions are not intrinsically related. It is not the job of wikipedia to take a stance on the second question, because there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. But there is certainly an answer to the first question. And the fact that people are disputing it on a talk page is not evidence of anything. By those standards, my argument at Talk:New Chronology (Fomenko) means that it is POV to present history as "fact," because there are people disputing it on a talk page somewhere and holding to Fomenko's crazy ideas. At any rate, I'm sure various peculiarities of Cornwall can be determined, like the bona vacantia one, but in a country like England, there's all kinds of peculiarities. I'd imagine one could use a similar principle to discover that, say, the City of London is not part of England. As to the Duchy of Cornwall and the Principality of Wales - that's just wrong - Wales is not a principality ruled or owned by the Prince of Wales. Insofar as there is a Duchy of Cornwall owned by the Prince of Wales, it is not the same as the county of Cornwall (although, apparently, it does imply certain odd archaic legal rights there). I would also note that these weird relationships of the Duchy of Cornwall to England as a whole can only have arisen in the 14th century, and thus bear no particular relation to the Cornish people as an independent political force, since they'd ceased to be such centuries before. The basic fact is that Cornwall is not Wales - Cornwall has been treated as an integral part of England since the 10th century, insofar as anywhere was treated as such (obviously, in the Middle Ages, states did not function in the same way). That it has certain weird legal differences from the rest of England is due to the survival of odd feudal law in the form of the Duchy of Cornwall, but that does not make it any less a part of England, any more than any weird characteristics of the Duchy of Lancaster (such as, once again, the bona vacantia - which in Lancashire apparently goes to the Duchy, just as in Cornwall) mean that Lancashire is not a part of England. john k 16:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to insist that Cornwall County Council is saying clearly with one voice "Cornwall is a county of England and has been for a thousand years" and that "there is no issue pertaining to the Duchy" then you will first have to address the claims made on the historical timeline of Cornwall provided on the county councils website. Just go to the CCC website [[1]] and type time line in for a search. It is clear from a reading of this time line that CCC leave many questions about what Cornwall is and many question marks over the idea that Cornwall is part of England or not a Duchy. Bretagne 44 8/5/05

john you wrote:

I would also note that these weird relationships of the Duchy of Cornwall to England as a whole can only have arisen in the 14th century

Yes and before this time Cornwall was run as an Earldom (not a shire county) with a viceroy again a constitutional settlement that bound Cornwall to the throne yet at the same time gave a certain amount of autonomy.

John, by the Grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, Earl of Anjou confirmed the aforesaid, and Richard, King of Germany and Earl of Cornwall, in like manner, confirmed the aforesaidTreaty of Bretigny 1360.

It is clear from this address that refers to nations of Europe not counties of England, that when Richard was viceroy (1227-72) Cornwall was not part of England. If Cornwall had been part of England at this time it would have been incorrect to devise such an address. I would be like saying Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and Scotland, the latter half being redundant because Scotland is part of the United kingdom.

No, it is not like that at all, because it is Richard, and not John, who is Earl of Cornwall. Cornwall was certainly not part of Germany, so I don't see what your point is here. What is this a quote from? What's the context? How could John and Richard have confirmed the Treaty of Brétigny signed almost a century after the latter's death? john k 17:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

What could be clearer, this address (once again confirming an earlier ratified agreement between Cornwall and England) refers to nations of Europe not counties of England. This type of sate paper is further confirmation that when Richard was Viceroy (1227-72) Cornwall was not part of England. Again are you saying i am lier because my patience wares thin!

The creation of the Duchy replaced this arrangement and provided the heir apparent with an income and a place to learn the skills of being a king but it clearly also reinforced this sense of separation and autonomy that existed (exists) between England and Cornwall. All the Duchy charters are still law to this day therefore the constitution of Cornwall as being a Duchy and autonomous from England is still law, it is just that the current government and Duchy find it to their advantage to ignore this and run Cornwall as a county of England and it is here that the controversy arises. The case law from the 19th centuary and the Kilbrandon report clearly describe Cornwall as A) a Duchy and B) extraterritorial to England.

Whence county was gradually adopted in English ( scarcely before the 15th century ) as an alternative name for the shire, and in due course applied to similar divisions made in Wales and in Ireland, as well as the shires of Scotland, and also extended to those separate parts of the realm which never were shires, as The Duchy of Cornwall, Orkney and Shetland. Part definition of the term County. Complete Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd Ed 1989 p. 1044.

There you have it in black and white! Bretagne 44 11/5/05

How many "native" Londoners, Lancashire folk etc consider themselves not English? Or have a long running autonomy party (albeit not electorally successful!) that says so? A significant number of "native" Cornish, including at least one MP (Andrew George) and various unionists consider themselves not to be English. This doesn't mean they necessarily want independence, but that they recognise themselves as different. Neither Lancashire nor London have any interest (however minor) in reviving their pre-English tongues. Yet you see this in Cornwall. Actually, I find it interesting you mention Lancashire, since much of West Lancashire, and West Herefordshire, Cheshire etc used to be more or less Welsh speaking during the middle ages. In some cases the border was shifted to the benefit of England, and in others, a Welsh population was administered by England, as evidenced by placenames such as Maes Coed, Croesau Bach and so on, and the Lancashire nickname "Woolybacks" for country folk, supposedly related to "Wealys" as found in the name Wales and CornWALL MacRusgail 18:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. I have no opinion on whether Cornish people are English - this is a matter of national feeling and emotion, and can't be judged in a factual manner. I will say that Cornwall is part of England - this is utterly unrelated to the question of whether Cornish people form their own nation. Bretons, for instance, can certainly be said to form a separate nationality from the French, despite the fact that there is absolutely no question that from 1536 on Brittany has been a fully French territory. This does not make their claim to nationhood any weaker - given that they have always maintained their own separate language, their claim is surely stronger than that of Cornwall, whatever the historical flim-flammery of Cornish nationalists. The question of whether the Cornish form a small Celtic nation within the United Kingdom is unrelated to any flim-flammery and fictions regarding the constitutional status of Cornwall. The status of the Duchy of Cornwall does not make Cornwall a nation any more than that of the Duchy of Lancaster makes Lancashire a nation. Contrariwise, the national aspirations of the Cornish people (such as they are) do not change the constitutional status of Cornwall, any more than the national aspirations of the Breton people change the constitutional status of Brittany. You are repeatedly conflating two entirely separate issues, and using them to reinforce each other in a dishonest manner.

I don't think it is unrelated, I think it is directly connected. Your French example doesn't carry water either. Brittany may be French governed, but as to whether it is "French" is another matter. The Duchy of Cornwall attempted to build its legitimacy upon the former kings. Calling me "dishonest" is merely a personal insult, and doesn't recognise the civic nationalist argument alongside the cultural nationalist argument. MacRusgail 05:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You have missed my point with Brittany entirely. My point is once again this: the question of whether a people form a "nation" separate from the state of which they are a part is completely separate from the question of whether or not the place they live is administratively distinct from the rest of the state of which they are a part. There is no doubt, I would hope, that Brittany is administratively a part of France, just like any other part of France. (Historical Brittany, it should be noted, is divided between two regions of France, Bretagne and Pays de la Loire, and into 5 departments). But this fact does not mean that the Bretons are not their own nation. Certainly, their claim to being a nation is considerably greater than that of the Cornish, since Breton has survived as a living language into modern times, unlike Cornish. I would imagine that, if there had been no French revolution, Breton patriots might talk more about supposed anomalies in the way the Duchy of Brittany was absorbed into the Demesne in France in the sixteenth century, and discussions of her peculiar customs which survived after its incorporation, to argue that Brittany is, in fact, not part of France, but an independent duchy in association with France, or some such, along the lines that you are arguing for Cornwall. Nevertheless, there was a French Revolution, and whatever separate legal and constitutional traditions Brittany had maintained since its incorporation were abolished. Thus, the question of whether the Bretons are a nation or not does not rest in any constitutional question, but in subjective factors of identity and common history.

So, we have Brittany, which is arguably a separate nation from France, in spite of the fact that, very clearly, it has no constitutional claim to be distinct from the rest of France. Cornwall, on the other hand, does maintain some odd distinctions from the rest of England as relics of certain distinct origins in the Middle Ages. But this fact has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not the Cornish people are a separate nation. If the Bretons can be a separate nation in spite of having no constitutional differences from the rest of France (which is certainly an arguable case, and one more plausible on its face than that of Cornwall), then surely the question of distinct constitutional arrangements has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether people are a nation. That is what the Breton example was meant to discuss. john k 06:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

And you've missed my point, which is that there is both a sense of national feeling and some constitutional oddities in Cornwall, a combination not found in the Duchy of Lancaster and the other places you've mentioned. Nantes, the Breton capital has been removed from "Bretagne" by the French state, yet by popular feeling, it belongs in Britanny and there is also historical precedent for this - as with Cornwall's claims. MacRusgail 20:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

As to the constitutional points brought up by Bretagne, I will say that I do not have the expertise to debate them, but that I remain dubious of claims that people in the 19th century believed Cornwall not to be part of England. Out of context quotation does not inspire terrific confidence in intellectual honesty. john k 17:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Out of context quotation does not inspire terrific confidence in intellectual honesty

Are you trying to insult me if you are why don't you be honest and just come out with it or go away! What i have done with historic quotes, quotes from dictionaries, examples of constitutional investigations and examples of case law is show that there are question marks over the true constitutional nature of Cornwall, what have you done and what evidence have you brought to the argument or is it just insults you are about? Coupled with this uncertain constitution is a common belief among the Cornish that Cornwall is a Duchy, not part of England and a Celtic nation. Your so called Cornish nationalists argue that the Cornish who think like this may actually have a case. It is a case with some international renown for example last year a daily paper in Malaysia made reference to constitutional uncertainties over Cornwall and a people who have remained independent. If you ever want to be constructive why don't you add to or reorganise the section which argues Cornwall is a shire county.
Try these two links:

[[2]] [[3]] Bretagne 44 11/5/05

Bretagne, I'm sorry, I should not have cast doubt on your honesty with no evidence, and I withdraw any insinuation that you were. That said, I still would like to see some sort of context for the legal arguments you are making, since that would be helpful. I also see that you are making exactly the same conflation that Ruaspail is making - the Cornish can be a "celtic nation" and be part of England. A century ago, it would have been technically accurate to say that Wales was part of England, but I would certainly agree that at that time Wales was also a "celtic nation" - rather more Celtic than Cornwall, certainly! It does nobody any favors to act as though there is only a binary choice of "part of England" or "Celtic nation." john k 06:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that John K, try the two links i gave above. I think the argument is that there are constitutional peculiarities with Cornwall which in a favourable light and if followed (because they are law today!) would engender a Duchy and Land, part of the UK but not England, rather like the Isle of Man. If the Duchy was created in the past to, in part, give voice to the none Englishness of the Cornish and give them a certain autonomy then with what right has this been suppressed? at what point where the Cornish consulted and asked if it was OK if the constitutional workings of their country was moth balled. If there was a minority claiming a national identity in the Duchy of Lancashire surely they would have a point to, what happened to our say over the nature of our country especially considering all the laws are still intact and used to the profit of the current Duke? Bretagne 44 15/5/05

The Isle of Man is not part of the UK. What makes you say that the duchy was created to "give voice to the non-Englishnes of the Cornish and give them a certain autonomy?" In 1746, the Wales and Berwick Act was passed to say that any laws passed for England applies to Wales and Berwick (which is technically considered to be on permanent loan from Scotland) as well. Cornwall was not mentioned. This suggests that Cornwall was, in 1746 at least, considered to be a part of England, or else it would also have been mentioned and included. It seems to me, again, that the constitutional peculiarities of Cornwall make it no different from Lancashire, which no one would suggest is not part of England. The question of how the Cornish people feel about themselves is, I will say again, unrelated to the question of Cornwall's constitutional status - except insofar as (some, at least) Cornish nationalists make arguments for Cornwall not being part of England based on those peculiarities. It should be mentioned that these arguments are made, but it should also be noted that there are other parts of England (notably Lancashire) which have exactly the same constitutional status as Cornwall, but are universally considered (even by Cornish nationalists?) to be part of England. The links you provide, I have to say, remain rather unconvincing of anything except that at least a few Cornish nationalists are making arguments that Cornwall isn't really part of England. The actual material on those sites is, to be honest, so out there, that it's hard to take any of it seriously as an actual

I feel, though, like we've gotten away from the question of what should be in the article. The fact that one can find people arguing on the web about Cornwall's constitutional status is not proof of anything - one can find people arguing all kinds of nonsense on the web. So I suppose the question becomes twofold: 1) are a particularly significant percentage of the people of Cornwall Cornish nationalists? If I had to guess, I'd guess that only a minority are, but that it's a large enough minority to qualify as significant. 2) are a particularly significant percentage of Cornish nationalists making these kinds of arguments about Cornwall's constitutional status? From the material in this and other articles, it would appear that these kinds of arguments are fairly mainstream among Cornish nationalists, and thus they probably deserve to be mentioned. That said, we should not be writing this article as essentially "POV of Cornish nationalists and their sympathizers" followed by "POV of everybody else." I still feel that the article is very unbalanced. In particular, it should be made clearer who, exactly, is making these arguments. I also think that both the nationalist claims, and the rebuttals, should be integrated throughout the text in some effort to create a unified narrative voice. john k 16:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The Isle of Man is not part of the UK

I know, it is a crown dependency.

Are you suggesting, then, that Cornwall might not be part of the UK? john k 15:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

What makes you say that the duchy was created to "give voice to the non-Englishnes of the Cornish and give them a certain autonomy?"

The thoughts of recent historians such as Philip Payton and Mark Stoyle.

BBC Nations - Cornish history by Dr Mark Stoyle Look for The Cornish: A Neglected Nation?

Stoyle says "mediaeval Cornwall was - technically speaking - an English county just like any other." He does talk about institutions of self-government like the stannary parliament and the duchy, but doesn't say that they were created to "give voice to the non-Englishness of the Cornish" - it was perhaps to recognize Cornwall's difference from the rest of England, but that's not the same. And the Duchy, at least, did not provide any real degree of autonomy, while the stannary parliament was a medieval corporate entity of tin-miners, not a provincial parliament. john k 15:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Cornwall was not mentioned

On meny other documents mention is made of Anglia and Cornubia, also many maps from the early modern period show Cornwall as a region distinct like Wales. Gerardus Mercator's Atlas [4].

Sure, but by the 18th century it was clearly regarded as part of England, or else it would have been the Wales, Berwick, and Cornwall Act. john k 15:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Cornish nationalists make arguments for Cornwall not being part of England based on those peculiarities.

No; some Cornish people point out that Cornwall is not constitutionally part of shire county England and that the Cornish people should have the right as a minority UK nationality to have this recognised.

No, Cornish people argue that Cornwall is not constitutionally part of England. "Pointing out" implies that they are right - which is certainly not NPOV. john k 15:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I also think that both the nationalist claims, and the rebuttals, should be integrated throughout the text in some effort to create a unified narrative voice.

Go for it i have been waiting for someone to take this role for this page. Bretagne 44 16/5/05

At some point, maybe - don't think I have time just yet. john k 15:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Unified narrative voice

I'm really not convinced it's going to be either helpful or clear to, as John puts it, "create a unified narrative voice" throughout the article. We can try it, but I'm afraid it's really just going to end up muddying everybody's story, and provoke edit wars where each side tries to have the final 'however' in each paragraph. But more material should definitely be added to present the Kernow-sceptic or unionist perspective. (Do you really think it's not clear whose POVs are being described, John? I thought I was making it explicit where the Duchy-Stannary-palatinate line of thinking was coming from [i.e. the Stannators, Cornish Solidarity, and their sympathizers including I think John Angarrack], and where the autonomist line was coming from [the Cornish Constitutional Assembly, MK, nationalist Lib Dems like Andrew George, and so on]. But perhaps I should look this over again with a more critical eye.) QuartierLatin1968 17:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

What I mean by "creating a unified voice" is that the article should not seem to disagree with itself. Two opposing POV articles presented sequentially does not make an NPOV article. I'd add that the job of NPOV is not to create a false sense of equal merit of arguments that do not essentially have equal merit. And I do think it needs to be made more clear whose POVs are being described. In particular, if there are Cornish nationalists who are arguing that Cornwall should have autonomy even if it has no legal claim to it, that should be mentioned (among other things, Cornish nationalists who do not believe Cornwall currently is entitled to be separate from England are speaking against interest, and thus more convincing than unionists). john k 17:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Mmmyes. I mean, looking at WP:NPOV, "The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct." And again, an article "should [...] present the arguments of the advocates of [a given] point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view. Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so." That's what I was aiming for with the presentation for what you call opposing POV articles. Judgements of merit are – possibly – beyond Wikipedia's purview. If I say, X believes this, but Y believes that, I'm not disagreeing with myself, even if I'm describing X and Y's disagreement.

I do see what you're saying about Cornish nationalists who do not recognize Cornwall to be de facto any different from English counties: yes, if there are such people, they would be demonstrating that they understand the difference between 'ought' and 'is'. But the fact is that autonomists and nationalists already feel that Cornwall is special, different, apart; and they deploy these fairly abstruse mediaeval legal arguments in order to make a contemporary political point. In other words, I suspect that if you think Cornwall should be a region with autonomy in the future, you probably already agree with the sentiment that Cornwall today is "a Duchy not a county".

But there is a strong difference of emphasis between those who are interested in getting the Duke to open sessions of the revived Stannaries, and those who want to work towards devolution in the framework of Scotland or Wales. And doesn't the article already make that difference of emphasis clear?

I mean, I suppose I really don't see what you believe is missing from this article now. If you want us to describe the POV of Duchy diehards and then say "But they're wrong", it's simply not going to happen. So short of that, what would you like to see that isn't already here? QuartierLatin1968 20:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Cornish people

This page has been chosen as the current UK Collaboration of the Fortnight. All welcome to join in . Secretlondon 17:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Register as a Cornish Wikipedian

At these two pages:

[5]

[6]

Bretagne 44 27/7/05.

Celtic Frontier or County Boundary?

Added the following link

Celtic Frontier or County Boundary? Competing discourses of a late nineteenth century British border

Bretagne 44 14:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

County palatine

Ok, this article notes that

Sheriff of Cornwall appointed by Duke
intestate property goes to Duke
treasure trove goes to Duke
sturgeon goes to Duke
wrecks go to Duke
Duchy immune from income tax
Duchy has its own Exchequer.

These are precisely the priveleges of a county palatine mentioned above, but the article doesn't mention this. Of these particular things, in the county palatine of Lancaster :

Sheriff - appointed by Duke
intestate property - goes to Duke [7]
treasure trove - treasure trove has now actually been abolished. However [8] indicates that the Duke of Lancaster used to have that right.
sturgeon - can't find cite
wrecks - can't find cite
immune from tax - yep
own Exchequer - yes - see Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

Sturgeon and shipwrecks I can't find cites for, probably because they aren't especially relevant these days. However, the pattern here is clear.

Also, could do with mentioning the fact that Cornwall has sent MPs to the Westminster Parliament since they started having them (this is significant because the county palatine of Durham did not send members until the Civil War, specifically because of its palatine status. I'll see about making these changes now. Morwen - [[User_talk:Morwen|Talk]] 14:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do! This is all very interesting. Do try, however, not to delete material that could be useful here or elsewhere. Best of luck, QuartierLatin 1968 16:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes this is all good stuff and very welcome Morwen, keep up the good work. Bretagne 44 18:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

New Link

This article on Cornish history and constitutional affairs seems relevant. What makes Cornwall unique? [9] This article says Cornwall (the sole remaining independent rump of The Kingdom of Dumnonia) was never invaded or annexed by Wessex. That Cornwall came under the sway of Wessex but was never incorporated into Wessex. This situation continued up until the Conquest when Cornwall was created an Earldom by the Normans (with Bretons being given the title Earl, interesting ethno political choice!) again recognising its difference from the country of England a process repeated in the creation of the Duchy. I would like to get the often used argument "Cornwall was never annexed" into the article, what do people think. Bretagne 44 18:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

More new links for this part of the article providing the actual maps.

Additionally many maps of the isles prior to the 18th century showed Cornwall (Cornubia / Cornwallia) as a nation on a par with Wales, notably Gerardus Mercator [10] (1512), Sebastian Munster [11](1515).

In addition i have cleaned the article up a bit and made some changes after work begun by one contributor but not finished.

Bretagne 44 14:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Mercator produced CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") in 1564:[12]

Sebastian Munster produced maps depicting Cornwall as a distinct region of Britain in 1538, 1540, and 1550.

George Lily produced a map showing Cornubia in 1556.

Girolamo Ruscelli did the same in 1561 portraying Cornubia alongside Anglia, Wallia and Scotia.

Johannes Honter followed this trend in 1561.

Humphrey Lhuyd and Abraham Ortelius produced Angliae Regni Florentissimi Nova Descripto in 1573, this showed Cornwall and Wales as distinct regions of England, however Cornwall was not portrayed as an English county. This map was re used in 1595 at about the same time that Norden produced the map of the Duchy (not county) of Cornwall.

From about 1600 things change the Mare Brittanica and the Celtic sea become the English Channel and Bristol/St Georges Channel respectively.

Bretagne 44 15:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to develop the "Cornwall was never annexed" thought a bit. I've reorganised things so that the annexation section is seperate, and first, since that seems to be based historically before, and then we get the duchy stuff, with background first, then the arguments.

I've tried to put the argument against the annexation claim in there. However, since the claim is rather vague, is tricky. The usual story in history books is that Cornwall was conquered by Wessex in 9th century, rebelled quite a bit, but was subdued in the early 11th century and therefore became part of the Kingdom of England at the same time it was formed. There's no Act of Union between Wessex and Mercia, either...

We need to clarify what exactly the claims are here. Is it claimed to be outside the Kingdom of England entirely, or it it claimed to be within the Kingdom, but outside England proper, similar to Wales?

The Duchy claim also needs bolstering a bit. Neither the Kilbrandon report nor the court case (which we need the name of), are actually quoted as saying that Cornwall is a duchy outside England. We need to go back and find what they actually say and quote it, (and also put it in context).

I'm rather worried about the claim that Cornwall was special in only having a county council set up in 1889. The legislation was passed in 1888, and came into effect on April 1, 1889 (thus setting a tradition that is being continued to this day for April 1 local government reorganisations). Please be careful in future. Morwen - Talk 02:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Why have the map references and links been removed?

Also please provide evidence that Cornwall is mentioned as an English county in the Doomsday book.

I did have quotes from the foreshore case on this page but somebody placed a copyright breach on them!

Another point of clarification is that the essential civil administration of Cornwall - whether referred to as county, vicecomitatus or 'ceremonial(!)' county - is, and has been, an integral part of the Duchy and Earldom of Cornwall and, by that constitutional definition alone, neither in, nor of, England'. Indeed, such an important fact that it was the first item stated in the Charter of Enumeration following the Act of Parliament which 'restored' our Cornish Duchy. the Bretagne 44 18:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The reference to maps has been shown to be inaccurate and incomplete. The Domesday Book is described as a census of England divided into counties, Cornwall is included. I think info from The Survey of Cornwall should be included, such as the description of Cornwall as a 'county in England'. josh 20:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree and if we include Carew information then we should include that of William Scawen who described Cornwall as a country and Duchy:

The seventeenth century Cornishman, William Scawen (1600-1689) has recently attracted the independent attention of two scholars: Dr Mark Stoyle, a Senior Lecturer at the University of Southampton (UK) and myself. Stoyle is a historian of the English Civil War in Devon and Cornwall, and of the SW of Britain more generally. He devotes a chapter to Scawen in his recent book West Britons: Cornish Identities and the Early Modern British State (University of Exeter Press, 2002). Stoyle concentrates on Scawen’s Civil War exploits as a Royalist military officer complicit in the surrender of Cornwall to Parliamentary forces in 1646 and thus the end of the Civil War, and Scawen’s expression of a subversive counter-tradition of Cornish ethnonationalism in his manuscript Antiquities Cornu-Britannick.[13]

And the Map by Norden which shows Cornwall as a Duchy.

Cornwall was an Earldom governed by a Viceroy (Earl) at the time of the doomsday project to deny this is just silly. Bretagne 44 17:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Annexation

I've cleaned up this section a bit but it probably should be dumped. The main purpose of the annexation of Wales, Scotland and Ireland was to apply English law to their countries (with the exception of Scotland) and to merge the parliaments (or to simply allow the country to send members in the case of Wales). Since the establishment of English law and parliment there is no record of Cornwall ever not coming under their juristiction or not sending members. Hence no need to annex Cornwall in the first place. For this section to work we need proof of Cornish independance post 1200. I have only found the opposite. The Magna Carta starts ' John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou,'. Why is Cornwall not listed as a seperate Earldom?

The claim about laws having to apply seperatly only proves that Cornwall came under English law. The same situation applies to the Isles of Scilly today but they clearly have no inderpendance from England. The maps argument is a red herring. European cartographers shouldn't be trusted to give a true picture of the British political situation. England was at war with many of these countries so it is like asking a Syrian to draw a picture of present day Israel. josh (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the section could better serve as evidence that Cornwall was intended to be kept distinct from the rest of England. The maps paragraph could then be used as evidence of Tudor assimilation of the Cornish by treating it indistinct from the other counties, while Europeans supported a more independent Cornwall. Although this doesn't nessicarily fit into this article unless there is evidence that these moves were illegal. josh (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)*

1 The arms of the of the Duchy of Cornwall are on the top of the magna carta, buy a copy in any tourist shop and you can confirm this.

2 John, by the Grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, Earl of Anjou confirmed the aforesaid, and Richard, King of Germany and Earl of Cornwall, in like manner, confirmed the aforesaid Treaty of Bretigny 1360.

All the other titles in the above extract refer to countries but according to you Cornwall at this time is just an English county and the name "Earl of Cornwall" just a title and landed estate? This does not fit at all!

3 Josh you said The maps argument is a red herring; why do you say that, these maps where produced by famous cartographers some at the request of British monarchs. On the contrary continental map makers where free from english nationalism and the desire of egotistical English monarchs wanting to show control of the isles.

4 Was Wales part of the kingdom of England in the domesday book Josh?

5 1509 : King Henry VIII's coronation procession includes "nine children of honour" representing "England and France, Gascony, Guienne, Normandy, Anjou, Cornwall, Wales and Ireland." Bretagne 44 16:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Extracted from a commission of the first Duke of Cornwall, 25 Edw. III to "John Dabernoun, our Steward and Sheriff of Cornwall greeting. On account of certain escheats we command you that you inquire by all the means in your power how much land and rents, goods and chattels, whom and in whom, and of what value they which those persons of Cornwall and England have, whose names we send in a schedule enclosed......!

Bretagne 44 13:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

More info

In 1780 Edmund Burke sought to curtail further the power of the Crown by removing the various principalities which existed.

… the five several distinct principalities besides the supreme …. If you travel beyond Mount Edgcumbe, you find him [the king] in his incognito, and he is duke of Cornwall …. Thus every one of these principalities has the apparatus of a kingdom …. Cornwall is the best of them….

Bretagne 44 17:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring

I had a look at the article and the Talk, and agreed that the discussion needed attention. I hope my reordering has not been too disruptive for those who have previously contributed information: I have tried not to remove anything that seemed significant, but I have also tried to give a more coherent shape to the sections, and retitle them to reflect what is actually in them. I have kept the 'Annexation' section under a new heading. I have placed the exposition of the "status quo" alongside the 'Unionist' argument for retaining it, so that the article then has the space to discuss all the regionalist/nationalist/separatist objections to the status quo, or attempts to redefine it. I think it would be helpful to distinguish between the historical position of the Stannaries (for which at the moment there is merely a link) and the 20th century revival. I have not introduced any new information at all, since I don't have any to add at present. I hope this framework offers a suitable basis for continuing to improve the article. (I expect someone will revert it promptly if they disagree!).

Oops: wasn't logged in! Myopic Bookworm 15:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I like it! I think your restructuring has made the material more transparent and accessible. Well done. Quartier Latin1968

15:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Maps at the BBC

Maps of Cornwall on the BBC

Bretagne 44 10:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Myth of Origin

Added the following:

An ancient legend, the Brutus Myth, recounted by Geoffrey of Monmouth, An ancient legend, the Brutus Myth, recounted by Geoffrey of Monmouth gives explicit reference to the Cornish people in describing their decent. The legend tell how Albion was colonised by refugees from Troy under King Brutus, how Brutus reamed his new Kingdom, Britain, and how the island was subsequently divided up between his three sons - the eldest inheriting England, the other two Scotland and Wales. Additionally according to the legend; it was two groups of Trojans who originally arrived in Britain. The smaller group was led by a warrior named Corineus, to whom Brutus granted extensive estates. And just as Brutus had ‘called the island Britain…and his companions Britons’, so Corineus called ‘the region of the kingdom which had fallen to his share Cornwall, after the manner of his own name, and the people who lived there…Cornishmen’.

No other region is picked out for such special treatment; it is clear that, as far as Geoffrey was concerned, Cornwall possessed a separate identity. Cornishmen and women continued to regard themselves as descendents of Corineus until well into the early modern period.

The 18th century writer, Richard Gough, noted this Cornish paradox by writing "Cornwall seems to be another Kingdom", in his Brittania (4 vols; London, 1806).

Bretagne 44 14:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

William Borlase

In 1769 The Antiquarian, William Borlase wrote that "Of this time we are to understand what Edward I. says (Sheringham. p. 129.) that Britain, Wales, and Cornwall, were the portion of Belinus, elder son of Dunwallo, and that that part of the Island, afterwards called England, was divided in three shares, viz. Britain, which reached from the Tweed, Westward, as far as the river Ex; Wales inclosed by the rivers Severn, and Dee; and Cornwall from the river Ex to the Land's-End".

Bretagne 44 15:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone reverted my description of the scale of debate. Describing how many people are debating this issue is not 'weasel words'. It gives a good picture of the importance of the subject. "Whether George W Bush is a space alien is a subject of debate" is a true statement, but without the qualification (only among a tiny number of people wearing tinfoil hats) the statement presents a misleading picture. DJ Clayworth 14:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In the abstract, you're right, DJ Clayworth. But "by a small number of people" is really no good either. (1) What counts as 'small'? (2) What source do you have that the number is small, whatever that means? In the absence of any greater precision and/or references, that phrase does look like a weasel word, or something akin. Actually my impression is that within Cornwall, the notion that England ends at the Tamar is rather mainstream, and if you ask people "Okay, so if it's not England, what is this then?" then you start getting answers like "Oh, well, we're a Duchy"... True, people wouldn't necessarily be very consistent about these matters, or pay much attention to 19th-century court cases, but that's not to say that the matter's discussed only by a few nutjobs. Quartier Latin1968

17:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much sums up why I removed it - its a very precise way of describing the debate and using qualifiers like a small number of people is as misleading as you think the original statement is (a small number means different things to different people - 5? 2000? and what is it small compared to? political debate in the Uk? probably yes then, political debate in Cornwall? arguably not). Happy to discuss more suitable/acceptable wording of the paragraph if you want to, and find a concensus

There seems to be a common misconception on wikipedia about this issue with stock phrases like "a handful of Cornish nationalist" an "a right wing minority" often being used to describe the debate, which marginalise these viewpoints. I agree, the people who want full independance and separation from England are a right wing minority, but everyday people thinking that Cornwall is a bit different constitutionally is not really a minority viewpoint within Cornwall. Its equivalent to saying that concern over immigration into the UK is a minority viewpoint because the BNP don't get any votes, or that recycling is a minority viewpoint because the Green party get no seats in parliament Mammal4 08:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Mammal4, you wrote:

I agree, the people who want full independance and separation from England are a right wing minority

A minority yes but right wing? Can you substantiate such a bold statement? Probably not! Mebyon Kernow is left wing and opposed to all forms of discrimination. If you ant to argue the point further come to the website Cornwall 24: http://www.cornwall24.co.uk/PNphpBB2-viewforum-f-1.htm Bretagne 44 17:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The section about English county status is (surprise!) for arguments in favour of English county status, not for bold assertions of any or all of the other positions on the issue. Myopic Bookworm 14:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Whilst this deleted text is nothing to do with me, I would like to understand why it has been deleted rather than placed - temporarily if necessary - to a separate section for clarification, qualification or a bona fide edit? -- TGG 20:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a sub section 'The Argument for a non-English Status' to provide some balance in the Status Quo section -- TGG 23:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have taken out the parenthetic comment about the absence of parts of Cumberland and Westmorland from the Domesday survey. London and Winchester, Northumberland and County Durham were also omitted from Domesday – or at least from the surviving copies we have. The absence of parts of Cumberland and Westmorland has nothing to do with any argument about the constitutional status of Cornwall.Crococolana 21:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree with Myopic Bookworm's comment above. What's the point of having the section "The argument for non-English status" as a sub-heading of "The Status Quo: the County of Cornwall"? Practically the entire rest of the article consists of arguments 'for non-English status', so this material should be integrated into the other sections. Quartier Latin1968

04:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Any discussion on Cornish matters will invariably polarise between those who present the status quo and and those who do not. Accordingly, pages could be presented to reflect these poles in splendid isolation as in the Status Quo section or revamp to include related pros and antis witin a meaningful section/sub-section. The sub-heading in question seems an obvious counter argument to the "The argument for English county status" and I have sought to relate my counter argument specifically to the 'county' aspect of the main section-heading. In fact, "Status Quo" within a heading seems irrelevant and should be removed! TGG 12:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the names of the headings should be looked at and in many cases changed. 'Status quo' seems to be pre-judging the merits of the cases described.

Still, the current article already gives a lot of attention to the arguments that Cornwall is constitutionally special. But there are people who, rightly or wrongly, feel strongly that Cornwall is not constitutionally special, and there needs to be space on this article where we report on that POV. If we describe that POV in two paragraphs, and then spend seven paragraphs refuting it, then we'll inevitably get people coming along here complaining that this article's one-sided. There needs to be at least some small amount of 'splendid isolation' to lay out the unionist argument coherently. Believe me, I'm on your side. I wrote most of an earlier version of this article, and I'm all for Cornish self-rule. But within the context of Wikipedia, we have to avoid giving that POV undue weight and run the risk of drowning out contrary voices.

Since the article has come to have such a strong historical focus, I wonder if it would not be a good idea to move "The argument for non-English status" section into "Early relationship between Cornwall and England", and then break the latter section into several historical sub-sections.

Either way, the article has to make it clear to the non-specialist that this is a controversy of which there are not one, but several sides. Nor should it drown the reader in details before making explicit the broad lines of argument. Quartier Latin1968

16:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree. The article seems unbalanced given the situation at present and over the last few hundred years. Most of the sections read as long lists of historical documents or laws where England and Cornwall were mentioned separately/together, and could be summarised accordingly. Streamlining on this, and its sister articles such as Duchy of Cornwall is required. Aquilina 17:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The article could certainly benefit from a rewrite, under new headings, and see where that leaves it. Perhaps, beginning with summaries of the POVs with qualifying sections/sources later. The "undue weight" aspect concerns me because there are many statutes which have ignored the territorial rights of the Duchy. Therefore, the balance has to be about disputes over, for example, Creation, Territory, County, People, Perception etc. A public absence of debate over these factors have contrived to create an ill-informed majority TGG 12:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

clarification

The phrase "England and Cornwall" (or the Latin equivalent Anglia et Cornubia) remained in use after the Norman Conquest. Before the Tudor period, laws were typically designated as taking effect in Anglia et Cornubia. A similar situation exists today with the Isles of Scilly.

can somebody tidy this sentence a bit - I assume it means that Cornwall legislation is worded in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly but this makes it sound like English legislation (i.e England and the Isles of Scilly). I'm pretty sure that it is the first version, as I don't think that the IoS are referred to as a separate territory Mammal4 15:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I added to the list of "unionist" arguments in the county section so that they were secure before the task of reediting the whole article got under way. The section on "Cornish shires" (and the linked section on hundreds in Cornwall) appears to equate a hundred in Cornwall with a shire in the rest of England, thus showing that Cornwall is a country not a county. The position is more complicated than this. Our knowledge of early local government is limited but in England the unit next above a village was called variously in different places a hundred, shire, wapentake, lathe, and rape. In England during the late Anglo-Saxon period units next above the hundred etc developed and came to be called shires (later counties), apparently a new application of the old name. It looks as though the old use of shire (hundred) continued in parts of Cornwall; this does not mean Cornwall hundred equates to England shire (county). In the C12 we know (and perhaps before that but I do not know) that Cornwall also had tithings with a tithingman as its basic police unit, exactly as in the rest of England. If this is too complicated and discursive for an encyclopedia perhaps the best course is to remove Cornish shires section.Crococolana 18:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Crocolana - I included the term "shire", because this is usually equated with "county" in English language usage IMHO. The names of the Hundreds were often X-shire. The Anglo-Saxon argument doesn't really count here, since Cornwall never adopted a fully A-S system. "Hundred" here calques "cantrev". --MacRusgail 19:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MacRusgail for the explanation but as I read the section I think its thrust is wrong. It appears to me to say that a Cornwall hundred equates to an England shire/county and therefore Cornwall itself is not a shire/county but a country. I do not think the historic evidence supports this particular argument at all. The word shire was used at one time in parts of England for a unit otherwise called a hundred etc and later acquired its present application to counties. I think one has to look beneath the word shire to its application. And was not the sheriff an officer for the whole of Cornwall?

I mentioned tithings and the tithingman, which operated more or less at the village level, because of the reference to constables in the Hundreds of Cornwall article which I do not think takes the police duties of tithings in Cornwall and in the rest of England into account. (I’ll add tithings, common to Cornwall and to the rest of England, to my list in the “unionist” section of the whole constitutional article.)

It is the thrust as I read it of the shires section, Cornwall is a country because it had some divisions called shires, that exercises me. Crococolana 13:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a confusion here between shire, which simply means a division for the purpose of taxation and vicecomitatus which is also the division of territory for the purpose of taxation etc. It is quite wrong to equate either of these with, for example, county, where this refers to an Earldom. Modern usage tends to replace older terminology but does nothing to remove the ambiguity with/from its original meaning TGG 19:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The point at issue is the argument in the present shires section, as I see it, that Cornwall was a place of hundreds which equate to shires vel counties in the rest of England and therefore by implication Cornwall was not itself a shire/county but, containing shires/counties itself, was therefore a country. I think the historical evidence does not support this particular argument.

Is my reading of the section correct? Crococolana 12:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I believe that the historical evidence is ambiguous because of the seemingly nebulous nature of the Earldom - a status which seems to have supplanted the former distinction of pre-subjugation "gentes" and post subjugation "Province of the Britons" - and the fact that the Honor was held either by the King or his favourite. However, Cornwall was never a shire in the way of, for example, Devonshire.

Secondly, I have been doing some comparative work on the Domesday between Cornvalge and the neighbouring English county of Devenescire and the distribution of land seems to be very significant. I shall shortly be posting this brief analysis to the TGG website but the first impression (based on entries) is that in:

Cornvalge:- King (17), Count of Mortain (246), Sheriff (zero), Ecclesiastic (44), 2 Others (2)

Devenescire:- King (72), Count of Mortain (78), Sheriff (174), Ecclesiastic (163), 38 Others (608)

Given that the Sheriff was normally an officer of the King and of very high ranking importance, the absence of any land holding for a sheriff in Cornwall in 1086 may, initially, suggest that there was no sheriff in the ordinary sense. TGG 13:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

tgg, I think you are wandering into territory more suited for discussion in the body of the “non-English status” section of the present constitutional article. The present issue is about the wording, and its meaning, of the shires section as it stands. My question about its thrust remains.

I think the constitutional article has too many parts. I see in the “Early relationship” section a Domesday reference too (which I think needs attention). Can we agree to remove this short shires section and put arguments about Cornwall and Domesday in the body of a recensed general article?

(Incidentally, one would need to look at more Domesday counties than just Cornwall and Devon before drawing any tentative general conclusions. For example, did the sheriff of Derbyshire hold any land in that county? Is the distribution of ownership between the king and his tenants-in-chief and between the tenants-in-chief themselves identical in every county or is there significant variation among counties? There is nothing in your Cornwall/Devon analysis that shows that Cornwall was anything other than a county in England. Can one say anything more than that the count, the king’s half-brother, was well rewarded? He was the largest landowner in England after the king.

I think there are good reasons for saying that Cornwall was at least after 1066 indistinguishable in significance in governance from the rest of England where there was variation in particulars, a county in England with the apparatus of a county in England. I list some reasons in the “English county status” section of the present constitutional article. To go no further than 1086, there is absolutely no overt or implied suggestion in Domesday that the collection of manors in Cornwall, gathered together under the title Cornwall, constituted anything other than what they constituted in Lincolnshire or Somerset. Or that the Cornwall ones were organised in any different way from those in other counties of England. If Cornwall had been different, a “country not a county” in effect, one would certainly expect that to be noted by the king’s commissioners. It wasn’t.

But now I too digress. All this is argument for a recension of the constitutional article. Back to the shires section.)Crococolana 10:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! what a lot to think about? May I say first of all that the article definitely needs a rewrite as it is very difficult, imho, to read. When writing the "Argument for non-English Status", I had a problem when there was a need to refer to what had been said elsewhere on the page. Therefore, perhaps, a rewrite could be in sections which focus on specific constitutional milestones, for example, Pre-Subjugation, Subjugation, Domesday, Earldom, Stannary, Duchy, adninistrative county etc. As you say, the "shire" discussion would fall within the Domesday section. Who would rewrite it whilst leaving the existing text intact? I feel that am too new to wiki to do it justice.

On the other matters you cover: There is, regrettably, a general presumption that a default position is justified when viewing Cornwall constitutionally from a modern retrospective perspective. Yet when viewed from the other end of the timeline and with contemporaneous perceptions of Cornwall over time we see a contradiction.

I accept that my initial study of Domesday needs to be expanded, and this I shall do in a limited way over time, but it is wrong to dismiss what this initial analysis suggests without acknowledging the possibility that it could equally represent something more significant. Perhaps, in fact, it is for others to do some similar analysis to balance the argument.

Much of the pro-England references quoted - probably out of context - to show that Cornwall was an integral part of English administration may well be shown to be at a time when there was no Earl or Duke and these will be checked out if meaningful source information is provided (q.v. similar argument presented by the Crown in the Foreshore Dispute and rebutted by the Officers of the Duke). It would be very surprising indeed, if the Imperial Will did not ultimately prevail in bringing various administrative processes 'into line'! Also, such quotes should preclude references which relate specifically to what is termed Royal Jurisdiction since this clearly remained with the Crown.

A further point which needs to be addressed is the constitutional ambiguity when the term "England" is used.

Domesday was a glorified Tax Assessment Survey of the King's new Realm and not an analysis of constitution matters, therefore, why would there be a need to highlight any such distinction? A similar argument to above must apply, to see whether any such distinction was made elsewhere in the Kingdom of England for a true comparison to be made. TGG 12:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot of what you are talking about will fall into original research. You can't add your own analysis of what historic documents mean. This is something that is done throughout the article and that people on both sides of the argument are guilty of. The best way to improve the article would be to rip out any argument that hasn't been put forward by verifiable source. josh (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

S/he needn't do "original research" (whatever this weasel wikicism means), because there are sources such as Angarrack which have already gone into these arguments. --MacRusgail 13:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Original research is in no way a "weasel wikicism". If you read the link you would see that it is an offical policy of Wikipedia. If there is a source for these arguments then it should be quoted from or para-pharsed but TGG is talking about "my initial study", which is clearly OR. josh (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I accept that my initial study may be classified as OR from a wiki perspective and I am not suggesting that it is anything other than that, but at the same time there must be something/someone out there somewhere than can rebut my assumption. I shall re-read Angarrack to see if I have missed something but would question why original research is deemed unacceptable (I know it is a wiki rule!) since it can easily be challenged within the public domain if sources are stated. All researched information was, at one time, the subject of original research! What, for instance, motivates further research on an ambiguous subject, namely, Cornwall, where we are forced to qualify to the nth degree? TGG 14:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to ask: Is drawing some inference from published sources (Phillimore's History from the Sources) on Domesday really original research? TGG 14:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit Wikipedia is odd in this respect. You can write just about what you want about Jordan's tits, but as soon as you provide more considered edits to an encyclopaedic article, it's original research. Bizarre notion of "research". No wonder Wikipedia's a joke, especially when it treats Google as some kind of academic reference tool. I would welcome seeing TGG's proposals even if they come from a different perspective to mine. --MacRusgail 18:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This is actually one Wiki-oddity that makes sense to me, after long reflection. There's no reason not to do original research and publish it; but Wikipedia, because it's structurally such a free-for-all, isn't the best place to do it. Furthermore, the fun and juicy kind of original research – where you're driving home a point, discrediting contrary arguments, and all the rest of it – necessarily departs from NPOV, which is kind of the sine qua non of this whole project. Quartier Latin1968

03:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Domesday Book

Worth noting at this point that the Domesday Book omitted parts of modern day England such as the far north west. This is a bit of a spanner in the works, but worth a mention. --MacRusgail 13:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is irrelevent. They were excluded because they were under Scotish control at the time. Again you would have to quote an independant source that states a reason why this has a bearing on the Cornish situation. josh (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Not irrelevant at all, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. As I understand it, parts of England aren't in it, and parts of Wales are. Therefore, the inclusion of Cornwall is ambiguous, especially when taken with Anglia et Cornubia references. Cornwall had a very odd status, which strikes me as similar to the Welsh and Scottish border regions. --MacRusgail 18:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Cumberland and Westmorland point is irrelevant. Northumberland, County Durham, London, and Winchester are also missing from Domesday – or at least from the extant copies we have (behind every document that survives is a document that hasn’t?). The inclusion of “Wales” was surely because the border in 1086 was fluid and unfixed; “parts of Wales” means what is Wales now not what was Wales in 1086. The inclusion of Cornwall is clear and unambiguous: look at the text, the very words, the very format used. There is no sign of ambiguous status in Domesday. The evidence about status after Domesday is mixed and interpretations will vary. I think the weight of evidence shows that in practice Cornwall was administratively an integral part of England. Crococolana 10:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If the evidence about status after Domesday is mixed, why is it so clear to you before? Cornwall was clearly a dominion territory under the protection of the Crown. Why should a fundamental (and bureaucratic) process of tax assessment change that, or be formulated under different words? Given that the language of the common people was Cornish, the assessors would have communicated with the new landowners in their official language. TGG 12:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because that is what the documentary evidence so far points to: Anglo-Saxon charters of the C10-11 and Domesday; and then the unionist and separatist (short hand only) lists put up on the site.(Sorry, I initially forgot to sign this.)Crococolana 17:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You should refrain from using the term "separatist". Or if you don't, at least use the term "annexationist" to describe the opposite viewpoint. ;)

Crococolana, I apologise for pressing this but I still fail to see what you are getting at! Perhaps we could also please clear up whether you are talking about England (the country) or England (the Kingdom)? I do not feel that your 'why?' reply addresses both my previously posed queries? TGG 17:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I find this concept you have come up with, that the kingdom was different to the country, quite odd. I've never found it anywhere else and it always seems that early monachs took particular plesure in listing all their possesions such as at the begining of the Magna Carter. Out of interest how was the difference between in the country and in the kingdom (but not the country) defined? josh (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I fear this is becoming a recital of differences which though interesting is not leading to anything practical. Different views about what is sound evidence and interpretations of events and documents seem as far apart as ever and I wonder if there is any point in pursuing points of disagreement over pretty much the whole field if nothing practical is in sight? I think the best way forward is to aim for a fully sourced article with two sections each setting out their case. It might then be possible to arrive at a common text. I find the distinction between kingdom of England and country of England wholly unconvincing. I think the phrases are synonymous. Crococolana 10:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom refers to the posessions of the monarch, which may contain one or more countries as well as other territory. These days I think that it is mostly synonymously with country, as they are moreoften than not the same thing, but I don't think it was always so. England was once an acceptable synonym for the UK, but this is no longer true. Just out of interest, how does this compare with the status of French Guiana within France. It is a country but is also part of France. I don't know if this is an accurate comparism to make, though intersting none the lessMammal4 10:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Easier to respond here. To put it another way: England (the country) is the territory where the English people live. England (the kingdom) is the territory ruled over by the King and can consist of more than the one country, for example, Cornwall (where the Cornish people live) and Wales (where the Welsh people live). Take as an example some of the quotes already put forward by the pro-Cornish edits. Modern definitions which seem to imply that they are synonymous are really as a consequence of imperial dominion (q.v. the British Nation myth!). I would agree with the concept of two sections as suggested by Crococolana.

However, this is a diversion away from Domesday and the status of Cornwall at that time. The whole subject of Domesday and Cornwall is fraught with ambiguity brought about by the inability of the commissioners to be objective when dealing with a foreign territory. Robert Count of Mortain, the first Norman Earl of Cornwall was classed as a Viceroy of this Province. Shown elsewhere is the extract from a charter of Edmund A.D. 944 identifying himself as " King of the English and ruler of this Province of the Britons". There are many other examples to show that Cornwall was never an English Shire but, hopefully, we can agree to disagree and objectively present this source information in the proper place TGG 20:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom vs Country

I'm responding in a new section to stop the above spliting into two arguments. First of all, many of the modern European monachies have possesions outside their own country. The Crown Dependancy for example. Although the destinction between country and dependency revolves around the fact that they don't answer, and never have, to the English/British parliament. Whereas Cornwall has sent members ever since the establishment of Westminster. The argument used by TGG is very ambiguous. Would that make a foreign nationals house outside of the UK then. It would still not answer the question of what makes people English.

We need some references that state that kingdom and country were considered seperate in order to use it in the article. josh (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This [[19]] shows that kingdom can be, inter alia, "A political or territorial unit ruled by a sovereign", whereas, this [[20]] shows, inter alia, that country refers to "the territory of a nation or state". England (the country) would be classified as a territorial unit but the inclusion of Cornwall and Wales makes it a political unit. Parliament is, in theory at least, for the kingdom (as a political unit) and not solely England (as a territorial unit).

England on its own - with its own government - would constitute a nation-state. With the addition of Cornwall and Wales it is simply a multi-national state. For the record, and advancing a few hundred years, Britain is simply a multi-national state and not a nation-state as some would encourage us to believe. Considering that Cornwall was, possibly, England's first colony, England has never been a nation-state! Had Cornwall been an off-shore island, it would, most probably, have been a Crown Dependency. As it stands, however, the Duchy of Cornwall should be considered as a Protectorate! TGG 21:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hundred, shire, cantrev

I don't know of the word cantrev being used in traditional Cornish. The forms I've seen are kev(e)rang (and conteth?), but I can't even give a definite provenance for either at the moment. The spelling cantrev would be unlikely in traditional Cornish (you'd probably see cantreff or similar) while revived Cornish would spell it as kantrev or cantref, depending on the school of orthography. But kevrang is the real McCoy. Quartier Latin1968 21:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine that, considering the period, there is an inference being drawn from Welsh sources regarding cantrev. TGG 21:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Cornish Tick Box for 2011 Census

Added Cornish organisations asking for a 2011 Census Cornish tick box

936

I have amended the reference to 936 mainly by giving the first reference, who is William of Malmesbury in C12 rather than a C20 one.Crococolana 00:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

general

The article is unbalanced and reads too much like a nationalist tract. The three separate sections on pre and post Norman and Moves for recognition should be subsumed in the Argument for non-English status. It is not necessary to have four separate sections explaining the same argument.

I have restored the English/Cornish divide of 936 as more historical; at that time they wrote of peoples rather than countries.

The myth section is irrelevant to any argument about constitutional status. I suggest it is deleted.

I have removed two claims that had no sources given. (However some...However it took until the eleventh...) When sources are provided they can be happily restored.

I have given the loving cup event a less partisan title. Crococolana 19:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Bona Vacantia

Added the following link and info:

In addition the the Treasury Solicitors agency for Bona Vicantia Divison considers The Duchy of Cornwall to comprise the County of Cornwall Bona Vacantia - See Jusrisdiction.

Bretagne 44 21:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed England as Celtic country

I've removed the following:

"most of which are also described by some but not all people as Celtic nations; many people think that England is not a Celtic nation, but others say that it has as strong a claim on the label as any other"

I know of no credible source that claims England is "Celtic", and the intent of the phase "Celtic nations" in this context is usually to distinguish Scotland/Wales/Ireland from England. See also the Celtic nations article itself.--Cenwulf 13:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

The present first three paragraphs of the introduction are unbalanced and unacceptable. I’m sure we can achieve an accommodation. (Actually I think the whole article is unsatisfactory but that’s for another day.)

There are broadly two views about the constitutional status of Cornwall with some sophisticated by-views in them. Roughly, the county and autonomy views (shorthand words only). An encyclopedia should reflect these views as neutrally and straightforwardly and fairly as possible.

Surely the formula county, Cornwall, England, United Kingdom has been agreed after an extended debate: see the wikipedia article on Cornwall. Are we really going to go interminably through that here? I think we should keep the agreed formula, which I had no hand in deciding. The body of the article explains clearly that it is a contended formula.

The verbs treat, maintain, note are partisan here. I think treat here might suggest “not really true but what happens,” maintain suggests “strength in the right,” and note suggests noting reality”. I consider that we use the same verb (consider) for all the views as this represents them all equally and neutrally.

“local authorities and official agencies and some people in Cornwall”: this is a straightforward fact. It shows that the range of support for the view that Cornwall is a county of England extends beyond the one central Cornwall and two UK institutions hitherto mentioned and includes other local institutions and people in Cornwall itself. This point should be made in an encyclopedia trying to represent all reality. The county view here is the majority view in the UK (and perhaps in Cornwall too). It would be unacceptable to leave people open to the idea that “county” is an insignificant view held only by UK institutions and the central county council. The contrary autonomy view mentions people rather than institutions which, without the additional correcting facts, might be taken to suggest in the present text that Cornwall-is-an-English-county is only an institutional view and no people share it.

“seem to them”: taken with the word cite the present formula does not reflect the fact that this view is contended. We need a form of words that indicates unmistakably that this view about the duchy and peculiarities and not just an English county is a contended one not a universally accepted one: “seem to them” does that.

I removed the references to taxes and MPs because these refer here to the UK only though the major contention is about the relationship with England. I am puzzled as to why these aspects should be singled out. Why not mention the law courts, the police, the educational system and national curriculum, etc, all about England rather than the UK?

I do not think "ongoing debate" is entirely accurate if what is meant is public discussion by the generality of people in Cornwall. I think "disputed" is more accurate but I'm trying to be accommodating. Crococolana 13:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have restored my edits. My wording is not sacrosanct. The struggle is to get a wording which does justice to both views.

No, it hasn't been "agreed". The only people who "agreed" to it, are the ones who were saying so before there was any debate. --MacRusgail 15:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

While pingpong is mildly diverting, I don't think it will necessarily get us to a better article.

I think we should have an opening sentence that reflects the common format in other articles but I have removed the contended text while this is mulled over by everybody.

For the rest, please read my arguments above, 19 September. I am happy for you to challenge thm and happy to consider your arguments.Crococolana 09:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Crococolana, your edits make the article heavily biased towards the county side. This argument should reflect why some consider it a county, and some don't and how this all fits together. No English county has the same kind of issues that Cornwall does, not even Yorkshire. --MacRusgail 11:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article should reflect the county and country views. I am dealing only with the opening at the moment. Please look again at my precise arguments for the changes, the actual wordings, attempts to do just that.

"Cornwall" does not have these issues: some people in Cornwall (and some elsewhere) do, seeing it as a country not county; some people in Cornwall (and some elsewhere) see it as a county of England and do not have these constitutional issues. That's the reality that wikipedia should represent. Crococolana 22:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am putting responsive arguments about Domesday here.

I think Domesday is more complex than suggested. Briefly, the position seems to be this.

We do not have a definitive list of what was surveyed, only the extant books of Domesday. We know the major intention was to compile a cadastre of all the manors in England; if there were contemporary explanations of any deliberate omissions, they have not survived.

Where there are no records in the extant Domesday we cannot know why, only surmise. London, for example, is not in Domesday. Does this mean it was not surveyed or that the records have not survived?

Durham and Northumberland. There are no records. We know that William I faced continual fighting in the north for several years but slowly won as he did elsewhere (eg the Fens, southwest), notably in the harrowing of the north 1069/70, and that Newcastle was founded 1080, and that William created earls of Northumberland and bishops of Durham. Why are Durham and Northumberland not in the extant Domesday? Assuming they were not surveyed, perhaps because desolate and impoverished after the harrowing, perhaps because they were very sparsely populated, perhaps because William’s hold on power here was unsure and his commissioners would be unsafe.

Cumberland. Part of this are actually in extant Domesday. Why not all? Part of Cumberland was under the Scots king Malcolm, though the relationship of Malcolm and his lands to the king of England after Abernethy 1072 is disputed. Domesday coverage is limited but does exist for Cumberland, Westmorland, and Lancashire. For these places coverage is not simply a question of sovereignty.

How does one sum all this up for an encyclopedia?

I am more than ever convinced the whole article needs rewriting and reorganising. Crococolana 14:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said that all of the counties mentioned were outside Domesday, just some parts of them. Add to this the complex relationship between the Scottish kings (who held lands as feudal retainers from the English king in northern England) and the English kings, and often interpreted claims differently - or claimed to. The joke is that if you go to Carlisle, the anglocentric histories of the area bang on about Scots raiders etc, without actually mentioning that Carlisle was the capital of David I of Scotland. If they could have a capital there, it suggests some strong control. Winchester and London on the other hand, may have been dealt with differently, as they were some of the largest towns in existence prior to the Norman conquest. --MacRusgail 17:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The myth of origin has no place in an encyclopedia article about constitutional status. It does have a place in a history of Cornwall.

Actually, yes it does!!! You have to get into the medieval mindset, where such stories were actually used as the basis for laws and conquest. They weren't just the quaint stories that they are today. --MacRusgail 17:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have changed kingdom of England back to England. There is no evidence that such a distinctiion exists. If there is evidence please put it up so that we can consider it. Crococolana 22:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Such a distinction exists even today. The kingdom of England, arguably takes in the Channel Islands. --MacRusgail 17:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

PEOPLE, MYTH

The essential point is that there are people, as well as institutions, in Cornwall who believe that Cornwall is an integral part of England, is now and has been for a long time a normal county of England. Opinion is indeed divided - among people. Your suggested wording amounts to "institutions say - opinion is divided" and does not make it clear that some people in Cornwall believe Cornwall is an integral etc. The next paragraph talks about Cornish nationalists, ie people.

This article is about the constitutional status of Cornwall; there is a separate article on the history of Cornwall. Sourced evidence has not been produced that the myth is relevant to the c/s of Cornwall. References to Scotland and Wales increase the sum of human knowledge but are not directly relevant to Cornwall; sourced evidence that shows this myth being taken seriously about the c/s of Cornwall is needed. Crococolana 18:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed as irrelevant to an artcle about the c/s of Cornwall refernces to Scotland and Cumberland etc (Domesday); the paragraph about the earls of Cornwall which is general history not about the c/s of Cornwall;the item about shires which has inaccuracies about constables in England (there were constables in both hundreds and parishes) which make it irrelevant; the comments about bona vacantia which were discussed in the general Cornwall article, looking at the actual wording; the irrelevant and unsourced item abot the Danish kings.

I have restored the reference to the regnal titles of the kings of England which may be taken to show Cornwall was not considered a separate political entity; the reference to an alternative meaning of provincia.

A source has not been put up for the "Anglia and Cornubia" statement. If it is not forthcoming, the statement should be removed.

On a minor point the original of Galford in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles appears in various spellings of which Gafulford is only one. I have removed this as too much detail for an encyclopedia. Crococolana 18:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you and Zburh would remove it even if it were referenced. After all, the two (or one?) of you continue to remove various pieces of referenced material, because you don't agree with it. --MacRusgail 14:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Care to give some actual examples? Zburh 17:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Erm, amongst many others "irrelevant maps", as you put it. --MacRusgail 13:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - my objection to the Roman era and 8th century maps was not that I "don't agree with them" but that I think they are irrelevant to the subject of the article, for the reasons outlined on your talk page. A map of China under the Ming dynasty, no matter how accurate, no matter how meticulously referenced, would have no place in an article on the Communist Revolution in China, and the same applies here. I'm open to persuasion on this point - but be aware that shouting "REFERENCED!" does not amount to persuasion.

Is "amongst many others" your way of saying that that's all you can come up with but don't want to admit it, or do you actually have some other examples? Because I removed a number of things from that article for one reason or another, but apart from those two maps I can't think of anything that was referenced, whereas unreferenced elements that I removed have been reinstated by you, still without any references (let alone corrections).

Zburh 01:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Roman map is of complete relevance, since it shows the relationship to Dumnonia, and the fact that Cornwall is far older than England (something that may prove uncomfortable for some people). --MacRusgail 16:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what bearing this has on its relevance to the subject of this article, whose concern seems to be entirely with Cornwall's position vis-a-vis England (and, by extension, England's direct progenitor Wessex). That only comes into question after the incorporation of Devon into Wessex, since that development produced (apparently for the first time, although lack of evidence leaves this a hazy question) a kingdom occupying the area we know as Cornwall, and preceded the earliest surviving indications of West Saxon power significantly impinging upon that area. What is the relevance of the much earlier history of the larger Dumnonia which preceded the kingdom of Cornwall to the subject of the article? The text does not address this beyond the bare mention of Dumnonia's existence (nor do I see any reason why it should), so the map is effectively illustrating content which does not at present exist.

I am still waiting for those "many" other examples.

Zburh 01:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem with “and some people in Cornwall” in paragraph 2? It is factual, however unpalatable some may find it and it points out that it is some people in Cornwall not just institutions who take a county view. "Opinion in Cornwall is divided" does not make the people point, coming as it does after a recital of institutions. To suppress this “people” point would be misleading and unacceptable. I have added a reference to the DCA view as given in Hansard earlier this year. Crococolana 22:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Opinion is divided in Cornwall", does "make the people point". There are Cornish institutions which would not entirely agree with you. Also, what was up with removing the sutff about Northern England in the Domesday Book? I think this is very important. London and Winchester, don't appear, I suspect because they were large towns. I'm just trying to make the article less anglocentric, and putting it in a bigger context. --MacRusgail 13:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope we are making progress. (1)I have edited the new opening to paragraph 3 as it is too bold and seems to me a point of view rather than a neutral expression of the position. (2)I think the myth paragraph can stay in if direct evidence is produced which shows it was considered relevant to the c/s of Cornwall. At present no evidence has been produced so I have removed it. Comments about Scotland and Wales are not evidence for Cornwall. All that is required is evidence applying directly to Cornwall.(3) I agree with zburh about the map and have added the factual point that it includes the individual Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. I think it would be better to remove the map which is only a snapshot of the position before anyone has suggested the Anglo-Saxons took over Cornwall, as has been said. (4) The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in its versions gives three different spellings for Galford. I an happy to put in all three but perhaps just leaving it at Galford is enough in a c/s article. Crococolana 21:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments about Scotland and Wales are completely relevant, since they are the two other non-English areas of the same island. I think saying that "opinion is divided in Cornwall" is a fair enough way of saying, "well, some people think Cornwall is a county, and some don't", with the shades in between. Mentioning its "idiosyncratic history" is indeed relevant as well - geographically, historically and linguistically, England is unique comp[ared to English counties. Other than Kent (and the Isle of Wight - which is unique for a different reason), Cornwall is unique in having sea on three sides. Cornwall is also the only county, other than Cumberland perhaps, which has its origins in a non-Anglo-Saxon kingdom. It is also the only place which has its own language, which survived into modern times. The Welsh Marches spoke Welsh, but they spoke Welsh, rather than their own language. As for "Gafulford" - I don't have much a problem with that. I think the map is very important, because it is one more nail in the coffin of anglocentric "British" history. --MacRusgail 16:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn’t a question of anglocentric or celtocentric or nails in coffins, but of working to make the article evidence-led. Let me list my concerns with parts of the text again. I think it would help if we looked at these one at a time to see if we can agree a text. I start with the easiest first and I have amended the article to take account of 1-3 below and the reference mentioned in 5. Your new sentence is overstated; there is a point to be made but not overstated.

1 Galford: there are three spellings in the ASC; we should use all three or none. I think in this article none.

2 I have given the primary reference about Athelstan (William of Malmesbury); the secondary reference (which must ultimately be based entirely on the primary because it is the earliest source) is otiose.

3 I comment on maps below but the description of this map is selective. It includes the individual Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and this should be mentioned. This is a question of fact and looking at the map.

Now for the more difficult areas.

4 Shires: the present text misleading because there were constables in English parishes; they were the successors to the Anglo-Saxon tithingman. The facts make the whole section irrelevantand I think the section should be removed.

5 The regnal titles/style point, which covers monarchs over five hundred years, is factual, relevant (Cornwall not named as a separate part of England or the Kingdom), and sourced. It is significant that not a single monarch mentions Cornwall in his/her territorial claims in the regnal style, not even for example in Magna Carta which recites John’s titles; this points strongly to Cornwall being seen as an integral part of England, not needing to mentioned separately, no one seriously doubting its integration. The Henry VIII coronation procession included trappers of various French areas so I am not sure what serious point is being made about Cornwall in that; and a reading of Holinshed shows clearly that the main point is pageant and spectacle; but it is nevertheless reasonable to include it in the text. There should be a reference to Holinshed in the text. Is there another source?

6 Domesday: Cumberland and Scotland are irrelevant to the c/s of Cornwall in 1087. (See the maps below too).

7 Myth: The comments about Scotland and Wales are not relevant to this article about the c/s Cornwall (but the myth is relevant to a history of Cornwall and it rightly appears in that article). What is required to justify the inclusion of this section here is documentary evidence that the myth was considered relevant to the constitutional status of 'Cornwall. No such evidence has, as yet at any rate, been put up. The myth should be removed until such evidence is produced. It is a question of evidence. My view is that in the absence of evidence this paragraph should be removed as irrelevant and unsourced.

8 The article includes unsourced tendentious assertions which should be removed.

9 What is the evidence given for the claims in the text that the Danish kings did not rule Cornwall (leaving aside the complexity of what ruling might mean in the past)? One map and the thinking or evidence behind the map not given in the article. This map does not prove the whole paragraph. What we need is additional evidence.

There is additional textual evidence but it points to an opposite conclusion from the current paragraph. There are two charters, with the usual reservations that accompany medieval charters, of 1018 in which Cnut deals with land and privileges in Cornwall: in one of them he signs as “Cnut totius Britanniae monarchus” (note: Britain not England) and the charter is a confirmation of a grant made by Edmund Ironside. These should caution against the present bold Norse paragraph. There is also a charter which shows Edward the Confessor granting land at St Keverne, part of west Cornwall, in 1059. See the maps point below too.

So we can remove the paragraph or else put up an additional paragraph contradicting it by referring go to the charters and maps below.

10 As for maps of the past, at www.viking.no/e/ekart-england.htm is a map which shows Cornwall as part of Canute’s empire. At www.pitt.edu/~medart/image/england/england2/mapsengl/msh9th.jpg is a map which shows Cornwall as part of England in the ninth century. At www.anglo-saxons.net are maps which show Cornwall part of England c900 and c1000. At www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd_1911/shepherd-c-060.jpg there are three maps: the 802 one already in the article, England after 886 (which shows Cornwall as part of Wessex) and Shires of England in the tenth century (which shows Cornwall as a shire of England). Some of these point to Cornwall being part of England in Canute’s day.

At (last ref) 065.jpg is a map of the Dominions of William the Conqueror about 1087 (Domesday year) which shows all Cumberland and all Westmorland and all Northumberland as part of William’s England.

I am reluctant to get into map wars and would prefer the present ones were removed and the ones I have just mentioned not included. .

A name on a medieval map does not prove that a separate political entity exists; it might be recording a cultural distinction. Additional evidence is required.

11 kingdom/country. I think the best solution is to include an additional paragrpah setting out the reasons why some of us doubt the validity of this distinction. I think there is a confusion about kingdom/country on the one hand and the “crown” on the other. Crococolana 19:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you over-egg the new point in the opening of the third paragraph. On language, it is more complex than you present. It apparently had died off in the east and centre of Cornwall by the sixteenth century and then became extinct as an everyday common language in the west during the last quarter of the eighteenth century - thus the trouble over which dead Cornish to revive. "into the early modern period" is too vague in time and place. Crococolana 17:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The mention of Domesday references elsewhere are completely relevant... e.g. it covers parts of Wales, but not all of England. In order to look at Cornwall, we need to take a broader view. Foundation myths - aklthough myths - were used to great effect in the middle ages, to justify conquest and independence, autonomy and interrelation etc, they can't be written off merely because in the modern mindset they are just pretty stories. I don't have any problem with you mentioning that individual AS kingdoms are listed.

4 - Shires. I agree that this name is misleading. It is an Englishing of cantrev. However, it is worth mentioning.

7 Again, this is your anglocentrism. These are perfectly relevant, if we are talking about whether Cornwall is part of England or not. Wales was conquered and Scotland annexed. Cornwall appears to have been absorbed.

8 - Of course the article makes "tendentious statements" from both sides. These need to be kept in, as it is a discussion of the two tendencies, not one.

9 - I have found additional ref.s which state that Norse raiders were using Cornish ports for harassing Wessex, and may have been doing so with local compliance.

10 - Highly questionable how much control William the Bastard had over north England. The Normans took time to get this, and perhaps over other parts of England as well... although the West Country is obviously very accessible from Normandy.

As for the Cornish language, we know it had a shifting boundary. The point is that it survived into the early modern period, nowhere else, except in the Welsh Marches, has a Celtic language survived into modern times. I also use the term "early modern period", as there is some dispute as to how long it survived. Dolly Pentreath was almost certainly not the last. We know which period it died in, but not exactly when. It may have even survived into the early 19th century, if ?Borlase is to be believed. --MacRusgail 14:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If I may butt in...

Point 9 is rather strange, given that Norse raiders of the period were routinely able to operate from bases in hostile territory - unless your "may have" reflects concrete evidence rather than imaginative interpretation. It also seems to have no bearing on the period of Danish rule. Since that is the period in question here, what point are you trying to make?

Regarding point 10 there is very little ambiguity regarding the area east of the Pennines. Just from a brief glance at the sources I can come up with proof that County Durham and Northumberland were under Anglo-Norman control in 1079 and 1093. To suppose that it was otherwise at the time of the Domesday survey you would have to argue (without any actual evidence) that these areas were conquered by the Scots within the few years before the survey and taken back by the Normans within a few years after it, and that these momentous events somehow completely escaped the notice of all our sources, even though they managed to record much less significant military events of the same period in the same area, such as the Scottish raids of 1079 and 1091. In the case of Durham the chronological window is even smaller, with Norman control attested in 1080 and 1088. An examination of other sources would probably squeeze this minimal margin for speculative invention still tighter. Of course there is room for argument about how tight Norman control over the local population was in these peripheral areas, but I see no credible basis for arguing that they were not part of the kingdom of England at the time of the survey.

In fact, the only real doubt about political control in this area relates to the status of Lothian - depending on how you interpret a reference (relating to 1091) to "Lothian in England", it could be argued that part or all of that region was under William II's control at that time.

West of the Pennines is another story - much of Cumbria seems to have been held by the Scots until 1092, which helps account for the omission of areas which would later become part of Cumberland and Westmorland.

Zburh 01:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Gafulforda [section REMOVED BY Zburh!!!]

Or however it is spelt... I've been doing some reading up, and it is by no means certain that the battle took place at modern day Gaulford. This is the usual identification, but it is by no means a concrete one. I suggest using the original spelling, and saying "probably Gaulford". --MacRusgail 14:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know how that happened. No need to get overwrought. Zburh 17:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's in the edit history. Considering the stuff you've been removing from the article, I wouldn't put it past you... --MacRusgail 18:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A brief visit, more later. I have removed the otiose secondary reference. The primary reference is sufficient. Crococolana 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the shires section. Please see 21 October, point 4. The contention that there was a significant constitutional difference about the disposition of constables is wrong. This appears to be the reason for the section as the rest is irrelevant to the c/s of Cornwall. We should relentlessly focus on the c/s of Cornwall and not wander into every byway; this is an encyclopedia article.

I have reworded the section on the kingdom/country difference, adding a sentence to explain that this claimed difference is not universally accepted. I have also removed the Channel Islands - they are not part of the UK but crown dependencies. There is confusion between kingdom and crown in this article generally.Crococolana 12:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just got back to this. Don't know what happened to my edit of 4 November, not what I intended, sorry.Anyway:

(a) I've removed again the otiose reference (see ##2 of October): surely we can agree this. (b) I have removed the shires section (#4 of 21 October): it is misleading as presently written, there were constables in English parishes and no one has tried to rewrite the section to make it accurate and relevant (though I can't think what it could say that is relevant to c/s Cornwall). (c) I have again removed the section about northern England from the Domesday reference. I think it is irrelevant to c/s Cornwall (what does it tell us about c/s Cornwall?) and the present wording is inaccurate and too simplistic. I agree with zburh 25 October that the east of England was (almost) certainly under Norman control at Domesday; and I have shown that some parts of Cumberland etc appear in extant Domesday. It strikes me as pointless to struggle to find a succinct form of words to express this when the relevance to c/s Cornwall is not there anyway. (d)The Channel Islands are crown dependencies not part of the UK (look at the DCA website.) (e) I have added a rider to the claim of some that there is a distinction between the kingdom of England and the country. There is a distinction between crown and kingdom/country. If we can agree an explanation that the kingdom/country distinction is not universally agreed, I can live with the text.Crococolana 13:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of the position of the CIs and IOM. There is no decent reason to remove the shire section, and you also edited the name of one of the pictures. Take it to the picture's page itself. --MacRusgail 17:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent PoV edits

I have tried for less biase. For example removing the inappropriate use of "many" when this has not been supported. Before using such words to try to give the reflection of support of a large number of ornish people supporting citations need to be found. A particularly bad PoI was the "What makes Cornwall unique" link. This was described as giving facts whilst it is a political website which puts forth controversial opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.30.72 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Map

The recent change to the map was reverted on the grounds that the alternative map didn't mention Cornwall, just Dumnonia, which is fair enough. However, I'd suggest that a map showing borders, as the current 802 map does, is historically quite misleading. See the discussion at Talk:Mercia, which was not about Mercia specifically but about the map. The consensus, although not unanimous, was that maps with borders should not be used for this period.

I'd be glad to do a revised version of the map showing "Dumnonia (Cornwall)" as the label, instead of "Dumnonia"; would that be better? Mike Christie (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The relationship between Dumnonia and Cornwall is a mysterious one. Cornwall was part of Dumnonia, but it's unclear if it had any additional status. Also the new map obscures the matter of West Wales. --MacRusgail (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The map in fact shows the tribe Dumnonii (which is the word written on the map), not the "kingdom" Dumnonia - as it stands the label is simply incorrect and does not correspond with what is on the map. The various tribes on the map were absorbed within Roman Britain. Whether before the Romans the Dumnonii were ruled as one "kingdom", were broken down into two or more groups, or governed as part of a wider British entity, is not known. No tribal entre has been found. It is not usual to create kingdom names from the tribes. Thus Boadicea was Queen of the Iceni, not Queen of Icenia. What the map shows is the area we now call Cornwall as an integral part of Roman Britain with no more or less individual identity than any other part of Roman Britain. This is in keeping with the maps in Peter Salway's "Roman Britain" (The Oxford History of England).

The caption of the map of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms is wrong. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle does not set out the boundaries of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, which the caption wrongly states. Rather it names them and assumes the reader will know where they are. The map is of antiquarian interest, as someone's guess made around 300 years ago at where "boundaries" for the kingdoms might have been, but the boundaries it shows are not those that scholars would set out today - basically the map is full of errors. Additionally boundaries were fluid, and the power of a kingdom ebbed and flowed. I don't think it is possible to establish a boundary for Cornwall from Anglo-Saxon written sources, and additionally I don't think it would have been static.

The usual Wikipedia method would be for me to edit these wrong captions. But in view of the passions this is likely to unleash I'm simply posting on the discussion board in the hope that in due time someone will corret these factual errors. Graemedavis (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Map of England

Two thirds of the way down the page is a map showing England divided into the governmental regions established in c.1994. The caption is "Supporters of English status consider Cornwall part of South West England (in red). This region is used for some governmental purposes."

This is at best a contentious assertion, and at worst a piece of political spin. The "English regions" are widely regarded as undemocratic and illegitimate, and many (possibly most) of the "supporters of English status" will regard Cornwall as a part of England but not as a part of the artificial south-west region.

That the governmental regions officially exist is not in question. I propose that the caption be changed to reflect this, i.e. that Cornwall is officially considered part of the SW region. If mention is made of the views of politically interested members of the public, then the nuance I have described above ought to be commented on.

Shiresman (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Too much weight

I've just read this article and I have to see it really seems to give too much weight to the Cornish nationalist side. Cornish nationalists are a very small minority and their views are not generally held, they are exceptions to the norm, yet here they are presented as not only just as valid as the accepted way of things but even more so. I think a bit of reordering is needed.--Him and a dog 12:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Small minority" - isn't that a tautology? "Norm"? The truth is that Cornish people hold a spectrum of views about their identity and their future, as do Scottish and Welsh people, and are not as polarised as you might like them to. What is a Cornish nationalist? Actually, Cornish nationalists are not just the people in MK, but the tens of thousands who support an assembly, many of the people who turn out to support the Cornish Pirates, or Cornwall in the championships etc. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Josquius, this article and the other articles covering Cornish separatists are grossly misleading and biased towards the nationalist point of view. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that this article is significantly non-neutral - more so than other articles covering Cornwall. It also seems to overlap substantially with History of Cornwall. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed this article is non-neutral and grossly misleading. For example the section "Norman Conquest" rightly states that William I created an Earl of Cornwall and included Cornwall in the Domesday book (ie treated Cornwall as an integral part of England), and points out that Henry of Huntingdon correctly reports this. What the article does not emphasise is that this is why Cornwall is an integral part of England, and has never needed to be united with England. The phrase "In Anglia et Cornubia" was ONLY used after the Norman Conquest (the article suggests also before), and unless anyone can quote evidence to correct me I think was only used once on one document from Richard III's reign. I know the phrase is repeated ad nauseam by writers who wish to make a case that Cornwall was once treated separately from England, but this isn't a reasonable interpretation of the evidence where only one document among thousands makes this distinction. Graemedavis (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see people agreeing. Usually you find on wikipedia that articles on niche nationalist subjects generally tend to just attract said niche nationalists as editors hence they rule supreme. I just stumbled on the article and don't know much of it myself to actually fix it (again, a common problem), hope its better.

And small minority as a tautology- nah, minorities can be small or large. 49% of the population would be a very big minority whilst 0.0001% would be a tiny minority.--Him and a dog 09:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Biased First Paragraph

"The constitutional status of Cornwall, in the southwest of the United Kingdom, is the subject of ongoing debate.[1]"

A debate suggests to me that there is an active political process, for example MPs, MEPs or elected councillors of a "Cornish Nationalist Party" pursuing a debate. This is not the case. Rather there is a tiny pressure group without political representation that would like there to be such a debate. The reference is to a website of just such a group, and is not a reference which backs up the point the writer would like to make. This introductory sentence is totally misleading.

"The Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom, as well as local authorities and official agencies and some people in Cornwall, consider Cornwall to be an administrative and ceremonial county of England. The Department for Constitutional Affairs stated in March 2007 the government's view that Cornwall is an administrative county of England.[2]"

Again this just isn't right. Cornwall is an administrative and ceremonial county of England. This is the legal position. The phrase "some people in Cornwall" wrongly suggests that this is a minority view in Cornwall - when in fact the status quo is overwehlmingly accepted at every local and national election where candidates for parties which believe Cornwall to be a county of England are elected.

I suggest the article should start: "Cornwall is an administrative and ceremonial county of England. There has been no formal challenge to its constitutional status as a county of England, nor has a group wishing to make such a challenge achieved any electoral representation. However there are a number of pressure groups which perceive Cornwall as distinct from England, and which would like to advance a case for a change in the existing constitutional status of Cornwall." Graemedavis (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Tried to move it in this direction but a ip reverted. Hope they don't start warring.--Him and a dog 18:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Cornwall is an administrative and ceremonial county of England. There has been no formal challenge to its constitutional status as a county of England, nor has a group wishing to make such a challenge achieved any electoral representation." - Well, you've managed to make, two, or arguably three questionable statements there. Tell me, are you trying to make the first paragraph more biased? That certainly seems to be the case.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a good suggestion that was less biased than my edit and merely states facts.
Cornwall IS a county of England- whether this is 100% legal and all that you can perhaps question but even the nuttiest of Cornish nationalists cannot question that this is de facto right now.
The Cornish nationlists haven't won any elections.
There has been no formal challenge to Cornwall as part of England.--Him and a dog 21:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

THe change to the introduction is good, its far less biased now although this article still has alot of problems which seem to simply promote one side. The articles Cornish self-government movement and Cornish people also appear to have quite a few problems still as well promoting one side and failing to explain just how small the movement is or how many consider themselves cornish. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I've started taking a bit of interest in trying to fix these recently after being questioned by a American friend on these subjects: he'd stumbled on these wikipedia articles and from them deduced Cornwall was a super opressed, utterly celtic and unenglish, hotbed of rebellion...Yeaaah..... I realise that the Cornish nationalists do exist and all that and these articles do have a place but not in their current form.--Him and a dog 10:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've attempted to reshape the introduction, to state the current position, and the background to the calls for change. In my view there was unnecessary duplication and confusion in the way the previous version was written. No need to edit war - happy to discuss per WP:BRD. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Ghymrtle, i disagree with saying in the intro Cornwall is "treated" by the ... that sounds like the British government is doing something wrong or something that many disagree with. However i see a merge tag has been added, so perhaps we should all discuss that for the moment. I think it would be helpful if this was all dealt with on one article instead of two as is the present case, they are both on the same subject really. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Cornwall IS a county of England" - Nobody is disputing its current status.
"Cornish nationalists haven't won any elections." - You are assuming all nationalists are in Mebyon Kernow. The Liberal Democrats got elected in Cornwall in 2005 after running on a Cornish Assembly promise. Andrew George MP is a well-known nationalist, in office since 1997, and he and Dan Rogerson MP have been investigating Cornwall's constitutional status.
"Failing to explain just how small the movement is" - With statements like that you cannot be considered an impartial editor. An impartial statement would have been "Failing to explain the size of the movement".
I think you all need to ask yourselves if you are editing these articles for the right reasons, impartiality and presenting the facts, or your desire to cover up or belittle Cornish nationalism. If you don't know enough about these subjects then you really shouldn't be expresing opinions on the article content. --Joowwww (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall IS a county of England yes, and yet we appear to be trying to discredit this by the current wording of the intro and the wording a week or two ago. The change (before the recent edit) made very clear Cornwall was a county of England which is why i supported it.

The liberal democrats as a party may seek greater autonomy, clearly for their own political gain but the party does not question the constitutional status of Cornwall, its a county of England, you said so yourself.

Im sorry but nowhere in this article does it mention how many hold the views this article talks about. Its misleading, and as mentioned above to some it sounds like this is a huge movement and people in Cornwall dont feel or like being English, which is simply untrue. This all needs to be put into context.

I am seeking change on this article and others like it because at the moment they are misleading the readers and overplaying the separatist agenda. Now this may be an accident by some people, but its possible some people have their own agenda. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

On the Administrator's noticeboard you chastise someone for claiming to speak for all of Cornwall, and yet here you yourself are speaking for all of Cornwall with a statement like "simply untrue". I'm finding it hard to take your concerns about people having an agenda seriously when your own agenda is so very clear. See my comments in the section below as to why the subject is notable enough to warrant its own article, regardless of how many people may be involved in it, for which numbers would likely never be found. --Joowwww (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry but i have never once tried to or claimed i do speak for the people of Cornwall. All i have said here is that its untrue for people to think the majority of people in Cornwall question the constitutional status of Cornwall. This is fact, its a minority held view by a few people.

I simply want articles to reflect the truth and not overplay certain subjects. Declaring Cornwall a celtic nation with no qualification i think is misleading, having an article on the constitutional status of Cornwall with out explaining how limited the numbers of people who dispute its status are is in my view misleading. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hope these references help qualify Cornwall's place as a Celtic nation - some are better than others, but there is a broad enough selection to choose from. I'll leave someone else decide which ones to use in the text ;) Mammal4 (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Celtic League - Kernow branch - Information". Celtic League website.
"Cornish Branch". Celtic Congress website.

"About RTÉ- RTÉ Awards". RTÉ website.

"BBC - Irish - Tionchar na gCeilteach". BBC Northern Ireland website.
"Welsh Assembly Government - Celtic countries connect with contemporary Cymru". Welsh Assembly Government website.
"Isle of Man Post Office Website". Isle of Man Post Office website. Isle of Man Government.
"Site Officiel du Festival Interceltique de Lorient". Festival Interceltique de Lorient website.
"Cornish Stannary Parliament Archives - Documents - UNITED NATIONS RECOGNISES CORNISH IDENTITY". Cornish Stannary Parliament website.
"Mebyon Kernow - The Party for Cornwall - BETA". Mebyon Kernow website.

Yes most of those are wonderful mainstream organisations. Lets see a separatist party, some that dont even accept that Cornwall is a county of England, great!. The issue of Cornwall bein a celtic nation isnt related to this article anyway, but all those sources do not mean it is a universally accepted view that Cornwall is a celtic nation... theres even dispute about how many celtic nations there are, some say 6 some say 8. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"theres even dispute about how many celtic nations there are" - That dispute is not really relevant to this article. The important word here in the Cornish context is "nation", rather than "Celtic".--MacRusgail (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok - I seem to have upset someone!

You write:

"...Declaring Cornwall a celtic nation with no qualification I think is misleading..."

and then I give several references which could be used to define this term more accurately in the text, one of which is from the BBC, one from Irish state Broadcaster RTE and one from the Isle of Man government, and you've dismissed them all as non-mainstream fringe organisations. I agree Meybon Kernow and the SP are not mainstream (and a bit mad) - they're just references which you may or may not wish to use. I merely given the option to make the article better by providing reputable referencable material - what you do with it and how it is used to support or refute is really up to the active authors on this page. That wont be me as I find it a bit soul destroying putting balanced writing into a page that is just going to get ripped out by the next person with a grudge (one way or the other) and I'd rather write about something less controversial. take care Mammal4 (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue of Cornwall as a celtic nation is not about this article anyway. The fact remains that some seem to think there are more than 6 celtic nations and its not universally recognized that Cornwall is a celtic nation, the British government dont declare it as one. There for just saying.. "Cornwall is recognized as a celtic nation." Is misleading BritishWatcher (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't noticed, but I'm not arguing one side of this or the other. Please re-read my previous message before responding. The article contains several references to Cornwall as a Celtic nation, I'm not arguing whether they should be there or not. You've questioned the validity of that statement (above). I have provided several references which back up the statement. I've done this to help try and improve the article. I am sure that there are other references which you could find that specifically say that Cornwall is not a Celtic nation (please feel free to find them and put them here). The point is to try and build a balanced article taking in all the viewpoints - there are very few things that are 'universally recognised' as you put it. Some people for example believe that man didn't land on the moon, or that the world is flat - these topics are also covered on wikipedia, with proper references. Mammal4 (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not merged. There's a pretty strong opposition to this proposal, and looking at the articles, there doesn't seem to be a significant overlap that would justify merging the two into one huge article. Jafeluv (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose a merge, the Cornish self-government movement and the debate over Cornwall's constitutional status are two completely different topics. Many people who want an Assembly have no interest in constitutional affairs. --Joowwww (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I accept the two things have different levels of support, but the Constitutional status of Cornwall is only disputed by a limited number of organisations and people. We are seriously overplaying the constitutional status matter by having an entire article on it.The vast majority of the content on this page belongs on the History of Cornwall article, the rest could be a section or two on the self government movement article or even on Cornwall itself. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing the two's different levels of support. The content on this article does not belong on the History of Cornwall article, as the consititutional debate is a present-day situation, not confined to history. The subject is notable enough to have its own article. Two Cornish MPs have been investigating the subject, and an attempt was made to bring the subject to the European Courts, which may be attempted again in future. Vandalism against English Heritage in Cornwall made the news and people were sent to court. The subject has been discussed in local newspapers and radio. Again the constitutional debate has very little if nothing to do with the call for an Assembly or devolution. The notability of the article is really not in question. In order to explain the subject properly, the very purpose of an encyclopedia, a paragraph would not be sufficient. --Joowwww (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything before "Status quo: the County of Cornwall" with the exception of the intro appears to belong on the history of Cornwall article. "Campaigns for fuller regional autonomy" this belongs on the Self government movement. We also shouldnt forget theres Politics of Cornwall, which could pick up some of the stuff as well.

Alternatively ofcourse the self government movement could simply be expanded on this article and the other article done away with. I accept alot of hard work has been put into the making of this article, but it really is over the top.

Cornish self-government movement provides very little information apart from going into more detail about the pressure groups, it seems reasonable that the important data from that page be transfered over to this articles section on greater autonomy for Cornwall. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've already said, they are two completely different subjects, a merge would severly damage the educational value of the two articles. Wikipedia is not a book, there are no limits on space, and the two subjects are separately notable enough to warrant their own articles. Your concerns with the articles' content is no reason to contemplate the articles' existence. The subject of this article would be impossible to properly explain without referring to history. The history detailed in this article, while it probably could be condensed to be more readable, only deals with Cornwall's status throughout history. It makes no mention of any other aspects of Cornwall's history. Debate regarding the content of the Self-government movement article should be made on that article's talk page. --Joowwww (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I didnt suggest the merger, but i will support it if it comes to a vote. I think it would be better for a single article covering all of these matters instead of two, but the most important thing is neither of the articles mislead people.. this one currently does in many ways. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You mention educational value; a merger of the two articles would greatly enhance this. As things stand now it is very misleading and this article seems to state that Cornwall's status is a major issue which everyone is fully aware of and cares about but that could not be further from the truth. Cornwall is a part of England and the only issue of note is the movement wanting autonomy, that some people believe it technically is not a official part of England should be just a footnote on the autonomy and history articles.--Him and a dog 13:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Could not be further from the truth" - are you also attempting to speak for all of Cornwall? If a merge is the consensus then I will support it but at the moment I don't see a consensus, and I will continue to oppose a merge until then. I fail to see how merging two completely separate and notable topics into one article would enhance education value. It would only lead to a loss of distinction between the two subjects and mean greater confusion for readers who I would imagine have enough of a hard time getting a clear idea of the whole subject of Cornish nationalism with a media that incorrectly uses the terms "nation" and "country", "independence", "autonomy" and "devolution", and "identity" and "ethnicity" interchangeably. --Joowwww (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You are certainly right that the media struggle with all these terms. That is one reason why it is important for Wikipedia to get its coverage of the topic right. Graemedavis (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge - reason being that we are talking about two separate things here. The self-government movement wants to gain just that, the constitutional debate is about what Cornwall is, and already has.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge - the Constitutional Status of Cornwall and devolution are two completely different topics - most people in Cornwall are fully aware of both issues (ie the 50,000 who signed the petition) - i.e. on 11th February 2009 Cornish MP Andrew George met with specialists in the House of Commons Library to discuss his ongoing research into constitutional aspects of the Duchy of Cornwall.-- Andy George met with specialists in the House of Commons--Pembertonleigh (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge - the topics are distinct. However, efforts should be made to reduce the overlaps between this article and those on Cornish self-government movement and History of Cornwall. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Support merge. Given the undisputed fact that Cornwall is an administrative and ceremonial county within England it shares with all English counties the circumstance where an article on the constitutional status is misleading, or just plain wrong. Otherwise we would need similar articles on the constitutional status of every county, eg "Constitutional Status of Essex" or "Constitutional Status of Cambridgeshire". The idea of the constitutional status for Cornwall only makes sense within a debate on devolution, as it is an aspect of that debate. I suggest this is the acid test - if there were no devolution debate about Cornwall, could we even be thinking of the constitutional status of Cornwall? Rather at most we would have a section within the county of Cornwall article pointing out certain curiosities in the perception of Cornwall - just as other county articles examine oddities in their relationship with the other counties of England. Graemedavis (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your first sentence contains a non sequitur. It is true that "Cornwall is an administrative and ceremonial county within England". However, it does not follow that "it shares with all English counties the circumstance where an article on the constitutional status is misleading, or just plain wrong". The historical questions relating to the incorporation of Cornwall within the English state are not the same as those which apply to other counties. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall has been an integral part of the nation state of England for as long as that state has existed. Before that it was part of the kingdom of Wessex, and before that a partof the province of Roman Britain. There are some quirks in the relationship of the county of Cornwall with the nation of England (as there are for example with Lancashire, County Durham and other counties of England, and there are parallel quirks in some Welsh and Scottish counties). These quirks do not add up to anything which has the legally accepted position of a claim to an independent constitutional status. The so-called historical questions do not stand up to scrutinty as is demonstrated by this discussion thread. What can be established are that there are people who advance these (bogus) questions of the constitutional status of Cornwall, and it is right that Wikipedia should report this reality. But Wikipedia should also report that blow-by-blow these claims can be shown to be without demonstrable evidence. Graemedavis (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you basing that certainty of yours on? Cornwall was never a part of the Kingdom of Wessex, in fact it came into conflict with it many times, as the Kingdom of Cornwall, either as a separate Kingdom or a sub-kingdom of Dumnonia, until Athelstan fixed the border between English and Cornish people at the Tamar, after which Cornwall was regarded as separately named province, with its own subordinated status and title but under the English crown, and with separate ecclesiastical provisions, and constitutional provisions under the Stannary. Cornwall became a quasi-sovereign royal duchy in 1337, its autonomy was removed by Henry VIII when he effectively shut down the Stannary parliament as part of his centralisation efforts. --Joowwww (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall was a part of the Kingdom of Wessex. King Ecgbert of Wessex issued charters for lands in what is now Cornwall, which is the clearest illustration of this position. This is reported even in this heavily biased article (though with the addition of some unfortunate comments which seek to imply an artificial doubt about the validity of the evidence). Anglo-Saxon kingdoms did not have the tidy boundaries of modern nation states - rather they had a core area and a boundary that ebbed and flowed according to the strength of the kingdom at any given time. Cornwall was a long way from the Wessex centre of Winchester, and there were certainly times when Wessex (and later England) didn't much bother about it. Alfred seems not to have establlished fortifications in Cornwall (though for that matter his fortifications in Devon were pretty half-hearted). Cornwall is covered by the Anglo-Saxon concept of Bretwalda - rule over the whole of Britain - and is adopted seamlessly into the nascent English kingdom (without any need for an act of union). Graemedavis (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If there were debates regarding the constitutional status of other counties then I'm sure there would be articles about that too. The fact that there aren't isn't reason to get rid of this article. A paragraph on the Cornwall article or on the self-government article would simply be insufficient to properly explain a phenomenon that goes back centuries. --Joowwww (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"The undisputed fact" - the very fact that this article exists, makes nonsense of this claim. The British State is a mess of contradictory constitutional documents, laid down over centuries. This is certainly true in regard to Cornwall, which has features that are unknown, or at the very least highly unusual compared to (other?) English counties.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This one has been flogged to death on this discussion thread. Cornwall has the legal status of a county within England. No nation state or international organisation supports the concept of any other position for Cornwall. People may wish to change this, but that doesn't change the present position, which is a fact beyond dispute. Graemedavis (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That is not under dispute here. If you think it is then you aren't reading the comments closely enough, and therefore aren't in a position to make an informed opinion. --Joowwww (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There is only one discussion that has been flogged to death, that being Cornwall is simply another English county. Unfortunately, the likes of the Kilbrandon Report by the British Government, quite clearly say that it isn't. As I pointed out, British constitutional affairs are a mediaeval mess, and that includes the position of Cornwall. There are a number of legal documents which say that Cornwall is not merely a county, as well as some that say it is. Hence we have this article about a subject which you seem to think is not in dispute. At least you're acknowledging that this question has been discussed now. That's a bit of progress from when you said that such a thing had never happened. I suppose the fact that people have attempted to debate this in Westminster as well, has slipped under your radar too.

Again, this article is about the present status of Cornwall, rather than the self-government movement, which seeks to change the status of Cornwall.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Its the same subject. More when I have time. Just making sure some people don't jump the gun here since only the usual editors have spoken so far.--Him and a dog 13:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

How is a campaign regarding the future, and an investigation into the past, "the same subject"? --Joowwww (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Does this comment hint at a solution? I have not read this article as a campaign regarding the future. Rather it seems to me through its title and much (or most) of the discussion to be trying to suggest that there are present questions about the constitutional status of Cornwall, and this is what is causing the disagreement here. By contrast an article with a title like "Campaign for Change in the Constitutional Status of Cornwall" would solve a lot of problems. It could set out the present position, set out who wants change and why, and set out what has been achieved to promote this view. Graemedavis (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You have mistaken my comment, the "campaign regarding the future" was referring to the self-government movement. This article is the "investigation into the past", and probably also correctly, the present. --Joowwww (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the investigation into the past doesn't exist except as a foot note for the present campaign. There is not and never has been a serious attempt to say Cornwall isn't part of England. That some people today think this is grouped under the others who want to break away today. --Him and a dog 12:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"never has been a serious attempt" - Subjective language, and definitely not suitable for this article. As I say elsewhere, this matter was brought up in Westminster at least twice, and by the Kilbrandon Report.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You're really bending the truth here. Please don't do that. The Kilbrandon Report did no such thing. I'm not aware of any attempts in Westminister. Its not at all subjective language, its accurate language. --Him and a dog 10:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Then you haven't done your research. I'm aware of at least two MPs who have brought up the matter of Cornwall's legal position in Westminster.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Can you also make up your mind which user name you want to use, please?

Oppose merge - They are separate subjects, which require separate articles. Daicaregos (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose a merge: The article on the Cornish self-government movement is a matter of political ideology, as a part of the status quo. Any article concerning the constitutional status of Cornwall means presenting information on legal and constititutional issues both past and present so that Cornwall may be understood in some form of balanced context. To merge the articles would only serve to confuse what is a complicated issue and which is, consequently, already a subject not very well treated encyclopaedically -- TGG (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Introduction

Whilst i like some of the changes made to the introduction so its more clear, i do not like the first sentence...

"Cornwall is treated, by the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom, as well as local authorities and all official agencies, as an administrative and ceremonial county of England."

Sayin "treated by" really does make it sound like the British government is doing something wrong here or that mainstream views disagree with how its currently "treated". Cornwall is a ceremonial county of England, this is fact and the previous introductions wording made that clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

While I don't see anything wrong with "treated", perhaps "considered" would be a better word. --Joowwww (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, "considered" would be worse - it does not give any weight to the fact that, in terms of actual current administrative practice, it is an administrative and ceremonial county. "Treated" recognises the existing government practice, while acknowledging that there exists a view that it should not be - which is the reason for this article existing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

British Watcher refers to weasel wording, that using the word treated implies a certain POV or state of affairs, without actually explicitly saying something. I would assume that in this case he feels treated is meant to imply wrong or (bad) treatment of Cornwall, or that there is something distinct about Cornwall that requires (special) treatment. I had a quick look through the web to see how the word treated is used in government descriptions of areas of the country. Broadly, it seemed that treatment was either Special case e.g "London is treated as a special case in recognition of..." How well something is handled e.g. "...and that London is treated fairly in any allocation of funding..." or where there is more than one way to consider something e.g "for the purposes of...London is treated as a single entity". I don't think that the treated in the intro falls into any of these categories, but it would probably be better to change it as there seems to be sufficient ambiguity to make confusion possible. Mammal4 (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we not reword it to say something like "Cornwall is governed by the UK parliament as both a ceremonial and administrative county..." Mammal4 (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Mammal4's wording helps, but I don't think I'd object to wording the first sentence as "Cornwall is an administrative and ceremonial county of England." - so long as the second sentence started with the word "However..." Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Is governed as" or "is administered as" would be fine with me --Joowwww (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks especially to Mamma for trying to explain my point, i like the wording suggested by Ghymrtle as it states the fact and then ofcourse should go on to say "however some.." etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So how would people feel about..

Cornwall is an administrative and ceremonial county of England, however there are a number of pressure groups which perceive Cornwall as distinct from England, and which would like to advance a case for a change in its constitutional status.

Then the second paragraph starts with "Cornwall is the remnant of the former "West Wales".. Before there was a mention that no formal challange to the constitutional status had been made and that most people in cornwall along with the government view it as a county of England. I think it would be helpful for a sentence explaining most dont have a problem with things but not sure how to add that. Id be happy if we could just make the above suggested change if no one has a problem with that?? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We'd need to have a source that says it, before it could be added. Have you seen one? Daicaregos (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

well i cant find sources talking about a formal legal challange to Cornwalls status, but i accept sources would have to be found for those things before they could be added.

How would you feel about the wording i said to the first paragraph? That adds nothing new to the article itself which would require sources, simply brings up the information on pressure groups questioning it to the first paragraph from the second and removes the obvious info that the parliament / government / local authorities treat it as a county of England. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

ALT: "Cornwall is an administrative and ceremonial county of England. However, a number of organisations advance a case for a change in its constitutional status."

My comments: Firstly, some of the debate is of its status within "South West England" as a region - there are different views, some think it should be separate from the SW, others think it should be separate from England. I doubt if these views - or views on contentment with the current constitutional position - have been quantified, but the whole debate is not about separation from England. Secondly, it is a fact that Cornwall is an administrative and ceremonial county of England; whether it should be is another matter entirely. Hence, in my view, any qualification should be in terms that it is treated as a county - not "viewed as" or "considered as" a county - it is a county, now. Finally, the groups concerned wouldn't "like to" advance the case; they do so now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, how about "Cornwall is an administrative and ceremonial county of England. However, a number of organisations seek a change in its constitutional status." rather than "advance a case for a change" and possibly adding on to the end of the sentence about some not wanting it to be part of South West England and others not wanting to be part of England at all as you mentioned. On view / treated, i agree treated is more accurate. As we start the intro saying it is a county a mention of how the British government / parliament treat is isnt really needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer "Cornwall is an administrative and ceremonial county of England, however, a number of organisations and individuals in Cornwall are active in investigating its constitutional status.", or something along those lines, as they believe that Cornwall is already legally separate from England, but that the fact is ignored by the government, which results in their belief that Cornwall should be separate. --Joowwww (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Or .. "Cornwall is an administrative and ceremonial county of England, however, a number of organisations and individuals in Cornwall dispute its constitutional status." ? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Of those two, I'd prefer BritishWatcher's version - but good grammar requires a full stop (.) between "...England" and "However...". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest "Cornwall is, de facto, an administrative and ceremonial county of England, however, a number of organisations and individuals in Cornwall actively dispute this constitutional status." ? This accommodates the 'treated/viewed' aspect and it is undoubtedly actively disputed. -- TGG (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the full stop between England and However as pointed out by Ghmyrtle. I also have no problem with "actively dispute its constitutional status". However i strongly oppose use of "De facto", i see no reason why that term is needed there it simply undermines the fact that Cornwall is a county of England BritishWatcher (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with "is administered as"? --Joowwww (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's tautology. The terms "administrative county" and "ceremonial county" are terms denoting different types of administration - they don't mean anything independently, only in terms of how they are defined through statute. To say something is "administered as an administrative county" is a nonsense - it is an administrative county, though some people think it is also, and/or should instead become, something different. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Would the term "administrative county" be accurate now that Cornwall is a unitary authority? As I understand the (unclear) situation, the ceremonial county of Cornwall is comprised of two unitary authorities: the Isles of Scilly unitary authority and the Cornwall unitary authority. --Joowwww (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

How can a legal term "de facto" undermine the status quo? It actually reinforces the point that it is a generally accepted status. If you are attempting to imply that the status is, for example, "de jure", then may I suggest that you enlighten us as to when, and by what means - with references - that it was alienated/severed from the Duchy of Cornwall? -- TGG (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall is a county of England, this is fact. Should we start all articles off by saying "de facto"? Scotland is a "de facto" country for example? There is no reason for the word De facto to be included, the second sentence would make very clear that it is disputed. There seems to be reasonable agreement on the rewording, it certainly isnt going to make the intro worse if the changes are made. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that de facto is unnecessary. I propose: "Cornwall is an administrative and ceremonial county of England. However, a number of organisations and individuals dispute its constitutional status." There is no need to state whether they are within Cornwall or outside. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Made the change now, will see if anyone has a problem with it. I think its worded better than before and is more neutral for both sides. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

woops i included actively as mentioned before, can remove the word if you dont think its needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The above example of Scotland confuses "de facto" with "fact". Therefore, in the absence of de facto - which draws attention to a dispute, but also suggests general acceptance - I would suggest that "its" be replaced with "this". I believe that the principal point of difference is that each side supports, and does not dispute, its own perception of the constitutional status. Therefore, to use "its" presents, imho, a statement that is not true and reflects bias. -- TGG (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Cant accept the de facto as it changes the entire balance of the introduction. On the other point i dont have a problem with it saying "this" instead of "its", what ever word makes the grammar / sentence correct is fine with me. The "its" is about Cornwall not the two sides perceptions or views, perhaps it should be "it's" though? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to be pedantic over this. I cannot understand your sensitivity over "de facto". A fact is an absolute truth, but de facto is simply an accepted truth. Nevertheless, I have no problem with "this" as a compromise in qualifying the basis of the dispute. As you say the its applies to Cornwall, but the article is about reflecting the two sides. One group will have no problem with this status but the other group does have a problem with this status. The latter group, however, do not dispute its constitution because they argue that it is "de jure" something other than what is stated. To leave out use of "this" would require some additional text to qualify/clarify the situation that it is this status, as defined, that is disputed. This additional text, imho, would/should reflect the position of Cornwall relative to the Duchy of Cornwall rather than England. -- TGG (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Since there has been no further comment on my proposed change, I have amended the Intoductory statement to read "this". -- TGG (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Proper Referencing

I have just been re-reading the case for/case against section again for the first time in a few years. Both sides of the argument are very interesting and, I think, encyclopedia worthy. What strikes me most though, for material that has been so heavily turned over by many different authors is the lack of references. Both the for and against sections list various items of evidence to support their cases, but mostly these are not referenced properly. I know reputible references exist for a lot of these as I have come across them through the years when studying this matter. Others are maybe of more dubious origin. I think it would really help strengthen this article if we made some effort to address this point. Any comments? Mammal4 (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added some requests for refs to the text to indicate where I think improvement could be made. Some of these are easy to address as the documents referred to are described in the text, but haven't been put in wikipedia standard inline citation format. Others I've seen elsewhere on wikipedia. Some I think will require more work. Some points i feel it will be hard to back up, in which case we should discuss their legitimacy Mammal4 (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I shall add, in the very near future, some of the requested citations to 'the Cornish case for', where I have easy access to these. Others, referred to within the text may not be easy to obtain. -- TGG (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Structure of this Article

I suggest that an article on the Constitutional Status of Cornwall has to have within its first section, probably as its first or second sentence, a statement of the present constitutional position on this topic. While this information is indeed tucked away in this article, I think it is a major structural weakness not to have the present constitutional position as it exists in both UK and international law properly prioritised, because in the end the whole of the remainder of this article is a criticism of this present constitutional position. The key quote is: “Cornwall is an administrative county of England, electing MPs to the UK Parliament, and is subject to UK legislation. It has always been an integral part of the Union. The Government have no plans to alter the constitutional status of Cornwall” (Hansard 6 October 2008 column 154W). Maybe the article should start with this quotation.

Once the present constitutional status has been clearly expressed it is reasonable to set out that there are pressure groups that make criticisms of this present constitutional status based on perceived doubts in its legitimacy - whether based on historical argument or legal argument (all of which can reasonably be explored). A conclusion is also needed which is based on the facts. Whatever the views of nationalists in Cornwall might be this conclusion has to set out that the UK government has recently (2008) confirmed that the constitutional status of Cornwall is that of an administrative county, and no nation state treats Cornwall as anything other than an administrative county in England. This is the present constitutional position of Cornwall in both national and international law. Graemedavis (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing debate above about rewording the introduction to something along the lines as ..

""Cornwall is an administrative and ceremonial county of England, however, a number of organisations and individuals in Cornwall actively dispute its constitutional status."

How would you feel if that was the intro? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it's better than the present starting sentence. Graemedavis (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. Firstly, not all of the people who question its status are in Cornwall. Secondly, the county status is in dispute because of contradictory constitutional documents.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ive no problem removing the in cornwall suggestion, as you rightly say not all who dispute this are in Cornwall. Some are foreign pressure groups with their own interests in splitting Cornwall off from the rest of England or indeed the United Kingdom. Some are even separatists from other parts of the United Kingdom who have the same sort of long term goals. However starting the article off stating fact that Cornwall is a county of England, seems reasonable to most people. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "in Cornwall" could be deleted. I'm puzzled by "actively dispute". This article sets out to be one on a constitutional matter, and in this context I assume "actively dispute" means are taking legal steps through a court process. I don't see how else you "actively dispute" a constitutional issue. If there is a legal process then presumably a named body or individual is behind it (and should be named). Graemedavis (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

John Angarrack is probably the most prominent person in the investigation, he has written a few books about the issue, I haven't read them but they would probably give you a good insight into the whole subject, also his website www.duchyofcornwall.eu has a lot of information with references if you want a quick overview. The MPs Andrew George and Dan Rogerson have also been active in investigating the constitutional status. --Joowwww (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it John Angarrack formed (and led?) "Cornwall 2000" which in August 2008 announced that it would be taking a claim for the Cornish to be recognised as a national minority to the European Court of Human Rights. However I understand that their campaign was abandoned in December 2008 through lack of funds. This was an active attempt to dispute the present constitutional status of Cornwall, now abandoned. I am not aware of any other individual or group that is actively disputing the present constitutional status, ie taking legal action on the matter. I suggest the openening sentences of this article should set out that Cornwall has the constitutional status of a county within England (as recently explicitly stated through the 2008 Hansard reference). It should be stated that an effort was made to actively dispute this status by Cornwall 2000 from August-December 2008, but that this campaign was discontinued. It should state that at present there is no legal challenge to the constitutional status of Cornwall. The article could sensibly end at this. Possibly it could continue to say that there are pressure groups (named) and individuals (named) who would like to mount a legal challenge to the constitutional status of Cornwall (but because they have not done so are not actively disputing the constitutional status of Cornwall). I suppose it is just about possible to set out the grounds on which a pressure group or individual might one day mount a legal challenge to the accepted constitutional status, but this strikes me as very close to crystal ball stuff and not what an encyclopaedia should be doing. Graemedavis (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Cornish Fighting Fund (attempt to take the UK government to the ECHR) was regarding the government's refusal to include the Cornish under the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. It didn't have anything to do with Cornwall's constitutional status. No there are probably not active legal proceedings at the moment, these things cost literally tens of thousands of pounds, as you are probably aware Cornwall is the poorest place in the UK, and the constitutional debate is not an issue for the majority of Cornwall's residents, and nobody who could raise that kind of money would even attempt legal action if the case wasn't water tight and the government isn't actually prepared to listen, which it isn't and they aren't. But the subject itself is notable, as is the debate, as it is an ongoing long-term investigation, and has been investigated for decades if not centuries, most notably by three UK members of parliament, a number of scholars and academics, as well as groups and individuals inside and outside of Cornwall. The subject has been brought up by the media and in Parliament. It is not any future legal battle that is the subject of this article, but the ongoing investigation and interest in the status of Cornwall, both historically and present. --Joowwww (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"stating fact that Cornwall is a county of England, seems reasonable to most people." - How many times do you need to repeat yourself? That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Many people would agree with you, however, many wouldn't. And those that don't agree with you have an extremely strong case to answer.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually not so many wouldn't. Whether its justified or a imposition of teh ev0l english it is definatly de facto that Cornwall is a county of England.--Him and a dog 18:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It is extremely disingenuous to bring "or a imposition of teh ev0l english " into this discussion. To do so suggests a particular agenda. The only reasonable point that you make is by saying it is "de facto". That is precisely what it is "de facto" and this should be used above in the Introduction. There is no need to dress it up, as you have done, with a wilfully flaming and emotive reference. Perhaps you might be surprised to understand that it is "de jure" within, and co-extensive with the Duchy of Cornwall. -- TGG (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(Spelling as in original) "Whether its justified or a imposition of teh ev0l english it is definatly de facto that Cornwall is a county of England. it is definatly de facto that Cornwall is a county of England." - As I've told you, merely repeating yourself doesn't make a case. There is evidence both ways. Personally I tend to think Cornwall is not a proper part of England, although the evidence is maybe not as strong as the Channel Islands or Isle of Man in this regard.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read the kind of stuff the other side comes up with if you think I've brought up the evil English stuff. Of course its the Duchy of Cornwall- this though is itself part of the UK.--Him and a dog 11:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the UK, or England, here? Make up your mind.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether I have read "the stuff" or not. I have, however, just re-read the whole discussion page and found nothing equating to that which you insinuate. The point at issue is, why perpetuate something that you consider to be wrong and which is completely irrelevant to the discussion? -- TGG (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall is in law a county of England. It acts in all ways as an English county. Both de jure and de facto Cornwall is a county of England. This is a matter of fact, not of argument. Graemedavis (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Will you stop repeating generalisations again? --MacRusgail (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)--MacRusgail (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No. These are key facts which are not in dispute, and which this ghastly article seeks to dispute by advancing a mass of supposed facts, all of which seem to be wrong when looked at in detail. Graemedavis (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion, not fact. There is a debate, and it's ongoing. Your edits seem committed to only one side of that debate. Pretending that the other side doesn't exist, is merely sticking your head in the sand. I've already pointed out that there are documents which back your viewpoint, and ones that completely contradict it. That's the British constitutional mess for you. I sometimes wish British constitutional matters were all laid out as clearly as the Americans or French have done with theirs.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This sums up the whole problem with this ghastly article. That Cornwall is a county within England is not an opinion, it is a fact. It is not a matter for debate as there is no possible debate on this uncontested fact. There are no documents whatsoever that dispute the position that Cornwall is at this present time a county of England. There are a group or groups or individuals who would like to challenge the constitutional status of Cornwall, though there is at present no legal challenge to the constitutional ststus of Cornwall. Please note that a constitutional ststus can ONLY be contested through a legal process, and there isn't one. No one is contesting this fact in the only way in which it could be contested, ie through the courts. I've gone through a lot of the documents which this article points to and which it is claimed back up the view that at some past time Cornwall had a different constitutional status. One by one they fall on factual grounds. This whole article is based on a fantasy. If there is anything at all that supports the claims put forward I've yet to see it. This is not an opinion or a side of a debate but a fact. Graemedavis (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You stated (above) in a response (to me?): "Cornwall is in law a county of England. It acts in all ways as an English county. Both de jure and de facto Cornwall is a county of England. This is a matter of fact, not of argument." - All that you are stating here is the over-played de facto position of the status quo. It patently is a matter for argument, until the supposed legitimacy of your alleged de jure is established. This point cannot be carried forward until the full process of 'when?', 'how?' and 'why?' the civil administration was alienated/severed from the Duchy of Cornwall. Even then, its annexation and union to the Duchy of Cornwall "forever", makes it legitimately recoverable. When I attempted some research on this, more than 20 years ago, the Duchy of Cornwall was, to be polite, extremely unhelpful. -- TGG (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The "de jure" status of the county of Cornwall was clearly established by the Local Government Act 1888. It is an Act of Parliament and therefore completely sovereign. From parliament.gov.uk

Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.

Therefore all legislation prior to 1888 is irrelevant. Even if the duchy was created separate from England this right was withdrawn by the 1888 act. Eckerslike (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If what you say is true - which again, of course, is only stating the unquestioned status quo - then you will be able to explain the 'full process' to which I refer. Namely, how did the constitutional entity known as the 'Duchy of Cornwall' become morphed into a 'private estate' having, allegedly, nothing to do with Cornish territory, when, a) - it originally contained the civil administration of Cornwall within said Duchy, and b) - it did not merge in the Crown in the absence of a Duke, but was held in trust for subsequent Dukes. This was a significant constitutional change for which there should be a transparent record of proceeedings. I accept that any changes would have to be made in the shared Parliament of the Kingdom, but it is not so simple as you make it out to be. It has had, and continues to have, significant negative consequences for the Cornish people. -- TGG (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be a specific Act of Parliament that refers to changes in the status of the duchy. For example, the City of Rochester lost its city status in 1998 when its local authority was abolished. There was no specific act that overturned the original charter but with no local authority or charter trustees to maintain its city status the charter was overturned by default. Likewise, even if the duchy held rights over the county of Cornwall there didn't need to be specific act to abolish those rights when the English county was created. The county of Cornwall that the duchy had rights over was abolished and replaced with a new English county.

As the paragraph I quoted states Act of Parliaments are sovereign and cannot be impinged by any previous act. If there are any contradictions the most recent act is used (see Implied repeal). The idea that the Houses of Parliament don't have the right to change Cornwall to an English county (as your suggesting) would imply that they are not sovereign. Eckerslike (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What you say may well be correct, but what I would say is that it is not a prescriptive right (an authoritarian dictatorship) and that it would have to followed a due process and not the arrogance of absolute power. I see no comparison whatsoever to the City of Rochester. With regard to the Duchy of Cornwall there is historical and parliamentary precedent, where anything alienated/severed from the Duchy has been recoverable (to make the Duchy whole again). Furthermore, when Edmund Burke sought (his plan for Economical Reform -1780) to include the existing five principalities into the whole, the 4th Bill (for Cornwall) failed because the then Duke of Cornwall was in his minority, and he had an interest in what was being proposed. Apart from this, the Cornish people themselves would have also had an interest, and the significant constitutional changes have had serious repercussions for them with regard to their inalienable rights. Therefore, the crucial point here is about the process. 'The deed' was done a century later, but not before the Duchy - fortunately, and interestingly! - had an opportunity to defend its vested interest in Cornwall on another matter. -- TGG (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about how the UK government works. The parliament is an absolute power. There is no alternative view it has been proven to be a fact in a court of law. The only due process they have to observe is that an act is correctly passed through both houses (unless the Parliament Act is used). This absolute power is outlined by the following quote.

It is often said that it would be unconstitutional for the United Kingdom Parliament to do certain things, meaning that the moral, political and other reasons against doing them are so strong that most people would regard it as highly improper if Parliament did these things. But that does not mean that it is beyond the power of Parliament to do such things. If Parliament chose to do any of them the courts would not hold the Act of Parliament invalid. --Lord Reid in Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke [1969] 1 AC 645

Eckerslike (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of indenting your comment to maintain the sequence of responses.

My sincere and grateful appreciation for the item quoted. I was already aware that the courts complied with the official statutes and the phrase My imperial State - right or wrong comes to mind. However, it also shows why this article is essential. Lord Reid's comment has been well understood (from the Cornish perspective) that rectification of the Cornish Question has to go way beyond the legal process. I personally feel that the minimum that should be done is to shame the Imperial hegemony - if such a thing is possible. Having said all that, it should still follow unprescriptive due process. -- TGG (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Mappa Mundi

I've just noticed the following sentence on this article:

"The Mappa Mundi of 1290 (now in Hereford Cathedral) also shows Cornwall as an entity distinct from England proper"

This is not correct. The Hereford Cathedral Mappi Mundi is mentioned on Wikipedia (with a suggested date of 1300, not 1290) and if your eyesight is up to the challenge it doesn't show national boundaries (just geographical areas). I assume it marks Cornwall (though I can't actually see this). The reference in this article appears to be to the BBC, but this is misleading - rather it links to user submitted content on a blog. I suggest this source is not appropriate within Wikipedia guidelines. The comment needs a proper source which says Cornwall is on the Hereford Cathedral Mappa Mundi. However even this doesn't really say anything one way or the other with respect to the argument being put forward as it would merely sort out whether the HC Mappa Mundi does or does not mark a geographical area. Graemedavis (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point BritishWatcher (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It is correct to say that Cornwall is referenced on Mappa Mundi along with England, Wales and Scotland as a geographical area. This has to be analysed with other contemporaneous observations that also pick out Cornwall for particular reference. If there is no formal academic analysis of this map and the significance of the places/areas depicted, then it is equally wrong to completely exclude it. I would, however, suggest that the depiction complements other 12-14th century writings - not least the Acts and Charters of 1337 - 1351. -- TGG (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Trying to interpret the Hereford Cathedral Mappa Mundi in the light of other documents is original research and should not be on Wikipedia. If there were a proper source for such research then it could be included, but the statement that the Mappa Mundi marks the geographical area of Cornwall is on its own irrelevant. Some early maps of the British Isles mark the three corners - Cornwall, Kent and Orkney, and this research could be sourced and referenced quite easily. The HC MM depiction is presumably within this traditional framework, and in any case there will be plenty of verifiable research. It makes no contribution whatsoever to the idea of this article. Graemedavis (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Without some definitive comment or reference to the contrary, your "presumably" is just speculation. It is difficult, when looking at the Mappa Mundi, to distinguish any corners. I do not, personally, contend that the map shows anything but that Cornwall has been depicted. It has, however, to be added to the general corpus of such depictions with regard to Cornwall, in order to establish some understanding of Cornwall, and/or point of further research, during that period and throughout history. -- TGG (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've no specialist knowledge of the Hereford Cathedral Mappa Mundi (though I do work with mediaeval sources). The key point is that the HC MM doesn't mark political boundaries, and in marking Cornwall it is not implying that Cornwall is a nation state. Anything much more than this is likely to be original research (and not right for Wikipedia). I don't see how the HC MM has any bearing on the topic of this article. If the article wants to look at maps, what about the many maps of a similar date that mark on England but not Cornwall? Graemedavis (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In truth, the objectives of the Mappa Mundi appear to be unclear to all, likewise the Gough Map (assumed late 14th C). Such sources, being referenced, are essential for further study because they relate to a crucial period of history and may reflect, significantly, contemporaneous perceptions of Cornwall, in particular. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic point of reference that should take people further than the standard clinical (sadly lacking) encyclopedias. The fact that something may not be marked has to be questioned as well as something that is marked. That, imho, is what the search for knowledge is all about. Cornwall is a specific case where history has been abused and skewed into an Anglocentric mass, or do I mean mess? Where the status quo stops people - even academics - thinking truly objectively, or without bias. Therefore, the phrase that you opened this section with could simply be modified to reflect this conundrum. -- TGG (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I propose modifying the entry, " The Mappa Mundi of 1290 (now in Hereford Cathedral) shows the geographical region of Cornwall. The map has no political boundaries and does not that Cornwall was a separate state, rather that it was perceived as a distinct geographical area[21]." to make it less POV and draw readers attention to the appropriate wiki pages. The first part is perfectly acceptable, but the latter portion stating what the map does not say is speculative nonsense.

The Map forms a particular style of Mappa_mundi known as Complex (Great) World Maps. Therefore what is included must have been perceived as having some particular relevance within that context. There would have been no point in showing Cornwall (along with Wales, Scotland and England), unless it had been perceived as having some particular significance and relevance.

I propose amending this entry to read, as follows: "The Mappa Mundi (circa 1300, now in Hereford Cathedral) shows the geographical region of Cornwall. The significance and relevance of this inclusion is, as yet, unclear. However the map belongs to a category of map know as Complex (Great) World Maps and its depiction, within such a world context, should be seen in parallel with related contemporaneous material. " -- TGG (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now modified the entry in keeping with the previous statement. -- TGG (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Time Immemorial

Surely a discussion of the constitutional status of Cornwall must take account of the concept of "time immemorial" - the time before which it is unnecessary to establish any grant or documentary proof. In English law this is fixed as 1189 (when Richard the Lionheart became king). Debates about the constitutional status of Cornwall prior to 1189 are irrelevant. (Every Cornish MP has accepted the English/British constitution through their oath of allegiance, including therefore the concept of time immemorial, so Cornwall cannot opt out of this concept). If there are any legal doubts about the constitutional status of Cornwall they have to be based solely on documents post 1189. Anything earlier may be of cultural, historical, ethnic or antiquarian interest, but is not of constitutional relevance.

As this is an article about the constitutional status of Cornwall, I suggest everything prior to 1189 should be deleted as irrelevant. Graemedavis (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not for Wikipedia to decide what is or isn't relevant in the way you are suggesting. This article should present what aspects of Cornwall's constitutional history are being discussed/debated, whether or not they are right to do so. --Joowwww (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting.

Is this article about:

a) The constitutional history of Cornwall;

b) The present constitutional status of Cornwall;

c) The proposals that may be being put forward for a future constitutional status of Cornwall;

d) Some mix of the above?

Clarity would go a long way to resolving the issues around this article. If (a) I suggest it needs a different title. The present title seems to me to mean (b). Graemedavis (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I accept that in setting out a debate Wikipedia has to report what is being debated. But it should present that debate fairly and within its proper context - which might for example mean giving roughly equal space to both sides, or at least reporting both sides. There is a particular problem in this instance in that it is something of a one-sided debate. However the 2008 statement recorded in Hansard is crucial as this is the official statement of position from the UK government (and should be given much prominence in this article as it is the key text for half the article). It is in the language of constitutional lawyers, and as such should strictly be interpreted by specialists - probably there is a publication which does just this. I think it would be a fair gloss to say that the official position is that there is no such thing as a Cornish constitution, and I think the logic behind this would be that from time immemorial (ie from 1189) Cornwall has been a county of England. Graemedavis (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Setting out the two sides of the debate within this article means that for every piece of information advanced to suggest that the status of the constitution of Cornwall is different to that of a county of England a response should be given from the other side of the argument. For every piece of information prior to 1189 the official UK government response is that it is irrelevant, because it is prior to 1189. As far as the UK government is concerned any case would have to be based on a constitutional document of post 1189. This article therefore needs to give more prominence to the coronation oath of Henry VII, which is claimed to treat Cornwall as a territory separate from England, and which if it is correct is a powerful support. It should reference this to a proper source (I cannot find such, and I've been reasonably energetic in looking) and it should look at a variety of possible interpretations ofthe oath. Graemedavis (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In view of the extent of discussion that this article has created it seems clear that there are different views on the topic. A way of covering the topic would be to have a claim-response format for each point. Indeed it may be that agreed text could then emerge on each point. Graemedavis (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs work, and a claim-response format would probably be best. But I would also be wary of turning the article into a "for and against" debate, and any content would need to be in readable and well written prose. Also it's clear that we have both read different versions of history, likely from different reputable sources, that present a degree of contradiction against each other, but as long as you are willing to accept what I have said may not necessarily be wrong, as I am with you, I think we can come to some kind of agreement over this article. --Joowwww (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there is a way forward here. Graemedavis (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that this article is, and has to be, about the constitutional history of Cornwall, but that it is its status today (already stated elsewhere) that is disputed. There are those, of course, that would disgree totally with the Cornish historical argument for reasons best known to themselves, and that is why it needs to contain a 'for and 'against' format. Whilst I have no problem with the concept of 'time immemorial', no constitutional history of Cornwall can be seen withing its true context, if there is such an arbitrary information cut-off point. Perceptions of Cornwall have been influenced, and acted upon, throughout the centuries based on preceding events, whether this is, for example, the 12th century story of 'Brutus & Corineas' or, even, the creation (or was it restoration?) of the 'Duchy of Cornwall' in 1337. Such information should not be airbrushed out. The Duchy, 150 years ago, argued that such knowledge was crucial in comprehending the true construction, and meaning, of the Acts and Charters of 1337. It also gives an insight into arguments that, technically within the UK, we have two sovereigns. -- TGG (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If someone wants to set up a for and against structure for this article it would be possible to go through the arguments one by one. The next stage would be to get an agreed statement for each point which brings togather the view for and against. For example the Hereford Cathedral Mappa Mundi has no contribution to make on the issue of whether Cornwall was or was not considered a separate state to England, and this point should be deleted. I think we would end up with a very short list of sources which may be read to suggest that there was something special about the status of Cornwall. If this article is about the constitutional status of Cornwall it must delete non-constitution secific material, of which there is a lot.

Of course a much quicker solution would be to zap this largely fanciful and dangerous article, either by merging it or better still just by pressing the delete button. Graemedavis (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"fanciful and dangerous article" probably sums up your interest in this article, so perhaps you would kindly spell out what that phrase means?

Given the thrust of this article, I would suggest that all referenced material should be valid in providing information that can be used by others to research and come to their own conclusions. You are clearly expressing a personal opinion. Therefore, what you personally deem to be irrelevant (in the absence of any, acceptable to you, creditable opinion) must still be considered valid. The regrettable fact is that even so-called creditable sources can be shown by others to be not so creditable. Where does that leave the validity of presenting referenced material for these allegedly creditable people to argue about. Simply attempting to throw doubt on a source's assumed validity seems equally 'fanciful and dangerous'. I would re-emphasise the point that I made above (13:30, 22 May 2009 ), namely, "The Duchy, 150 years ago, argued that such knowledge was crucial in comprehending the true construction, and meaning, of the Acts and Charters of 1337. It also gives an insight into arguments that, technically within the UK, we have two sovereigns."-- TGG (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion page where it is appropriate to express a personal opinion. The article as it stands (and even more as it was a while ago) is riddled with factual errors. Some of these are being corrected with contributions from several people, including me, but very many are still there. The process of correcting factual errors is wearisome, as is dealing with the emotions of those who would like the facts to be other than what they are. I've gone through the "historical" material in the earlier part of this article, and I'm not worying about issues where there are two valid views, but issues where this article presents wrong facts which can be shown as wrong. Some of them are almost comical - I'm thinking perticularly of Johnson's spoof Cornish declaration of independence which was presented as if the writer thought it were genuine. There's a whole sucession of factual wrong material, whether Roman Britain, the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans, the Tudors - basically the whole lot is a tapestry of wrong facts. There seems to be an additional problem where errors have been repeated so often that they have gained a spurious credibility. The idea of acts of parliament being enacted for "England and Cornwall" seems top of the list. I cannot find a single example of such (and the primary sources are readily available) yet there are a host of websites which make this unreferenced statement. Is there a genuine reference anywhere?

Leaving aside the historical sections of this article, there is a fundamantal failure to understand that a constitution is a legal construct. Dispute about a constitution can only be through a legal process, of which there is at present none. It is possible for this article to say that someone did consider a half-hearted effort to bring a legal challenge, but was unable to raise the very modest sum of £100,000 or thereabouts to make this challenge.

This article is therefore fanciful in terms of the tapestry of mistakes it presents as facts and in terms of its premise that there is a dispute about the constitutional status of Cornwall. All we are left with is a mythical history of Cornwall and an ill-defined wish that someone might one day dispute the constitutional status of Cornwall.

Of course the web is full of errors, and doubtless there are plenty on Wikipedia - and most of them don't matter all that much. The problem with this article is that the wrong supposed facts it is advancing are actually dangerous. This article is encouraging a sense of Cornish grievance - the fictitious idea that England has somehow invaded Cornwall, destroyed a functioning Cornish nation and constitution, and that there is now some legal dispute or debate about the constitutional status of Cornwall, or even some anti-Cornish conspiracy. Whatever the intentions of the writers, this article will be picked up by extreme nationalist groups in Wales, Scotland, Ireland and perhaps elsewhere, groups whose ideas and modus operandi make them illegal. Yes this article is dangerous because the fibs it advances will be used to support evil actions. A possible defence for an article would be that it is presenting the truth, or that it is presenting two sides of an argument. But this one isn't doing either of these. Supposed fact after supposed fact is simply wrong. It may be that somewhere within all these errors are a few scraps which are correct, and these should be presented and properly discussed - but not hidden under a blanket of dangerous errors.

Possibly this article could be revised or merged and the dangerous errors dealt with. But the simpler answer is to delete it, presumably on the grounds that it may potentially cause harm. Graemedavis (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"Some of these are being corrected with contributions from several people, including me, but very many are still there." - Such as "Cornwall was included within the Saxon kingdom of Wessex from at least the 8th or 9th century. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records a battle in 825 in which Devon forces ("Defnas" i.e. men of Devon) loyal to Egbert of Wessex defeated the Cornish ("Wealas", i.e. foreigners, or strangers) at "Gafulford"... This interpretation has been taken from Professor Malcolm Todd's "The South West to AD1000". Todd is a so-called scholar who produces Anglocentric "twistory". His version of this event reads: "A rebellion by the Cornish in 825 failed when they were defeated by Ecgberht at Gafulford".

The ASC entry actually reads: "The Westwealas (Cornish) and the men of Defnas (Devon) fought at Gafulforda"..... And that is all it says.... No mention of who won or who lost, whether the men of Cornwall and Devon were fighting each other or on the same side and certainly no mention of Ecgberht. Nor can one "rebel" against a foreign enemy - only an internal one. Todd has no foundation whatsoever for his assumption, and seems to be politically motivated - as a professional historian, he should be ashamed of himself.86.166.229.226 (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a topic I'm very happy to debate as I'm a specialist in the area. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reads "Her wæs Wala gefeoht & Defna æt Gafulforda ..." The verb is prefixed ge-, which certainly modifies its meaning from the basic "fought". There isn't in fact agreement as to what the "ge-" means, but it is likely that it is a perfectivising prefix with a meaning "completely fought", "fought to victory" or "defeated". A translation "The Wala and Defna fought at Gafulforda" is just about possible, though better is "The Wala were defeated by the Defna at Gafulforda" - if this is indeed Todd's translation it certainly looks right. Of course all three nouns have problems. Gafulforda is not certainly identified; Defna means something like men of Devon, though whether we are to understand Devon as just the area of the present county is up for debate; Wala could mean Welsh, West-Welsh (ie Cornish), Danes, some other foreigners, slaves, rebels or even something like wretches. Todd has a very sound reputation as an archaeologist and a historian and his views are persuasive. Indeed the criticism of him above seems typical of the attitude that runs through this abysmal article, where unfounded slurs as "so-called scholar who produces Anglocentric twistory" can be thrown against an eminent specialist with a magnificent reputation who is presenting a view which in this case is surely universally agreed. Graemedavis (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Again and again this article miss-represents historical sources. It seems the majority of people writing this article have no experience of working with mediaeval sources, and no familiarity with the Anglo-Saxon, Middle English and Latin used in them, nor do they have a proper grounding in history, including the history of Cornwall. Yet from this background some writers appear able to dismiss the sterling work of someone like Todd and give credence to the ill-conceived ramblings of some of those who invent a mythical history of Cornwall. This article as it stands is abysmal and dangerous writing reflecting a well of ignorance where fantasy is given as much credence as proper scholarship. Graemedavis (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input but you appear to be clutching at straws here --- ge- originally meant "together" but lost all collective or intensive meaning. gefeohtan means "to fight, to gain/obtain by fighting or to win (but not to defeat)." However, if "defeat" can be applied, then it would translate as the Walas defeated the Defnas. There is uncertainty but all it tells us is that the Walas and Defnas fought. Or even, in the original meaning of the AS verb,"fought together". Even that doesn't tell us if they were on the same side or in opposition. Todd's version goes on about the Cornish "rising in rebellion" and being "defeated by Egberht". The original makes no mention of rebellion, defeat or Ecgberht. Todd appears to be unreliable and it has been claimed that he produces fiction from history when it suits him to do so...Kedehern (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you that you are simply wrong. Campbell's Old English Grammar is the standard reference work, though many other Old English grammars would serve to make much the same points on the morphology and syntax of the verb in Old English. Additionally there is an extensive literature on the verbal prefixes of Old English, and the topic is complex - though the old idea that ge- was an empty prefix without meaning is now discredited. Blow by blow in response to the mistakes above: the prefix ge- may have had a separate adverbial meaning in Common Germanic, but not in Old English; gefeohtan does not have quite the range of meanings you are quoting (possibly from an old dictionary, in particular the meaning "win" is strange); defeat is certainly one meaning for gefeohtan; this sentence categorically does not translate as the Wala defeated the Defna - this would breach syntactic rules now well established (Bruce Mitchell, Old English Syntax, 1985); the sentence structure does establish that the Wala and the Defna were on opposite sides. All this seems well away from the topic of this article. For the purposes of this article we have a brief statement from the Anglo-Saxon chronicle which is not clear in its meaning, and it is very hard to see how any conclusion can be drawn from it. If Gafulforda could be identified with certainty we would have a fixed point. Without such an identification we are struggling. The words of the Chronicle could imply a fight with a Cornish force, but they could also imply a fight with rebels, foreigners (Danes perhaps), or with the Welsh - Anglo-Saxon fighting bands travelled long distances, and the idea of a group of men from Devon having a punch-up somewhere in Wales is plausible. The criticism expressed of Todd is distasteful. He is - or was until recently - a professor at Durham, and in the UK system a research chair is a substantial academic achievement. I see he is a senior research fellow with the British Academy, which reflects exceptional academic achievement. Within the context of a Wikipedia encyclopedia article the views of someone with the status of Todd should be presented with an appreciation of their impressive credentials. Of course they can be contested, but unless a scholar of comparable weight can be found to disagee then Wikipedia has to report the established view. Graemedavis (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain where Todd got the "rebellion" and "Ecgberht" from in his "The South West to AD1000" statement "--"A rebellion by the Cornish in 825 failed when they were defeated by Ecgberht at Gafulford" ? You say yourself that the words of the Chronicle could imply a fight with a Cornish force, but they could also imply a fight with rebels, foreigners (Danes perhaps), or with the Welsh, so is this again Todd speculating ? Todd also maintains that the West Saxons conquered the Cornish and absorbed Cornwall into Wessex. Where's the proof of that, or is it the usual "presumably" / speculation ? Why doesn't the ASC say a single word about it ? - please supply references. I also have it on good authority that in the past Todd has "borrowed" other people's work without their permission. For such an "eminent specialist" and senior research fellow with the British Academy, his history leaves a lot to be desired, and so do his ethics.Kedehern (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The simplest answer to your questions is ask Todd - I don't have to hand the book you are referring to. Alternatively you could check other manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - it is entirely possible that another manuscript has a different version. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is not comprehensive in its coverage, and there are a lot of important events left out, so not finding something in it really doesn't prove anything. I don't know what your "good authority" might be, but you need to be aware that your comments accusing Todd of borrowing other people's work and quetioning his ethics count as libel. Todd has many academic plaudits (see his article on Wikipedia for example) which are not gained lightly. I know a little about the workings of the British Academy and know that a career with impeccable research credentials (including research ethics) is required for election as a senior research fellow, which is an exceptionally rigorous process. For the purposes of this Wikipedia article the facts should be reported as Todd sets them out, unless there is some credible dispute which can be properly referenced. Graemedavis (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

For someone who cannot tell the difference between Pictish, Anglo-Saxon and Norse, I wouldn't take this man's claims too seriously.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Henry VII's Coronation Oath

In this article it is stated that Henry VII specifically named Cornwall in his coronation oath - and therefore differentiated it from England. However the source is Holinshed's "Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland", not the coronation oath itself. An exact refernce would help (the only on-line source for vol 2 I can find is a subscription service and I haven't bought access - I assume Holinshed in fact says what it is claimed here he says). Holinshed is certainly an important historian, but his work is full of mistakes and is often fanciful. The wording of the reference to Henry VII's coronation oath in this article needs to make it clear that it is Holinshed who reports he named Cornwall separately. I don't think we have an official document which sets out that Henry VII in fact did this (if we do lets reference this, because it is the strongest possible support for a separate constitutional status for Cornwall existing). Holinshed of course has no legal status in an argument about the constitutional status of Cornwall, though it is an interesting comment nonetheless. Graemedavis (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't take this man's claims too seriously, he is a laughing stock in Scottish academic circles for his Von Daniken-esque tome on Anglo-Saxon Orkney and Shetland.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Charters for Cornwall

This article is exceptionally misleading on this topic, and misrepresents a source. I have made some minor changes.

The quoted source is Hooke, Della (1994)Pre-Conquest Charter Bounds of Devon and Cornwall, Woodbridge: Boydell; pp. 16-17</

This is used by the article as a source to throw doubt on the veracity of charters by which Ecgbert granted lands in Cornwall. I have looked at the book, including the pages quoted, and it does not do this. The pages in question simply list the charters. One is now lost but has an early copy which according to Hooke is "regarded as authentic". Others are "authentic". The reference says exactly the opposite to what the original writer suggested.

There is no source whatsoever that doubts these charters, and that they are indicative of Cornwall being a part of Wessex. This is a matter of verifiable fact, not a point of view. Graemedavis (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Norman Conquest

The second paragraph of the section Pre-Norman Conquest has been amended recently. It now begins: 'Cornwall was first recognised as part of the Saxon kingdom of Wessex in the 8th century.' Such an authoritative statement should be referenced. I note that the following paragraphs do not back up this claim either. I would be interested to hear any views on this. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A reference is the Della Hook material, as in the paragraph above. Better phrasing would be something on the lines of "Cornwall was an integral part of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Wessex fro at least the 8th century, and probably earlier". Graemedavis (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm having some trouble locating the reference to which you refer. There are three references noted in the first paragraph of the Pre-Norman Conquest section that you referred me to. The third relates to the etymology of 'Cornwall'. The second seems to be a blog for a holiday let cottage. The first, the BBC site, notes that 'Athelstan ... attacked the south western Celts [ie the Cornish] in 927, quite some time after the 8th century. Would you mind directing me to the reference you refer to, including page, paragraph etc. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The source is Hooke, Della (1994)Pre-Conquest Charter Bounds of Devon and Cornwall, Woodbridge: Boydell; pp. 16-17, as set out in the paragraph above this Pre-Norman Conquest paragraph. Graemedavis (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

'the paragraph above this Pre-Norman Conquest paragraph.' has no references at all. Why would you direct me to a reference, twice, when it is not there? What a waste of my time. However, I WP:AGF and assume it was an honest mistake. It seems to be difficult to find references accurately. I refer to the reference you provided - Pre-conquest charter-bounds of Devon and Cornwall By Della Hooke. You say that the source is on pp 16-17. I note that p 16 is headed "Ninth century charters without boundary claims". The first thing to highlight is that your source refers to the "ninth century". Your claim is for the "8th century". Your reference does not substantiate your claim. Not only that, but you want to change the statement in the article to read "... 8th century, and probably earlier". Would you care to comment on this, as I am sure there will be a reasonable explanation? Daicaregos (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not even the antiquarian's map interpretation quoted (from 1830) shows Cornwall as part of Wessex. Cornwall's eastern border was, at the time of Ecgberht up until Athelstan, the Taw-Exe line. If Cornwall had been conquered in the 8th century, why did Cornwall have a recorded king towards the end of the 10th century and another named in the 10th. Even early Norman records (according to William of Malmesbury) told of the "last of Cornish royal line", a prince (or earl in Norman terms) called Cadoc. There is no way that the Kingdom of Wessex would have allowed this line to survive, and, of course, the ASC is totally silent on this matter. Had Wessex conquered Cornwall, and they tried for over 200 years, the Anglo Saxon Chronicle would not have failed to shout it from the rooftops, but it says nothing, nothing at all. Athelstan fixed the east bank of the Tamar as the boundary between Wessex and Cornwall in 936 and the Burghs of Alfred's Wessex stopped in Devon. There is no record of Athelstan taking his campaigns into Cornwall and it seems probable that Hywel, King of the Cornish, agreed to pay tribute thus avoiding further attacks and maintaining a high degree of autonomy. Kedehern (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet

To see what sock puppet means in a wikipedia context, and how it might be relevant here, please see -WP:Sock puppet--MacRusgail (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Nationalism

Does Ethnic Nationalism not refer to the sort of nationalism advocated by the BNP. Should the title of the section ""Cornish Cultual, Civic and Ethnic Nationalism"" be changed to something like ""Cornish Cultural, Civic Nationalism and Ethnic status"" or something else... MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Not really.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I see this section contains a quote from an unpublished paper by someone called Adrian Lee. Is he notable enough to be included in the article? I'm sure there can be better sources on this subject. --Talskiddy (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Cadoc and William of Malmesbury

I removed the following referenced sentence from the article:

A later medieval historian William of Malmesbury puts forward the view that at the time of the Norman Conquest, Cornwall was ruled by ‘Earl’ Cadoc, a survivor of the Cornish royal line.(ref)Duchy of Cornwall eu(/ref)

because the reference supplied gives the source as William of Worcester (who wrote several centuries after William of Malmesbury) but fails to name a specific work where the information can be checked. The replacement reference given from Camden's Britannia, explains the situation quite succinctly- that as far as he could find, only "late writers" (i.e. from the century or so before his own time) mention Cadoc/Candorus. If anybody can find a genuine early reference to this probably-mythical ruler, by all means put it in- as I have been finding over the past few days, the standard of historical accuracy in this article is very poor, so it definitely needs some proper attention. 86.25.17.62 (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

See also Cadoc of Cornwall which I'm trying to fix. I can't find a mention of William of Worcester either. I find this early 19th c. mention "earldom+of+cornwall"+William&num=100&ei=AjupSpz4JYzIMYGfhKIK#v=onepage&q=cadoc%20%22earldom%20of%20cornwall%22%20William&f=false and Peter Beresford Ellis discusses a Cador/Condor and a Cadoc "earldom+of+cornwall"+William&num=100&ei=AjupSpz4JYzIMYGfhKIK#v=onepage&q=cadoc%20%22earldom%20of%20cornwall%22%20William&f=false here. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Any source mentioning the marriage of Cadoc's daughter Agnes runs into the basic problem that her "husband" had a long and probably happy marriage to somebody completely different! 86.25.31.39 (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Athelstan 926 / 936; and a bigger problem

Many articles on Cornish topics in Wikipedia quote a date of 936 CE for King Athelstan's fixing of the Cornish boundary at the Tamar, quoting "Philip Payton (1996) A History of Cornwall; p. 82" as the source. The problem is, this (if it accurately reflects the source, which I have not seen) does not agree with any other source- including later work by Payton! The accepted date is, and always has been, 926 (or possibly 927) and 936 is almost certainly just a typo.

The bigger problem is the repetition of this, and much other Cornish information, in a surprisingly large number or articles throughout Wikipedia. All the Cornish articles should probably be streamlined to minimise repetition (despite the large number of Cornish articles, several of them have length warnings). On a related matter- the map of Canute's empire (which as other contributors have pointed out is nearly a century behind modern scholarship) appears as four near-identical jpg files, three of which have been uploaded to Commons by the same contributor. That is just silly. 86.25.24.233 (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please provide proof of your claims. A reliable source that validates your concerns. Until then WP:V trumps opinion and your changes reverted. --Jza84 | Talk 23:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are referring to here. The specific revision concerning the date 936/926 has TWO reliable references: Payton and his source, William of Malmesbury. In fact, all my revisions have verifiable, reliable references. As for my concerns, given in the second paragraph above, they are simply about common sense versus needless repetition (which not only wastes space, but makes revision much more difficult). 86.25.18.164 (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're probably right, but we do need you to give reliable references for the date, which can be checked by others. WP:V applies. Simple Google searches for "Athelstan 926" and "Athelstan 936" give confusing results, probably (but we don't know) because other sites have copied this one. Because you are not a registered user, there is no (easy) way of checking what edits you have made on other pages, or how they are referenced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still bewildered. Right after the words "River Tamar" at the end of the disputed section are two little numbers (currently 5 and 6). Clicking on those gets you to references to the precise chapter of William of Malmesbury containing the information (no page number or online link, because there are numerous different editions) and to the details of Payton's article (with online link to an extract stating quite specifically that the date is 926). Isn't that the point of the Wikipedia reference system? 86.25.30.189 (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Unitary authority

Why doesn't the article call it a unitary authority in the lead? Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

'Cos everybody's waiting to see whether unitary status will be a total disaster? Anyway, I've taken the plunge. David Trochos (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw that, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall is still a ceremonial county. --Kernoweger (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)