Jump to content

Talk:Cornwall/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Demographics

In top right of main page there are two conflicting lists of populaton, density and admin pop. - which list is correct?

The one in the text appears to be from a 2003 source, and the one in the info box is a 2004 estimate, so they are either both right, or neither are right depending on your point of view! Mammal4 14:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


The links at 8, 9 and 10 in the "References" do not work - does anyone have correct links? DuncanHill 20:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the difference not the difference in population between the traditional county (which includes the Scillies) and the administrative county (which doesn't)? Esquimo 10:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Recurring England/United Kingdom Conundrum

Hello Everyone, I have been thinking long and hard about this UK / England business. I think when we present information in wikipedia we have a big responsibility because many internet users use this as a source for information. Firstly I agree there is strong feeling in Cornwall about its unique status and seperation from England - I feel it, support it and am actively involved in campaigning to sort it out. However we need to also consider political fact, at the moment Cornwall is subject to English and Welsh Law on a day to day basis and the control of UK government, natural Cornish Law (stannary etc) although never repealed is actively ignored by the UK authorities. Essentially we are in a big constitutional and poltical mess made worse by centuries of bumbling and self interest all we can do is examine the hard facts

  1. Fact 1 - Cornwall was historicaly seperate from England
  2. Fact 2 - This has never been repealed
  3. Fact 3 - Cornwall is subject to English Law (English and Welsh law that is)
  4. Fact 4 - Cornwall is subject to the control of UK government
  5. Fact 5 - The Duke of Cornwall and the Duchy are offices and establishments of the UK crown and previously the English Crown.
  6. Fact 6 - Cornwall is culturally seperate from England.
  7. Fact 7 - Despite wide spread support and the efforts of the Cornish people no devolved DEMOCRATIC cornish body exists yet.

My proposal would be that a common description should be something like this

[Town Name], Cornwall, England (disputed), UK.

The 'disputed' would then link to the 'constitutional status of cornwall page' with a mature debate about history, current position etc. I don't like it any more than Pediac does to be truthfull !! If I was presenting my own work only I would say that Cornwall alone was sufficient but I am not and we need to be balanced however personally distasteful we find another position user:reedgunner

I agree with what you say, the status of Cornwall is ambiguous and a bit of a mess, unlike many other English counties. Cornwall is administered as a county of England whatever people might want to be the case, and this should be reflected in the articles. However, it can't be denied that the historical position of Cornwall makes it a special case. By denying that the situation exists we not only remove context and detail from the articles but we also do Wikipedia a diservice. Yes, some of the same constitutional arguments can be applied to other counties in England (Durham and I think Kent too) but the strength of feeling in these places does not appear to be anywhere near as strong, and looking at the geog entries for those pages does not reveal the sorts of discussion that we've been having here! I don't think that the town pages are the right place to have these sorts of arguments, as the constitutional status stuff is covered adequately here. I quite like Reedgunner's idea, but there is no way in hell that Steinsky will go for it, and as he seems to be the editor that comments most often on this it would be sensible to reach a consensus with him. Mammal4 13:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC) (t)
Question to Mammal4. Are Steinsky and Co the moderators for this page ? (it seems like it at the moment) Pediac 21:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
There are no official moderators as such, so the short answer to that question is no. He is an administrator, and can revert changes. As I understand it, to become an administrator all you need to do is act like one (there is also a peer vote thing based on your progess), by contributing to wikipedia discussion, help resolve conflicts, and generally patrol pages looking for vandalism, pov etc. Steinsky generally has a good track record on this, despite his highhanded attitude. If you look at his contributions, you can see that he has helped remove what I would call genuine vandalism and pov from Cornwall and many other pages; he puts a lot of work into wikipedia on a range of topics in the form of minor corrections, and additional information, plus sorting out stub categories etc. However, he does have a blind spot for this England/Uk thing and it is obviously something he feels strongly about. In these cases he refuses to discuss the issue effectively or sort out the conflict, or admit when he may have made a mistake. In this sense I do not feel he is acting as an administrator. If I were cynical then I would say that he has an axe to grind on the issue due to the lengths he goes to to ram the England stuff into these pages, however I am not too cynical so I suspect that it is at least in part a knee-jerk reaction to the many (and there are many) nationalist vandals who assault the Cornwall pages with their own agenda; he is not differentiating between the two types of edit, either because he can’t be bothered or because he doesn’t have the time.Mammal4 15:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi,

Could we please have some help over in Penwith regarding the Cornwall/England/United Kingdom issue? I'm sure that this must have been discussed to death here somewhere. Essentially there is some debate (Talk:Carbis Bay, St Just in Penwith,User Talk:Steinsky,User Talk:Pediac) over how settlements in Cornwall should be described. To summarise, one side believes that only England should be used in the description (e.g. Exampleville, Cornwall, England) whilst the other thinks that Exampleville, Cornwall, United Kingdom is a more complete designation. The first side argues that using England alone makes these articles consistent with other pages on English towns. Whilst it is true that towns in England generally use the England tag rather than Uk, in contrast, pages written for Cornish towns more often use the Uk designation, and Wikipedia is supposed to be about consensus. I suppose that there are two issue here 1) Constitutional status of Cornwall and a soapbox for Cornish/English nationalist sentiment 2)Using Uk is technically more concise, as it contains more information, and that actually the Uk is the sovereign state (signs treaties, passes laws etc) not England, which is not an independent country (yet!). I have suggested a compromise between the two designations (e.g.Exampleville, Cornwall, England; a constituent of the United Kingdom) which I personally think is a bit longwinded but at least addresses both points of view. It would be really great if we could have some fresh heads look at this, especially as it is likley already to have been discussed on this page. If we come up with a policy on this, then it will save time as we can refer people to it in future when the inevitable England/UK revert pingpong kicks off again! Mammal4 21:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC) (t)

"Your childish reply does not fill me with confidence. There are several reasons why I consider you and Mammal4 to be incorrect that using UK is adequate and WP:NPOV, but right now arguing that point is not near the top of my priority list. I have again reverted your edits to the infobox however, which are just plain incorrect, and had an irrelevant edit summary." Joe D (t) 04:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Mammal4, We seem to have a problem regarding most Cornish articles with one or two users (Steinsky,(t) Joe D springs to mind) who clearly do not originate from Cornwall but are keen to promote a British/English nationalist POV on the Cornish pages and are quick to revert any changes. eg infoboxes have continual references to "England/county" and display the image of the English flag wherever possible. (this is sometimes associated with white racists and violent nationalism ie BNP). For example please see the page on the Cornish town of "Bodmin". The anglocentric infobox refers to "county" three times, describes the nation as "England" and then goes on to display the English flag. Do we need English infoboxes on Cornish articles ? There is a clear difference of opinion here as most Cornish in fact refer to Cornwall (Kernow) as a Duchy and describe it as such. A compromise seems to have been reached on most pages with the term Cornwall, United Kingdom. Surely using "United Kingdom" is neutral enough to suit both POVs, and is still factual. As you say whilst it is true that towns in England generally use the England tag rather than UK, in contrast, pages written for Cornish towns more often use the UK designation. Agreed that we could all spend our time better by improving the depth of content in these articles, rather than reverting back and forth. Here are some websites that demonstate the strength of feeling on the issue. Pediac 10:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I must admit that it is certainly debatable that Cornwall is part of England... Personally I think the debate stems from either people just being ignorant or probably for most of the people here it depends on your definition 'is part of.' I think the people who say it isn't mean it wasn't historicaly, it is culturally/ identity wise seperate, it is technically constitutionally seperate. Whereas the people who think its part of england mean 'it is treated as such now by most modern institutions.'

However the trend is towards increased recognition (by this I mean compared to 10 years ago rather than 'historically.' Its not something that is well known outside of cornwall and I think even though probably most cornish people would say it isn't i think most would be hard pressed to state actual documents (though they exist.)

Therefore I would agree with using the 'disputed' label, perhaps doubling up. I don't know about 'flags' at the bottom but putting a cornish one linking to somewhere is not the same as actually giving a side whereas putting an english one would be.

I think the 'disputed' idea is good. The only thing i would thought to be wary of is the constitutional status page which last thing i looked at was a bit thin, should be checked occasionaly for vandalism or whatever, also if it still is thin it should be bulked out with some more references. 131.111.8.99


Have to disagree. Although Cornwall is administered as a county, it has never been formally made a part of England, so cannot be considered as such. Using the word disputed is important to make this clear.

It should also be made clear from the beginning, that is an historic nation of Britain, although its political status is disputed. [[Tashtastic]]


Cornwall has been a region of England since it was conquered by King Athelstan. The dukedom of Cornwall was first conferred on Edward the Black Prince by his father Edward III in 1343. "We will and firmly command for us and our heirs the said Duke may have and hold to him and the eldest sons of the said Dukes, of the same place hereditary to succeed in the Kingdom of England" (the appointment of) "the Sheriff of Cornwall"(and to have)"manors tc., and, "the stannaries of Cornwall". The text also stipulates "to remain to the same for ever...........in no wise separated........nor to any other or others."

I think the telling phrase there is "hereditary to succeed in the Kingdom of England"


Duchy and County!

Some Facts about The Duchy


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


Some of these 'official' views are given in the 650th Anniversary publication "The Duchy of Cornwall"(1987) where we see such incredible statements as :

"To confuse matters even more, the Duke owns more land outside Cornwall than he owns in the county. His Duchy is not the county and the county is not the Duchy....... the largest part of the Duchy that the visitor is ever likely to see is the beach upon which he disports himself. The Duchy owns less than three per cent of Cornish land, only twelve per cent of its total land holding."

Crispin Gill, Editor, Introduction p.14

and :

" Many people confuse the Duchy with county, but the two had, and have, different identities; only about seventeen per cent of the land surface of the county has ever belonged to the Duchy."

Graham Haslam, Archivist 1987 Chapter 1, p.24

who also says on page 21 :

" On a spring day in 1337 Edward III created the first English duchy. It was accomplished with all the solemnity and dignity which could be mustered; the King proclaimed the charter before the nobility and commonality assembled in open Parliament making his son and heir, Edward of Woodstock, Duke of Cornwall. The origins of the Duchy are not, as are so many other important English institutions, obscured by the mists of time. It did not grow, develop or evolve from modest arcane features. On 16th March 1337 it did not exist; on 17th March it did."

The Royal Duchy of Cornwall did evolve, in fact, by augmenting the existing Cornish Earldom and this was at a date prior to the 16th March 1337. The First Duchy Charter, inappropriately called 'the Charter of Creation', dated 17th March 1337, does, in fact, refer to the Duchy as having already been created - as does a Patent creating the new Earl of Salisbury dated 16th March 1337 - and even states when :

"..being in our present Parliament, convened at Westminster, on Monday next after the feast of St. Matthias the Apostle last past, ...."

The Officers of the Duchy, during the arbitration over the foreshore, estimated this to be:

"The particular time of this investiture, that is to say, that it preceded the 1st Duchy Charter, and was on some day between the 24th of February, the Feast of St. Mathias, and the 16th of March, is demonstrated by the patent of creation of the Earl of Salisbury, who, with others, was at that time created Earl in honour of the Prince, as stated by Lord Coke."

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

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

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

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

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

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


The First Charter was only intended as an enumeration as to what comprised the Duchy in terms of possessions and rights for the reason it states:

".. lest hereafter in any wise it should be turned into doubt, what or how much the same Duke, .... ought to have in the name of the Duchy aforesaid, we have caused all things in kind, which we will to pertain to the same Duchy, to be inserted in this our charter...."

The enumeration was deemed to be necessary because some earlier grants of certain rights and possessions away from the whole could be construed as a severance from the former Earldom and thus the simple phrase of :

"Earldom now a Duchy"

was not considered sufficient in itself to prevent the existence of any 'doubt'. Hence the purpose of the enumeration was to reaffirm and bring all things back together again under the honor of the Duchy.

It should be noted that the first item to be enumerated in the first Duchy Charter was, in fact, the "vicecomitatus" of Cornwall "with the appurtenances" and the right, according to custom, of appointing the Sheriff of Cornwall. This can only be construed as confirming the grant of both the territory and Government of Cornwall to the Duke. In both the Duchy and the former Earldom the Sheriff was the officer of the Earl or Duke and not the officer of the King as is the case elsewhere. The next enumerations identified the rights, revenues and possessions within Cornwall followed by those things which were located outside Cornwall and yet still part of this territorial honor.

All things enumerated were inextricably linked to the honor known as the Duchy of Cornwall with the words:

"...we do by this our present charter, for us and our heirs, annex and unite to the aforesaid Duchy, to remain to the same for ever, So that from the same Duchy they may at no time be in anywise separated..."

The reason for this limiting clause was in order to protect the Duchy from future predatory monarchs. How about predatory parliaments? There are those who have argued that because items 'were enumerated' that only those items specifically mentioned actually passed to the Dukes. This was more than adequately shown, by the Officers of the Duchy not to be the case! The Duchy Rights to the Foreshore being a clear example of the fallacy of such a superficial view and one which - together with the first item enumerated - is also immediately at odds with the bizarre views expressed in 'the anniversary' publication regarding how much land was ever a part of the Duchy! How can the British (alias English) Government, and others, say that the Duchy is only a landed estate and has nothing to do with what they, and their puppets, ignominiously refer to as 'the county'? Perhaps the Duchy, and the Crown, Establishments could be invited to make a public statement about this and other matters within this site?

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


The reasons for the creation of the Honor of Duchy of Cornwall were given, inter alia, as:

"the restoration of old ones",

viz. the Honor (of Cornwall)

"over which a while ago Dukes for a long time successively presided as chief rulers" .....

and

"desiring that places of note of the same kingdom should be adorned with their pristine honors".

Another reason given being that

"... lands subjected to our dominion, may be more securely and fitly defended against the attempts of enemies and adversaries......"

It must be noted that the king was not referring to the time when Cornwall had its most powerful Earls, Richard and Edmund, but referred to the time prior to the subjugation of Cornwall by Athelstan. The Officers of the Duchy were able to bring to the arguments many extant documents which clearly indicate that the focus of the grant was not merely a collection of estates but was a territorial grant as is obvious from the following extract from their evidence:

"About 60 years after the creation of the Duchy, we find in the Charter of 1st Henry IV. to Prince Henry, the eldest Son of that King, as follows : "We have made and created Henry our most dear first-begotten Son, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Earl of Chester, and have given and granted, and by our Charter have confirmed to him the said Principality, Duchy, and Earldom, that he may preside there, and by presiding, may direct and defend the said parts. We have invested him with the said Principality, Duchy, and Earldom, per sertum in capite et annulum in digito aureum ac virgam auream juxta morem."


A further point of constitutional interest and importance, already mentioned under 'Cornish Milestones' is the legal fact that Cornwall was considered as distinct from England and the Crown. It is sad indeed that a Cornish historical perspective is wilfully denied by Anglocentric retrospective superficiality. Likewise, to call the creation of the Duchy of Cornwall an "English institution" based, as it was, on contemporary continental lines, or alternatively to reflect Cornwall's status prior to subjugation, is arrogant and dismissive.

The Duke of Cornwall within his Duchy was a vassal of the English king. This corresponded with the period when Norman kings of England - as Dukes of Aquitaine - were vassals of the king of France. This did not imply that Aquitaine was anything other than Aquitaine. Are we to assume, also, that the Principality of Wales is an "English institution". It is an overwhelming fact of history that Cornwall, as a non-English 'British Province', whether as the Earldom of Cornwall or the Dukedom of Cornwall, never merged in the Crown in the absence of an Earl or Duke but was, and is, held 'ut de honor' [Comitatus or Ducatus] 'in manu regis existente'.


Another point worthy of mention and discussion - and there are many! - is the statement, in the aforesaid 'anniversary' publication, that:

" Richard's son, Edmund,succeeded to the Earldom in 1272, but he died eight years later and the estates according to law reverted to the Crown.."

Graham Haslam, Archivist 1987 Chapter 1, p.23.

This is incorrect on three important points!

1 - Edmund actually died in the 28th year of the reign of Edward the First (1272 - 1307) - "on the morrow of St Michael, in the 28th year ending". This makes Edmund's death circa AD 1300 and, in truth, twenty eight years as Earl of Cornwall.

2 - it was the 'Earldom of Cornwall' - NOT "the estates" - which passed to Edward the First.

3 - that whilst the territorial possession did pass to the King "according to law" this should not be construed as simply "reverted to the Crown" like some homeless escheat. It passed to the King as a true inheritance because the King was Edmund's next heir (his cousin) - a line of succession which prevailed up to the creation of the Duchy. The whole of the archivist's statement gives a clear indication of the subjectivity and questionable treatment given to the subject!

The following extracts from 'the Arbitration' show the preamble to, and the conclusions drawn from, an analysis of the Duchy Charters and other relevant material by the Officers of the Duchy of Cornwall as part of their Preliminary Statement.

"But the full and real effect of the Duchy Charters themselves will be more satisfactorily and conclusively shown by considering the construction put upon them in early times, not only in grants and legal proceedings in which they are recited or noticed, but also by the Courts of Judicature and the Legislature of the Country."

The analysis proceeds......

"In conclusion, it is submitted that the facts and authorities before referred to are sufficient to establish,- 1st. That Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest, and was subsequently treated in many respects, as distinct from England. 2nd. That it was held by the Earls of Cornwall with the rights and prerogatives of a County Palatine, as far as regarded the Seignory or territorial dominion. 3rd. That the Dukes of Cornwall have from the creation of the Duchy enjoyed the rights and prerogatives of a County Palatine, as far as regarded seignory or territorial dominion, and that to a greater extent than had been enjoyed by the Earls. And lastly. That the Duchy Charters have always been construed and treated, not merely by the Courts of Judicature, but also by the Legislature of the Country, as having vested in the Dukes of Cornwall the whole territorial interest and dominion of the Crown in and over the entire County of Cornwall. Duchy of Cornwall, Somerset House, May, 1855."

As these extracts are taken from the 'Preliminary Statement' of the Duchy - an arbitration that spanned some three years! - the following extract from the Duchy should serve to show that subsequent argument strengthened, rather than weakened, the claim on behalf of the Dukes of Cornwall.

"Since this subject was under the consideration of the Law Officers and Counsel of the Duchy in the spring of last year, further searches have been made amongst the ancient records of the Country, which have resulted in the production of some additional evidence, which seems materially to support the conclusions previously arrived at, and has enabled the Duchy Officers to present the Case of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cornwall in a more precise and definite form than was done in the Preliminary Statement prepared in the spring of 1855.

Duchy of Cornwall, Somerset House, 12th February, 1857."


In a spate of letters to the Editor of the West Briton newspaper, September 2000, to which reference was made to this particular case of Arbitration, there was a letter from a particular gentleman whose quality of life seems to be totally dependent upon trivialising the Cornish Debate. He is the pioneer of fallacious argument and ludicrous statement and offers nothing but the opportunity to maintain an ongoing dialogue. On this occasion he makes the comment:

"The actual judgement as to the precise grounds of the Duchy's success" namely, in the arbitration over foreshore rights - "is never quoted." and poses the mischievous question: "I wonder why?" My offer to be allowed to enlighten him by quoting from the actual award of Sir John Patteson's arbitration on 10th June 1857 was not printed but is included here for the benefit of others:

"...I have carefully considered all the Statutes, Charters, documents and cases which have been produced or referred to by the Counsel for the Crown and for the Duchy ; and also all the arguments which they have adduced... ...I am of the opinion and so decide that as between the Crown and the Duke of Cornwall the right to the Minerals between High and Low Water marks has passed to and is vested in the Duke of Cornwall as part of the Soil and territorial possessions of the Duchy... "

The lucrative nature of the ownership of the property had caused the Crown to make a predatory claim of prima facie right of ownership of the property. The main thrust of the Duchy argument was - and I quote :

"...It is contended, on the part of the Duchy, that this general prima facie right of the Crown has not application, as against the Duke of Cornwall, within his Duchy or County of Cornwall, and, consequently, not to the particular property forming the subject of the present question..."


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

This is a situation which cannot be allowed to continue and some measure of redress and accountability must be demanded.


Another independent glimpse of the Duchy as it 'do belong to be' is given to us by Richard Pearse within an essay on "The Ancient Duchy of Cornwall" contained within his book "The Land beside the Celtic Sea - Aspects of Cornwall's Past" (1983) [ISBN 0 907566 48 0 or 0 907566 49 9]. The observation is concerning the establishment of the Prince's Council in 1343 and is as follows - my square brackets:

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

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

Considering that there was a principal focus during the 19th Century to diminish the integrity and impact of the Duchy of Cornwall, it does not require much of an imagination to appreciate that the last thing that the Crown, or Paliament, wanted was an in-depth legal debate into what comprised the honor known as the Duchy of Cornwall. It is my opinion that the case of arbitration, referred to above, was contrived by the Crown in order to ensure a compromise which whilst giving - because it was known to be incontestable! - the award between high and low water marks to the Duchy, awarded the most beneficial portion - that of mining beyond the low water mark - to the Crown. Had the whole matter been decided simply upon 'legal ownership' then it is most probable that both properties would have been found in favour of the Dukes of Cornwall in right of the Duchy. The value, however, to the Cornish people was in the form and depth of the Duchy argument.

Given that the 'official' view of the Duchy of Cornwall seems to be built upon rather dubious foundations and that this can be shown to have consequences which are sinister and repugnant to the rights of the Cornish people within their own territory, then there is an urgent need for an external agency to intercede on behalf of the Cornish people!

With the inexorable tendency towards a form of British Republican State, it is imperative, therefore, that the real truth about the marginalisation - to use a euphemism! - of the Cornish people is subjected to the deepest possible academic and judicial analysis before Cornish Rights are irrevocably swept aside by 'English' political and constitutional change. It is indeed ironic that the so-called 'Mother of Parliaments' should have learnt the art of democratic debate through the existence of the Duchy of Cornwall!!


When did Cornwall join the English/UK parliament?

What special provisions were made for Cornwall as distinct entity?

Was not the joining of the government confirmation that Cornwall was to be ruled as, and remained as, a part of England?

Bretagne 44 16:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


History of Cornwall

There is a LOT that could be included regarding the history of Cornwall from the sub-Roman period until it's Saxon subjugation and the medieval period. Should this information be contained on this page "cornwall" or on a seperate "kingdom of cerniw" page? Also, there still seems to be a lot of confusion as to the origin of the world "cornwall". There is a debate as to whether there was a Cornovii tribal group who were subordinate to the dumnonii or if the Kern prefix is a geographical name only referring to the peninsular's shape (like a "horn"). I notice that one of these theories has precedence at the moment without any discussion of the other theory, nor with any evidence to support it (there is one piece of evidence supporting the Cornovii theory which is a settlement name recorded in one Roman charter) James Frankcom 11:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The section on this page should be a summary of the most notable details of its history. As an example, Dorset (which meets featured criteria) has four reasonable length paragraphs for its history section, mentioning the major facts from the first known habitation though neolithic, bronze age, roman, saxon, norman, late middle ages to modern. This is accompanied by History of Dorset which goes into much more detail and can be better structured and tied together than the section on the main page. So, I would suggest putting details on History of Cornwall, and adding only the most important details to this page. Joe D (t) 03:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The etmology is of the Saxon word Cornwall is meaning South Weahlas - South Forigeners.--Rhydd Meddwl 17:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The Duchy

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 13:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This was just the common politness of the day. The Duke would address the people gathered there (as vested in the Sheriff of Cornwall), and then the greater mass (ie. England). It in no way indicates that Cornwall was a distinct place.

Also the fact that Cornwall was then, as you so rightly point out, under the control of an English Duke, only adds to its being a part of England.

Info Box

1. Is there any need for the coat of arms of Cornwall County Council (1940's) to be displayed in the info box ? Wouldn't the St Piran's Flag suffice ? or perhaps with the plain Cornish 15 bezants shield ? http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=13148

2. Ethnicity -" 99.0% White, of which 6.8% Cornish" should be amended - everyone knows the true figure is nearer 45 - 50%. see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3527673.stm The Cornish are one of 79 UK Census 2001 ethnic group categories but the last Census did not include a tick box for the Cornish to register !!! (see code 06 - Census 2001 Ethnic Codes)

For the first time in a UK Census, those wishing to describe their ethnicity as Cornish were given their own code number (06) on the 2001 UK Census form, alongside those for people wishing to describe themselves as English, Welsh, Irish or Scottish. Although happy with this development there were reservations about the overwhelming lack of publicity surrounding the issue, the lack of a clear tick-box for the Cornish option on the census and the need to deny being British in order to write "Cornish" in the field provided..... Bwizz 17:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. Using the council coat of arms is standard practice for counties of England. Having it removed sounds like nationalist propoganda.
  2. We have to use official government statisics. The reason the Cornish didn't have a tick box was because they represent less than 1% of the country's population (even with best estimates). The survey you reference has nothing to do with cornish ethnicity. It was about loyalties (county, home nation, country or EU). josh (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"Using the council coat of arms is standard practice" -- then why is there no sign of it on the "Devon", Tyne, South Yorks, Notts and Hereford pages  ???... Bwizz 20:13 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That's the exception rather than the rule. Kent, Cheshire, Cumbria, Somerset all have it included. It isn't some random symbol we decided to add. It is the offical coat of arms of Cornwall and has far more justification than a flag which hasn't had offical status for centuries. josh (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Who said displaying the "Council" badge was standard practice or compulsory  ? the original Cornish coat of arms dates from 1337 ( 'sable, fifteen golden bezants placed 5-4-3-2-1') and would be far more appropriate to represent Cornwall rather than a symbol dating from the 1940's. http://www.paranoiabunny.com/cornish/images/15_balls.gif Bwizz 19:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Bwizz, why don't you start an article on Cornwall (territorial duchy)? Then your arms would be appropriate. You clearly have a lot ofnowledge about it, too. Stringops 00:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Why do you want to use a historical coat of arms? This article is about the current county. Thus it needs the council's current coat of arms. josh (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, Cornwall does not possess a 'Coat of Arms'. There is a coat of arms for the Duke of Cornwall (15 bezants) there is a coat of arms for 'Cornwall County Council', but no arms for the County its self. (I stand to be corrected on this ). Out of interest, can any body name a County that has arms that don't belong solely to its County Council? Talskiddy 19:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so. That's the reason places like S. Yorks. doesn't have any arms at all (it no longer has a council). It's the same for the country. The coat of arms is actually the coat of arms for the Royal Family. josh (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The Cornwall Council coat of arms is not recognised as a symbol for the whole of Cornwall, only for the Council. The coat of arms of Cornwall is 'sable, fifteen golden bezants placed 5-4-3-2-1' and dates from 1337. This along with the St Piran's flag are internationally recognised as Cornish symbols.(see http://web.ukonline.co.uk/crfu/grafx/footer.gif) Bwizz 18:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


The duchy and county are seperate. We have argued about this before. Using duchy symbols is POV the council coat of arms is the only official symbol. josh (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity

"99.0% White, of which 6.8% Cornish"

I doubt the Cornish constitute only 7% of the population! --MacRusgail 16:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The 6.8% is a British/English Nationalist POV - this is what they would like it to be. The fact is that for the first time in the 2001 UK Census, those wishing to describe their ethnicity as Cornish were finally permitted to have their own code number (06) alongside those for people wishing to describe themselves as English, Welsh, Irish or Scottish. There was an overwhelming lack of publicity surrounding the inclusion of the 2001 06 code, there was a lack of a clear tick-box for the Cornish option on the census and the Cornish needed to first deny being British in order to write "Cornish" in the field provided. The 6.8% figure should be removed as surveys show the figure to be nearer 45-55%. Bwizz 19:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Ethnicity - The 6.8% Cornish figure is way off the mark. The fact is that most Cornish were not aware of the 2001 Census changes that permitted them for the first time to describe their ethnicity as Cornish and it was unclear if the "British" and "Cornish" options were available as there was no tick box for "Cornish". Aztecy 10:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I say bring on the Geordie tickbox! Enzedbrit 04:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Council arms dispute

I notice this dispute is ongoing. Perhaps it might help achieve consensus if the article about the county council area were moved to Cornwall County Council (currently a redirect to Cornwall), which, after all, is what it's about. Then it could be made clear what arms/statistics/etc. pertain to the county council, and what doesn't, but still pertains to cornwall as a non-local-government-administrative entity, and cornwall's history, etc. on the main namespace. What do people think about this? I think it would greatly simplify creating articles acceptable to both parties. Stringops 17:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Cornwall is a county. The duchy is dealt seperately in the Duchy of Cornwall article. Viewing the county as a duchy is POV of Cornish nationalists, its offical status is as a county. josh (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It can officially be viewed as both. Current laws establish both as existing. I'm not promoting a POV here, just suggesting a way in which both POVs can be incorporated into wikipedia in such a way that they don't contradict each other and are presented in a NPOV fashion. Stringops 17:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It has never been stated in law that the county of cornwall is a duchy. josh (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it has, several times, so far as I'm aware - for a start, the various Charters of the Duchy that remain in force. The argument as I understood it is more one of de jure versus de facto, not whether the legislation actually exists. The current county was created in 1974, and doesn't have exactly the same boundaries as the duchy, as it was defined in terms of local authories. The problems arise when the two are conflated, and what I'm suggesting would allow both to be dealt with without revert wars on what relates to what. Stringops 19:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The Council badge can be seen as a British/English Nationalist POV. The recognised Cornish symbols are the St Piran's flag and 'sable, fifteen golden bezants placed 5-4-3-2-1'. http://www.rotarydistrict1290.org.uk/images/coatofarms.png The Kilbrandon Report (1969–1971) into the British constitution recommended that when referring to Cornwall, official sources should cite the Duchy not the County. This was suggested in recognition of its unique constitutional position. Bwizz 18:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Can you give a source for this report? Who wrote it and how much of it is/has been followed by governments or officials? It might help resolve this issue. Thanks Stringops 19:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Its not POV its the offical status of the region. I'm not using reports or peoples opinions to back my arguments. The county is set down by an act of parliment which is the law of the land. The report was simply a recommendation. It has no status in law. josh (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

1) Why do the duchy Charters that are still law today talk about the whole of Cornwall being augmented into a Duchy?

2) Why was the county of Cornwall successfully described as a Duchy in the Cornish Foreshore Case of 1856?

On behalf of the Duchy in its successful action against the Crown, which resulted in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act of 1858, Sir George Harrison (Attorney General for Cornwall) makes this submission.

a That Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest, and was subsequently treated in many respects as distinct from England.

b That it was held by the Earls of Cornwall with the rights and prerogative of a County Palatine, as far as regarded the Seignory or territorial dominion.

c That the Dukes of Cornwall have from the creation of the Duchy enjoyed the rights and prerogatives of a County Palatine, as far as regarded seignory or territorial dominion, and that to a great extent by Earls.

d That when the Earldom was augmented into a Duchy, the circumstances attending to it's creation, as well as the language of the Duchy Charter, not only support and confirm natural presumption, that the new and higher title was to be accompanied with at least as great dignity, power, and prerogative as the Earls enjoyed, but also afforded evidence that the Duchy was to be invested with still more extensive rights and privileges.

e The Duchy Charters have always been construed and treated, not merely by the Courts of Judicature, but also by the Legislature of the Country, as having vested in the Dukes of Cornwall the whole territorial interest and dominion of the Crown in and over the entire County of Cornwall.

3) Why did the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act confirm that the Duke possesses seignory and territorial rights befitting a king in 1863 if the Duchy is just a landed estate?

4) Why did the Kilbrandon Report into the British constitution in 1969-71 recommend that Cornwall (the territory of) should be referred to as a Duchy in light of its constitutional position?

5) Why does the Duke of Cornwall have rights of governance and honours over the whole territory of Cornwall but not Duchy lands outside Cornwall? For instance the right of wreck on all Cornish shores, the right of Bona Vicantia / treasure trove for the county of Cornwall, the right to Swans and Sturgeon caught in Cornwall, the duty to appoint the Sheriff of Cornwall and preside over the Stannary Parliaments.

6) Why does the Duchy have its own exchequer and other arms of governance and indeed why is the duchy described in law as a body of governance if it is just a landed estate?

7) Why did this definition of county in the Complete Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Ed 1989 p. 1044.) describe Cornwall as a Duchy?

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.

8) Why did the 1998 Tamar Bridge act confirm the power of the Duke and border of Cornwall (the Duchy) if the Duchy of Cornwall is just a landed estate?

Aztecy 19:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Alot of stuff to cover there. Most of it old.

1) At what point do the charters describe the county as being a duchy. In fact their are several points where it refers to the county and duchy seperately and at one point states that 'lands in and outside the county of cornwall are annexed to the duchy'. Why would they haveto be annexed if the whole county is the possesion of the prince.

2) Ah the foreshore case. All the points that you give were arguments by the attorney for the duchy and have no significance in English law. The arbritration was a comprimise in the end with the duchy getting mining right 'between the high and low water mark'.

3) 5) and 6) I've grouped these together because they are all part of the same misconception. Yes the duchy has rights beyond normal land ownership. This is not unique. The City of Bristol and City of London museums both have right of salvage in their own cities.

This is a classic logical fallacy. Just because the prince has rights otherwise reserved for the monach doesn't make him the same as. He doesn't appoint the Lord-Lieutenant, can't raise taxes, can't raise an army etc etc.

4) As I've already pointed out its just a report. The government has loads of these and ignore most of them. You see a news report every week about a report recommending that we pay 50% tax or work until we're 90. No of them come to anything unless the government wants it to. In short, they mean nothing.

7) A dictionary defines words. Why the hell would it have a place in it? They don't dictate political divisions in the UK so like the report it has no relivence.

8) I presume this is what your refering to. Note it also includes crown estates and government owned land. So it does refer to the Landed estate. The act also refers to a seperate definition of the 'county of cornwall'.

All these arguments are irrelvent anyway. The county council are the controlling power of the county as established in the 1889 and 1974 acts. These clearly supercede any rights that the prince may have had. josh (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

In the 38th year of the reign of Henry VI. we find a bill introduced into Parliament which, after reciting at length the three Duchy Charters, proceeds as follows :

“By force of which Grants, Ordinances, Annexions, and Confirmations, the said Edward, then Duke of Cornwall, as Duke of Cornwall, was seized of all the said Duchie and Countie, Castell, Maners, Honoures, Parkes, Boroughs, Baillywyks, Bcddarics, Fyshings, Touncs, Mills, Prises, and Customes of Wynes, Proffitts of Portes and Havenes, Wreyks, Proffitts of Shires, Hundreds and Courtes, Stannarie with Cunage of the same, Percquisitcs of the Myncre and Stannar, with Water, with Franchises, Liberties, and all maner Proffitts and Possessions comprised in the said Letters Patent and Tenures of the same.

And the said Edward sometyme Duke of Cornwall and the said victorious Prince your fader, in the lyfe of your said Noble Aiell as Duke of Cornwall, used to have and had (amongst other) as parcel of the said Duchie, Fynes for alienation of all Lands, Tenementes, and Possessions holden of them in chief within the said Countie, and the first seizine of all Lands and Tenements of every tenant that held of them in chief within the said Countie, after their decesse and the issuez thereof taken to their owen use unto the time that they that right had to the same Landes and Tenementes sued and had lyvere thereof out of the said Duke's hands, as they should have doone oute of the King´s hands iff thay had holden them of the King in chief, an in like forme as your true liegemen doone and own to do within Counte Palatyne, notwithstandyng that thoo tenantez held in other places of the King in chief.”

After further mention, the Parliament Roll then proceeds :

“Which Petition and Schedules were brought and deliberated upon by the Commons of the Kingdom of England in the same Parliament, to which the same Commons gave their assent in this form – ‘To this Bill, and to the Schedules to this Bill annexed, the Commons have assented.´ ”

“Which Petition, Schedules, and Assent having been read, heard, and fully understood. in the aforesaid Parliament, by the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal in the same Parliament, assembled by the authority of the same Parliament, an answer was given thereto in form following – Let it be done as prayed, saving to the King certain things, in manner and form following - Soit fait come il est desire, saufes au Roy certyns choses, en manere & forme ensuantz – Alway forseyn that all avoidances of Bishopriks, Dignities, and grete officers pertaynyng to the said Principalte and Duchie, be and stande at our will, nominatione, gift, and grante, this act notwithstanding.”

It will be observed, that there are two very remarkable features about this Act, which it is conceived must place beyond all doubt the title of the Duke to the County of Cornwall, and to all those prerogative and seignorial rights which would naturally accompany the grant. In the first place, there is in effect an express declaration by the whole Parliament that, by virtue of the three recited charters, the Duke did become entitled to the whole County of Cornwall ; and, secondly, the fact of its having been considered necessary to except the appointment of Bishops from the operation of the Act, shows clearly the extensive and almost unlimited prerogative rights which at that time were considered to be attached to the Duchy.

So from this we can clearly see that Cornwall was a county and a Duchy; a county palatine. Bretagne 44 10:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


I have a problem with the use of the word 'Duchy' in an article about Cornwall. I was born in Cornwall therefore I am Cornish. If I was born on a Duchy of Cornwall land on Dartmoor in Devon, I would not be Cornish, I would be from Devon. The problem is that the term 'Duchy of Cornwall' descibes more land that lies outside the boundaries of Cornwall that inside.

Talskiddy 09:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes but that's the point; Cornwall (all of) can still be legally defined as a Duchy, see the Cornish foreshore case of the 19th century. Also a distinction needs to be drawn between lands the Duchy owns (inside and outside Cornwall) and the Duchy itself. The Crown of the UK could own lands inside and outside the UK but this would not stop the King/Queen being the head of state for all of the UK and the whole UK being the Kingdom. Bretagne 44 10:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 12:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The foreshore case, as has been shown above, can be dismissed as argument. In any case, arguing that the duchy is a special case is rather specious in todays terms, no one outside of a minority of Cornish Nationalists, believe that this case holds any water whatsoever. The fact is, that since time immemorial, Cornwall has opperated, been controlled, and has been believed to be a county in England by those within and without it. Until a majority of those who dwell in Cornwall desire it to be changed, the point is moot.

The Foreshore dispute was conducted in a manner which would have prevailed had it been carried out through the public legal process via the courts. This was a stipulation laid down by the Crown in its approach to Sir John Patteson. The purpose being that whatever award was made, that it would stand as a legal basis for any subsequent parliamentary Act. The evidence submitted by the Officers of the Duchy of Cornwall was based, and discussed, around existing legal documents (Statutes and Charters etc.)and the award of ownership of the Cornish Foreshore went to the Duke in right of his Duchy. The full text of the discussions and significant aspects of the legal evidence (some of the latter still in the process of being scanned) may be found on this [1] website ->Cornish Foreshore Case.
We are all well aware of the defacto status of Cornwall and what needs to be done to rectify past injustices but it is quite bizarre that there is such incredible opposition for the Cornish people to voice, and substantiate the existence, of these injustices. I agree with your penultimate sentence but the immediately preceding one beggars belief! Whether, or not, there is massive support for the Cornish view of themselves will depend upon people's ability to different between past lies and propoganda and the destructive affect that this has on the perceptions of a people. TGG 11:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Cornish Assembly

updated link *The Cornish Assembly - Senedh Kernow

1333?

Look at 1333 - Cornwall gains independence from England. What event is it referring to?


Cornwall WikiPortal

Dydh da, I have proposed the creation of a Portal for Cornwall. Please support this if you would. Link: [2] --Joowwww 22:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the creation of a Cornish portal.Bretagne 44 15:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


POV pushing by Aroberts

Aroberts, what do you think you are doing? Please address my following concerns:

  • I require proof that the motto of Cornwall is "one and all".
  • Why is the flag of Cornwall in the infobox. Other counties with flags (eg Northumberland mention it in the main text, just like this article. Mentioning it twice is redundant and unnecessary).
  • What purpose does the flag of the Duchy of Cornwall serve? The Duchy is a private estate belonging Prince Charles.
  • Why are you adding the irrelevant pan-Celtic map to the infobox. The purpose of the map there is to show where the country is in England (as we're dealing with an English county).

If you fail to co-operate, I'll be requesting assistance from your good friend User:VampWillow ;-) Telex 12:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just to put my 2 pence worth in (and hopefully calm things down a little?)
  1. What sort of proof do you want for the One and All moto? Its actually quite a well known fact, not some obscure point of history, and is still used today. It is plastered all over the Cornwall County Council website for starters, on all their letterheads, on their coat of arms etc. Here is a link from the CCC website (not the best example for you, but literally the first page that came up on Google when searching cornwall county council motto) There are probably better references but I really don't have time at present and I leave it up to you to satisfy yourself [3]
  2. Flag in the info box - don't really have much of an opinion on this. Yes its mentioned in the text, but part of the point of the infobox surely is as a summary of information for the reader who doesn't want to go through all of the text , and just wants a flavour? Its not required, but does it do any harm? put it in, leave it out surely makes no difference?
  3. Duchy of Cornwall - As I'm sure you are aware, the politics and history of Cornwall are more complicated than other parts of the country. You are right, Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate, but there is also more to this as it links in with murky constitutional issue. I agree, it probably shouldn't be on this page, as it is discussed at length on the constitutional status of Cornwall page to which there is a link already
  4. The Celtic nations map really shouldn't be displayed here - it IS non NPOV - and is covered on the celtic nations page. Regardless of the validity of it, the ongoing constititional debate, or personal opinion, Cornwall is administered as a Country of England, and it should be presented as such here.
  5. NPOV - Pushing pro Cornish nationalist sentiment on this page is non NPOV. However, so is pretending that Cornwall is exactly the same as every other county in England. Cornwall shouldn't be promoted as an independent state on this page, but readers should at least be aware that there is a constitutional debate, a cornish flag and language through links to other pages where these topics are (neutrally) discussed. Denying these points is also non NPOV Mammal4 14:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Cornish flag infobox - info for Telex

Please read archives 1 & 2 - this has already been discussed at great depth.

  1. No other "county" has a recognised language that is funded by the government.
  2. No other "county" is widely recognised as one of six Celtic nations.
  3. No other "county" has an ongoing debate into it's constitutional status..constitutional status of Cornwall
  4. No other "county" was officially recognised as distinct on the 2001 ONS UK Census ( Cornish ethnic coding = 06)
  5. The St Piran flag is more commonly seen flying from flag poles across Cornwall than the Union flag or the St George's flag.
  6. The St Piran flag is widely used at Cornish events such as the Cornish Gorseth and St Piran's Day and worldwide at Cornish gatherings such as the Kernewek Lowender by the Cornish diaspora.
  7. As pointed out, part of the point of the infobox is as a summary of information for the reader who doesn't want to go through all of the text and just wants a flavour.

Blaid 21:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Portal:Cornwall

The proposal to create a Portal:Cornwall has been accepted. To create the portal, please see Wikipedia:Portal/Instructions.--cj | talk 07:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Infobox flag deletions again

As Cornwall is recognised as one of six Celtic nations and the Cornish were recognised as being ethnically distinct on the last 2001 ONS UK Census ( Cornish ethnic coding = 06) see Census 2001 Ethnic Codes I think it should at least have it's national flag in the Wikipedia info box - the same as Wales, Scotland, Isle of Man, England and Northern Ireland !! Pretending that Cornwall is exactly the same as every other county in England as some would like us to believe is non NPOV.

Here are some facts to consider.

1. Cornwall is legally a Duchy and not an administrative county which it has illegally been for nearly 400 years . Cornwall is a Duchy no matter what the current government says.

2. Although our own Parliament was suspended in the 18th Century, we still have Independent Sovereign Rights that are fixed in law, namely the Stannary Parliaments.

3. Henry VIII listed England and Cornwall separately, in the list of his realms given in his Coronation address.

4. Cornwall's right to its own sovereign Parliament, and the powers it possesses under the Charter of Pardon were confirmed as valid in British law by the Lord Chancellor in 1977.

5. No record exists of any formal annexation of Cornwall to England.

6. Cornwall is a member of the Federal Union of European Nationalities which has special participatory status at the council of Europe in Strasbourg and consultative status to the United Nations.

7. There is no mention in the " Anglo-Saxon Chronicles " that Cornwall was ever conquered by the English .

8. The Cornish language gained official UK Government recognition in 2002 and funding in 2005.

9. Cornwall, like Wales, was not party to the Act of Union in 1707.

10. Before the 1960's, there was little difference between Cornwall and Wales in constitutional terms.

11. Many treaty's and documents up until the 18th century made reference to there being a distinction between England and Cornubia ( Cornwall ) .

12. The 1969-71 Killbrandon Report into the British constitution states that, " when referring to Cornwall, official sources should cite the Duchy". This was in recognition of it's constitutional position.

13. You now have the right on some official forms to be able to record your Nationality as Cornish. Eg :NHS Registration Forms; if the Police ask you your Nationality, it is acceptable to them to record it as Cornish. On the next UK census you will be able to write Cornish for your identity.

14. Maps of the British Isles produced up until the 17th century showed Cornwall as a distinct entity and on a par with the nation of Wales.

15. Cornwall is an older nation than England and one of the oldest Duchies in Europe.

16. 90% of Cornish place names are of Celtic origin and derived from the Cornish language.

17. The Duchy includes the entire territory known as Cornwall, including the bed and waters of the River Tamar.

18. The Cornish are a Celtic people who once inhabited the entire region covered by present-day Cornwall, Devon and West-Somerset.

19. The Duke of Cornwall is our head of state; Not the UK monarch.

20. The Duke's powers are further confirmed in the Tamar Bridge Act as recently as 1998.

21. Cornwall has two unique Celtic sports, Cornish Hurling and Cornish Wrestling, both chronically ignored and under funded.

22. Many of our festivals and events, like the Obby Oss have their origins in the Celtic Britons and predate the arrival of the English in the British Isles.

Is this anti English? No we have plenty of English friends, but is the English establishment anti Cornish? Perhaps. Why did our schools never teach us about our own history and why does the government seem determined to ignore our calls for a Cornish assembly?

Blaid 21:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


Reply and Support

After having looked here and elsewhere on Wikipedia it would seem to me that there is a faction within the Uk geography project to rob the United Kingdom of its legitimacy as a political entity (See discussion at Uk). This seems to take the form of reverting mentions of the Uk to use of the home nation on lots of English/Welsh pages with no good reason, and in the case of Cornwall by POV pushing the England label and Flag on Cornish pages. Yes Blaid makes some good points - I don't agree with all of them, and many can be argued to be misinterpretation of minimal historical documents that are available from the period (BTW, the Queen is actually the head of state for Cornwall as she is the Queen of England, Wales, Scotland and Cornwall, the Duchy being a title given to her eldest like the Prince of Wales, to provide income). Regardless of the legality of it, or the previous history, Cornwall is administered as a county of England. Personally, the time to kick up a stink about this would be in 1888 when the local governement act meant that what was previously treated as a separate component of the Uk, was given county status (illegally or not, there is now 120 years of precedent, which counts for a lot in Uk law). These are the facts and should be reflected in the entry (the place for discussion of the constitutional status of Cornwall being Constitutional status of Cornwall). However, to pretend that Cornwall isn't different, doesn't have a separate identity within the Uk, language, flag, culture etc is wrong and POV pushing in the extreme. This obsession with consistency between county articles is ridiculous - Yes it is good that they all have a simmilar layout and style, with simmilar sectioning, but the Uk is not, like some other countries, a homogenous entity, and these regional differences should be respected and commented upon in the articles, not steamrollered out because they don't conform to the article template. A lot of English counties have a motto, but I don't see people questioning the legigimacy these as they do on the Cornwall page - this sort of petty undermining of Cornish identity should have no place on Wikipedia! I've said my piece Grrrr sometimes these people get me so cross! :) Mammal4 08:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A different reply

I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist replying to Blaid:

  1. How exactly is Cornwall "legally" a Duchy? Officially, at present, Cornwall is an English county (i.e. follows the English pattern of local government). If there is a legal dispute, then it will have to go to court, and until a ruling is delivered stating that Cornwall is not a county, what is official in the UK at present still stands. Anything else is nothing more than a personal POV (point of view). I remind you that the courts have a tendency of ruling in favour of the government when it's constitutional legitimacy is questioned. Remember what happened when the legitimacy of the usage of the Parliament Act 1911 (as amended) to pass the Hunting Act (which banned fox hunting) was questioned. Read it for yourself [4].
  2. That's your POV. The Cornish people have been voting and sending MPs to Westminster for years, therefore the Westminster Parliament has a legitimate right to legislate over Cornwall, as I'm sure you're well aware.
  3. Yeah, but the Local Government Act 1988 which created Cornwall County Council (which received the Royal Assent) didn't.
  4. And ignored by the rest of government. The Lord Chancellor is a minister and does not create or interpret law in his own right - Parliament (to which Cornwall sends MPs) establishes statutory (including constitutional) law and this is interpreted by the courts in judicial capacity. I haven't such a confirmation yet; only speculations as to what the law is, which are ignored by the government.
  5. That's true, neither did Wessex, Northumbria, Kent etc... etc...
  6. No it isn't - the Cornish ethnicity (i.e. the people identifying as ethnically Cornish) are represented there.
  7. So what?
  8. How does that affect Cornwall's constitutional status?
  9. So? Acts of Parliament (like the 1988 one I mentioned above) created a county coucil for Cornwall on the English model. Are you challenging the validity of that Act? That's your POV, as the government, the people who actually administrate the place with democratic legitimacy (the inhabitants of Cornwall vote, don't they?) think otherwise.
  10. Yes there was - see Wales and Berwick Act 1746.
  11. Yes, but they don't anymore - e.g. the Local Government Act 1988 which created Cornwall County Council (a county council on the English model).
  12. Yes, and the democratically elected government ignored them as of right.
  13. How does that affect the constitutional status? That's merely the government acknowledging that a lot of people identify as ethnically Cornish (they also took exception to the fact that a lot of people describe their religion as Jedi).
  14. According to the Local Government Act 1988 Cornwall is a county and has a county council accordingly.
  15. So?
  16. So?
  17. No it doesn't. See Duchy of Cornwall. It is a private estate including property even in Wales.
  18. How does that affect the constitutional status of Cornwall?
  19. Any sources to back this up, or is it just your POV?
  20. In the Duchy of Cornwall (the private estate we were talking about), what about the overlapping area administrated by the county council?
  21. How does that affect the constitutional status or Cornwall?
  22. How does that affect the constitutional status of Cornwall?

So, Blaid, back to my point. You have a lot of good arguments supporting the claim that Cornwall ought to have self government (on the basis that it's distinct), however, you don't have much to support the allegation that it is legally entitled to it. You need a court ruling to challenge the government's claims. They administer the place, anything else is a POV without a court ruling (or the government acknowledging something or a new Act of Parliament granting autonomy) --Telex 19:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Telex, Cornwall is one of 6 Celtic nations - Bretagne, Cornwall, Ireland, Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales who all display their flag at the top of the Wikipedia page. Are you saying that Cornwall is not recognised as a Celtic nation ? Your obsession with removing the Cornish flag from the top of the Cornwall article and the way the "county" infobox is presented is ridiculous. This petty undermining of Cornish identity should have no place on Wikipedia ! Blaid 27 May 2006

Quite - since when is that the definitive criterion? --Telex 09:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Since when was the definitive criterion that Celtic nations should not be recognised ? The Celtic nations of Breizh, Republic of Ireland, Isle of Man, Scotland, Cornwall and Wales appear to display their flags at the top of the page. An estrik a dhihares a prof an estrik a edrek. Mes ynter ewnder hag aghladhva, nyns eus myskdir. Res yw dhyn kavoes agan lev agan honan. Blaid 1st June 2006
Fair play for going through all those points. I couldn't be bothered, they were all old arguments or bollocks (Hence the number of "So?" and repeating of previous points). The most telling part was the Guardian ref. Including the quote "The restrictions on the exercise of the powers of the House of Lords that the 1949 act purported to make have been so widely recognised and relied upon that they are today a political fact." by the most senior judge in UK at the time. He basicly said the De Facto situation is what matters. So what's use is a 500 year old act. josh (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Cornwall pages administration

As Mammal4 mentions there appears to be a clear case of POV pushing of the England label and flag on most Cornish pages. The fact is Cornwall is administered as a county of England. There is also as mentioned an obsession by a few on here for consistency between county articles and in particular "county" info boxes. Some genuine Cornish contributions are termed as "vandalism" and are reverted immediately whilst other types of POV pushing remain untouched. Should not the Wikipedia "Cornwall page administrator" have a more neutral point of view  ?

"Regional differences should be respected and commented upon in the articles, not steamrollered out because they don't conform to the article template. A lot of English counties have a motto, but I don't see people questioning the legitimacy of these as they do on the Cornwall page - this sort of petty undermining of Cornish identity should have no place on Wikipedia !"

1. With regards to the flag issue, please take a look at the pages for the US states - each one has the state flag at the top of the infobox. The Council of Europe in Strasbourg is considering the Cornish case this year under the "Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities" and states that Cornish identity should be recognised and respected, not undermined or disregarded. The information I gave to Telex earlier provides evidence that Cornwall's identity is slightly different to other English "counties" -

  1. No other "county" has a recognised language that is funded by the government.
  2. No other "county" is widely recognised as one of six Celtic nations.
  3. No other "county" has an ongoing debate into it's constitutional status..see constitutional status of Cornwall
  4. No other "county" was officially recognised as distinct on the Census 2001 Ethnic Codes ( Cornish ethnic coding = 06)
  5. The St Piran flag is more commonly seen flying from flag poles across Cornwall than the Union flag or the St George's flag.
  6. The St Piran flag is widely used at Cornish events such as the Cornish Gorseth and St Piran's Day and worldwide at Cornish gatherings such as the Kernewek Lowender by the Cornish diaspora.
  7. As pointed out, part of the point of the info box is as a summary of information for the reader who doesn't want to go through all of the text and just wants a flavour.

2. With regards to the Cornish external link deletions below by Joshurtree - these appear to have been selected at random but the reason given is that "WP is not a Wikipedia:External_links Web directory". Of course he is correct with this explanation, but a casual look at other Wikipedia pages shows long lists of external links - for example take a look at the pages for Bath, Nottingham, Leeds, Bradford, Devon or even New York ! Perhaps he should delete some of these ?

Blaid. All that does not affect the constitutional status of Cornwall. For the record, the government also did not recognize Cornwall as distinct in the 2001 census, it acknowledged that there are people self-identifying as ethnically Cornish - this has no implication for the constitutional status of Cornwall. For a similar example, see Jedi census phenomenon. Cornish identity is not affected by how this article is presented, be Cornwall a county or not. As many organizations recognize the Cornish ethnicity, this does not affect its constitutional status. --Telex 09:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Case for the flag

Being that Cornwall is a Duchy, surely the flag that its people chose to use on its national day should be placed at the top of the page. The following pages are allowed a flag at the top and none of them are classed as Countries.

Erm - Ok - Luxembourg, Monaco and Andorra are independent countries like any other and obviously have flags. Jersey and Guernsey are independent. Wales and NI (which doesn't even have a flag) are nations of the UK officially recognised as such. How does that relate to Cornwall?

Having said all that, Cornish people, whether they live in a county or a duchy fly the St Piran's Cross all the time and are very proud of it as an identifier of their people and their homeland - it seems only appropriate that it appears at the top of the page - just as anyother area or people that has a popularly-used flag. Cornwall's status is really not relevant. Esquimo 10:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Will the flags be deleted from any of the above? (I think not) Talskiddy 23:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid Cornwall is a county - how many other articles on counties do you know with flags in the infoboxes? Northumberland has a flag, as does Devon - there is no flag in the infoboxes there though. The Duchy of Cornwall is generally unrelated to the county this article is about - the duchy is a private estate belonging to the Prince's of Wales. --Telex 23:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The Wiki pages for the 26 régions of France pages use flags in their infoboxes. e.g. Alsace, Aquitaine, Auvergne, Bourgogne, Bretagne etc.. Are these French regions not like our Counties? Should the guidelines for England not be like those for France.? Why shouldn't any British County be able to put a flag there if they have one? see Flags of English subdivisions. (Just a thought) Talskiddy 10:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly what I was trying to say. Which Wikipedia committee decided to ban all regional flags from infoboxes or from the top of Wikipedia region pages ? If regions or countries/counties wish to display their flags near the top of the page they should be free to do so as in the examples of the individual States in the US, eg Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas etc, or the regions of France as mentioned. Perhaps a compromise would be to display the flag nearer the top of the article but not in the infobox such as the flag of Lincolnshire which is dangerously close to the top - perhaps it should be removed !! (Blaid 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC))



Telex this is simple not true. the constitutional status of Cornwall as a duchy was proved in law in the 19th century, see the Cornish foreshore case. Bretagne 44 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC

Actually you are both right. The Prince of Wales runs the Duchy as a private estate including his other holdings in other counties because it suits him to do so. There are administrative savings to doing it this way, so in this sense it is a property company. However, there are significant differences between the Duchy and "a private estate" which are covered on the Duchy of Cornwall page to do with unique statutory privileges, exemptions, powers, rights and authorities in Cornwall. The Duchy also has certain obligations to Cornwall that you don't find with other property companies. In these senses the Duchy has more in common with the Crown Estate (which incidently does not have holdings in Cornwall) which could also be described as a private estate belonging to the Queen. You might also want to look at Duke of Cornwall for more info on how the the Duchy of Cornwall is different to the Duchy of Lancaster which is also run as a property company. However, the Duchy of Cornwall has a separate definition as a branch of the crown. This deals with constitutional rather than financial matters as described in the second half of the entry. To quote concerning Cornwall "..any rights pertaining to the Crown generally in most areas of the country instead pertain to the Duke of the Duchy". This is not written in some crusty old forgotten law from 500 years ago that nobody will take seriously, but in the 1998 Tamar Bridge Act. It suits some on this page to ignore either half of this and only use one part of the definition to support their own arguments. None of this however affects the fact that Cornwall is administered as a county of England. Regardless of the legality of the situation, that is the status quo. Mammal4 20:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Disappointment with discussion on this page

I'm really quite disappointed with the discussion on this page - its unbalanced and doesn't actually go anywhere. When I first heard about Wikipedia, I thought that it sounded like a great idea - the idea of articles being written through consensus and discussion by a sucession of writers, each with their own slant, but leading to an "averaged" article that cover all sides is a great concept, and I'm surely not the only person who contributes here that thinks so. That there is no hierachy and that no editor is deemed "better" than anyone else also appealed to me. The policies laid down by Wikipedia are also a useful set of guidlines with which to ensure civil and constructive contributions. Additionally, The discussion page where ideas can be hammered out before adding them to the main article is a really useful concept.

The reality of my experience with editing, especially on Cornwall geography pages has been somewhat different. I don't direct this to any one individual editor, it is more a general feeling about what I think is lacking on Cornwall related discussion, not just on this page. I apologise if I inadvertently offend anybody, that is not my intention here, I just want to get some of this stuff out in the open, hopefully improve how the discussion process works here and gently remind people of the Rules and Etiquette that we are supposed to contribute under.

  • There seems to be no civility - discussion is good, but rubbishing someone elses opinion in not helpful. Yes I realise that sometimes it is rubbish, but there are better ways of addressing this. An example on this page would be the I couldn't be bothered, they were all old arguments or bollocks reply from one of the flag edits above. Yes I realise that things written in text sometimes appear terser than actually meant, but some of this stuff is just rude. There is an article on good Wikipedia etiquette here which explains why ignoring questions (which happens here a lot) and not apologising or conceeding points when appropriate is rude and doesn't help in the running of Wikipedia. If anybody needs a further reminder I found another amusing (at least to me) article here which puts it more bluntly!
  • There is no assumption of good faith. The antiflag faction does not give the benefit of the doubt that some editors are trying to improve these articles. Edits are often reverted without explaination or with sarcastic/rude edit history comments - this only antagonises people. Yes I agree that some people probably aren't trying to improve articles (see below) but its a founding pillar of Wikipedia that you should at least assume at first that they are.
  • Nobody is interested in broaching any consensus on any of the difficult Cornwall related topics (e.g this flag business, the England/Uk tagging of articles). Some editors seem to take a proprietorial approach to these pages (i.e I'm right your wrong, its not even up for discussion), and also act as if they are somehow better or more qualified to edit than anyone else - we were all new editors once so can people please give the newbies a bit of a break and not be too hard on them when they make mistakes, please do not bite the newcomers! :)
  • There is a lot of POV pushing by both sides. It seems that anything that even remotly deals with Cornish identity is stamped all over and subject to a far greater burden of proof than simmilar material on other county pages. I mean, for gods sake, why does the Cornish motto onen hag ol require extensive verification and referencing, whereas there are plenty of unchallenged mottos on the pages of other counties (where there isn't a constitutional debate). Some of this stuff is really petty! I also found this other interesting page that sums up how I feel about some of these edits :)  ! I wouldn't mind so much , but a lot of these editors don't actually contribute anything meaningful to the article content, but just sit and nit pick over the placement of a flag, or whether there should be a comma in line five or not! By the same token there are obvious Pro-Cornish POV edits who seem to delight in trolling on the discussion page, and don't contribute anything elsewhere - If you know about Cornwall, why don't you write something instead of picking!  :) There is plenty of stuff that needs attention !
  • There are too many lazy edits and nobody actually reads things before replying. By lazy edits, I mean things like the huge list of facts posted about Cornwall's unique status, which on closer inspection are actually cut and paste from this website [5]. Although there are some interesting facts in here, they are lost because they were used out of context and don't answer the question at hand (which led to the list of So? responses that was posted afterwards). These types of huge cut and paste postings that restate over and over previously mentionned info also encourages people not to read them anyway. Yes I realise the irony of respoding to this with another huge post, but i promise its the last one I'll write - I'm fed up with the whole thing!) Following on from that, to the same user that posted the huge plagerised list, can you please stop paraphrasing my comments in subsequent postings? I appreciate that you are trying to make a point and might like the way that I've phrased something, but you use my sentences out of context and subtlely change their meaning - If you aren't eloquent enough to rewrite it in your own words then its probably best if you don't comment on that topic at all. it also means people blur my (overlapping maybe, but distinct) opinions with yours and then verbally attack me for unhelpful actions taken by Cornwall hardliners. (Just for the record - I have never removed the word England from any article(3.Cornwall Constitutional Status), despite my reservations that it is being used as a POV pushing tool.

Bah whats the use - I've had enough of this - I'm sure nobody will take any notice of this post anyway and just carry on as before, but at least I feel better for having ranted it off of my chest! Mammal4 13:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC) á

As i have said before this and other articles are targetted by English/British nationalists plus others.Bretagne 44 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Time for a Celtic nation of Cornwall page

As to the debate on the Cornwall page county V country. Why not go for segregation, leave the wikipedia Cornwall county of England page and create the Celtic nation of Cornwall page. You could take the constitutional status of Cornwall [[6]] page as a starter and turn it into the Celtic nation of Cornwall page. There is already a Celtic Nations page so you would be just building on that.

The Cornwall EC and Cornwall CN page would then link to each other and other Cornish pages. This would achieve consensus provide an accurate description of Cornwall from the tow perspectives and solve this tiresome feud.Bretagne 44 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a fair idea - there is a difference between nation and a country and I think a lot of the arguments on this page stem from ignorance of the distinction. Are you volunteering to set this up Bretagne? :) I don't mind helping out, although I have my hands a little full at Penwith Wikiproject at the moment. You would have to make sure that there was really obvious signposting from the top of this page, and probably a warning on the first paragraph - something like "the wording of the following paragraph has been the source of much controversy - please do not edit without first discussing on the talk page" as this issue crops up every 6 months or so with a different set of users (see here for starters) Mammal4 20:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. Have a look at the two different pages for Bretagne and Brittany. Talskiddy 11:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I see both good and bad points in this, so I won't support or oppose. Just take into account that such an article may qualify as a POV fork. --Telex 11:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Surely a sentence at the top of each article explaining the difference between the two articles and linking between them (as with Bretagne and Brittanywould help with this potential problem? I'll also make sure that the new page is POV policed properly too and doesn't become a nationalist enclave Mammal4 11:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cornwall Portal Update/Help Request!

Please feel free to update the Cornwall portal, or to change it in any way - new information etc. I'm finding myself without much time to do it. --Joowwww 16:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Cornish flag

There was a request for references to support the international recognition of the Cornish flag in the main article. I'm pretty sure that the flag is recognised outside Cornwall/UK but its not easy to find references to support this. I googled "Flags of the World" and looked at the first couple of hits (I didn't have time to go deeper). Both were American hosted sites I think. Both had the Cornish flag on their site, so I added them as refs to the article. Some of the lower hits didn't have the flag, but then only had flags of sovereign nations anyway (CIA factbook etc). Does that answer the query? I'm happy to discuss this. Mammal4 17:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits concerning Cornwall status in England

Steinsky - please can you provide more descriptive edit summaries when you are reverting edits that you disagree with. As I'm sure you know this is generally considered to be good Wikipedia practice. I'm sure many regulars on this page will know why you've reverted it but newer editors will not. I realise it must be irritating to have to keep repeating yourself. It generally helps to reduce antagonism if you at least explain what you are doing.

Tashtastic - Whilst I sympathise with what you are saying, it doesn't matter whether Cornwall was formally annexed or not, it is administered now as a county of England (legally or ilegally it makes no difference). Cornwall County Council is not a front for the Cornish government. This debate has being going back and forth for at least 3 years - it might help if you were to look in the achives at the top of this page to see what has been discussed previously before making any changes. It has been suggested that an Historic Kingdom of Cornwall page be set up to distinguish some of these issues from the Cornwall main page, which is a description of the current English administered (legally or ilegally) region. This would build on the infomration at Duchy of Cornwall and constitutional status of Cornwall. Something simmilar has been done with Brittany to distinguish it from the French administered region of Bretagne. This is a more effective way of getting your point across that reverting this page over and over again.

I hope this is useful, take care Mammal4 13:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Capital City vs Admin HQ

"Cornwall +(capital+city)" pulls up many more relevant hits on google (>100,000) than either "Cornwall +(administrative+headquarters)" or "Cornwall +(administrative+HQ)" (<1000). This isn't unique to Cornwall, as I've tried it with other counties. Does anybody know why the geography pages have been set up in this way? Mammal4 14:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Capital city" is never used in this way. The admin HQ is where the administrative headquarters are, which may or may not be the same as the de facto county town. The phrase "capital city" generally refers to countries. Owain (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say capital is never used when referring to counties - in common speech it is used often in this way and the google hits are testement to that. You make a good point though that Admin HQ and capital are not necessarily the same for all counties, which is justification enough as to why Admin HQ is used on the county pages (ie they're aren't refering to the same thing). I suppose you could have a box for capital and Admin HQ, but I think it would look a bit stupid and isn't really necessary! Mammal4 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the phrase "capital" by itself may be used to refer to a county town, but not the compund phrase "capital city", given that not all county towns are cities. Owain (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Should there be a Cornwall related stub ? ok, we have a {{Cornwall-geo-stub}} for locations within Cornwall but what about Cornwall non-geo stubs, such as "List of Celts", for articles which relate to Cornwall or Cornish people ? Please leave a comment here.. 

Proposal for a Cornwall-related article Stub

Pediac 17:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC) {{Scotland-stub}} {{Ireland-stub}} {{Wales-stub}} {{France-stub}}

There is now a Cornwall stub

There is now a Cornwall stub, see Cornwall stubs. To mark an article as a Cornwall stub, add {{Cornwall-stub}} to it. I hope it is useful! DuncanHill 12:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Duchy of Cornwall is not really in England

Shouldn't the map be revised so that Cornwall is not dark green? Anyone else agree ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:England#The_Duchy_of_Cornwall_is_not_really_in_England http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:England/Cornwall

Blaid 21:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. That Cornwall is not part of England is beyond a fringe theory. As I recently said, until any other encyclopedias start presenting Cornwall as anything other than an English county, it will be undue weight to emphasise the constitutional question here. --Tēlex 21:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Given that England itself hasn't existed in any statutory fashion since the Act of Union 1707 (and before that had been a client kingdom of Scotland since 1606) I would argue that no map should show "England" at all, except in historical contexts. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 14:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Two pages for the duchy

Is there a reason why we have two pages that talk about the duchy of Cornwall here and here? Although the name suggests that they cover different faces of the Duchy of Cornwall (as a property holding of Prince Charles, and as a once semi autonomous block of the UK) in reality they cover mostly the same information - wouldn't it be better for readers unfamiliar with this information to merge the two articles? At the moment it just looks like a potential POV fork waiting to happen Mammal4 15:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Cornish diaspora page deletion and renaming

Well, I see this is NOT in fact being currently discussed at Talk:Cornish emigration., it has hardly been discussed at all and it appears that a consensus of three people have decided to change the name to Cornish emigration, start deleting links and redirecting pages. The committee of three has decided that the Cornish diaspora of some 6-10 million people does not exist. May I refer you to Professor Philip Payton's books "Cornwall" and "The Cornish Overseas". The Cornish diaspora refers to Cornish emigrants and their descendants in countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Mexico. The diaspora was caused by a number of factors, but due mainly to economic reasons and the lack of jobs in the 18th and 19th centuries when many Cornish people or “Cousin Jacks” as they were known migrated to various parts of the world in search of a better life. Should this be deleted also ?

[7]

This is being currently being discussed at Talk:Cornish emigration unless I imagined all those posts. Please keep the discussion on that page and not here. Nothing has been deleted, just the name of the page changed. This was proposed back at the end of June, and nobody bothered to comment until the after the page was renamed. As I have already said, I am happy to reopen the discussion and change it back if that is what the consensus is. This is a discussion over the terminology used, nobody is denying that this movement of people happened. Mammal4 18:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Recently moved text about constitutional status

I've reverted the movement of text In the 20th century there has been an attempt to revive the Cornish language and as one of the six Celtic nations there has been some debate over the constitutional status of Cornwall (Some Cornish people refer to Cornwall as a Duchy and consider it separate from England). back to the first paragraph. This was put in as a compromise a year or so back so that people can link to the constitutional status of Cornwall page if they want to read more on the topic, but don't have to wade through a load of stuff about Cornish independence if they don't want to. If you look in the archives at the top of the page there was quite a lot of discussion about it at the time and it was deemed necessary to prevent further loading of the opening paragraph with Cornish nationalist sentiment, whilst maintaining a balance Mammal4 08:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with having the sentence there. However more people reading this article are going to want to know about its towns, county seat, population etc. than some rather doubtful stuff about its constitutional status. Let's put the things people are most likely to want to know at the top, and the rest after it. DJ Clayworth 13:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that you can say what other people will and will not want to read about - have you done a poll? As to the doubtful constitutional status comment, the actual sentance reads "there has been some debate over the constitutional status of Cornwall" Are you doubting that there has been debate or do you have doubts about the constitutional status? The sentance is worded very neutrally is doesn't make any claim as to the constitutional status itself, only that it is a topic which crops in Cornish politics that you wouldn't have in, say, Derbyshire or Hampshire. This is true. As tothe constitutional status itself, well that is a complicated topic, and you are quite right, that sort of thing shouldn't be in the header. The point is that this leader paragraph is supposed to summarise the whole article and give a flavour of what is to come - The meat of it is supposed to come in the later sections. All of the things that say people want to read about (towns, county seat, population etc) are actually either at the start of the opening paragraph or in the infobox or in both; i don't think anyone is going to have trouble finding them. Take care Mammal4 13:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with Mammal4 about this - the constitutional debate in Cornwall does exist, and is likely to be of interest to anyone who wants to find out about Cornwall, having a mention of it near the beginning of the article, with a link to the relevant article seems a sensible option. Surely one of the points of an encyclopedia is that it contains 'things you didn't know before reading it'? DuncanHill 14:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Revert warring over England / English vs United Kingdom / British

As already stated, a large number of Cornish people do not identify as English or see themselves as from Cornwall, 'England' for reasons relating to the ongoing debate about the past, present and future constitutional status of Cornwall, together with many people's sense of a distinct Cornish cultural identity - see Constitutional status of Cornwall and Revert warring over England/English vs United Kingdom/British. Since 2001 the Cornish have had their own unique ethnic UK Census code '06' similar to the Irish, Scots, Welsh and English, 2001 Ethnic Codes,and on many official forms it is now possible to register as Cornish as opposed to English. 217.134.75.62 09:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#UK geography terminology straw poll. Please join the discussion there to define a United Kingdom-wide policy. Noisy | Talk 12:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Whilst what you say is true, I would make the following points; firstly, Wikipedia is not a forum for pro/anti Cornish nationalist debate. Secondly, the Cornish are a minority even within Cornwall and it may be that the majority population see things differently. I support the Sovereign State description simply as the inhabitants of the UK are generally culturally and historically similar with regional variances within constituent members. As Noisy says, the appropriate place to discuss this is at the place given above.LessHeard vanU 12:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed unsubstantiated nonsense

I've removed the following paragraph which was added today. IMHO, it is mostly unsubstantiated nonsense.

Geologically the coast of Cornwall cognates with its Celtic cousins in Wales, Brittany and Ireland. Cornwall, before the last European Ice Age was part of the same landmass as it's Celtic cousins, which explains the geological similarities. The Ice Age has a massive impact (literally) on Cornwall; it created the deep V-shaped and hanging valleys of the North coast, evident at the likes of Crackington Haven and Tintagel. After the Ice Age literally melted away, a huge slab of ice dropped into the Atlantic Ocean, causing a massive tsunami which hurtled towards the Atlantic seaboard of Europe. The consequences of this tsunami effectively created the modern day Celtic Sea, Bristol Channel and Irish Sea which literally cut Cornwall off from it's Celtic cousins. Stories of sugmerged lands are very common across the Celtic seaboard, and Cornwall is no exception. In the past, academics without scientific technology laughed off stories, such as Lyonesse as fairy tales. However, modern day technology has allowed geologists to conclude that many parts of Cornwall (and Ireland, Wales and Brittany) was indeed engulfed by massive tidal waves and lost to the sea. At Mount's Bay, towards Marazion and Penzance low tides reveal submerged traces of forests. The north-coast around Bude and Tintagel also has geological evidence of submerged forests. Cornwall's most famous lost land is Lyonesse which is a submerged triangle of land between Lizard Point, Lands End and the Isles of Scilly. The fact that the Isles of Scilly has the same granite mass as Lands End proves that Lyonesse is no fairy-tale, although, like most tales of the Celtic nations, has been somewhat embellished. Donegal Bay in Ireland and Cardigan Bay in Wales also display submerged forests at low tide. As, like Cornwall these aforementioned bays face westwards towards the Atlantic Ocean, it proves that the lost lands are no fairy tales, but real events that actually did happen.

--Portnadler 14:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a pretty accurate description of the geology of the region and the "sunken/flooded land" legend is common to the European celtic cultures - academics do make the link between the facts and the stories, as they do elsewhere in the world - I would argue for including the text in the article - it is based on fact, represents the opinions of at least a large part of academia and is interesting and adds to the reader's appreciation of the Cornish culture and landscape. Esquimo 10:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Language revival

Twice edits about the revival of the Cornish language have been reverted. The last was anon by 172.206.31.187talk.
Which of the below would seem more correct?

  • There has been an attempt at revival of the Cornish language.
  • There has been a revival of the Cornish language.


If there was an attempt: is it fair to say it failed?, succeeded? or that the revival is an ongoing project?
I also have a problem with the use of "In the 20th century, there has been an attempt"
I am sure that the revival started earlier?

any thoughts on this? Talskiddy 15:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It was ungrammatical, apart from anything else, so I've had a bash at rewriting it. What do you think? --Portnadler 16:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The first part looks good, but what I am questioning is the definition of revival? There are several reasons to suggest the language has been revived. see List of revived languages. Talskiddy
It's a question of what you mean by 'revived'. If it had been truly revived, then I as a Cornishman born of two Cornish parents would be speaking it as my mother tongue. Sadly, I'm not. Instead of talking about attempts to revive it, perhaps we should say that it has been revived to some degree, but not to the extent that it is in common use by a significant number of people. --Portnadler 09:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it not better to say that the revival has started. To say that there have been attempts implies that there was a failure in the revival. I don't think that everyone in Wales speaks Welsh but I wouldn't say that The Welsh language revival has failed. I snipped the following line from Welsh language...."Welsh has enjoyed a strong revival in recent years."

I have reverted an anonymous edit which changed the intro to "The Cornish language gradually died out as a spoken language during the 19th century, however a slowly increasing minority of the population continue to speak a form of cornish similar to that which was spoken before." Apart from the fact that it's ungrammatical, is there any evidence for the claim that the number of Cornish speakers continues to increase slowly? --Portnadler 12:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the statement is probably true, but what would satisfy you in the way of evidence/references? Mammal4 13:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
How about this [8] (bottom graph) from the Cornwall county council webpage? I've reinstated the text Mammal4 13:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I happy with the reference, and it gladdens my Cornish heart to see how many people can effectively speak the language. However, I was still a bit unhappy with the form of words you put in the intro, so I've had another bash at rewriting it. --Portnadler 17:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In todays news-http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/6039540.stm The number of people who speak fluent Cornish is thought to be between 300 and 400 and the Cornish Language Fellowship estimates that more than 5,000 people have some knowledge of the language. Talskiddy

Rewrite of Physical Geography section

I have rewritten the Physical Geography section. I felt that it had become a bit of a mess with all the recent edits. Some were unencyclopedic hyperbole and there was one anonymous editor who kept referring to features in Cornwall that were (allegedly) analogous to those in Wales, Brittany and Ireland. I suspect this was the work of someone with a nationalist political agenda, disguised as a geographer/geologist.

I have also made the section briefer, in the hope that we will eventually develop a whole new article on the Geology of Cornwall. I have therefore included a main article template to encourage us to do this.

Portnadler 17:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Villages in Cornwall and List of places in Cornwall

We are asked to populate the List of Villages. Most of the placenames in the List of places are redlinks. Can the two lists be drawn tgether, please? Would it be an inducement to add stubs or full articles on all the places to have them listed by District Council area? Vernon White 23:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the list is ridiculously long, and includes places that are no more than tiny hamlets. For instance, compare it with List of places in Devon. --Portnadler 17:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I think there's a purpose in having a comprehensive list. If you're googling Havosso also known as Halvasso you just find Estate Agents and other rubbish. However this tiny hamlet includes one large and distinguished building (the Sunday School) and an Outdoor Centre for young people. Even if the link remains red, it is still going to be useful to someone, sooner or later. It would be useful (and better than Devon) if this places list had some indication of where the tiny hamlet is, map reference, civil parish or District Council area. I know WP is not a gazeteer, however. -- 217.44.240.201 20:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC), --- Not logged on, sorry. This is Vernon White 20:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Small problem

There is a problem with the location map on the Truro page, part of the map is hidden, can anyone fix it? Many thanks...--81.156.77.41 22:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Twin Towns in Cornwall

Can anyone add to the list at "List of twin towns in the United Kingdom", arranged by County.

List is currently:

--Vernon White 21:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Cornwall stub proposal

I have proposed the creation of a Cornwall stub at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2006/October for Cornwall related stub-class articles which do not fit the Cornwall geo-stub. DuncanHill 10:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea ! Gulval 22:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I have now created the Cornwall stub, and have started populating it - use {{Cornwall-stub}} to add it to articles. I hope people find it useful! DuncanHill 16:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

New Cornish Town/Village info boxes

Does anyone else object to the new Cornwall town/village info boxes with the English flag which have appeared recently ? (see Redruth, Camborne etc. Personally I think I prefer the Penwith style - see Hayle / Penzance. After all Redruth and Camborne and other towns are also Cornish parishes, or I suppose we could add a Cornish flag ! Gulval 22:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not that keen on them - the Penzance etc ones that you talk of are actually parish info boxes (which also happen to be the name of a town in some cases) which I designed to be in keeping with nav boxes on other UK subdivisions in terms of style (Cornwall, Dorset, Birmingham etc). I also am not that keen on the flag - seems a bit like a dog pissing on stuff to mark his territory! I would equally not like a Cornish or British flag either for the same reason - they're just inflammatory and lead to conflicts Mammal4 08:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I find the vandalism which replaces Cornish symbols with English symbolism particularly offensive (which will not surprise many people!) and would certainly advocate prompt removal of such items. The reason for either action may be considered as political but one must question why the presence of Cornish flags on Cornish pages is seen as a problem, or significant enough to provoke their replacement with what are principally symbols of English self-perceived superiority and dominion?
The English flag of St George has only recently been re-discovered as 'an English' symbol but we have not yet seen any enlightened parallel understanding between nationalism and the evils of imperialism. My thought , at this moment, is that we merely omit/remove any flag from a page and record why in the appropriate article, pointing to either an embedded section, or separate article, on the Cornish flag. How would this normally be resolved? -- TGG 14:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You are confusing a town (e.g. Camborne) with a district (e.g. Penwith). They have different infoboxes by design. There is no reason to create a fork of the English place template for Cornwall. MRSC 14:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
How would this normally be resolved? through a consensus of editors, though your unlikley to get that here. The best way to resolve this I think would be to stick to the established UK infobox pattern - this in itself should be reasoning enough Mammal4 15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
See here for examples - a lot of people have been working on this for a long time and come up with an excellent set of standardised boxes in a consistent style for counties, districts etc. There is no reason why this shouldn't also be applied to the towns and parishes Mammal4 15:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for the link. I notice that there were no flags shown on that which would seem to agree with my thoughts on this issue. How would this be adopted as the style towns and parishes? -- TGG 10:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I second Mammal4's comments. There are two issues here. Firstly, when the name of a place is both a town/village and a civil parish, what should the article be mainly about? Should there be two separate articles? In most cases, I don't think there is enough material to create two articles. If there is one article, I think it should be aimed mainly at the town/village, because I think that is what the reader is going to be most interested in. The second issue is the type of flag in the infoboxes (and other templates on the pages). I think the flags are superfluous, and would not object if they were not there. However, the infoboxes that I have added recently are the accepted design for a place in England, which was arrived at by consensus, presumably on Template talk:Infobox England place or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. I think the best place to raise this issue is on those talk pages. I don't think anyone there intended to cause offence; there are also flags in the infoboxes for places in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. In the meantime, I see no reason to remove or prevent further addition of infoboxes; I think that the benefits to all readers of the information supplied, outweigh the mild irritation caused to some by the flags. Alan Pascoe 19:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if you were implying, incorrectly, that I am suggesting the removal of info boxes and I note that you have opened a discussion on the link recommended by Mammal4 - which notably did not contain any flags? I feel sure that you know well enough that the use of English flags on Cornish articles is considerably more than a "mild irritation" and an insidious political POV of incredible arrogance and dominion, which can only be supported by people who share that POV -- TGG 10:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
TGG, please assume good faith here. I did not imply that you or anyone else here had removed infoboxes. Anonymous individuals have been removing infoboxes and, via my talk page, attempting to discourage me from posting them. I was asked by one there to not post any more infoboxes because there was a discussion taking place here. All I was saying here, after reading the comments, was that I see no reason not to post more infoboxes. Any subsequent decision about the choice of infobox will not be affected by the type of infobox already in the articles. Regarding your second point, I have not started discussions about this issue elsewhere. I did post messages on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK subdivisions, and Template talk:Infobox England place that a discussion is taking place here. It is reasonable for the editors there to be aware of the discussion taking place here, and participate in it if they wish. Regarding your last point about flags, I have already stated here that I think they aren't necessary and would not object if they were removed. But, as I said, this has to involve the people who contribute to Template talk:Infobox England place. Alan Pascoe 19:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Alan, I apologise for suggesting that you had started a discussion in other than the correct place. I am a new boy here and it is so easy to flit from one thing to the other and lose track. I am, personally, not in favour of splashing flags all over the place - a shade to US - and time is too precious to waste endless rounds of reverting. A discreet link to a separate article page should more than suffice - even if it carries both flags with POV explanation! I cannot see any need at all for flaunting any flag other than anything directly associated with the Town or village. -- TGG 23:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
With regards parish vs town, have a look at St Buryan - the article is about both the parish and the village, with the lead section mentioning both. The info box here is for the parish, but also has a sub heading for statistics concerning the village alone. There is also a list of other important (secondary) settlements in the parish. I think that this works quite well as it avoids the need for two articles whilst also finding a useful home for any information which isn't directly about the village but still relevant (Under culture: John Le Carre lives in the parish, but not in the village but it makes more sense to talk about him at St Buryan that creating a separate article about the hamlet in which lives which would never be more than a stub)Mammal4 08:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
If the problem is the flag, the correct solution is to suggest remove the flag from the infobox (thus for all articles in England.) we don't want Cornish POV forks of everything. Morwen - Talk 15:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I have been otherwise engaged and sorry for a delay in responding to your comment. What you have suggested, is what I do indeed propose. Considering the fact that a picture is as good as a thousand words, the symbolism of flags becomes rather oppressive in the context of the dispute over Cornish territory. There are other ways (section/article) where the flag issue could be discussed/ pointed to. In fact, some of the info boxes themselves seem rather over the top and repeating what is in essence contained in separate articles, for example, counties/districts of England see Cornwall. Such info boxes go far beyond what is reasonable and are entirely an expression of the excesses of English chauvinism! -- TGG 14:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If there is no interest in this discussion, I shall feel it necessary to start removing the offending items - if only to evoke a response!! -- TGG 21:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
One problem may be that Talk:Cornwall is not the appropriate place for the discussion. Talk:Cornwall is for discussion specifically about the article Cornwall, which does not have a contentious infobox. User:Mammal4 has set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall, a project to improve all articles about Cornwall. Why not join the project and continue the discussion on the talk page there? Alan Pascoe 11:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Probably better to set up a sub page for the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall otherwise this sort of stuff has a tendancy to swamp out the discussion page Mammal4 13:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Alan, I would suggest that the info boxes at the foot of the Article on Cornwall are indeed contentious, for the reasons that I gave. I have yet to make up my mind on joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall, but not sure that I can devote the amount of time to it that appears to be necessary. Also, insofar as it has a bearing on the chauvinism implicit in these 'democratically' imposed 'English' info boxes, how could this matter be resolved within a Cornwall-specific discussion? --TGG 22:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The box generated by Template:Infobox England place that appears at the top of pages is one of a set of United Kingdom infoboxes. The style of it is very similar to boxes for Wales and Scotland. Replacement of this box in Cornwall articles, as you advocate, would leave Cornwall out of step with the rest of the UK. I haven't seen anyone claim that Cornwall is not in the UK. If the problem is simply the flag, the next course of action is to raise the matter on Template talk:Infobox England place. There is a good case, because removal of the flag would not remove any information from the infobox, since the same information appears in words within it. Alan Pascoe 23:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Alan, I am not talking about the Infobox at 'the top of the pages', although it seems to me to be OTT on info as well (why not a single link that brings up a separate window - as, and if, required?). This whole scene seems to be self-generating work for anoraks and Anglo-chauvinism in devising, and justifying, theoretical needs and Parkinson's Law comes very much to mind. It is also very bureaucratic! The 'English' flag, as previously discussed is offensive in its use within Cornish-related pages. Just imagine the way such a discussion would go on the template discussion page you recommend. I see no reason, or hope, to expect objectivity there! -- TGG 11:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Can I just point out that your comment about the English flag (note sure why it's an 'English' flag, with the quotes!) being offensive in Cornish articles is only your opinion and not a given. I'm Cornish and I don't object in the slightest. I use both flags and I regard myself as both Cornish and English, as do many other Cornish people. I'm proud of both and I find no contradiction in being proud of both - nor do I feel the need to attempt to explain why Cornwall is not really a county of England (as far as I'm concerned, it is, albeit one with a slightly different status). Chauvinism works both ways and I find your remarks every bit as chauvinistic as you appear to find the 'imposition' of English flags. Not trying to start a slanging match, but just pointing out that there are at least two sides to everything, and all are usually only opinions. -- Necrothesp 00:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
As an agreement apparently cannot be reached I suggest we remove the image until there is a firm consensus of opinion. Gulval 13:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Necrothesp, You raise a crucial aspect of identity and I would ask that you consider at what point your alleged duality would become polarised into some form of positive alignment - one way or the other? I would suggest, that because you can superficially consider yourself as both Cornish and English, that you are in truth English, because such duality is a nonsense until put to some acid test and, if I may also say so, is an opt out! If there is a legitimate reason why a proportion of the population of Cornwall consider it offensive to insert the 'English' flag onto Cornish pages, then why is it still there? Where does sensitivity come into the equation?
I would, naturally, different between chauvinism as a tool of arrogance and that which may be presumed to exist from an expression of Cornish Rights - the reason in fact why so much of the Cornish pages are disputed. I am not, for example, in a position to impose my point of view, whereas the oppressiveness of 'the status quo' coercively presents an iniquitious burden on the oppressed to be exceptionally fair and reasonable.! I am more than aware that there are invariably two sides, at least, to every story and I have spent the past fifty years seeking to present what I, as a Cornishman, see (from personal knowledge and research) as the reasons for the 'Cornish Paradox'. I, in fact, 'opt in'! -- TGG 14:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see why it is either a nonsense or an opt out. And I do not consider I have a dual identity. A Yorkshireman or a Londoner does not consider himself any less English because of his loyalty to his home area, although both are famous for that loyalty. I do not consider myself any less of an Englishman because of my Cornishness or any less of a Cornishman because of my Englishness. I simply do not see any conflict between them and no reason to ever become polarised in favour of one or the other, since they are not in conflict except in the minds of people with opinions like yours. You obviously see oppression, whereas I do not. I see no conflict between loyalty to my county and loyalty to my country, and my country is England, of which Cornwall is a part. You obviously do not consider it to be, but I am simply pointing out that that is only an opinion, and opinion is not fact.
As you say "a proportion" consider the insertion of the English flag offensive, but a "proportion" do not. You appear to consider that your sensibilities are more important than the sensibilities of those of us who are happy to be a part of England, and who consider this to be a current and historical fact. Wikipedia seeks to present information; there is no policy that says we must avoid offending everybody. Indeed, if there were it would make this encyclopaedia unworkable. A vocal and opinionated minority does not a fact make. -- Necrothesp 16:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Necrothesp, 'English' is a competing identity with 'Cornish' as, in fact, it has been for others within this island generally. You are an outstanding example of how suppremacy of this island was achieved by the Anglo-Saxon and then 'English' (also euphemised as British) Imperialism over the past 1500 years - a process still very much active within Cornwall today. I have no doubt that you hold your view of identity sincerely, but it is incredible that as, allegedly, a Cornishman that you have found it so easy to dismiss what has long been an ongoing debate within our Cornish Duchy - and talk pages of wikipedia.
I do not consider my sensibilities to be "more important" than yours, but I do feel that they are equally as important to be considered and respected. My sensibility respects the rights of the Cornish people to exist and to be seen to exist and, by inference, the rights of others. Yours, on the other hand is built upon historical misrepresentation, repressive lies and deceit, and some inate imperial desire to destroy. You, of course, will neither see this nor accept it! Probably best if we leave it there! -- TGG 12:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I must emphasise that this is your opinion, whereas you seem to treat it as a fact. I do not dismiss the debate or contest the fact that some Cornish people hold that opinion, nor that they have a right to do so. I certainly have said nowhere that the Cornish have no right to exist or to be seen to exist, and I would never say such a thing. But what I do contest is your view that your opinion is the truth and your incredulity that anyone else could see it otherwise. In my turn, I find your opinion and the way you express it a shining and very sad example of how hatred is perpetuated and will never be laid to rest. That, of course, is only my opinion! -- Necrothesp 13:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


Whilst its interesting to read different opinions over what constitutes nationality, and how different people in Cornwall view themselves, might I suggest that you two continue this discussion on your relative talk pages (and leave a link here to it if you feel the need)as this discussion a) seems to have degenerated in a series of circular arguments restatement of respective original positions and oblique sniping comments and b) is clogging up this discussion page which is already difficult to navigate. With that in mind I will probably archive most of this stuff this week to make room for fresh comment. Take care Mammal4 13:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Phoenician trade with Cornwall

Someone damaged the heading "History" and added to:

"The site of ancient Belerion, Cornwall, was the principal source of tin for the civilisations of the ancient Mediterranean and evidence has been found of trade with cultures as far off as Phoenicia, located in present day Lebanon. At one time the Cornish were one of the world's foremost experts at mining, "

with:

"the history of Polgooth as a main trade centre for Tin is in evidence with tin ingnots stamped with the phoenician mark found in the "White river" at Pentewan proving increasing evidence for cornwalls importance in mining history."

I have restored the heading "History and added the "Fact" template before the statement about "tin ignots". I would like to know what the source of the Phoenician ingot story is, (if there is one). There is a WP stub article on Polgooth to which I have added a reliable looking external link about its mining history.

---Vernon White 21:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have heard the Polgooth story before - but am blowed if I can remember where! Will have a dig about to see if I can find a source. DuncanHill 22:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Duncan. I have put [citation needed] templates on the two places in the WP "Phoenicia" which mention trade with Cornwall and a note on the "Phoenicia" Talk page.. One of them states clearly that there is NO archaeological evidence. There are various ancient writers whose geographical statements MAY refer to Cornwall.

---Vernon White 23:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please also see the claim that Cornish People are descended from Phoenician settlers in the History of Cornwall article and my comment in the Talk page of that article. - - - - Vernon White 23:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I've cut the following, which I place here for appraisal:
The site of ancient Belerion, Cornwall, was the principal source of tin for the civilisations of the ancient Mediterranean and evidence has been found of trade with cultures as far off as Phoenicia, located in present day Lebanon. At one time the Cornish were one of the world's foremost experts at mining,[citation needed] the history of Polgooth as a main trade centre for tin is in evidence with tin ingots stamped with the Phoenician mark found in the "White River" at Pentewan proving increasing evidence for Cornwall's importance in mining history.
Without a reference, it's all unconvincing, apart from the fact that Cornwall traded with far-off cultures. I've replaced it with Halliday's take.

---

Phoenicians in Cornwall

William Camden does not appear to believe the "Phoenicians in Cornwall" legend, if this is a correct translation:

Neither let any man surmize that in the daies of Constantius the Poeni [Phoenicians] had their abode here grounding upon these words of Eumenius the Rhetorician, Except perhaps no greater ruine had fallen upon Britaine, and borne it downe, than if it had been drenched thorout, and overwhelmed with the over-flowing of the Ocean: which being delivered from the most deepe gulfe [Poenorum], began to appeare and shew it selfe at the view and sight of the Romanes. For in the old Copie belonging sometime to Humfrey Duke of Glocester, and afterwards to the right honourable Baron Burghly, Lord high Treasurere of England, we read poenarum gurgitibus, that is, The gulfes of punishments, and not Poenorum gurgitibus. For he seemeth to speake of the calamites and miseries wherewith Britaine was afflicted under Carausius." Source:William Camden,Britannia (1607) with an English translation by Philemon Holland

===Vernon White (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked that up too, and didn't really understand a word of it, the Phoenicians predating the Romans considerably (which is why people are excited that they may have traded with Cornwall). Wikipedia policy is "verifiability, not truth", and so as long as we reference a reliable secondary source, in this case Halliday, we are doing our job. We aren't supposed to interpret primary sources ourselves, which would be original research, which is disallowed too.
Halliday actually says this: Who the foreign merchants were we do not know for certain, but there is no reason to suppose that they were Phoenicians, a speculation first advanced by Camden in the sixteenth century. I suppose Halliday may only mean that Camden raised the speculation and dismissed it, rather than that he believed it. We can always remove the Camden bit from the article, to be on the safe side. qp10qp 20:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
F.E.Halliday is a very entertaining writer but should not be the only accessible source of reference for readers of this WP article. May I suggest that Payton, Philip (2004). Cornwall: a history. Fowey, Cornwall: Cornwall Editions. ISBN 1-904880-00-2. be added to the references and the section of History of Cornwall#Pre-Roman Cornwall be informed by his Chapter 3: "The mystery of the Celts" pp.35-48, especially pp.47-48 which deal with the Phoenician legend.
===Vernon White (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
You'll have to do it because I don't have the book, though I've been meaning to get it. The history in both articles is in an appalling state and needs referencing for every statement and a full list of books. It's a major job, though. qp10qp 22:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll put it on my to-do list.. . Vernon White (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Viking paragraph

I removed the following paragraph because it struck me as largely inaccurate:

Although Cornwall is not thought of as a "Viking Country", during the latter stages of the Anglo-Celtic wars, when Wessex was threatening "West Wales" (then Cornwall and Devon), the Britons allied with Danish Vikings in order to hold Wessex from expanding westward. In 722 King Ine of Wessex Saxon army was comprehensibly destroyed by an alliance of Cornish Celts and Vikings somewhere around the Camel estuary. This battle, as well as the Vikings continually attacking, pillaging and burning Wessex, enabled Cornwall to stay reasonably separate from Wessex. To this day, there is a strong feeling of pride and comradeship from the Cornish towards the Vikings[citation needed], who have always been seen in Cornwall as allies - just as in the other Celtic nations such as Wales, Scotland and Ireland. It is highly likely the likes of Bude, Falmouth and Mount's Bay had small Viking settlements (Bude is just outside Lundy Island, which has a Norse name and settlement).

These are my reasons:

Since the first Viking raids on Britain took place from around 787, it is inconceivable that Vikings were in alliance with the Cornish against King Ine in 722 (I don't know where this information comes from, but even if the Cornish were assisted by Norse traders, there's no reason to call them Vikings).

The victory against Ine may have been crucial in keeping Cornwall proper out of Wessex, but that war overall was a defeat because West Wales lost over half its territory to Wessex.

I'm Cornish, and this is the first I've heard of a strong feeling of pride and comradeship towards the Vikings, though I can't speak for the people of Falmouth et al.

The following is one of the worst pieces of geographical description I've ever come across: Bude is just outside Lundy Island.

(It's possible that the alliance with the Vikings referred to is the attempt to throw the Saxons out of Cornwall in 838, which is a different matter. Since it was unsuccessful and the Vikings fled after being defeated, the incident doesn't merit pride and comradeship, anyway, I'd say.)

qp10qp 13:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

---

1. "Viking" was a term invented in the 18th C, according to the WP article. Its definition is not clear. The correct WP link is Ine of Wessex not Ine.

2. According to Philip Payton [1], the Allies of the West Welsh in AD 722 were "Danish".

3. According to Philip Payton, the Camel Estuary can only "probably" be identified with the Battlesite - Hehil[2]

4. At the Battle of Hingston Down in AD 838, the allies were "Vikings", according to Payton [3].

5. The subsequent "ethnic cleansing" of what is now Devonshire and the establishment of terms for a workable peace by Athelstan of England, with a boundary at the River Tamar, should be included in this article [4].

6. In my experience, Falmouth folk are very friendly and welcoming to strangers. The WP Falmouth page makes no such claim as "the Viking Paragraph" of long-standing Viking links, although the WP Viking page does. It would be good to know where this idea came from, as Falmouth (formerly Peny-cwm-cuic) was very tiny until Henry VIII's Pendennis Castle was built.

7. The place-name element "-y", may be Old Norse for an Island. However the WP article on Lundy does not mention Viking settlement.

the 'Oxford Dictionary of the World', OUP 1995, says 'Lundy' is derived from the Norse for 'Puffin Island'. DuncanHill 23:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Lundy is definitely a Norse name, as are (the islands of) Ramsey, Skokholm, and Skomer off the Welsh coast. The Vikings used to moor their fleets off islands before raiding the coasts.
I've been trying to think of where on the Camel estuary a battle might have taken place. If the Hehil battle really did take place on the Camel estuary, I think there's only one possible spot, Tregirls, beyond Padstow. You have a good broad, open mound there for a commanding position, with protected mooring behind for the Danish fleet. Anyway, this is speculation.qp10qp 23:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

References on critique of "The Viking paragraph"

  • [1] Payton, Philip (2004). Cornwall: a history. Fowey, Cornwall: Cornwall Editions. ISBN 1-904880-00-2., Page 68.
  • [2] Payton, Page 68
  • [3] Payton, Page 68
  • [4] Payton, Page 69

___ Hope this helps +++Vernon White (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we now need to come up with a paragraph to cover this stuff, using the sources we have hold of. If I lay down a draft here, could you adapt it and add references from Payton as necessary? qp10qp 15:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try to get the referencing right! ====Vernon White (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Replacement paragraph (draft)

OK; how about:


In 705 the Saxons under Ine of Wessex advanced on Dumnonia, ruled at the time by Geraint, and by 710 had overrun its eastern territories, including Taunton and Exeter.[1] They were eventually defeated in 722 by a Cornish army at a place recorded as Hehil.[2] A century passed before the West Saxons again turned their attention to Cornwall, this time under King Egbert, who in 814 laid waste to the land and exacted homage from the local leaders.[3] From this time, the Cornish lost their independence, though unsuccessful revolts followed in 825 and, finally, in 838, when the Cornish and their Viking allies were defeated by Egbert at Hingston Down, near Gunnislake.[4]


Vernon, the Hehil footnote needs to be filled with a short quote from Payton, instead of my gloss of what you said above. Please alter or change my words as suitable and add or subtract references, if necessary. It would be nice to have something precise about the battle of Galford/Gafulford (Camelford?) in 825; Halliday doesn't say much about that, but perhaps Payton or your other chap does.


  1. ^ Halliday, p101.
  2. ^ Hehil can probably be identified with the Camel estuary. Payton, Philip, Cornwall: A History, Fowey, Cornwall Editions, 2004, ISBN 1-904880-00-2, p68-9.
  3. ^ Halliday, p102.
  4. ^ Halliday, p102.

May I ask about the revised reference to 721 and Danes and king Ine? What is the primary source for Danes and Ine? The Annales Cambriae (AC) says simply that in 721 the Britons were victors in battle at Hehil among the Cornish (“apud Cornuenses”). It mentions two other battles in the same sentence and year in which the Britons (“Brittones”) were the victors, Garthmailauc and Cat Pencon, which are not relevant here. The wording apud Cornuenses and the mention of other battles and the victors being Britons leaves open whether the Britons fighting at Hehil were only the Cornish, more generally Dumnonians, or included Britons from what we now call Wales. In the AC there is no reference to Vikings in 721, no reference to king Ine, no reference to whom the Cornish fought though that can be reasonably deduced. Hehil or Heil, as the texts say in Latin, has not been indisputably identified but the present Camel estuary is more likely than the present Hayle estuary which is very much father westward and probably beyond the West Saxon reach at this date. There is no reference to any of the 721 events in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (ASC).

Is there another early source than AC and ASC for the 721 data?

The ASC is explicit that the Vikings did not appear until much later in the eighth century. An appearance in 721 in battle would probably have been noted. Crococolana 16:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no reference to Ine and Danes in Halliday; I don't have the Payton book, but Vernon says the reference to Danes is in that, so I wonder if he can tell us what Payton's primary source is. Certainly we cannot call any Scandinavians Vikings at this early stage, and even Danes is pushing it.
The ASC is not much use on these things; I get the impression the authors didn't know much about what went on in Cornwall. It does say that Queen Ethelburga burnt Taunton which had been bult by Ine, though I'm not sure what that is all about.
I suppose it's not out of the question that Scandinavians were in Cornwall at this time. The ship burials at Valsgärde and Vendel have been found to be of virtually the same type as that at Sutton Hoo, and so Scandinavians clearly got about a fair bit in boats before the Viking Age; and the Vendel culture seems at some time to have crept across what we think of now as Denmark, too. But I take your query on board; it was the mention of Vikings in regard to the early eighth century which first alerted me to the inaccuracies in the article. For the moment I've removed the mention of Danes from my proposed paragraph until the source and, I suggest, a footnote can be provided.
qp10qp 16:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Another query if I may. Your draft paragraph cites Halliday as saying that in 815 king Egbert "exacted homage from the local leaders." Where does Halliday get this from? The ASC says only that 'West Wales' was devasted from east to west, nothing about homage.

I wonder whether it would be better to put the 838 battle site as Hengesdune, as in the ASC, and gloss that as most probably Hingston Down.

I think the ASC and AC should be referred to as early sources in the list of references. Crococolana 23:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where Halliday got it from. On the other hand, the ASC is very inaccurate on these matters and we'd get into many tangles, not least of dating, if we depended on it. I think you are being very smart but maybe too smart for Wikipedia, where original thought is disallowed but reliance on historians is acceptable. In other words, so long as we can be sure these historians said these things, we have kept within our brief. We are not supposed to interpret primary sources such as the ASC, though we may quote them. However, it's not original thought to omit things, and so, for the time being, I'm going to add a version of the paragraph that steers round or meets your objections, though I very much hope others will improve it soon.qp10qp 17:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry not to have followed this conversation. I've been reading (in connection with the "Phoenicians in Cornwall" question) T.D. Kendrick's British Antiquity, which gives a mid-20th C perspective on how mediaeval and Tudor scholars constructed their narratives and why. . . Kendrick thinks that John Thyne (a Tudor schoolmaster) invented and popularised the whole of the Phoenician legend .
BTW has anyone suggested in print that the Battle of Hengesdune did NOT happen at Hingston Down or has anyone dug upsome battle relics? === Vernon White (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand the reservations about the ASC but do we have any other extant documents of that age? I assume later historians used it and extrapolated from it though some medieval historians appear to heve access to now-lost documents.

HINGSTON DOWN. Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio. I was trying to compress two ideas into an overloaded single comment. (First) No, I don't know of anyone who has suggested that the battle did not happen at modern Hingston Down but I am cautious.Is there any evidence, apart from linguistic similarity which can be misleading, that leads us directly from Hengesdune (one of the ASC words)to modern Hingston Down? Perhaps I am being over-cautious and I am happy to yield to your view.

(Second)There are two places called Hingston Down today: (a) near Moretonhampstead, Devon and (b) near Callington, Cornwall. Both are around the Devon/Cornwall border. The ASC does not locate the battlesite and I think it is impossible to say which it is without material findings or possibly a history of the naming of the places.

I think my compression misleads and we should explicitly point out there are two possibilities. I have added to the excellent paragraph of qp10qp. I have left my probably in but do remove it if you think it unnecessary. Crococolana 14:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Polperro

Why was this town removed? It is not important if it is major or not, just that it is a place of interest.--User:Filll 16:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I removed it because Smudgey placed it in the list of main towns. It is not a town or a main town it is a village - Polperro still appears further down in the list of Places of interest. Have a nice day! Talskiddy 19:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Cornwall

Mammal4 has created WikiProject Cornwall to improve and extend the coverage of Cornwall-related articles. Please visit, and sign up if you want to contribute. Thanks! DuncanHill 13:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

on the peninsula

the article says, in its first sentence, that Cornwall is

"on the peninsula that lies to the west of the River Tamar."

I know what this is getting at, but its clumsily put. It seems to be a combination of two things that would make sense

"on the tip of the south-western peninsula of Great Britain"

and

"lies to the west of the River Tamar"

however, there's nothing west of the Tamar that isn't Cornwall (more or less), so saying it is "on the peninsula west of " is a bit odd, and implies other non-Cornwall things share the peninsula. I'd also be hesistant to call Cornwall a peninsula in its own right, given the geography involved. How does

"constituting that part of the south-western peninsula of Great Britain west of the River Tamar"

sounds a replacement? Morwen - Talk 14:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Superfluous Information

I have again removed what I consider to be superfluous information at the foot of the page, namely, the boxes which contain a list of the counties and districts of England. This information is irrelevant dross and can be reached (if needed) by appropriate links elsewhere in the page -- TGG 16:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the templates for Ceremonial counties of England and Districts of South West England show up on all those districts and counties as an easy navigation between those districts and counties. There's no quick way to go from Cornwall to, say, Sedgemoor without one of these templates. If all the other articles get the template, why should this one page be an exception? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I modify this argument: The districts template is unnecessary. The Ceremonial counties one, however, should stay. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
There is an access link at the top of the main info box that facilitates easy transition to various counties lists so, therefore, pointless to have it in a separately expanded infobox. It is just information for the sake of providing it and is OTT. We should be thinking of the planet and not using vital energy resources to open up totally unnecessary bits and pieces -- TGG 10:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
By that logic the Cornwall template should be removed as well. josh (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
That is an entirely illogical statement! The 'Cornwall' template has a direct relevance to the article in question, unlike the others, which take you away from the article. -- TGG 11:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Uh, yeah, seriously. These types of templates can be found all over Wikipedia, and are there for a good reason--very quick navigation between similar things. This particular one is found on all other county articles, and is useful. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I repeat a comment included within another section above: This whole scene seems to be self-generating work for anoraks and Anglo-chauvinism in devising, and justifying, theoretical needs and Parkinson's Law comes very much to mind. It is also very bureaucratic! -- TGG 11:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
These types of templates aren't England-only and this one has just as much use as those elsewhere (which I find to be quite a lot, actually). It seems by your Anglo-chauvinism comment that you consider Cornwall to not be a part of England, then? Any removal of an important template that puts Cornwall it its legal place because of such sentiment is pushing a non-neutral point of view. BTW, I'm Canadian, I don't have any pro-English point of view, and actually think recognition of Cornwall as a home nation would be the right thing to do. That doesn't mean we pretend it's not part of England and not a ceremonial county like all the rest. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and especially your comment on home nation. I wish that the Anglo-chauvinists could be as sensitive to the needs of others! My bone of contention is not the presentation of legalistic information, which is something that has to be endured under duress, but the 'political' symbolism implicit in the offensive (and irrelevant) use of the 'newly-discovered' English flag. I am, therefore, not advocating removal of the legitimate InfoBox (although it does seem to me to be OTT and work for the boys!), but removing a 'non-legal' info box that bears the flag and which duplicates an internal link that already exists within the formal/legalistic infobox. It now seems that 'the Flag' is also creeping into the formal infobox and serves no 'legal' purpose and the Cornish voice can only be completely marginalised by being coerced into discussing the matter in relation to, what is called, 'the England' Infobox.
Presumably, there is scope within Wikipedia, to develop a "Cornwall is Disputed" infobox (I have seen something similar on other pages) that may be included at the top off all Cornish-related pages and which summarises (in an obvious way) the constitutional dispute over territory and the external dominion and symbolism that exists and calculated to deny us of our territory and rights? -- TGG 13:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
TGG, while I agree that Cornwall deserves status as a home nation, I also agree that is is not exactly entitled to that status. I don't find the legal and other arguments for its status very compelling—what I do agree to is that if the people of Cornwall feel a strong identity separate from England, then it would be prudent to grant them that separate status, as it is granted for the other home nations who generally have it because of their perceived separate nationality. However, legally, Cornwall is a part of England, and to remove an infobox that puts it in its rightful place because you (since I'm sure the sentiment is not universal among Cornishmen) don't feel it is part of England, would be pushing your point of view on all those who come to view this page, and simply cannot stand. Since I'm from Canada, I'll give Quebec as an example. A huge portion of Quebeckers do not feel that they are (or should be) part of Canada, and I'm sure they'd like the template at the bottom of that article, and the Canadian flag on that template, of the article. But Quebec is undoubtedly currently a legal province of Canada, and so the template, and its flag, remain.
I do think a "Celtic nations" template might be useful to add to all the articles of the Celtic nations. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's my proposal (already posted to Talk:Celtic nations):
Celtic nations and their languages
└ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 21:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


I shall be interested in how well the Celtic Nations template will be received by others. 'From here' it looks good and, possibly, a form of mild antedote to other information. I note that you have restored the infobox under discussion because "a link does not replace a template". I confess to not understanding why this should be but I am prepared to see how your new infobox stands up.
I am not so conversant with Canadian history as to consider that a comparison between Cornwall and Quebec is necessarily relevant. The whole aspect of the Cornish Paradox, and from that the Cornish Question, is because the English State (particularly under its euphemistic title of the United Kingdom) has been considerably less than honest about Cornwall. As we move from being a United Kingdom to a disparate collection of nations of Britain (with England casting off its exposed cloak of euphemism), the consequences for the Duchy of Cornwall and the Cornish people will be catastrophic.
I would still be interested in your thoughts on my suggestion of a 'disputed page' template for all Cornish pages in order to establish some degree of 'balance' to the formal/stats box? -- TGG 12:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You should note that my new template is superfluous by your definition, since there's a link to Celtic nations in the header section. You talk about this new template maybe being a sort of "antidote" to the other template, as though the other template was someone's point of view being presented, and not the cold hard truth of the matter. Your real objection is that you don't think of Cornwall as an English county, and don't think the box should be there because of those feelings. But it is an English county, and it appears to legally be so.
As for the disputed infobox, I'm not sure that is currently a good idea. Many areas in the world are disputed but don't get such infoboxes—inclusion attempts to legitimize the separatist views (that is, it puts forward a non-neutral point of view). You can discuss the separatist / autonomist / whateverist views and movements in the articles where relevant, but don't attempt to give focus to the issue where not warranted. I'd guess that in almost every aspect of Cornish life, being part of England isn't much of an issue, and for those aspects where it is an issue, I'd guess that many people feel they are English. Are there any numbers published about Cornish national identity? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Depends on your definition of "many". In England as a whole the majority of people think of the Cornish as English as well. Within Cornwall a healthy chunk of people identify as Cornish (and generally British too) which is at the crux of all this fuss. many English editors think its all nonsense because they haven't come across this viewpoint in there everyday life, and thus construe it as POV, whereas many Cornish editors who grow up in the Cornish environment can't believe that people don't recognise the difference and take this attitude to be English nationalism. As far as numbers go, its a bit muddy at the moment as there is no definitive study. In the last census there was an option to put Cornish in the nationality box, however this was through putting a code number (06 I believe) to the "other" box rather than a tick in an exisiting box, as with for Welsh, and wasn't widely publicised as an option by the UK government. The figure here came out as 9%, but is a bit dubious as because of the design of the form in order to claim Cornishness you had to deny being British, which is sort of flawed. Another study that is quoted elsewhere on Wikipedia gives a figure of 44% when people are given the option to describe themselves as Cornish. This is a sizeable number of people. On the next census they are promising us our own tickbox, but we'll see Mammal4 14:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[9] here is the info on national identity studies. Mammal4 14:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
OzLawyer, I fully accept that your new box is equally superfluous. I have never intimated otherwise. My query was, and still is: why is a link not considered equally as good, or better, than filling a page with additional boxes? I was prepared to see how your box was received by others before pursuing my original point. The 'other template' and the focus of my argument is that it is totally unnecessary to show it as a separate infobox. It adds nothing useful or different to the page because such information is readily accessible from elsewhere on the page. Is there any wiki policy on 'Green Computing'?
Given the formal agreement and support for the status quo within the content of the Main InfoBox, I would suggest that every Cornish-related page is an issue. A 'Disputed Box' would serve to point to relevant articles rather than take up space within each article. Cornish Rights are being trampled on by the official promotion of high-level lies and a propaganda education plus a process of colonisation and marginalisation over the past 50 years. The legality of what is being done to our Country is something that has yet to be taken through the courts - once we find a sympathetic billionaire! In the meantime I shall pursue whatever passive form of objection that is within my power and capability! For the record, I am, personally, only interested in getting the English State to acknowledge its crimes against the Cornish nation. -- TGG 14:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Your objection to the template seems to be an objection to the vast majority of templates. The countries of Europe have a template that facilitates quick navigation between each other. The provinces and territories of Canada have a template that shows other provinces and territories. One could click the "Europe" or "province"/"territory" link in the header section of these articles in order to navigate between the other entities of a similar type, but then that does not bring to the attention of the reader the fact that such-and-such is also a country in Europe, or such-and-such is also a province or territory of Canada. If someone gets to the bottom of the article on Ontario and sees a template with all the other provinces and territories, maybe Nunavut will pique their interest and they'll go check that article out. Unless they intended to go looking for Nunavut, they likely would not have come across that in the article on Ontario, and might not click the link to "provinces" in order to find it. The template, then, is to add links to similar topics that would otherwise not have direct links in the article.
As for your "disputed box", the Cornwall template already has a link to the issue. Actually, it has links to Constitutional status of Cornwall, Duchy of Cornwall, and Cornish self-government movement, all of which discuss the issue. I'd say your proposed infobox is already proudly displayed on Cornwall articles, TGG. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
OzLawyer, I feel that this discussion has been sidelined! My concern is not just about the 'Cornwall' page (to which you constantly return) but ALL Cornish-related pages and you seem unwilling to consider my points on Green Computing and Parkinson's Law. In fact, your exaple of Ontario and Nunavut is a clear example of the application of a theoretical use for information (for the sake of information), rather than accept that most people will have the wit and wisdom to navigate to places that they wish to get to, whilst simultaneously doing their bit for the planet! Nothing is for free! Surely, all that any article needs is one link to a higher level and one link to a lower level rather than information overload and the unnecessary complication of attempting to get all information on one page to cater for 'a chance' flicker of interest!
The other aspect of this discussion was the offensive, and superfluous, inclusion of the English flag to all Cornish-related InfoBoxes. Yes! I know it is an 'England' InfoBox but the flag is superfluous! Possibly, this is where my efforts need to be deployed in removing any, and all, such info boxes until such symbols of dominion are removed, rather than a bureaucratically imposed box that denies us the ability to think! Let us use Cornwall as an example (to all) of Green Computing excellence! -- TGG 17:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with superfluous information or "green computing". If it was then the same argument should be applied to the cornish flag that features prominatly in the infobox and twice in the navigation box at the bottom (just in case you didn't get it first time). The fact is you have a problem with the legal status of Cornwall you should be either arguing for the removal of all flags otherwise its just a POV pushing campain. josh (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Point one - Great! We understand each other. Remove all flags, they are all superfluous.
Point two - I do indeed have a problem with the de facto status of Cornwall but, as an engineer by profession, it is impossible when looking at a specific problem, not to notice others. -- TGG 15:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
As the user above notes, the English flag is no more offensive than the Cornish flags in the Cornwall template (in fact, it's not offensive at all—you might take offense to it, but it is a flag in a template about subdivisions of England, in which it fits just perfectly). It is also not, as you claim, "in all Cornish-related infoboxes"; it's in England-related templates (and we're also only discussing one particular England-related template here). As for your comment that your infobox will do something the Cornwall template does not because it would go on all Cornwall-related pages, the Cornwall template is already on many Cornwall-related pages, and could just as easily be put on any ones you would like to put your infobox on. As for the argument against the use of the type of template I discussed about on Canadian provinces (and all these types of templates), well, why do we have wikilinks? Let everyone look up whatever they want on Wikipedia. Can't think to want to look it up yourself? Too bad. Now, as for Parkinson's Law, what, you think you've made an argument? I have no response because it's silly—even if it were true, guess what? I'm perfectly fine with that. More time and space=more work? Great. And finally, for the "green computing" comment—I find that one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard. Period. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Whilst I feel sure that there is someone out there, who will surely oblige, has anyone yet said that the use of the 'Cornish' flag on a 'Cornish' page is offensive? I am not arguing for, or against, the Cornish flag but that does not preclude it from some judgement - which will not be forthcoming! - that use of flags are unneccessary and should be removed. If that is what it takes, then so be it!
If we may return to the "one particular England-related template" that I have objected too and the superfluous nature of its inclusion at the foot of the page. May I remind you that you previously stated that "a link does not replace a template" when you restored the said infobox (that I had deleted). Why, then, are there any links at all and all such links are properly(?) replaced as individual templates/infoboxes?
The concept of 'Green' and 'Parkinson' were only semi-serious because they helped to prove a point which I was well aware would not be signed up to - as has been confirmed. They are, however, probably more serious than you think. But, what the hell does it matter, it is only our children's future! Those who defend the status quo are only seemingly interested in the here and now! -- TGG 15:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the use of the flag of Cornwall is an attempt to show Cornwall as separate from England (and I think here it actually is attempting to do that), then it is offensive to those who feel that Cornwall is rightfully part of England. The only reason you find the flag of England on the template under discussion offensive is because you find the idea of Cornwall being a part of England offensive. Until Cornwall ceases to be a part of England, however, and ceases to be a ceremonial county of England, the template is perfectly acceptable for this article, and the flag is perfectly acceptable as an icon of the template's place in the group of England-related templates.
Now, for your point about links and templates, it is patently obvious that we cannot replace all links with templates (or, if you will indulge me, links are templates; templates including just what is relevant: the single link). But when a full template is useful, then there is no need to forgo it and instead include just one link.
But... "our children's future"?! Because there's a template at the bottom of the Cornwall article with links to other ceremonial counties of England? Good good, man, you really must have lost it. Get off Wikipedia now, the future of the human race is as stake! Why use any precious electrons at all? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Saints

The paragraph in the History section on saints is troubling and it carries no references. I do not think comments like "St Ia...sailed from Ireland to what is now St Ives on an ivy leaf" and "St Piran arrived from Ireland at what is now Perranporth with a millstone around his neck" should appear in an encyclopedia without being marked as nonsense. I think we should make some attempt to try to distinguish pious romance from hard fact or likelihood. I have replaced the paragraph with a minimal one, more suited for a general history introduction section. Perhaps any referenced additions can be made in the specialist history of Cornwall section.Crococolana 13:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want a modern reference try -
The stories of Cornish Saints are important to history as legends that influenced the values and views of the people who took them in with their mother's milk. They should not be dismissed as "nonsense". For further arguments to this effect, see the article on Gilbert Hunter Doble.
=== Vernon White (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It is part of history that people have believed nonsense and acted upon such beliefs: St Ia sailed from Ireland on an ivy leaf, some women consorted with the devil and flew on broomsticks and cast spells that worked, the world is flat.

However, what I am saying is that an encyclopedia should distinguish between (a) statements which are nonsense such as the three aforesaid and (b) statements that are science-based evidential facts or theories such as king Richard died at the battle of Bosworth and the world is spheroid-shaped. An encyclopedia can usefully distinguish them from interpretations and judgements too.

(Incidentally, the statement "St Ia sailed from Ireland on an ivy leaf" has three problematic elements: "St Ia," "from Ireland," and "sailed on an ivy leaf.")Crococolana 10:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added to the saints entry. I now wonder whether a specialist history section is needed; I wonder whether an introductory history and more detailed one is too confusing. Crococolana 20:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Length

Both this talk page and the article appear to be getting a bit long. I suggest that some of the material in the article be farmed out to other linked articles. I also suggest some of this talk page be archived.--Filll 23:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cornwall/Archive_4&oldid=1048340891"