Jump to content

Talk:Kingdom of Cornwall

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article name

[edit]

As far as I can see there never was a Kingdom of Cornwall and there are no citations in the article that establish that name. There is evidence for Dumnonia and the separation of the Welsh from the Cornish (to use modern terms) at the Battle of Dyrham in 577 is important. Even then the use of "King" is more Saxon that celtic. Yes there are some legendary uses but it is normal to talk about Mark of Cornwall not King Mark to take one example. There is a clear place for an article covering the post-Roman period as Kernow (although I see that diverts to Cornwall). Anyone got any evidence? --Snowded TALK 11:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

[edit]

In the absence of any response to the above I have proposed merging this article. --Snowded TALK 19:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge ? Several well known historians as referenced, including Peter Berresford Ellis and Philip Payton of the Institute of Cornish Studies, believe that a Kingdom of Cornwall emerged around the 6th century and its kings were at first sub-kings and then successors of the Brythonic Celtic Kingdom of Dumnonia. The Kingdom of Cornwall or Kernow derives it's name from a Brythonic tribe called the Cornovii, whose existence is implied from the place-name "Durocornovio" meaning Fortress of the Cornish (Dyn Kernowyon in the Cornish language), recorded in the Roman Ravenna Cosmography. (ref Philip Payton - Cornwall - 1996)
In 838 the whole of Dartmoor and the South Hams was still exclusively Cornish territory (Cornish language) and the Exe-Taw line was the border between Cornish and West Saxon lands, so where was the the Kingdom of Dumnonia ruled from at this time? In August 825 Ecgberht had signed a charter in a place called Creodantreow (thought to be close to Crediton) where he was "amongst the enemy, the Britons" confirming the Exe-Taw line as the border. It was nearly a full century later in 936 when King Athelstan fixed the east bank of the River Tamar as the boundary between Wessex and Cornwall. ‘Dumnarth rex Cerniu’ (Dumgarth, king of Cornwall), or Donyarth, whose drowning is recorded in the Annales Cambriae (Welsh Annals) for the year AD 875. Dumgarth is identified with Doniert whose ninth-century memorial stone is situated near St Cleer, Liskeard and reads in its Latin inscription DONIERT ROGAVIT PRO ANIMA.
In 928 Athelstan held great court in Exeter and amongst the attendees was ‘Huwal, king of the West Welsh’ mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. ‘Huwal, king of the West Welsh’ is a term exclusively used to describe the British Celts of Dumnonia and Cornwall (this was not Hywel Dda of South Wales). Huwel (Hywel) is generally recognised as the last in the line of independent (or semi – independent) Cornish kings. In Penzance an inscribed cross dated AD 1000 has the inscription REGIS + RICATI CRUX – the cross of King Ricatus.
Historian Peter Berresford Ellis, states that the Kingdom of Cornwall was always independent of Dumnonia, perhaps as early as the time of Gildas (c. 545). This was certainly the case after the majority of the latter kingdom fell under Anglo-Saxon control in the 8th century. (Peter Berresford Ellis. (1993). Celt and Saxon. London: Constable and Co) 86.156.57.156 (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are two issues here. (i) MERGE, as far as I can see there is little here that would not be better placed in History of Cornwall (ii) the question of the use of "King" amongst Brythonic people. We should probably separate the two. --Snowded TALK 21:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for the merger of this article into the history of Cornwall if such a merge is still being considered. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still active as far as I am concerned and merge can precede questions of "kingdom" --Snowded TALK 13:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Merging is not a substitute for discussion about an article's content. Information about the Kingdom of Cornwall and the debate around its existence could do with a summary on the History of Cornwall page, but this article is already too large to be merged into the History of Cornwall. --Joowwww (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Agree with the above. This article needs reworking and updating, not a merger. Retsilla (talk) 02:02, 31st July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Legendary Dukes of Cornwall

[edit]

I propose that the two articles be merged. Please discuss on this page. (PS - apologies for inadvertently not leaving an edit summary.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - This article needs expanding and updating, not mergers with other pages. Retsilla (talk) 02:02, 31st July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support merge with Dumnonia. The only sources provided above opposing an earlier attempt reference myth making neo-Druidic nationalists, not reliable historical resources. People such as Peter Berresford Ellis (or whatever the pen name he adopted is) and Philip Payton are deeply involved with crankish Celtic League, politicised myth making scene, which grew out of the Trotskyite movement and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament lobby. Such people are not reliable sources for historical information since they have an explicit agenda. Payton especially, a person from Sussex born to an English father, who has issues with his own personally identity, moved to Cornwall and has attempted to create the myth of himself into a "Cornish", "Celtic" entity. He career has been about turning the Institute of Cornish Studies away archaeology, medieval history and the natural environment (which it covered before his arrival), towards nationalistic politiciation and myth making. Its John Wilton sort of stuff. This article should be covered in the Kingdom of Dumnonia article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Your anger on this topic makes you suspect, i feel. Retsilla (talk) 02:07, 4 Aug 2009 (UTC)
Comment - nobody is angry (I'm certainly not). I just articulated and presented my rationale for supporting a merge to the fullest and most comprehensive understanding. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say that I did not propose, and would not support, merging this article with Dumnonia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears that if one wishes to have a say in something, it can't be partly because the one who is calling them suspect, has their own ulterior motives and wishes to conduct them without restriction? A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fail to see how this merge would help clarify anything. Legendary history should not be put together with real history. --Joowwww (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This article needs to be expanded not merged or removed. It is a disgrace to suggest there was never a kingdom of Cornwall. The physical existence of King Doniert's Stone which I have seen and touched is of itself undeniable proof of the Kingdom. There are further references to be found in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the Welsh and Roman literature that is undoubtedly contemporary to the Dark Ages which confirm the kingdom's existence. Yes there are references to Dumnonia and to Cornubia and to West Wales, there is little doubt this is reference to one place. If the Anglo-Saxons of the time who were the sworn enemies of the Cornish at the time accepted the Kingdom's existence then there can be no doubt about its existence. To deny this could only be the action of a person with a perverse political agenda which I would imagine emanates from an English nationalist source and has little to do with either historical accuracy or legitimacy. Please leave this article be as an authentic and valuable addition to the work on Cornish history and instead let us work together to expand and improve its content.

By the way I would like to add that it is unclear whether the name Cornwall has derived from the Cornovii who I understand were a British tribe originating broadly from the present day area of shropshire who relocated to Cornwall or comes from anglo-saxon for 'west foreigner'. Given the similarity between the word Wales and Cornwall and the possible anglo-saxon meaning for corn there is fair scope for an alternative origin to the name Cornwall than from the Cornovii. This is particularly interesting to debate that the description Welsh is probably the name given to their Western foe by the Anglo Saxons (as meaning 'foreigner') and not what the people of Wales and Cornwall necessarily called themselves. Of course there is also scope for the possibility that the possible movement of the Cornovii to Cornwall may also have combined with other factors (such as those given here) to create the name for Cornwall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelangof (talk • contribs) 01:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of mergers....

[edit]

I notice that this discussion has not even mentioned the existence of the page Constitutional Status of Cornwall which also overlaps mightily with both this article and History of Cornwall. It's all very messy. David Trochos (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article exist?

[edit]

I want to reinstate the discussion about this article's title, and indeed its whole existence. Although there is evidence that there were kings in the region now known as Cornwall, the term Kingdom of Cornwall is not, as far as I can see, one that's been used by reliable independent sources for over a hundred years. There are, for instance, only two hits on the term in JSTOR, neither of which is relevant (one is a reference to Thomas Hogg's 1827 poem The fabulous history of the ancient Kingdom of Cornwall; the other is a single appearance in a 2007 book entitled Postcolonial Fictions in the 'Roman de Perceforest': Cultural Identities and Hybridities). This is in contrast to 95 hits for Dumnonia, 15 for Kingdom of Dumnonia, as well as 64 for the contemporaneous Kingdom of Kent and 9 for Kingdom of Sussex. Google Books has many hits, but they are mostly either 19th century books (particularly that poem again), or are about Arthurian legend.

The title therefore appears to fail WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by". It also fails the neutral point of view requirement of WP:NDESC, giving the false impression that the existence of such a named kingdom is well-accepted.

Taking this further, though, the lack of current usage of the term also makes the article an example of synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This article combines fragments of Cornwall's history to suggest that a named Kingdom of Cornwall in the Early Middle Ages is today accepted as an entity, when in fact it is not.

There is also very little unique content in the article - it is padded out with material that already exists in related articles, and better fits in them. Bearing all this in mind, I think this article should be deleted, moving any salvageable parts to related articles. Note that there's some older relevant discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Dumnonia. Comments welcome.  —SMALLJIM  23:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly seems to be limited evidence that authoritative sources identify an entity known as the "Kingdom of Cornwall", or at least that they choose to describe it as such, per the evidence above and a Google Books search. Books I have that might be expected to touch on it or refer to it (admittedly limited in number and of a generalist nature) do not talk about a "Kingdom" at this time, although obviously it was a separate entity of some sort to England/Wessex. I'm no expert myself on this era of history and have no access to specialised sources, but, as noted, the substantive content might seem better placed elsewhere, in other pages – and indeed already is. N-HH talk/edits 22:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments - independent confirmation is very useful. I don't think this broken article should be left to stand for too long now, so if no compelling objections are voiced in the next few days I'll change it into a redirect to History of Cornwall#Post-Roman and Medieval periods, and then start a consequential clean-up.  —SMALLJIM  17:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the opposition when this was considered previously, it may be best to go through the formal WP:MERGEPROP process. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll add a note to Talk:Cornwall: there'll be more watchers there. To be honest, I'm still not sure whether I should put it up for AfD, as it's arguable that we shouldn't have the term at all. But most important is to have a discussion first - what's your opinion on this article?  —SMALLJIM  18:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally be comfortable with deleting and redirecting it as suggested - but there are contrary views, as per previous threads (though they seem quite quiet at the moment). Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in those earlier discussions, some people didn't want the article changed, but although the validity of the article's title was raised a couple of times, they didn't get to grips with it. However I think it's the most important issue and it needs to be resolved first.  —SMALLJIM  23:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to keep the article. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England entry on Cornwall says that it was presumably an independent kingdom c. 700 when Aldhelm addressed a letter to a King Geruntius of Domnonia, which must mean Cornwall as it cannot still have included Devon. There is controversy, not mentioned in the article, whether Cornwall was fully under the control of Wessex after its defeat by Egbert of Wessex in 838, particularly as a king of Cornwall was recorded in the later 9th century. Philip Payton seems to be alone in thinking that 'Huwel King of the west Welsh' recorded in 927 was a king of Cornwall. All the sources I can find identify him with the Welsh king Hywel Dda. What is the significance of William of Malmesbury's claim that in 927 Æthelstan drove the Cornish out of Exeter and set the Cornish boundary at the River Tamar? The article is very unsatisfactory as it stands, but these issues are worth a separate article, and I cannot think of a better title than 'Kingdom of Cornwall'. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, and let me emphasise that I don't intend that any verified info should be removed from WP, and further expansion will be great. But see my above reply to Ghmyrtle a few minutes ago - the validity of the title is the core issue here; do you have any comments on that aspect?  —SMALLJIM  23:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought I do not think that the objections to the title are valid. I do not have access to books specifically about Cornish history, and I can only find one modern academic reference to the kingdom of Cornwall here, but it is generally accepted that there were kings of Cornwall, so there must have been a kingdom. I think that an early medieval British kingdom should have its own article. The title is very little used because the kingdom's history is so obscure that very little has been written about it, and when academics do refer to it they are almost always doing so in a context where saying 'Cornwall' is not ambiguous. The usual academic usage is thus to call the kingdom 'Cornwall', but we obviously cannot (as the article's name). We could call it something like 'Cornwall (early medieval kingdom)', but I prefer 'Kingdom of Cornwall'.
Re: "it is generally accepted that there were kings of Cornwall". Is it? Surely the whole point is that we are questioning that very thing. As a point of general principle, in the absence of evidence that people with such a title existed, and more importantly that there was a thing known as the "Kingdom of Cornwall", we very definitely should not have a page under this name. The inevitable obscurity of the issue and lack of primary evidence does not mean that there was definitely not such a thing acknowledged at the time, but it certainly doesn't mean that we can assume that there was and that it simply went unrecorded. All we can and should rely on is the best estimates and terminology used by modern experts looking back. And the record there seems to be pretty weak at the moment. N-HH talk/edits 22:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The core of the problem is the severe lack of primary source material. So little exists (and what does is often unclear or contradictory) that even the acknowledged experts on the period are forced to surmise, extrapolate, even guess, based on their experience. Experts tend to choose their words carefully, and we're in no position to supplement what they feel they can say with surmise of our own, and No original research forbids us from doing so anyway. If experts don't talk about a Kingdom of Cornwall, then neither can we. It doesn't matter why they don't mention it: the simple fact that they don't is enough for us. It's pure original research to say "There were kings here so we must call it the Kingdom of Cornwall".  —SMALLJIM  23:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on academic sources and my very limited knowledge I think we can say;

In the post Roman period the kingdom of Dumnonia covered Devon and Cornwall, and in the view of Stenton, it still existed in 710, when Aldhelm addressed a letter to king Geraint of Dumnonia, but Devon was probably conquered by 722 (Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 64, 73). However, O. J. Padel argues that Devon must have been conquered before then, so Geraint (or Gerontius) was in reality king of Cornwall. Conflicts between the Cornish and English are recorded in the eighth and ninth centuries, with the last known battle in 838 when Egbert defeated a combined Cornish and Viking army. Most historians think that Cornwall was thereafter at least nominally under the control of Wessex, although a king of Cornwall was recorded in Welsh annals later in the century. A Cornish bishop in mid century acknowledged the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and by the end of the century the county was part of the diocese of Sherborne. In about 930 Æthelstan was able to create a new Cornish diocese and appoint its first bishop. Grants of land by English rulers are recorded in the eastern half of the county in the ninth century, but not in the western part until the mid tenth century. (Padel, Cornwall, Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon History) According to Philip Payton 'Huwal of the West Welsh', who submitted to Æthelstan in 927, is "regarded as the last in a line of independent or semi-independent Cornish (Dumnonian) kings" (Payton, Cornwall, quoted in the Wikipedia article on Huwal, I do not have access to the original source), but other historians identify Huwal as the Welsh king Hywel Dda (Kirby, Hywel Dda, Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain). The twelfth century chronicler William of Malmesbury stated that in 927 Æthelstan expelled the Cornish from Exeter and established the Cornish boundary at the River Tamar, and Michael Wood sees this as the end of the kings of Cornwall (In Search of the Dark Ages, p. 146), but other historians dismiss William's account on the ground that Cornwall had been conquered a century earlier (Sarah Foot, Æthelstan, p. 164)

I think this is sufficient for a stub article, but others obviously disagree. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been happy with this article. The name is not in use, and all it covers is the totally shadowy later history of Dumnonia, when it had been greatly reduced. I'd recommend Dumnonia as a better target for merging than "History of Cornwall"; that article already covers nearly everything here. At any rate, this title needs to go.--Cúchullain t/c 19:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that you'd prefer a redirect to Dumnonia? That wouldn't be a problem for me, but I note that in 2009 (above) Ghmyrtle said that he wouldn't support a "merge" there. The small amount of unique content would, I think, be best merged into several articles, viz.
Status and character, mostly to History of Cornwall#Post-Roman and Medieval periods, though the details about the migrations across the Channel belong in Dumnonia.
Kings of Cornwall, to List of kings of Dumnonia
Arthurian connection, to Dumnonia#Arthurian connections, where most of it is already duplicated. Cornwall needs a brief mention of this too.
Arrival of the Saxons and Normans, to History of Cornwall#Post-Roman and Medieval periods; it's already mostly there.
 —SMALLJIM  23:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merged and redirected. In the absence of any objections rooted in policy or guidelines, I've merged the content into the articles (as above) and redirected to History of Cornwall#Post-Roman and Medieval periods. No prejudice against further discussion about the redirect being to a different article, e.g. Dumnonia.  —SMALLJIM  18:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, I did mean "Dumnonia" is a better target for a merge and a redirect. However, there probably wasn't a lot of material suitable to be merged. I'd rather this pointed at Dumnonia, but considering the name isn't really in use at all, it's not really a big deal.--Cúchullain t/c 18:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that the History of Cornwall section was a slightly more precise target and I think a bit more content ended up there, but there's not a lot in it.  —SMALLJIM  20:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

[edit]

Did you read the top of this talk page where it was stated that Peter Berresford Ellis and Philip Payton believe that a Kingdom of Cornwall existed? I would like to know what makes a non-Cornish non-historian, not living in Cornwall and without access to the Cornish Studies Library, so qualified to describe Cornish history. Perhaps you're just interested in the topic, although your deletionism over inclusionism in this instance would seem to suggest otherwise, based on your user page. I'd also like to know what makes 2 hits on JSTOR any greater indication of non-existence than the also relatively few 15 hits on JSTOR for the Kingdom of Dumnonia - the existence of which you don't seem to deny - or what makes JSTOR the arbiter of academic credibility. --Denagernow (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Focus your comments on content, not other editors, please. The article was merged after discussion. The concept of a "Kingdom of Cornwall" just isn't widely accepted or written about. Ellis is an exception, but he's not an academic historian, and he has a rather long track record of spreading romantic ideas. No one denies the existence of Dumnonia, about which there are many sources written by scholars, on and off JSTOR.--Cúchullain t/c 17:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further to Cúchullain's comments (for which thanks), sure, I'll reply to your main points. 1. What people "believe" doesn't matter unless it's been published. 2. Are you not aware of Susan M. Pearce's widely-cited book entitled The Kingdom of Dumnonia? 3. JSTOR is a repository of academic journals, which are considered to be one of the best types of source for WP articles, so I reckon that makes JSTOR a good place to conduct search engine tests.
The rest of your comment suggests that you might benefit from some reading up on how WP works – since you appear to be new here, I've posted a welcome message on your talk page which includes some links that I'm sure you'll find useful.  —SMALLJIM  00:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_Cornwall&oldid=1136878483"